The Tigers' last 5 drafts, as a team

[Chuck17]

Hey there C17,

With all due respect Chuck, blind freddy can see that Buddy Love not only is, and will be a far better player than Tambling and one of the greats of all time.  I like Richie and I think he can be a valuable player for our club but if we had to choose again, I'm pretty sure we would do it differently.  I know you said you would like time to be able to judge between the two, but as of now its pretty clear.
In regards to Lids, I was completely happy with taking him at #1 over Buddy. 
Don't get me wrong, and I'm not trying to be negative, I'm only stating my opinion on this topic.

Cheers

Cant disagree with any of that big tone, Buddy has the runs on the board over Tambling no question.  I just think that there is a chance Buddy could self destruct and a very good chance that Tambling as he matures football and body wise could become a very good footballer.

I didn't know if you were referring to the whole 04 draft as a mistake but as you said Lids was the right choice so it is all good there.

[Smokey]

And just remember us and Hawthorn were at the same stage when TW took over....

You sooooooo lost me there.

[mightytiges]

Regarding Hawthorn and Richmonds rebuilding starting point I would ahve to disagree that we were at the same stage when TW took over. If TW did say that we had the better list over Hawthorn when he took over I feel it was merely an excuse to ease his old clubs disappointment for not securing him when he made his final club decision. Quite amusing in retrospect.

When TW took over Hawthorn was well into their rebuilding. They had already assembled a strong midfield unit of quality youth lead by their number one draft pick Hodge. Just as we did in 2007, they slipped back to the bottom of the ladder with their inexperienced list in 2004 and had the luxury of being able to select based on need/talent with the knowledge their midfield stocks were already excellent.

In the 2004 draft we needed to build our midfield from the ground up just as Hawthorn had done 3 years earlier. We now have excellent midfield prospects, just as they did, and have used the last few drafts to fills needs as well as to find talent. This years draft was clear indicator of this with the choice of a Ruckman/KPP, crumbers, forward/defender untility and two mature (but still young) in and under types.

We would never have drafted Cousins if we had not already covered all areas across the ground for the future. Some of these choices may not develop but we have given ourselves every chance to succeed by ticking all the boxes.


So I have to disagree with your statement about the development of Hawthorns and Richmonds lists. They are more advanced than ours by 3/4+ years at the least, just as Carlton is 2 years behind us. Hawthorn just lucked out with a few choices such as Buddy who every team thought had a terrible attitude, possible drug issues and was inconsistent.

Even Hawthorn chose Roughhead before him so sometimes you just luck out and advances your team further than you possible expected. Now if we can just luck out with a few of our speculative choices i think this would only be fair....

Stripes

Well said. People have fallen for the rewritten version of history Hawthorn has spruiked the past couple of years. It's not to say they aren't well managed because they are under Kennett and co. and they are well resourced in terms of money and state of the art facilities at Waverley but I just don't fall for this "grand plan" they claim they were on all along since 2001. Who can forget Schwab claiming preseason they were going for the flag in 2004. Pelchen didn't join the Hawks from Port until after the 2004 draft so all his analysis of past premiership teams and player types was done after the Hawks had already recruited the vast majority of the team that would play in their premiership. Then there's the garbage of them wanting to go tall with their first two picks in the 2004 draft. If they wanted Buddy they not only would have chosen him over Roughead first but they also wouldn't have hesitated and called for extra time before selecting Franklin. In the end they got it right big time but at the time they wanted Roughead and Tambling and were expecting us to go for a tall (Buddy) after picking up a mid in Lids. Wallace looks a fool now claiming at the time we got the best two players in the 2004 draft  but IMO that was said as much to get supporters back after the disaster of the Spud's last 3 years of boring footy and to help promote a club that had a $2 million black hole. Every year we hear coaches and recruiters pumping up their draft selections on draft day.

[big tone]

Fair enough mightytiges,
i'm not really sure how much of that is true but lets just agree, and as i said in my original post, that we are happy with our first pick with Lids  in 2004 but whatever picks we had or Hawthorn had we still had the chance to pick up Buddy with our number 4 pick.
Lets forget about Hawthorn for a minute and take a look at the side i have chosen.

Thursfield   Moore   Raines
Newman   McGuane   Jackson
Polo   Tuck   Tambling
Johnson   Schulz   Bowden
Brown   Richardson   Coughlan

Rucks  Simmonds/Deledio/Foley

Pretty good side, and a side that could quite easily run out anytime in 2009.
What this side is, is a list of players that was, either on our list, or drafted in the year TW took over. (players drafted, traded or rookied in the 2004 draft picked by Spuds recruiters considering they would have been doing there jobs and finding players during the 2004 home and awy season)
I hope that makes sense?
So just how bad was our list when TW took over? And with the players that have been on our list since then, should TW have done a better job so far?

[Fishfinger]

So just how bad was our list when TW took over? And with the players that have been on our list since then, should TW have done a better job so far?

Our list was a mess.
For the sake of accuracy, TW never said he chose Richmond over Hawthorn because he thought we had the better list at the time. He said he thought Hawthorn had a better chance of success in the short term but he thought we had better kids. He misjudged how good the Hawthorn kids were, as they are the foundation of the current premiership side.

The team you have posted looks pretty good. Scratch the surface and 9 of the 18 have had serious long-term injuries during Wallace's time (Brown, Coughlan, Thursfield, Schulz, Raines), have only just cemented a place in the side in 2008 (Moore & McGuane) or are still to cement a spot (Jackson & Polo).
I haven't counted Simmonds but he was also badly injured in 2007 and hampered for the last half of 2008.

4 years equals 88 games. Only 3 of those 9 players have played 50%.
Raines - 52
Brown - 49
Schulz - 46

I don't think it's fair to judge Wallace on the last 4 rebuilding years. Not from a results point of view.
He got 5 years to make his mark. I reckon 2009 is the year to start judging.

[Smokey]

Thursfield   Moore   Raines
Newman   McGuane   Jackson
Polo   Tuck   Tambling
Johnson   Schulz   Bowden
Brown   Richardson   Coughlan

Rucks  Simmonds/Deledio/Foley

Pretty good side, and a side that could quite easily run out anytime in 2009.
What this side is, is a list of players that was, either on our list, or drafted in the year TW took over. (players drafted, traded or rookied in the 2004 draft picked by Spuds recruiters considering they would have been doing there jobs and finding players during the 2004 home and awy season)
I hope that makes sense?
So just how bad was our list when TW took over? And with the players that have been on our list since then, should TW have done a better job so far?

Can't agree with this BT.  This is not a pretty good side - it lacks structure, age-spread and plain old ability.  The midfield is not nearly strong enough to compete with the top sides - Tuck, Foley, Deledio and Johnson are the only current regular competitive midfielders and a very similar midfield to this got smashed on a weekly basis during 2007.  Even allowing for the natural development since then there are nowhere near enough mids.  Tambling and Jackson still only play bit roles and need to step up (an unknown) in order to add to this area.  Polo has done little since his debut to suggest he will make it as more than a fill-in and if Coughlan plays 1 game this year it will be a bonus.  The forward line would have every opposition coach salivating at the thought of playing this team - there are zero 'pressure on the defender' types, collectively it would have the pace of the Titanic in low gear, Richo back to full forward brings back all the inherent weaknesses in structure we carried for so many years and Schulz at CHF is a very hit and miss option (more miss then hit history shows so far).  The backline is fair but Raines has been exploited in the past and is still very much an unknown regarding a long term or integral role, and Jackson is not proven as a defender at all (although he has shown some skill at being a shutdown/tagging mid).

All in all, I think you have demonstrated the very thing that Frawley brought to the table - lack of forethought and foresight that left our main list horribly exposed for future growth and development.  Really, this group of players should now be the core, the strength, of our current team yet nearly half of them are either too old, too inconsistent or just not a regular senior 18 type.  And given the historical performance of Frawley's recruiting team, I think you may under-estimate the input of Wallace to the recruiting of 2004.  A new coach given a 5 year term to turn around the league basket case would not have relied on much of his predecessor's information - he would have been picking exactly (within the limits of available picks) who he wanted with a view to the future.  I am fairly confident that his only counsel for this draft would have been Miller, notwithstanding the plethora of information available from many, many external sources.

Conversely, I think that Wallace's recruiting and list development has been as good as it could have given the size and scope of the initial task.  He has filled the deficiencies in our structure, cleared out the deadwood and kept the inherited players that were worth keeping.  Today, our list is balanced though young and is positioned for an honest tilt at finals and success in the coming years, regardless of whether it is Wallace or an incumbent that takes it to the next level.  I think the biggest mistake many commentators and supporters make is underestimating how bad the 2004 list was and how long it would take to correct it.  Thankfully, we removed the cancer from the board at the same time so that Wallace was blessed with stability and support that was so essential during the darkest days (see 2007 - not a murmur of discontent or dissatisfaction from anyone except the media jackals and Chicken Little supporters).  Only history will fairly judge the impact and performance of Wallace and his team but I for one am very comfortable with the job they have done and continue to do.

[big tone]

Hey Fishfinger,
i read your post with a husky voice and guess who i sounded like- TW.
To many stats, ages and excuses for me.
It's time to put some runs on the board or hand your bat over to somebody that can bat!
Enjoy your lunch!

[big tone]

Hello to you Smokey58,
Like i said to Fishfingers, to many excuses and not enough results so far!
TW has one more year to prove all us 'chichen little supporters' wrong and i truely hope he does. I only hope he stops talking about time frames for success, or poeple ages, or old lists and takes responsibilities for the team and there poor performances.
I just hope you don't put up with mediocrity for to long and you're not one of the TW bashes when his time is up just like you are with Spud.

 

[mightytiges]

If you look at the games played up to the end of 2004 you can see the Hawks had already got 30-50 games into their then new core before Clarkson arrived. Oddly enough despite claims otherwise they in hindsight rebuilt their midfield first then added the talls.


1992 draft: Richo (194)
1995: Bowden (170)
1999: -
2000: Pettifer (37), Coughlan (49), Newman (54)
2001: -
2002: Schulz (21), Moore (9), Johnson (143)
2003: Jackson (6), Tuck (3), Raines (1), Foley# (-), Brown (157)
2004: Deledio, Tambling, Pattison, Polo, McGuane, Thursfield#, Simmonds (104)

1992: Crawford (232)
1999: Clarke (47), Bateman (42)
2000: Williams (33)
2001: Hodge (45), Ladson (14), Brown (40), Mitchell (50)
2002: Boyle (-), Sewell (6), Osborne (39), Campbell (31)
1997/2003: Croad (143)
2004: Roughead, Franklin, Lewis, Murphy, Taylor, Young#

# - rookie listed in 2005

[Fishfinger]

And just remember us and Hawthorn were at the same stage when TW took over, he even said that he chose us to coach over Hawthorn because he thought we had the better list at the time. Now these were his words and nobody elses.

You must have been using that husky voice there pretending to be TW while you were re-writing history to suit your opinion because he didn't say that.
They're your words, not his.

Enjoyed my lunch, thanks. 

[Smokey]

Hello to you Smokey58,
Like i said to Fishfingers, to many excuses and not enough results so far!
TW has one more year to prove all us 'chichen little supporters' wrong and i truely hope he does. I only hope he stops talking about time frames for success, or poeple ages, or old lists and takes responsibilities for the team and there poor performances.

Hi to you too BT, good to have a new face posting.

Here's the rub - Wallace doesn't have to prove anything - he has already done the bulk of the work he was commissioned to do - whether or not he is retained or replaced, point is the team (and club in general) will benefit greatly from his work thus far.  Personally I don't give two hoots whether he is the man going forward or not - I'm just looking at it entirely from an ROI perspective and he has delivered what was asked of him - not right or fair to expect more than that.

I just hope you don't put up with mediocrity for to long and you're not one of the TW bashes when his time is up just like you are with Spud.

No need to hope - if you take the time to get acquainted with what fellow posters stand for then you can allay many of your fears.  I was an extremely vocal Casey and Frawley opponent for many years because of the fundamental flaws I saw in their direction and performance - just like I will defend Wallace for the job he has already done. Save the emotion for the game - removing it from your analytical efforts will enable you to see things in a much more realistic light.  Wallace is on the right track with the current support of the board, regardless of who ends up as the eventual messiah.