A Reality look at 09 Culling

[bushranger]

Stripes if that's the case and he is finished. Would he head back to quaint old Tasmania then ?
Not that I'm trying to hammer a nail in his football coffin.
But all I'm doing is asking a question, though I do think he just might not make it back.

[mightytiges]

Richo has said he'd like to stay in footy but not as senior or assistant coach. Maybe a part-time specialist coaching role and see if he likes it.

With Hardwicks "no sentiment in football."

Knowing Polak's condition and Pettifer's traumatic finish to the year.

Would you still delist them?

Yep sadly and definitely yep. There's been no sentiment so far with the delistings.

[Smokey]

Richo has said he'd like to stay in footy but not as senior or assistant coach. Maybe a part-time specialist coaching role and see if he likes it.

With Hardwicks "no sentiment in football."

Knowing Polak's condition and Pettifer's traumatic finish to the year.

Would you still delist them?

Yep sadly and definitely yep. There's been no sentiment so far with the delistings.

I agree with the Polak comments.  He was never that good before the accident and now he is just too much risk for the potential return.  He was only ever good at contested marking and that is just not enough in the modern game.

And as for Richo trying his hand at coaching to "see if he likes it" - no thanks.  MT, now you are the one playing the 'sentiment' card.  Richo does not have one coaching bone in his body and if he wants to have a crack then I would much rather he leave to do it elsewhere - we have way too much upheaval and change going on at the moment to spend time and resources letting him find out at Richmond.

[Infamy]

Richo's future is in the media, but I'm sure he'll still get involved down at the club

[tdy]

Richo has said he'd like to stay in footy but not as senior or assistant coach. Maybe a part-time specialist coaching role and see if he likes it.

With Hardwicks "no sentiment in football."

Knowing Polak's condition and Pettifer's traumatic finish to the year.

Would you still delist them?

Yep sadly and definitely yep. There's been no sentiment so far with the delistings.

I agree with the Polak comments.  He was never that good before the accident and now he is just too much risk for the potential return.  He was only ever good at contested marking and that is just not enough in the modern game.

This is a tough decision to make.  Just before Polak  was hit I think he was playing good footy. 
He was never a great player but an AFL standard player for me. 
If he has legitimately come back to play this year, and that is what all the public statements have said, then there is an argument for keeping him for list management reasons.
- He could still be there in 5 years time when we are playing and contending for a premiership (if that ever happens).
- Backmen develop late and he is a 25 year old 100+ game player.  It would take 5 years to replace him from scratch.
- We have a bad enough age gap in our list as is.  Though it matters less as the gap ('81-'85) is past a players prime age (20-24) now.
- Thursfield seems injury prone.
- Raines wants to leave
- Bowden has retired
- King keeps getting reported
- Hislop is of questionable AFL standard

This all leaves our backline stocks pretty thin.  There are already a few spots up for grabs in our back line, so why thin it more?

If Polak was to go it would be because they dont think he can play in a premiership side.

Players born in '81 to '85 10 players (age 24 to 28) of which
====================
1 is gone (Coughlan)
3 are likely to go (Pettifer, McMahon, Schulz)
leaving Tuck, Newman, Moore, King, Polak and Foley
This is the age hole Terry Wallace talked about 2 years ago and is still a structural problem, though less so as time goes on.

Plus the 3 old gents Richo, Cousins and Simmonds (who is lucky to stay imo but we have to keep him as graham and patterson dont seem very good yet)
who will all retire within a year or two

So you talking about having 8 or 9 players being in the experienced category next year.

Our 20-23 year old brigade should be playing better with more games under their belts.
Of which we have 22 players in this age group but this is also the group we have recruited badly in, Meyer, JON etc and have picked up a number of recycled players who may or may not be duds.  Thompson, Hislop.

If a player was to be dropped for age reasons it would probably be Tuck but his dad lasted forever, why wouldn't he?

[mightytiges]

And as for Richo trying his hand at coaching to "see if he likes it" - no thanks.  MT, now you are the one playing the 'sentiment' card.  Richo does not have one coaching bone in his body and if he wants to have a crack then I would much rather he leave to do it elsewhere - we have way too much upheaval and change going on at the moment to spend time and resources letting him find out at Richmond.

I probably didn't make it clear smokey but they were Richo's words not mine. He said he'd like to test the waters in a part-time role. I agree I don't see Richo turning to full-time coaching and he's said that himself. He's found his place in the media and that'll be where you'd think he'll move to full-time after his playing career is over.

[Hellenic Tiger]

Richo is a very popular figure who speaks very candidly about himself especially his on field demeanour and kicking for goal. With those attributes he should move into the media where he will speak honestly on all issues and on all clubs.

Don't think he has the discipline to handle the rigors of coaching full time.

[mightytiges]

Players born in '81 to '85 10 players (age 24 to 28) of which
====================
1 is gone (Coughlan)
3 are likely to go (Pettifer, McMahon, Schulz)
leaving Tuck, Newman, Moore, King, Polak and Foley
This is the age hole Terry Wallace talked about 2 years ago and is still a structural problem, though less so as time goes on.

Plus the 3 old gents Richo, Cousins and Simmonds (who is lucky to stay imo but we have to keep him as graham and patterson dont seem very good yet)
who will all retire within a year or two

So you talking about having 8 or 9 players being in the experienced category next year.

Our 20-23 year old brigade should be playing better with more games under their belts.
Of which we have 22 players in this age group but this is also the group we have recruited badly in, Meyer, JON etc and have picked up a number of recycled players who may or may not be duds.  Thompson, Hislop.

If a player was to be dropped for age reasons it would probably be Tuck but his dad lasted forever, why wouldn't he?

You only drop/trade players for age reasons if they aren't high quality or won't be part of your next flag. I would fit Tucky into that category given he'll be 28 next year. You're better off (re-)building via youth even if it means more pain in short-term than trying to band-aid this 24-28 group by bringing in poor recycled players. The draft system 'rewards' lower finishes. You bottom out and then rely on your drafting to add more A-grade quality via early picks in the draft. The B-grade or lower older player you trade for as high a pick as reasonably possible.

Yep if there's a massive cull (including favourable trading to offload the contracted McMahon, Schulz, etc), we could even end up going into next year with just 6 Tigers older than 24.

Ages Round 1, 2010  (current number of games)

35: Richo (282)
31: Cousins (253)
-----------------------------
28: Tuck (110)
27: Newman (154)
26: King (41), Moore (65)
25: -
24: Foley (84)
23: Jackson (69), Polo (52), Thomson (30), Thursfield (53), McGuane (54), Morton (50), Tambling (95)
------------------------------
22: Deledio (106), Graham (18 ), White (54), Nahas# (19)
21: Hislop (19), Collins (10), Connors (10), Edwards (47), Riewoldt (46)
20: Putt (-), Post (7), Rance (15)
19: Cotchin (25), Vickery (9), Browne# (1), Gilligan# (-)
18: 2009 draftees

Oldies: 2
Prime: 12
Youth: 16 + 2009 newbies

Heights

Ruck size (3):        Putt (202), Graham (200), Vickery (200)

Bigger Talls (2):    Richo (195), Post (194)

Talls (5 ):             Rance (192), Riewoldt (192), McGuane (191), Thursfield (191), Moore (189)

Tall Mids (5 ):       Deledio (189), Tuck (189), Jackson (187), Polo (187)

Midsized Mids (7): Cotchin (185), Hislop (185), Morton (185), Collins (184), Connors (184), Thomson (184), Newman (183)

Small Mids (5):     Edwards (180), Tambling (180), White (179), Foley (177), King (174)

[tdy]

Small Mids (5):     Edwards (180), Tambling (180), White (179), Foley (177), King (174)

Is this too big a group?  Collingwood may have a similar number of small mids but I doubt many (if any) other sides would.

[wayne]

Not sure if it's been mentioned somewhere else, but Crawf was given the task of what list changes Richmond needed to make next year.

Untouchables he has Richo and Moore 

Trade Bait he had Tambling and .... wait for it... COTCHIN! 

[1965]

Not sure if it's been mentioned somewhere else, but Crawf was given the task of what list changes Richmond needed to make next year.

Untouchables he has Richo and Moore 

Trade Bait he had Tambling and .... wait for it... COTCHIN! 

If Melb offer picks 1 and 2 for Cotch what would you do?

 

[wayne]

Not sure if it's been mentioned somewhere else, but Crawf was given the task of what list changes Richmond needed to make next year.

Untouchables he has Richo and Moore 

Trade Bait he had Tambling and .... wait for it... COTCHIN! 

If Melb offer picks 1 and 2 for Cotch what would you do?

 

Ever seen that movie Face/Off? 

Send Cotch and Jordy in for surgery to have their faces swapped over, fill out Jordy's frame with some silicone and send him off to Demonland! 

[mightytiges]

Small Mids (5):     Edwards (180), Tambling (180), White (179), Foley (177), King (174)

Is this too big a group?  Collingwood may have a similar number of small mids but I doubt many (if any) other sides would.

Not necessarily too big a group (maybe one more than we need) but the quality to suit modern footy is lacking. When you're under six foot you need blistering pace and good or uncanny skills to have a long AFL career. From the above list Blingers fits that category. Foley had that pace in 2007/early 08 but we haven't seen those running and bouncing bursts out of stoppages since he's been carrying injuries. Edwards for mine is being played out of position despite some reasonable form. He's too small to be playing in defence long-term. IMO he needs to play as a small forward pushing up into the midfield (HFF/FP). 

[mightytiges]

Not sure if it's been mentioned somewhere else, but Crawf was given the task of what list changes Richmond needed to make next year.

Untouchables he has Richo and Moore 

Trade Bait he had Tambling and .... wait for it... COTCHIN! 

If we traded Cotch we might as well boarder up Punt Rd Oval  .

[bushranger]

Tambling I agree with as some would know I'm not his biggest fan.
But a definite no to Cotchin as trade bait.