List Management / Au revoir, Ciao, Goodbye. [merged]

[TigerLand]

Popelord l dont know what planet your on but you are seriously all stuffed up
you must think every club in the afl will stand aside to let RFC get what they want
grow a brain waterboy 

Its hypothetical.

You're an uneducated hill-billy, don't comment on things you don't understand.

[TigerLand]

Before you sack one player
Why dont you look at the coach.
WHO IS CLEARLY NOT UP TO THE TASK

Jack blaming the coach is just a cop out. Its the soft excuse and the easy way out we've used for 25 years, for far too long.

The coach you want/need the club to appoint to magically turn the side that has maybe 1-5 players that are capable of polling brownlow votes and 8-12 player that are capable of influence a result at AFL level by competing and contributing.

No man or woman on this earth can be appointed that can make this list competitive in 2010. (An amazingly harsh with all due respects to the players, but when your bottom 15 are VFL reserve standard, which is the result of Coburg 1's getting smashed you cant expect to get AFL standard contribution from your depth. Which is what makes St.Kilda/Geelong so good.)

Agree the stoppages are horrible. But the same is with Hawthorn, why? The disrespect both clubs has shown towards the positions of ruckman by not properly stocking the club with ruck stocks.

The kick ins have been a problem since I've been born. The magical wand that we've all expected a new coach to swing to fix has not happened, and thus our kick ins are still the worst in the AFL. What we can see and respect is that different plans have been tried. Better to have tried and failed then to continue to make the same mistakes (chipping around the backline for the last 10 years)

I promise you Malthouse or Thompson wouldn't have this list going in a better direction. We player 3 qtrs of decent football with confidence and in the last qtr we just fell over. That is not as a result of any deficiency of the game plan. The reason why we lost is because its a too big of ask for our team to play at there optimum level for 4 qtrs. They are human and have lull quiet periods. Our lull and quiet periods are noncompetitive. Compare that to a lull period for Geelong where they lazily start to let a side look competitive and you see the contrasts and differences.

Why do you think I am harsh on Hardwick?
Who is to blame for the players being instructed to kicks to contests at kick ins and to the opposition ruckman TWO weeks in a row? The Bootstudder ?
And who is to blame for the onballers standing behind the opponents at Centre Bounces ?? The waterboys ?
HARDWICK CANT GET THE BASICS RIGHT, how on earth are we going to go forward, YOU TELL ME.
And look at the players that have gone backwards?
I dont want Richard Tambling to leave, but he will turn into another Dave Rodan if he left.
Richard Tambling can play, just ask Jade Rawlings,

Your right Jack the buck does stop with him.

Ask Sheedy, Malthouse and Matthews how many ides they have had have failed?

Your expectations of Hardwick within 7 rounds have been unreasonable.

He hasn't come in and replica'd Wallace and try for 5 years the same chipping, tempo run and carry game style that never worked. He's tried something that could have worked and failed. If we continue to do this in 5 weeks time then questions should be asked. there is nothing wrong with making mistakes and failing. It's how you learn from then that counts.

If we don't learn from these failures and try something different with the next 5 weeks then your criticism would be warranted. Its unfair to throw stones for getting it wrong the first time.

[Smokey]

Another perspective on this, posted on Tiger-Talk:

> Just on this - we could flood back and play ugly. We're not doing
> this - we're going man on man. Flooding back would stem the losses,
> make the matches closer. But playing man on man teaches the players
> more.

Also, with the onus on the players to carry out Hardwick's instructions, and
with nowhere to hide, I am sure the coaching staff will be readily
identifying who can take us forward, and who cannot. Who can apply the
playing rules, and who is struggling to understand their role, who is
willing to learn, who is stubborn or incapable, who is battling on in the
face of such overwhelming adversity, who is playing safe and selfish...?

All these things are valuable learning tools for the coaches - and those
players who will be taking us forward. Losing due to youth is somewhat more
palatable than losing with experienced bodies in the team (as per 2009). Our
youth is why I'm not hating this year as much as last year. I'm hoping
skills, strength and fitness will be improved over time.

http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/tiger-talk/message/93205

[MADTIGER2010]

Because Newman, Tambling and Rance aren't dominating you get rid of them? Ridiculous calls. Most of you guys probably can't even kick a footy. 

[Francois Jackson]

Because Newman, Tambling and Rance aren't dominating you get rid of them? Ridiculous calls. Most of you guys probably can't even kick a footy. 

ok einstein so you would rather hold onto a Tambling or Rance till they are worthless. You cant be serious.

Part of our problem is we have haven't been able to let go of players who arent to it.

They are not up to it anyone with a heartbeat can see that.

You cant teach a player to get in the packs and throw his body arounbd, and tambling has had 6 years to get in there. Now the club needs to look after its members and if there is a chance we can get a second rounder from GC17 we need to seriously look at that.

[jackstar is back again]

Richard Tambling , 7 great/good  games out of 102 says it all

[WA Tiger]

Richard Tambling , 7 great/good  games out of 102 says it all

You might want to go through our list, tally their games up and their great/good games against them, I bet you would be surprised, then see who you actually wan't gone!! I dare say there would be more average players than Richie, actually you would be lucky to find some that have played a Great/good game.

[TigerLand]

Football is a big business played by big boys.

Trading players is part and parcel of the game now. It's not the 1980's and its insulting for players and supporters to trade players.

It can be a win win for both parties. The players that wont be apart of our next successful era can either waste away and achieve at best maybe 1-2 years of finals in there 30s or go to a more successful club play in finals whilst there previous club can get a player that will be 23-28 in its successful era.

Its common sense list management. We need to accept the fact we wont win a flag for probably 5 years. anyone who is older than 29 in 5 years time should not be on the list next regardless of who they are. We should be doing everything we can to keep there currency at the club and not waste away to achieve nothing and retire.

[Tiger67]

Agree Inf, Polak was good today but he'll be 27 by the half way mark next year. He'll probably stay on the list, factors being others to go before him and we have KP deficiencies.

Youth isn't the word or category we should be focusing on when looking at our list. It's currency.

Rance and Tambling are both youngish in terms of the average football age. But you'd be trading Tambling for youth. Same with Rance.
Tambling and Rance are 15th-20th picked in the side. If you could replace them with a pick 15 and pick 30 your chance to pick up a Rioli, Melksham, Bastinac type player.

List Management is the key IMO. No gameplan or messiah player or coach will fix our club. the next 2 years list decisions will make or break us.

Upgrade currency.
A trade of Deledio to Gold Coast for Picks 2 and 3.
Trade Newman and Moore for pick 18 to Brisbane.
Trade Foley and pick 29 for pick 10 to Essendon.
Trade Tambling to Sydney for pick 22

We finish last and we have picks 2, 3, 4, 10, 18, 22. Minus Deledio, Newman, Moore, Foley and Tambling.

Its hypothetical but all of a sudden you start to get the idea of the formula that can turn the list around. Finish bottom 4 again next year and you can start to look at trading a Rance or Post plus a 4th rounder pick for a high 2nd rounder etc..

It not about youth or potential its about currency. Keep your currency and you can sustain success. Hold onto playes for too long and you lose currency. There is no reason to hold onto players that wont be in your next premiership.

I realise that you are working on hypotheticals Popelord, but we are unlikely to get great deals for our players. They are more valuable to us than other clubs. The Gold Coast are unlikely to give up top draft picks for players from struggling clubs. A number of clubs are hoping they will, but it is unlikely. The whole point of having the draft up there is so they can generate hype over their new kids. Other clubs will look to us for bargains rather than give us fair value.

What we need to get better at is player development and talent identification. Who would have thought that the Dockers would suddenly look like recruiting geniuses We need to find our own Broughtons and Barlows, as well as nailing the number four draft pick. Lids should be part of our core going forward as we would never get fair value for him. We can't hope that GC or GWS will be profligate with their draft picks as with the kids coming through and their salary cap concessions they don't need to be.

It's going to be tough, but we just need to hang in there

[Tiger67]

Football is a big business played by big boys.

Trading players is part and parcel of the game now. It's not the 1980's and its insulting for players and supporters to trade players.

It can be a win win for both parties. The players that wont be apart of our next successful era can either waste away and achieve at best maybe 1-2 years of finals in there 30s or go to a more successful club play in finals whilst there previous club can get a player that will be 23-28 in its successful era.

Its common sense list management. We need to accept the fact we wont win a flag for probably 5 years. anyone who is older than 29 in 5 years time should not be on the list next regardless of who they are. We should be doing everything we can to keep there currency at the club and not waste away to achieve nothing and retire.

Do you think that we would be able to get fair value?

[Infamy]

Upgrade currency.
A trade of Deledio to Gold Coast for Picks 2 and 3.
Trade Newman and Moore for pick 18 to Brisbane.
Trade Foley and pick 29 for pick 10 to Essendon.
Trade Tambling to Sydney for pick 22

We finish last and we have picks 2, 3, 4, 10, 18, 22. Minus Deledio, Newman, Moore, Foley and Tambling.

We wouldn't win a game for 2 years if we did that

Long term Infamy.

We wont win a premiership in Newman or Moore's AFL lifetime. Must trade their currency. The only hard trade to swallow would be Deledio but if we were compensated properly we would benefit long term.

I have no problem with trading Newman especially and have posted many times that I think we should do this. Moore I think is too hard to replace and is still only 26 however would listen to offers.
The ones I have issue with are Deledio, Tambling & Foley, they are still just kids and you're giving away a high quality player for a chance of getting another one, but you won't know for 3-5 years. Sorry but that's just cutting your nose of to spite your face. They need to be our core players, not the ones we get rid of.

[Tigermonk]

Its hypothetical.

You're an uneducated hill-billy, don't comment on things you don't understand.

Your OER tosser the biggest dreamer on this forum 

[TigerLand]

Upgrade currency.
A trade of Deledio to Gold Coast for Picks 2 and 3.
Trade Newman and Moore for pick 18 to Brisbane.
Trade Foley and pick 29 for pick 10 to Essendon.
Trade Tambling to Sydney for pick 22

We finish last and we have picks 2, 3, 4, 10, 18, 22. Minus Deledio, Newman, Moore, Foley and Tambling.

We wouldn't win a game for 2 years if we did that

Long term Infamy.

We wont win a premiership in Newman or Moore's AFL lifetime. Must trade their currency. The only hard trade to swallow would be Deledio but if we were compensated properly we would benefit long term.

I have no problem with trading Newman especially and have posted many times that I think we should do this. Moore I think is too hard to replace and is still only 26 however would listen to offers.
The ones I have issue with are Deledio, Tambling & Foley, they are still just kids and you're giving away a high quality player for a chance of getting another one, but you won't know for 3-5 years. Sorry but that's just cutting your nose of to spite your face. They need to be our core players, not the ones we get rid of.

Completly understand. Its all about player currency. If we traded Deledio to a club who somehow were able to trade us back 2 top 10 draft picks, you'd be struggiling to argue that Brett is worth more in currency than a duo of Trengrove and Cunnington.
If we were to trade Tambling to St.Kilda who could replace Goddard in the backline to free him up forward and get there first pick a pick in the 20's and pick up a Nathan Fyfe, Mitch Duncan or Ryan Bastinac. You'd be struggling to argue that Bling has more currency than one of these players.

Its all about assessing our list and individual players and what there currency is in terms of AFL standards. If we can win out on a few trades it will only improve our list. It may seem like robbing Peter to pay Paul but if you rob Peter of $200 and pay Paul $150 you have $50 left over.

[jackstar is back again]

Upgrade currency.
A trade of Deledio to Gold Coast for Picks 2 and 3.
Trade Newman and Moore for pick 18 to Brisbane.
Trade Foley and pick 29 for pick 10 to Essendon.
Trade Tambling to Sydney for pick 22

We finish last and we have picks 2, 3, 4, 10, 18, 22. Minus Deledio, Newman, Moore, Foley and Tambling.

We wouldn't win a game for 2 years if we did that

Long term Infamy.

We wont win a premiership in Newman or Moore's AFL lifetime. Must trade their currency. The only hard trade to swallow would be Deledio but if we were compensated properly we would benefit long term.

I have no problem with trading Newman especially and have posted many times that I think we should do this. Moore I think is too hard to replace and is still only 26 however would listen to offers.
The ones I have issue with are Deledio, Tambling & Foley, they are still just kids and you're giving away a high quality player for a chance of getting another one, but you won't know for 3-5 years. Sorry but that's just cutting your nose of to spite your face. They need to be our core players, not the ones we get rid of.

""Moore to hard to replace""
 
What medication are you people on

[Tigermonk]

Moore has gone backwards the most in the side 
cant even kick properly & has been around before 2004
Think he would learn how to kick a goal close in after 6 years
How many has he missed