Almost guaranteed now a top 8 pick

[the claw]

The Melbourne win cost us nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, it's quite possible if we had lost, right now people would be spewing that we picked trengove while Martin carved it up for Freo.

lol two meaningless wins cost us not trengove  but bastinac. geez if we had taken trengove over martin who would complain both are guns.
anyway i believe scully was the only player we rated in front of martin but like  said neither here nor there.

yep those two meaningless wins pick 18 oh what a cost it has turned out to be.
and if we had done the right thing and gone thru the process last yr we would be arguing about picks 4 and 6 this yr rather than the merits of picks 26 and 28.

you blokes as far as im concerned can shove your meaningless wins up where the sun dont shine  me i will take picks 18 and 6 anyday.

[mightytiges]

Aaargghh! Fine, fine you got me. I'm wrong for wanting to try and win every time we run out. Forgive me, but I thought that was the basic premise of all sporting endeavour. Silly me. Obviously losing, but cleverly disguising it as "experimenting" with match-ups and resting "injured" players is the way to go. After 30 years in the wilderness Richmond obviously needs to lie down for another 5-10 years and stock up on quality draft picks. After all, we all live forever don't we?
In the meantime, I think I'll book myself into a cryogenic chamber. Wake me up in a few hundred years when the Tigers are competitive again. By the way MT, the sarcasm evident in this post is not directed at you. I'm just sick of the lousy, corrupt, inequitable AFL and their whole stinking system.
Between this priority pick nonsense, and what some clubs have shamelessly done to acquire them, the flooding, the continued creation and propping up of soulless interstate franchises, umpires, match review panels and fixtures that always seem to favour Collingwood, while giving us short shrift I'm just fed up with the game altogether. 

the AFL choose to make the system the way it is

blame

a) the afl
b) richmond for not playing the system the last dozen years

Yep blame lies with (a) as far as flawed draft system that penalises bottom sides for winning late in the season. if they made the draft random for the bottom 8 and abolished PPs, it would no longer be an issue where you finish on the ladder. Sadly (b) is right too but for a multitude of reasons  .

[Penelope]

blame


b) richmond for not playing the system the last dozen years

Pure bollocks!
since 1997 we have finished in the bottom 4, 8 times - that's basically three quarters bottom 4. Surely if you think you need to consistently finish near the bottom of the ladder to get success then that is 'playing the system"?
Just how poor do you have to perform to get success?



Then if you go back to 86 to 93, eight years straight bottom 4. That should have set us up for 10 years of geelong like dominance.

The idea that we have not performed poorly enough (played the system if you wish) to become successful is not only flawed in it's concept, but also in reality.

[Fishfinger]

yep those two meaningless wins pick 18 oh what a cost it has turned out to be.

I don't understand what a "meaningless" win is. You seem to so maybe you could enlighten me.

We had 5 wins, so which 3 weren't "meaningless"? All 5 combined contributed so what is it that makes 2 of them "meaningless" and which 2?

If the Melbourne win was "meaningless", why? I really, really don't get that one.

[RollsRoyce]

blame


b) richmond for not playing the system the last dozen years

Pure bollocks!
since 1997 we have finished in the bottom 4, 8 times - that's basically three quarters bottom 4. Surely if you think you need to consistently finish near the bottom of the ladder to get success then that is 'playing the system"?
Just how poor do you have to perform to get success?

Yeah but Al, finishing near the bottom is only half the equation to "playing the system". You actually have to utilize your draft picks properly, which is something Richmond didn't do in the past. Frawley used to trade them away to get the likes of Stafford, Blumfield, Hudson and Houlihan. Wallace and Miller butchered the 2004 draft. Five picks in the top 20, and only Deledio has been any good. Tambling hasn't come on, Meyer and Patto are gone, and Polo is on the way out. The 2005 draft was a disaster too. 

[Ramps]

blame


b) richmond for not playing the system the last dozen years

Pure bollocks!
since 1997 we have finished in the bottom 4, 8 times - that's basically three quarters bottom 4. Surely if you think you need to consistently finish near the bottom of the ladder to get success then that is 'playing the system"?
Just how poor do you have to perform to get success?



Then if you go back to 86 to 93, eight years straight bottom 4. That should have set us up for 10 years of geelong like dominance.

The idea that we have not performed poorly enough (played the system if you wish) to become successful is not only flawed in it's concept, but also in reality.

The problem with your graph is that in a number of years whilst we may have finished 3rd or 4th bottom, concession picks were in operation for the bottom clubs, so we ended up with say a pick 8 instead of a pick 4.

[Penelope]

surely ramps the difference between pick 4 and picks 6-8 is not the difference between being a competitive side and being crap. You could possibly put an (relatively week) argument forward that it is the difference between winning a premiership and being runners up or consistently getting loosing prlims, but not the difference a resemblance of success and abject failure.

The idea that we are crap because of a lack of early draft picks is just wrong. There are a multitude of reasons - basicaly in every aspect Richmond has not been able match the standard and professionalism of other clubs . We are talking about recruiting, development, player welfare, off field stability/unity, coaching staff/regimes, football resources, income stream, marketing, club culture. These are the things that if you get right will bring success. Always has been and always will be.

The idea that we have not had enough early draft picks is not only too simplistic, but it is just plain wrong. We have had stacks, but have been too big a basket case of a club to take advantage of it.

I don't think it's half the equation Rolls, but a lot less. Getting everything else right is a major part of the equation, but yes, that it basically the point I'm trying to make

[Smokey]

................

I don't hope we don't win any games next year smokey.

...............

Hey MT, it's not me debating with you this time!   

[Stripes]

surely ramps the difference between pick 4 and picks 6-8 is not the difference between being a competitive side and being crap. You could possibly put an (relatively week) argument forward that it is the difference between winning a premiership and being runners up or consistently getting loosing prlims, but not the difference a resemblance of success and abject failure.

The idea that we are crap because of a lack of early draft picks is just wrong. There are a multitude of reasons - basicaly in every aspect Richmond has not been able match the standard and professionalism of other clubs . We are talking about recruiting, development, player welfare, off field stability/unity, coaching staff/regimes, football resources, income stream, marketing, club culture. These are the things that if you get right will bring success. Always has been and always will be.

The idea that we have not had enough early draft picks is not only too simplistic, but it is just plain wrong. We have had stacks, but have been too big a basket case of a club to take advantage of it.

I don't think it's half the equation Rolls, but a lot less. Getting everything else right is a major part of the equation, but yes, that it basically the point I'm trying to make

I think you'll find everyone agrees with you on this one al. Picks are useless unless you have the sufficent investiment in drafting and development. Until recently we have neither which is why we could have finished last for 10 years and still struggled to win a flag. The difference not though is that, for all appearances, we have the support staff at the club to finally take full advantage of the draft and teaching the talent that we bring through from it. This is why finishing as far down the ladder as possible now is actually a positive because, like last year, we will ultize our position fully rather than waste it.

The last decade in particular was mind boggling. Allowing us to trade away draft picks, choose players without sufficent research and then offer little to no development is an outright crime. 

I agree with you regarding drafting - you need the people, structures and systems in place to exploit the system sufficently. We now do so now is the time to finish as far down the ladder as we can so we can have the talent to develop and build a structure around to win us a flag 

Stripes

[the claw]

yep those two meaningless wins pick 18 oh what a cost it has turned out to be.

I don't understand what a "meaningless" win is. You seem to so maybe you could enlighten me.

We had 5 wins, so which 3 weren't "meaningless"? All 5 combined contributed so what is it that makes 2 of them "meaningless" and which 2?

If the Melbourne win was "meaningless", why? I really, really don't get that one.

lots of angles for a meaningless win.

the obvious ones which by the way most  who dont believe in tanking throw up as excuses why we should not tank or lose one or two meaningless games.
hmm how about what momentum did those late wins help us take into the next season.
or what about winning culture  what winning culture did they create. youy can only consistently win if you have the players capable of doing it.

ask yourself since we last made finals in 01 how many  eventual top 8 sides have we beaten sheesh in 8 yrs you could count them on your fingers. need i go on its been done to death but put simply it is a meaningless exercise to win games that cost you in the draft when invariably you dont have the players capable of climbing. we have a system and people rfuse to utilise it to its maximum effect.

nope we would rather win against a battling side and give away pick 18 or pick 6 knowing full well we are likely to be in this same situation next yr.
if we had tanked after 06 having given wallace his two yrs and  chance to get the older blokes a taste of finals the haul of quality kids would now have us in a position to launch a sustained finals tilt.

what i dont get is people are arguing weather we finssh 15 16th or 9th  or 12th people do realise without tanking our results are still crap.yet they dont want to maximise our chances in the only course open to us to realistically build.
if we had embraced not just tanking but totally rebuilding with youth from 06/ 07 onwards the list of potential richmond players is staggering.

[Fishfinger]

Thanks for replying.  

You haven't answered, though. I've still got no idea what a "meaningless" win is.
I need to know which wins were "meaningless" and which weren't to have any chance of ever understanding.
I actually don't think there is any such thing but I'm open to be convinced otherwise.

You say 2 wins last year were "meaningless". Which 2?

ask yourself since we last made finals in 01 how many  eventual top 8 sides have we beaten

We beat Essendon last year. They were an eventual top 8 side.
It was also the win which made us ineligible for a priority pick.

Was that a "meaningless" win?

[Penelope]

Perhaps a meaningless win is really only a personal view?
When the team wins a game that that person actually wanted us to lose and thus could not get any enjoyment out of that win, then to them it becomes a meaningless win?

Or maybe if you don't win the premiership, then every win you have is meaningless?

Actually, perhaps the whole thing is meaningless? Specially if you can't get any enjoyment out of it?

Once you solve this riddle, smelly finger, can you then determine when exactly our next premiership will be so that we can, once and for all, quantify which players will be part of it and which ones won't?

As for the remaining big question after that I believe the answer is 42

[Francois Jackson]

Thanks for replying.  

You haven't answered, though. I've still got no idea what a "meaningless" win is.
I need to know which wins were "meaningless" and which weren't to have any chance of ever understanding.
I actually don't think there is any such thing but I'm open to be convinced otherwise.

You say 2 wins last year were "meaningless". Which 2?

ask yourself since we last made finals in 01 how many  eventual top 8 sides have we beaten

We beat Essendon last year. They were an eventual top 8 side.
It was also the win which made us ineligible for a priority pick.

Was that a "meaningless" win?

FF the win against the Bombers should never have happened and i dont think would've happened if we had a coach NOT playing for his future. If it was this year and Dimma was out there coaching do you really think he would try and win thus not enhancing his list.

That win meant nothing, felt like nothing and was just plain wrong especially when we could've landed a Bastinac etc in our mits

A meaningless win is just like that against the Bombers where a coach is doing everything he can to win to save his career. We all knew leather face was not going to be there next year so what point was it trying to win that crappy game for a coach that was on the way out.

[Fishfinger]

FF the win against the Bombers should never have happened and i dont think would've happened if we had a coach NOT playing for his future. If it was this year and Dimma was out there coaching do you really think he would try and win thus not enhancing his list.

That win meant nothing, felt like nothing and was just plain wrong especially when we could've landed a Bastinac etc in our mits

A meaningless win is just like that against the Bombers where a coach is doing everything he can to win to save his career. We all knew leather face was not going to be there next year so what point was it trying to win that crappy game for a coach that was on the way out.

Wallace was long gone. You could mount the case for Rawlings trying to get a job except then you ask me if I think Hardwick would try to win. Yes, I do.

That win felt really good to me. Going by the claw's reasoning about not beating eventual top 8 sides since 2001, it was a great win.

I suppose I'd best just agree to disagree because saying any win is "meaningless" is a nonsense.

[Francois Jackson]

FF the win against the Bombers should never have happened and i dont think would've happened if we had a coach NOT playing for his future. If it was this year and Dimma was out there coaching do you really think he would try and win thus not enhancing his list.

That win meant nothing, felt like nothing and was just plain wrong especially when we could've landed a Bastinac etc in our mits

A meaningless win is just like that against the Bombers where a coach is doing everything he can to win to save his career. We all knew leather face was not going to be there next year so what point was it trying to win that crappy game for a coach that was on the way out.

Wallace was long gone. You could mount the case for Rawlings trying to get a job except then you ask me if I think Hardwick would try to win. Yes, I do.

That win felt really good to me. Going by the claw's reasoning about not beating eventual top 8 sides since 2001, it was a great win.

I suppose I'd best just agree to disagree because saying any win is "meaningless" is a nonsense.

sorry my mistake Rawlings was in charge your right.

I was really happy we lost every game under Rawlings  and would've been more happier had we lost all of them.

if you want to know the truth those losses under rawlings felt like wins for me because

a) and most importantly it meant he would not be our coach. He is and still isnt fit to be a senior coach of Oakleigh Reserves let alone our football club. A dud of the highest order who wouldve had us playing the same crap as we did with leather face.

and B) we were closer to another gun in another super draft.

we got A but not B