One more year at the bottom please

[H Tiger]

Kellaway is similar to Graham and only a club desperate for a tallish backman like we were would give him another chance at his age. 
Graham will be gone next year as well won't he? one year contract?

I don't disagree that if everything went our way in terms of lesser likes having a belter of a year and we copped no injuries to our key players we could sneak into the eight as our draw is good. 12 wins/10 losses would be a maximum though.

The AFL comp. has 4-5 really good sides and the rest are mediocre. Which are the four or five you rate MT?

 Plus there is always a danger that if we were to fluke such a season and in my mind it would be a fluke that some around the Club would start thinking we were a better side than what we really are. After the last 23 years?

Also finishing midtable 8th or 9th stuffs you up in the draft as we all know.

8,9,10,11 are no different IMO

As LT said if we score 8 wins, are competitive in 20 games and our kids continue to develop along nicely then I'll be happy that in 2005.   

I will be very happy with this scenario (especially after last year).

[WilliamPowell]

Kellaway is similar to Graham and only a club desperate for a tallish backman like we were would give him another chance at his age. 
Graham will be gone next year as well won't he? one year contract?

You're right H tiger that Graham only has a one year contract but if he has a good year and say a Kellaway doesn't - you could make the arguement to give him another 12 months - especially if a Schulz, Pattison or Archibald ( to name a few) don't come along as quickly as we'd like

[Piping Shrike]

One thing's for sure, I know I'm not going to cringe every week as I look to see all 18 of our players in our backline trying to prevent the opposition from scoring. Please God don't let me see a loose man floating around our hf line Please God don't let me see Chaff as a loose (and I mean LOOSE) man on our hb line

It's been a long time since I've looked forward to a season so much...not even after 2001....

I think we will see lots of our players in the backline at times, but hopefully with an intention to get the ball and stream forward, not to get the ball and kick it around and around at halfback.

[1980]

The focus for 2005 is not where we finish on the ladder, but whether we're developing the youngsters well and play competitive football.

However, 2005 milestones dont apply to 2006. Although I'm not expecting us to play finals, I do expect the team to show massive improvement and convince the football public that we will be a strong finals side the following year.

I take Greg at his word. We are 2 years into a 4 year plan. 2006 is the year we will learn if we are on the right track or we've been suked in one more time. Unless of course we do in 2005 to Deledio and Tambling what we did to Pettifer and Fiora. And there's no Frawley around to take the flack this time Greg.

[mightytiges]

Which are the four or five you rate MT?

Port (to go back to back), Saints and Brissy definitely. West Coast and Cats (? over forward line) in the next group.

Freo could surprise given they have put all their eggs into one basket for success in the next year or 2. The rest are mediocre IMV although Paul Roos always seems to get the best out of the Swans average but very even list and Sheeds, Hird and Lloyd carry the Dons.   

After the last 23 years?

Remember straight after 95 and 2001. We thought we were better than we were .

8,9,10,11 are no different IMO

Agree HT. There's top 4, bottom 4 and mediocre land in between.

[LondonTiger]

8,9,10,11 are no different IMO

Agree HT. There's top 4, bottom 4 and mediocre land in between.

Hmmm, bottom 4.

I cannot pick a bottom 4 next year without sticking the Tigers in there.

Hawks, Tigers and who else?

Dogs should step up and win more than 5 games.
Adelaide should improve.
Pies - will still be crap, but could they be worse than 2004?
Nth- will be mediocre but how much so?
Carlton - Will be mediocre and hopefully worse than last year.  (I need them to finish bottom for a cash bonanza)

Cannot see who those bottom 4 will be now.........

[Tiger Spirit]

There’s some advantage to finishing bottom 4 again, but is it really a good thing if we win only say 5 games this year?

Last season, 8 wins earned a bottom 4 finish, but if we only win about 5 games, then can we really say we have improved in any way?  Because if we change our style of play and improve our depth, the skill level of players, fitness, etc., etc. wouldn’t we expect to win a few more games and maybe some we wouldn’t normally expect to win?

I think it would be more important to see improvement on the field, rather than expecting a bottom 4 finish to ensure we are a successful team in the future.

If we don’t see improvement in all areas then draft picks alone won’t necessarily make us a better team now or later.  Developing players and the style of game will.

[JohnF]

I reckon even if we reproduce the results we did last year it will still be considered an improvement becuase we will be doing it with a younger, more inexperienced list which is on the up, unlike in 2004 where we did it with a group of players who had reached a plateau and obviously weren't going to improve (fleming, weller, marsh, houlihan, blumfield etc.)

As such, it wouldn't bother me in the least if we finished with similar results to last year. With another influx of kids at the end of this year I can see 2005 and 2006 and years down the bottom. 2007 and 2008 we should be ready to rumble.

[Tiger Spirit]

Fair point JohnF.

I guess I’m expecting a lot more spirit within the team to get us a win here and there that we wouldn’t have previously expected, even though the team could consist of a high number of inexperienced players at the one time.

Then again, with a young line up, I suppose we could also lose some that we might expect to win too.

What it all seems to boil down to then is not so much how many games we win, but how results are achieved and whether we can see real improvement in players and the style of play.

I remember in 2003, the Saints would blitz in one quarter and suddenly go missing the next.  They seemed to develop some consistency last season and maintain their form throughout games, which no doubt comes with experience and the advantage of a few pre seasons behind them.

[tiga]

It took the Saints about 2 or 3 years to get the likes of Dal Santo and Riewoldt playing consistenly good footy before last years finals didn't it? I still believe they have a lot of maturing to do so I would say we would need 2-3 years to make finals and 5 to win the Big one. Premiers for 2010...The Richmond football club. A nice round number if you ask me and exactly 30 years between drinks. That's my prediciton.

Tiga Nostradamus has left the building.