Tigers can't dodge the past (Age)

[one-eyed]

Tigers can't dodge the past
Matthew Lloyd
July 24, 2011

Decisions at past drafts have cost Richmond dearly; Tiger fans must now be patient.

DRIVING home after broadcasting the Collingwood-Carlton match last Saturday, I turned on the radio to hear that Richmond had lost to the Gold Coast Suns in less than honourable fashion. The venom coming out of the Richmond faithful's mouths on talkback was really uncomfortable to listen to, even for a neutral like me.

That is nothing new for the yellow and black, having only been to four finals series in the past 31 years. The only difference this time was that they were beaten by a team in its inaugural season with far less experience. The Richmond supporters had tones of frustration, as well as desperation, that a team that is only 16 games old has already gone past them in a quest for a premiership.

Some Richmond members made the point that they needed draft concessions more than Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney do, such is their plight. I disagree - you make your bed, so unfortunately you have to lie in it. It's Richmond's problem and no one else's.

Richmond has massive problems with not only the quality of its list but also the age demographics of the list. Its best players - Trent Cotchin, Dustin Martin, Jack Riewoldt and Brett Deledio- are all 24 and under. They have to be the matchwinners when it shouldn't be like that. Where are all the 25- to 28-year-olds needed to guide these younger players through their formative years?

The simple answer is that the 2004 and 2005 drafts for Richmond were absolute disasters and it has set the club back five to 10 years. In 2004, Richmond had the chance to set itself up with five selections of the first 20 in the national draft. You would expect three 200-game players with those five selections but the Tigers made a mess of it. Brett Deledio went at one and has been a great choice for them, as a No. 1 should, but at selection four was Richard Tambling, selection 12 Danny Meyer, selection 16 Adam Pattison and selection 20 Dean Polo.

In that season of 2004, both Richmond and Hawthorn finished on four wins, the Hawks dodging the wooden spoon by just 1 per cent. The Hawks also had high draft selections as a result of their poor year and selected Jarryd Roughead at two, Lance Franklin at five and Jordan Lewis at seven - now all premiership players who will have long and distinguished careers at their club. The selection of Tambling over Franklin would not only have given Richmond nightmares but no doubt would have had a huge effect on Tambling's psyche as well.

Fast forward 12 months to the 2005 draft, and the Tigers had three selections in the first 40 picks. At pick eight was Jarrad Oakley-Nicholls who played just 13 games for the club, Cleve Hughes at pick 24 who left after just 16 games, and Travis Casserly at selection 40 who never played a senior game. From that two-year period, only Deledio remains at Tigerland. The other seven who were chosen inside the top 40 are either at another club or delisted. You can blame many things in a club for why you have no success and it's usually the coach who pays the price for the lack of progress shown, but multiple selections that go horribly wrong like that can cripple any team.

Hindsight's a wonderful thing and all clubs have made selections that they would love to take back, but you only wonder how different the Tigers' past five years could have been if Franklin was chosen over Tambling, Angus Monfries was taken instead of Danny Meyer, Shaun Higgins was taken instead of Oakley-Nicholls, as well as Andrew Swallow, a best-and-fairest winner at the Kangaroos who came straight after the selection of Travis Casserly.

Some may look and say it's far too simplistic too just pluck names out who the Tigers could have chosen, but too many elite players were missed in that period of the Tigers' recruiting and all those players came only a selection or two after Richmond's picks.

With Greater Western Sydney ready to pounce on most of this year's elite talent, the Tigers are in for some more pain over the coming years but I have no doubt that Damien Hardwick as senior coach and Brendon Gale as chief executive are the men to lead this club out of its slumber.

On the field, recruiting middle-age recruits isn't the way forward for the Tigers. Smart selections of quality youngsters to go with Cotchin, Martin, Deledio, Riewoldt and Tyrone Vickery may look like the slow way home but it's the right way for the Richmond Football Club, to finally see some light at what has been a never-ending dark tunnel.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tigers-cant-dodge-the-past-20110723-1huez.html#ixzz1SxQiHoF9

[MADTIGER2010]

That's 2 final series not 4 
We were younger than GC last week too

[wayne]

Angus Monfries was taken instead of Danny Meyer

 

He is better than Meyer, but who isn't. Monfries is another Pettifer.

[Jackstar is back again]

would say that Lloyd is correct.

[wayne]

would say that Lloyd is correct.

I think everyone knows that the 2004 and 2005 draft set us back big time.

It was a terrible draft to have 5 top 20 picks in. 2005 we should have used more picks.

[Penelope]

in all of what he says jack?

The venom coming out of the Richmond faithful's mouths on talkback was really uncomfortable to listen to, even for a neutral like me.

?

Richmond has massive problems with not only the quality of its list but also the age demographics of the list. Its best players - Trent Cotchin, Dustin Martin, Jack Riewoldt and Brett Deledio- are all 24 and under. They have to be the matchwinners when it shouldn't be like that. Where are all the 25- to 28-year-olds needed to guide these younger players through their formative years?

Tiger fans must now be patient

but I have no doubt that Damien Hardwick as senior coach and Brendon Gale as chief executive are the men to lead this club out of its slumber.

I find it hard to fathom that you agree with this.

[WilliamPowell]

That's 2 final series not 4 
We were younger than GC last week too

In 31 years we've played in 4 finals serious FACT = 1980, 1982, 1995 & 2001

If you're going to whack the bloke whack him with FACTS

I reckon parts of the article are sadly accruate althoung not what I'd call incredibly enlightening to most of us 

[The Big Richo]

Depends on your take on the younger than Gold Coast thing.

Maybe Age wise, and they may have had more players with experience but they also had many more players with only a handful of games.

Footy wise, I say we had the older team.

[the claw]

That's 2 final series not 4  
We were younger than GC last week too

In 31 years we've played in 4 finals serious FACT = 1980, 1982, 1995 & 2001

If you're going to whack the bloke whack him with FACTS

I reckon parts of the article are sadly accruate althoung not what I'd call incredibly enlightening to most of us  

i think lloyd is almost 100% correct. and we all know it so why try to refute it.
i think for him to nominate the 25 thru what 28 yr old age group as being out of kilter he nominated the wrong drafts. while he rightly points out the 04 05 drafts were disasters, and you could add the 06 draft as well apart from riewoldt.,add the fact the 07 draft  is nothing special and ordinary for us .
 to have players in his nominated age range he has to focus on the 2000 thru 2003 draft period.there is just a few   players from those 4 drafts left at the club, and they wont play one of them in  shane tuck.  chris newman and jackson are the others..they  are good honest types at best rather than champions.

from 2000 to 2005 that would be the the 23yo thru the 28 yo age range for the club we have just newman tuck jackson deledio and mcguane some  would argue tuck jackson and mcguane are very lucky to be on a list at all.
thats our lot people from 2000 to 2005 we have had some fantastic early picks 1st 2nd 3rd roundsers and in the main we have either failed to use them well or we have traded out of them for recycled players who werent there for the long term.

we are the most unsuccesful club in the comp since the inception of the nd we have been the most unsuccesful club based almost entirely on our recruitment .

finally i will say it  again and it sums up our plight when it comes to recruiting and what we have achieved in the nd.

a list including rookies equals about 45. If lucky you will get 10 yrs out of a player, but not every player.
Simple sums say  you need to add more than 4 decent players to your list each yr just to keep up.

we fail in the most prolific way to get players that being the nd. But to me  if you think you can find 4 or 5 players every yr from the nd alone you are kidding yourself.to exasperate our problems with the nd we trade poorly and give up too many what should be safe early picks which in reality is the only other option you have to grow your list and find those 4 or 5 players you need to find each yr.

just want to add people should be looking very closely at what both Craig Cameron and Francis Jackson are doing these two control our future and i for one am not overly impressed with either. Do we do just ignore their roles and hope they get better just like we did with Greg Beck or do we do we look to again improve these critical areas of the club. the club imo opinion should go out and find/poach  a proven succesful recruiter some one whos track record is exemplary.to me kpi in these areas point to us needing to do better.