Author Topic: List analysis [merged]  (Read 33868 times)

tony_montana

  • Guest
Re: List analysis [merged]
« Reply #60 on: November 02, 2013, 04:13:45 PM »
locked and loaded

Offline tdy

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
Re: List analysis [merged]
« Reply #61 on: November 06, 2013, 09:31:59 PM »
Its all up to the development coaches now.  If we really are going to be a good side the growth will come from the Youth and they've had a couple of years in them so we will see pretty soon.

This lot below get to 40+ games this year and ought to influence games by the end of the year or earlier, Martin, Vlastun, Conca and Ellis already do really.

Astbury (29), Batchelor (39), Dea (24), Griffiths (19), Grimes (26), Helbig (16), Conca (52), Ellis (42),Vlastuin (18 )

Interesting thought what if out of those 17 Youth only 4 make it by 2 years, say Martin, Vlastun, Ellis and Conca.

What would this prove?

Would this prove we have bad development coaches or bad recruiters.  Would we implode like we used to, sack everyone, decimate the ranks of the playing list and generally have a hissy fit.  Total Tank time to get another Cotchin?

OR

Would we be calmer this time around.  Continue with recruiting from other clubs to keep ourselves competitive, adjust our internal structure . Replace some of our dev coaches, invest more in recruitment, probably replacing a few recruiters.  etc.

I suppose I'm asking how mature do people think we are as a club now?  Would Benny Gale stay?

Eh this is just musings, idle chit chat nothing more.

the claw

  • Guest
Re: List analysis [merged]
« Reply #62 on: November 07, 2013, 09:16:02 PM »
nice work mt. for me i break it down just a little different as far as the actual list structure goes.
imo we need 
1 junior genuine ruckman. should have 4.
2 tall forwards  should have 6 as a minimum we have numbers but lack a certain type, quality, and what you would call genuine key forward.
3  genuine mids . two hard running quick and polished more outside and 1 inside. should have as a minimum 16 genuine mids first and foremost.

positionally i break the list down thus

rucks- stephenson 31 and needs to be replaced, maric 28, hampson 26, imo they are ruckmen first and foremost. just 3 and ones a battling 31yo.

for/ruck - vickery 23, mcbean 19. to my way of thinking they are more kpps than ruckmen. i cant see either ever being a combative #1 ruck.  so thats 2 for/rucks 3 if you include hampson more than enough.

tall forwards - riewoldt 25, astbury 23, griffiths 22, elton 21. really need a tall quick agile good marking good kicking tall forward jonathon marsh would suit us to a tee. we could also do with a real big dominant kpf with astbury,griffiths, and elton all struggling to date. if none manage to step up it will leave a huge hole.

tall defenders - chaplain 28, rance 24, grimes 22, mcintosh 20, darrou 20. i make that 5 we need at least 1 more gorilla if you like.

tall/med/sml mids - mids first and formost.  - foley 28, jackson 28, deledio 27, knights 27, grigg 26, cotchin 24, helbig 22, martin 22, conca 21, arnot 20, ellis 20, vlastuin 20, williams 19.
these are genuine mids whose primary role is to play midfield a lot can play on the flanks. for me we need at least 3 more.

specialist flankers forwards - king 30, a edwards 30, possibly knights 27, s edwards 25, petterd 25, ohanlon 20, mc donough 20, simon 19. mcdonough and knights may become regular mids.
even if thjey do we have too many in this area we only need 4 at the most.

specialist flankers defenders - newman 31, houli 25, morris 25, batchelor 22, dea 22, peeterd again too many only need 3 or 4.

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: List analysis [merged]
« Reply #63 on: November 21, 2013, 11:22:45 PM »
good work in advance cyclops / mt

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: List analysis [merged]
« Reply #64 on: November 26, 2013, 09:53:31 PM »
good work in advance cyclops / mt

Retracted

gerkin greg

  • Guest
Re: List analysis [merged]
« Reply #65 on: November 27, 2013, 11:44:12 AM »
 :lol

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 98244
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: List analysis [merged]
« Reply #66 on: November 27, 2013, 11:48:53 AM »

the claw

  • Guest
Re: List analysis [merged]
« Reply #67 on: November 27, 2013, 09:07:06 PM »
theres only one line to describe what we have done.

 They think we are contenders and we are LOCKED and LOADED.  :o   
it gf or bust time at richmond.

Offline Phil Mrakov

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8213
  • They said I could be anything so I became Phil
Re: List analysis [merged]
« Reply #68 on: November 27, 2013, 09:28:28 PM »
theres only one line to describe what we have done.

 They think we are contenders and we are LOCKED and LOADED.  :o   
it gf or bust time at richmond.

Let's just win a final first ok pal
hhhaaarrgghhh hhhhaaarrggghhh hhhhaaaarrrggghh
HHAAARRRGGGHHHH HHHHAAARRRGGGHHHH HHHHHAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH

Offline YellowandBlackBlood

  • Long suffering….
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10688
Re: List analysis [merged]
« Reply #69 on: November 27, 2013, 09:44:34 PM »
theres only one line to describe what we have done.

 They think we are contenders and we are LOCKED and LOADED.  :o   
it gf or bust time at richmond.
Claw, you are incredible.

Over the last few years we have drafted more kids than most.  Last year we went for senior rookies.  This year in a shallow draft we took a couple of 23 year olds and some more mature rookies.

We also have had to recruit for our VFL side.  If you only recruit 18 year olds the VFL side will be pulverised. No development can occur if you are losing by over 100 points each week.  We have youngsters Lennon, McDonough, MacBean, O'Hanlon, etc etc etc.  We already have enough youngsters to develop.  Our recruiting hasn't been that bad considering we were a basket case not that long ago and have improved even in the times of compromised drafts to the point of not only making finals but now expecting to make finals regularly.

Just wait a little before you go over the top in your criticism of the clubs recruiting. Maybe they'll surprise you again.
OER. Calling it as it is since 2004.

Offline RedanTiger

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: List analysis [merged]
« Reply #70 on: November 28, 2013, 12:12:40 AM »
Over the last few years we have drafted more kids than most.  Last year we went for senior rookies.  This year in a shallow draft we took a couple of 23 year olds and some more mature rookies.

We also have had to recruit for our VFL side.  If you only recruit 18 year olds the VFL side will be pulverised. No development can occur if you are losing by over 100 points each week.  We have youngsters Lennon, McDonough, MacBean, O'Hanlon, etc etc etc.  We already have enough youngsters to develop.  Our recruiting hasn't been that bad considering we were a basket case not that long ago and have improved even in the times of compromised drafts to the point of not only making finals but now expecting to make finals regularly.

Just wait a little before you go over the top in your criticism of the clubs recruiting. Maybe they'll surprise you again.

Over the last four years we've taken 18 juniors and 21 older players (Gordon, Lloyd, Banfield, Miles, Thomas, Knights, Chaplin, A Edwards, Petterd, Lonergan, Stephenson, I Maric, Morris, A Maric, Derickx, Gourdis, Grigg, Houli, Jakobi, Miller and Hislop).

We have recruited 21 players for the VFL team already. If they are only needed for the VFL recruit them to the VFL list.
According to the VFL rules there is a limit of 12 AFL players per team so they will not be only 18 year olds.
Your excuse for picking delisted players onto an AFL list is that they'll be good for the VFL team.  :banghead

BTW we have played ONE final in over TEN years.
 

Offline YellowandBlackBlood

  • Long suffering….
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10688
Re: List analysis [merged]
« Reply #71 on: November 28, 2013, 12:39:04 AM »
Over the last few years we have drafted more kids than most.  Last year we went for senior rookies.  This year in a shallow draft we took a couple of 23 year olds and some more mature rookies.

We also have had to recruit for our VFL side.  If you only recruit 18 year olds the VFL side will be pulverised. No development can occur if you are losing by over 100 points each week.  We have youngsters Lennon, McDonough, MacBean, O'Hanlon, etc etc etc.  We already have enough youngsters to develop.  Our recruiting hasn't been that bad considering we were a basket case not that long ago and have improved even in the times of compromised drafts to the point of not only making finals but now expecting to make finals regularly.

Just wait a little before you go over the top in your criticism of the clubs recruiting. Maybe they'll surprise you again.

Over the last four years we've taken 18 juniors and 21 older players (Gordon, Lloyd, Banfield, Miles, Thomas, Knights, Chaplin, A Edwards, Petterd, Lonergan, Stephenson, I Maric, Morris, A Maric, Derickx, Gourdis, Grigg, Houli, Jakobi, Miller and Hislop).

We have recruited 21 players for the VFL team already. If they are only needed for the VFL recruit them to the VFL list.
According to the VFL rules there is a limit of 12 AFL players per team so they will not be only 18 year olds.
Your excuse for picking delisted players onto an AFL list is that they'll be good for the VFL team.  :banghead

BTW we have played ONE final in over TEN years.
 
What we did 10 years ago has no bearing on what we did this year do why include it?
Many of the mature recruits have either been rookies or swaps for 3rd round picks. This year was the first time we used a second rounder to swap.
I think that is shrewd trading.
As I have said, we were a basket case 4 years ago. The current team of recruiters can only be judged on what they are doing not what Wallace etc did.
OER. Calling it as it is since 2004.

the claw

  • Guest
Re: List analysis [merged]
« Reply #72 on: November 28, 2013, 01:48:58 AM »
theres only one line to describe what we have done.

 They think we are contenders and we are LOCKED and LOADED.  :o   
it gf or bust time at richmond.
Claw, you are incredible.

Over the last few years we have drafted more kids than most.  Last year we went for senior rookies.  This year in a shallow draft we took a couple of 23 year olds and some more mature rookies.

We also have had to recruit for our VFL side.  If you only recruit 18 year olds the VFL side will be pulverised. No development can occur if you are losing by over 100 points each week.  We have youngsters Lennon, McDonough, MacBean, O'Hanlon, etc etc etc.  We already have enough youngsters to develop.  Our recruiting hasn't been that bad considering we were a basket case not that long ago and have improved even in the times of compromised drafts to the point of not only making finals but now expecting to make finals regularly.

Just wait a little before you go over the top in your criticism of the clubs recruiting. Maybe they'll surprise you again.
whats incredible is ben lennon aside they have ignored every other kid in the country.
no we have not drafted more kids than most we would be going at about 3 . 5  kids per draft since hardwick came to the club. that includes rookies.

mate no one has pushed the mature barrow around here harder than me especially the state league barrow. thing is its not just about juniors and its not just about mature players. what its about is finding every yr the right balance between the two and being smart where you take players.
it most certainly is not about building a vfl side.  which by the way before this trade/draft period had plenty of experience. quality well thats another matter all together.

for yrs now ive mnentioned till im blue in the face on here you take kids with your 1st 2nd 3rd rounders and target your mature players after that unless of course its a high quality mature player your going for.
can anyone name just one high quality mature  player we have taken since hardwick took over. we have targeted in the main battlers and strugglers. players finding it hard to get a game luckily for us some like big ivan has worked out.  chapman who is exactly the same player with us that he was at port has worked out. hes nothing special hes just better than anything we had.morris has filled a real need.

as for the number of kids and the quality of them id say in the main we probably have less kids than most other sides. our list is not young. how many juniors do we have? what is a junior anyway?   for me 21 and under  and i count 12 including lennon.

to redans list of mature players you can add cousins, farmer, nason, webberley, plus rookies nahas, browne, roberts, gilligan?, polak.
while i disagree with a lot that have been taken, as i said if taken in the right place with little cost i dont have a problem with any of them. what i think is madness though is ignoring the nd with what id call decent picks its not a process any club can afford to go thru.

locked and loaded and they bring this on by their own actions. they had damn well want to at the very least finish top 4 because i for one will not be forgiving them if they dont.

imo we just had the worst trade/draft period of any club and we have done just about nothing to look after the long term. they had want to hope ben lennon is something special.

finally francis jackson has been there since 05 and i would argue strongly his record is poor.he can certainly be judged on his nine yr overall record.
his strike rate with any nd pick outside of the first round is nothing short of abysmal. the strike rate with mature players is somewhat better but would be going at less than 50% and thats with mature blokes who you really should not be getting wrong when you consider the exposure they have had. its not as if you are taking unknowns.

the question i constantly ask is how much better could and should  our recruitment of players have been. significantly better imo.

we have had 9 yrs of jackson and we are still bickering about weather we are a genuinr top 8 side or not.

Offline yellowandback

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4025
Re: List analysis [merged]
« Reply #73 on: November 28, 2013, 05:47:42 AM »
When I see the thread title "List analysis" with "last post by Claw" I get a tingle in the loins......
Claw puts the "anal" in analysis.
It's that simple Spud
"I discussed (it) with my three daughters, my wife and my 82-year-old mum, because it has really affected me … If those comments … were made about one of my daughters, it would make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. I would not have liked it at all.”

dwaino

  • Guest
Re: List analysis [merged]
« Reply #74 on: November 28, 2013, 07:19:36 AM »
Pretty sure it's all copy-paste because I reckon it's the same post every time. Buzz Killington is always who comes to mind