Author Topic: Trade Week Debrief  (Read 9604 times)

Online Francois Jackson

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13931
Re: Trade Week Debrief
« Reply #45 on: October 15, 2007, 10:28:42 AM »

3 years to develop only happens at punt Road.
not true.In fact, utter nonsense.

only my opinion...u must admit it seems to happen more and more at punt road
we dont spend enough in this area..FACT!!
Currently a member of the Roupies, and employed by the great man Roup.

Offline tigersalive

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2772
Re: Trade Week Debrief
« Reply #46 on: October 15, 2007, 11:38:41 AM »

3 years to develop only happens at punt Road.
not true.In fact, utter nonsense.

only my opinion...u must admit it seems to happen more and more at punt road
we dont spend enough in this area..FACT!!


Because we cant!  FACT!

If you followed the news we have slowly been building up fund and making RFC a place for smarter business than the old shambles.

Once again our income to distribute will rise next year as said a few weeks ago by Gary March.

Money doesnt grow on trees at RFC , last time we went made with money we stuffed up and had a save our skins campaign and then in 2002 we couldnt even afford to draft kids, we had to draft recycled so they only 1 year contracts.

Remember that?  Want to get back there again?  I sure as hell dont.  :( :-X
EAT EM ALIVE!

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58582
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Trade Week Debrief
« Reply #47 on: October 15, 2007, 06:55:44 PM »
l dont know where some of you get the idea it takes 3 years for players to learn how to play to AFL standard football thats pure rubbish it only happens at Richmond
Go around watch other clubs train & then go watch some TAC U18s clubs train & you see them spend more time on the track they do most of there other stuff on the side cause thats what is required if you want to be drafted & they do hard training camps like AFL clubs
these draftees that come in are the crop of scouted Australian talented footballers picked by some of the best knowledged legends of the sport
they are mostly coached by highly regarded Coaches some legends of the game & most decorated players from AFL
They are prepared by clubs at very high standard to the quality of what AFL clubs train its the same training program
some clubs train harder than AFL clubs on the track & most of them train harder than Richmonds AFL team
the only thing going on at Richmond is the club holds back the youngsters

Look at Collingwood draftees for example; Thomas, Goldsack, Pendlebury from the day they arrived there been in the system how long & there standing out it didnot take them 3 years to get crowds excited well anything gets Skunks fans excited they all look up to fooled Joffa
Collingwood had some hard injuries this year yet still was 5 points off a Grand Final
thats what happens when you play names like Buckley when his injured & takes the place of a youngster it cost them dearly & he knows it thats why he was told to move on his career was costing them hard

Wallace has a problem of playing unfit players & even admitted it this year
thats holding the club back of playing youngsters & they start to lose interest at being at Richmond & want to move on
& thats damaging the club because Wallace will play Johnson Tuck Richardson Tambling Newman Brown Simmonds Krakouer l can go on & his not putting fit players on the field & that damages moral within the playing group cause players cant understand why they aint getting game time when they can give a bigger effort & injuries cooldown at halftime & Richmond lose the close games end of story would you not think

But if any of you think it takes time for young men to play bigtime football you should get out more have a look outside your own club
These kids are playing senior football against bigger rougher men at 15 -16 & there playing against the elite footballers of there age groups 17 -18 in carnivals & are dropped back to thier own clubs into seniors sometimes if injured back to the thirds to run out injuries & to dominate to get thier confidence soaring & will chuck them back to the elite level again
They have many coaches at one time cause when your breeding players at a elite level your also breeding elite coaches & trainers & umpires & it goes on & on thats why you see players like Hird & Gary Ablett Jnr give away precious medals & jumpers to people who help make them champions & will listen to them

Any player drafted is fit & ready to play league football from day 1 its the clubs that hold them back & Richmond hold the club back by drafting the weak lambs instead of getting the rams






i agree 100%
3 years to develop only happens at punt Road. i hear that line with talls but only at punt road you hear that with talls and now midfielders too..

come on guys be serious pies perfect example. goldsack, clarke and pendelbury...3 guns. how long have they needed to develop???
i can go on to the hawks as well but i wont cause that just hurts.
wallace needs 5 years, well maybe but frawley had how man years too?? and look where that got us.
im not saying dump in because i believe it doesnt matter who is coaching this list is sub-standard and someone should take the fall from this crap that gets dished up every year. why dont we hire more in development. are they effing stupid or what
There is no way this list will get us into the 8 in the near future.

Goldsack was drafted as a 19-year old. He turned 20 in May. Hardly a typical 17/18-year old draftee. Thomas and Pendlebury were top 5 draft picks. They are also playing in a team with a solid senior core. 17 of the Pies best 22 are 23 or over. Young talls like Ried, Brown, Dawes played at Willy all year.

Same with the Hawks. Their finals sides also had 17 of their 22 aged 23 or over. They've got one of the youngest lists but their best 22 isn't young. Renouf, Dowler, Thorp, etc hardly played a game and played at Box Hill. That's why they are rated as such a threat. Because these youngsters will only start to come into a already top 6 side next year and beyond. Losing Vandenberg, Smith and Dixon won't effect their solid senior 23-27 y.o. core to any great detail.

Most weeks we had half our side 21 or younger which was the 2nd youngest 22. Brisbane was the only side who played more Under 22 players than we did most weeks.

I'm not saying this to justify or excuse us coming last and we definitely need to generate and pump more money into recruiting (lowest spending club) and development that's for sure. However there's a lot of crap said about clubs by the media and their supporters about how young they are.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2007, 10:32:33 PM by mightytiges »
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Tigermonk

  • Guest
Re: Trade Week Debrief
« Reply #48 on: October 15, 2007, 10:22:16 PM »

Goldsack was drafted as a 19-year old. He turned 20 in May. Hardly a typical 17/18-year old draftee. Thomas and Pendlebury were top 5 draft picks. They are also playing in a team with a solid senior core. 17 of the Pies best 22 are 23 or over. Young talls like Ried, Brown, Dawes played at Willy all year.

Same with the Hawks. Their finals sides also had 17 of their 22 aged 23 or over. They've got one of the youngest lists but their best 22 isn't young. Renouf, Dowler, Hislop, etc hardly played a game and played at Box Hill. That's why they are rated as such a threat. Because these youngsters will only start to come into a already top 6 side next year and beyond. Losing Vandenberg, Smith and Dixon won't effect their solid senior 23-27 y.o. core to any great detail.

Most weeks we had half our side 21 or younger which was the 2nd youngest 22. Brisbane was the only side who played more Under 22 players than we did most weeks.

I'm not saying this to justify or excuse us coming last and we definitely need to generate and pump more money into recruiting (lowest spending club) and development that's for sure. However there's a lot of crap said about clubs by the media and their supporters about how young they are.

didnot take him 3 years to make a name for himself (Goldsack)
age has got nothing to do with it everyone goes back to age
l seen young sides smash hot premiership favorites
and all them sides you talk about went in as a fit sides
Richmond go in with paper sides get smashed cause there players cant give 100% & the coach is a total effwit

Offline Gracie

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Trade Week Debrief
« Reply #49 on: October 15, 2007, 11:51:09 PM »

Goldsack was drafted as a 19-year old. He turned 20 in May. Hardly a typical 17/18-year old draftee. Thomas and Pendlebury were top 5 draft picks. They are also playing in a team with a solid senior core. 17 of the Pies best 22 are 23 or over. Young talls like Ried, Brown, Dawes played at Willy all year.

Same with the Hawks. Their finals sides also had 17 of their 22 aged 23 or over. They've got one of the youngest lists but their best 22 isn't young. Renouf, Dowler, Hislop, etc hardly played a game and played at Box Hill. That's why they are rated as such a threat. Because these youngsters will only start to come into a already top 6 side next year and beyond. Losing Vandenberg, Smith and Dixon won't effect their solid senior 23-27 y.o. core to any great detail.

Most weeks we had half our side 21 or younger which was the 2nd youngest 22. Brisbane was the only side who played more Under 22 players than we did most weeks.

I'm not saying this to justify or excuse us coming last and we definitely need to generate and pump more money into recruiting (lowest spending club) and development that's for sure. However there's a lot of crap said about clubs by the media and their supporters about how young they are.

didnot take him 3 years to make a name for himself (Goldsack)
age has got nothing to do with it everyone goes back to age
l seen young sides smash hot premiership favorites
and all them sides you talk about went in as a fit sides
Richmond go in with paper sides get smashed cause there players cant give 100% & the coach is a total effwit

Goldsack can't win a game off his own boot yet.

We can't expect that our #2 this year will walk into our side and be a match winner in 2008 or in 2009. Three years before he will have the strength in body and mind to be a match winner we need. Lids has had his three years is at 62 games there are no more excuses for him - time to deliver.

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58582
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Trade Week Debrief
« Reply #50 on: October 16, 2007, 02:15:05 AM »

Goldsack was drafted as a 19-year old. He turned 20 in May. Hardly a typical 17/18-year old draftee. Thomas and Pendlebury were top 5 draft picks. They are also playing in a team with a solid senior core. 17 of the Pies best 22 are 23 or over. Young talls like Ried, Brown, Dawes played at Willy all year.

Same with the Hawks. Their finals sides also had 17 of their 22 aged 23 or over. They've got one of the youngest lists but their best 22 isn't young. Renouf, Dowler, Hislop, etc hardly played a game and played at Box Hill. That's why they are rated as such a threat. Because these youngsters will only start to come into a already top 6 side next year and beyond. Losing Vandenberg, Smith and Dixon won't effect their solid senior 23-27 y.o. core to any great detail.

Most weeks we had half our side 21 or younger which was the 2nd youngest 22. Brisbane was the only side who played more Under 22 players than we did most weeks.

I'm not saying this to justify or excuse us coming last and we definitely need to generate and pump more money into recruiting (lowest spending club) and development that's for sure. However there's a lot of crap said about clubs by the media and their supporters about how young they are.

didnot take him 3 years to make a name for himself (Goldsack)
age has got nothing to do with it everyone goes back to age
l seen young sides smash hot premiership favorites
and all them sides you talk about went in as a fit sides
Richmond go in with paper sides get smashed cause there players cant give 100% & the coach is a total effwit
Disagree on age/experience. Geelong showed that against Port in the GF. It was men against boys. Geelong had 17 of their 22 premiership players by 2004 when they finally made the finals. Most of that core were recruited from 2001 or earlier. Same goes for the Eagles.

It's more than individual development too. It's also team development. Bringing a group of kids through together so they jell as a unit over time. Geelong's team skills were so far above anyone else this year it wasn't funny.

This is something our younger players need to learn. For instance a run and carry gameplan doesn't mean 18 blokes running and carrying the footy as far as they can go individually like it's NFL or NRL. How many times did Rainesy do this and stuff up :P. It's run and carry as a team. Moving the ball forward quickly as a team, as a unit. Everyone understanding and knowing what each of their teammates will do. Offering options and supporting each other in numbers as a team. Doing the 1%ers - tackling, shepharding and blocking - as a team. No matter how quick a player is he can't outrun a kick or attacking handpass. You've got to work as a team to break down opposition defences and get the ball forward quickly to score.  

Bartel, Corey, Ling, etc aren't superquick but they annihlated sides this year because they finally woke up how footy is meant to be played. Last year they were a slow chip-chip sideways rabble yet had the same 21 of the 22 who dominated 2007. In 2005 they choked against the Swans with the same 21. What was the difference? It certainly wasn't personnel. They finally all got superfit, matured at the same time and became the best team. Sam Newman is an idiot most of the time but he was right about Geelong all along.

When you have that strong team structure then young players find it easier to slot into the side. They can just focus on the job they need to do without needing to worry about carrying the side to victory. Without needing to worry about too much attention from the opposition trying to blunt their influence. Once again that comes down to the strength and quality of your senior core. Sure there are exceptions (Shane Edwards showed something this year btw) but generally most footballers and football teams take time to develop. In the AFL with the draft it can take even 7-8 years if the quality senior core structure isn't there and you need to build a new core basically from scratch. No guarantees either that the coach who starts and oversees this process will still be around to see the end of it. Mark Thompson is a rarity and even he only just survived last year.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Tigermonk

  • Guest
Re: Trade Week Debrief
« Reply #51 on: October 16, 2007, 05:28:25 AM »
laughable


Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58582
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Trade Week Debrief
« Reply #52 on: October 16, 2007, 03:00:48 PM »
laughable
Why?

We have not a single draftee left from the 1999 or earlier drafts. Richo and Joel were Father-Sons (both fell into our lap) and Tivs was a promoted-rookie. We also don't have any draftees left from the 2001 superdraft  ::) and only one (Schulz) from the 2002 draft and he was only a whisker away from being offloaded. These drafts would now have made up our 5, 6 and 8+ year players on our list. In other words our senior core. That's right just 1 player from 33 selections and trades still on our list from that period. Now that's laughable!

No point bagging our current 18-20 year olds because morons off-field at our club paid/pay no respect to the draft and recruiting both in time and money. We have been and are the lowest spending club on recruiting in the AFL and it shows. Finally now that we have some financial and boardroom stability we are trying to address it by putting more $$$ into recruiting but that can't instantly fix the damage already done from the period above.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline tigersalive

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2772
Re: Trade Week Debrief
« Reply #53 on: October 16, 2007, 03:06:23 PM »
laughable
Why?

We have not a single draftee left from the 1999 or earlier drafts. Richo and Joel were Father-Sons (both fell into our lap) and Tivs was a promoted-rookie. We also don't have any draftees left from the 2001 superdraft  ::) and only one (Schulz) from the 2002 draft and he was only a whisker away from being offloaded. These drafts would now have made up our 5, 6 and 8+ year players on our list. In other words our senior core. That's right just 1 player from 33 selections and trades still on our list from that period. Now that's laughable!

No point bagging our current 18-20 year olds because morons off-field at our club paid/pay no respect to the draft and recruiting both in time and money. We have been and are the lowest spending club on recruiting in the AFL and it shows. Finally now that we have some financial and boardroom stability we are trying to address it by putting more $$$ into recruiting but that can't instantly fix the damage already done from the period above.

 :clapping :clapping :clapping  Now that is spot on the money.
EAT EM ALIVE!

Tigermonk

  • Guest
Re: Trade Week Debrief
« Reply #54 on: October 16, 2007, 07:45:14 PM »
laughable

Offline Tiger Spirit

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Trade Week Debrief
« Reply #55 on: October 17, 2007, 06:28:43 PM »
My response to some of this is that even though RFC has probably had the funds over the years, for whatever reason, the Club wouldn’t spend money on the footy department back then and it just seemed content to rely on the ability of its coach to get the best out of players.  That’s the way it seemed to me at least.

Needless to say none of our players ever seemed to get out of the second stage of their development, and so it continues.

Even though the funds have probably been there over the past decade, it wouldn’t surprise me if they didn’t have any idea what other resources were made available at other clubs and that this lack at RFC was holding the players and the club back.

Each club and coach does it their own way, and as long as the coach has others around him to compensate for their areas of weakness (for want of a better expression) then it should all be fine.  Somehow, I don’t think it’s ever been fine at RFC.

Even though David Rodan seemed to have the commitment and work ethic while he was at Richmond, they still couldn’t get the sort of form out of him that Port was able to this year, so their solution was to let him go.  Perhaps they let the wrong person go.  You have to wonder sometimes.

Now we get told that the club is in a position to add more resources to the football department.  But are they just putting money into this area just so it looks as though they’re doing something, or are they genuinely doing something to drag the club into the AFL?  As always, we just have to wait and see and hope they know what they are doing.
Everything that is done in this world is done by hope.  --Martin Luther

The time you enjoy wasting isn’t wasted time.

Offline jezza

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Trade Week Debrief
« Reply #56 on: October 17, 2007, 07:03:04 PM »
laughable


Try and debate the point like an adult.

Offline {X}

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1818
Re: Trade Week Debrief
« Reply #57 on: October 17, 2007, 07:24:56 PM »

Offline tigersalive

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2772
Re: Trade Week Debrief
« Reply #58 on: October 17, 2007, 08:25:56 PM »
EAT EM ALIVE!

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58582
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Trade Week Debrief
« Reply #59 on: October 17, 2007, 10:38:40 PM »
My response to some of this is that even though RFC has probably had the funds over the years, for whatever reason, the Club wouldn’t spend money on the footy department back then and it just seemed content to rely on the ability of its coach to get the best out of players.  That’s the way it seemed to me at least.
To me the club was still frightened in the late 90's of the bad old SOS days even though it had got itself back on its feet and back in the black. So spending was kept to a bare minimum at the detriment of resources needed to compete as an AFL club in the 21st century.

Now we get told that the club is in a position to add more resources to the football department.  But are they just putting money into this area just so it looks as though they’re doing something, or are they genuinely doing something to drag the club into the AFL?  As always, we just have to wait and see and hope they know what they are doing.
True. The proof will be in the results to come on-field. The redevelopment is a badly needed step in the right direction to get our player facilities up to the level of the wealthy clubs.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd