There's been a common trend at Richmond of a new coach coming in and achieving significant improvement in his first year before the side falls away again in subsequent seasons and then another new coach brought in and the same thing is repeated while the players escape their responsibility for poor performances. We are poor because our senior players aren't up to it and need to be replaced by a new core group. That core group is still too young no matter who the coach is.
Who should take responsibility for that? The players? Who’s in charge here?
Nothing ever changes at Richmond coz nothing ever changes.
Think I posted something back in about 2004/2005 that the focus needed to be taken away from the senior players, so that the culture amongst them could change.
Four years later we’re still on about the same things that supporters were harping on way even before then.
The people keep changing at RFC, but nothing else it seems.
When TW came into the footy club he failed to acknowledge the task he had to re-build the list, and what he was dealing with, in terms of the culture, because he continued to play the same group of players (many that most people knew weren’t going to take us anywhere) we had before, and installed senior players as our leaders.
The main reasoning for playing experienced players was because he thought we could create a winning mentality whilst re-building the list.
How did he figure that we were suddenly gonna be world beaters with the same group of players that had failed previously? Did he have some magic tricks up his sleeve or he knew how to get something different out of those players that no one else had? History says ‘no’ to all of the above.
I agree, if the young players simply aren’t ready, then don’t play them. Why then, in 2007, when there’s no alternative, we give the young players a go out of necessity and suddenly they’re ready enough to get a game under those circumstances, ready or not.
When he left the Bulldogs, their supporters lamented that he didn’t bring through the young players. Why not? Because all he sees is what is on the surface with players. If he can literally see the ability a player has, i.e. skill, pace, etc, then that convinces him of a player’s ability and worth to the team. But if he doesn’t know a player, and can’t see his ability ‘right now’, he ain’t interested. Potential doesn’t exist, it’s what a player can do now.
Basically, I believe he sees the superficial in a player, and not what he’s actually made of, which you can’t see.
Unless he has those around him with that ability, he can be the best strategist, list manager and whatever else he likes, he ain’t taking us nowhere, no matter how long he’s at the club.
When he, or someone, puts faith in the players, real faith, then I’ll believe he’s worth sticking with.
Until then, I have way more reasons why I have no faith in him as a coach, unless he has a major overhaul.
