IT'S TIME TO GO THE TANK- IT'S OUR ONLY HOPE! [merged]

[Stripes]

We diefinantly need to play the list as Sheedy did years ago,to see who can cut it and who cant, winning games serves no purpose but to finish 9th again.

I completely agree camboon

[mightytiges]

GC are going to be a superpower no doubt and for a long time. I just hope we don't have our chances dashed because of them.

They're going to have trade for senior players though. They'll get 16 ready-mades from the exisiting clubs but they'll need to find more for their first year at least. It'll be interesting to see what actual compensation is offered to the existing clubs in terms of picks. Essendon (Lloyd), Adelaide (McLeod) and North (Bell) did well out of Freo's entry. Even Port traded for a couple of duds when they came in (Brewer from Geelong and Downsbrough from West Coast).

[Ox]

We diefinantly need to play the list as Sheedy did years ago,to see who can cut it and who cant, winning games serves no purpose but to finish 9th again.

We diefinantly do,although we all already know.

[mightytiges]

We've still got to play the tanking Eagles twice this year don't we? Win both as well as tonight against Freo and then the Dees and we could end up back at pick 5 and no priority pick despite 2009 being a total and utter write-off  .

[Judge Roughneck]

We've still got to play the tanking Eagles twice this year don't we? Win both as well as tonight against Freo and then the Dees and we could end up back at pick 5 and no priority pick despite 2009 being a total and utter write-off  .

I would not mind if we win a few games.

As long as we do it with young footballers in key postions.

Winning games by 3points with Bowden / Simmonds / Pettifer in the side is not good for the future

[torch]

"To tank? Or not to tank? That is the question."
torch

The Richmond Football Club is now facing another problem, Tanking. The question for the Richmond Football Club after Friday Night will be whether it is in the best interest for the club to tank? Terry Wallace will coach his 99th and final match as Richmond coach against his first coaching club, the Western Bulldogs. Reguardless of the result, Richmond will then have to appoint a 'caretaker coach' for the remaining 11 matches. The question for the Richmond Football Club is whether to appoint a coach that is in it for 'himself' or for 'Richmond'? If Wayne Campbell is to get the nod over the other assisant muppets, would Wayne Campbell want to risk his coaching career for Richmond's 'development'? Would Wayne Campbell be more then happy to accept the caretaker position on basic instruction to 'tank'? One would think that Wayne Campbell would only do such a thing if he was given the Richmond coaching position next year. Richmond has stated many times in the media that they want 'young blood'. Richmond have also have been on record stating that 'we will go through the procedure, we will have a sub-coaching panel to decided our next coach'. It is wise for Richmond to ask one of the assisant muppets to coach for 'tanking'? Would they want to ruin their chances of a coaching opportunity in years to come? So who would then want to 'caretake coach' Richmond? Is Kevin Sheedy that 'fill in man'? On another level, Would 'tanking' help Richmond at all? In previous drafts they have had a top 20 pick/picks which have managed to fall down. (ie: Oakley-Nicholls, Hughes) Sydney, Adelaide, Collingwood, Geelong and to some extent North Melbourne have not be disadvantaged from not 'tanking' with all teams making the finals in consecutive years. Joel Selwood was taken at pick 8, according to my calculations, Geelong finished 9th that year they took Joel. To me, if you have recruiters doing their job, then there is no need to have picks 1,2 and 3. What Terry Wallace failed to do while he was in charge of recruiting, was actually recruiting 17/18 year olds. Instead Terry Wallace recruited players like; Mark Graham (04), Patrick Bowden, Knoble (05), Polak, Kingsley (06), McMahon (07) Hislop, Thomson, Cousins (08). Trading picks for players wasn't and actually isn't a good decison, unless you want Chris Judd! Terry Wallace era has basically been a failure.The only thing he has done is what he needed back in 2004, which was 22 year old players. Richmond now has plenty of Under 23 players, but have they developed? In August 2004, Terry Wallace chose 'Richmond's list over Hawthorn's list'. Richmond chose Wallace over Eade. Then Wallace chose 'the quick fix' to Clarkson's 'pain now, glory later'. One thing Clarkson said at the beginning of his era, was that he will have a clean out, we will suffer now, and two tall forwards. Terry Wallace said 'Richmond will play more attacking football and are the sleeping giant of the AFL'. June 3rd 2009, Terry Wallace is coaching his last match on the 5th June 2009 and the Richmond Football Club is still fast asleep! Terry Wallace's approach in 2004 must or mustn't be employed for Richmond in 2010? Does Richmond need a fresh face? Does Richmond need to start over again? Does Richmond need a 'ready made coach'? Richmond's 2009 season has been doomed from the start after Round one. Does that mean that this 'culture' at Richmond is still a cancer? Is winning not everything? Relating back to the title, 'tanking'? Is it Richmond only option? If so, would that change or remove that cancer? No! Would winning as many matches from now on would mean more then tanking? Maybe? Would the new caretaker coach be in it for 'himself' or 'Richmond'? To me Wayne Campbell will be Richmond's caretaker coach. It would be an insult to Wayne if we didn't at least ask him to coach. However Wayne Campbell might be thinking, 'can i coach next year?' Richmond may say 'lets see how you go'? or 'we will consider you'. Either way, the biggest question that the Richmond Football Club have to ask themselves is as of Wednesday the 3rd of June 2009, 'To tank? Or not to tank? That is the question?'.

[mat073]

Torch,
I mean no offence but that is bloody hard to read....I get lost reading it after 3 or 4 lines.

[mightytiges]

Oh goodie another thread on tanking lol

It might be an idea torch to split all that up into a few paragraphs to make it easier to read  .

Adelaide, Collingwood and North may have made finals regularly over the past decade for various reasons but all haven't looked like winning a flag. Not enough class on their lists to step up as real contenders.

The Cats have had the benefit of a heap of father-sons under the old rule where they got top 10 quality at 3rd round bargin basement price. So effectively they had two top 10 picks in those drafts to gain the top class needed to form the basis for the side they have become. Half their premiership side were either top 25 draftees or Father/Sons who were rated as top 10 picks. If you look at their more recent drafting those that have cemented a spot in their 22 now like Varcoe and Taylor were top 20 picks as well. As recruiting becomes more and more sophisticated the most talented kids are now found more and more at the top end of the draft (top 20). 'Tanking' would give us 3 picks at this more profitable pointy end hence the argument for us to 'tank'.

Also the lessons from Geelong's rebuild is to keep your picks and in fact trade for more. In 1999 and 2001 they drafted 15 kids from the National draft alone (most 3rd rounders or better). They learnt a hard lesson from 2000 that trading picks for recycled players while rebuilding as a quick fix doesn't work. So within 3 drafts Thompson had set-up a young core of 23 players to sort through and build around. 10 of the 23 would go on to become premiership players. Another 5 came from the pre-Thomson era. So that's 15 future premiership players on their list by the end of 2001 yet they wouldn't make the finals for another 3 years (2004) and a flag for another 6 years (2007).

Compare that to Richmond where Wallace recruited 7 kids in 2004 yet we went back into old bad habits of drafting only 13 kids over the past 4 National drafts and traded away picks for recycled players. Now less than half of Thompson's original young core of 23 "made-it". Using the same percentage at Richmond leaves about 5 kids from 2005-8 drafts who will go on and make it  . At that rate it would take you almost 20 years to get a full side's worth of premiership quality players which of course makes no sense as no one plays for 20 years so in effect you will never reach a full side's worth. So we need to tank away to get more early picks and then trade player(s) away to get even more picks. Investing in the National draft is the only way any club can get the best talented kids to their club.

Geelong's recruiting under Thompson........ (22 in bold are their 2007 premiership side)

Pre-1999: Harley (trade), King (PSD), Milburn (48), Scarlett (FS), Wojcinski  (24)

99: traded Mansfield for 31, Colbert + 53 for Mooney + 15
      Corey (8 ), Spriggs (15), Bray (17), Foster (23), Chapman (31), Ling (38), Enright (47), Lindsay (r = promoted rookie)

00: traded Steinfort for 44, traded picks 11, 27, 42, 45, 57 for Kingsley, Murphy, White.
      J.Hunt (44), Lowther (71), Simpson (79), Baldwin (r), O'Brien (r)

01: traded Murphy for 23, Bizzell for 17, 41, pick 55 for Grgic
      Bartel (8 ), Kelly (17), Gardiner (23), S.Johnson (24), G.Ablett (40-FS), Playfair (41), McGuiness (42), McCarthy (69), D.Johnson (81)

02: traded Burns for Finnin
      Mackie (7), Lonergan (23), Callan (36-FS), Moloney (PSD), Rooke (r), Chambers (r)
 
03: traded Clarke for Loats, Street for Haynes
      Tenace (7), Thurley (22), Blake (38-FS), Spencer (42), Koulouriotis (PSD), Slade (r)

04: traded picks Moloney + 16 for Ottens
      Prismall (32), N.Ablett (48-FS), Egan (62), Brynes (r)

05: traded Chambers for 35
      Varcoe (15), West (31), Owen (35), Gamble (47), Stokes (61)

06: no trades
      Selwood (7), Djerrkura (25), Hawkins (41-FS), Hogan (57)

07: traded Playfair for 44, Callan + 66 for 62, King +Gardiner for 90
      Taylor (17), D.Simpson (34), S.Simpson (44), Donohue (60+FS), Mumford (r)

08: traded Prismall for 39
      Brown (15), Gillies (33), S.Motlop (39)

[Tigermonk]

Same topic as last months moderators do something please 

[one-eyed]

Same topic as last months moderators do something please 

You can rest your head TM. I've merged both threads.

[Tigermonk]

 

[Stripes]

We have had far more success on average with the rookie draft than we have with the Nation Draft. I wonder if the two drafts were the responsibility of two different recruiters?

In retrospect we have made mistakes with our trading but I believe this has been as much about attempting to cover the gapping holes we had on our list in terms of 23 - 27 year olds and position wise. Players like Knobel, Graham and even Kingsley were patch jobs. They didn't cost us high draft picks but they did take a way even the possibility of unearthing a talent from these picks. The chances are that these would not have made it but then again players like Foley, Graham, Nahas etc have all come from the rookie draft so you never know.

Trades such as the ones made for Polak, McMahon, Thomson, Hislop are the most harming given they were made with relatively high picks. Polak and McMahon look to be outright loses while Hislop and Thomson are still young and only arrived at the club so should be afforded a little time to see if their trades were worthwhile but the meer fact that the club made these trades in the first place was a mistake.

We do need to bottom out to continue the rebuild and we do need to do everything in our power to ensure Melbourne and WC win as well. This is now a competition for a future - this draft could make or break the club and if we miss the boat here and allow other clubs to get a head of us with draft talent, we will suffer for that mistake for decades to come. 

Stripes

[Tigermonk]

Talking about our great player McMahon which Jackstar was correct about again, Hows he going down there at Coburg  he must be settled in by now 
funny how the Bulldogs had him playing in the VFL most of his last year there & we pay him all that money to be a VFL player. seriously whats wrong with that guy.
He can play football & surely has the smarts but he just slacking off or is he injured or purely fell out of love with Wallet 
Whats the story Jack on your old mate McMahon 

[FooffooValve]

'Tanking' would give us 3 picks at this more profitable pointy end hence the argument for us to 'tank'.

Also the lessons from Geelong's rebuild is to keep your picks and in fact trade for more.

In many ways mt, this argument that we should 'tank' is actually disproved by the Geelong experience. Yes, we should keep our picks and trade for more, no question about that. We have made huge mistakes in our trading for 'experienced' players who appear to fill a gap. Furiously agree there.

But IMO, the problems that we have now have much more to do with what we do with players once they are drafted than how high our draft picks are. If you look at Geelong, the highest draft pick they have had in your scenario is pick 7 (Selwood). Many of their really good players were drafted in the 20s and 30s or later. Is this good recruitment, or good player education and management AFTER drafting? Probably a combination of both, and that's part of the the point.

The longer we pin our hopes on high draft picks, or even a new coach, turning around our culture, the longer we will stay at the bottom of the ladder.

We must work much harder on inculcating our entire club personnel with an attitude of leaving absolutely no stone unturned in striving to improve our performance. This means players, admin staff, trainers, fitness people, development people, receptionist, doctors — absolutely everyone who wears a bit of yellow and black. We must not fall into the trap of believing any one person can change things — including a coach or a Cotchin or a Deledio. The sooner we start with this attitude, the better. If that means that we win 7 out of our  next 12 games, so be it. Culture change won't come from laying down — by all means play the kids and see who has got what to take us forward, but prepare them as meticulously and with a winning attitude as far as is humanly possible, and if they win, then that is so much more important that getting pick 3 or pick 8 it's not funny.

[Tigermonk]

'Tanking' would give us 3 picks at this more profitable pointy end hence the argument for us to 'tank'.

Also the lessons from Geelong's rebuild is to keep your picks and in fact trade for more.

In many ways mt, this argument that we should 'tank' is actually disproved by the Geelong experience. Yes, we should keep our picks and trade for more, no question about that. We have made huge mistakes in our trading for 'experienced' players who appear to fill a gap. Furiously agree there.

But IMO, the problems that we have now have much more to do with what we do with players once they are drafted than how high our draft picks are. If you look at Geelong, the highest draft pick they have had in your scenario is pick 7 (Selwood). Many of their really good players were drafted in the 20s and 30s or later. Is this good recruitment, or good player education and management AFTER drafting? Probably a combination of both, and that's part of the the point.

The longer we pin our hopes on high draft picks, or even a new coach, turning around our culture, the longer we will stay at the bottom of the ladder.

We must work much harder on inculcating our entire club personnel with an attitude of leaving absolutely no stone unturned in striving to improve our performance. This means players, admin staff, trainers, fitness people, development people, receptionist, doctors — absolutely everyone who wears a bit of yellow and black. We must not fall into the trap of believing any one person can change things — including a coach or a Cotchin or a Deledio. The sooner we start with this attitude, the better. If that means that we win 7 out of our  next 12 games, so be it. Culture change won't come from laying down — by all means play the kids and see who has got what to take us forward, but prepare them as meticulously and with a winning attitude as far as is humanly possible, and if they win, then that is so much more important that getting pick 3 or pick 8 it's not funny.

What a great post