For battered Tigers, it's time to move forward
May 6, 2009
IT'S conceivable that Matthew Richardson, the oldest and probably most-beloved player in the AFL, might have played his last game.
Richardson has a magnificent record of overcoming injury, but he is 34 and there are no guarantees that he will recover in time to play again this season. Moreover, the hamstring tendon tear - similar but ostensibly less serious than the injury that crippled Matthew Lloyd in 2006 - might extinguish his desire to play in 2010.
Richmond was optimistic, yet far from certain that he would be back this year.
Many Richmond supporters have stuck with the club through thin and anorexic partly due to Richo's charismatic presence. Doubtless, they will view his injury as yet another calamity in a season that flatlined in round one.
Some will point an accusing finger at the club's medicos-conditioning staff for allowing him to play in Sydney with a buttock strain. Whatever the reality, that is a moot point now.
Yet, if you remove emotion from the situation - which is not easily done (for who doesn't love Richo?) - it's arguable that Richardson's absence contains significant positives for the Tigers.
First, there is a statistical elephant in the room, that Richmond's winning rate is much lower when Richardson has played during his time with the club.
The Tigers have won a respectable 51.3 per cent of matches when Richardson has missed, compared to the 41.5 per cent they've won when he's played. This is a counter-intuitive fact, since Richo has been the undisputed matchwinner in so many of those 116 victories.
He has been the best player and the first picked for perhaps 15 of his 17 seasons.
The raw numbers, however, suggest that either he has failed the team, or the team has failed him. The sample of games he's missed - 75 - is substantial, and cannot be dismissed.
It is hard to say why the Tigers have fared better without him. Were they galvanised by his absence? Unlikely. Did his magnetism inhibit others? Possibly.
The most likely explanation is that, as the dominating presence in a poor team, Richo drew the ball more often than he should. Perversely, the fact that he could mark against two or even three opponents encouraged teammates to kick it to him in those low-percentage scenarios, instead of looking for the open teammate, the best option.
In footy speak, it's called kicking to the player, not the jumper.
Richo cannot be blamed for the 10 per cent performance gap. A stronger club, with better players, would have used him more productively, rather than killing the goose that could take the contested mark.
Richmond was already addressing the issue of succession planning when it turned Richardson from a key forward to a wingman-forward last year; clearly, Terry Wallace wished to create a structure that did not revolve around a player in his mid 30s.
Now, the Tigers' hand has been forced. The post-Richo future must be dealt with immediately. In the next 10 or 12 games, they will get a chance to test various forward options and structures, without that old convenient bail-out - send Richardson forward.
Richo has indicated he intends to play in 2010. That is his state of mind, but it could change four or five months hence.
The Tigers are likely to have a new coach installed by then, and there must be a possibility that the coach will insist on a clean-out of senior players.
There is no stronger cultural statement that an incoming (or even incumbent) coach could make than boning Richo.
The headline for Saturday will be "in Cousins and out Richardson".
At Tigerland, the circus will go on, even if Richo doesn't.
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/time-to-move-forward/2009/05/05/1241289172744.html
