One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on February 20, 2013, 03:26:29 PM
-
The footy tragic website has done a detailed list analysis of Richmond:
http://www.footytragic.com/blog/list-analysis/list-analysis-richmond-tigers/
-
Funny comment on the Big O
-
geez the blokes been reading my posts. one way or another its what ive been saying. ah well so much for list management eh.
the only thing i disagree on is best 22. i still believe we need to promote and get games into the better kids and build the right structures. so its not so much a best 22 but a needs for the future side. even in saying that its still close to best 22 anyway.
i fervently believe there is no place for all 3 of king nahas and s edwards in the one forward line. one only but i can live with two, im looking forward to the day when a skilled player like mcdonough forces them all out.
i strongly believe vickery has to play as a resting ruckman and we need to develop one of astbury or griffiths at chf.
i also have batchelor or mcintosh in front of newman in the backline. , no place for front runner houli prefering to give helbig a crack down back . jackson at coburg.
b/ morris - chaplin - grimes
hb/ helbig/ellis one of - rance - batchelor/mcintosh. one of.
c/ grigg - tuck - deledio
hf/ s edwards - griffiths - martin. hopefully both martin and edwards can be a significant part of midfield rotations.
f/ vickery - riewoldt - king/nahas/a edwards one of. would go king for pace and defencive attributes. would be tempted to then play aaron edwards of the bench.
r/ maric - cotchin - foley
int/ vlastuin - newman - conca - ellis/helbig knights/ lonergan one of. imo newman is in trouble but his experience will not be overlooked can he reinvent himself as a mid. vlastuin is good enough and has to be given games.
-
geez the blokes been reading my posts. one way or another its what ive been saying. ah well so much for list management eh.
LMAO :lol I didn't read a damn thing in that guys report that you have ever posted or would ever agree with :rollin please feel free to elaborate further :huh
-
geez the blokes been reading my posts. one way or another its what ive been saying. ah well so much for list management eh.
LMAO :lol I didn't read a damn thing in that guys report that you have ever posted or would ever agree with :rollin please feel free to elaborate further :huh
why woulld i want to elaborate. the bloke has rehashed just about every thing ive said on this site , albeit in far more detail with lots of stats to back up what hes said.
petty people never have the decency to acknowledge others especially when they argue with them. or your such a rude person you never really read aothers posts. both imo.
now we have the silliness out of the way can any objective person make comment on his spread sheet. surely people have concerns there.
his analysis also states quite pertinently that while finals should be the aim 2013 is also likely to be a yr where we get more games into our kids. in other words its not the be all end all i wonder whos been pushing that barrow.
not a lot of mids named there and theres a big reliance still on a handful. he names just 14. well come rnd 1 we will play at least 9 possibly more genuine mids in the seniors alone. plain old common sense says thats at least 4 too few and theirs a heavy reliance on the ones he has named. what happens to coburg again. shouldnt our reserves mirror our seniuors isnt that the whole idea of dumping coburg.
just 3 tall forwards and one of them includes the second ruckman vickery on the list. . mcguane has suddenly become a utility. lol so a failed backman who has a few okay games forward is a utility.
hes critical of stephenson and so he should be.
names morris and helbig as small defenders but at 185cm they are certainly mediums and good sized ones.
hes critical of the backline and the tall structure i wonder where we have heard that eh.
he bags the forward line but if i listen to many on here king s edwards nahs are okay we do dont have a tall forward problem either but take jack out and what do you have? vickery but hes our future star ruckman, na ive never ever said anything remotely like what hes said. ::)
i wonder whos been going on about getting enough 100 gamers on the list. or the need to take mature players for god knows how long. or carrying on about experience. nope it seems the little idiot syndrome is alive and well with some.
-
geez the blokes been reading my posts. one way or another its what ive been saying. ah well so much for list management eh.
LMAO :lol I didn't read a damn thing in that guys report that you have ever posted or would ever agree with :rollin please feel free to elaborate further :huh
why woulld i want to elaborate. the bloke has rehashed just about every thing ive said on this site , albeit in far more detail with lots of stats to back up what hes said.
petty people never have the decency to acknowledge others especially when they argue with them. or your such a rude person you never really read aothers posts. both imo.
now we have the silliness out of the way can any objective person make comment on his spread sheet. surely people have concerns there.
his analysis also states quite pertinently that while finals should be the aim 2013 is also likely to be a yr where we get more games into our kids. in other words its not the be all end all i wonder whos been pushing that barrow.
not a lot of mids named there and theres a big reliance still on a handful. he names just 14. well come rnd 1 we will play at least 9 possibly more genuine mids in the seniors alone. plain old common sense says thats at least 4 too few and theirs a heavy reliance on the ones he has named. what happens to coburg again. shouldnt our reserves mirror our seniuors isnt that the whole idea of dumping coburg.
just 3 tall forwards and one of them includes the second ruckman vickery on the list. . mcguane has suddenly become a utility. lol so a failed backman who has a few okay games forward is a utility.
hes critical of stephenson and so he should be.
names morris and helbig as small defenders but at 185cm they are certainly mediums and good sized ones.
hes critical of the backline and the tall structure i wonder where we have heard that eh.
he bags the forward line but if i listen to many on here king s edwards nahs are okay we do dont have a tall forward problem either but take jack out and what do you have? vickery but hes our future star ruckman, na ive never ever said anything remotely like what hes said. ::)
i wonder whos been going on about getting enough 100 gamers on the list. or the need to take mature players for god knows how long. or carrying on about experience. nope it seems the little idiot syndrome is alive and well with some.
You realise we can't have 100 players on our list, right?
-
geez the blokes been reading my posts. one way or another its what ive been saying. ah well so much for list management eh.
LMAO :lol I didn't read a damn thing in that guys report that you have ever posted or would ever agree with :rollin please feel free to elaborate further :huh
why woulld i want to elaborate. the bloke has rehashed just about every thing ive said on this site , albeit in far more detail with lots of stats to back up what hes said.
petty people never have the decency to acknowledge others especially when they argue with them. or your such a rude person you never really read anthers posts. both imo.
now we have the silliness out of the way can any objective person make comment on his spread sheet. surely people have concerns there.
his analysis also states quite pertinently that while finals should be the aim 2013 is also likely to be a yr where we get more games into our kids. in other words its not the be all end all i wonder whos been pushing that barrow.
not a lot of mids named there and theres a big reliance still on a handful. he names just 14. well come rnd 1 we will play at least 9 possibly more genuine mids in the seniors alone. plain old common sense says thats at least 4 too few on the list, and theirs a heavy reliance on the ones he has named. what happens to coburg again. shouldnt our reserves mirror our seniuors isnt that the whole idea of dumping coburg.
just 3 tall forwards and one of them includes the second ruckman vickery on the list. . mcguane has suddenly become a utility. lol so a failed backman who has a few okay games forward is a utility.
hes critical of stephenson and so he should be.
names morris and helbig as small defenders but at 185cm they are certainly mediums and good sized ones. perhaps he means they can play on smls.
hes critical of the backline and the tall structure i wonder where we have heard that eh.
he bags the forward line but if i listen to many on here king s edwards nahas are okay. we dont have a tall forward problem either, but take jack out and what do you have? vickery but hes our future star ruckman, na ive never ever said anything remotely like what hes said. ::)
i wonder whos been going on about getting enough 100 gamers on the list. or the need to take mature players for god knows how long. or carrying on about experience. nope it seems the little idiot syndrome is alive and well with some.
You realise we can't have 100 players on our list, right?
geez id like a dollar for every time ive heard that lame one. seems its a last resort.
nope this yr 44 with the international rookie 45 is the number.its all ive ever worked to and so has the bloke in that analysis. its not the numbers its where the numbers are.
its not hard to do
18 genuine mids. imo we have 15 and some of those 15 are ordinary. we need 3.
6 tall forwards. imo including griffiths and the second ruckman in vickery we have 4 we need 2.
6 tall defenders dump mcguane add astbury and you have 6 ideal numbers not sure about type.would definately be looking to find a quality big f/b.
4/5 ruckmen. we have 4 but with derickx and stephenson likely to go we should be looking at at least 3 over the next few seasons.
4 specialist forward flankers i count 8 we can and should look to cut 4 over the next 2 seasons and take needs. we have mids who can perform the role as all sides do.
4 specialist backline flankers we have 5 with newman at 30 and likely to go soon numbers are good. again we have genuine mids who can also play back.
2 spares. use the extras to target areas that lack quality or an area thats made up rookies with a high fail rate.
but hey ive never ever gone on about this sort of stuff eh.
-
geez the blokes been reading my posts.
;D
-
geez the blokes been reading my posts. one way or another its what ive been saying. ah well so much for list management eh.
LMAO :lol I didn't read a damn thing in that guys report that you have ever posted or would ever agree with :rollin please feel free to elaborate further :huh
why woulld i want to elaborate. the bloke has rehashed just about every thing ive said on this site , albeit in far more detail with lots of stats to back up what hes said.
petty people never have the decency to acknowledge others especially when they argue with them. or your such a rude person you never really read anthers posts. both imo.
now we have the silliness out of the way can any objective person make comment on his spread sheet. surely people have concerns there.
his analysis also states quite pertinently that while finals should be the aim 2013 is also likely to be a yr where we get more games into our kids. in other words its not the be all end all i wonder whos been pushing that barrow.
not a lot of mids named there and theres a big reliance still on a handful. he names just 14. well come rnd 1 we will play at least 9 possibly more genuine mids in the seniors alone. plain old common sense says thats at least 4 too few on the list, and theirs a heavy reliance on the ones he has named. what happens to coburg again. shouldnt our reserves mirror our seniuors isnt that the whole idea of dumping coburg.
just 3 tall forwards and one of them includes the second ruckman vickery on the list. . mcguane has suddenly become a utility. lol so a failed backman who has a few okay games forward is a utility.
hes critical of stephenson and so he should be.
names morris and helbig as small defenders but at 185cm they are certainly mediums and good sized ones. perhaps he means they can play on smls.
hes critical of the backline and the tall structure i wonder where we have heard that eh.
he bags the forward line but if i listen to many on here king s edwards nahas are okay. we dont have a tall forward problem either, but take jack out and what do you have? vickery but hes our future star ruckman, na ive never ever said anything remotely like what hes said. ::)
i wonder whos been going on about getting enough 100 gamers on the list. or the need to take mature players for god knows how long. or carrying on about experience. nope it seems the little idiot syndrome is alive and well with some.
You realise we can't have 100 players on our list, right?
geez id like a dollar for every time ive heard that lame one. seems its a last resort.
nope this yr 44 with the international rookie 45 is the number.its all ive ever worked to and so has the bloke in that analysis. its not the numbers its where the numbers are.
its not hard to do
18 genuine mids. imo we have 15 and some of those 15 are ordinary. we need 3.
6 tall forwards. imo including griffiths and the second ruckman in vickery we have 4 we need 2.
6 tall defenders dump mcguane add astbury and you have 6 ideal numbers not sure about type.would definately be looking to find a quality big f/b.
4/5 ruckmen. we have 4 but with derickx and stephenson likely to go we should be looking at at least 3 over the next few seasons.
4 specialist forward flankers i count 8 we can and should look to cut 4 over the next 2 seasons and take needs. we have mids who can perform the role as all sides do.
4 specialist backline flankers we have 5 with newman at 30 and likely to go soon numbers are good. again we have genuine mids who can also play back.
2 spares. use the extras to target areas that lack quality or an area thats made up rookies with a high fail rate.
but hey ive never ever gone on about this sort of stuff eh.
Griffiths has shown infinitely more as a backman. Don't list him as a forward. Astbury has shown infinitely more as a forward. Don't list him as a backman.
Who are these 8 flankers that you count?
-
List management is all speculative rubbish. we need so many mids, forwards blah blah. What we need is genuine players. i believe all the list management strategies in the world wont help a team if it takes 5 years to get access/draft decent players that can fill those roles. You coach the players you have and that makes a good coach.
Really sick of all the Pelchin crap.
Saying we need 5 rucks and then recruiting 3 poo players wont make a good side and will fill all these spots with ordinary footballers..
I like the way Richmond is going about it. We've recruited well and the team is developing.
-
Griffiths has shown infinitely more as a backman. Don't list him as a forward. Astbury has shown infinitely more as a forward. Don't list him as a backman.
Who are these 8 flankers that you count?
opinion . mine is griffiths should play forward. hes done nothing as a tall defender and he has all the attributes to make a very good key forward.
imo again. both astbury and griffiths have been treated like jayden post pulled from one end of the ground and back again.
so lets place astbury forward and griffiths back you rob peter to pay paul and achieve nothing. the gaps are still there.
the 8 specialist forward flankers well footy tragic lists 9.
ohanlon petterd a edwards none have shown an ability to play elsewhere. king is a specialist defensive forward. white where else can you play him. nahas is a liability in the midfield. mcdonough was taken as a sml forward who they hope can become a decent mid i do to. s edwards has struggled imo over the yrs in the midfield hes found his niche playing primarily as a sml forward. i still have some hopes he can make significant contributions as a rotating mid.
footy tragic lists knights here and probably rightly so what has he done as a mid.
by my count thats 9.
Edit: fixed quoting
-
List management is all speculative rubbish. we need so many mids, forwards blah blah. What we need is genuine players. i believe all the list management strategies in the world wont help a team if it takes 5 years to get access/draft decent players that can fill those roles. You coach the players you have and that makes a good coach.
Really sick of all the Pelchin crap.
Saying we need 5 rucks and then recruiting 3 poo players wont make a good side and will fill all these spots with ordinary footballers..
I like the way Richmond is going about it. We've recruited well and the team is developing.
i believe this is a list analysis thread where people will talk that pelchin type crap.
it really is simple if you dont like it or a fed up with it dont read it put your head in the sand somewhere else.
-
Griffiths has shown infinitely more as a backman. Don't list him as a forward. Astbury has shown infinitely more as a forward. Don't list him as a backman.
Who are these 8 flankers that you count?
opinion . mine is griffiths should play forward. hes done nothing as a tall defender and he has all the attributes to make a very good key forward.
imo again. both astbury and griffiths have been treated like jayden post pulled from one end of the ground and back again.
so lets place astbury forward and griffiths back you rob peter to pay paul and achieve nothing. the gaps are still there.
the 8 specialist forward flankers well footy tragic lists 9.
ohanlon petterd a edwards none have shown an ability to play elsewhere. king is a specialist defensive forward. white where else can you play him. nahas is a liability in the midfield. mcdonough was taken as a sml forward who they hope can become a decent mid i do to. s edwards has struggled imo over the yrs in the midfield hes found his niche playing primarily as a sml forward. i still have some hopes he can make significant contributions as a rotating mid.
footy tragic lists knights here and probably rightly so what has he done as a mid.
by my count thats 9.
That's absolute garbage. How is it robbing Peter to pay Paul? What has Griffiths shown as a forward? He's shown he's far more capable down back. He had great games against Hawthorn and St Kilda.
Astbury kicked 3 goals on debut as a forward. He gets monstered when he plays in the backline. He's got the smarts and ingenuity to play as a forward.
You say Petterd has shown no ability to play elsewhere? Is that why he was awarded a Rising Star nomination playing through the middle and off half-back for Melbourne, as well as receiving their Best 1st year player award in that same position? Is that why he's currently training in the HBF position for us, and performing extremely well at training?
Agree that White should be cut and Nahas traded at the end of the year. You've been bleating on for the past few years about how we needed more of these types of forwards. Now that we have several, you still complain.
Are you ever satisfied?
Edit: fixed quoting
-
List management is all speculative rubbish. we need so many mids, forwards blah blah. What we need is genuine players. i believe all the list management strategies in the world wont help a team if it takes 5 years to get access/draft decent players that can fill those roles. You coach the players you have and that makes a good coach.
Really sick of all the Pelchin crap.
Saying we need 5 rucks and then recruiting 3 poo players wont make a good side and will fill all these spots with ordinary footballers..
I like the way Richmond is going about it. We've recruited well and the team is developing.
Bang on Benga. :thumbsup Thanks for keepin it real. Keep things simple. As you said, if they over complicate list management by waiting for players to tick all the boxes, we will all be in boxes before we play finals.
-
Astbury got destroyed by Liam Jones FFS hahahaha
-
Astbury got destroyed by Liam Jones FFS hahahaha
Yeah don't like what I see regarding Astbury. Needs to show a lot more than what he has so far.
-
Astbury got destroyed by Liam Jones FFS hahahaha
Yeah don't like what I see regarding Astbury. Needs to show a lot more than what he has so far.
He's shown plenty as a forward, and should stay a forward.
-
Astbury got destroyed by Liam Jones FFS hahahaha
Yeah don't like what I see regarding Astbury. Needs to show a lot more than what he has so far.
He's shown plenty as a forward, and should stay a forward.
When? The most promising year he had for us was his first one. Since then (could be argued rightly so with the knee) he hasn't shown anything special IMO.
If anything he actually looks a little slow and seems to struggle with positioning. I'd agree he looks 'better' as a forward, but that is because he looks useless as a defender.
-
Astbury got destroyed by Liam Jones FFS hahahaha
Yeah don't like what I see regarding Astbury. Needs to show a lot more than what he has so far.
He's shown plenty as a forward, and should stay a forward.
Outmarking Hurley once doesnt constitute heaps, although i like him we do have plenty of his type.. i think it will come down to who stands up and performs as to who stays.. At present he isnt there yet
-
Anyone got a summary, that made the Koran look brief by comparison :lol
-
Love the potential of griff ,but the only thing hes shown me so far is an unbelievable ability to get injured.
-
Astbury got destroyed by Liam Jones FFS hahahaha
Yeah don't like what I see regarding Astbury. Needs to show a lot more than what he has so far.
He's shown plenty as a forward, and should stay a forward.
When? The most promising year he had for us was his first one. Since then (could be argued rightly so with the knee) he hasn't shown anything special IMO.
If anything he actually looks a little slow and seems to struggle with positioning. I'd agree he looks 'better' as a forward, but that is because he looks useless as a defender.
You are forgetting his good footy brain and outstanding leadership qualities.
It doesn't get kicks on the footy field but it sure sounds impressive.
-
Just a general question I am putting out there, if you can't structure a paragraph properly what are the chances you could consider yourself as some expert in your pants analysis on list structure.
who considers himself an expert all ive ever done is voice my opinion on the subject bad gramma and all.
i have an interest in just 3 areras. recruitment, list management and development. get all three right and everything else takes care of itself imo.
so your telling us now anyone who has poor gramma has no idea on any subject.
seems a totally independent analysis by footy tragic .com agrees with me poor gramma and all.
most of you lot are tarred with the same brush. always willing to put the boots in to anyone who dares voices an opinion that differs.
but it seems never ever have an idea or opinion on what is being debated, in this case list management.
i at least put out there what i think is the ideal number of mids talls rucks flankers etc.
all ive copped so far is griffiths is a defender and astbury is a forward.
or this beauty from what must be a 10 yr old, list management is just speculative rubbish a person who cant differentiate the need for good players and the need for good players who perform different roles. yep bang on benga the sheep have spoken. hhhaaarrrggghhhh hhhhaaarrrrgggghhh hhhhhhhaaaarrrrgggghhh. i may not have good english but whos the idiot.
or danog who cant see that by placing griffiths as a defender and astbury as a forward as far as depth goes in critical tall areas all you are doing is moving the deck chairs the numbers dont change. id say thats robbing peter to pay paul.
do i need to go on.
its a list management thread and no one has the guts or an inkling to even suggest what they think an ideal number of mids on alist is, or an ideal number of rucks or talls or defenders and importantly why.
seems to me only one person is prepared to state these things and the sheep jump all over it.
do we want a list management debate or not, or do you all just want to do a bengal and shove your heads up your arses and pretend the sun is shining.
i come on here to talk footy and voice my opinion even if it differs to most. not run with the herd like most of the lil buddys obviously do.
who the hell comes on an internet forum to be buddys with others most be a lonely existence at home.
-
Just a general question I am putting out there, if you can't structure a paragraph properly what are the chances you could consider yourself as some expert in your pants analysis on list structure.
who considers himself an expert all ive ever done is voice my opinion on the subject bad gramma and all.
i have an interest in just 3 areras. recruitment, list management and development. get all three right and everything else takes care of itself imo.
so your telling us now anyone who has poor gramma has no idea on any subject.
seems a totally independent analysis by footy tragic .com agrees with me poor gramma and all.
most of you lot are tarred with the same brush. always willing to put the boots in to anyone who dares voices an opinion that differs.
but it seems never ever have an idea or opinion on what is being debated, in this case list management.
i at least put out there what i think is the ideal number of mids talls rucks flankers etc.
all ive copped so far is griffiths is a defender and astbury is a forward.
or this beauty from what must be a 10 yr old, list management is just speculative rubbish a person who cant differentiate the need for good players and the need for good players who perform different roles. yep bang on benga the sheep have spoken. hhhaaarrrggghhhh hhhhaaarrrrgggghhh hhhhhhhaaaarrrrgggghhh. i may not have good english but whos the idiot.
or danog who cant see that by placing griffiths as a defender and astbury as a forward as far as depth goes in critical tall areas all you are doing is moving the deck chairs the numbers dont change. id say thats robbing peter to pay paul.
do i need to go on.
its a list management thread and no one has the guts or an inkling to even suggest what they think an ideal number of mids on alist is, or an ideal number of rucks or talls or defenders and importantly why.
seems to me only one person is prepared to state these things and the sheep jump all over it.
do we want a list management debate or not, or do you all just want to do a bengal and shove your heads up your arses and pretend the sun is shining.
i come on here to talk footy and voice my opinion even if it differs to most. not run with the herd and stick my nose up everyones arse like most of the lil buddys obviously do.
who the hell comes on an internet forum to be buddys with others most be a lonely existence at home.
Anyway i will add you shouldnt get list management mixed up with team structure.. big difference and probably shows your obsession is getting in the way of constructive thought.
-
Just a general question I am putting out there, if you can't structure a paragraph properly what are the chances you could consider yourself as some expert in your pants analysis on list structure.
who considers himself an expert all ive ever done is voice my opinion on the subject bad gramma and all.
i have an interest in just 3 areras. recruitment, list management and development. get all three right and everything else takes care of itself imo.
so your telling us now anyone who has poor gramma has no idea on any subject.
seems a totally independent analysis by footy tragic .com agrees with me poor gramma and all.
most of you lot are tarred with the same brush. always willing to put the boots in to anyone who dares voices an opinion that differs.
but it seems never ever have an idea or opinion on what is being debated, in this case list management.
i at least put out there what i think is the ideal number of mids talls rucks flankers etc.
all ive copped so far is griffiths is a defender and astbury is a forward.
or this beauty from what must be a 10 yr old, list management is just speculative rubbish a person who cant differentiate the need for good players and the need for good players who perform different roles. yep bang on benga the sheep have spoken. hhhaaarrrggghhhh hhhhaaarrrrgggghhh hhhhhhhaaaarrrrgggghhh. i may not have good english but whos the idiot.
or danog who cant see that by placing griffiths as a defender and astbury as a forward as far as depth goes in critical tall areas all you are doing is moving the deck chairs the numbers dont change. id say thats robbing peter to pay paul.
do i need to go on.
its a list management thread and no one has the guts or an inkling to even suggest what they think an ideal number of mids on alist is, or an ideal number of rucks or talls or defenders and importantly why.
seems to me only one person is prepared to state these things and the sheep jump all over it.
do we want a list management debate or not, or do you all just want to do a bengal and shove your heads up your arses and pretend the sun is shining.
i come on here to talk footy and voice my opinion even if it differs to most. not run with the herd and stick my nose up everyones arse like most of the lil buddys obviously do.
who the hell comes on an internet forum to be buddys with others most be a lonely existence at home.
I actually enjoy reading your opinion Claw, although I don't agree with a lot of it :P. At least you stick your neck out most the time and try and back up your reasoning. Although I wish you'd cut down the word count ;D
-
Just a general question I am putting out there, if you can't structure a paragraph properly what are the chances you could consider yourself as some expert in your pants analysis on list structure.
who considers himself an expert all ive ever done is voice my opinion on the subject bad gramma and all.
i have an interest in just 3 areras. recruitment, list management and development. get all three right and everything else takes care of itself imo.
so your telling us now anyone who has poor gramma has no idea on any subject.
seems a totally independent analysis by footy tragic .com agrees with me poor gramma and all.
most of you lot are tarred with the same brush. always willing to put the boots in to anyone who dares voices an opinion that differs.
but it seems never ever have an idea or opinion on what is being debated, in this case list management.
i at least put out there what i think is the ideal number of mids talls rucks flankers etc.
all ive copped so far is griffiths is a defender and astbury is a forward.
or this beauty from what must be a 10 yr old, list management is just speculative rubbish a person who cant differentiate the need for good players and the need for good players who perform different roles. yep bang on benga the sheep have spoken. hhhaaarrrggghhhh hhhhaaarrrrgggghhh hhhhhhhaaaarrrrgggghhh. i may not have good english but whos the idiot.
or danog who cant see that by placing griffiths as a defender and astbury as a forward as far as depth goes in critical tall areas all you are doing is moving the deck chairs the numbers dont change. id say thats robbing peter to pay paul.
do i need to go on.
its a list management thread and no one has the guts or an inkling to even suggest what they think an ideal number of mids on alist is, or an ideal number of rucks or talls or defenders and importantly why.
seems to me only one person is prepared to state these things and the sheep jump all over it.
do we want a list management debate or not, or do you all just want to do a bengal and shove your heads up your arses and pretend the sun is shining.
i come on here to talk footy and voice my opinion even if it differs to most. not run with the herd and stick my nose up everyones arse like most of the lil buddys obviously do.
who the hell comes on an internet forum to be buddys with others most be a lonely existence at home.
Anyway i will add you shouldnt get list management mixed up with team structure.. big difference and probably shows your obsession is getting in the way of constructive thought.
lol who has an obsession. its a list management thread ::). my opinion is recruiting, list management and development are the 3 key areas of any club and make or break clubs and coaches. just ask malthouse who often said as much.
the above truly shows ignorance. one of the main roles of list management is ensuring you have enough of the different types of players needed. its about ensuring theres enough quality in each area and its about having players in various stages of development and ready when injury hits and catering for succession.
list management and team/list structure arent mutually exclusive but very much inclusive. i suppose you get that out look when you espouse list management is just speculative rubbish.
blokes like pelchen are highly regarded because they are good at ensuring team depth, enough cover in most positions, the right balance between development players and mature players etc.
but hey list management is just hocus pocus fair enough.
-
Just a general question I am putting out there, if you can't structure a paragraph properly what are the chances you could consider yourself as some expert in your pants analysis on list structure.
who considers himself an expert all ive ever done is voice my opinion on the subject bad gramma and all.
i have an interest in just 3 areras. recruitment, list management and development. get all three right and everything else takes care of itself imo.
so your telling us now anyone who has poor gramma has no idea on any subject.
seems a totally independent analysis by footy tragic .com agrees with me poor gramma and all.
most of you lot are tarred with the same brush. always willing to put the boots in to anyone who dares voices an opinion that differs.
but it seems never ever have an idea or opinion on what is being debated, in this case list management.
i at least put out there what i think is the ideal number of mids talls rucks flankers etc.
all ive copped so far is griffiths is a defender and astbury is a forward.
or this beauty from what must be a 10 yr old, list management is just speculative rubbish a person who cant differentiate the need for good players and the need for good players who perform different roles. yep bang on benga the sheep have spoken. hhhaaarrrggghhhh hhhhaaarrrrgggghhh hhhhhhhaaaarrrrgggghhh. i may not have good english but whos the idiot.
or danog who cant see that by placing griffiths as a defender and astbury as a forward as far as depth goes in critical tall areas all you are doing is moving the deck chairs the numbers dont change. id say thats robbing peter to pay paul.
do i need to go on.
its a list management thread and no one has the guts or an inkling to even suggest what they think an ideal number of mids on alist is, or an ideal number of rucks or talls or defenders and importantly why.
seems to me only one person is prepared to state these things and the sheep jump all over it.
do we want a list management debate or not, or do you all just want to do a bengal and shove your heads up your arses and pretend the sun is shining.
i come on here to talk footy and voice my opinion even if it differs to most. not run with the herd and stick my nose up everyones arse like most of the lil buddys obviously do.
who the hell comes on an internet forum to be buddys with others most be a lonely existence at home.
Anyway i will add you shouldnt get list management mixed up with team structure.. big difference and probably shows your obsession is getting in the way of constructive thought.
lol who has an obsession. its a list management thread ::). my opinion is recruiting, list management and development are the 3 key areas of any club and make or break clubs and coaches. just ask malthouse who often said as much.
the above truly shows ignorance. one of the main roles of list management is ensuring you have enough of the different types of players needed. its about ensuring theres enough quality in each area and its about having players in various stages of development and ready when injury hits and catering for succession.
list management and team/list structure arent mutually exclusive but very much inclusive. i suppose you get that out look when you espouse list management is just speculative rubbish.
blokes like pelchen are highly regarded because they are good at ensuring team depth, enough cover in most positions, the right balance between development players and mature players etc.
but hey list management is just hocus pocus fair enough.
What you missed is, list management depends on the team structure a coach is wanting to develop. If he wants only 2 tall midfielders theres no point having 10 in the list if he wants 6 then yes he needs more. But unless you know the team structure you can never guess at the list management.. Enough said