One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: bluey_21 on March 13, 2006, 12:35:20 PM
-
IMO the 2003 draft was a real hot and cold draft for us. Gilmore and Archibald have already been given the cut, and on the chopping block at the years end IMO are Roach and Jackson. In Gilmore and possibly Roach we have wasted our first 2 picks in that draft, picks 21 and 37 respectively. Those picks would have been put to better use if we had drafted guys like Chad Jones (pick 24), Jed Adcock (Pick 33), Zac Dawson (Pick 41), Amon Buchanon (Pick 45) or Sam Fisher (Pick 55). Amon Buchanon and Sam Fisher in partcicular.
Saying that, I reckon we made some real finds later in the draft. Shane Tuck and the year he had last year speaks for itself. Already in our top 3 midfielders and young enough to hopefully have some more room for improvement. He has brought hardness and some real steel to a side that was viewed as being soft.
Hartigan showed some very promising signs in his first year, but was hampered last year with hamstring problems. Potentially our next small defender as he has a strong body, a bit of mongrel, some pace and is a smart reader of the play. Albeit he still has to sharpen his skills and round out his game, we should have high hopes of him coming on some time in the future.
But the player I have most high hopes for from the 03 draft is Andrew Raines. From the day he stepped into Punt Road, I thought he looked like a footballer with a future. He is one of the hardest trainers at the club and looks like a natural footballer, unlike players such as Jackson who look a bit lost sometimes. Over this preseason he has shown some more concrete evidence that he is really coming on. He has good pace and a kicking style reminiscent of his dad. If Wallace gives him ample oppurtunities and game time this year, i would seriously back Rainesy to give the Rising Star Award a real good shake! :thumbsup
-
We also picked up Browny :thumbsup with pick #6 (Kepler Bradley). So if Bradley plays 10+ years at CHB/FB for the Bombers you could argue over that one. I'm glad we got Browny as he showed up the gap in class between himself and what we considered our best players. Then there was also the Morrison (#64), Fletcher (#78) and Weller (PSD) recycled failures :-\.
IMO we so far have done ok out of the 2003 draft given we got 3 players (Tuck, Raines and Hartigan) out of one draft on top of Browny but from 9 picks we should have done better. Going for Gilmour who was a speculative choice at pick 21 was a major boo-boo. If one of Roach or Jackson come through then I'll rate it as a good draft for us but they are delisting candidates right now.
The Dons scored well their picks - Bradley, Stanton and Dyson. Port got Pettigrew, Chaplin and Symes who look promising. The Pies and blues screwed up big time ;D. Buchanan was redrafted by the Swans in 2003 after they had delisted him. He was originally drafted in 2000. Last year he was good but he had done nothing before that.
-
I would be a very unhappy boy if Jackson got cut at the end of the year. >:(
He is the type of big, quick, tall midfield athlete we seem to be trying to recruit. He has a heap of potencial going on his game on the Coast the other night. I am sure those learned people in our coaching ranks are very aware of this.
I think he will get another year if only due to the fact that he was taken very bottom age in 2003, is fairly new to the game, and is still basically a second year player.
-
I would be a very unhappy boy if Jackson got cut at the end of the year. >:(
He is the type of big, quick, tall midfield athlete we seem to be trying to recruit. He has a heap of potencial going on his game on the Coast the other night. I am sure those learned people in our coaching ranks are very aware of this.
I think he will get another year if only due to the fact that he was taken very bottom age in 2003, is fairly new to the game, and is still basically a second year player.
Jackson will be another Pettifer. Remember the saying 'patience is a virtue'
-
As long as Jackson shows some sort of improvement and willingness to learn then I think he will still be on the list next year, for all the reasons that H Tiger mentioned.
-
if anything at this moment i'm a little slanted towards anti jacko BUT he's still only NINETEEN so i'll more than happy to give him a few more years to come on.
His biggest liability is his decision making as he seems to panick under pressure.
-
His biggest liability is his decision making as he seems to panick under pressure.
experience, and time on the park fixes that problem
-
Didn't Jacko only start playing footy when he was 15 or 16 or something? He was a hit or miss choice, so will be interesting how he goes this year. Saw a couple of good signs out of him a couple of years ago and then not much last year. I remember a game when he was getting it out of the middle and delivering on the forward line really well. Can't remember what game it was, but left me pretty excited about his prospects. And then not much after that. Big year for him.
-
I would be a very unhappy boy if Jackson got cut at the end of the year. >:(
He is the type of big, quick, tall midfield athlete we seem to be trying to recruit. He has a heap of potencial going on his game on the Coast the other night. I am sure those learned people in our coaching ranks are very aware of this.
I think he will get another year if only due to the fact that he was taken very bottom age in 2003, is fairly new to the game, and is still basically a second year player.
Jackson does have a good physique and athleticism for footy, but he does appear to be a bit lacking in the footy smarts department and can tend to get a bit ???
-
He’s not alone there and the club would’ve known that from the start. Clubs want to go down the track of recruiting athletes, as opposed to ‘footballers’, and so there are likely to be more situations now where you wonder what players are thinking sometimes, if anything. But why recruit this type of player unless clubs truly believe they’re worth the time and effort?
Probably none of it is the players’ fault, because clubs choose athletes (who may have only started in the game maybe only 1-6 years ago) ahead of footballers, who won’t have the experience and therefore the necessary footy nous. They’re competing against players who have known footy all their lives and had a footy in their hands virtually from day one. Clubs couldn’t possibly expect players, who are relatively new to the game, to pick it up that quickly. No good chucking them out before they’ve been given a proper go, otherwise clubs shouldn’t even bother.
In an earlier thread somewhere, Will Thursfield, who also picked up the game late, said he’d had 5 coaches up until he arrived at Richmond and hadn’t really learnt anything from them. Only experience can develop footy nous in a player, but even basic kicking skills and so on can be an issue for any type of recruit.
I’m going off on a bit of a tangent here, for a change, but if clubs aren’t already, they will soon become like a school for players, unless the issue is addressed.
And maybe it does need to be, according to Wayne Johnston. On SEN the other week, he said that he has been involved in the U/18 competition and believes that time doesn’t permit players to be taught the basics of footy at that level. As a result, AFL clubs are doing the job of the under-age competition, in order to get players to the necessary standard.
If I understood him correctly, he was of the view that the AFL funded (?) the U/18 competition, yet clubs were having to pay again, so that they can educate / re-educate players in the basics of footy.
Weighing up some of those things, it would seem a huge waste of time, effort and money for clubs to recruit athletes and then let them go after just 2 or 3 seasons. Clubs would mostly be wasting their time if they thought they should get results in that amount of time. If they do then maybe there are some issues that need to be looked at, particularly at the U/18 level.
-
And maybe it does need to be, according to Wayne Johnston. On SEN the other week, he said that he has been involved in the U/18 competition and believes that time doesn’t permit players to be taught the basics of footy at that level. As a result, AFL clubs are doing the job of the under-age competition, in order to get players to the necessary standard.
If I understood him correctly, he was of the view that the AFL funded (?) the U/18 competition, yet clubs were having to pay again, so that they can educate / re-educate players in the basics of footy.
Weighing up some of those things, it would seem a huge waste of time, effort and money for clubs to recruit athletes and then let them go after just 2 or 3 seasons. Clubs would mostly be wasting their time if they thought they should get results in that amount of time. If they do then maybe there are some issues that need to be looked at, particularly at the U/18 level.
As I was driving to Learmonth for our intra-club game a few weeks back, some guy on SEN mentioned that some U18 kids are playing up to 50 games a season when you add their home club, TAC and representative footy all together :o. No wonder they don't have any time for anything else if that's the case.
-
Can't remember what game it was
Must have been one too many Reds, that day Moi ;D
I think Rainesy is coming along nicely, also think Jacko isnt that bad. Still has a bit to learn but could be a handy player for us with his pyhsical attributes.
I remember that the swans offered Amon Buchannan to us for Ray Hall the year he wanted to leave.
Who would you rather have?
-
I remember that the swans offered Amon Buchannan to us for Ray Hall the year he wanted to leave.
Who would you rather have?
Out of the two - Razor. Buchannan slips under the guard with Davis, O'Loughlin and Goodes dangerous up forward for the Swannies. I could see him coming to Richmond and doing stuff all.
-
Walls compares Carlton's recruiting mainly to ours and it just goes to show with Tuck and Raines you can still pick up some gems late in a draft if you do your homework. The Blues went for recycled duds and as we all know too well it only leads to disaster.
Robert Walls
The Age
June 10, 2006
Poor recruiting
In 2000, the Blues' first four picks were Luke Livingston (No. 4), Trent Sporn (11), Simon Wiggins (15) and Blake Campbell (31). Campbell's already gone, and there's a fair chance Livingston and Sporn will be gone at season's end.
Compare that with Richmond's first four in 2000: Kayne Pettifer (No. 9), Mark Coughlan (25), Chris Hyde (40) and Andrew Krakouer (41). Or the Bulldogs' first four in 2000: Jordan McMahon (10), Shane Birss (26), Daniel Cross (56) and Wayde Skipper (70).
In 2003, the Blues opted for ruckman Ricky Mott with pick 57. He's gone, having played only two games. With the next pick, at 58, Adelaide took another big fellow in Ben Hudson. Within two years, Hudson, who is out injured, would become the Crows' best ruckman. At 69 and 72 in 2003, the Blues chose Jordan Bannister and Adrian Deluca, who both struggle to get a game.
At 73 and 76 in 2003, Richmond took Shane Tuck and Andrew Raines. These two Tigers are becoming A-grade footballers.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/06/09/1149815318296.html
-
But the player I have most high hopes for from the 03 draft is Andrew Raines. From the day he stepped into Punt Road, I thought he looked like a footballer with a future. He is one of the hardest trainers at the club and looks like a natural footballer, unlike players such as Jackson who look a bit lost sometimes. Over this preseason he has shown some more concrete evidence that he is really coming on. He has good pace and a kicking style reminiscent of his dad. If Wallace gives him ample oppurtunities and game time this year, i would seriously back Rainesy to give the Rising Star Award a real good shake! :thumbsup
Well done on the Rainsey prediction bluey :clapping.
The 2003 draft is turning into another missed opportunity for us. Out of the 9 picks only Rainesy is certain of being around 3-4 years later :-\.
-
But the player I have most high hopes for from the 03 draft is Andrew Raines. From the day he stepped into Punt Road, I thought he looked like a footballer with a future. He is one of the hardest trainers at the club and looks like a natural footballer, unlike players such as Jackson who look a bit lost sometimes. Over this preseason he has shown some more concrete evidence that he is really coming on. He has good pace and a kicking style reminiscent of his dad. If Wallace gives him ample oppurtunities and game time this year, i would seriously back Rainesy to give the Rising Star Award a real good shake! :thumbsup
Well done on the Rainsey prediction bluey :clapping.
The 2003 draft is turning into another missed opportunity for us. Out of the 9 picks only Rainesy is certain of being around 3-4 years later :-\.
Thanks MT, if you want another prediction I reckon JON and McGuane will have a big year next if given a good run, Thursty as well if he is right to go early in the piece, but more particuarly JON
-
Thanks MT, if you want another prediction I reckon JON and McGuane will have a big year next if given a good run, Thursty as well if he is right to go early in the piece, but more particuarly JON
Not sure about McGuane but I agree about JON. Another year or two in the gym and he'll fit nicely into our defence.
-
imo mguane has what it takes, he will make it next yr
-
imo mguane has what it takes, he will make it next yr
As defender or as forward?
I reckon (and I've said this before) he has a chance as a forward but I am not so sure as a defender
And he's another one of blokes who needs to spend alot of time in gym
-
imo mguane has what it takes, he will make it next yr
As defender or as forward?
I reckon (and I've said this before) he has a chance as a forward but I am not so sure as a defender
And he's another one of blokes who needs to spend alot of time in gym
I reckon Lukey will make it as a versatile whitnall type key position player. A player who you can throw to either end of the field to plug a hole.
-
Revisiting the 2003 draft 5 years later....
No dodging 2003 draft
Herald-Sun | April 04, 2008
There is at least a five-year latent period for drafting, and as Cooney enters his fifth year it is worth looking back on that 2003 draft to see what it tells us about the players involved in the most inexact science in football.
To do so, the 2003 draft picks have been re-rated in the "hindsight, 20-20 vision draft", and that has unearthed as many questions as answers.
The hindsight draft rates the players on what they have achieved, not what they are going to do, much to the relief of some recruiting staff.
My retrospective No. 1 of the 2003 draft based on performances so far St Kilda defender Sam Fisher is a whisker in front of Cooney and represents one of the recruiting coups of the decade, taken at No. 55.
THE UPSIDE-DOWN DRAFT
The 2003 draft was a blight on the recruiting industry.
Their strike rate has proved to be embarrassingly low. It is the upside-down draft with the top 16 rookie picks dramatically outshining the 16 club No. 1 picks.
REVOLUTION
Soon mistakes of the magnitude of 2003 simply won't be tolerated.
More emphasis will be put on getting both the top and bottom selections right; there's no point finding a good rookie if your first pick is a dud.
LIKE FATHER, LIKE...
2. Clubs won't be intimidated by a false sense of loyalty to make a poor decision. In 2003, Richmond took Tom Roach and passed on Sam Fisher, Ben Hudson, Amon Buchanan, Brent Stanton and others. The same could be said of Melbourne with Chris Johnson and Collingwood with Brayden Shaw.
Simply put, father-sons can be as big a disadvantage as an advantage if your recruiting staff get it wrong.
Full article at:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,23480037-19742,00.html
-
Revisiting Richmond's 2003 selections..
Coach: Danny Frawley
Recruiting: Greg Beck, Greg Miller
Trade
Ben Holland to Melbourne for Pick 20
Picks 6 (Kepler Bradley) and 20 (Sam Butler) for Nathan Brown - 53 games
National draft
21: Alex Gilmour (delisted)
37. Tom Roach F/S (delisted)
53. Daniel Jackson - 38 games
64. Shane Morrison (delisted)
70. Brent Hartigan (delisted)
73. Shane Tuck - 71 games
76. Andrew Raines - 53 games
79. Simon Fletcher (delisted)
81. Kyle Archibald (delisted)
Pre-Season Draft
4. Ben Marsh (delisted)
11. Luke Weller (delisted)
Rookie Draft
4. Nathan Foley - 51 games
20. Marc Dragicevic (delisted)
-
Another lookback at the 2003 draft.
From The Age: Who your team picked
The club says "This was a kids draft and we had to get as many kids as we could, and a number won’t be ready to play for a couple of years. But there was a need for Danny (Frawley) to have enough senior blokes who could play straight away, that’s why Morrison and Fletcher were picked, and even Shane Tuck to a lesser degree (because) he has played senior football for West Adelaide. And obviously we had to get a couple of talls through the door."
Greg Beck, Richmond recruiting manager
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/23/1069027397819.html
-
National 2 21 Alex Gilmour 0
National 3 37 Father/Son Thomas Roach 11
National 4 53 Daniel Jackson Richmond 144
National 5 64 Shane Morrison 8
National 6 70 Brent Hartigan 35
National 7 73 Shane Tuck Richmond 171
National 8 76 Andrew Raines Brisbane 56
National 9 79 Simon Fletcher 6
National 10 81 Kyle Archibald 0
Pre-Season 1 4 Ben Marsh 7
Pre-Season 2 11 Luke Weller 7
Rookie 1 4 Nathan Foley Richmond 135
Rookie 2 20 Marc Dragicevic 2
super-draft :shh
-
Not too bad really. Jacko, Foley, Tuck. Decent.
-
Troy Chaplin, pick 15.
There are some spuds from top 10/20.