Recent Posts

1

Richmond Rant / Re: Rookie Draft

« Last post by Tiger Khosh on Today at 12:07:10 AM »

Also bear in mind we traded back into the draft to get NRT. I’m assuming that move was decided late on the night when the team saw him sliding further than what they expected. It’s possible that if that hadn’t happened with an extra spot on our list, they would have indeed rookied Louie.

I’m fairly certain as Geischan stated many times they had various convos with the kellaway fam throughout the year and were open and honest with them with their intentions. Probably something along the lines of we like you as a player and would like to select you however we can’t garauntee that as we are right for list spots so we’ll just have to see on the day.

I’m sure the boy and fam are disappointed but hopefully he puts his head down and gets onto a list whether that’s with us or elsewhere.

The traditionalist in me would have liked to seen us pick him, but I don’t think you can fault the club for passing if they have other players they rate ahead of him.

2

Richmond Rant / Re: Rookie Draft

« Last post by Damo on Yesterday at 11:58:47 PM »

Doesn’t stop any other club bidding on him

If we didn’t nominate him, it’s clear as day he wouldn’t have got drafted

No other team was interested

If his last name was Ming it wouldn’t even be a discussion

3

Richmond Rant / Re: Rookie Draft

« Last post by camboon on Yesterday at 11:26:10 PM »

I watched a bit of him and thought he was worth a late spot on our list, but it’s not our call
.i thought he showed more than some that we kept on the current list.
 .
It would appear he wasn’t earmarked full stop as there was no one who they though was a better player in the rookie draft or the would have picked them but they have chosen to look and see if someone steps up somewhere .

I don’t think they should have listed Kellaway as a father son pick if they had no intention of picking him, I guess players can also opt out of being nominated as a father son to give themselves more chance of being picked.

4

Richmond Rant / Re: Pick 54: Noah Roberts-Thomson

« Last post by Tiger Khosh on Yesterday at 11:00:45 PM »

I know it’s just a highlights video which will look good for any player, but this kid looks a good prospect. Quick as, good endurance, led the sanfl u18 for clearances, has scoreboard impact. Could be a shrewd pickup.

5

Richmond Rant / Re: Pick 31: Zane Peucker

« Last post by Andyy on Yesterday at 10:40:30 PM »

D 25
Goals 1.3
Clearance 3
I50s 5
 

I like those stats.

Just translate it all to AFL level and I'll forgive the Kellaway snub

6

Richmond Rant / Re: Pick 31: Zane Peucker

« Last post by ajGreen on Yesterday at 09:15:55 PM »

 D 25
Goals 1.3
Clearance 3
I50s 5
 

7

General Discussion / Re: Cricket thread

« Last post by Tiger Khosh on Yesterday at 08:42:14 PM »

Classic bazball. All out for 170 within 30ish overs.

Looking like plenty at the moment

Some of the dumbest batting you’ll see. Just these last 2 wickets of starc and Carey boggles the mind.

8

General Discussion / Re: Cricket thread

« Last post by Damo on Yesterday at 08:09:41 PM »

Classic bazball. All out for 170 within 30ish overs.

Looking like plenty at the moment

9

Richmond Rant / Re: Rookie Draft

« Last post by Damo on Yesterday at 08:08:34 PM »

Hard for some to understand but Richmond just cant be up front and not nominate a player if they don’t intend to take him. To give someone hope and then tell them we’ve changed our mind and think that’s ok tells you a lot about those people.

Ever thought they might have taken him if they didn’t get another kid they had earmarked for the spot?

Eg, if we don’t get player xxx in the draft, we will take Kellaway.

He would have been told clearly there is no promises.

10

Richmond Rant / Re: 2025 AFL Draft

« Last post by Hart4Jack on Yesterday at 06:45:23 PM »

Hopefully improves our speed and tickling . Lost alot of pace when Bolton and Rioli left

Yes we did, but we won more games without them.