Richmond List Analysis (footytragic.com)

[one-eyed]

The footy tragic website has done a detailed list analysis of Richmond:

http://www.footytragic.com/blog/list-analysis/list-analysis-richmond-tigers/

[Chuck17]

Funny comment on the Big O

[the claw]

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.

[Loui Tufga]

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 I didn't read a damn thing in that guys report that you have ever posted or would ever agree with please feel free to elaborate further

[the claw]

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 I didn't read a damn thing in that guys report that you have ever posted or would ever agree with please feel free to elaborate further

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.

[Danog]

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 I didn't read a damn thing in that guys report that you have ever posted or would ever agree with please feel free to elaborate further

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?

[the claw]

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 I didn't read a damn thing in that guys report that you have ever posted or would ever agree with please feel free to elaborate further

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.

[Mr Magic]

geez the blokes been reading my posts.

 

[Danog]

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 I didn't read a damn thing in that guys report that you have ever posted or would ever agree with please feel free to elaborate further

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?

[Bengal]

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.

[the claw]

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

[the claw]

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.

[Danog]

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

[tiga]

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.  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.

[Yeahright]

Astbury got destroyed by Liam Jones FFS hahahaha