2007 - Our worst season ever.

[bullus_hit]

Richmond's focus should be about adding 4-5 quality players a year, irrespective of whether these guys come from the beginning or the end of the draft.

it makes it easier if you have earlier picks.

Very true Harry, especially with recruiting talls but I think the difference between picks 1-10 and 11-20 has been overstated by many observers. With the trading down of pick 8 last year we were privy to many comparisons with pick 13 over the years and to be honest, pick 13 stacked up very well. Likewise, pick 1 compared to pick 2 and 3 looks very underwhelming as does picks from 6-10 compared with picks 16-20.

 

[hellenictiger]

Unforuntately the problem has been in the process in place to manage and control our senior list. Getting rid of Kellaway and losing Gaspar, did not help.

We picked up Kent Kingsley, in our "re-building" process, that was clearly one of the many mistakes.

Out of every 4-5 drafts, only 2-3 players go on to become superstars or 100 plus game players. This year, dont know why it never happened 2 years ago, but this year, for some reason, we started a development process.

Lets send out this clear and message based on reality, not all these kids are going to make it! Majority will brake down and fall!

We started a dramatic re-building process and it has been the worst season ever, we copped our biggest lost in the history of the club, we sit on one win and we have had losses by 7 goals or more regulalrly.

 

[bullus_hit]

Kinglsey and Graham were slight glitches in the plan but how can you say the rebuilding only started last year?

2004 will go down as a critical year with the likes of Deledio, Tambling, Patto, Polo, McGuane and Thusrfield all contiributing at senior level.

2005 was a bit of a let down with JON but I still have faith in Cass and Hughes and to a lesser degree, White.

2006 looks to be the jewel in the crown and I hope 2007 yeilds a few other bright prospects, hopefully tall ones at that.

 

[IrockZ]

Those 10/11 wins are going to cost us for another 10 years. If Wallace was any judge of talent he would have pruned the list then rather than set us up for a fall now.

I don't doubt Wallace can coach seasoned proffessionals like Wynd, Romero and Liberatore, but even the absolute quality of Nathan Brown didn't really shine at the Bulldogs until he left. After ten years in the coaching caper he is still yet to build a list and develop younger players.

Wallace can coach, just not us at our stage of development, the results speak for themselves.

How can finishing ninth possibly set us back ten years? Based on what logic? Are you suggesting that finishing down the bottom of the table can only occur if we have a perfectly deliniated graph?

Let's just look at Hawthorn for a second, they qualified for the priorities in 2005 and recruited Dowler and Ellis, Carlton picked Murphy and Kennedy. Any reasonable judge would be stretching the truth if they claimed these guys would make or break the clubs fortunes over the next decade.

I've always been of the opinion that pick 40 is just as important as pick 1, in fact it's more important due to the increased difficulty in uncovering AFL standard talent. You may have less opportunity to recruit a certain type of player but their relative importance cannot be reduced to a number on a sliding scale.

Nathan Foley was a rookie pick and is now our best player, Danny Meyer was pick 12 and will possibly be on the scrap heap in a years time, Jake King has been a revelation this year whilst JON flounders in the reserves. Success in list management isn't just about the number of picks a team has in the top ten, it has never been linked to premiership winning teams and certainly doesn't provide an iron clad guarantee when it comes to a recruits longevity.

Richmond's focus should be about adding 4-5 quality players a year, irrespective of whether these guys come from the beginning or the end of the draft.

lol at comparing jon and king, you cant be serious

it wasnt about finishing 9th or last on the ladder it was more about the games that were missed out to the young guys in favour of playing graham and p bowden as loose men in defence etc

stikilda were terrible in 00/01 because they gave games to the young guys and they couldnt handle it early on but since then have flourished, luke ball and a few others have copped their fair share of injury's but atleast they werent kept in cotton wool and are now tough seasoned footballers reaping the rewards

in 05/06 we probably didnt have that many kids so it was hard to play them but now its time our 2004 draft crop are given the games they need, im not talking about tambling because he's had enough chances but more thursfield/mcguane lets see if they are up to it

 

[pahoffm]

Personally, I had this gutfeel from the beginning of the season that the whole place was in "coasting" mode, i.e., that the whole organisation thought that things were going to happen rather than making them happen.

I spoke of this to a number of people at the beginning of the season, I know Sher's father was one I spoke to; I may have even posted it here on PRE. I know I also spoke of it to Gary & Greg.

It has always been my view that an organisation needs to relook at itself regularly.
A tree needs to be pruned annually to flourish in each growing period. (sic: Chauncey Gardener)

I know that Gary has conducted a review of the RFC earlier this season shortly after we spoke about the potential for coasting, the results of which we will see at season's end.

To me, there will need to be pruning for regrowth, not just in terms of playing staff but also amongst the coaching, support, admin, marketing staff too.
All staff needs to be reviewed to see if they still have that fire.

But I tell you what, if I was Gary,
I'd be running a repeat review immediately the season ends.

As said previously.
I'd run:
1. An ODQ on the entire organisation broken up into divisions of playing, coaching, recruiting, support, admin, marketing & the Board.
2. Team Reports on each of the Board, coaching, senior ldrshp, junior ldrshp, recruiting groups.
3. 360s on key members of the organisation - Gary, Steve, Greg, Terry & Kane
4. And finally, Self-Rating tests for each of the playing staff.

This assessment review would tell me:
1. Where the whole organisation is sitting.
2. Where each division is sitting in relation to the organisation.
3. How each of the teams see themselves as a group.
4. How each of the key members of the organisation are assessed by those directly around them.
5. How each player feels about himself at the RFC.

Personally, I'd be putting that in as soon as the season ends.
I'd be looking at it straight after with a view to acting upon where it indicates change should occur.

 

[bullus_hit]

Read the whole paragraph Rockabybaby, I wasn't comparing JON with King, merely highlighting an instance where Rookie draft has produced a player who looks like he's up to the grade and a top ten pick who doesn't - strange you should be in fits of laughter over something so innocuous.

Regarding Graham, he was picked up to provide guidance and leadership to the youngsters as well as holding down a position in the backline. If you think throwing a team full of babies into the lions den is good for development then I suggest you grab some footage of Richmonds late eighties campaign when KB did exactly that. After a promising start and a host of rising stars, good players such as Anthony Banik, J Pickering and S Ryan had their careers cut short through injury and shattered confidence as the men of the game tore through the Richmond spirit. There must always be a blend of experience and youth in any successful combination, playing a team of boys is more likely to hinder a players development rather than speed it up, that is why Wallace and co. haven't simply axed the whole team at once.

 

[IrockZ]

Read the whole paragraph Rockabybaby, I wasn't comparing JON with King, merely highlighting an instance where Rookie draft has produced a player who looks like he's up to the grade and a top ten pick who doesn't - strange you should be in fits of laughter over something so innocuous.

Regarding Graham, he was picked up to provide guidance and leadership to the youngsters as well as holding down a position in the backline. If you think throwing a team full of babies into the lions den is good for development then I suggest you grab some footage of Richmonds late eighties campaign when KB did exactly that. After a promising start and a host of rising stars, good players such as Anthony Banik, J Pickering and S Ryan had their careers cut short through injury and shattered confidence as the men of the game tore through the Richmond spirit. There must always be a blend of experience and youth in any successful combination, playing a team of boys is more likely to hinder a players development rather than speed it up, that is why Wallace and co. haven't simply axed the whole team at once.

king is 23 and jon is 19 so its a pointless comparison

graham was a rubbish pickup, we didnt need a 30 year old loose man in defence for "experience" when we already had chaffey/kellaway/gaspar at the club

look at brisbanes baby defence, some games they play well others they get smashed but the kids are growing together and will be consistent with time and its speeding up their development, matthews knows what he's doing

only have we started this year to get some balls and the gaspar/thursfield decision highlighted this

 

[bullus_hit]

Read the whole paragraph Rockabybaby, I wasn't comparing JON with King, merely highlighting an instance where Rookie draft has produced a player who looks like he's up to the grade and a top ten pick who doesn't - strange you should be in fits of laughter over something so innocuous.

Regarding Graham, he was picked up to provide guidance and leadership to the youngsters as well as holding down a position in the backline. If you think throwing a team full of babies into the lions den is good for development then I suggest you grab some footage of Richmonds late eighties campaign when KB did exactly that. After a promising start and a host of rising stars, good players such as Anthony Banik, J Pickering and S Ryan had their careers cut short through injury and shattered confidence as the men of the game tore through the Richmond spirit. There must always be a blend of experience and youth in any successful combination, playing a team of boys is more likely to hinder a players development rather than speed it up, that is why Wallace and co. haven't simply axed the whole team at once.

king is 23 and jon is 19 so its a pointless comparison

graham was a rubbish pickup, we didnt need a 30 year old loose man in defence for "experience" when we already had chaffey/kellaway/gaspar at the club

look at brisbanes baby defence, some games they play well others they get smashed but the kids are growing together and will be consistent with time and its speeding up their development, matthews knows what he's doing

only have we started this year to get some balls and the gaspar/thursfield decision highlighted this

I don't see how this year suddenly became 'The Year of The Testicle' when Chaffey and Kellaway have been out of the picture for 2 seasons.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, you obviously feel we have no future where as I tend to see a lot of positives emerging, time will tell.

 

[Tambling Man]

Bullus hit wrote:

How can finishing ninth possibly set us back ten years? Based on what logic?

Let's just look at Hawthorn for a second, they qualified for the priorities in 2005 and recruited Dowler and Ellis, Carlton picked Murphy and Kennedy. Any reasonable judge would be stretching the truth if they claimed these guys would make or break the clubs fortunes over the next decade.

If Murphy was added to our midfield for the next ten years it would relieve the pressure enormously on the rest of the midfield group-instead of copping a tag either Foley or Murphy would be able to go head to head. Look at the difference it makes to WC when Judd or Kerr don't play, Hawthorn without Mitchell or Hodge, Adelaide without Goodwin etc Instead of getting an elite midfielder we drafted a half back flanker who is yet to impose himself in any manner.

Kennedy will be a big strong CHF who can take a grab, those sort of players make Grand Final teams-and we don't have any.

Just about every priority pick in the last ten years has had a significant influence on its teams fortunes:-Hodge, Riewoldt, Fraser, Deledio and Murphy have all shown that they are either "A" graders or have the inate talent to become "A" graders. By "over achieving" and not taking the much needed medicine in his first couple of years, Wallace has ensured that we missed out on getting a a young quality group together spread over a couple of years.

There must always be a blend of experience and youth in any successful combination, playing a team of boys is more likely to hinder a players development rather than speed it up, that is why Wallace and co. haven't simply axed the whole team at once.

That is the point, Wallace tried to hedge his bets after the first year, the purpose of the RFC is to win premierships not to "be competitive". We would have been "unsuccessful" and gained more low and priority picks had Wallace continued the good pruning he made in 2004. Instead he continued with journeyman and trying to extract the best out of players that were obviously not AFL quality rather than scrub the list and start again.

I don't buy the "hindering young players development" line either. What on earth are the young blokes going to learn from the like of Johnson, Tivendale, Hall, Kingsley, P.Bowden, Knobel and Hyde who are all in their mid to late 20's? I seriously doubt whether any of those players would be picked up in the PSD on thier current salary. Club legends like Richo should obviously be retained along with our few "A" graders like Brown, but persisting with Hacks for the sake of teaching the kids has proven counterproductive.

 

[bullus_hit]

Show me some evidence priority picks win premierships? Sorry, I don't buy the line you have to finish bottom to build a decent team and I certainly don't buy into the fallacy that not getting priority picks in 2005 has set us back 10 years. That would have to be the most outrageous statement I've heard in a long time.

 

[IrockZ]

Show me some evidence priority picks win premierships? Sorry, I don't buy the line you have to finish bottom to build a decent team and I certainly don't buy into the fallacy that not getting priority picks in 2005 has set us back 10 years. That would have to be the most outrageous statement I've heard in a long time.

priority picks dont automatically mean premierships but if you are a non-interstate club with limited funds like we are they are a nice reward for being a crap team and the quickest way to improve your side, you might live in the dreamland where all 3rd round picks can be developed like the eagles do but it doesnt work that way

 

[bullus_hit]

Show me some evidence priority picks win premierships? Sorry, I don't buy the line you have to finish bottom to build a decent team and I certainly don't buy into the fallacy that not getting priority picks in 2005 has set us back 10 years. That would have to be the most outrageous statement I've heard in a long time.

priority picks dont automatically mean premierships but if you are a non-interstate club with limited funds like we are they are a nice reward for being a crap team and the quickest way to improve your side, you might live in the dreamland where all 3rd round picks can be developed like the eagles do but it doesnt work that way

I can see we've descended into misquoting and thinly veiled insults, I'll leave you boys to fight it out.

 

[tigerjoe]

To Round 18:

Average losing margin 40 points.

4 rounds of agony left.

As "puntroad64" said if Wallace sees his contract out, his and Spud's term will be known as "The absolutely lost decade"

 

[tigerjoe]

Does 2009 rival 2007 as our worst year ever?

2007 3.5 wins avg losing margin 35 points

2009 5.5 wins avg losing margin 42 points

This club just continues to break records.

Hit them hard Damian!