2007 - Preseason Preview - 8th of 16 - Richmond

[pahoffm]

Richmond
As a Tiger supporter, this team is always the hardest to be objective about. Unfortunately, I tend to be harder on those that I love. Please appreciate that.

The Tigers finished the 2006 season knocking on the door of the finals. Unfortunately no one opened the door, but many were left guessing how the Tigers got there anyway. Will season 2007 see them enter that door?
With the Tigers there seems to be that core group of mature players that are surrounded by a bunch of kids running about the outside of them. How long will this core group last?
Terry Wallace coaches them again. He is again assisted by Brian Royal & David King, with new additions in Craig McRae & Jade Rawlings.

Fig.1, The List
Trent Knobel	204	106	26
Angus Graham	200	93	19		rookie
Adam Pattison	197	98	21
Troy Simmonds	196	99	28
Ray Hall	196	96	26
Matthew Richardson	195	105	32
Graham Polak	194	93	22	new
Kent Kingsley	193	95	28	new
Jay Schulz	193	95	21
Cleve Hughes	193	84	20
Darren Gaspar	192	90	30
Jack Riewoldt	192	85	18	new
Patrick Bowden	191	89	25
Will Thursfield	191	83	20
Luke McGuane	190	84	20
Shane Tuck	189	90	25
Kelvin Moore	189	86	23
Joel Bowden	188	91	28
Brett Deledio	188	89	19
Jarrad Oakley-Nicholls	188	76	19
Kane Johnson	187	86	29
Daniel Jackson	187	90	20
Mark Coughlan	186	85	24
Chris Hyde	186	83	24
Dean Polo	186	80	20
Travis Casserly	186	75	19
Greg Tivendale	185	85	27
Andrew Raines	184	81	21
Andrew Collins	184	71	18	new
Tasman Clingan	184	73	18	new	rookie
Kayne Pettifer	183	83	25
Danny Meyer	183	76	20
Carl Peterson	183	70	19	new
Daniel Connors	183	79	18	new
Nathan Brown	182	83	29
Chris Newman	182	84	24
Cameron Howat	182	77	20		rookie
Shane Edwards	180	69	18	new
Richard Tambling	179	78	20
Matthew White	179	78	20
Brent Hartigan	178	78	21
Nathan Foley	177	80	21
Andrew Krakouer	176	76	24
Jake King	174	74	23	new	rookie

The List, fig.1, has 44 players, of which nine are new and four are rookies.
That core group, of players 25yo plus are now only 13 of the 44, 30% of the list. Of these, 7 of the 44, 16%, include Richardson, Gaspar, Johnson, Brown, Simmonds, Kingsley & Joel Bowden, and all are in the twilight zone. Conversely, 24 of the 44, 55% are 21yo or below.
From another aspect, only 15 of the 44, 34%, are 190cm plus. The positive of this is that the Tigers are a faster team than a few years ago, when that ratio was a lot higher.
I just ponder what will happen to the Tigers when that key group of now twilight players, that they rely on heavily, retires.

Fig.2 - The Spread
	<175	175-179	180-184	185-189	190-194	195-199	200+
28+			Brown 182 29 F	Johnson 187 29 M	Gaspar 192 30 D	Richardson 195 32 F
				J.Bowden 188 28 D	Kingsley 193 28 F	Simmonds 196 28 R
25-27				Tivendale 185 27 M		Hall 196 26 D	Knobel 202 26 R
					P.Bowden 191 25 D
			Pettifer 182 25 F	Tuck 188 25 M
22-24	Krakouer 176 24 F		Newman 182 24 D	Coughlan 186 24 M
	King 174 23 D			Hyde 186 24 M	Polak 194 22 D
				Moore 189 23 D
18-21		Foley 177 21 M	Howat 182 21 M	Jackson 187 20 F	Schulz 193 21 F	Pattison 198 21 F	Graham 200 19 R
		Hartigan 178 21 D	Raines 182 21 D	Deledio 188 19 M	McGuane 190 20 D
		Tambling 179 20 M	Meyer 184 20 F	Polo 186 19 M	Thursfield 191 20 D
		White 179 20 D	Peterson 182 19 F	Oakley-Nicholls 188 19 D	Hughes 193 20 F
			Edwards 180 18 M	Casserley 186 19 D	Riewoldt 192 18 F
			Connors 183 18 M
			Collins 184 18 M
			Clingan 184 18 M

The Spread, fig.2, indicates clearly the difference in generations at Tigerland. One group of players are 25yo plus, another is 21yo and under, and little seems in between.
One also looks at the talls at Richmond and wonder the situation if it hadn't traded for the likes of imports in Simmonds, Kingsley, Knobel, P.Bowden & Polak. Clearly, the Tiges would be in more trouble than the aboriginals in colonial times.
The big worry is still that enormous gap between the 25yo plus talls and the drop to those 21yo or less. In the future, there may be an opportunity to trade the excess of smaller mediums for ready-made talls. But, then again, when has any club traded talls for smalls?
The bulk of the list is in the 18-21yo age group, and the Tigers won't really be opening their premiership window until that group becomes 22-25yo, that is, four years time.

Fig.3 - Positional Depth
B:	King 174 23 D	Gaspar 192 30 D	P.Bowden 191 25 D
	Hartigan 178 21 D	McGuane 190 20 D	Moore 189 23 D
	White 179 20 D	Thursfield 191 20 D
HB:	J.Bowden 188 29 D	Hall 196 26 D	Newman 182 24 D
	Oakley-Nicholls 188 19 D	Polak 194 22 D	Raines 182 21 D
	Casserley 186 19 D		Edwards 180 18 M
			Clingan 184 18 M
C:	Johnson 187 29 M	Coughlan 186 24 M	Howat 182 21 M
	Tivendale 185 27 M	Connors 183 18 M	Polo 186 19 M
	Hyde 186 24 M
HF:	Pettifer 182 25 F	Richardson 195 32 F	Brown 182 29 F
	Jackson 187 20 F	Riewoldt 192 18 F	Peterson 182 19 F
	Meyer 184 20 F
F:	Simmonds 196 28 R	Kingsley 193 28 F	Krakouer 176 24 F
	Pattison 198 21 F	Schulz 193 21 F
		Hughes 193 20 F
R:	Knobel 202 26 R	Tuck 188 25 M	Foley 177 21 M
	Graham 200 19 R	Deledio 188 19 M	Tambling 179 20 M
		Collins 184 18 M

Positional Depth, fig.3, shows how thinly the experienced players are spread over the Tiger map. Take out 1,2 or 3 of those experienced players and big holes start appearing, with very inexperienced players below. This is very much like Essendon.
The flanks, especially the defensive flanks look very well stocked. The future rucks, and CHF/CHB, less so.

Conclusion:
The Tigers may enter the finals door in 2007 based on that core group of very experienced/twilight players, but unfortunately there isn't enough coming through in the next group to sustain the effort. At that time, the Tiges will fall back.
Tiger supporters will have to wait another 4 years for a more sustainable premiership window to open up when the bulk of the list becomes more mature.
The positive spin is that the Tigers' list affords Wallace four years to recruit & develop his next brigade of rucks & key position players before his day of reckoning comes, if Tiger supporters give him that time.

 

[CyberKev]

Re: 2007 - Preseason Preview - 7th of 16 - Richmond

The big worry is still that enormous gap between the 25yo plus talls and the drop to those 21yo or less. In the future, there may be an opportunity to trade the excess of smaller mediums for ready-made talls. But, then again, when has any club traded talls for smalls?
The bulk of the list is in the 18-21yo age group, and the Tigers won't really be opening their premiership window until that group becomes 22-25yo, that is, four years time.

Another very sound and remarkably unbiased assessment there, Phantom.

A few points:

1) I suspect that clubs may be more prone to trading talls for smalls in future, but the problem for sides trading the smalls will be that they will be trading for second tier talls or talls of the Polak ilk with plenty of unrealised potential, but an ever diminishing window of opportunity to fulfil their talent.

2) I still feel that big Richo is the quandary player for your club. He has always been a quality footballer and, despite his advancing years, still commands respect from opposing defences. That said, his pre-eminent status on your forward line results in a disturbing catch-22 wherein he simultaneously remains the best option of causing damage (and thus demands a lion's share of the ball being delivered forward), whilst also hindering the capacity for other key forward types to develop effectively. You would think that the Tiger coaching staff would we pushing the line to the midfield to mix up delivery, but this can easily be forgotten by players in the heat of battle, particularly with a target like Richo to aim for. I suspect that Richo's stature hasn't been good for Jay Shulz's attempted forward development, and it will be interesting to see how Richo is used in 2007.

3) A four-year wait, at this time, wouldn't appear too palatable for your hungry supporter base. I think this timeframe is a fair, if conservative assessment, but with the way contemporary football is going, I wouldn't be surprised to see sides in future performing consistently stronger with younger lists thatn we've seen in the past. As such, Richmond could yet handle the retirement of its older players with less disruption than we'd currently envisage. Much depends on how your key defensive options develop (I suspect Polak will go quite well, actually, but fullback remains an issue) and how effectively the side can promote effective alternative options to big Richo.

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

Re: 2007 - Preseason Preview - 7th of 16 - Richmond

You have Patto down as a forward and not a ruckman?

I know a ruckman these days probably should be well over 200cm, but in that case Simmonds doesn't count as a ruckman either.

Given Pattison's somewhat lumbering movement and limited leap, I really can't see him as a forward, whereas I can see him as a run all day ruckman, particularily dropping into defence.

Certainly we have gaps going forward, in small goal kickers, (though we will find a few from those who dont make it on the HBF), Ruckmen, CHF and Key backs.

If it takes four years for our young midfield fleet to mature, that makes any talls we draft this year about 21-22 years old then. They will have to be very talented to be established by that age. Therefore we will need to keep trading for talls, and since we can't often swap smalls for talls ('cept Fiora), we will have to trade draft picks (or do another brilliant swap of draft picks as Miller did this year).

Also, when thinking about a four year wait, the real upside is Cousins will be 32, but Judd will be still in his prime at 27. Hopefully the weagles will have waned by then.

I am not happy, but not overly concerned with our lack of young talls, simply because I can remember well St Kilda with Lockett. Having a fantastic tall player at either end of the ground, whilst entertaining and usefull, doesn't prevent your side being flogged week after week if you don't have a strong midfield and ruck division.

Last game of 2006, we had Richo, they had Judd, Kerr, Cousins. Our forwards never saw the ball. It really doesn't matter if the opponent has a gun forward who kicks 7 goals, if we have kicked 20. If they have a Scarlett type backman, also I don't worry, because with our future swag of midfielders, we will be kicking 2/3 of our goals from multiple midfield sources.

I believe that whilst it is best to have a balanced side, I'd take a strong midfield over any other combination.

 

[CyberKev]

Re: 2007 - Preseason Preview - 7th of 16 - Richmond

Also, when thinking about a four year wait, the real upside is Cousins will be 32, but Judd will be still in his prime at 27. Hopefully the weagles will have waned by then.

Not concerned by the other sides who will inevitably have risen over this time, Ghoster?

I believe that whilst it is best to have a balanced side, I'd take a strong midfield over any other combination.

In pure numbers terms there is merit to this view, but if you're only strong in the midfield you'll be in trouble.

It always amuses me that people like to think in either/or terms when it comes to preferred team structure.

Quality sides will always be well placed across the board and this includes the peripheral forward and back players who are routinely disregarded when talk inevitably turns to spine vs midfield.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Re: 2007 - Preseason Preview - 7th of 16 - Richmond

2) I still feel that big Richo is the quandary player for your club. He has always been a quality footballer and, despite his advancing years, still commands respect from opposing defences. That said, his pre-eminent status on your forward line results in a disturbing catch-22 wherein he simultaneously remains the best option of causing damage (and thus demands a lion's share of the ball being delivered forward), whilst also hindering the capacity for other key forward types to develop effectively. You would think that the Tiger coaching staff would we pushing the line to the midfield to mix up delivery, but this can easily be forgotten by players in the heat of battle, particularly with a target like Richo to aim for. I suspect that Richo's stature hasn't been good for Jay Shulz's attempted forward development, and it will be interesting to see how Richo is used in 2007.

How to use him has been the problem during his entire tenure at the RFC.
Too good to leave out but difficult to build a complete & fully functional forward line around.

Crucial players to our future are:
Thursfield, Hughes, Schulz, Polak, McGuane & Riewoldt. How Wallace & now Jade Rawlings, develops them will be critical.
At least 3 of those six players have to make it a KPPs and their time to do so is nearer than they think.

Nice report Phantom but 'in more trouble than the aboriginals in colonial times'?

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

Re: 2007 - Preseason Preview - 7th of 16 - Richmond

Not concerned by the other sides who will inevitably have risen over this time, Ghoster?

To quote D. Rumsfeld "It is important to focus on the unknowns, the known knowns, and the known unknowns"

or to put it in English, I fear the enemy I can see now, I don't worry about what can't be known.

 

[CyberKev]

Re: 2007 - Preseason Preview - 7th of 16 - Richmond

Not concerned by the other sides who will inevitably have risen over this time, Ghoster?

or to put it in English, I fear the enemy I can see now, I don't worry about what can't be known.

This is generally apt, except I'm reminded of those long ago national sides who spent all waking hours thinking about how they could coffee scroll the seemingly unbeatable Carthagian squad so as to get their hands on the global premiership cup, only to wake up one morning to the back page tabloid headlines that Carthage had taken such a hammering by the Romans that it was no longer even in the competition.

I'm not suggesting that the Beagles are likely to be expunged from the competition anytime soon (alas), but they're definitely no Carthage, much less Rome for that matter...

 

[CyberKev]

Re: 2007 - Preseason Preview - 7th of 16 - Richmond

Crucial players to our future are:
Thursfield, Hughes, Schulz, Polak, McGuane & Riewoldt. How Wallace & now Jade Rawlings, develops them will be critical.
At least 3 of those six players have to make it a KPPs and their time to do so is nearer than they think.

I agree that these players are of significant import, although 2007 is probably only crucial for Messers Polak & Schulz who are at an age and stage of development where a level of performance should be expected of them.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Re: 2007 - Preseason Preview - 7th of 16 - Richmond

Crucial players to our future are:
Thursfield, Hughes, Schulz, Polak, McGuane & Riewoldt. How Wallace & now Jade Rawlings, develops them will be critical.
At least 3 of those six players have to make it a KPPs and their time to do so is nearer than they think.

I agree that these players are of significant import, although 2007 is probably only crucial for Messers Polak & Schulz who are at an age and stage of development where a level of performance should be expected of them.

Fair point re Schulz and Polak as the 'seniors' of that young bunch..
Both will have to be able to hold down key positions in '07 and will be extremely important in shaping our immediate future.

 

[pahoffm]

Re: 2007 - Preseason Preview - 7th of 16 - Richmond

You have Patto down as a forward and not a ruckman?

I know a ruckman these days probably should be well over 200cm, but in that case Simmonds doesn't count as a ruckman either.

Given Pattison's somewhat lumbering movement and limited leap, I really can't see him as a forward, whereas I can see him as a run all day ruckman, particularily dropping into defence.

Simmonds & Pattison's a bility to play tall forward, as well as ruck roles, is a plus. We'd really be in trouble if they couldn't.

I've listed both in the FP because they are adaptable enough to do so.
Knobel & Graham don't have that adaptability.

If Knobel had remained uninjured in 2006, we'd have seen more of the Terry's triangle scenario of 2005.
However, Knobel's unavailability led to Simmonds' overuse in the ruck.

Pattison, as he develops, will spend time in the ruck too.
As we have discussed in previous threads, like Simmonds, he is a David Cloke/Benny Gale type.
This is good.
It just means that Simmonds & Pattison provide a further option than JUST the ruck.

Thank goodness for that.

 

[Tony Braxton-Hicks]

Re: 2007 - Preseason Preview - 7th of 16 - Richmond

The Tigers may enter the finals door in 2007 based on that core group of very experienced/twilight players, but unfortunately there isn't enough coming through in the next group to sustain the effort. At that time, the Tiges will fall back.
Tiger supporters will have to wait another 4 years for a more sustainable premiership window to open up when the bulk of the list becomes more mature.

This is pretty much what Miller said at the 2005 draft night: a brief window for our experienced players soon (2008?) but then we'd have to wait until 2011-12 (I think) before a sustainable window would open.

 

[geoffryprettyboy]

Re: 2007 - Preseason Preview - 7th of 16 - Richmond

Tiger supporters will have to wait another 4 years for a more sustainable premiership window to open

What! Another 4 bloody years, I can't wait that long. Oh well, 27 + 4 = 31 years in the wilderness. I'll be getting in at pensioners rates. :hihi

 

[pahoffm]

Re: 2007 - Preseason Preview - 7th of 16 - Richmond

The Tigers may enter the finals door in 2007 based on that core group of very experienced/twilight players, but unfortunately there isn't enough coming through in the next group to sustain the effort. At that time, the Tiges will fall back.
Tiger supporters will have to wait another 4 years for a more sustainable premiership window to open up when the bulk of the list becomes more mature.

This is pretty much what Miller said at the 2005 draft night: a brief window for our experienced players soon (2008?) but then we'd have to wait until 2011-12 (I think) before a sustainable window would open.

Yep.
I think we all knew this way back then.

Nothing's changed, just steady progress along that timeline.

 

[Maxwell]

Re: 2007 - Preseason Preview - 7th of 16 - Richmond

Thanks for these reviews Phantom, just thought I'd point out that we finished 9th last year. not 10th as the title would suggest...

 

[pahoffm]

Re: 2007 - Preseason Preview - 7th of 16 - Richmond

Thanks for these reviews Phantom, just thought I'd point out that we finished 9th last year.  not 10th as the title would suggest... 

Thanks!

 

[TOT70]

Well done, Phantom. This is a fair and reasonable assessment.

Regarding the period between 2009-2011:

Five things need to happen to keep the list thereabouts during this period.

1. GM will use the trade period, the PSD and late draft picks to shore up our smallish group of players who will be in their prime during this period. He has shown that he has no problems with doing this, having already recruited Simmonds, Knobel, PBowden, Polak and Kingsley over the last two years to do exactly that. Expect one or two more each season. He has to do it or they will fall away to the bottom of the ladder during this period.

2. New leaders will emerge from the mid-range group. So far, only Coughlan and Newman have shown any leadership potential. If no-one else puts their hand up then we can expect a group of 23-24 year old leaders like Deledio and Tambling to be given the gig. Shades of 1971 when the young Royce Hart- Kevin Bartlett-Francis Bourke regime began or 1979 when Wood, Cloke, Raines emerged.

3. Two or three of the senior group will have their careers extended through necessity. Richo won't go around for four more years, Johnson will be cut down by injury by then but Simmonds, JBowden, Kingsley and possibly Nathan Brown might just be good enough to go around until the end of 2010.

4. The players recruited during the Wallace era will provide a large group of young, enthusiastic, fleet-footed foot-soldiers, all around 20-22 and with 30-100 games under their belts. This will make up for some of the weaknesses in the older players.

5. Two quality ruckmen who are both 200cm+ and mobile will need to be found and a genuine key defender has to emerge. I doubt any of these players are on the list atm.

I'm not talking premierships now, just regular finals appearances. I don't believe that clubs can assemble teams for premierships. All they can do is build a winning culture, keep the team around the mark and presenting for regular duty around finals time. The rest depends on their ability to grasp the opportunity and a fair slice of luck.

Agree with most of your assessment.

 

[CyberKev]

I'm not talking premierships now, just regular finals appearances.  I don't believe that clubs can assemble teams for premierships.  All they can do is build a winning culture, keep the team around the mark and presenting for regular duty around finals time.  The rest depends on their ability to grasp the opportunity and a fair slice of luck.

Excellent comment.

Obviously clubs crave premiership wins above all else, as they should, but the last two premiers have provided us with ample evidence of the luck that is required to snare the ultimate prize.

Unfortunately, many fans have a blinkered view that premiership wins are the only measure of success for contemporary football clubs.

As I see it, the real measure of success for clubs lies in ensuring off-field stability whilst simultaneously achieving a regular presence in finals series on the paddock.

This shows that you have the structure, playing talent and work ethic in place to be able to capitalise on the luck that may come your way in September. The actual premierships themselves will effectively be the icing on the cake.

Overall your plan of attack was also a very credible one.

 

[pahoffm]

Even then, there's how you handle your luck.

Case in point being the Kangas 1999 Grand Final.
They lost their CHB, Jason McCartney, during the finals, and the Kangas weren't a tall side.
Now at this late hour, and after just completing 13 hours of work, I've got "buckleys" of remembering who replaced him, but they did, and still won the premiership.

Brisbane, during their 3 premierships, were constantly battling injuries to their key ruckmen.
Charman, Keating & McDonald all had varying injuries throughout the period 2001-2003 yet that did not prevent the premierships.

There are many other examples of the above.

There are also many examples of teams failing because they lost players that could not be replaced, only because a replacement wasn't on the list.
Collingwood case in point.
Were Jason Cloke or Anthony Rocca irreplaceable players?
On ability, no. By the fact that there was no replacement on the list, yes.

The Simmonds injury, this week, may well prove this point.
You need 2 ruckmen per game, but you probably need 3-4 per season.
You may only need another 2 tall KPPS per game, but, again, double that per season.
You may need 3 rovers per game, but you need 6 per season.
You may only need 6-8 rotating midfielders in a game, but you need 12 per season.

That's why the AFL give each team 44 players to shuffle around.
So you can have depth of ALL types.

Anyway, enough pontificating, I'm going to bed.

 

[TOT70]

Case in point being the Kangas 1999 Grand Final.
They lost their CHB, Jason McCartney, during the finals, and the Kangas weren't a tall side.
Now at this late hour, and after just completing 13 hours of work, I've got "buckleys" of remembering who replaced him, but they did, and still won the premiership.

Luck is a funny thing. Would the Kangas have won that premiership if a rampant Essendon had been their opponents, instead of Carlton? You might recall that the Blues made it on the back of a 1 point victory and a couple of dodgy late decisions.

If you look up luck in the dictionary you'll see video of Nick Davis' four last quarter goals against Geelong earlier in the finals series. There would have been no preimiership without that little cameo.

What about Shane Ellen in Adelaide's premiership or even Ted Hokpins in 1970? Where did those goals come from? Or Leo Barry's match-saving mark? There were potential free kicks in that pack, luckily there was an umpire with a modicum of common sense around.

All the recent premiers have ridden their luck in the same way. If your team is a regular finals participant then opportunites arise and each season, someone takes one. Essendon should have won at least three premierships from 1999-2001. They were very unlucky and only managed one.

The Tigers should aim to spend the next 4 or 5 seasons as regular finals participants, just as Sydney, WC, Melbourne, Adelaide and StKilda have done over the last 4 or 5. Good recruiting over this period will attend to the deficiencies that we can all see in the team.

The Simmonds injury opens up an opportunity for Pattison and maybe even for Graham. Those two boys could hasten their development as a result of this injury, just as the injuries to Coughlan and Newman last year gave opportunities to White and Foley.

 

[pahoffm]

Yep, luck certainly comes into it.

And how you premeditate it is what counts.

There are those that say, "I won despite these factors going against me."

and there are others that say, "I lost because things happened out of my control."