2007 - Preseason Preview - 8th of 16 - Richmond

[pahoffm]

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

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

I was about to write "in more trouble than the early settlers", then I thought about it.

Compare the plight of the early settlers versus that of the aboriginals of that time?

The early settlers had it easy, usually at the aboriginals' cost.

 

[U2Tigers]

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

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

I was about to write "in more trouble than the early settlers", then I thought about it.

Compare the plight of the early settlers versus that of the aboriginals of that time?

The early settlers had it easy, usually at the aboriginals' cost. 

OMG when is this righteous "they have been crucified for over 200 years, teary stuff going to end."

No offence but it is a footy forum,

Lets keep it on footy talk - something your very knowledgable at.

 

[pahoffm]

The main point that I've learnt from these previews is that the teams with the most balanced lists usually win.

This is no accident.

In 2005, when the preview of the Sydney list was done, it was clearly the best list of that year. They won the premiership.
In 2006, when previewing them again, to me, the list was not as good, but only marginally so. They'd lost Ball in the ruck, and a couple of other small changes.
Actually, I thought "premiership hangover" might affect them.
Credit to Sydney, the net difference in their 2006 season was about 6 points, against their 2005 season.

Westcoast's list was marginally better. Enough, to even overcome problems occurring within its team during the season.

For me, the point of the exercise is to identify patterns in the lists of successful teams, and how these can be brought to Tigerland.

For me, this is the closest I've come to in making a premiership predictable.

 

[tigerjoe12]

there is no doubt that there is a decent gap between our core older players and our core younger players.

this can be heavily attributed to the Danny Frawley era, close to no long-term planning

 

[the claw]

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.

did he really say that phanto.its a pity he didnt show some common sense when he first came to the club and why is he still recruiting as though theres no tommorrow.

on your review i agree with most i have been continually saying wallaces real 5 yrs starts this yr. as for pattison imo he makes it as a kpf or not at all.

one thing most people over look is the gap in the age groups when richo brown johnson simmonds and co are gone and thats not to far away we will go backwards. coupled with the many players who are not good enough and the draft failures that are bound to happen we are truly only at the beginning of building a list good enough of giving us sustained finals success.

 

[pahoffm]

Yes Claw, it was, as I believe, part of their plan.
1. Give the mature group a chance to play in finals, circa 2009, then
2. Develop a more sustained window that would open 2011/12.

The idea was to build a pyramid of juniors with Deledio at the top of the heap.
You'll notice 2011/12 times with Deledio being 25yo at that time.

Yes, my grave fear will be the key positions when the current lot drift away, circa 2010.
It takes at least 4 years to develop kpps.
Schulz & McGuane, the jury is still out on.
Thursfield is yet to return from a major knee injury.
Hughes & Riewoldt are too young.
Pattison is the only one of his type, in his age group, at the club.
Whilst Graham is 4-5 years off it, and not a star.

Mind you,
if we picked up a Kreuzer type with our next 1st pick,
and hopefully a Lachie Henderson with a 2nd pick, the problem would be solved.

The more I look at it, I think Wallace's basic ratio is at fault.
He believes it's a 1 in 4 ratio of talls to the total list.
If you go through the previews of the top clubs, I think we might find that the ratio is actually 1 in 3.

 

[TOT70]

The more I look at it, I think Wallace's basic ratio is at fault.
He believes it's a 1 in 4 ratio of talls to the total list.
If you go through the previews of the top clubs, I think we might find that the ratio is actually 1 in 3.

How do you figure this? How do you define talls? In my book, it is generally anyone at least 190cm, players who can play either ruck, KP or as third talls. 190 cm is 6 foot 3, which is still seriously tall. We have 15 of these, out of a list of 44, which is one in 3. I am still undecided about Moore and whether he can play tall and you could almost add JBowden to that list- after all, a 184 cm Leo Barry plays full back for the Swans.

There are some teams who have gone way over this number, particularly carlton but I wouldn't be looking at them for guidance on how to put a list together just yet. WC have a similar ratio to us, but they have invested heavily in additional talls on the rookie list. If we are making a mistake it is here by not choosing to put two more talls on the rookie list. At least one more.

In my view we are a ruckman short and probably need another development tall to gain experience at Coburg, without necessarily threatening to get a senior game in 07. The problem with Wallace is not his basic philosophy- it is simply that if he has to make a choice between a speedy runner who needs a couple of years of development and a taller player who needs the same, he will likely choose the runner.

The trend this season has been to recruit speedy runners. Clubs like Geelong, Essendon, PA, the Kangas, the Bullies and STK loaded up on them at the draft and many were quite speculative choices, if the pundits and internet experts can be believed. The goss coming out of several clubs is that they have been trying to shed weight off their players and ramping up their endurance more than in previous pre-seasons. Maybe Wallace has already got it right.

 

[pahoffm]

I also define talls as 190cm plus.

Yes the current list is 1 in 3, thank goodness for that.
Imagine what it would be like with Wallace's desired 1 in 4.
As I said in my Carlton preview, their talls are 53% of their 2007 list, which is sheer madness.
In 2006, talls made up 60% of the Carlton list.

Our problem at Tigerland is that most of our talls are either too young or too old with little in between.
What hurts us badly are those 4 players 190-199cms in the twilight zone, and an almost absence of 22-24yos that are 190cm+, but that was Mr Beck's doing.
God help us if we hadn't've got Polak.
Eventually, RFC supporters will realise how crucial he will be. We need another 2-3 built & aged like him for when Richo, Gas, Simmo & Kingsley retire.
Otherwise there's going to be an almighty crunch coming onto the shoulders of Schulz, McGuane, Thursty, Hughes, Angus, Patto & Riewoldt before they are ready.

I agree with your later proposition, in that:
We are 1 short in the 200cm+ region between the age 22-24yo
We are 1 short in the 195-199cm region between age 18-21yo

 

[the claw]

The more I look at it, I think Wallace's basic ratio is at fault.
He believes it's a 1 in 4 ratio of talls to the total list.
If you go through the previews of the top clubs, I think we might find that the ratio is actually 1 in 3.

How do you figure this? How do you define talls? In my book, it is generally anyone at least 190cm, players who can play either ruck, KP or as third talls. 190 cm is 6 foot 3, which is still seriously tall. We have 15 of these, out of a list of 44, which is one in 3. I am still undecided about Moore and whether he can play tall and you could almost add JBowden to that list- after all, a 184 cm Leo Barry plays full back for the Swans.

There are some teams who have gone way over this number, particularly carlton but I wouldn't be looking at them for guidance on how to put a list together just yet. WC have a similar ratio to us, but they have invested heavily in additional talls on the rookie list. If we are making a mistake it is here by not choosing to put two more talls on the rookie list. At least one more.

In my view we are a ruckman short and probably need another development tall to gain experience at Coburg, without necessarily threatening to get a senior game in 07. The problem with Wallace is not his basic philosophy- it is simply that if he has to make a choice between a speedy runner who needs a couple of years of development and a taller player who needs the same, he will likely choose the runner.

The trend this season has been to recruit speedy runners. Clubs like Geelong, Essendon, PA, the Kangas, the Bullies and STK loaded up on them at the draft and many were quite speculative choices, if the pundits and internet experts can be believed. The goss coming out of several clubs is that they have been trying to shed weight off their players and ramping up their endurance more than in previous pre-seasons. Maybe Wallace has already got it right.

yes we have the 1 in 3 ratio and yes the rookie list should have at least another 2 talls on it i wonder if we are ever going to learn in this regard.

although we have a 1 in 3 ratio my concern is not only with the age groupings but the quality. after our older talls amost of whom are getting close to retirement and theres a few who are not up to standard the next tier have huge question marks over them and its this that scares the hell out of me.
i can honestly say i would not be surprised if polak schulz mcguane moore pattisonand graham dont make it. the only 2 i am confident of are hughes and riedwoldt. even if in 4 yrs time if all of the above become servicable players i could confidntly say every other tall on the list would be gone so over the next 4 yrs we need to draft at least 7 or 8 talls most of who wont be ready come the 2011 2012 window.

 

[TOT70]

Yes the current list is 1 in 3, thank goodness for that.
Imagine what it would be like with Wallace's desired 1 in 4.

You are being a tad uncharitable with this claim. Do you have any evidence that Wallace wants a ratio of 1 in 4? That is what Frawley had in 2003 when there were 9 talls on the list. Do you really believe Wallace is that silly?

Our problem at Tigerland is that most of our talls are either too young or too old with little in between.
What hurts us badly are those 4 players 190-199cms in the twilight zone, and an almost absence of 22-24yos that are 190cm+, but that was Mr Beck's doing.
God help us if we hadn't've got Polak.
Eventually, RFC supporters will realise how crucial he will be. We need another 2-3 built & aged like him for when Richo, Gas, Simmo & Kingsley retire.
Otherwise there's going to be an almighty crunch coming onto the shoulders of Schulz, McGuane, Thursty, Hughes, Angus, Patto & Riewoldt before they are ready.

Can't do anything about what Beck and Frawley did. Miller and Wallace have addressed this imbalance and will no doubt continue to do so. Simmonds, Knobel, Kingsley, PBowden and Polak have all been recruited specifically to help bridge the cap between the old and the young in the area of talls. They have hardly been sitting on their thumbs.

This is quite a bit of evidence to suggest we can expect that any trading or PSD activity over the next couple of seasons will bring more talls between the ages of 24-28 to the club. It looks to me that the powers that be are on the same page as you.

Of course, if someone doesn't rate any of these players at all, they will not be pleased.

 

[Mr Brightside]

Like a lot of what you say ToT,I think what Phanto means is TW said on Draft day was that of the 22 in a team it was on a 1 to 4 ratio.

Now not to disagree with you Claw an many others for that matter, but how do you guys make such conclusions on certain kids, when tell me if Im wrong but you guys dont get to Coburg games or training an some havent played senior footy or very little

 

[pahoffm]

Like a lot of what you say ToT,I think what Phanto means is TW said on Draft day was that of the 22 in a team it was on a 1 to 4 ratio.

Thanks CC, I definitely had good memory of a 1 in 4 ratio from Wallace somewhere.

If one is focusing on the starting 22, and we agree talls are 190cm plus, let's see.
FB, BP, CHB, CHF, FP/Int, FF & Rk, that's 7 of 22, ie 32%.
That's still 1 in 3 in my book.

 

[skiptomystu]

Terry must have been thinking about the traditonal line-up with FB, CHB, CHF, FF, Ruck. 5 out of 22 ie, about 1 in 4.

 

[the claw]

Like a lot of what you say ToT,I think what Phanto means is TW said on Draft day was that of the 22 in a team it was on a 1 to 4 ratio.

Thanks CC, I definitely had good memory of a 1 in 4 ratio from Wallace somewhere.

If one is focusing on the starting 22, and we agree talls are 190cm plus, let's see.
FB, BP, CHB, CHF, FP/Int, FF & Rk, that's 7 of 22, ie 32%.
That's still 1 in 3 in my book.

agree phantom you missed one though back up ruckman on the bench thats 8. what most people dont realise is most of the better teams play up to 10 or more 190cm plus players.

 

[the claw]

Like a lot of what you say ToT,I think what Phanto means is TW said on Draft day was that of the 22 in a team it was on a 1 to 4 ratio.

Now not to disagree with you Claw an many others for that matter, but how do you guys make such conclusions on certain kids, when tell me if Im wrong but you guys dont get to Coburg games or training an some havent played senior footy or very little

ive seen more than enough of polak and schulz to form a pretty strong opinion i hope i am wrong.i have also seen a bit of moore and pattison. pattison i have never rated. he has deficiencies i just cant see him overcoming.although i will admit his skills are improving.patto is 198 and 98kg thats pretty heavy but hhe still looks skinny to me ans i wonder how much more weight and mass will slow him up. if he does make it i can see him becoming a bash and crash chf again i may be wrong but wont be surprised if he fails.
both moore and mcguane have attributes that say they could be good players moore in particular but hes turning 23 and has not gone to the required level to stay on a list. his size is a serious problem for mine and i think thursfield will keep him out of the side in time. mcguane is just 20 has a great leap and a good pair of hands he has failed to put on weight and needs to improve in most areas of the game he is one i havent seen a lot of.

im not saying any of them wont make it but the weaknesses hit you in the face and makes you wonder if they will make it. like i said i wouldnt be surprised if all of them fail though i doubt it.

at the end of the day i may walk away with egg on my face kids as young as mcguane and pattison i would normally keep my own council on and i certainly will support them for a time yet .

moore polak and schulz though are surely on their last opportunities. they have to show marked improvement on what they have offered up so far. they all have ability its time to show they can turn that ability into performance.personally i have grave doubts that they can.

the one thing or mistake the club cannot afford to keep repeating is hang on to players to long because of the potential tag. sometimes youjust have to cut your losses and go again.

 

[pahoffm]

agree phantom you missed one though back up ruckman on the bench thats 8. what most people dont realise is most of the better teams play up to 10 or more 190cm plus players.
[/quote]

No, I put down FP/Int, meaning the 2nd ruckman.
Personally, if the 2nd ruckman is good enough to pull down marks in the FP, fine, otherwise he can be on interchange.
Don't want a crowded forward line full of talls that can't take a mark.
So, for me, it remains at 7 of 22.

 

[the claw]

agree phantom you missed one though back up ruckman on the bench thats 8. what most people dont realise is most of the better teams play up to 10 or more 190cm plus players.

No, I put down FP/Int, meaning the 2nd ruckman.
Personally, if the 2nd ruckman is good enough to pull down marks in the FP, fine, otherwise he can be on interchange.
Don't want a crowded forward line full of talls that can't take a mark.
So, for me, it remains at 7 of 22.
[/quote]i understand what your saying but in the case of rfc that would mean parking simmonds in a pocket and rucking knobel most of the day. imo simmonds has failed miserably as a permanent forward at 2 clubs. his greatest value is around the ground. knobel doesnt mark a ball if his life depends on it simmonds will need to rest hence knobel on the bench. in fact in the modern game i would say in general terms the spare ruckmen forward doesnt work.teams tend to exploit it big time.

 

[pahoffm]

i understand what your saying but in the case of rfc that would mean parking simmonds in a pocket and rucking knobel most of the day.
imo simmonds has failed miserably as a permanent forward at 2 clubs. his greatest value is around the ground. knobel doesnt mark a ball if his life depends on it simmonds will need to rest hence knobel on the bench. in fact in the modern game i would say in general terms the spare ruckmen forward doesnt work.teams tend to exploit it big time.

I think we've got a bit mixed up.
In a day's play, Simmonds would either be in the ruck or in a fp,
Knobel would be either in the ruck or on the bench.

This is what I mean, hypothetically:

B: xxxx, *smile*, P.Bowden
HB: xxxx, Hall, xxxx
C: xxxx, xxxx, xxxx
HF: xxxx, Rich'son, xxxx
F: xxxx, Schulz, xxxx
R: Simmonds, xxxx, xxxx
Int: Knobel, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx

alternatively,

B: xxxx, Thursfield, Hall
HB: xxxx, Polak, xxxx
C: xxxx, xxxx, xxxx
HF: xxxx, Rich'son, xxxx
F: Simmonds, Schulz, xxxx
R: Knobel, xxxx, xxxx
Int: xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx

It's still 7 of 22.

 

[the claw]

i understand what your saying but in the case of rfc that would mean parking simmonds in a pocket and rucking knobel most of the day.
imo simmonds has failed miserably as a permanent forward at 2 clubs. his greatest value is around the ground. knobel doesnt mark a ball if his life depends on it simmonds will need to rest hence knobel on the bench. in fact in the modern game i would say in general terms the spare ruckmen forward doesnt work.teams tend to exploit it big time.

I think we've got a bit mixed up.
In a day's play, Simmonds would either be in the ruck or in a fp,
Knobel would be either in the ruck or on the bench.

This is what I mean, hypothetically:

B: xxxx, *smile*, P.Bowden
HB: xxxx, Hall, xxxx
C: xxxx, xxxx, xxxx
HF: xxxx, Rich'son, xxxx
F: xxxx, Schulz, xxxx
R: Simmonds, xxxx, xxxx
Int: Knobel, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx

alternatively,

B: xxxx, Thursfield, Hall
HB: xxxx, Polak, xxxx
C: xxxx, xxxx, xxxx
HF: xxxx, Rich'son, xxxx
F: Simmonds, Schulz, xxxx
R: Knobel, xxxx, xxxx
Int: xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx

It's still 7 of 22.

yes understand but personally wouldnt play a ruckman in the forward pocket. a great forward set up and what i would like to see at rfc went like this
HF; xxx brown xxx
F xxx lynch bradshaw sheesh if only.

a future rfc set up if they all develop would be
hf xxx riedwoldt xxx
f xxx hughes mcguane
in effect im advocating 3 tall backs 3 tall forwards and 2 ruckmen.

 

[CHF]

Re: 2007 - Preseason Preview

Hello Phantom and others.

Melbourne supporter here and sometime poster to this board.

I am a bit removed from the game these days as I am sitting on my bum in Spain and working in Africa, and Europe and travelling a fair bit so I have not seen a lot of games but, I do try to keep up with news and vision on the game and still drop by the boards a bit to read and keep up to date.

Last week I read a few of the previews and made a couple of comments on the Melbourne review and I thought I might air a comment or two regarding the Tigers.

I think your list reflects the coaching approach of Wallet. From what I saw at the Bulldogs, he invested a tremendous amount in mid range runners and leaves the talls and KPP's to take care of themselves. I don't agree with that approach and I think the present structure of your list reflects that.

The older group in the twilight of their playing days is, at best, ordinary. Richo, Gaspar, Hall, Tivendale are not at their best these days and most of them are still key players in your team. Richo and Gaspar have been in the past very good players but now you get an occassional good game from them but they are far from consistent. The rest of the older group were ordinary players in their younger days and have not improved. This is a reflection on the very ordinary drafting you have had in the past. I will be interested to see how brown comes back this season and I think it will be a key season for him. I feel it could go either way. I enjoyed watching him play at his best and I hope he makes it back as good as ever.

As was noted in the preview, there are two distinct groups in the list with not a lot inbetween. In my opinion, the younger group will face a task of developing under a lot of pressure to win games. This is not ideal. Lida is the standout in the group but from the little I have seen and read, there is, at the moment, not a lot to back him up. Tambling has not really developed at the pace I thought he would, and other young players are really yet to make any mark.

There was a comment made in the preview of melbourne that we might have trouble running out games and the season because of young legs. From a look over the tigers list, I would say that that comment was more aplicable to your list.

It has been discussed a lot here and elsewhere, but I do keep an eye on the development of Hawthorn as compared to the Tiges because both teams started from the same base at the same time with differing ideas. On the whole, i would much rather have Hawthorn's list than Richmond's. It looks like it will be bettter balanced in the next few years with a good group of young KPP's coming through.

I expect Richmond this season will finish the 9th to 12th range. If there is a good run with injuries they may improve on last season's finish and scrape into the 8, but I have my doubts. Will need a lot of development from a lot of the younger players over the next few years to really improve as the older players move on.

Good luck for the season.