Players under 21.

[TOT70]

For comparison how many did the Hawks have in both of those last categories and how many did we have 21 and under?

Under 21: Hawks 5, Shiels, Savage, Schoenmakers, Rioli, Milne. Richmond 3, Reivoldt, Edwards, Rance.
21: Hawks 6, Muston, Birchall, Tuck, Dowler, Kennedy, Renouf Tigers 1, Nahas.

That's the 10 to 4.

22: Hawks 2, Franklin, Bailey, Tigers 5, Deledio, McGuane, Morton, Graham, White
23, Hawks 1, Lewis, Tigers 5, Thursfield, Polo, Jackson, Tambling, Thomson.

That's 14 each.

FWIW, I agree that the Hawks did really well with an inexperienced team. I'm just disputing the relevance of the stat as it was quoted. It was designed to emphasise Richmond's current problems, that's all.

 

[IrockZ]

From what I saw of the game coverage, Walls, Quartermain and co were in full-on bag Richmond mode.

Every Hawk turnover was an understandable error from a young player and every Richmond one was an unacceptable skill error.

What did you expect them to say when they had kicked 5.8 out of our turnovers in the 1st half?

 

[tigertrue]

I think we had one more player with less then 50 games .........

 

[In the Blood]

This is right. Again a case of the stats. How many under 24's did we have? How many under 19's? et etc. games played? I don't know but I'm sure I can conjure a stat what would make us look more inexperienced than Hawthorn.

Hawks had more Premiership players than we did, they have more total finals appearances and also the stat for more players who have played in a finals game.

 

[TOT70]

What did you expect them to say when they had kicked 5.8 out of our turnovers in the 1st half?

That they had missed eight easy shots at goal, all of which are turnovers also?

I get sick of the constant bagging. It is not always warranted. Most commentators are quite aware that a large part of their audience at Richmond games is made up of unhappy campers who view every mistake made by a Richmond player as a personal insult and they get off on pandering to it. They love to emphasise the feeling of despair that Richmond fans feel. Its good for ratings.

 

[IrockZ]

That they had missed eight easy shots at goal, all of which are turnovers also?

I get sick of the constant bagging. It is not always warranted. Most commentators are quite aware that a large part of their audience at Richmond games is made up of unhappy campers who view every mistake made by a Richmond player as a personal insult and they get off on pandering to it. They love to emphasise the feeling of despair that Richmond fans feel. Its good for ratings.

Hate to tell you thats its not just a Richmond thing like you think it is.

Watch any crap sides like us, freo, dees etc and the commentators are usually saying the same thing.

 

[dimmauchump]

the hawks had 4 players under 21. we had 3. last week we had 5. does that make our list better?

I think you will find that the Hawks had 10 players under 21 on Saturday and not 4. Most of them looked more accomplished then our veterans and most kids we had playing on the day. Point is that how can a team that just won the flag have more young kids running around then a team that had won the wooden spoon 2 years ago and is sitting 15th this year. At least put some thought into your post if you are going to bag someone.

 

[Disco08]

Under 21: Hawks 5, Shiels, Savage, Schoenmakers, Rioli, Milne. Richmond 3, Reivoldt, Edwards, Rance.
21: Hawks 6, Muston, Birchall, Tuck, Dowler, Kennedy, Renouf Tigers 1, Nahas.

That's the 10 to 4.

22: Hawks 2, Franklin, Bailey, Tigers 5, Deledio, McGuane, Morton, Graham, White
23, Hawks 1, Lewis, Tigers 5, Thursfield, Polo, Jackson, Tambling, Thomson.

That's 14 each.

FWIW, I agree that the Hawks did really well with an inexperienced team. I'm just disputing the relevance of the stat as it was quoted. It was designed to emphasise Richmond's current problems, that's all.

Sorry to nitpick, but Tambling's still 22.

This is a pedantic discussion. Both teams had plenty of young players. The difference was that the balance of each side was like a comparison between the All Blacks and the Braidwood Bears. If it was a 14 on 14 match between the kids I reckon we'd have had a good crack at it.

 

[TigerArmySoldier01]

if we played post and vickery instead of simmo and browny our team age stats change drastically!

Plus if cotch n foley line up makes us a little younger again!

 

[Disco08]

And Collins is also clearly in our best 22.

 

[Brodders17]

I think you will find that the Hawks had 10 players under 21 on Saturday and not 4. Most of them looked more accomplished then our veterans and most kids we had playing on the day. Point is that how can a team that just won the flag have more young kids running around then a team that had won the wooden spoon 2 years ago and is sitting 15th this year. At least put some thought into your post if you are going to bag someone.

no. i think you will find the hawks had 4 players under 21. they had 10 players under 22.
one of our under 21s made best player lists, riewoldt, one of theirs did, rioli.
our under 21s not playing; cotch, collins, post, vickery.
i await your apology. ;D

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

I get sick of the constant bagging. It is not always warranted. Most commentators are quite aware that a large part of their audience at Richmond games is made up of unhappy campers who view every mistake made by a Richmond player as a personal insult and they get off on pandering to it. They love to emphasise the feeling of despair that Richmond fans feel. Its good for ratings.

Agree, footy commentary sometimes resembles tabloid journalism where discussion continually returns to a theme in order to be controversial, rather than aiming to be objective/informative.

 

[Col.E.Kurtz]

Agree, footy commentary sometimes resembles tabloid journalism where discussion continually returns to a theme in order to be controversial, rather than aiming to be objective/informative.

You can never go wrong in the media (or on a website actually) to start a argument with "Richmond are cra*p... [insert dodgy pet theory here]", as long as you get the first bit in no matter how wild or outlandish the theory it will get some credence.

 

[TOT70]

Sorry to nitpick, but Tambling's still 22.

This is a pedantic discussion. Both teams had plenty of young players. The difference was that the balance of each side was like a comparison between the All Blacks and the Braidwood Bears. If it was a 14 on 14 match between the kids I reckon we'd have had a good crack at it.

Absolutely. That is the point I have tried to make. Obviously, someone on Channel 10 picked up on this idea, played it up and it leads to another round of hair-pulling by Richmond fans.

Richmond's list clearly needs a cleanout and it will get one on the off-season - a dozen or so younger players will be added and what will be left will be a young, vibrant playing list for the future.

Richmond's problem is, has been, and will continue to be be for a couple more years, the lack of players in their prime. The kids are fine.