Tambling (merged)

[Djevv]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

Another thing I though would be worth posting here is the statistical profile of the two players.

Tamb Frank
12 2005 Games 20
9.2 Disposals 10.9
6.0 Kicks 7.2
2.0 Long Kicks 3.0
3.3 Marks 3.8
0.4 Contested Marks 0.6
3.2 Handballs 3.8
2.8 Tackles 3.3
0.8 Goals 1.0
0.2 Behinds 0.6
0.5 Frees For 0.8
0.9 Frees Against 1.6
0 Hitouts 0.2
0.8 First Possessions 0.4
0.8 Clearances 0.6
1.6 Inside 50s 2.8
0.2 Rebound 50s 0.4
1.0 Contested Possessions 1.4
8.6 Uncontested Possessions 9.8
2.2 1%ers 2.6
3.2 Errors 3.9
0.2 Bounces 1.4

Not a huge difference really. Note they both played a similar role too - mainly in the forward line, a little in the mid-field.

This is in a year when Franklin had everything go right and Tambling had a lot go wrong. This is why I said Richie had a lot of 'natural' improvement in him. A full pre-season, full fitness and a year of being in Melbourne and having got thru his first freezing winter (remember, where he's from there is no winter!) will do wonders for him. Franklin will either need to bulk-up or learn a lot more to improve from here.

Note the bolded bounces stat. This is where Franklin really shone and impressed people. He ran the ball. Deledio had a high count in this area also and won the Rising Star. Richie's bounce stat is very low - which is surprising given that running the ball is his game. This is another reason I think he has heaps of natural improvement in him. Hopefully all thru the off season his coaches have been saying to him: 'Richard, when you get the ball in the clear, don't listen to anyone who wants you to handball to them. Run the ball, Richie RUN!!!'

 

[realist]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

Such a difficult topic to address...... I remember the draft when Hawthorn by-passed Tambling and i remember the xcitement of the tiger supporters - and tigers coaches and recruiters. For a long time Tambling was a toss up to go No.1 that draft. Simply we HAD to take him. It wouldve been a crime to pass on a kid who we havent had in years - quick, skillfull and has that Xfactor through the midfield that can win games. Whereas the hawks needed talls to replace Holland and Barker.
What people forget when watching the tigers is that we are a little more developed than the Hawks. Last night on Fox Footy they had the rnd 21 game last yr and all Healy and Carey could crap on a bout was the kids at hawthorn. blah blah blah!! They forget that players like Shultz, Moore, FOley, Coughlan, Thursty, jackson etc are still very much kids....talented kids at that. Hawks have not really got those kids - they dont have a coughlan etc. They have a lot of older guys and a lot of juniors through the last couple of drafts.
The Hawks will be exciting but look out if Jay *smile*, Thursty, Moore, McGuane, Pattison etc get going - they r super talents and at least now we have the midfield power to give them the best opportunity!!!!

8ball

Hawks don't have a coughlan?

Luke Hodge... Sam Mitchell, Chance Bateman, Cambell Brown, Michael Osborne, Mark Williams, all young players still..... I'd say their second tier players are pretty good, probably the basis of their future leadership group there. They were missing 4/6 players in the game you were talking about through injury.

realist,

why are you acting like a tiger fan, and saying "they" as in the hawks,and "we" as in the tigers.
At least have the balls to admit you are a dawk fan.
You have zero credibility regardless but pretending to be a tiger fan, to give your argyment some merit is ridiculous

Good post. You really put a spin on my argument there. I made all those comments, and you replied to none and instead attacked the poster. If you disagree with anything I said say so, but please, don't make things up about what I said.

Quote me where I used 'we' for Tigers.

I post here to put some reasoned arguments in amongst some less reasoned ones.

I have never pretended to be any fan of any club, I just post here and talk footy in the third person to try and take the bias out of arguments. I have watched all draft picks and young players from most clubs, and have a good view of Richmond's but a better understanding of Hawthorn. I replied to the post that said Hawthorn didn't have anyone like Cougland, I said what about Hodge and Mitchell and the rest of their second tier players.

Anything wrong with what I said... or should we just start name calling each other now because you having nothing to say?

 

[the claw]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

The original post I replied to implied that we should have taken Franklin rather than Tambling. The one you answered is perhaps a bit harsh, but gives a scepical view of Buddy. I admit , however, that I am very biased when it comes to Richie, being both a Territorian and a Richmond supporter.  ;D

I think the very good reason why RFC took Tambling and not Buddy is pretty clear when you think about it. At the time of the 2004 draft the Tiges were very light for talent in the midfield. We had class in Johnson and Cogs - who had been out all season with OP. Apart from that there was Tiv,Chaffey, King, Fleming and Hyde. Bowden was moved to CHF where he flourished. So, really, with what we had at the time it would have been criminal negligence not to take the two best midfield options on offer.

as i stated at the time imo the 2 best midfield options on offer were deledio and griffen.and one over riding thing put these two in front of tambling for me  was their body size you are taking a big risk in drafting skinny types like tambling especially with early picks.i think hawthorn made a mistake in not taking griffen rather than roughhead. for me tambling didnt come into the equation.imo the dawks clearly outpointed us in that draft and if it had gone as expected we would of had one of roughhead or franklin on our list.one more thing i would have taken lewis in front of tambling i was hoping like hell he would last to pick 12 but even if he did wallaces love affair with skinny speedy tyres probably would have prevailed.anyway pick 12 should of been used on a tall.

 

[realist]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

The original post I replied to implied that we should have taken Franklin rather than Tambling. The one you answered is perhaps a bit harsh, but gives a scepical view of Buddy. I admit , however, that I am very biased when it comes to Richie, being both a Territorian and a Richmond supporter.  ;D

I think the very good reason why RFC took Tambling and not Buddy is pretty clear when you think about it. At the time of the 2004 draft the Tiges were very light for talent in the midfield. We had class in Johnson and Cogs - who had been out all season with OP. Apart from that there was Tiv,Chaffey, King, Fleming and Hyde. Bowden was moved to CHF where he flourished. So, really, with what we had at the time it would have been criminal negligence not to take the two best midfield options on offer.

as i stated at the time imo the 2 best midfield options on offer were deledio and griffen.and one over riding thing put these two in front of tambling for me  was their body size you are taking a big risk in drafting skinny types like tambling especially with early picks.i think hawthorn made a mistake in not taking griffen rather than roughhead. for me tambling didnt come into the equation.imo the dawks clearly outpointed us in that draft and if it had gone as expected we would of had one of roughhead or franklin on our list.one more thing i would have taken lewis in front of tambling i was hoping like hell he would last to pick 12 but even if he did wallaces love affair with skinny speedy tyres probably would have prevailed.anyway pick 12 should of been used on a tall.

Yeah but with Cougland and Tuck you probably have you inside midfielders covered though wouldn't you think? I don't think you need to draft JON but Tambling at the time you were probably in need of pace, and I don't think Lewis, despite been a quality player, would have added as much as Tambling potentially could. However, getting JON this year kinda doesn't make sense to me if you already had Tambling, so your theory on Wallace definately has some weight. He was very lucky Hughes lasted till 24 IMO, I don't think he was counting on that.

 

[the claw]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

Another thing I though would be worth posting here is the statistical profile of the two players.

Tamb                                      Frank
12      2005 Games                 20
9.2      Disposals                    10.9
6.0      Kicks                            7.2
2.0      Long Kicks                   3.0
3.3      Marks                          3.8
0.4      Contested Marks         0.6
3.2      Handballs                    3.8
2.8      Tackles                        3.3
0.8      Goals                           1.0
0.2      Behinds                       0.6
0.5      Frees For                     0.8
0.9      Frees Against              1.6
0         Hitouts                        0.2
0.8      First Possessions         0.4
0.8      Clearances                   0.6
1.6      Inside 50s                   2.8
0.2      Rebound 50s               0.4
1.0      Contested Possessions 1.4
8.6      Uncontested Possessions 9.8
2.2      1%ers                          2.6
3.2      Errors                           3.9
0.2      Bounces                       1.4

Not a huge difference really. Note they both played a similar role too - mainly in the forward line, a little in the mid-field.

This is in a year when Franklin had everything go right and Tambling had a lot go wrong. This is why I said Richie had a lot of 'natural' improvement in him. A full pre-season, full fitness and a year of being in Melbourne and having got thru his first freezing winter (remember, where he's from there is no winter!) will do wonders for him. Franklin will either need to bulk-up or learn a lot more to improve from here.

Note the bolded bounces stat. This is where Franklin really shone and impressed people. He ran the ball. Deledio had a high count in this area also and won the Rising Star. Richie's bounce stat is very low - which is surprising given that running the ball is his game. This is another reason I think he has heaps of natural improvement in him. Hopefully all thru the off season his coaches have been saying to him: 'Richard, when you get the ball in the clear, don't listen to anyone who wants you to handball to them. Run the ball, Richie RUN!!!'

the one thing you overlook is it takes talls 2 or 3 yrs longer to develop than smalls tambling should be miles in front of franklin on body type alone.

 

[Leysy Days]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

Realist Man, if you come on a RFC site & make absol outlandish claims that V average/workmanlike players like Chance Bateman, Cambell Brown & Michael Osborne are as good as Coughlan then you have got to expect to be laughed at & be prepared to cop a barreling..................Geez I really wonder what Opp supporters expect when they say these ridiculous things.

Other than that you put forward a reasonable arguement & time will tell.

 

[realist]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

Realist Man, if you come on a RFC site & make absol outlandish claims that V average/workmanlike players like Chance Bateman, Cambell Brown & Michael Osborne  are as good as Coughlan then you have got to expect to be laughed at & be prepared to cop a barreling..................Geez I really wonder what Opp supporters expect when they say these ridiculous things.

Other than that you put forward a reasonable arguement & time will tell.

I don't believe i said "Bateman and Brown are as good as Cougland" i said that group of second tier players is pretty good, it was in response to Hawthorn not having any in the group of "Cougland, Thursty, Shultz, etc", and I replied with those guys. Simple stuff really.

Cougland is a top player.

 

[Leysy Days]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

Such a difficult topic to address...... I remember the draft when Hawthorn by-passed Tambling and i remember the xcitement of the tiger supporters - and tigers coaches and recruiters. For a long time Tambling was a toss up to go No.1 that draft. Simply we HAD to take him. It wouldve been a crime to pass on a kid who we havent had in years - quick, skillfull and has that Xfactor through the midfield that can win games. Whereas the hawks needed talls to replace Holland and Barker.
What people forget when watching the tigers is that we are a little more developed than the Hawks. Last night on Fox Footy they had the rnd 21 game last yr and all Healy and Carey could crap on a bout was the kids at hawthorn. blah blah blah!! They forget that players like Shultz, Moore, FOley, Coughlan, Thursty, jackson etc are still very much kids....talented kids at that. Hawks have not really got those kids - they dont have a coughlan etc. They have a lot of older guys and a lot of juniors through the last couple of drafts.
The Hawks will be exciting but look out if Jay *smile*, Thursty, Moore, McGuane, Pattison etc get going - they r super talents and at least now we have the midfield power to give them the best opportunity!!!!

8ball

Hawks don't have a coughlan?

Luke Hodge... Sam Mitchell, Chance Bateman, Cambell Brown, Michael Osborne, Mark Williams, all young players still..... I'd say their second tier players are pretty good, probably the basis of their future leadership group there. They were missing 4/6 players in the game you were talking about through injury.

certainly reads to me that you think they are.......though from what you just said we may have our wires crossed with what you meant I think

 

[Djevv]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

The original post I replied to implied that we should have taken Franklin rather than Tambling. The one you answered is perhaps a bit harsh, but gives a scepical view of Buddy. I admit , however, that I am very biased when it comes to Richie, being both a Territorian and a Richmond supporter.  ;D

I think the very good reason why RFC took Tambling and not Buddy is pretty clear when you think about it. At the time of the 2004 draft the Tiges were very light for talent in the midfield. We had class in Johnson and Cogs - who had been out all season with OP. Apart from that there was Tiv,Chaffey, King, Fleming and Hyde. Bowden was moved to CHF where he flourished. So, really, with what we had at the time it would have been criminal negligence not to take the two best midfield options on offer.

as i stated at the time imo the 2 best midfield options on offer were deledio and griffen.and one over riding thing put these two in front of tambling for me  was their body size you are taking a big risk in drafting skinny types like tambling especially with early picks.i think hawthorn made a mistake in not taking griffen rather than roughhead. for me tambling didnt come into the equation.imo the dawks clearly outpointed us in that draft and if it had gone as expected we would of had one of roughhead or franklin on our list.one more thing i would have taken lewis in front of tambling i was hoping like hell he would last to pick 12 but even if he did wallaces love affair with skinny speedy tyres probably would have prevailed.anyway pick 12 should of been used on a tall.

Yeah but with Cougland and Tuck you probably have you inside midfielders covered though wouldn't you think? I don't think you need to draft JON but Tambling at the time you were probably in need of pace, and I don't think Lewis, despite been a quality player, would have added as much as Tambling potentially could. However, getting JON this year kinda doesn't make sense to me if you already had Tambling, so your theory on Wallace definately has some weight. He was very lucky Hughes lasted till 24 IMO, I don't think he was counting on that.

Richmond prior to 2004 was very slow and lacking in skill in the midfield. We did, and still do, have some quality talls (albeit aging). If Wallace wants a speedy, skillful centre field (ie HB & Centres & Rucks) it will take more than one draft to do this IMO. However, I would not expect him to continue with prioritising smaller fast players in 2006 draft.

Another thing to note about Tambling is that he is an effective forward as well as a promising mid. I don't think JON is a forward.

 

[zips]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

Such a difficult topic to address...... I remember the draft when Hawthorn by-passed Tambling and i remember the xcitement of the tiger supporters - and tigers coaches and recruiters. For a long time Tambling was a toss up to go No.1 that draft. Simply we HAD to take him. It wouldve been a crime to pass on a kid who we havent had in years - quick, skillfull and has that Xfactor through the midfield that can win games. Whereas the hawks needed talls to replace Holland and Barker.
What people forget when watching the tigers is that we are a little more developed than the Hawks. Last night on Fox Footy they had the rnd 21 game last yr and all Healy and Carey could crap on a bout was the kids at hawthorn. blah blah blah!! They forget that players like Shultz, Moore, FOley, Coughlan, Thursty, jackson etc are still very much kids....talented kids at that. Hawks have not really got those kids - they dont have a coughlan etc. They have a lot of older guys and a lot of juniors through the last couple of drafts.
The Hawks will be exciting but look out if Jay *smile*, Thursty, Moore, McGuane, Pattison etc get going - they r super talents and at least now we have the midfield power to give them the best opportunity!!!!

8ball

Hawks don't have a coughlan?

Luke Hodge... Sam Mitchell, Chance Bateman, Cambell Brown, Michael Osborne, Mark Williams, all young players still..... I'd say their second tier players are pretty good, probably the basis of their future leadership group there. They were missing 4/6 players in the game you were talking about through injury.

certainly reads to me that you think they are.......though from what you just said we may have our wires crossed with what you meant I think

Beat me to it Brian Leys ;D

 

[realist]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

I definately didn't mean that, even though I can see how you could see I did from reading that quote.

I was just questioning the fact hawthorn didn't have any players as good as Cougland. Then went on to show the group of second tier players at hawthorn.

Trust me I don't think Osborne is as good as Cougland.

 

[the claw]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

The original post I replied to implied that we should have taken Franklin rather than Tambling. The one you answered is perhaps a bit harsh, but gives a scepical view of Buddy. I admit , however, that I am very biased when it comes to Richie, being both a Territorian and a Richmond supporter.  ;D

I think the very good reason why RFC took Tambling and not Buddy is pretty clear when you think about it. At the time of the 2004 draft the Tiges were very light for talent in the midfield. We had class in Johnson and Cogs - who had been out all season with OP. Apart from that there was Tiv,Chaffey, King, Fleming and Hyde. Bowden was moved to CHF where he flourished. So, really, with what we had at the time it would have been criminal negligence not to take the two best midfield options on offer.

as i stated at the time imo the 2 best midfield options on offer were deledio and griffen.and one over riding thing put these two in front of tambling for me  was their body size you are taking a big risk in drafting skinny types like tambling especially with early picks.i think hawthorn made a mistake in not taking griffen rather than roughhead. for me tambling didnt come into the equation.imo the dawks clearly outpointed us in that draft and if it had gone as expected we would of had one of roughhead or franklin on our list.one more thing i would have taken lewis in front of tambling i was hoping like hell he would last to pick 12 but even if he did wallaces love affair with skinny speedy tyres probably would have prevailed.anyway pick 12 should of been used on a tall.

Yeah but with Cougland and Tuck you probably have you inside midfielders covered though wouldn't you think? I don't think you need to draft JON but Tambling at the time you were probably in need of pace, and I don't think Lewis, despite been a quality player, would have added as much as Tambling potentially could. However, getting JON this year kinda doesn't make sense to me if you already had Tambling, so your theory on Wallace definately has some weight. He was very lucky Hughes lasted till 24 IMO, I don't think he was counting on that.

imo coughlan and tuck are the only 2 genuine in close ball winners we have god knows what will happen if both go down with injury at the same time.these 2 desperately need a hand and the other plus with lewis is i can see him being a bit of an enforcer down the track something rfc are screaming out for. for me lewis was a must take if he was still there at 12 the other midfielder i would of been happy aquiring was monfries i think ess took him at 13.

 

[Djevv]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

Another thing I though would be worth posting here is the statistical profile of the two players.

Tamb                                      Frank
12      2005 Games                 20
9.2      Disposals                    10.9
6.0      Kicks                            7.2
2.0      Long Kicks                   3.0
3.3      Marks                          3.8
0.4      Contested Marks         0.6
3.2      Handballs                    3.8
2.8      Tackles                        3.3
0.8      Goals                           1.0
0.2      Behinds                       0.6
0.5      Frees For                     0.8
0.9      Frees Against              1.6
0         Hitouts                        0.2
0.8      First Possessions         0.4
0.8      Clearances                   0.6
1.6      Inside 50s                   2.8
0.2      Rebound 50s               0.4
1.0      Contested Possessions 1.4
8.6      Uncontested Possessions 9.8
2.2      1%ers                          2.6
3.2      Errors                           3.9
0.2      Bounces                       1.4

Not a huge difference really. Note they both played a similar role too - mainly in the forward line, a little in the mid-field.

This is in a year when Franklin had everything go right and Tambling had a lot go wrong. This is why I said Richie had a lot of 'natural' improvement in him. A full pre-season, full fitness and a year of being in Melbourne and having got thru his first freezing winter (remember, where he's from there is no winter!) will do wonders for him. Franklin will either need to bulk-up or learn a lot more to improve from here.

Note the bolded bounces stat. This is where Franklin really shone and impressed people. He ran the ball. Deledio had a high count in this area also and won the Rising Star. Richie's bounce stat is very low - which is surprising given that running the ball is his game. This is another reason I think he has heaps of natural improvement in him. Hopefully all thru the off season his coaches have been saying to him: 'Richard, when you get the ball in the clear, don't listen to anyone who wants you to handball to them. Run the ball, Richie RUN!!!'

the one thing you overlook is it takes talls 2 or 3 yrs longer to develop than smalls tambling should be miles in front of franklin on body type alone.

This is commonly held wisdom, but any given player will take whatever time they need to develop. Note Shane Tuck as opposed to Deledio. Franklin at 18 is an AFL ready HFF/tall wingman. This may mean he is headed for a stellar career, but not necessarily. He needs to improve to become this star. My question is IN WHAT AREAS CAN WE REASONABLY EXPECT IMPROVEMENT FROM HIM? I gave reasons why I thought Tambling would improve.

 

[blaisee]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

will repost later

 

[realist]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

The areas you'd expect any 18 year old who's skinny to improve. Strength, stamina, awareness, learning the game-plan, adapting to the pace of the game, finding a position, ...... you'd expect he'd have a big scope for improvement given his natural ability, same with 'lids. Just because they are already athletically brilliant doesn't mean they don't have any improvement left

 

[zips]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

At the end of the day, one of them had an injury riddled season while the other didn't. Just give them both time & an injury free season & both sides will be happy with what they got. I still think Bling will cause more excitement though.

 

[Tigerdog]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

Realist, his name is Coughlan not Cougland. :
Cougland is more likely to be the clubhouse of some bikie gang.
Tambling will be just fine thanks. ;D

 

[realist]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

Never said he wouldn't.

 

[Tigerdog]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

I know. Other than the fact that you kept getting Coughlan's name wrong, you posted some good points.

Not sold on Franklin just yet, but the potential is definitely there. It will be interesting to see if any of the guys from that draft have the 'second year blues' this year.

 

[realist]

Re: Tambling must pick 1

Probably too early for them to have second year blues, haven't really had a good season of AFL yet, Lewis probably the most likely because he got a fair few possesions, but wont get much game time this year with Mitchell and Bateman back from injury, but I can't see any of the top 5 going backwards.

Someone like Sherman from Brisbane who started like a house on fire might drop back a bit cause he'll get a fair bit more attention, and Travis Cloke as well I think played a little above himself early, but the top 5 players will be expected to stand up from tigers', hawk's and dog's perspective.

Do you guys expect players like Polo and Meyer to play in 2006? From hawthorn's pick Tom Murphy looks like he's ready to have a few games during the year, with Matt Little probably looking more for 2007 because of his body shape. I'd say Polo would be in Murphy's shoes and Meyer in Little's for similar reasons?