Tambling (merged)

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

Tambling couldn't adapt to the role Hardwick earmarked for him so now we're back to mollycoddling him. Unfortunately, after years of hoping, I don't think he's worth the effort. Trade.

 

[goose]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

Bye Bye Rich. Not his fault he went at 4 in the draft, I don't care where we took him. He is not up to it.

 

[Disco08]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

Tambling couldn't adapt to the role Hardwick earmarked for him so now we're back to mollycoddling him. Unfortunately, after years of hoping, I don't think he's worth the effort. Trade.

Can you explain to me how dropping him is mollycoddling?

 

[skiptomystu]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

Can you just explain to me what mollycoddling is??? Some of us weren't around in the 60's/70's etc...

 

[Bill James]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

Agree and unnecessary. Sad part about this site and Richmond supporters in general is that it is much more accepted to knock a player than support one.

Not true, most people don't knock them in the early years, but when they are around 4 years or in sarges case 7 years, the knocking starts. The sad part is why the club did not move them on after 3-4 years. In Sarges case we would have had a 20 yo player taken at 28 in the draft, multiply that by a dozen other players that got to 100 - 200 games when they should have got 50 and moved on. We would then have list with 25yo players on it, now wouldn't that be something.

 

[Disco08]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

Can you just explain to me what mollycoddling is??? Some of us weren't around in the 60's/70's etc...

I wasn't around then either but I think it's treating someone like a baby.

 

[Jumping Jack]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

Richy is a massive talent, that is unquestionable, only talented players go so early in the draft. His problem is he hasn't been able to apply that talent at AFL level! Hopefully we will play him on a HBF were he plays his best football, or maybe even try him in a BP instead of Farmer...

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

Can you explain to me how dropping him is mollycoddling?

Was referring to being played out of the backline. There hasn't been a role there for him all year; now we're creating one just for him, so he can play where he wants to, when we've got others going OK in that position.

He's not a Hardwick-type player and without advocating giving him away, think we should pursue a win-win trade. Reckon he could be good value to a side like Essendon.

 

[rensman]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

Did anyone actually see him play on Sunday at Coburg who can comment on how he went?...

 

[Disco08]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

Was referring to being played out of the backline. There hasn't been a role there for him all year; now we're creating one just for him, so he can play where he wants to, when we've got others going OK in that position.

That's one way to look at it. Another way might be that they knew which positions he was best performed in but tried to play him in an area of need because they thought he could handle the change and it simply didn't work. Not every player can play every position on the park.

I also don't get the "not a Hardwick type player" thinking. When he's given an opportunity at the stoppages he goes in as hard as anyone. He's also the teams 2nd best effective tackler and a good disposer of the ball. Aren't these all attributes commonly associated with Hardwick's philosophy?

 

[DDtiger]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

these days with so many good/positive signs being displayed from our coaches and players and club in general posters really needto reflect that also. i posted it here a week or so and i'll post it again..............

if we want to see a new age richmond then we need to become new age supporters

:clap Well said :clap
To be honest I have seen a change in Richmond supporters, and this forum isn't nearly as negative as it was a few years back.
I said it in another thread, that we deserve a pat on the back for not ringing radio stations,, throwing away memberships and generally acting like Essendon supporters are ATM. Especially after a 0-9 start.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

That's one way to look at it. Another way might be that they knew which positions he was best performed in but tried to play him in an area of need because they thought he could handle the change and it simply didn't work. Not every player can play every position on the park.

It's possible. Whose spot is he going to take down there? Farmer's? Connors'? Deledio's? Newman's?

I also don't get the "not a Hardwick type player" thinking. When he's given an opportunity at the stoppages he goes in as hard as anyone. He's also the teams 2nd best effective tackler and a good disposer of the ball. Aren't these all attributes commonly associated with Hardwick's philosophy?

Certain players have struggled under Hardwick, including Tambling, Nahas and Morton. Obviously Hardwick felt, after a breakout year of sorts, that Tambling would be better value in another role. Basically we're getting the same thing we got last year, minus any offensive potency.

I'm not putting the boots into Tambling, but like others, I suspect psychological issues are affecting his play at Richmond. That's why I'm in favour of trading him - fresh start at another club, where he can forget all about where he was drafted.

 

[Disco08]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

It's possible. Whose spot is he going to take down there? Farmer's? Connors'? Deledio's? Newman's?

You'd have to ask Beavis. I'm surprised he hasn't been earmarked for the attacking midfield role Hardwick said was a priority earlier in the year. The role Rawlings gave him that really seemed to spark him last year was probably best described as that. Perhaps he figures one of the players you mentioned can play that role and Tambling can take their place.

Certain players have struggled under Hardwick, including Tambling, Nahas and Morton. Obviously Hardwick felt, after a breakout year of sorts, that Tambling would be better value in another role.

I'd still wait and see how he goes in a position he's proved he can play well before deciding he's not a "Hardwick type player".

 

[Leysy Days]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

Richy is a massive talent, that is unquestionable, only talented players go so early in the draft.

Sorry Jack but Richie is not a massive talent.

Could he play a role down back, yes. But far too many chronic deficiencies to be classing him like you do. Unrealistic expectations of the kid.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

You'd have to ask Beavis. I'm surprised he hasn't been earmarked for the attacking midfield role Hardwick said was a priority earlier in the year. The role Rawlings gave him that really seemed to spark him last year was probably best described as that. Perhaps he figures one of the players you mentioned can play that role and Tambling can take their place.

Don't know that any of those players, Deledio included, will ever be at their best starting in the square. But who knows; we're a long way off where Hardwick wants us to be.

I'd still wait and see how he goes in a position he's proved he can play well before deciding he's not a "Hardwick type player".

I get the impression Hardwick doesn't favour players who need lots of space in which to operate. My mind's made up, but as you say, we'll see.

 

[Jumping Jack]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

Sorry Jack but Richie is not a massive talent.

Could he play a role down back, yes. But far too many chronic deficiencies to be classing him like you do. Unrealistic expectations of the kid.

In terms of natual ability he is a massive talent, but as I said due to reasons unknown he as just not been able to apply that talent. If he had of been picked up by a club that actually put money into player development ie Collingwood, I believe he could be a standout in th league!

 

[diggler]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

Papers should be stamped!!!
Farewell and good riddance.
Has offered nothing in 6 years at the club.
Gold Coast here you come!!!!

 

[shawry]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

Not true, most people don't knock them in the early years, but when they are around 4 years or in sarges case 7 years, the knocking starts. The sad part is why the club did not move them on after 3-4 years. In Sarges case we would have had a 20 yo player taken at 28 in the draft, multiply that by a dozen other players that got to 100 - 200 games when they should have got 50 and moved on. We would then have list with 25yo players on it, now wouldn't that be something.

Utter crap. Already people bagging Vickery in his second year. People have been baggin Edwards for years. May give them 1 year, expect them to play seniors in that year and then they play abit mayube a bit more the next season then it is stated that they have obvious deficiencies (which players dont to be honest in the AFL, not many flawless palyers I know of) and would never be a part of a premiership team. I wish they gave them 5 years.

 

[Bill James]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

Utter crap. Already people bagging Vickery in his second year. People have been baggin Edwards for years. May give them 1 year, expect them to play seniors in that year and then they play abit mayube a bit more the next season then it is stated that they have obvious deficiencies (which players dont to be honest in the AFL, not many flawless palyers I know of) and would never be a part of a premiership team. I wish they gave them 5 years.

Most people not bagging Vickery although there are calls and justified in my view to send him back to Coburg for a while. Sentiment for Edwards was positive at draft and very positive in his first year, read the threads, sentiment for Edwards has improved this year in line with his form.

Simple fact is that 5 years is way to long. Apart from ruckman it is a rare player that has three years in the system as a non-contributor and suddenly if ever finds star quality form. The maths is not to difficult to do, to maintain a list that had a good age balance the also rans need to be turned over after 2-3 years.

 

[shawry]

Re: Tambling [Merged]

Simple fact is that 5 years is way to long. Apart from ruckman it is a rare player that has three years in the system as a non-contributor and suddenly if ever finds star quality form. The maths is not to difficult to do, to maintain a list that had a good age balance the also rans need to be turned over after 2-3 years.

I agree with all of this.

Jsut wish to add Post as another example of a bloke getting baggedi n hsi second season.