The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged) | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

Tango said:
in fact i believe our structure has been poor for 10 years and this has been a major reason for the clubs lack of success and development of its juniors and as a result of this we should be doing more to try and catch up

You go along with that. Luckily Hardwick is from the Port Adelaide & Hawthorn school where kicking skills place a premium above ALL ELSE.

At last it seems the recruiting dept are preaching that line as opposed to paying lip service.

Leysy's wrapped.
 
Leysy Days said:
You go along with that. Luckily Hardwick is from the Port Adelaide & Hawthorn school where kicking skills place a premium above ALL ELSE.

At last it seems the recruiting dept are preaching that line as opposed to paying lip service.

Leysy's wrapped.

So why'd we pick Dea? From what I've seen his kicking is very average. Maybe FJ couldn't see very well from behind the trees.
 
SCOOP said:
Bingo. And the ability to kick accurately & long is the only way to beat rolloing zones and clusters. Agree with all of what Leysy is putting forward of late. Strange times indeed.

Yeah tis strange. Funny the knowledge actually. ;D
 
GoodOne said:
So why'd we pick Dea? From what I've seen his kicking is very average. Maybe FJ couldn't see very well from behind the trees.

His kicking is above average.

How many times did you see him to come up with your opinion?

Let's repeat this, ALL our draftees have above average kicking and decision making skills. That was a pre requisite.

Leysy Days said:
You go along with that. Luckily Hardwick is from the Port Adelaide & Hawthorn school where kicking skills place a premium above ALL ELSE.

At last it seems the recruiting dept are preaching that line as opposed to paying lip service.

Leysy's wrapped.

I'm wrapped too mate. I thought it was a brilliant effort and yep, we can see evidence of a plan in place rather than just lip service.
 
GoodOne said:
So why'd we pick Dea? From what I've seen his kicking is very average. Maybe FJ couldn't see very well from behind the trees.

Dea's technique isn't text book. But its certainly fluent & he puts it very well to position from what leysy knows.
 
Leysy Days said:
You go along with that. Luckily Hardwick is from the Port Adelaide & Hawthorn school where kicking skills place a premium above ALL ELSE.

At last it seems the recruiting dept are preaching that line as opposed to paying lip service.

Leysy's wrapped.

Yeah me too, at least we have a direction, some idea of what we stand for and what we value.
 
kicking skills are great and in our case we definately needed improvement in this area (significant improvement) and if the latter picks are as good as you suggest in this area they will certainly add to a deficiency in our list - no problem with that

but kicking is one area of the game, getting the ball is another (take the melbourne player now with the lions that was taken at 1 before we took Ottens) sorry cant think of his name - great kick not much else

yes luckily hardwick is from Port & hawks both of whom understand the need for big bodied KPP in the side, both of which are suffering in that dept now particularly hawks in the back half due to injury and lack of depth
 
Re: PSD & Rookie picks wish list

i clearly understand the need for quality big guys that can kick and i understand that these only really come from low picks unless you are really lucky and find a gem or late bloomer (same can be said for smalls as well)

i just worry that we dont have enough support for our tall kids in case of injury or wear and tear in the key posts

are you guys, (tigerbob, leysey, disco) not concerned that we dont have enough cover for riewoldt, thursty etc (i think rucks are ok its really fwds and backs) - do you guys actually think we have enough cover for them thats all?
 
Re: Permission to train list

Smoking Aces said:
Some of the key backs in the comp;

* Brian Lake 195cm 104kg

* Craig Bolton 190cm 87kg

* Nathan Bock 193cm 90kg

* Matthew Scarlett 192cm 94kg

* Daniel Merret 196cm 104kg

* Sam Fisher 192cm 92kg

* Dustin Fletcher 198cm 100kg

* Darren Glass 192cm 93kg

* Simon Prestigiacomo 193cm 96kg

* Stephen Gilham 192cm 92kg

So the big monster full back is almost non-existent in the comp. Apart from 3 all of the competitions key backs are in the height range of 192-193cm. And up around 92-93kg. Our 2 key backs for the moment in Thursfield and McGuane (I have assumed Post will be playing up forward) are both 191cm so they are there abouts in the height department however they are lacking in weight. At around 86kg they need to add on at least another 6kg.

So by picking up Grimes (192cm) in the PSD he will give us another option down back along with Rance (193cm).

sydney also has LRT at 196cm 95kg

adelaide has scot stevens at 194cm Rutten at 192cm 101kg and now Talia already at 194cm 89kg
geelong has taylor 193 92 longergan who has recently been taughtt to play back at 197cm mithc brown (dont know where he plays) 195cm
 
Re: Permission to train list

my prevou post stuffed up. but just to add to adelaide and geelong,

st kilda also has gilbert at 194cm 92 as well as dawson at 195 95
hawthorn has birchall at 193 94kg, developing dowler at 196, shoenmakers at 194 and now grimley at 199
essendon also has hooker 196 93 hurley 193 91kg ryder 197 90kg pears now at 191 91kg and now carlisle at 196

saying clubs dont have those big monster key backs anymore is wrong. do i need to keep listing teams and players....

now more importantly who do we have
post at 194kg 88kg. drafted last draft and from what hes shown up fwd so far, should prob develop into a CHF (hopefully)
rance at 193 90. lacking some height so will have to have that scarlet like attributes to compensate that lack of a little more height. but ok.
thrusty 191 85. has showm good glimpses and may become our good FB. but again needs the scarlet attributes to compensate some height and WEIGHT.

moore 190 84 lack of size overall doesnt have the scarlet attributes
maguane 191 86 as above

so our closest thing to our key posi backs are our two youngest players and thursty who is only 191. (now maybe astbury?)
and people say we dont need to draft big strong tall key backs....????
 
Re: PSD & Rookie picks wish list

Tango said:
i clearly understand the need for quality big guys that can kick and i understand that these only really come from low picks unless you are really lucky and find a gem or late bloomer (same can be said for smalls as well)

i just worry that we dont have enough support for our tall kids in case of injury or wear and tear in the key post

flogging-a-dead-horse-300.jpg
 
Re: Permission to train list

keepa lids onit said:
sydney also has LRT at 196cm 95kg

adelaide has scot stevens at 194cm Rutten at 192cm 101kg and now Talia already at 194cm 89kg
geelong has taylor 193 92 longergan who has recently been taughtt to play back at 197cm mithc brown (dont know where he plays) 195cm

Adelaide also picked up Gunston 191cm at #29, Sam Shaw 191cm at #45, James Craig 195cm at 61. Every one of their picks was over 190cm yet they already had Bock, Davis, Griffin, Hentschel, Maric, McKernan, Moran, Otten, Rutten, Sellar, Shaw, Stevens, Tippett, Walker and Young over 190cm. They (and others) seemed to value talls at later picks much more than we did.
 
Re: PSD & Rookie picks wish list

yes baloo flogging a dead horse... ha ha, i like that :clap

if people keep flogging the smalls and back slapping our recruiters ill keep flogging the talls

its this differance in opinion that makes for debate i guess
 
Re: PSD & Rookie picks wish list

Tango said:
yes baloo flogging a dead horse... ha ha, i like that :clap

if people keep flogging the smalls and back slapping our recruiters ill keep flogging the talls

its this differance in opinion that makes for debate i guess

Now you've stopped using capitals as well. I'm not sure if you're a claw alias, trying to be like claw, or Temel's cousin.
 
Apologies if this thread seems all over the place the last few pages, I've just split discussions from two other threads and merged them here again.

Could you guys that seem to have the biggest beefs with the non-drafting of talls late in the ND try and keep your comments on that to this thread so other threads can stay on topic please?
 
Re: Permission to train list

GoodOne said:
Adelaide also picked up Gunston 191cm at #29, Sam Shaw 191cm at #45, James Craig 195cm at 61. Every one of their picks was over 190cm yet they already had Bock, Davis, Griffin, Hentschel, Maric, McKernan, Moran, Otten, Rutten, Sellar, Shaw, Stevens, Tippett, Walker and Young over 190cm. They (and others) seemed to value talls at later picks much more than we did.

Are Gunston and Shaw KPP types? At that height they can be tall running players.
 
Re: Permission to train list

IanG said:
Are Gunston and Shaw KPP types? At that height they can be tall running players.

They are tall running types. That's the way they play. If we selected them, the same naysayers would be saying they aren't big enough to be true KPP.

Don't throw facts in front of people's arguments mate. I am finding this all too funny. :hihi
 
Disco08 said:
Why 10%? Why not 20%, or 25%, or 30%? That still fits easily into the 'very unlikely' category, especially if you compare it to the success rate within the first 3 rounds.

Jesse Smith and Cale Hooker while promising, are far from 'making it' too. Collins, Gray and Hill also haven't done anything to prove they belong in the category of long term AFL player just yet. When these guys are 26 and have 100 games under their belts come back to me.

10 games a year since being drafted would seem reasonable to me for someone who's made a reasonable contribution to their club(s). If we look at drafts are old enough to have let the draftees develop, the evidence is pretty clear:

1998 - 2 players out of 36 meet this criteria, neither of them talls. 21 out of 46 in the frist 3 rounds qualify.
1999 - 7/40 (1) & 26/47
2000 - 8/27 (1, Wakelin who was already established) & 25/47
2001 - 5/23 (2) & 24/51
2002 - 5/25 (1) & 18/44
2003 - 5/21 (2) & 20/49

If we include the PSD and rookie drafts the numbers are predicatably even worse.

Don't want to get into a "what % is very unlikely" arguement but I will.

I would think 25-30% is not "very unlikley".

Very unlikley = very little chance = about 1 in 10. Maybe Leysy with his familiarity with odds and % can provide an expert answer.

In regards to the drafts I was only referring to talls taken so thought I would start from 1998 (geez it takes too much time)

1998 - Talls drafted in the first 3 rounds - successful YES or NO using your 10 games per year benchmark
2 - Longmuir - YES
4 - R Fitzgerald - NO
6 - M Vance - NO
13 - C Lamb - NO
14 - L Penny - YES
17 - P Street - NO (78 games in 8 years but did play more than 10 in some years)
18 - D Schell - NO
25 - A Henneman - NO
33 - C Bolton - YES
38 - B Fevola - YES
39 - T Thurstans - YES
48 - L Herbert - NO

Out of 12 talls in first 3 rounds (how big was Nick Lowther - could not find any stats) 5 have played at least 10 games per year. 3 of the 5 drafted in the 3rd round mind you - 41.67% success.

4th ROUND and beyond
52 - R Oconnor - NO
56 - I Grgic - NO (drafted by Ess and played only 2 games after 85 games in 6 years with dogs/west coast)
58 - I Prendergast - YES (6 years 65 games)
65 - L Walker - NO
66 - S Rode - NO
70 - K Heazlewood - NO
71 - S Feast - NO
75 - K McGregor - YES (10 years 152 games)
79 - R Hall - YES (as much as it pains me - 7 years 99 games)

There are a number of players drafted who never played and who I cannot get details for - actually 5. So there may be say another 2 to add. Given that, there is approx 3 out of 11 talls that were drafted after 3rd round that "made it' = 27.27% success. A bit higher than very unlikely (depending on Leysys feedback)

I don't really know why I did this, and i'm sure the strike rates get better in later years for talls taken with early picks. It sort of shows you that it is difficult to get good tall players. And I haven't even looked at PSD or Rookie draft. And I need a coffee.

I just hope that moving forward our success rate with our talls selections is pretty high - and I don't mean succes of the Ray Hall type, although he did better than most from his draft year so well done Ray.

And, I think its extremely unlikley (about 5% chance) that I will get to years 1999-2003.