-
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)
- Thread starter the claw
- Start date
Tango said:
Sorry, but I gotta call bull crap here. Plays like Jane?
Obviously you missed the facial reconstruction he had last year when he bent it over troy selwood.
You're harping on about crap Tango. You want nearly half the list as talls, to take up one of the 5-6 positions on the field (which is about one third of the spaces on the park). Pure maths says you can't do that.
Where do they develop? Coburg 2nds?
Sorry mate, but you've stopped thinking rationally, just to keep bleating on about the same points over and over. Take a deep breath, and say what realistically we could/should have done differently.
Only in your humble opinion Tango.Tango said:
The Recruiting department of the Richmond Football Club believe they have the mix about right and will now hand the list over to the Coaching department for development of the fitness, skills and match day training deemed necessary.
IMHO I think we have enough tall's now on our list and obviously we can top up next draft if required.
20 tall's in the playing group sounds a bit much to me, the playing list has to be balanced accordingly
between small's, mid's and tall's.
Out of interest just where exactly do our tall's in terms of numbers on our list compare with other AFL
teams, particularly seeing as our list surely must be the youngest overall in the comp.
Which AFL teams have more or less tall's than we do presently, that should indicate whether we have
enough or are deficient in this area, do Geelong, St Kilda, Bulldog's, Collingwood, Hawthorn, all possible
2010 premiers have more tall's than us now, the same or less.
Compare the teams that are right in the hunt for a flag or have won a flag over the past 3 years, that
should tell us exactly what is required for tall's on our list.
20 tall's in the playing group sounds a bit much to me, the playing list has to be balanced accordingly
between small's, mid's and tall's.
Out of interest just where exactly do our tall's in terms of numbers on our list compare with other AFL
teams, particularly seeing as our list surely must be the youngest overall in the comp.
Which AFL teams have more or less tall's than we do presently, that should indicate whether we have
enough or are deficient in this area, do Geelong, St Kilda, Bulldog's, Collingwood, Hawthorn, all possible
2010 premiers have more tall's than us now, the same or less.
Compare the teams that are right in the hunt for a flag or have won a flag over the past 3 years, that
should tell us exactly what is required for tall's on our list.
One more thing, Richmond is finally rebuilding its playing list from the bottom up. It's all well and good to say that x tall's are too young no experience, cant kick and so on, that is why Hardwick and Co have been employed to develop these kids accordingly.
Matthew Richardson, Wayne Carey, Royce Hart only come along once every 10 or so years and in terms of available retread AFL tall's there were none to be had, its that simple. We must develop our own tall's in house, we are finally able to do that, pointless exercise to criticise the playing list such as it is, we have until they have been given at least 2 years to show whether they have got what is necessary to play at AFL level.
Matthew Richardson, Wayne Carey, Royce Hart only come along once every 10 or so years and in terms of available retread AFL tall's there were none to be had, its that simple. We must develop our own tall's in house, we are finally able to do that, pointless exercise to criticise the playing list such as it is, we have until they have been given at least 2 years to show whether they have got what is necessary to play at AFL level.
B
Bill James
Guest
Tigerbob said:
Must be Christmas, it sounds like the Bridge Road College singers doing "Glad Tidings to all, Preseason mirth and Good Skill to all Men"
Bill James said:
lol, it gave me goosebumps. Sunglasses is a must, very bright, veeeeeeeeeery bright. ;D
Talls schmalls.
Which players from the Geelongs team have the greatest impact game in game out ??? Not very many of them at all above 192 cm.
Sure, you need talls and a great tall can have a massive impact on a game, but where does the drive come from ??
Quality players under 192 cm are what a team is built around. A couple of quality talls are the icing on the cake.
I too love the idea of a monster full forward or CHF, but it's not essential. Anyone remember Gary Ablett Snr (185 cm) or Peter Daicos (184 cm) or Brad Johnson (182 cm) or Dermott Brereton (186 cm), (I could go on for ever here). A game breaker doesn't need to be a giant.
Which players from the Geelongs team have the greatest impact game in game out ??? Not very many of them at all above 192 cm.
Sure, you need talls and a great tall can have a massive impact on a game, but where does the drive come from ??
Quality players under 192 cm are what a team is built around. A couple of quality talls are the icing on the cake.
I too love the idea of a monster full forward or CHF, but it's not essential. Anyone remember Gary Ablett Snr (185 cm) or Peter Daicos (184 cm) or Brad Johnson (182 cm) or Dermott Brereton (186 cm), (I could go on for ever here). A game breaker doesn't need to be a giant.
Tiger Rob said:
I think it's the combination of quality talls, quality mediums and quality smalls Rob
And generally Rob, its the TEAM that wins the premiership not one player
B
Bill James
Guest
Lets just go down the middle for a start Scarlett, Taylor, Hawkins and Mooney all played more than 22 games last year. Add in a third tall defender Mackie who also played 22 games. And of course then we have Blake on 21 games and Ottens who is a walk up start for them providing he can walk.
The cats have 7 players 192cm and over in their first dozen picked each week. Once Richo went down we only had 8 on our list of which 5 were first or second year players. Long standing joke.
The cats have 7 players 192cm and over in their first dozen picked each week. Once Richo went down we only had 8 on our list of which 5 were first or second year players. Long standing joke.
Tiger Rob said:
Huh? I think many are hung up due to the imbalance on our list. No one thinks talls alone will do it, nor do any think a gun midfield alone will do it. But a few of us think we can't possibly do it with the talls that we currently have
Bill James said:
Those 7 in there top dozen. Blake & Hawkins amongst some others. Please Bill.
Reckon the top 5 in there B & F who are all midfielders in Ablett, Enright, Bartel, Selwood, Chapman plus Corey, Ling, Johnson along with a couple of talls you listed in Scarlett & just this year Taylor drive that team.
If we continue to draft in definate order Skilled & then depending on the player type agile and strong players we will rise.
Bill James said:
There is no way to fix this quickly, the reason that we have this big gap goes all the way back the the Fawley years. We are correcting it now by drafting a solid spread of players at differing hights. The only other ways to fix it is to trade our picks for ready made talls, or pick up delisted players.
I think we are going down the right track, of our under 21s 10 out of 25 are 190+ - that's 40%. We just need to have some patience and not force the club back into our old ways by demanding instant success.
B
Bill James
Guest
Leysy Days said:
They would be in the first 12 picked every week not their best 12 players. Read the post.
And thats pretty much my point these guys are getting picked every week because they are >192cm and the argument was that no-one at Geelong over 192 has much of an impact. Their selectors obviously think otherwise.
Lets look at it
They are going to play two rucks most weeks so put Blake and Ottens down in biro if available.
Mooney is in because along with SJ they top the goals contributed for the Cats
Hawkins is in because he is not far behind the other two on goals contributed and they are going to pick him every week like we do with Jack.
Scarlet no commentary required
Taylor no commentary required for 2009
Mackie is debatable but played 22 games so some of the selectors like picking him, but on your list I put Enright and Ling in the same category on 2009. Enright is the Nigel Lappin or Chad Fletcher of Geelong, good player if he is getting the fourth best tagger. Ling is not the lay down misere he was in previous years.
I would have recruited another ruckman, probably on the rookie list.
In the ruck, we have Simmonds, Graham, Vickery and Browne. An 18 year-old development ruckman who spent most of his time playing in Coburg Reserves team next year would have been a fine addition. Hopefully, they attract someone to Coburg to fill this role. The problem, as far as I see it, is that a team needs 5 ruckmen at various stages of development on its list, and we only have 4, so we will be in the market for another ruckman next year, no matter what else happens. Simmonds will be odds on to retire, so we will be in the market for two. If we find out next year that one of the other three just won't cut the mustard, then we will need three, which will mean using at least one ND pick on a ruckman, which is overs. One ruckman is not too hard to find if yo are prepared to work on him over a few seasons, two is a bit more problematic, three is a stretch. Just a small thing but list management would have dictated that the opportunity to pick up another ruckman should have been taken. We seem to be in this position nearly every year.
Tall forwards: Riewoldt, Griffiths, Gourdis, Post, Astbury, Westhoff, Taylor. All young, each offers a different package. Griffiths, Gourdis and Westhoff are all potential power forwards, Taylor looks a third tall from the Michael O'Loughlin school, something we have lacked for a while, probably never had. In addition, both Morton and Deledio can play as medium marking forwards and cause serious headaches for defenders. These options look fine to me and there is plenty to work with. Gourdis will surprise a few next season, he's my call for the next big improver on the list.
Tall defenders: Thursfield, Moore, Rance, McGuane, Grimes, Polak. Astbury, Post and Gourdis are also potential tall defenders, if they are not needed up forward. Again, all young, all are very quick. In addition, Dea, whilst too small to play as a key defender, looks a likely medium/third tall defender. Post is a likely long-term CHB, so is Astbury, Rance a likely full-back. The three older boys are all capable of holding most tall forwards, especially if the midfield can reduce supply a little bit. I would rather the development go into Rance, Post and Grimes than into Silvester.
Thursfield, Moore and McGuane have the advantage of experience over the others but there is plenty to work with in this group.
In my view, we are just a development ruckman short. This can be fixed by getting a couple of leftover ruckmen down to Coburg and working on them in the reserves, with a view to rookie-listing at least one of them next year.
In the ruck, we have Simmonds, Graham, Vickery and Browne. An 18 year-old development ruckman who spent most of his time playing in Coburg Reserves team next year would have been a fine addition. Hopefully, they attract someone to Coburg to fill this role. The problem, as far as I see it, is that a team needs 5 ruckmen at various stages of development on its list, and we only have 4, so we will be in the market for another ruckman next year, no matter what else happens. Simmonds will be odds on to retire, so we will be in the market for two. If we find out next year that one of the other three just won't cut the mustard, then we will need three, which will mean using at least one ND pick on a ruckman, which is overs. One ruckman is not too hard to find if yo are prepared to work on him over a few seasons, two is a bit more problematic, three is a stretch. Just a small thing but list management would have dictated that the opportunity to pick up another ruckman should have been taken. We seem to be in this position nearly every year.
Tall forwards: Riewoldt, Griffiths, Gourdis, Post, Astbury, Westhoff, Taylor. All young, each offers a different package. Griffiths, Gourdis and Westhoff are all potential power forwards, Taylor looks a third tall from the Michael O'Loughlin school, something we have lacked for a while, probably never had. In addition, both Morton and Deledio can play as medium marking forwards and cause serious headaches for defenders. These options look fine to me and there is plenty to work with. Gourdis will surprise a few next season, he's my call for the next big improver on the list.
Tall defenders: Thursfield, Moore, Rance, McGuane, Grimes, Polak. Astbury, Post and Gourdis are also potential tall defenders, if they are not needed up forward. Again, all young, all are very quick. In addition, Dea, whilst too small to play as a key defender, looks a likely medium/third tall defender. Post is a likely long-term CHB, so is Astbury, Rance a likely full-back. The three older boys are all capable of holding most tall forwards, especially if the midfield can reduce supply a little bit. I would rather the development go into Rance, Post and Grimes than into Silvester.
Thursfield, Moore and McGuane have the advantage of experience over the others but there is plenty to work with in this group.
In my view, we are just a development ruckman short. This can be fixed by getting a couple of leftover ruckmen down to Coburg and working on them in the reserves, with a view to rookie-listing at least one of them next year.
good summary tot, I dont think we could have filled the gaps any better than how the cards unfolded...I would add that Polak can be included as a support act in the ruck dept, me thinks if he makes the long road back it could be as a follower change ruckman...
People are also discounting the likes of Dea and Taylor that look to play tall...in which case both will complement the structure of KPP we are hoping will develop
People are also discounting the likes of Dea and Taylor that look to play tall...in which case both will complement the structure of KPP we are hoping will develop
TOT70 said:
While I generally agree with this analysis, we do have a couple of players in Griffiths and Westhoff who are ruck size and may develop in this direction.
