Why aren't we playing better than last year??

[Tigerrific]

Additions:
Exchange period – received: Nathan Brown (Western Bulldogs)
Rookie promotion: -
Father/son rule: Thomas Roach (Oakleigh Chargers)
National AFL Draft: Kyle Archibald (Belconnen), Simon Fletcher (Carlton), Alex Gilmour (Tassie Mariners), Brent Hartigan (Calder Cannons), Daniel Jackson (Oakleigh Chargers), Shane Morrison (Brisbane Lions), Andrew Raines (Southport), Shane Tuck (West Adelaide)
National AFL Pre-Season Draft: Ben Marsh (Adelaide), Luke Weller (Brisbane Lions rookie list)
National AFL Rookie Draft: Marc Dragicevic (Richmond), Nathan Foley (Geelong Falcons)

Deletions:
Retired: Leon Cameron
Exchange period – traded: Ben Holland (Melbourne)
Delisted: Craig Biddiscombe, Marc Dragicevic, Clinton King, Martin McGrath, Andrew Mills, Daniel Sipthorp, Royce Vardy, Adam Pickering (rookie list), Matthew Shir (rookie list)

Looking at our list from last year's to this year's I can't work out why we've gone backwards.

This year we've added Nathan Brown, some promising youngsters and we've had bugger all injuries (except for Coughlan). Last year we had Campbell, Gaspar, Richardson, Ottens etc. missing for extended periods.

We didn't trade/delist anyone of significance, we've improved our list, we have the same coaching panel and we've had fewer injuries than last year, yet our performances have gotten worse.

Can anyone explain to me why this is happening?

[1980GFVideo]

Father/son rule: Thomas Roach (Oakleigh Chargers)
National AFL Draft: Kyle Archibald (Belconnen), Simon Fletcher (Carlton), Alex Gilmour (Tassie Mariners), Brent Hartigan (Calder Cannons), Daniel Jackson (Oakleigh Chargers), Shane Morrison (Brisbane Lions), Andrew Raines (Southport), Shane Tuck (West Adelaide)
National AFL Pre-Season Draft: Ben Marsh (Adelaide), Luke Weller (Brisbane Lions rookie list)
National AFL Rookie Draft: Marc Dragicevic (Richmond), Nathan Foley (Geelong Falcons)

All your listings are above other than Nathan Brown.

Which one has actually had an impact or could be expected to have an impact at this stage.
Some potential players there and some rejects but nothing in that list to mean increased performance in this year.

Its really a case of comparing Brown to the loss of Cameron and Holland which we are ahead but the lack of confidence that comes as the losses builds quashes that and sends us worse off than last year.

[Cuneyt]

frawley

[Bojangles17]

Originally posted by Tigerrific
Additions:
Looking at our list from last year's to this year's I can't work out why we've gone backwards.

This year we've added Nathan Brown, some promising youngsters and we've had bugger all injuries (except for Coughlan). Last year we had Campbell, Gaspar, Richardson, Ottens etc. missing for extended periods.

We didn't trade/delist anyone of significance, we've improved our list, we have the same coaching panel and we've had fewer injuries than last year, yet our performances have gotten worse.

Can anyone explain to me why this is happening?

neither can the rest of us....frawley had the side playing bettter when Clinton King sziller and DK were our engine room....welcome Cogs, johno and Browny and we're closing in on the wooden spoon..go figure

[Coach Required]

National AFL Draft: Kyle Archibald (Belconnen), Simon Fletcher (Carlton), Alex Gilmour (Tassie Mariners), Brent Hartigan (Calder Cannons), Daniel Jackson (Oakleigh Chargers), Shane Morrison (Brisbane Lions), Andrew Raines (Southport), Shane Tuck (West Adelaide)

thats the real reason guys!

Archibald
Gilmour
Hartigan
Jackson
Raines

are all young guys with the dreaded word at punt road "potential"
they arent Chris Judd like who you would expect to burst on the scenes in their first year, judd's a freak.

they replaced real duds perhaps we have been a bit impatient when the true fact is these 5 guys hopefully will be what we are looking for in the next few years, with the right development.

Morrison - disappointing but it is his first year here benefit of the doubt

Tuck - given no time in the seniors

Fletcher - you have to wonder why? gamble failed IMO

[DirtyDogTiger]

Originally posted by Coach Required

Fletcher - you have to wonder why? gamble failed IMO

THE GAMBLE? you mean our 9th round draft pick?
Actually he's provided a good return for 9th round

[itsintheblood]

Simple. Because we have an inept coaching panel.

[oxx]

Originally posted by itsintheblood
Simple. Because we have an inept coaching panel.

Yes.

Imagine working with the S-P-U-D (Special Performance Underacheiver- Duds) coaching pirates for 5 years.

There is NO way you could resist crossing over to the dud side.

The positive thing of the last 8 years is the club should have learnt
valuable lessons in how to run the RFC.
This period will remain a historical embarrassment,hopefully used
to deter any such similar behavioral patterns that may present
themselves down the track

IMO Browny has firm opinions on Frawleys coaching and would quit b4 enduring another year of Dannys' ways.

[CJH]

Originally posted by itsintheblood
Simple. Because we have an inept coaching panel.

Confidence.

There is obviously a lack of confidence in the President. There is also a lack of confidence in the Coach (Coaching staff). There is also probably a lack of confidence in the game plan.

Frawley's Dead Man Walking status is surely throwing a negative taint over the whole club.

I agree with the sentiment of this thread - that with few injuries and some quality senior players, we should reasonably expect to finish somewhere between 5 - 8.

I would suggest with a new coach and an infusion of quality through some early draft picks, we could rebound a lot quicker than you think.

Collingwood's list was much worse than ours at the end of the Shaw reign and look how quickly they came back.

Of the 38 odd players we've got, I would only expect possibly no more than 10 to be shown the door at seasons end. I don't think you'd have to be Einstein to work out which ones are the deadwood.

I would suggest goodbye to...

Hilton
Kellaway
Rogers
Blumfield
Marsh
Nicholls
Fletcher
Houlihan

These players are currently having little impact at senior level and do not represent any future growth or potential.

Replace them with kids with a chance to make it.

[Mog]

We go through this **** every year, declaring who is wasting our time and who should be dumped. Maybe this year, just for a change, we'll actually do something about the overpaid players bloating our salary cap and losers who are contributing nothing.

I can only hope.

[froars]

And i hope that supporters sit back and realistically assess our playing list. Our playing list is going to get a lot thinner with regard to experience if we are going to go on a youth recruiting mission. Well, that's what i'm hoping - with a sprinkling of experienced players who will still be around when all this comes to fruition.

Drafting Brown - as good as he has been and i can't fault him in his professional attitude to playing the game - was not a good selection, because basically he will be over the hill or finished by the time we're in the mix again fighting for a flag.

So youth and kids in early 20s, who show a bit and have a bit of experience, is the way to go.

And a decent "experienced" coach to show them the way. As soon as we get rid of the players of the old Richmond, and bring in a new era of players and coaches and PRESIDENTS, the sooner we'll see results.

Just got to be patient. Gonna be a long haul, but one worth it to see the Tiges back on top again being abnoxious and in your face like we were meant to be.

[DirtyDogTiger]

retire

Dunc
rogers

trade

Gaspar
Chaffey
A.Kellaway

delist

nicholls
houlihan
Hilton
Fletch
Dragga

Target

The best kids available..pace and aggression

[1980GFVideo]

Drafting Brown - as good as he has been and i can't fault him in his professional attitude to playing the game - was not a good selection, because basically he will be over the hill or finished by the time we're in the mix again fighting for a flag.

I agree.

I think Browny is a champion and love watching him play and see him as our greatest talent. But our real need was to fix up the bottom ten that run out each week where we fall apart.

Richmond needed to pull off something durring the season to placate the supporters and i cant help but feel that is why we went after Brown and Solomon with gusto.

If you asked Richmond coaching panel where we were in relation to Mick Malthouse' clock they wouldnt be able to tell you.

BTW - is that true that he is not happy with Danny or just rumour. understandable if he is a bit peeved with things at his new club

[kretchy]

Originally posted by DirtyDogTiger
THE GAMBLE? you mean our 9th round draft pick?
Actually he's provided a good return for 9th round
Fletcher was he waste of a pick he wasn't going to add anything to the team.
Here are some names that were picked after Fletcher in the pre-season and rookie drafts players we could have taken a gamble on instead of Fletcher.

Jacob Surjan
Aaron Davey
Brett Jones
Nathan Lovett-Murray

[GhostofJimJess]

Originally posted by froars
Drafting Brown - as good as he has been and i can't fault him in his professional attitude to playing the game - was not a good selection, because basically he will be over the hill or finished by the time we're in the mix again fighting for a flag.


Fair go Froars. He was only 25 when we drafted him.

How long do you think half a cycle is ?!

Might only be 2 - 3 years. It was for the Saints and Pies.

[froars]

Just an opinion Ghost. I think there'll be a total cleanout and i don't expect success for a few more years yet. Do you think they can turn it around in 3 or 4 years? I think they can get in the 8 in 3 or 4 years, but not before we've gone bottom for a couple while we're rebuilding. Therefore, i'm thinking Brown might still be around, but may not be the influential player he is now. So with that view, i still think it was a bad choice. Not knocking him at all - i think he is a fantastic influence to other players, and that hopefully will be his legacy for the club.

[GhostofJimJess]

Originally posted by froars
Just an opinion Ghost. I think there'll be a total cleanout and i don't expect success for a few more years yet. Do you think they can turn it around in 3 or 4 years? I think they can get in the 8 in 3 or 4 years, but not before we've gone bottom for a couple while we're rebuilding. Therefore, i'm thinking Brown might still be around, but may not be the influential player he is now. So with that view, i still think it was a bad choice. Not knocking him at all - i think he is a fantastic influence to other players, and that hopefully will be his legacy for the club.


Given that you think the 'turnaround' to be at least 3 - 4 years, Froars, then you would have endorsed our decision to merely "top up" at the end of 2001 in a valid attempt at the flaf in 2002.

After all, if Frawley and co felt, at that stage, that they were not going to be even seeing the Top 8 until at least 2005, then surely they were almost obliged to have a crack at it for the following year.

[froars]

I've lost your logic on endorsing "topping up" at the end of 2001.
Where in the hell did i say that.
Anyone who supported that - and i'm on the record at the time of saying the Hudson/Stafford selections were absolutely stupid.
So please explain - i've got no idea what you're on about.

[GhostofJimJess]

Well, at the conclusion of 2001, when we made the Prelim, and ultimately finished third, our football department was faced with a dilemma.

There was three possible methods of attack.

Option 1 - They could have maintained the staus quo, gone through the usual delistings, and draft a handful of youngsters no higher up in the draft than about Pick 17, which I think was our first pick in 2001. (This option would probably have seen us drop a few rungs down the ladder in 2002, but not a dramatic fall.)

Option 2 - They could have realised that we severely over-achieved, had a total cleanout, and wound up with a newlook, young list. This is the start of your 4 year 'turnaround', and a team could expect to be a cellar dweller for at least 2002, 2003 and possibly 2004. (Incidentally, this is the option that hindsight seems to suggest would have been preferable ... Geelong and St Kilda have both done it)

Option 3 - They could have seen exactly where our on-field flaws were in 2001, trade accordingly, hope for another relatively injury-free season, and prepare for one major tilt at the flag in 2002. (This is the course that Frawley and co ultimately took, much to the chagrin of hindsight).

Froars, your suggestion of a possible 4 year turnaround before we were even challenging to make the Top 8 was not an option for Frawley after the relative success in 2001.

How could he justify at the time, to the Richmond rank and file, that the team who won a Semi in front of 75,000 in 2001 was actually quite crap, and that we would not be challenging for the flag for another five years or so? If he was fortunate enough to still be at the helm? (Which would have been quite unlikely, given our immediate history of offloading coaches).

There is no way that Frawley could have made that decision after 2001. Only hindsight tells us of the inevitable wisdom of that course of action.

[froars]

Every reason why I'd like Sheedy to be coaching the Tiges. He would have seen after the game against Brisbane, that we needed a massive cleanout. I think reality struck the Tiges in the prelim, that, with all the luck in the world with an injury free season like we had, and still to be creamed like we did against Brisbane in the prelim, would, to me, say we were well away from being a flag contender.

Instead, Danny chose to top up the list with 2 players - one was one of the softest players ever to have played the game at the end of his career, and the other who has been serviceable, yet not set the world on fire.

Anyone could have seen if they didn't have rose-coloured glasses on like Danny did that we were well away from it.

We were on cloud 9 after the Carlton game, but reality the following week really sunk in to me that we were well away from it.

And even if we were close to being a contender, i still would make changes - i'd do it every year. You just got to keep turning over your players. Brisbane do it, Essendon do it - but you do it with a long term vision, and you can't have long term vision with players near the end of their careers or guys like Fletcher, Morrison, Nicholls - geez, still tearing me hair out lol. Instead of them adding to the list, they've added to the problem. More duds to get rid of. ANd seeing as we have quite a few and you can only get rid of so many in a year, we're stuck with them.

They couldn't make it at other clubs, why in the hell did Danny think he could get something out of them. He ain't no Sheeds, that's for sure.

We've really got to be serious with our list management. There's got to be young kids coming through every year. And that can be thru the draft or topping up with kids with, say, 50 games under their belt who show something.

Ghost, these are just my thoughts. I don't like quick fixes - i like long term formulas for success which will guarantee our club - like Sheeds has done over the last 25 years or so - averaging a flag every 5 years or so.

He builds his own players, rarely goes for the quick fix option - and if he does, it's to fill deficiencies, and seems to have the midas touch in getting more out of them than their previous clubs did.

We seem to be sidetracked a bit though lol - i still don't think Brown was a good pick, considering what you pay him and he probably won't be there when and if we get to play finals again.

[1980GFVideo]

Any feeling that the Tigers were one step away from a Grand Final would have been completely quashed by Sheedy in the rooms afterwards and he would stand his ground against the Rank and File.

I went to the Essendon final and saw the Brisbane final on TV and I wondered what we were doing in the finals.

How many games did we scrape through that year. We were no better than the Bullies and the Kangaroos as a side. Middle of the road with no super young talent emerging.

I agree with Froars in that an experienced coach like Sheedy would have brought perspective to it all and known that there were big changes needed if the side was to progress.

Instead Frawley seemed to almost jump up and down when anybody picked against Richmond in the finals.

Kept admitting that he was wet behind the ears to it all. Boy, I hated being reminded of that every appearance he made.

[GhostofJimJess]

I'm certainly not questioning that Sheedy would have made a better coach at Tigerland three years ago ... but I don't remember him being interested in the job.

I know it's easy in hindsight to condemn the actions of Danny and co after the 2001 Prelim. But in this day and age, with 16 pretty even teams, and a socialistic approach to distributing new players, you don't get many great opportunities to have a crack at a flag. Especially if you're not Brisbane!!

You can't really blame them for backing themselves in for the following year, in preference for another 4 years in the non-September wilderness. We also had Richo to come back into that side, virtually as a new recruit. And our injury run was not as terrific as we might remember it. Basically, our on-field XVIII simply played better week-in, week-out.

What if this season, for instance, Melbourne beats Essendon in the Semi, and then travels to Brisbane for the Prelim, and is beaten soundly, ultimately finishing third on the ladder after Brisbane and St Kilda. Is Neale Daniher then obligated to have a big cleanout? Does he automatically dump Neitz, Yze, Robertson etc.. because they're getting a bit long on the tooth, and are doubtful of being a part of the next Melbourne flag, which is further off than the true believers may think?

Are Port Adelaide any better off this year for having offloaded Guerra, Stevens and Koulo ?

We must face reality. If you're in the top four one year, you'd be mad not to back yourself in for the following season.

[froars]

No, of course you wouldn't drop Neitz, but you wouldn't go for a Marsh, Hudson or a Billy Nicholls to tip you over the edge to becoming a contender.

Danny didn't have to make wholesale changes either - he could have topped up with players, but players who weren't at the end of their careers or borderline.

And he's done that all thru his 5 years here. Every year a couple of new duds that no other club wants to touch.

If you go thru my Roarpower posts, you would have seen i condemned his choices at the time - so i don't think hindsight comes into it this time.

[GhostofJimJess]

Originally posted by froars
No, of course you wouldn't drop Neitz, but you wouldn't go for a Marsh, Hudson or a Billy Nicholls to tip you over the edge to becoming a contender.

Danny didn't have to make wholesale changes either - he could have topped up with players, but players who weren't at the end of their careers or borderline.

And he's done that all thru his 5 years here. Every year a couple of new duds that no other club wants to touch.

If you go thru my Roarpower posts, you would have seen i condemned his choices at the time - so i don't think hindsight comes into it this time.

Yeah, fair enough Froars. I don't think any of us were too impressed with Hudson's selection. I wasn't a huge fan of Sziller either, but Spud's suggestion on him being "unbreakable" did have some twisted logic attached.

Who we really needed was Phillip Matera to play that role of small forward, or Steven Milne. But then Matera can't seem to get out of his own way any further East than Cactus, and Milne's ahd his own problems too, hasn't he.

I wasn't too critical of us grabbing Staff, however. And I reckon he's given us some pretty good service. (At least, much more than Daffy would have!)

[Crumden]

Originally posted by froars

Drafting Brown - as good as he has been and i can't fault him in his professional attitude to playing the game - was not a good selection, because basically he will be over the hill or finished by the time we're in the mix again fighting for a flag.

I understand what you are saying froars, but having skillful players like Brown around can help a lot with the development of youngsters. If kids turn up at a team where the players kick it over each others heads or wide of the mark (at training or on the ground) it can be contagious. So can having players hit the mark and show a professional approach. It pushes the kids on and shows them how hard they have to work and what skill level is required of a top player.

I think we need to continue to bring in the right mix of kids and quality players (with the greater emphasis on good kids). Our problem is that we have been light on for top quality players and for good kids and have too many of the 'middle of the road' type players (largely due to trading for and drafting these types).