Which up & coming Victorian club will be next to win a flag?

[Bardo State]

For me Essendon has the most 'complete' team. They have the potential to be very good in every area of the ground. They don't get much media hype (apart from Heppel and Hurley) and many of their 2nd tier players are under rated. Which is strange because they are the second biggest team in a part of the world where Andrew Walker's hat counts as worthwhile footy news.

In terms of rating Midfield, backline, forwards etc, I would have Essendon a close second in every category. They finished in the 8 and have plenty of upside.

I feel that all the other teams just have a weak area that could stop them from contending. North have less of a problem but I don't see their forwardline or backline as 'Premiership quality.' You can usually get away with it if it's just your forward line or defence but when both are good but not great, it rarely clicks.

Melbourne are too raw to judge for me. Potential in spades but not at that stage.

Richmond have a good top end with the potential to have a top 4 top 4 in the future but just way too many holes right now. Very little depth inside the 22.

 

[Slattery_20]

Our 2nd tier guys are largely not rated because they all seem to get struck down with injury.
Winderlich, Dempsey, Lonergan, Hooker, Pears, Hardingham, Hocking, Stanton, all had injuries last year and most of them attempted (poorly) to play through. They're all good enough IMHO, not superstars but good players.

 

[theflea]

Our 2nd tier guys are largely not rated because they all seem to get struck down with injury.
Winderlich, Dempsey, Lonergan, Hooker, Pears, Hardingham, Hocking, Stanton, all had injuries last year and most of them attempted (poorly) to play through. They're all good enough IMHO, not superstars but good players.

which is the argument by some tiger fans that its easier to get that 2nd tier players than the stars. once that type of players come up we will move fwd.

 

[Slattery_20]

which is the argument by some tiger fans that its easier to get that 2nd tier players than the stars. once that type of players come up we will move fwd.

One vs one: sure.

In the number required? IMHO, no.
Not with how hit-and-miss Richmond have been with their later picks and how poor with their development.

It might have improved, but if it has, we haven't seen the results yet. Wait and see.

 

[lamaros]

Richmond fans would do well to look at what I posted earlier in the thread.

It is not easy to get a decent depth across the field. That's why they have players like Jake King and Miller running around, and a player in Houli, who couldn't get a game for Essendon, in their top group.

Which is not to say that Houli isn't a decent player - I certainly would have liked to hang on to him if we could have - but there is a difference between Houli being on the fringe of your side (where he was at Essendon) and being a walk up start every week.

And that difference is about 10 players of AFL quality. Essendon now has a list where players aren't getting games because there is no one else, but because they have to perform. We have experienced AFL quality players like McVeigh, Lovett Murray, Slattery, Dyson, Davey, Lonergan, Prismall and Reimers sitting on the fringe of the side. None of these guys are AFL stars, but they all have enough quality to excel at VFL level. That means that any younger players that are taking their spot are doing so not only on potential, but also on merit.

On the other hand Richmond's fringe group are mostly guys that are young. And young players have a lot of potential, but to get a group of young guys to fill as many holes as a squad of experienced AFL journeymen is not going to happen over a season. Most young players don't make it, and half of those that do will only become those journeymen themselves.

Richmond has four guys turning 28 or older in 2012 on their list, with 491 games experience. Essendon has 6, with 1052.

However.

Essendon has 1572 games of experience in the rest of their list, the guys 27 or younger. With 21 guys having played 25 games or more.
Richmond has 1361 games of experience in the rest of their list. They have 17 guys there who have played 25 games or more.

Its is true that Richmond has a very young list. But it is a complete misnomer that this means they have an experienced young team.

Richmond HAS to play a guy with 25 games or less every week, they just don't have any choice.

Essendon's 22nd player could be a guy with 47 games of AFL experience. That's more AFL experience than Richmond's 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd players.

All things being equal, Richmond is carrying four more players than Essendon every time they run out. Essendon has 31 players on their list with more experience than Richmond's 22nd. Richmond has 16 players on their list than Essendon's 22nd.

Compare this to Collingwood, who not only has 13 guys with 100+ games, but has a 22nd player with 48 games and another 4 with 25+. Collingwood has 26 players with more experience than Richmond's 22nd. Richmond has 15 players on their list with more experience than Collingwood's 22nd.

(Interestingly, Geelong this year will go from a side that had their 22nd player at around 40 games, to having four guys inside the 22 on around 20 games. This is why I'm tipping them to slide a bit - though they still have 14 guys at 100 games plus (compared to Richmond's 5) to keep them up for a bit).

 

[Tiger Titus]

Voted Tiges due to bias, but I'm actually surprised Essendon isn't winning this poll comfortably.

They made the finals last year and were the only team amongst these 4 to have a dip against quality teams (They beat Geelong without Watson ffs). North, Melbourne and the Tiges could only get their wins against the s**t sides and each other.

Everybody that thinks Essendon's midfield will continue to be s**t is in for a surprise in 2-3 years when Heppell and Kavanagh come into their own.

I hope the Tiges manage to jam a bit of quality into our second tier players, helping Deledio/Riewoldt/Cotchin/Martin to carve out some impressive years for us, but i think the smart money would be on the Bombers.

 

[lamaros]

Voted Tiges due to bias, but I'm actually surprised Essendon isn't winning this poll comfortably.

They made the finals last year and were the only team amongst these 4 to have a dip against quality teams (They beat Geelong without Watson ffs). North, Melbourne and the Tiges could only get their wins against the s**t sides and each other.

Everybody that thinks Essendon's midfield will continue to be s**t is in for a surprise in 2-3 years when Heppell and Kavanagh come into their own.

I hope the Tiges manage to jam a bit of quality into our second tier players, helping Deledio/Riewoldt/Cotchin/Martin to carve out some impressive years for us, but i think the smart money would be on the Bombers.

Fair post.

Essendon made finals last year beating Geelong, West Coast, Sydney and St. Kilda, and drew with Carlton. We lost to North, Richmond and Melbourne, which was poor, but had we managed those results (which is more doable, I'd say) we would have pushed Carlton for 5th place. We played four or the top 7 teams twice, and none of the bottom 5 twice. 8th is a fair effort with that draw.

So I will give a bit of love back.

What Richmond does have going for them is the fact that they are preforming around the same level as North and Melbourne at the moment, without having those older guys around to rely on. The only older player of any importance to Richmond's list is Newman in my view.

This indicates to me that Richmond is relying more upon their young guys to reach the same level as North and Melbourne, with one pretty obvious conclusion: Their young guys are better than North and Melbourne's young guys.

This doesn't magically cover for list holes, and they do need to get some AFL quality in their youngsters, which is not going to happen automatically - there is a lot of pressure on their recruitment and development. But it does mean that the might be doing it better at the moment.

 

[HurleyTheFuture]

The gap betweens Essendons best and worst is huge, out of these teams our best is the best but our worst is probably the worst, maybe Melbourne are a bit more inconsistent, but we can match it with other teams on our day but we can also easily lose to teams that we should EASILY beat

 

[00Stinger]

Zaharakis would be in there quite easily and seeing you have discounted age Fletcher also

That list made finals with a 'horror' draw and beat most of the top eight, while Melbourne, North and Richmond did what exactly?

Well Melbourne beat Essendon

 

[lamaros]

Beating us was your big scalp for the year, otherwise you only beat the 11th best team or lower.

We beat the second best team on the ladder - who won the premiership, and three other finalists.

Pretty sure you'd swap places in a heartbeat.

 

[HurleyTheFuture]

Well Melbourne beat Essendon

What has my post got to do with that?

 

[Tulip]

I rate Essendon, but there is no way i would swap lists with them. Essendon may be the best drilled unit in football, and all credit for that because it gets results (despite the amount that was paid to lure Hird, Bomber, Wellman etc.), But I believe that their list and North's lack the star potential of the Demons and Tigers. But hey, players aren't everything, St Kilda had one of the best midfields ever and never won a flag, a lot of it's down to the way a side is drilled.

 

[carn tigez]

What lamaros said in that epic post about Richmond is essentially spot on. No Tiger fans are deluded about the fact that we are very inexperienced and need to keep pumping games into young players. Houli would get a game at nearly any club in my view, but I agree with the point that he shouldn't be a 'safe' player, he should be under pressure each week. But I would also back him to perform well enough to keep his spot each week, similar to the position of Toovey for Collingwood.

But the fact that we are the least experienced of the 4 clubs has little bearing on whether or not we are able to win the next flag. I suppose it means that we are more of a wildcard than the others in that you can only guess whether or not we will develop the supporting cast around the guns with no evidence available to back these claims.

As a Richmond fan and obviously seeing the club more often than most neutrals, albeit with a bit of bias, there are a few players who cop more flak than they should for being seen as very good players by Richmond fans. What I mean is, King, Rance, Foley and Newman, to name a few, are generally very highly rated by Richmond fans and opposition supporters use this to emphasise their belief that Richmond lack any depth. The problem is that these players go unnoticed largely by opposition fans because they are not playing in a winning team; swap Jake King and Stokes or Byrnes from Geelong, and suddenly you would see King become highly rated and Richmond copping s**t for Stokes being in our best 22. Newman is immensely underrated, Rance had a great year last year, and a lot of fans forget how good Foley was a few years ago, and showed signs last year of getting back to that level.

Ultimately what I am saying is that Richmond's depth, while not as good as it needs to be, isn't as bad as a lot of people make out. With players like Grimes, Dea, Webberley, Morris, Ellis and Post to a lesser extent all showing a fair bit in their limited game time so far, the signs are promising.

 

[00Stinger]

Beating us was your big scalp for the year, otherwise you only beat the 11th best team or lower.

We beat the second best team on the ladder - who won the premiership, and three other finalists.

Pretty sure you'd swap places in a heartbeat.

that is irrelevant to my response.

You asked me what had we done for the year and I responded accordingly. The fact that you mearly made up the numbers in the finals doesn't bother me. You might as well have finished 9th and had an extra week off for the off season.

 

[Tiger Titus]

What lamaros said in that epic post about Richmond is essentially spot on. No Tiger fans are deluded about the fact that we are very inexperienced and need to keep pumping games into young players. Houli would get a game at nearly any club in my view, but I agree with the point that he shouldn't be a 'safe' player, he should be under pressure each week. But I would also back him to perform well enough to keep his spot each week, similar to the position of Toovey for Collingwood.

But the fact that we are the least experienced of the 4 clubs has little bearing on whether or not we are able to win the next flag. I suppose it means that we are more of a wildcard than the others in that you can only guess whether or not we will develop the supporting cast around the guns with no evidence available to back these claims.

As a Richmond fan and obviously seeing the club more often than most neutrals, albeit with a bit of bias, there are a few players who cop more flak than they should for being seen as very good players by Richmond fans. What I mean is, King, Rance, Foley and Newman, to name a few, are generally very highly rated by Richmond fans and opposition supporters use this to emphasise their belief that Richmond lack any depth. The problem is that these players go unnoticed largely by opposition fans because they are not playing in a winning team; swap Jake King and Stokes or Byrnes from Geelong, and suddenly you would see King become highly rated and Richmond copping s**t for Stokes being in our best 22. Newman is immensely underrated, Rance had a great year last year, and a lot of fans forget how good Foley was a few years ago, and showed signs last year of getting back to that level.

Ultimately what I am saying is that Richmond's depth, while not as good as it needs to be, isn't as bad as a lot of people make out. With players like Grimes, Dea, Webberley, Morris, Ellis and Post to a lesser extent all showing a fair bit in their limited game time so far, the signs are promising.

Byrnes struggles to get a game at the Cats, King is a walk up start in our best 22. This is the depth issue everyone is pointing out and it's very real. We have 3-5 players run out for us each week that would only get games at a genuine finals playing club due to injury. King is the poster child for this problem - he's undersized, can only kick with 1 foot, and does not have the skills to be an adequate rotation through the midfield. As long as he is best 22 at our club we'll struggle to make and win finals.

We also have a very large number of "unproven" players, which I think was lamaros' point. Players like Dea, Post, Astbury, Bachelor, Conca, Connors, Grigg, Grimes, Griffiths, Ellis, Morris, and Webberley do not demonstrate depth, just hope. None of those players have definitively proven they will make it at AFL level, we just hope they will. At least 8 of the 12 players I just mentioned will be in our 22 every week, if not more!

When some of these "hopefuls" become "definites" and blokes like White and King get pushed out to Coburg for 90% of the games we'll be able to claim some depth, but right now we really do have one of the thinnest lists going.

 

[Teeko]

we finished 5 places ahead of Melbourne despite having a MUCH harder draw and a terrible run with injuries. at this stage we are well ahead of them

 

[theflea]

Richmond fans would do well to look at what I posted earlier in the thread.

It is not easy to get a decent depth across the field. That's why they have players like Jake King and Miller running around, and a player in Houli, who couldn't get a game for Essendon, in their top group.

Which is not to say that Houli isn't a decent player - I certainly would have liked to hang on to him if we could have - but there is a difference between Houli being on the fringe of your side (where he was at Essendon) and being a walk up start every week.

And that difference is about 10 players of AFL quality. Essendon now has a list where players aren't getting games because there is no one else, but because they have to perform. We have experienced AFL quality players like McVeigh, Lovett Murray, Slattery, Dyson, Davey, Lonergan, Prismall and Reimers sitting on the fringe of the side. None of these guys are AFL stars, but they all have enough quality to excel at VFL level. That means that any younger players that are taking their spot are doing so not only on potential, but also on merit.

On the other hand Richmond's fringe group are mostly guys that are young. And young players have a lot of potential, but to get a group of young guys to fill as many holes as a squad of experienced AFL journeymen is not going to happen over a season. Most young players don't make it, and half of those that do will only become those journeymen themselves.

Richmond has four guys turning 28 or older in 2012 on their list, with 491 games experience. Essendon has 6, with 1052.

However.

Essendon has 1572 games of experience in the rest of their list, the guys 27 or younger. With 21 guys having played 25 games or more.
Richmond has 1361 games of experience in the rest of their list. They have 17 guys there who have played 25 games or more.

Its is true that Richmond has a very young list. But it is a complete misnomer that this means they have an experienced young team.

Richmond HAS to play a guy with 25 games or less every week, they just don't have any choice.

Essendon's 22nd player could be a guy with 47 games of AFL experience. That's more AFL experience than Richmond's 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd players.

All things being equal, Richmond is carrying four more players than Essendon every time they run out. Essendon has 31 players on their list with more experience than Richmond's 22nd. Richmond has 16 players on their list than Essendon's 22nd.

Compare this to Collingwood, who not only has 13 guys with 100+ games, but has a 22nd player with 48 games and another 4 with 25+. Collingwood has 26 players with more experience than Richmond's 22nd. Richmond has 15 players on their list with more experience than Collingwood's 22nd.

(Interestingly, Geelong this year will go from a side that had their 22nd player at around 40 games, to having four guys inside the 22 on around 20 games. This is why I'm tipping them to slide a bit - though they still have 14 guys at 100 games plus (compared to Richmond's 5) to keep them up for a bit).

pretty much agree with this post but i think ess fans need to stop comparing houli of 3/4 yrs ago to the houli of 2011. the player has improved and deserves credit for it.

 

[carn tigez]

Byrnes struggles to get a game at the Cats, King is a walk up start in our best 22. This is the depth issue everyone is pointing out and it's very real. We have 3-5 players run out for us each week that would only get games at a genuine finals playing club due to injury. King is the poster child for this problem - he's undersized, can only kick with 1 foot, and does not have the skills to be an adequate rotation through the midfield. As long as he is best 22 at our club we'll struggle to make and win finals.

We also have a very large number of "unproven" players, which I think was lamaros' point. Players like Dea, Post, Astbury, Bachelor, Conca, Connors, Grigg, Grimes, Griffiths, Ellis, Morris, and Webberley do not demonstrate depth, just hope. None of those players have definitively proven they will make it at AFL level, we just hope they will. At least 8 of the 12 players I just mentioned will be in our 22 every week, if not more!

When some of these "hopefuls" become "definites" and blokes like White and King get pushed out to Coburg for 90% of the games we'll be able to claim some depth, but right now we really do have one of the thinnest lists going.

The first paragraph I completely disagree with, King is a crucial member of our team and not because we're rubbish. That just isn't true. Two years ago I'd agree with you, when he turned the ball over regularly and didn't add much to the side. If you knew anything about the sport you would realise as a Richmond fan that Jake King is NOT the cause of the problem, but part of the solution.

The 2nd paragraph is exactly what I was saying, it is too early to tell whether or not our club is going places, the optimist in me says we are, the realist says it's too early to tell. What I do know is that, as lamaros said, it is definitely too early to write us off as having a lack of depth. It depends how the bolded players come on, and no one can possibly know that yet.

Basically I'm saying yes we do have a lack of depth, but Jake King and Rance getting games is not a symptom of this lack of depth.

 

[Daz]

IMHO any side would have 3-4 guys - absolute minimum - who'd get a game at any other side.

Richmond's 4 would be pretty obvious (Cotch Martin Deledio & Jack) and would probably get a game at any side in the league.
Essendon would get Hurley, Heppell, Zaha & Watson into any side. Melbourne would get Frawley, Moloney, Trengove & Jamar into any side, North would get Petrie, Swallow Goldstein, Wells & Harvey in.

Those 17 are non-negotiables, as far as I'm concerned.

B: * Frawley *
HB: Deledio Hurley Heppell
C: Trengove Cotchin Wells
HF: Martin Petrie Zaharakis
FF: Harvey Jack *
R: Goldstein Watson Swallow

Int: Jamar Moloney * *

Leaving 6 spots - 2 back, 1 forward, 2 runners.

I'd go with:

Fletcher Frawley McMahon/Newman
Grimes Hurley Deledio
Wells Watson Trengove
Harvey Riewoldt Martin
Sylvia Petrie Zaharakis
Goldstein Swallow Cotchin
Ryder Ziebell Stanton
Heppell

 

[HurleyTheFuture]

I'd go with:

Newman/McMahon Frawley Thompson/Garland
Grimes Hurley Deledio
Wells Watson Trengove
Harvey Riewoldt Martin
Sylvia Petrie Zaharakis
Goldstein Swallow Cotchin
Ryder Ziebell Stanton
Heppell

Unless I'm forgetting somebody that looks okay, however Fletcher should fit into the backline

 

[Daz]

Unless I'm forgetting somebody that looks okay, however Fletcher should fit into the backline

Ah yep, slot him in for Thompson/Garland.

 

[Trav 20]

Well Melbourne beat Essendon

Richmond lost to the Gold Coast.

 

[the big lebowski]

I'd go with:

Fletcher Frawley McMahon/Newman
Grimes Hurley Deledio
Wells Watson Trengove
Harvey Riewoldt Martin
Sylvia Petrie Zaharakis
Goldstein Swallow Cotchin
Ryder Ziebell Stanton
Heppell

Yep, good but I'd put Adams ahead of Sylvia for his consistency over the last two years.

 

[Tulip]

You would, but I'd say there are a few players ahead of Adam for that spot over the last few years.

Jurrah, for one.

 

[Joshen]

2 of the sides have something approaching a forward line for the next 5 years, Ess & Rich.
1 of the sides has something approaching a midfield for the next 5 years, North.
2 of the sides have something approaching a backline for the next 5 years, Melb & North.
2 of the sides have something approaching a ruck division for the next 5 years, Ess & Nth Melb.


Seriously, none of these sides have won a final since what, 06/07.
Firmly in the "who knows" basket.

I would just about agree with that except I think you've overated our backline, I'm certainly not sold on what we've got going down there at the moment.