Roast The Chronicles of Alan Richardson

[Persevering Saint]

All this talk about Retcho having the players.

Pretty sure he doesn't have White.

Wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't have Acres.

But if I was Mav Weller, getting another AFL game every week, irrespective of crap performance, I reckon he'd have me too.

 

[plugger66]

All this talk about Retcho having the players.

Pretty sure he doesn't have White.

Wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't have Acres.

But if I was Mav Weller, getting another AFL game every week, irrespective of crap performance, I reckon he'd have me too.

Sounds like every coach the saints have had in the last 25 years and probably every coach in the afl. I suppose by saying he has the players you work on the majority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mightymalaka]

Are you jase? Or should I say trigger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks to Bolton Gangbangs.....

 

[plugger66]

Thanks to Bolton Gangbangs.....

Ok. Love that show. Just didn’t connect it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stavro#4]

Vsd makes some good observations but here's the thing you will never be like something if you don't practice it and implement it.

I've never seen us use or at least attempt to use the ball with composure and time until this season.

Previous seasons, was this manic run, Chase, tackle, play on, bomb long. We had 4 seasons of it. Yet we expect players coming through to then be clean users of the football. It hadn't been a focus so why would we see it manifest it's self. Remember the issues pressure sides had with disposal around 2009-2013. Yet were surprised our disposal is poor after 4 seasons of it.

Brisbane I noticed started to really be composed with the footy to the point they were criticised for going too slow. I remember in the game vs port they were copping it for chipping it around until one of commentators said it was a good thing in the 4th and they werent buckling to the pressure and were methodically finding a way to goal. Fast forward to now and they're picking sides apart with their zone because they're kicking through it. Fagan taught that into them from day 1. They were using it during games. Now into their 2nd season they're seeing it work. They're seeing clean disposal under pressure.

So here's the kicker you can't as senior coach 4 seasons in dramatically change everything and think an entire list will just adapt to it. If he's implemented something for 4 seasons that didn't work that's on him and ultimately should end in him being removed as there's no guarantee that his 2nd go at it will work either. Especially if he's thinking season by season. You'll end up following the innovators of the game that are at other clubs.

Hmmmm I think we could fix our biggest issue which is our inside 50 disposals. We bomb it long we have poor entries due to it and rinse and repeat.

One summer of hitting up targets should sort it out. I think our defence has held up ok

 

[Saintbloke]

We really are a poorly disciplined, poorly drilled team, plus when you add a few ordinary players into the mix, it's not pretty- especially against better teams. We can't instantly recruit good players, but we can move on the coach- and should do so even if it takes money (not mine though..I've spent enough money supporting this club for years.)

 

[One 2 Roo]

Not sure if this is the right area - but will post away and can be moved later.

Just had the pleasure of spending the morning at corporate speaking event, on the topic of creating highly successful teams. The presenter, having measured both successful sporting teams, and corporate, using all sorts of date has drawn a direct correlation between high team performance and cohesiveness of the team and organisation. (No surprise really).

What was very damming, and relevant, is that cohesiveness (and therefore success) takes time and built on shared experiences. As an example, one of the biggest indicator of success in major sporting competitions is what is termed the GSI (Games shared index) which suggests that the more often a team play together - the more successful they become. Melbourne storm are a great example of this. There is also a lot of research and data around removing a player of great experience, and playing a key position and the detrimental effect this will have on a team, however this is far more profound when you remove two key players. (Roo and Joey) And by that reasoning, our season that we are having has been somewhat predictable.

I didn't get to see the data, but they also measure a coaches ability to outperform or underperfrorm, using the teams GSI and standard - meaning teams with a low GSI and high relative out performance, generally have good coaching or systems in place that are conducive to producing such results. Never the less, it is cohesiveness that is by far the biggest determination of success.

Facilities have no impact, bringing in new players has a detrimental impact initially. Bringing in two many new players has a longer detrimental impact (think Brisbane 09ish). Bringing in young players (with less learned behaviors) vs bringing in experienced players had more of a positive impact on results.

Changing the system can have a small detrimental impact, but if the players remain the same or similar it is not too bad. Changing the system (coach) and players had a profound detrimental impact.

Not sure where I am going with this, but the more time I spent listening, the more I became convinced that changing the coach is not necessarily the answer. Cohesiveness comes with time and games played - together.

 

[VDS66]

Not sure if this is the right area - but will post away and can be moved later.

Just had the pleasure of spending the morning at corporate speaking event, on the topic of creating highly successful teams. The presenter, having measured both successful sporting teams, and corporate, using all sorts of date has drawn a direct correlation between high team performance and cohesiveness of the team and organisation. (No surprise really).

What was very damming, and relevant, is that cohesiveness (and therefore success) takes time and built on shared experiences. As an example, one of the biggest indicator of success in major sporting competitions is what is termed the GSI (Games shared index) which suggests that the more often a team play together - the more successful they become. Melbourne storm are a great example of this. There is also a lot of research and data around removing a player of great experience, and playing a key position and the detrimental effect this will have on a team, however this is far more profound when you remove two key players. (Roo and Joey) And by that reasoning, our season that we are having has been somewhat predictable.

I didn't get to see the data, but they also measure a coaches ability to outperform or underperfrorm, using the teams GSI and standard - meaning teams with a low GSI and high relative out performance, generally have good coaching or systems in place that are conducive to producing such results. Never the less, it is cohesiveness that is by far the biggest determination of success.

Facilities have no impact, bringing in new players has a detrimental impact initially. Bringing in two many new players has a longer detrimental impact (think Brisbane 09ish). Bringing in young players (with less learned behaviors) vs bringing in experienced players had more of a positive impact on results.

Changing the system can have a small detrimental impact, but if the players remain the same or similar it is not too bad. Changing the system (coach) and players had a profound detrimental impact.

Not sure where I am going with this, but the more time I spent listening, the more I became convinced that changing the coach is not necessarily the answer. Cohesiveness comes with time and games played - together.

Chris Judd spoke about this as well.

 

[gringo2011]

Chris Judd spoke about this as well.

Was pretty much the 97 and 2000s team at St Kilda as well with a big bulk of kids playing together and building up. Relies on the quality on the list still though. If you have a bonded VFL quality team you aren't winning a premiership.

 

[StCicatriz]

woah trump went off:

 

[Saintbloke]

Not sure if this is the right area - but will post away and can be moved later.

Just had the pleasure of spending the morning at corporate speaking event, on the topic of creating highly successful teams. The presenter, having measured both successful sporting teams, and corporate, using all sorts of date has drawn a direct correlation between high team performance and cohesiveness of the team and organisation. (No surprise really).

What was very damming, and relevant, is that cohesiveness (and therefore success) takes time and built on shared experiences. As an example, one of the biggest indicator of success in major sporting competitions is what is termed the GSI (Games shared index) which suggests that the more often a team play together - the more successful they become. Melbourne storm are a great example of this. There is also a lot of research and data around removing a player of great experience, and playing a key position and the detrimental effect this will have on a team, however this is far more profound when you remove two key players. (Roo and Joey) And by that reasoning, our season that we are having has been somewhat predictable.

I didn't get to see the data, but they also measure a coaches ability to outperform or underperfrorm, using the teams GSI and standard - meaning teams with a low GSI and high relative out performance, generally have good coaching or systems in place that are conducive to producing such results. Never the less, it is cohesiveness that is by far the biggest determination of success.

Facilities have no impact, bringing in new players has a detrimental impact initially. Bringing in two many new players has a longer detrimental impact (think Brisbane 09ish). Bringing in young players (with less learned behaviors) vs bringing in experienced players had more of a positive impact on results.

Changing the system can have a small detrimental impact, but if the players remain the same or similar it is not too bad. Changing the system (coach) and players had a profound detrimental impact.

Not sure where I am going with this, but the more time I spent listening, the more I became convinced that changing the coach is not necessarily the answer. Cohesiveness comes with time and games played - together.

Watters shouldn't have been sacked then.

 

[plugger66]

Hmmmm I think we could fix our biggest issue which is our inside 50 disposals. We bomb it long we have poor entries due to it and rinse and repeat.

One summer of hitting up targets should sort it out. I think our defence has held up ok

If the forwards aren’t leading players it’s hard to hit them on the chest. McCartin doesn’t get so ace on his player that often. Membery seems happy to be a stand and deliver player. The tigers and pies bomb. Hasn’t hurt them. Need mobile forwards and better middle sized players. Not an easy fix as some think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[One 2 Roo]

Was pretty much the 97 and 2000s team at St Kilda as well with a big bulk of kids playing together and building up. Relies on the quality on the list still though. If you have a bonded VFL quality team you aren't winning a premiership.

I failed to mention, but did speak to him directly re the Saints and the effect of Roo and Joey leaving as per my point above. He then went on to say that there is (unsurprisingly) a direct correlation in the AFL of second tier success and immanent or immediate first tier success. Skill has a major impact (player ability) but can often be taught or learned, if the player is young enough.

 

[One 2 Roo]

Watters shouldn't have been sacked then.

In any given season there is usually an outlier, a team that has a GSI of a high rating and is under performing - which usually means that there is something immeasurable that is happening. NQ Cowboys this year are a perfect example.

 

[plugger66]

We really are a poorly disciplined, poorly drilled team, plus when you add a few ordinary players into the mix, it's not pretty- especially against better teams. We can't instantly recruit good players, but we can move on the coach- and should do so even if it takes money (not mine though..I've spent enough money supporting this club for years.)

Or as we have waited this long do a full review without just sacking another coach. If the review says sack then sack. If it says keep tgen keep and find out if the assistants are up to it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Persevering Saint]

Sounds like every coach the saints have had in the last 25 years and probably every coach in the afl. I suppose by saying he has the players you work on the majority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The larger point is not WHETHER he has the majority of the players, but WHY does he have the majority of the players?

If the reason he has players like Sav, Mav, etc, is because they know they'll get an AFL pay cheque each week, then no, that's not a good reason.

If the reason he doesn't have White or Acres is because they think they are measured by unfair standards, especially in comparison to his favourites like Mav, then that's not good either.

If I was Acres, sitting on the sidelines watching Friday night's trainwreck, and seeing Mav Weller rack up his 11 disposals even after being put into the middle... I'd be pretty ticked. I'd question the integrity of selection. I'd question the quality of the coach, and his appraisal of my abilities.

I have no problem with a coach having favourites, where that favouritism is warranted - Nick Riewoldt was always a coaches' favourite, for darn good reasons. But when, simply put, good players are being overlooked for bad players, that's not great. This has been a systemic, chronic, ongoing issue throughout Richo's tenure.

 

[plugger66]

The larger point is not WHETHER he has the majority of the players, but WHY does he have the majority of the players?

If the reason he has players like Sav, Mav, etc, is because they know they'll get an AFL pay cheque each week, then no, that's not a good reason.

If the reason he doesn't have White or Acres is because they think they are measured by unfair standards, especially in comparison to his favourites like Mav, then that's not good either.

If I was Acres, sitting on the sidelines watching Friday night's trainwreck, and seeing Mav Weller rack up his 11 disposals even after being put into the middle... I'd be pretty ticked. I'd question the integrity of selection. I'd question the quality of the coach, and his appraisal of my abilities.

I have no problem with a coach having favourites, where that favouritism is warranted - Nick Riewoldt was always a coaches' favourite, for darn good reasons. But when, simply put, good players are being overlooked for bad players, that's not great. This has been a systemic, chronic, ongoing issue throughout Richo's tenure.

All fair enough points if you don’t think the coaches don’t talk to players but they do and do it constantly. Players know exactly where they are at. As we are guessing my guess is acres was told it was to risky being picked off a 5 day break when coming back from a groin issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Persevering Saint]

Furthermore, the central criticism that I and others identified with Richo when he was hired, was his ability to close the deal. Everybody believed the widespread reputation he had for developing youth. The question was whether, having developed our budding youngsters to a top-8 quality list by, say, 2017, he could actually take the next step of getting us to a premiership by 2018-2020.

The one feather he had in his cap was development. Nobody talked about his tactical genius, or his ability to will the team over the line, or any other measure of a good coach. It was development, development, development.

All evidence now suggests he is utterly crap at that as well. Many of our youth have evidently regressed, most have not realised the potential. The fact is, for all the grief Trout has got, if you look at how he picked players in the draft, it corresponded most of the time to many mock-drafts, give or take 4-5 spots most of the time. With the exception of people like Daniel McKenzie, we haven't had more than one reach or two. He brought in players that most pundits thought were reasonable, if at times rather safe or boring, selections. You COULD say that Trout got all those picks wrong - but if he did, a lot of other experts did, too.

That means, it is not about selection, so much as it is about development of those selections.

 

[BrutThough]

The larger point is not WHETHER he has the majority of the players, but WHY does he have the majority of the players?

If the reason he has players like Sav, Mav, etc, is because they know they'll get an AFL pay cheque each week, then no, that's not a good reason.

If the reason he doesn't have White or Acres is because they think they are measured by unfair standards, especially in comparison to his favourites like Mav, then that's not good either.

If I was Acres, sitting on the sidelines watching Friday night's trainwreck, and seeing Mav Weller rack up his 11 disposals even after being put into the middle... I'd be pretty ticked. I'd question the integrity of selection. I'd question the quality of the coach, and his appraisal of my abilities.

I have no problem with a coach having favourites, where that favouritism is warranted - Nick Riewoldt was always a coaches' favourite, for darn good reasons. But when, simply put, good players are being overlooked for bad players, that's not great. This has been a systemic, chronic, ongoing issue throughout Richo's tenure.

If Acres cant handle the coaches looking out for his welfare by not testing his groin injury after a 5 day break, then he can leave. He had nothing to gain playing on Friday night, and one more week in the VFL to ensure he is 100% ready to go didnt harm him at all.

 

[Persevering Saint]

All fair enough points if you don’t think the coaches don’t talk to players but they do and do it constantly. Players know exactly where they are at. As we are guessing my guess is acres was told it was to risky being picked off a 5 day break when coming back from a groin issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, that argument doesn't work, for several reasons.

Firstly, just because a player is talked to, doesn't mean they think the coach is right. If Richo sits down with Brandon White, and says, "Look, mate, I just don't think you're ready to play in the ones, because you don't have the footskills or the defensive mindset we need for your role", okay. It's great to tell him that. But if he then sees Savage get picked week after week, and sees him missing targets and letting his man off the hook, that's gonna be a problem. Just because a player is told the standards he is expected to meet, doesn't mean it's okay - they should be able to see those standards being met by their positional competitors.

Secondly, Acres was cleared to play, and named as an emergency. That says he could play.

Thirdly, Richo publicly stated that Acres could have played, but was not selected. That's bad, not only because it relates to my second point above, but also because that is a public insult to a player who was one of our best at the beginning of the year, and who has put in great performances at VFL level for several weeks.

 

[Persevering Saint]

If Acres cant handle the coaches looking out for his welfare by not testing his groin injury after a 5 day break, then he can leave. He had nothing to gain playing on Friday night, and one more week in the VFL to ensure he is 100% ready to go didnt harm him at all.

And if that was what the coach had communicated, to him, and to everybody else, fine. If he'd said, "Look, we'd love to play Blake, he's a key player for us. But given there was only a five-day break and he's still recovering, we are not going to play him until Sunday. This is in line with his recovery plan." That's totally okay.

But that is not what he communicated to the media. He said that Acres was available, but not chosen. He made Acres an emergency, which says he's available, too. That says that, in his position, the players chosen are better than him at this point in time. That is patently false.

 

[VDS66]

The larger point is not WHETHER he has the majority of the players, but WHY does he have the majority of the players?

If the reason he has players like Sav, Mav, etc, is because they know they'll get an AFL pay cheque each week, then no, that's not a good reason.

If the reason he doesn't have White or Acres is because they think they are measured by unfair standards, especially in comparison to his favourites like Mav, then that's not good either.

If I was Acres, sitting on the sidelines watching Friday night's trainwreck, and seeing Mav Weller rack up his 11 disposals even after being put into the middle... I'd be pretty ticked. I'd question the integrity of selection. I'd question the quality of the coach, and his appraisal of my abilities.

I have no problem with a coach having favourites, where that favouritism is warranted - Nick Riewoldt was always a coaches' favourite, for darn good reasons. But when, simply put, good players are being overlooked for bad players, that's not great. This has been a systemic, chronic, ongoing issue throughout Richo's tenure.

So apart from Acres, which fully fit and on form player isn't getting a game right now?

And I'm talking about deserving a spot and not who you think should get a run.

 

[plugger66]

Furthermore, the central criticism that I and others identified with Richo when he was hired, was his ability to close the deal. Everybody believed the widespread reputation he had for developing youth. The question was whether, having developed our budding youngsters to a top-8 quality list by, say, 2017, he could actually take the next step of getting us to a premiership by 2018-2020.

The one feather he had in his cap was development. Nobody talked about his tactical genius, or his ability to will the team over the line, or any other measure of a good coach. It was development, development, development.

All evidence now suggests he is utterly crap at that as well. Many of our youth have evidently regressed, most have not realised the potential. The fact is, for all the grief Trout has got, if you look at how he picked players in the draft, it corresponded most of the time to many mock-drafts, give or take 4-5 spots most of the time. With the exception of people like Daniel McKenzie, we haven't had more than one reach or two. He brought in players that most pundits thought were reasonable, if at times rather safe or boring, selections. You COULD say that Trout got all those picks wrong - but if he did, a lot of other experts did, too.

That means, it is not about selection, so much as it is about development of those selections.

So why is Gresham so good or Sinclair so much better than a rookie pick. No development is going change the fact that dunstan is slow or McCartin is slow or billings isn’t a contested ball player. Or Ross is slow. None of that is development. It’s just the players we picked up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

Furthermore, the central criticism that I and others identified with Richo when he was hired, was his ability to close the deal. Everybody believed the widespread reputation he had for developing youth. The question was whether, having developed our budding youngsters to a top-8 quality list by, say, 2017, he could actually take the next step of getting us to a premiership by 2018-2020.

The one feather he had in his cap was development. Nobody talked about his tactical genius, or his ability to will the team over the line, or any other measure of a good coach. It was development, development, development.

All evidence now suggests he is utterly crap at that as well. Many of our youth have evidently regressed, most have not realised the potential. The fact is, for all the grief Trout has got, if you look at how he picked players in the draft, it corresponded most of the time to many mock-drafts, give or take 4-5 spots most of the time. With the exception of people like Daniel McKenzie, we haven't had more than one reach or two. He brought in players that most pundits thought were reasonable, if at times rather safe or boring, selections. You COULD say that Trout got all those picks wrong - but if he did, a lot of other experts did, too.

That means, it is not about selection, so much as it is about development of those selections.

i like to call this the Melbourne Dees effect ... we all remember the baby Dee's when the club cut deap into their list and well all youth and how during that period the younger guys who were well regarded reached a certain point then started to stagnate and then go backwards ... i think the issue of it was that the older guys who stayed on were fighting to keep their spots and in doing so were perhaps not leading the team as much as they could to help develop their eventual replacments ... we saw in the early stages of our rebuild senior players take on the role of growing anf mentoring some of the younger guys we saw Lenny take Dunstan under his wing Schnider take Lonie and early on these guys looked like the leaders of oour club but then Lenny retired and then Schnides and these guys started going backwards some guys like Billings and Acres who didnt get a mentor reach a certain point then stagnate ... i know last year Acres took it on himself to shadow Rooey and i think that set him up to have a strong end to the year and a strong start to this year ...
so while it can be seen as richo not developing you can also question if internally in the team is there anoth development from the older players happening ???

 

[Persevering Saint]

So why is Gresham so good or Sinclair so much better than a rookie pick. No development is going change the fact that dunstan is slow or McCartin is slow or billings isn’t a contested ball player. Or Ross is slow. None of that is development. It’s just the players we picked up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting choice of examples.

There were months - MONTHS - of posters being furious at how Sinclair was being played. He was one of only a few of our players considered elite by Champion Data, specifically as a wingman. Yet he was not played there, for ages, and struggled.

There are any number of players in the AFL who are as slow as Dunstan or Ross, who are respected as elite within the competition. They are simply played in a way that utilises their strengths and minimises their weaknesses. Billings clearly has a very impressive set of skills, as well. The question is why he is placed into positions and roles that do not maximise those skills, and asks of him to do things he's not suited for.