Are Melbourne and Richmond proof that 'Youth Policies' don't work

[Puddy]

Melbourne has been 'rebuilding' since 2007. That is 5 years of developing players and creating a team that should be contending for a flag. However Melbourne has gone nowhere and if they have improved at all it is barely noticable. Richmond are in the same boat, going nowhere. Melbourne and Richmond supporters will tell you that 'next year we will improve and contend' and have been for the last couple of years.

Are these Football clubs proof that youth policies do not work?

 

[Powered Up]

Getting it right at the Draft goes along way.
something I think Melbourne and Richmond do 1 year and stuff up the next.

 

[Tas]

To say Melbourne has gone nowhere is a bit harsh, they went from bottom quartile (of the then 16 teams) to third quartile and do not really need radical improvement to move up to the second quartile or the bottom half of the top 8.

You have to take into consideration they had a coach than hadn't tried to win for a big chunk of his time at the club and had adopted a style that was already obsolete. They could make radical improvement in the next few years if some fundamentals change.

If anything, you could question development. Dees have a lot of players that reach a good if somewhat inconsistent point but do not really progress from that point onwards to be out and out stars of the game. Even the good experienced players are not what you would call four quarter players but can from time to time when they feel like it show what they are capable of.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

I think Melbourne have stuffed up a bit by getting rid of Macdonald and Bruce. It's alright going down the youth path, but if there's too much youth on field and not much leadership, it's going to hurt in the future.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Whaaaaat?

Melbourne and Richmond are two very extreme examples.

Both had been run incompetently for the best part of two decades.

Both pretty much began rebuilding in 08, that's four years.

A rebuild doesn't happen overnight either, you aren't going to get an excellent base for your team from one draft.

You can't just look at when a team started to 'rebuild' and say 'Oh, they've had four years... they should be somewhere by now'... you have to look at the situations both teams were in and the current situations of the teams.

In both Melbourne and Richmond's cases their lists were completely overhauled the first two or so years of the rebuild; and they are both currently among the three youngest lists in the competition.

Seems a bit rich to call either clubs rebuilds a failure; just look at how long Carlton took to get back into finals contention.. and that was probably even accelerated by Judd coming to the club.

Oh... as a Port fan you better hope youth policies work.

 

[Richo83]

Richmond is proof that "Terry Wallace policy" doesn't work, not to mention "picking up duds at the draft table policy" doesn't work either. Yes, having draft picks is key, but executing those draft picks is also key.

Richmond are in the same boat, going nowhere.

Going nowhere? So having talented youngsters on our list is going nowhere?

Melbourne and Richmond supporters will tell you that 'next year we will improve and contend' and have been for the last couple of years.

And what happens if this occurs? Melbourne and Richmond's lack of faillure has more to do with staff (Bailey, Wallace, Miller) than their youth policy. For the record, Hardwick is the first decent coach and Jackson the first decent recruiter Richmond has had in a while.

Are these Football clubs proof that youth policies do not work?

I'd wait until we go half baked deciding youth doesn't work. I don't understand why people don't get drafting. The draft is a system where clubs are given access to the best kids based on their success. Of course, there are variables on how they'll go, but no club in the land would pass up Cotchin or Martin.

Oh and Melbourne and Richmond were also just s**t, not just tankers.

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

Yeah they are. But both these sides have had culture problems for a long time as well, so that def contributes to the constant failures.

And as the Melbourne poster in post #5 said, they have had incompetent people in charge at both clubs for decades. That doesn't help either.

 

[Spirit of 39]

Melbourne has been 'rebuilding' since 2007. That is 5 years of developing players and creating a team that should be contending for a flag. However Melbourne has gone nowhere and if they have improved at all it is barely noticable. Richmond are in the same boat, going nowhere. Melbourne and Richmond supporters will tell you that 'next year we will improve and contend' and have been for the last couple of years.

Are these Football clubs proof that youth policies do not work?

If you bothered to do any research at all you would have realised that the MFC list was the second youngest in the AFL this year behind GC. What do I deduct from this? That the youthful Melbourne list is still youthful.

So much to say, so little substance.

 

[Kwality]

Neither club feature competent administrators.

Balancing when to show the old guys the door has not been handled at either club.

 

[Corrosion]

Seems a bit rich to call either clubs rebuilds a failure; just look at how long Carlton took to get back into finals contention.. and that was probably even accelerated by Judd coming to the club.

Carlton suffered for a long time due to draft penalties and having to try the recycled route whilst being imposed with said draft penalties. Completely different scenario to both Richmond and Melbourne.

 

[Tas]

Getting it right at the Draft goes along way.
something I think Melbourne and Richmond do 1 year and stuff up the next.

Recruitment and development are important and those are long-term issues.

I dont think you can fault the drafting of either club in recent years, but it can take a long time to undo many years of neglect. Someone like Hardwick may spend his entire career just re-applying the foundations to make a successful club. It is something Barry Cable and John Kennedy Snr did at our club in the 80s. We had expended so much effort and resources on the 70s we were left with a list in such a poor state it would take near on a decade to rebuild.

But, those efforts and the focus on youth via the then Under 19s competition allowed us to create the environment which churned out the team we produced over the 90s.

It was just a shame that the lessons of past weren't learnt and we ran our list into the ground again post the 90s.

We are kinda in the same boat with Scott, although thankfully our club realised the folly towards the end of Laidley's era and forced a rebuild on and off-field towards the end of Laidley's reign of the plodders.

If Frawley and Wallace did Hardwick any favours he would have been a lot more advanced than he is now.

 

[Richo83]

Both pretty much began rebuilding in 08, that's four years.

Minor quibble but Richmond really started late 2009 when Hardwick and co started implementing their "play good kids not old duds" policy. Wallace did little to rebuild and still tried to make the 8 in the start of 2009.

People should also remember that while Richmond haven't got rid of their established players for kids, Melbourne have. They traded Johnstone and McLean for picks. They delisted McDonald and Bruce. Now I think they were smart moves but Melbourne to a much larger degree than Richmond have gone for youth over experience. In reality, Richmond could play Tuck more (Bowden is 33 now) but that's about it.

People also should remember that Richmond got full mileage out of it's old players. Richardson played till he retired due to injury, Brown could have played on but didn't want to given he was riddled with injury and Simmonds was well past it. The only players who could have been said to have been shafted are Tuck and Bowden, but in reality, Richmond have played the kids because the elder players have left the club for natural reasons. In essence, when your whole list is made up of kids, playing youth isn't so much a policy as it is a necessity.

I'm happy to cop that Richmond have a culture problem. I don't think they have a strategy problem. Hardwick is a good coach with good ideas, and he knows how to pick a side which will go onto deliver success in the future.

 

[Doctor Feel]

It's all about the actual list turn over. If you take a youth policy, you also need to be brutal with your delistings. Anyone with wavering abilities needs to be seriously looked at at the end of each year. If you continue a good list turn over, you will unearth some real gems.

 

[whelan=legend]

Haha. Melbourne at times had a team younger than the Gold Coast this season (when we beat Essendon, for example).

Maybe we shouldn't have had a 'youth policy' and scrounged an extra few seasons out of Neitz, Robertson, White, Yze, Bruce, Johnstone, McLean, Ward, Godfrey, Carroll, Bell, Holland, Miller, Pickett, Brown, Bizzell and all those others that lead us to a semi final in 06.

That would really have benefited the club in the long term, wouldn't it?

A rebuild will only be over once our team has an average age of 24+.Melbourne is a few years away from that happening, I imagine.

 

[Richo83]

Recruitment and development are important and those are long-term issues.

I dont think you can fault the drafting of either club in recent years, but it can take a long time to undo many years of neglect. Someone like Hardwick may spend his entire career just re-applying the foundations to make a successful club. It is something Barry Cable and John Kennedy Snr did at our club in the 80s. We had expended so much effort and resources on the 70s we were left with a list in such a poor state it would take near on a decade to rebuild.

But, those efforts and the focus on youth via the then Under 19s competition allowed us to create the environment which churned out the team we produced over the 90s.

It was just a shame that the lessons of past weren't learnt and we ran our list into the ground again post the 90s.

We are kinda in the same boat with Scott, although thankfully our club realised the folly towards the end of Laidley's era and forced a rebuild on and off-field towards the end of Laidley's reign of the plodders.

If Frawley and Wallace did Hardwick any favours he would have been a lot more advanced than he is now.

Great post. For the record everyone, Richmond have drafted decently since 05. 2004 and 2005 were big failures, but since then, Richmond have hit mainly high notes, and as many high notes as many other clubs.

 

[RandB]

Both Melbourne and Richmond are looking at the next 5-10 yrs with the way they are setting up their lists.

It isn't just about stockpiling young promising kids it is about aligning your list so that they are in proximity of age and will play together for the long term - the draft/s are the logical way to do this. From that pov the "youth policy" has worked for both clubs.

 

[qldbluesman_43]

I think youth policy inevitably will end up in a team playing top 8 football. Further than that though requires more than just piling up the list with the best youngsters in the game. It needs smart drafting, good development, good list management, good off-field club leadership. It's many of these areas where Melbourne and Richmond need to drastically improve.

 

[Phil McCavity]

Whaaaaat?

Melbourne and Richmond are two very extreme examples.

Both had been run incompetently for the best part of two decades.

Both pretty much began rebuilding in 08, that's four years.

A rebuild doesn't happen overnight either, you aren't going to get an excellent base for your team from one draft.

You can't just look at when a team started to 'rebuild' and say 'Oh, they've had four years... they should be somewhere by now'... you have to look at the situations both teams were in and the current situations of the teams.

In both Melbourne and Richmond's cases their lists were completely overhauled the first two or so years of the rebuild; and they are both currently among the three youngest lists in the competition.

Seems a bit rich to call either clubs rebuilds a failure; just look at how long Carlton took to get back into finals contention.. and that was probably even accelerated by Judd coming to the club.

Oh... as a Port fan you better hope youth policies work.

Sorry, Richmond haven't been rebuilding since 2008. Melbourne should be far more advanced than us

The start of 08/09 saw the club full of old stagers such as cousins/bowden/Simmonds etc, so the realy cleanout/rebuilding started when Hardwick started.

Melbourne's started with Bailey, so they shoudl be far more advanced than RIchmond, especially given they ahve had two no 1 drafts picks in that time and we have had none

 

[Kwality]

Haha. Melbourne at times had a team younger than the Gold Coast this season (when we beat Essendon, for example).

Maybe we shouldn't have had a 'youth policy' and scrounged an extra few seasons out of Neitz, Robertson, White, Yze, Bruce, Johnstone, McLean, Ward, Godfrey, Carroll, Bell, Holland, Miller, Pickett, Brown, Bizzell and all those others that lead us to a semi final in 06.

That would really have benefited the club in the long term, wouldn't it?

A rebuild will only be over once our team has an average age of 24+.Melbourne is a few years away from that happening, I imagine.

Ho ho ho, you seem to believe in Father Christmas, ho ho ho , keep putting games into nice chaps who cant play the game at the highest level.

Give Neeld some support, go with the Friday decision to get rid of your CEO, not the Monday decision to re employ him. Chris is a good bloke, should do club PR, not Footy Manager or anything related.

Melbourne have shown promise, absolutely nothing more, a regulation basket case wallowing in yesteryear.

 

[frantelle]

Youth policy is great and all but at the end of the of the day successful teams both:

• nail draft picks after 20
• develop their players well

Any team can tank, get a few top 5picks and pick players who will range from good to superstar and make a mini run. It's what's behind those superstars that matter.

Also being able properly develop youth is integral. Development both physically and mentally gives the player a higher ceiling they can reach.

I would like to think our window is open now because we have achieved the above 2 as well as anyone between 2005-2009

 

[Richo83]

Ho ho ho, you seem to believe in Father Christmas, ho ho ho , keep putting games into nice chaps who cant play the game at the highest level.

Who are these chaps who can't play the game at the highest level? I actually think Melbourne have a pretty decent list. It'd be top 8 certainty with Scully in it.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

I think both failed in going too young too quickly. If you've drafted a whole bunch of kids over a couple of seasons who will take 4-5 years to peak, you'd ideally have 6 or so quality players aged 23/24 that will be around 28 when the rest of the list hit their straps. It's not about getting as many players as possible in the same age range, its about having players of a variety ages who provide something different to the mix. And you need the older guys who will keep a cool head when the chips are down and gall back on their experience to grind out a game, a bunch if judd can't do that.

 

[RandB]

Melbourne's started with Bailey, so they shoudl be far more advanced than RIchmond, especially given they ahve had two no 1 drafts picks in that time and we have had none

I agree that we started our rebuild earlier than you guys but I would suggest that we were further behind in '08 than what you guys were in '09. I cbf looking up the stats so I'm happy to be corrected but if we didn't have the oldest team (or close to it) at the end of '07 and '08 I'd be surprised.

You only have to look at how many games our kids have played to realise that we haven't had anywhere near enough time to take the next step, especially if you incorporate injuries - Blease, Grimes are 2 significant ones.

We also have to replace Scully now with another young up and comer.

2011 was admittedly dissapointing though - no excuses there and Richmond showed more legitimate signs of improvement this year.

 

[Richo83]

I think both failed in going too young too quickly.

Richmond were blamed for having too many old hacks a few years ago. Hardwick decided that the best thing in response to all of them retiring would be to draft new talent (which is where most of the new players come from for the clubs).

If you've drafted a whole bunch of kids over a couple of seasons who will take 4-5 years to peak, you'd ideally have 6 or so quality players aged 23/24 that will be around 28 when the rest of the list hit their straps. It's not about getting as many players as possible in the same age range, its about having players of a variety ages who provide something different to the mix. And you need the older guys who will keep a cool head when the chips are down and gall back on their experience to grind out a game, a bunch if judd can't do that.

Agreed, which is is why you don't only draft over two years, you draft over a concerted period. This is merely a strawman. And secondly, Richmond when it's good enough to go for the flag will have a group of elder players, like Foley, Deledio, Nahas, Newman, King and Maric.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Sorry, Richmond haven't been rebuilding since 2008. Melbourne should be far more advanced than us

The start of 08/09 saw the club full of old stagers such as cousins/bowden/Simmonds etc, so the realy cleanout/rebuilding started when Hardwick started.

Melbourne's started with Bailey, so they shoudl be far more advanced than RIchmond, especially given they ahve had two no 1 drafts picks in that time and we have had none

Whatever, both lists are in a very similar position.

Saying Melbourne should be 'far more advanced' clearly shows you've put no effort into actually looking at the list and have just made assumptions.