List Mgmt. Best 22 - 2018

[mopsy]

Neither do I mate because I originally posted that CEllis had several glaring and major deficiencies in his game and that a swag of players were ahead of him in the queue ... the likes of Markov, Short, Menadue, whether some like it or not Miles, Lloyd, Bolton etc... and that he has plenty of work to do.
Yet -RT- seemed to take issue with that and accused me of wanting him to fail (that old chestnut of an excuse that he and plenty of others like to trot out when a player is critiqued) and bagging my own. I merely pointed out that he has those deficiencies and he is way off being what is expected of a first round pick (and to be honest way off what's expected of a second round pick), when we have players team in the third and fourth rounds of his draft and the rookie draft ahead of him. He has fought me at every turn and made CEllis out to be the next big thing. Then I get on here Friday and that same poster extensively details the long list of deficiencies in CEllis' game. Like WTF????? He's done a 180 degree turnaround. I'll take it as this, the typical Big Footy scenario of certain posters just wanting to disagree with certain posters because of who they are. A bit like you and me. I'll be 100% right on something but you'd go the other way just for the sake.

good post and it happens all the time to the point where the critique is lost among all the sidetracks and they achieve their goal.

Then you cop ah but you always think your right, never for one second realising they are exactly the same!!!! and openly complaining about it. Its funny to watch at times but does become tedious when it always happens..

 

[Hot tigers]

I agree there have been plenty of blokes play KPP at 190 Mal Michael springs straight to mind. Trouble is Michael and nearly all kpps have size as well.I mean to say Mal Michael played at 100kg.

Be honest at Afl level Garthwaite projects as a third tall rather than kp.
I think blokes like Easton Wood great players who is only 187cm and can play tall but you are never going to ask him to play body to body one v one on the big tall fwds in the comp.

Ben Miller maybe training with the backs and he may well become a good one, BUT!!!!!! HIS BEST FOOTY WHAT GOT HIM DRAFTED IS AS AN UNDERSIZED RUCKMAN WHO COULD PINCH HIT FWD. It also helped that his sprint times were very good for a bloke his size.
We havent drafted a backman but a ruck/fwd who we HOPE can maybe become a defender.For where we took him that seems a long shot.

Its funny we had a review that said play the players to their strengths and where they play best and lo and behold we have some success. yet we ignore this principal with some of our new draftees.

Over the last 10 15 yrs we have totally ****** up a lot of tall players by doing this.

But hey lets assume he is a kpp where does that leave us the premiers.
Hmm rance does a knee week one and Astbury who has /is prone to injury has a 8 week injury in week 5. Are you seriously saying throw Garthwaite in he can play kpd with his size and immaturity.

See your back at it, whats that comment about teachers teach cause they couldn't hack it in the real world...

You cop a lot of criticism as thats all you do, unfairly and arrogantly, we just won a flag so things aren't as terrible as they seem, if you truly believe that they are then why not take your tripe off a supporter site as its embarrassing.

 

[mopsy]

See your back at it, whats that comment about teachers teach cause they couldn't hack it in the real world...

You cop a lot of criticism as thats all you do, unfairly and arrogantly, we just won a flag so things aren't as terrible as they seem, if you truly believe that they are then why not take your tripe off a supporter site as its embarrassing.

Ah i see you dont want to add to the debate , just take a shot at the bloke whos posts you dont like.
Cant see where i said things are terrible i must of missed something here. What i have done is allude that things can be a lot better than they are in some areas. But hey thats goes against the club and we cant have that now can we. BEWARE nobody dare think differently to the club or think we can be better in those areas, the club defenders are bound to get ya.

 

[Hot tigers]

Ah i see you dont want to add to the debate , just take a shot at the bloke whos posts you dont like.
Cant see where i said things are terrible i must of missed something here. What i have done is allude that things can be a lot better than they are in some areas. But hey thats goes against the club and we cant have that now can we. BEWARE nobody dare think differently to the club or think we can be better in those areas, the club defenders are bound to get ya.

Needs to be balanced, the club is not perfect nor are any of us, however all the doom and gloom even when things look fantastic is completely unnecessary and to be honest painful and slightly arrogant.

All organizations and people evolved, hence are never perfect, constantly pointing OPINIONS of nothing but the negative endears and attracts backlash, especially during good times one would think!

If you are such an evangelist why haven't you been employed by a club?

 

[mopsy]

It works by setting goals and achieving them. Have a read of the document.

Ah so we have achieved every goal and cant be better. Why are we even having footy debates at all it seems nothing needs to change at all.

 

[Helen Wheels]

Ah so we have achieved every goal and cant be better. Why are we even having footy debates at all it seems nothing needs to change at all.

You obviously didn't read the Strategy Overview. It says the opposite.

 

[Sir_Loin]

You obviously didn't read the Strategy Overview. It says the opposite.

Doesn’t need to, knows everything already

 

[Grrr]

Hmm so im right he was lodged at 192 and 84,
Would be enormously surprised if hes has put on 7kg in one season with all the aerobic work thats needed. even if correct he still projects s as a grimes type.
He is definately more suited to playing as a third tall on a types like well adelaides Mc govern.

I remember the club listing Conca at 185 and for yr i insisted he would be lucky to be 180cm. well it turns oput hes 181cm from what i can glean happy to be shown im wrong.
Again hes not huge in fact garth at this level looks very much a third Tall type.

No by the sounds of it you are not right. Purr Anna sounds as if he either knows Garthwaite personally or has had a bit to do with him. So let's say he is correct in that Garth is now close to 194 and 91kg's. The video on Bolton putting on 7kg's over the off season shows it can be done. Even if it is only 4kg's, that is he runs of a bit of it when the weights drop back, it is surely not a stretch to see a big bloke like Garthwaite putting on that sort of weight over a season. You could see how much he changed over the season. Plus he is noted for begin very good one on one. Looks to have those inspector Gadget/Dustin Fletcher traits as well, which means he can probably play taller. He seems back up for Rance and Astbury, and at 19years old, will probably play a lot of VFL even before consideration.

 

[Goldust]

No by the sounds of it you are not right. Purr Anna sounds as if he either knows Garthwaite personally or has had a bit to do with him. So let's say he is correct in that Garth is now close to 194 and 91kg's. The video on Bolton putting on 7kg's over the off season shows it can be done. Even if it is only 4kg's, that is he runs of a bit of it when the weights drop back, it is surely not a stretch to see a big bloke like Garthwaite putting on that sort of weight over a season. You could see how much he changed over the season. Plus he is noted for begin very good one on one. Looks to have those inspector Gadget/Dustin Fletcher traits as well, which means he can probably play taller. He seems back up for Rance and Astbury, and at 19years old, will probably play a lot of VFL even before consideration.

I put on 5kg in four weeks .. drinking every day on vacation in the US

 

[mopsy]

Needs to be balanced, the club is not perfect nor are any of us, however all the doom and gloom even when things look fantastic is completely unnecessary and to be honest painful and slightly arrogant.

All organizations and people evolved, hence are never perfect, constantly pointing OPINIONS of nothing but the negative endears and attracts backlash, especially during good times one would think!

If you are such an evangelist why haven't you been employed by a club?

show where i have been so negative in this debate. Im discussing list management and what i think the numbers in each area should be. If it differs to the club thats being negative wow.
So i dont think we have list management 100% right and thats doom and gloom!!!!!! bloody hell what this reeks of is dont have an opinion that differs to the club no matter how balanced or logical it is.

Im not asking people to agree im giving an opinion and if people do want to debate im asking they also give their reasons for their thinking and point out what is so wrong with that opinion.And thats negative and reeking of doom and gloom fmd.

Im going to ask you the same thing why is having 4 genuine KPD'S so wrong. Rance, Astbury, then a mature body in the ressies in case one goes down and god forbid force one of them out thru good form or bad form whatever the case maybe. And the 4th be a good junior who projects fwd as a genuine kpd who will come in in 3 or 4 yrs time catering to the long term.

What is so negative about that i actually think it quite logical, It does not affect any other part of the list theres plenty of room for at least 16 talls leaving 28 spots to cater to mids and flankers how does this number affect anything.

 

[Grrr]

I put on 5kg in four weeks .. drinking every day on vacation in the US

The land of fat bastards, next time go on a holiday to Asia.

 

[Hank Heavenly]

He is coming from a long way back in the field - as I suggested - there are plenty ahead of him. He has barely fired a shot to this point and if injuries are that much of a concern, move him on and get someone fit in. We are better than that to carry injury prone blokes for five, six, seven years (as we have done with Griffiths).
I don't know whether I admire or loathe your ability to put every single Tiger player on a pedestal and can only accept adulation and effusive praise of each one and are unable to accept any critique of a player, be it major or minor. Incredible!
There have been several posters on here question his ability to impact the contest and his performance under pressure. Do you take issue with each one of them for expressing a view, or do you simply form your views to directly oppose me each time? That's how it comes off .... Goldy says this, I'm disagreeing.
It will be up to CEllis as to which way it goes ... but he has A LOT of work ahead of him. His inability to play much senior football was little to do with pre-season but due to performance.

You do realise he was an emergency in the GF right, it would suggest, in the coaches eyes, there are only a maximum of 2 people in front of him. Given one of the other emergencies was Hampson (in case of injury to Nank only), it would suggest there is only a MAX of one player in front of him, that was Short.
It's ok to say you don't rate the kid, but the actions by the coaching group suggest he is a lot closer than your appraisal.

 

[THE_GUN]

See your back at it, whats that comment about teachers teach cause they couldn't hack it in the real world...

You cop a lot of criticism as thats all you do, unfairly and arrogantly, we just won a flag so things aren't as terrible as they seem, if you truly believe that they are then why not take your tripe off a supporter site as its embarrassing.

You will get a better response from this wall , Pointless to try and talk sensible logic to somebody that thinks only his thoughts are correct
Garth is 193cm but he see's him as a 3rd tall , Then he mentions KPP 190-200 and how many are required and gives a number of 16

Richmond have 13 players between 193 -201 and a premiership winning football department , List manager , Coaches all see this as being enough
Mr The Mighty mopsy believes we are still 4-5 short as the players we have that are 193cm are only 3rd talls and we need 190cm KPP

Well F me

 

[Goldust]

You do realise he was an emergency in the GF right, it would suggest, in the coaches eyes, there are only a maximum of 2 people in front of him. Given one of the other emergencies was Hampson (in case of injury to Nank only), it would suggest there is only a MAX of one player in front of him, that was Short.
It's ok to say you don't rate the kid, but the actions by the coaching group suggest he is a lot closer than your appraisal.

I would suggest it was done as a means of instilling confidence in the bloke as, as some suggest, 'the club rates him'.
Emergency or not, he was a long ways off from paying.
Firstly, we didn't have an injury worry all finals and weren't in the slightest danger of making a change.
Two ...... the talk in the lead up to the GF was all around Sam Lloyd putting himself into contention with a sparkling VFL grand final display and finals series, not about CEllis ... or for that matter Short or Hampson who were also emergencies.
35 possessions from Lloyd and a few goals would have rightfully had him in the team had someone succumbed to injury.
I'll bank on Lloyd or Markov being the first to be called up had we had an injury in the finals series, but they weren't named.
At the end of the day, people will have no memory (other than you and a handful of others who cheerlead on here) that CEllis was an emergency any better than they'll remember that Michael Nugent, Ian Scrimshaw and Colin Waterson were emergencies in 1980.
Mind you none of the young Waterson and Nugent and then seven-year veteran Scrimshaw were at Tigerland beyond 1981, which might be a good indicator where CEllis' career is headed.
But keep hanging to the notion that being an emergency is presitigious ... he was just one of 16 other listed players who didn't get a game. See ya later Hankly.

 

[This Is Anfield]

Just changed my vote for player on the fringe most likely to improve from Bolton to C. Ellis... he's a monty now.

 

[Goldust]

Just changed my vote for player on the fringe most likely to improve from Bolton to C. Ellis... he's a monty now.

Yep, a monty not to make it

 

[prodigy]

You think im trying to pick ann argument i answered your post nothing more.
On the defensive na just voicing my opinion which happens to differ to some .I would say im entitled to defend that stance prove it right and try and change other peoples minds.It is exactly what others do on here.

Im happy to be proven wrong but when people just ignore points and questions and make off the cuff remarks or go off on tangents thus moving the posts as replies, which is exactly what happens then im hardly going to change my mind.

I asked for peoples thoughts on how many kpds we need not one person has come up with a number and the reasons for that number. yet here i am suggesting 4 kpds is what is needed and given what i think are very good reasons for that number. When people actually put some substance into their replies and give reasons for their thoughts on the actual question then i may well change the way i post.

Tell me how many kpds do you think we should have.
Ive said 4 Rance Astbury in the seniors. Then we need a mature body in case one of them goes down and a good junior who actually projects fwd as an actual kpd looking after the long term. Both playing in the twos actually mirroring what we do in the seniors.

Are you prepared to give your thoughts on this and if you differ give your reasons why as i do.Are you prepared to debate why we should not have a mature in cover and why we should not be looking after the long term with a junior. is that not what a big part of list management is about.

While im at it no one has said why having 16 talls 190cm thru 200cm plus is too many. That leaves 28 spots for mids and flankers can someone tell me why that is not enough? How does it affect our ability to play enough quick players with mids the simple fact is it doesnt any thinking person can see that.

You want a debate fine show me im wrong by addressing what ive said.

I agree that I think we should have four key position defenders. Where we differ, is I think we have it.
All of them may not be out and out KPD, but versatility is key. Versatility and playing someone out of position is completely different.
We promised Caddy more midfield minutes, but then had to put him forward as it was better structurally.

I think Miller/Balta have the ability to come on as that developing KPD but they may not be apart of that group straight away.

I think we have our bases covered and potentially be in a position to make a big play at Tom Lynch at the end of 2018. Which is the only player I think we lack. A reliable mature key position forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[_RT_]

I would suggest it was done as a means of instilling confidence in the bloke as, as some suggest, 'the club rates him'.
Emergency or not, he was a long ways off from paying.
Firstly, we didn't have an injury worry all finals and weren't in the slightest danger of making a change.
Two ...... the talk in the lead up to the GF was all around Sam Lloyd putting himself into contention with a sparkling VFL grand final display and finals series, not about CEllis ... or for that matter Short or Hampson who were also emergencies.
35 possessions from Lloyd and a few goals would have rightfully had him in the team had someone succumbed to injury.
I'll bank on Lloyd or Markov being the first to be called up had we had an injury in the finals series, but they weren't named.
At the end of the day, people will have no memory (other than you and a handful of others who cheerlead on here) that CEllis was an emergency any better than they'll remember that Michael Nugent, Ian Scrimshaw and Colin Waterson were emergencies in 1980.
Mind you none of the young Waterson and Nugent and then seven-year veteran Scrimshaw were at Tigerland beyond 1981, which might be a good indicator where CEllis' career is headed.
But keep hanging to the notion that being an emergency is presitigious ... he was just one of 16 other listed players who didn't get a game. See ya later Hankly.

So the club playing it's biggest game in 35 years choose to use it as a means to give a kid you say is way down the list a confidence boost. Do you also believe in Santa the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy?

 

[Goldust]

So the club playing it's biggest game in 35 years choose to use it as a means to give a kid you say is way down the list a confidence boost. Do you also believe in Santa the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy?

Here's a fact for you ........ the emergencies in the 1980 grand final were Michael Nugent, Colin Waterson (both youngsters) and Ian Scrimshaw.
Not one of the three was at the club in 1982.
That could easily be CEllis at his current rate.
You're a freakin' joke.
You sit in your ivory tower taking me to task for highlighting CEllis' many deficiencies and how he has slipped behind a bunch of players in terms of development and then three weeks later you post a near thesis outlining a bunch of said player's deficiencies and shortcomings and try to tell us all that you never said he didn't have deficiencies.
Jeckyl and Hyde or what? Your right hand doesn't know what the left is doing and it becomes clearer by the day you just don't like me (which is your prerogative) and you feel a need to, at all costs, disagree with what I post.
Go back and re-read your own 'War and Peace' length post on CEllis' deficiencies and tell me that is not a bloke who is struggling to impact games at senior level .... yet you have him being something he hasn't even come close to being by spruiking his 'massive' contributions at reserve grade level, where there was a bunch of players including Townsend, Miles, Lloyd, Batchelor, Short, Bolton and even the much maligned Hunt (some who have been delisted) making bigger contributions than your poster boy.
As I've said, I would love to see the kid to succeed, but I am not going to sit here like you and pump his tyres all day long and bil him as something he ain't.
Fair dinkum, you act as if the cl;ub might find your identity and revoke your membership if you don't continue to write 'X' amount of positive things each day.
Mate I don't care if CEllis was named an emergency .. he was just one of 16 other players who was ZERO chance of breaking into the grand f9inal team as we had no injuries.
If you don't think Lloyd after a 35 possession effort in the midfield would have been the first bloke in the team if we had an injury, you have rocks in your head. He was the only player spoken about or speculated in the media as maybe coming in and was the only name thrust forward in interviews with Hardwick. Why they didn't name him I don't know, but being an emergency means nothing when you are NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES!

 

[_RT_]

Here's a fact for you ........ the emergencies in the 1980 grand final were Michael Nugent, Colin Waterson (both youngsters) and Ian Scrimshaw.
Not one of the three was at the club in 1982.
That could easily be CEllis at his current rate.
You're a freakin' joke.

The only fact in this none of the 3 were at the club the rest is your opinion.

You sit in your ivory tower taking me to task for highlighting CEllis' many deficiencies and how he has slipped behind a bunch of players in terms of development and then three weeks later you post a near thesis outlining a bunch of said player's deficiencies and shortcomings and try to tell us all that you never said he didn't have deficiencies.
Jeckyl and Hyde or what? Your right hand doesn't know what the left is doing and it becomes clearer by the day you just don't like me (which is your prerogative) and you feel a need to, at all costs, disagree with what I post.
Go back and re-read your own 'War and Peace' length post on CEllis' deficiencies and tell me that is not a bloke who is struggling to impact games at senior level .... yet you have him being something he hasn't even come close to being by spruiking his 'massive' contributions at reserve grade level, where there was a bunch of players including Townsend, Miles, Lloyd, Batchelor, Short, Bolton and even the much maligned Hunt (some who have been delisted) making bigger contributions than your poster boy.

You muppet, you accused me of not acknowledging his weaknesses so I acknowledged them by discussing them, now you accuse me of being Jeckyll and Hyde and not knowing what the left and right hands are doing.

As I've said, I would love to see the kid to succeed, but I am not going to sit here like you and pump his tyres all day long and bil him as something he ain't.
Fair dinkum, you act as if the cl;ub might find your identity and revoke your membership if you don't continue to write 'X' amount of positive things each day.

Again I've never pumped Ellis up as being the next big thing. I've repeatedly said I want to see what the kid can produce after a full preseason, one day you might understand that.

Mate I don't care if CEllis was named an emergency .. he was just one of 16 other players who was ZERO chance of breaking into the grand f9inal team as we had no injuries.
If you don't think Lloyd after a 35 possession effort in the midfield would have been the first bloke in the team if we had an injury, you have rocks in your head. He was the only player spoken about or speculated in the media as maybe coming in and was the only name thrust forward in interviews with Hardwick. Why they didn't name him I don't know, but being an emergency means nothing when you are NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES!

Once again all it would have taken was a tweaked hammy in the warm up or a bout of gastro and he was a 50% chance of playing unless it was Nank who went down.

Once the team of 25 was named the only ways Lloyd would have come in would have been if we had 4 players needing replacement or we brought in a player outside the squad and paid a fine in doing so.

So you can keep speculating all you want but the above is factual.

 

[Goldust]

The only fact in this none of the 3 were at the club the rest is your opinion.


You muppet, you accused me of not acknowledging his weaknesses so I acknowledged them by discussing them, now you accuse me of being Jeckyll and Hyde and not knowing what the left and right hands are doing.


Again I've never pumped Ellis up as being the next big thing. I've repeatedly said I want to see what the kid can produce after a full preseason, one day you might understand that.

Once again all it would have taken was a tweaked hammy in the warm up or a bout of gastro and he was a 50% chance of playing unless it was Nank who went down.

Once the team of 25 was named the only ways Lloyd would have come in would have been if we had 4 players needing replacement or we brought in a player outside the squad and paid a fine in doing so.

So you can keep speculating all you want but the above is factual.

Yes, you have contributed exactly 56 posts to this thread and guess what, it took you until about your 52nd to acknowledge CEllis has glaring deficiencies and outright weaknesss in his game, while all the way along pumping up your poster boys tyres.
Freaking' amazing.
And then you go into a thesis about just how many weaknesses the guy has.
As I said re-read THAT post where you detailed his weaknesses, it was the only time you have ben on the money in this whole thread. Yet even while mentioning nearly 10 deficiencies in his game, this guy is going to prove us all wrong.
FACT, many players thrive even without a full or even half pre-season.
You continually disputed my calls for Graham to come into the side ... well thank f*** he did, he was pretty damn important. It shows, players can thrive with a limited pre-season, but you'll keep affording CEllis excuses.
I'll give you the mail ... the side was picked well in advance and with the knowledge that NO player - that is NO PLAYER - was under a cloud. They could have picked you as an emergency ... God help us ... and it would have meant Jack Squat. There was always going to be NO CHANGE. Oh but yes, qualifying for a grand final with riches on the offering, we were s**t frightened at copping a $500 fine!
Thank f*** he didn't play, because with all those glaring deficiencies you detailed, he would not have stood up to the pressure, like he did v Geelong weeks before.
But yes, delude yourself you are always factual. The only time you were factual was your assessment of CEllis' weaknesses, but you still have him leap-frogging premiership stars and others well ahead of him.

 

[Grrr]

Yes, you have contributed exactly 56 posts to this thread and guess what, it took you until about your 52nd to acknowledge CEllis has glaring deficiencies and outright weaknesss in his game, while all the way along pumping up your poster boys tyres.
Freaking' amazing.
And then you go into a thesis about just how many weaknesses the guy has.
As I said re-read THAT post where you detailed his weaknesses, it was the only time you have ben on the money in this whole thread. Yet even while mentioning nearly 10 deficiencies in his game, this guy is going to prove us all wrong.
FACT, many players thrive even without a full or even half pre-season.
You continually disputed my calls for Graham to come into the side ... well thank f*** he did, he was pretty damn important. It shows, players can thrive with a limited pre-season, but you'll keep affording CEllis excuses.
I'll give you the mail ... the side was picked well in advance and with the knowledge that NO player - that is NO PLAYER - was under a cloud. They could have picked you as an emergency ... God help us ... and it would have meant Jack Squat. There was always going to be NO CHANGE. Oh but yes, qualifying for a grand final with riches on the offering, we were s**t frightened at copping a $500 fine!
Thank f*** he didn't play, because with all those glaring deficiencies you detailed, he would not have stood up to the pressure, like he did v Geelong weeks before.
But yes, delude yourself you are always factual. The only time you were factual was your assessment of CEllis' weaknesses, but you still have him leap-frogging premiership stars and others well ahead of him.

You may be correct, but the fact that if somebody that 'tweaked hammy in the warm up or a bout of gastro and he was a 50% chance of playing', is fact.

 

[Goldust]

You may be correct, but the fact that if somebody that 'tweaked hammy in the warm up or a bout of gastro and he was a 50% chance of playing', is fact.

Yes and if your aunty wasn't your aunty she'd be your uncle.
He would have been a 33% chance, if we didn't bring in Lloyd (which we would have).

 

[Goldust]

The only fact in this none of the 3 were at the club the rest is your opinion.

Yeah forgot that ... I'm not allowed to have an opinion as it differs to yours .. and you have the mortgage on Richmond opinions and how we should all act and feel.

 

[Gosha]

show where i have been so negative in this debate. Im discussing list management and what i think the numbers in each area should be. If it differs to the club thats being negative wow.
So i dont think we have list management 100% right and thats doom and gloom!!!!!! bloody hell what this reeks of is dont have an opinion that differs to the club no matter how balanced or logical it is.

Im not asking people to agree im giving an opinion and if people do want to debate im asking they also give their reasons for their thinking and point out what is so wrong with that opinion.And thats negative and reeking of doom and gloom fmd.

Im going to ask you the same thing why is having 4 genuine KPD'S so wrong. Rance, Astbury, then a mature body in the ressies in case one goes down and god forbid force one of them out thru good form or bad form whatever the case maybe. And the 4th be a good junior who projects fwd as a genuine kpd who will come in in 3 or 4 yrs time catering to the long term.

What is so negative about that i actually think it quite logical, It does not affect any other part of the list theres plenty of room for at least 16 talls leaving 28 spots to cater to mids and flankers how does this number affect anything.

Thoughts on us winning the flag?