Bring back Schultz soon

[tigerdan]

man if you have just arrived from another planet, here is the deal.
When you suggest very few to replace him, are you saying that the "few" will send us to the bottom of the ladder? You see even if the "few" were shit, whats the ****ing difference to where we are now? But the "few" you talk about might offer something different, not saying they will, but no one knows.
The one fact we do know is that without the "few" we are shit and with the few it "might" change. If it doesnt we have another fact.
How long has the sarge been developing for? How many of our top picks from those days have saluted? You might understand that we have to clean the slate from those years. The lucky dip finds in our recruiting from those days you can count on one hand, if that. For the **** ups from our top picks you need an MCG scoreboard.

Ahh Cogga I really enjoy trying to decipher your posts, and I mean that in a good way.

Well given that Schulz is a FF I see our only other option as Kingsley and I think we can say at 29 (or whatever he is), the leopard wont change his spots. Schulz may come good. I think he has talent, just needs application. That can be fixed. Not saying it will, but it can.

If you ask me Hughes is a CHF. Riewoldt might be a FF but in his first year we can't expect him to play every game. Richo will always be the unorthodox Richo so I think we can take him out of the equation. That leaves us with no-one.

Unless we try to invent a small leading forward (maybe Pettifer or P Bowden, and that experiment has failed in the past) we have no other options. And playing without a full forward doesn't sound too smart to me.

 

[_RT_]

All you want is somewhere in the range of 88-110 goals a year to be "happy" with Schulz RT? Is that all? From a 22yo kid whose coming off the back of almost two years injured and an interrupted pre-season? What's your "happy" point for Richo then considering he gets twice as much opportunity? 220 goals a year? Just 10.4 a week?

Tell me why shouldn't we be expecting more from Jay? How much longer are we going to treat our players with kid gloves? How many times are we going to have the following repeated to us about the kids "Oh he is not performing at the moment but give him time and he will be a star." Mate stuff that Jay has been in the system for 5 years, we should be seeing something more along the lines of the Pies game this year but at the moment what we are seeing is Jay having games where he scores 1-2 goals and goes missing for most of the game. If you are happy with that then good luck to you. Sorry if I want to see something from a kid that has shown he can perform, remember that 6 goal game against the almighty Lions that we all look back fondly at and then dream about the next time Jay might happen to have a day like that. Sure he had that opportunity against WCE a few weeks back but he choked.

Talking about that game against the Pies 9 kicks 3 handballs 9 marks 3 goals. That is what should be the minimum we, as supporters, should expect & accept from Jay. Is it wrong for us to demand better returns from a 22 year old KP forward or should we just cross our fingers and hope that somewhere along the line he may pull his finger out and take a fair dinkum crack at being an AFL calibre forward.

BTW just for the record Fevola as a 22 year old having played about same number of games as Jay has (46) kicked 63 goals in 2003 despite playing in a side that won 4 games for the year. This is on top of having had a disrupted season the year before. Richo as a 21 year old kicked 91 coming back after a knee reco. Thats 2 players that have achieved something because they were prepared to put in the hard yards and both played in poor sides at the time. So there is no reason why Jay can't average 3-4 goals a game with the odd 4-6 goal game except for one thing and that is JAY.

 

[deliberate!!]

Tell me why shouldn't we be expecting more from Jay? How much longer are we going to treat our players with kid gloves? How many times are we going to have the following repeated to us about the kids "Oh he is not performing at the moment but give him time and he will be a star." Mate stuff that Jay has been in the system for 5 years, we should be seeing something more along the lines of the Pies game this year but at the moment what we are seeing is Jay having games where he scores 1-2 goals and goes missing for most of the game. If you are happy with that then good luck to you. Sorry if I want to see something from a kid that has shown he can perform, remember that 6 goal game against the almighty Lions that we all look back fondly at and then dream about the next time Jay might happen to have a day like that. Sure he had that opportunity against WCE a few weeks back but he choked.

Beautiful work Realistic.......your nick suits your logic.

And you see, this prolonged 'future potential BS' theory is the same logic fools here and at the club place on
Moore, Meyer, Jackson, Tambling (yes Tambling) etc, etc.
Why has Foley developed consistentcy so quickly, and the likes of the above mentioned guys haven't?
There's our watermark for excellence!! That's our standard.
We need to cull the rubbish at the RFC if we are to succeed.

(and btw....you all seem to love the future and predictions.....here's one.
The best possible player that Bling can become is a Michael Mitchell type player....
he will do wonderful things.....a great mark or great goal...once every 5-6 games.
Not enough to have any great consistent input in the side.
Bling will NEVER, EVER be an Andrew McLeod........so stop looking for comparisions.
Bling will be a clone of M.Mitchell. And history shows what Mitchell contributed.)

Cheers

 

[Goldust]

Ahh Cogga I really enjoy trying to decipher your posts, and I mean that in a good way.

Well given that Schulz is a FF I see our only other option as Kingsley and I think we can say at 29 (or whatever he is), the leopard wont change his spots. Schulz may come good. I think he has talent, just needs application. That can be fixed. Not saying it will, but it can.

If you ask me Hughes is a CHF. Riewoldt might be a FF but in his first year we can't expect him to play every game. Richo will always be the unorthodox Richo so I think we can take him out of the equation. That leaves us with no-one.

Unless we try to invent a small leading forward (maybe Pettifer or P Bowden, and that experiment has failed in the past) we have no other options. And playing without a full forward doesn't sound too smart to me.

Here's my take on it, seeing as you mentioned Jack.

I would be playing this kid and getting games into him in preference to Schulz.

Simply put, Riewoldt is outplaying Schulz at Coburg....hence, more deserving of promotion.

Secondly, when it comes down to the enthusiasm and application shown by each, young Jack leaves big Jay for dead.

As far as it being a matter of application for Schulz and "that can be fixed", I would suggest it has been a matter of application for a few years now and it hasn't been so easily fixed.

He needs to sit and rot at Coburg for a few weeks more until he realises what it takes to be an AFL footballer and realise the opportunity that has been presented him.

Enough with the kid gloves mentatility....only at Richmond are players afforded so many chances. Any other club would have moved him on by now via the draft and probably received something better in return.

As for Kingsley (well this may come back to bite me if he gets dropped later today), get used to seeing him in the senior line-up. The challenge is there for Schulz to displace this guy. In a perfect world it would be Schulz in and Kingsley out. But big Jay has not given the selectors one hundreth of a reason to make the change since being dropped and the only reason most people can offer on Big Footy for a change is because jay is younger and has potential. Once again...only at Richmond is such an argument tolerated.

 

[CoggaRules]

Beautiful work Realistic.......your nick suits your logic.

And you see, this prolonged 'future potential BS' theory is the same logic fools here and at the club place on
Moore, Meyer, Jackson, Tambling (yes Tambling) etc, etc.
Why has Foley developed consistentcy so quickly, and the likes of the above mentioned guys haven't?There's our watermark for excellence!! That's our standard.
We need to cull the rubbish at the RFC if we are to succeed.

(and btw....you all seem to love the future and predictions.....here's one.
The best possible player that Bling can become is a Michael Mitchell type player....
he will do wonderful things.....a great mark or great goal...once every 5-6 games.
Not enough to have any great consistent input in the side.
Bling will NEVER, EVER be an Andrew McLeod........so stop looking for comparisions.
Bling will be a clone of M.Mitchell. And history shows what Mitchell contributed.)

Cheers

hit the nail on the head with that dude. Not to mention you are 100% correct with the Mitch thing. He came with all the bells and whistles and wasnt that bad, but wasnt as good as he was made out to be. The same with Bling, doesnt seem to possess the 6th sense or x factor that most if not all indigenous players that are taken within top 5 in the draft have, i.e. Wells and Buddy. But of course, the tigers are experts at identifying the x factor players, seeing as both abovementioned should have been right now in yellow and black and all of us are debating the pros and cons of the sarges and pettifers of this world. Yeah, they need time, they need this, they need that, how about we change it up and get players that do this and do that, so we dont end up with players that need. In the words of a coaching legend, that TW might have played under in his early days, just do.
It actually works, just ask the dawks about Buddy.

 

[tigerT]

hit the nail on the head with that dude. Not to mention you are 100% correct with the Mitch thing. He came with all the bells and whistles and wasnt that bad, but wasnt as good as he was made out to be. The same with Bling, doesnt seem to possess the 6th sense or x factor that most if not all indigenous players that are taken within top 5 in the draft have, i.e. Wells and Buddy. But of course, the tigers are experts at identifying the x factor players, seeing as both abovementioned should have been right now in yellow and black and all of us are debating the pros and cons of the sarges and pettifers of this world. Yeah, they need time, they need this, they need that, how about we change it up and get players that do this and do that, so we dont end up with players that need. In the words of a coaching legend, that TW might have played under in his early days, just do.
It actually works, just ask the dawks about Buddy.

give me a break mate,

Let me tell you and all the other impatient/unrealistic tiger faithful that expect kids to be superstars from day go something :

If Wells was at richmond and produced what hes produced at the kangas over the past 4 years, he and the club wouldve been crucified by now for picking up a skinny turnip with an early pick. Hes copped a fair bit of flack for not being consistent and everyone knows that pressure and spotlight on young kids is magnified x100 when at the tigers. Grass always looks greener on the other side.. Tamblings game against the pies, the 1st quarter against the eagles and the game against freo have shown that hes got it. Stop eating our own you bunch of ferals

 

[tigerT]

Beautiful work Realistic.......your nick suits your logic.

And you see, this prolonged 'future potential BS' theory is the same logic fools here and at the club place on
Moore, Meyer, Jackson, Tambling (yes Tambling) etc, etc.
Why has Foley developed consistentcy so quickly, and the likes of the above mentioned guys haven't?
There's our watermark for excellence!! That's our standard.
We need to cull the rubbish at the RFC if we are to succeed.

(and btw....you all seem to love the future and predictions.....here's one.
The best possible player that Bling can become is a Michael Mitchell type player....
he will do wonderful things.....a great mark or great goal...once every 5-6 games.
Not enough to have any great consistent input in the side.
Bling will NEVER, EVER be an Andrew McLeod........so stop looking for comparisions.
Bling will be a clone of M.Mitchell. And history shows what Mitchell contributed.)

Cheers

Scott Thompson spent 3 years developing at the Dees before wanting to go home to adelaide. How many games did he play in those 3 years? it was about 15-20, why? bc he was developing, had injuries and wasnt ready for sustained senior football. Sylvia hasnt cemented a spot in 4 years and he was a highly regarded draft pick, will Melbourne be cutting him loose at seasons end? F.uck no, bc clubs understand that players arent friggen robots and some develop at different rates to others, have injuries etc. Maybe players like Schulz, Meyer fall into that category?

Asa for your Tambling will be Mitchell assessment, I suppose thats what youd say about Wells? Bc hes been in the system for longer and it wasnt until this season pre injury that he started to show consistent game to game performances.

 

[CoggaRules]

give me a break mate,

Let me tell you and all the other impatient/unrealistic tiger faithful that expect kids to be superstars from day go something :

If Wells was at richmond and produced what hes produced at the kangas over the past 4 years, he and the club wouldve been crucified by now for picking up a skinny turnip with an early pick. Hes copped a fair bit of flack for not being consistent and everyone knows that pressure and spotlight on young kids is magnified x100 when at the tigers. Grass always looks greener on the other side.. Tamblings game against the pies, the 1st quarter against the eagles and the game against freo have shown that hes got it. Stop eating our own you bunch of ferals

1. You need to learn the difference between impatient/unrealistic, patient/unrealistic, impatient/realistic and patient/realistic.
The tigerheads you talk of are not really talking about our expecting kids to be superstars do they? They debate rages purely on the grounds that those who are the subject of the debate mostly, have shown JS in their 5 years of tenure to really warrant patience. Yes, they might have shown in one game, or as alot here go gaga over, once in a game. But that is about it. And that is why they are it, when it comes to the debate.

2. The fact that you compare a Wells to any of our recruits overall output, in the same time span from day one, bar Lids, surely suggests you have NFI. With all due respect off course.
How about you go down and tell TW, "hey TW Wells wants to come to the tigers". See what happens, if you can see the speed of light as TW breaks the sound barrier to talk to him.

 

[deliberate!!]

give me a break mate,

Let me tell you and all the other impatient/unrealistic tiger faithful that expect kids to be superstars from day go something :

If Wells was at richmond and produced what hes produced at the kangas over the past 4 years, he and the club wouldve been crucified by now for picking up a skinny turnip with an early pick. Hes copped a fair bit of flack for not being consistent and everyone knows that pressure and spotlight on young kids is magnified x100 when at the tigers. Grass always looks greener on the other side.. Tamblings game against the pies, the 1st quarter against the eagles and the game against freo have shown that hes got it. Stop eating our own you bunch of ferals

How about you giving us a break,
With your 'one-quarter-every-4-games' makes a future champion theory...
What a complete crock!!
(Thankfully Nathan Foley doesn't believe in that rubbish excuse) google 'work ethic"----> No.1 search

The AFL (and if you'd watched enough football you'd have known) is littered with players who started their careers with a good quarter here and a good quarter there, who wasted everyone's time because they couldn't deliver consistently. Richmond's had hundreds of them. Our 80's, 90's had them and we have them now. Why is the pressure for a young guy "x100", just at our club? Come off it!

Since you seem to be born yesterday, I can see why you think everyone else is impatient. Try watching the Tiges for decades and decades, and then you might just see the same patterns repeating themselves.

Who wants a superstar mate?
I just want a guy to play a good quarter more than once in a blue moon.
He's not getting paid as a kid, so why the excuses of a kid?

dreamer!

 

[tigerT]

1. You need to learn the difference between impatient/unrealistic, patient/unrealistic, impatient/realistic and patient/realistic.
The tigerheads you talk of are not really talking about our expecting kids to be superstars do they? They debate rages purely on the grounds that those who are the subject of the debate mostly, have shown JS in their 5 years of tenure to really warrant patience. Yes, they might have shown in one game, or as alot here go gaga over, once in a game. But that is about it. And that is why they are it, when it comes to the debate.

2. The fact that you compare a Wells to any of our recruits overall output, in the same time span from day one, bar Lids, surely suggests you have NFI. With all due respect off course.
How about you go down and tell TW, "hey TW Wells wants to come to the tigers". See what happens, if you can see the speed of light as TW breaks the sound barrier to talk to him.

With point 1, I was referring to Tambling, last I checked this was his 3rd season of football, his first was a nightmare, broken toe and 2 x hammys ruined it, call it excuses or whatever, thems the facts. Fact is, his output has improved from year 1-2-3. Simple as that. Add to that, that this year hes shown some genuine game breaking abilities in several games and thats why I think some people on here are being impatient and unrealistic.

point 2. Guess again, Im a big fan of Wells, always have been and spewed when carlton got penalised and our pick 4 that we traded to adelaide for kane turned into pick 2 and Wells. What I am saying is go check the newspaper articles on Wells in his first 3 years bc he came under heaps of scrutiny for not being consistent enough. This year though was different. Why? maybe bc he had that extra year or 2 in the system? I dont think Wells in his 3rd year wouldve busted open more than 3 games in 10. How is that far and away more than Tambling? Grass always looks greener on the other side mate..

 

[tigerT]

How about you giving us a break,
With your 'one-quarter-every-4-games' makes a future champion theory...
What a complete crock!!
(Thankfully Nathan Foley doesn't believe in that rubbish excuse) google 'work ethic"----> No.1 search

The AFL (and if you'd watched enough football you'd have known) is littered with players who started their careers with a good quarter here and a good quarter there, who wasted everyone's time because they couldn't deliver consistently. Richmond's had hundreds of them. Our 80's, 90's had them and we have them now. Why is the pressure for a young guy "x100", just at our club? Come off it!

Since you seem to be born yesterday, I can see why you think everyone else is impatient. Try watching the Tiges for decades and decades, and then you might just see the same patterns repeating themselves.

Who wants a superstar mate?
I just want a guy to play a good quarter more than once in a blue moon.
He's not getting paid as a kid, so why the excuses of a kid?

dreamer!

If you think Wells played more than quarters here and there in his first few seasons then your the one thats dreaming and has the tunnel vision happening.

The pressure at our club is magnified bc of supporters like you who have had a gutful and want instant results. Iv given players like scott thompson, Sylvia and wells as examples of players who are/were highly regarded and didnt have major or consistent impacts from the get go, but better clubs than ours like the dees and kangas dont sit their chewing their heads off and accusing them of being gimps.

 

[deliberate!!]

If you think Wells played more than quarters here and there in his first few seasons then your the one thats dreaming and has the tunnel vision happening.

The pressure at our club is magnified bc of supporters like you who have had a gutful and want instant results. Iv given players like scott thompson, Sylvia and wells as examples of players who are/were highly regarded and didnt have major or consistent impacts from the get go, but better clubs than ours like the dees and kangas dont sit their chewing their heads off and accusing them of being gimps.

smell the roses......schmultz is gone.
He'll be the leading goalscorer(permanent) in the VFL within a year!

lmao


(p.s. If I wanted instant results, I'd buy a 'scratchie' lottery ticket.....not barrack for Richmond....duh)

 

[richoatthedisco]

schulz: pro: the ball hits his hands and it sticks.
con: it doesn't hit his hands often enough.
pro: beautiful kick for goal.
con: except this year.
i agree with those who said make him dominate vfl. if he can improve his ground level play he could be a very very good forward. don't get rid of him, especially while duds like moore, KK, knobel, PB, meyer, jacko (notwithstanding recent signs that he might actually have a clue), tiv, casserly (has this guy ever made it onfield??) and mcguane remain.

tambling: con: we should have picked buddy.
con: we didn't. get over it.
pro: yes we f*8ked that up, but tambo's no fiora (pavlich, pavlich, wherefore art thou pavlich?). lest we forget macca banik. or richard lounder. or wayne peters. tambling is getting better and there's plenty of upside. he is 3rd on our goalkicking this year, not that that's saying much, but once he has the self-belief to take games on he will rip a few teams apart.

 

[tigerT]

smell the roses......schmultz is gone.
He'll be the leading goalscorer(permanent) in the VFL within a year!

lmao


(p.s. If I wanted instant results, I'd buy a 'scratchie' lottery ticket.....not barrack for Richmond....duh)

whatever you reckon chief
hes contracted to the end of 08, the only way hes going is if hes traded.

P.s Then why hassle tambling when hes 2.5 years into an AFL career? duh

 

[deliberate!!]

whatever you reckon chief
hes contracted to the end of 08, the only way hes going is if hes traded.

P.s Then why hassle tambling when hes 2.5 years into an AFL career? duh

(career) 2.5 years = (input) stuff all

 

[_RT_]

The point of this is for too long we have given kids game after game, year after year in the hope that they may just happen to become a somewhat consistent footballer. As I said in my earlier post why do we continually treat our kids with kid gloves, give him time he'll come right. Stuff that if it is good enough for every other side to expect their younger kids to step into the side and perform from day one then why aren't we.

Are you happy that 5 years into his career Schulz is being kept out of a side by a 29 year old Kent Kingsley? I know I'm not. Are you happy 5 years into his career that Schulz has only 1 haul of 5+ goals to his name? I know I'm not.

This year Jay started off lookin as though he had turned the corner and like others I was hoping that we would get a return of 40-50 goals for the season, as it stands now we will be lucky to get a return of 20-30 goals and IMO that just is not good enough. Sorry if you disagree with that but if we continue to treat the kids as kids they will never turn into men.

Speaking of Bling and his game against the Dockers, 15 possies, 6 marks and 3 goals is again the sort of games we should be seeing from him on a regular basis, not once every 5-6 weeks. They should be happening every 2-3 weeks. At worse we should be expecting him to be a 15-20 possessions a game player. At best we should be seeing regular games where he is getting 25 odd touches and kicking 2 goals like others do. Bling has started to head down that path and it needs to continue, sure there will be periods where he may struggle but if it is for 1-2 weeks I can cop that but when it stretches into 4-6 weeks like it has with Jay then I am not going to wear it and neither should any of us.

Enough of the special treatment of these kids. Most of the older blokes on our list are shot so it is now time for the kids to step in a take their spots, Richmond Football Club should be survival of the fittest, either you move with the pack or you get chewed up and spat out the back. Too long we have accepted the old line of they will come good give them time, well the time has come for that to stop.

 

[CoggaRules]

schulz: pro: the ball hits his hands and it sticks.
con: it doesn't hit his hands often enough.
pro: beautiful kick for goal.
con: except this year.
i agree with those who said make him dominate vfl. if he can improve his ground level play he could be a very very good forward. don't get rid of him, especially while duds like moore, KK, knobel, PB, meyer, jacko (notwithstanding recent signs that he might actually have a clue), tiv, casserly (has this guy ever made it onfield??) and mcguane remain.

tambling: con: we should have picked buddy.
con: we didn't. get over it.
pro: yes we f*8ked that up, but tambo's no fiora (pavlich, pavlich, wherefore art thou pavlich?). lest we forget macca banik. or richard lounder. or wayne peters. tambling is getting better and there's plenty of upside. he is 3rd on our goalkicking this year, not that that's saying much, but once he has the self-belief to take games on he will rip a few teams apart.

and once he does, if he does, then we will believe that he has the self belief.
Until then me, for one dont believe anything. I might hope that I will believe, because I only believe when there is believable fact, not hope. You tend to look at things realistically that way, you also have running battles with other tigerheads here, who believe only in hope. Think about how many players you have seen thorughout the years produce 3 games that got everyone going gaga, and how many of them ended up just filling space on a list, in the hope that they produced one more of those games.

 

[tigerT]

(career) 2.5 years = (input) stuff all

no idea

 

[deliberate!!]

no idea

I know....but I try.....

 

[Rayzorwire]

Tell me why shouldn't we be expecting more from Jay? How much longer are we going to treat our players with kid gloves? How many times are we going to have the following repeated to us about the kids "Oh he is not performing at the moment but give him time and he will be a star." Mate stuff that Jay has been in the system for 5 years, we should be seeing something more along the lines of the Pies game this year but at the moment what we are seeing is Jay having games where he scores 1-2 goals and goes missing for most of the game. If you are happy with that then good luck to you. Sorry if I want to see something from a kid that has shown he can perform, remember that 6 goal game against the almighty Lions that we all look back fondly at and then dream about the next time Jay might happen to have a day like that. Sure he had that opportunity against WCE a few weeks back but he choked.

Talking about that game against the Pies 9 kicks 3 handballs 9 marks 3 goals. That is what should be the minimum we, as supporters, should expect & accept from Jay. Is it wrong for us to demand better returns from a 22 year old KP forward or should we just cross our fingers and hope that somewhere along the line he may pull his finger out and take a fair dinkum crack at being an AFL calibre forward.

BTW just for the record Fevola as a 22 year old having played about same number of games as Jay has (46) kicked 63 goals in 2003 despite playing in a side that won 4 games for the year. This is on top of having had a disrupted season the year before. Richo as a 21 year old kicked 91 coming back after a knee reco. Thats 2 players that have achieved something because they were prepared to put in the hard yards and both played in poor sides at the time. So there is no reason why Jay can't average 3-4 goals a game with the odd 4-6 goal game except for one thing and that is JAY.

Have you looked at the leading goalkickers at season's end in the last decade RT?

Anything over 40 or so a season from your 2nd option key forward is downright unusual and only happening in a handful of sides. Fevola and Richardson will go down as a couple of the best forwards to ever play the game - they're freak players, not benchmarks on what is average or 'acceptable.'

There's seven players averaging over three a game this season. Only three of them are key position players - you can add Franklin and Robertson if you like. Fevola is averaging 3.2 - Lloyd and Pavlich are averaging 3.1. All are 'superstars.'

Underneath (many of them under or around two goals a game) the average of three goals a game are the following players (in descending order):

Scott Lucas (2.8)
Scott Welsh
Matthew Richardson (2.4)
Cameron Mooney
Fraser Gehrig
Jonathan Brown (2.2)
Anthony Rocca
Chris Tarrant
Barry Hall (2.0)
Quinten Lynch (1.9)
David Neitz
Michael O'Loughlin
Nick Reiwoldt (1.8)


Can I now rest my case about you being unrealistic expecting Schulz to kick 3-4 a game?

How on earth do Sydney and WCE keep making grand finals when their leading forwards average nowhere near what you expect from Schulz? How can Geelong be on top of the ladder cruising to the finals when their leading goalkicker is Cam Mooney averaging 2.3 goals a games (he's averaged less than one goal a game for his career and under 13 possessions a game in a good side)

Ash Hansen - premiership side...47 games for 60 goals. If he played for Richmond he'd have been reduced to ash.

Quinten Lynch - premiership side...93 games for 140 goals. If he played for Richmond he'd have been lynched.

Both average 10-12 possessions a game.

You're out of touch with the standard forward line performance mate - Schulz is really not all that far off the mark.

And for those who missed it, Schulz sat slumped and gutted against the changeroom wall with both hands over his face after the Brisbane draw (his last game). To suggest he's not trying or doesn't give a sh!t is just not right. He was lauded as one of the hardest workers over the pre-season, then all his hard work on fitness was undone with a several week injury just prior to the season.

You don't throw away good size young forwards with courage, ability to take contested marks, lead well to dangerous positions, and who kick well and truly better than average. You do what Collingwood are doing with Travis Cloke - give him game time, forgive his frequent errors and quiet games, and be satisfied that you'll come out with a much better player over the long haul as reward for patience.

You mark him hard on his performances, harp on his deficiencies and insist he work on them, but also encourage him by consistently reinforcing your belief in him and faith in his ability. Most of all, you keep playing him and keep at him with all the above.

Cloke has played 41 games, kicked 31:47. His side seem to be doing alright with him playing 2nd fiddle to Rocca (who has been less than brilliant himself).

Schulz has played 46 games, kicked 43:22.

Games are won and lost in the centre of the ground - all good football analysts know it, finals sides are perfect examples, and stats corroborate both.

Schulz is the least of our problems.

As for Kingsley (well this may come back to bite me if he gets dropped later today), get used to seeing him in the senior line-up.

Forgive me for not being upset you got bitten Goldy.

Let's hope we never again see him wearing the club colours in the senior side.

 

[Ando_4]

Great post Rayzor. Just to add to it..

- Richo is still our key target not guys like Schulz. Many here seem to forget that. If most bothered to look at the stats this year for the second or third forward at most clubs, his output in comparision is very competitive.

- Not only is their delivery shithouse, our incapable midfield doesn't kick anywhere near enough goals of their own, hence we always expect guys like Schulz to kick a bag to make up for it. The midfield's inability to effect the scoreboard goes a long, long way towards us not able to kick big enough totals to beat sides. They seem to escape scott free on that front.

Keep up the good work.

 

[_RT_]

Have you looked at the leading goalkickers at season's end in the last decade RT?

Anything over 40 or so a season from your 2nd option key forward is downright unusual and only happening in a handful of sides. Fevola and Richardson will go down as a couple of the best forwards to ever play the game - they're freak players, not benchmarks on what is average or 'acceptable.'

There's seven players averaging over three a game this season. Only three of them are key position players - you can add Franklin and Robertson if you like. Fevola is averaging 3.2 - Lloyd and Pavlich are averaging 3.1. All are 'superstars.'

Underneath (many of them under or around two goals a game) the average of three goals a game are the following players (in descending order):

Scott Lucas (2.8)
Scott Welsh
Matthew Richardson (2.4)
Cameron Mooney
Fraser Gehrig
Jonathan Brown (2.2)
Anthony Rocca
Chris Tarrant
Barry Hall (2.0)
Quinten Lynch (1.9)
David Neitz
Michael O'Loughlin
Nick Reiwoldt (1.8)


Can I now rest my case about you being unrealistic expecting Schulz to kick 3-4 a game?

How on earth do Sydney and WCE keep making grand finals when their leading forwards average nowhere near what you expect from Schulz? How can Geelong be on top of the ladder cruising to the finals when their leading goalkicker is Cam Mooney averaging 2.3 goals a games (he's averaged less than one goal a game for his career and under 13 possessions a game in a good side)

Ash Hansen - premiership side...47 games for 60 goals. If he played for Richmond he'd have been reduced to ash.

Quinten Lynch - premiership side...93 games for 140 goals. If he played for Richmond he'd have been lynched.

Both average 10-12 possessions a game.

You're out of touch with the standard forward line performance mate - Schulz is really not all that far off the mark.

And for those who missed it, Schulz sat slumped and gutted against the changeroom wall with both hands over his face after the Brisbane draw (his last game). To suggest he's not trying or doesn't give a sh!t is just not right. He was lauded as one of the hardest workers over the pre-season, then all his hard work on fitness was undone with a several week injury just prior to the season.

You don't throw away good size young forwards with courage, ability to take contested marks, lead well to dangerous positions, and who kick well and truly better than average. You do what Collingwood are doing with Travis Cloke - give him game time, forgive his frequent errors and quiet games, and be satisfied that you'll come out with a much better player over the long haul as reward for patience.

You mark him hard on his performances, harp on his deficiencies and insist he work on them, but also encourage him by consistently reinforcing your belief in him and faith in his ability. Most of all, you keep playing him and keep at him with all the above.

Cloke has played 41 games, kicked 31:47. His side seem to be doing alright with him playing 2nd fiddle to Rocca (who has been less than brilliant himself).

Schulz has played 46 games, kicked 43:22.

Games are won and lost in the centre of the ground - all good football analysts know it, finals sides are perfect examples, and stats corroborate both.

Schulz is the least of our problems.

So we are just supposed to have blind faith that Jay will one day come good. Sorry but it doesn't work that way for me anymore. For 30 odd years I and many others have been sitting around waiting for Player X to one day come good, only to see them play 100+ games and very rarely get anywhere near the heights they showed in one or 2 early games. Maybe Jay is a victim of his one standout game against the Lions where he had a day where it all clicked and we all got caught up in the next great hope. Hopefully Jay will prove me and other doubters wrong but at the moment I just don't see it happening.

You mention that 2nd string forwards getting 40 goals for a season is something that rarely happens. Last year there were 4 sides where it occurred, the Crows had 3 players kick in excess of 40 goals (Ricciuto 44 in 17 games ave 2.6, Hentschel 42 in 19 ave 2.2, Burton 41 in 16 ave 2.6) Melbourne had 3 player in excess of 35 goals (Neitz 68 in 21 ave 3.2, Robbo 44 in 23 ave 1.9 Davey 37 in 22 ave 1.7) Hawks had 3 players above 30 ( Williams 60 in 20 ave 3, Dixon 39 in 22 ave 1.8, Franklin 31 in 14 ave 2.2) Saints had Gehrig and Riewoldt both over the 60 goal mark. Sydney had 3 players over 30 goals for the season with 2 of them over 40. All of those teams bar the Hawks played finals last year and the Hawks look like doing it this year with 2 young KP forwards leading the charge in Franklin and Boyle.

Meanwhile we are supposed to give Jay more time because he has had a couple of setbacks in terms of injuries. In case you weren't aware Boyle missed near on 2 seasons IIRC because of a badly broken leg and yet has come out this year and has 26 goals from 12 games and sit 9th on the goal scoring table. This from a player who is 23 years old has played 17 games at AFL level.

I never said we should get rid of Jay what I am saying is that if he is going to be our hope for the future then he needs to start performing at the highest level on a more consistent basis. Richo is 32-33 years old and is not going to be a 70-80 goal player anymore. The best we can hope for from him is 50 goal seasons over the next 2-3 years. What we desperately need is for someone to jump up and fill the void that is currently between what Richo was doing and what Richo can do. That person IMO should be Schulz. Remember this is a bloke who at 18-19 kicked 6 against the almighty Lions in his 16th game of AFL, in a year when we were no better off than what we are now. He has done it before tell me why shouldn't we expect it from him again and regularly.

I will conceed that 4-5 goals a game is too high a benchmark for Jay but tell me why we should not be expecting at least 40-50 goals a season from him?

 

[Ando_4]

You mention that 2nd string forwards getting 40 goals for a season is something that rarely happens. Last year there were 4 sides where it occurred, the Crows had 3 players kick in excess of 40 goals (Ricciuto 44 in 17 games ave 2.6, Hentschel 42 in 19 ave 2.2, Burton 41 in 16 ave 2.6) Melbourne had 3 player in excess of 35 goals (Neitz 68 in 21 ave 3.2, Robbo 44 in 23 ave 1.9 Davey 37 in 22 ave 1.7) Hawks had 3 players above 30 ( Williams 60 in 20 ave 3, Dixon 39 in 22 ave 1.8, Franklin 31 in 14 ave 2.2) Saints had Gehrig and Riewoldt both over the 60 goal mark. Sydney had 3 players over 30 goals for the season with 2 of them over 40. All of those teams bar the Hawks played finals last year and the Hawks look like doing it this year with 2 young KP forwards leading the charge in Franklin and Boyle.

I think you just proved Rayzorwire's point.
All of those sides also had/have substantially better midfield's than us also. So you would expect the ball down there more often and at a greater quality.

Whilst Richo is still our key target a 30+ goal return is reasonable to expect from a bottom team 2nd or third string forward. Schulz has been on target to provide that for the past couple of seasons despite our shitty midfield.

PS: If it's so easy to kick goals in our forward line, how many did Kingsley average as Schulz's replacement before being dropped? I mean this is a guy who's previously kicked 50+ goals for the year on 3 occassions... Perhaps it's not as easy as some seem to suggest.

 

[crashandbashruckmen]

Schulz is a little slow.

 

[_RT_]

I think you just proved Rayzorwire's point.
All of those sides also had/have substantially better midfield's than us also. So you would expect the ball down there more often and at a greater quality.

Whilst Richo is still our key target a 30+ goal return is reasonable to expect from a bottom team 2nd or third string forward. Schulz has been on target to provide that for the past couple of seasons despite our shitty midfield.

PS: If it's so easy to kick goals in our forward line, how many did Kingsley average as Schulz's replacement before being dropped? I mean this is a guy who's previously kicked 50+ goals for the year on 3 occassions... Perhaps it's not as easy as some seem to suggest.

Don't think I have proved his point at all. Remember he said it was a rare occassion for second forwards to be kicking 40+ goals in a season. I showed 4 sides where it did happen and that was just last season. It is not as rare as people would make out. Melbourne have had it happen at least the last 2 years (2005 they had 3 players score @ 40+ Neitz kicked 39 Yze 41 Robbo 73) Same with the Swans. In fact we were on target to do it as well, remember Brown had 34 before getting hurt combine that with Richo kicking 65 himself. There is not a lot different between the midfield we have now and the one we had back then.

Just maybe those players work harder to get themselves in position to kick goals. The ball enters our F50 as often as other sides, the fact that once it is there there is little pressure coming from the forwards to keep it there could also be a problem. Have a look at the comparison between Schulz, Hughes, Richo and Kent. The last 3 all average more possessions and marks than Jay does and one reason could be that they work harder in games than what Jay does.

http://www.finalsiren.com/PlayerCom...4,1239,&Compare=Go&Sort=AverageDisposals Desc

All the figures on that page show what I am talking about. In each comparison Jay trails the others. For example Jay and Cleve have played 3 games together this year. Cleve averages double the possies, 2 marks a game more and has 3 times the amount of goals kicked. Granted Jay was injured for one of those games but it still paints a damning picture of where Jay stands IMO.

That is the point I am trying to get across, you can blame the poor service from the midfield all you want but if it is as bad as some would make out then why are other players averaging more. Only reason I can see is they are working harder to be a target. They push up the ground and present if the ball is not coming down deep into the forward line. Perhaps if Jay started doing things like that instead of just sitting back in the square he might find more of the ball and with that gain more confidence. At present he just seems lost and I noticed the last 2 weeks at Coburg, Andy Collins spending a bit of time giving Jay instructions on what he needs to be doing as a forward when the ball is not coming down as often. A player with near of 50 games at AFL level should not have to be told things like that IMO.

Again let me clarify that I am not calling for Jay to be dispensed with, what I am saying is Jay IMO needs to work even harder to become the footballer we all hope he will become. But treating him with kid gloves when there are other players of similar age peforming better at this level is not going to help. Wallace should apply the heat to Jay and tell him the only way you are getting back in the side is through performances and those performances at Coburg level should be 5-6 goals a game, then when he comes back to Richmond he should be looking at a 3 goal a game average and 5-6 goal hauls every 2-4 weeks. That is what we should be looking for in Jay as our future FF not 1-2 goal average and 2-4 goals every 6 weeks. If you happy with the second option then we will be strugglers for a long time to come, if we get Jay prodicing the first option and soon then we will turn it around a lot quicker than it is expected.