Mega Thread Hardwick Vent Thread

[MightyTiger]

Re: Trent Cotchin 2011 Jack Dyer Medal Winner

he doesn't like us going up the ladder and winning games?

Apparently not.

 

[nikolasmia]

Re: Trent Cotchin 2011 Jack Dyer Medal Winner

Rayzor,

If Tuck is that good, why didnt any other club want him last year when we would of taken a packet of twisties as a fair trade?

If wallet was so great why is he now unemployeable in the afl ?

If Graham is so good, why will his career end when Richmond delist him?

If Hardwick is that bad in developing and improving players how do you describe the improvement in Cotchin, Martin, Deledio, Rance, Nahas, Houli, Grigg, Jack, Vickery ect,

So are a very eloquent communicator buddy but you are as biased as all hell, its ridiculous

 

[El Tigre]

A football club is more than a coach. Its why Wallace was doomed from the start. Hardwick is not our saviour either. He is however a part of the solution, as are all the members in the Football Department.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Re: Trent Cotchin 2011 Jack Dyer Medal Winner

Dimma isn't the only person who votes upon the Jack Dyer Medal so if you don't share the view of the votes awarded your actually in contrary with more than one ?

I'm well aware of that, but at the same time, the head coach gets his way and the rest fall in line. Clearly you're not going to get anyone voting for what amounts to the opposite opinion to the head coach every week, or any week.

Secondly you are doubting the ability of Dimma's ability as a coach by making comments like "A person with a genuinely good football brain wouldn't have made the elementary mistakes he has ".

Sherlock!

When appointed the list was widely regarded as the worst list within the competition, thanks to TW, we needed a coach who was firstly able to build a list and now in your words " (we have too much talent for him not to have a decent shot at a finals campaign or two) "
All done from 2 trade / drafts including 1 when he hadn't even coached a training or game .

I argued strongly that Wallace had left us with a good list to work with and I've been proven correct. While many doubted the players we had (especially our young key talls like Vickery and Rance) I was among the very small minority backing them in. Our progress this year has been built largely on the back of their efforts and on the back of our other strong drafting during the Wallace era. As I've pointed out several times late this season, the only actual Hardwick draftees seriously contributing to what we did this season were Martin, Conca, Batchelor and a brief (but very good) stint from Grimes. Take Martin falling into our lap out of that lot, include the injured Astbury and it's a fairly thin (albeit very talented) list to date with Hardwick's first draft certainly not yielding us what we'd hoped for when we delisted that many. The rest either haven't done anything of note yet, have already left the club in numerous cases, or are recycled players traded in the same way we nabbed King and Nahas during the Wallace era.

I think Rayzor wants Wallace and co back, he doesn't seem very happy with the new direction the club is taking.

Wallace is long gone, I still think a good board would have rightly prized his tactical coaching abilities and brought in a more 'matey' senior assistant or two to fill the inter-personal holes Wallace obviously couldn't, but that's history now.

With the possible exception of Leon Cameron, I don't think there's anyone more talented than Mark Neeld going around ATM, he's got the kind of football brain we need and like most of the genuinely great footy brains, he's seriously underrated. As I've said many times before, it's virtually impossible to get the complete package with a coach, you need to surround them with people who compliment their strengths and paper over some of their weaknesses. A combo like Neeld and Craig would be truly formidable and I fervently wish we were pursuing it.

 

[Heisenberg_]

Re: Trent Cotchin 2011 Jack Dyer Medal Winner

Since when did coaches head up the recruiting department?

 

[The Goon]

Re: Trent Cotchin 2011 Jack Dyer Medal Winner

As I've pointed out several times late this season, the only actual Hardwick draftees seriously contributing to what we did this season were Martin, Conca, Batchelor and a brief (but very good) stint from Grimes. Take Martin falling into our lap out of that lot, include the injured Astbury and it's a fairly thin (albeit very talented) list to date with Hardwick's first draft certainly not yielding us what we'd hoped for when we delisted that many.

Could be wrong but Conca and Batch will definitely make it IMO. Grimes and Astbury both a great chance. Houli had a great year and wouldn't be surprised if he could walk into almost any starting 22 now. Include Martin and thats 6 players from 2 years without even looking at the possibles down the list (Derickx etc). If you said to me the Tigers would pick up 3 top 22 players from each draft from here on in I'd take it for sure. May not win us a premiership next year, but in the long run would go a long way towards it.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Re: Trent Cotchin 2011 Jack Dyer Medal Winner

If Tuck is that good, why didnt any other club want him last year when we would of taken a packet of twisties as a fair trade?

You don't know that no other club wanted him, nor what we wanted for him, all you or anyone else here knows is that we offered him for trade and no deal was done because no agreement could be reached. That happens to maybe 30% of players, every year.

If wallet was so great why is he now unemployeable in the afl ?

AFAIK he's employed BY the AFL at least part-time, and doing some media, so he's probably still making a six figure sum out of his football intelligence? How many ex-coaches do you see doing as well and still earning a good football living? Plenty of "great" ones who aren't.

If Graham is so good, why will his career end when Richmond delist him?

Wholesale invention of the future is the best evidence you've mustered to support your position so far...

If Hardwick is that bad in developing and improving players how do you describe the improvement in Cotchin, Martin, Deledio, Rance, Nahas, Houli, Grigg, Jack, Vickery ect,

The majority of them have improved naturally because they were kids (or totally unfit in Nahas' case) when Wallace had them and they're all gradually starting to become men. I'm sure coaching has had *some* hand in it, but the improvement from many is largely in line with their ability to cope as they further mature.

Have the blokes who were senior when Hardwick arrived benefited from his supposedly awesome development? McGuane, Hislop, Morton and Thursfield have all gone significantly backwards IMO since the Wallace era, White, Foley, Newman, Deledio, Connors etc. are all treading water at best - you're down to maybe Jackson, definitely King and Nahas for genuine senior improvers by my count...who I might add, were all project players of Wallace's who were brought to the club or developed to do the specific roles they now perform for Hardwick.

To put it in a format so some of you may understand this point for what it is really saying, let's do some teams:

Quick Wallace era side similar to the tall setup we've used:

B: Connors Post Moore
HB: Deledio Rance Newman
C: Edwards Foley Morton
HF: Nahas Reiwoldt Cotchin
F: King Vickery Schulz
Foll: Graham Tuck Jackson
Int: Tambling White Polo Thursfield etc.

Quick solely Hardwick era side with similar setup as best it can be done:

B: Farmer Grimes Batchelor
HB: Houli Astbury Dea
C: Nason Grigg Webberley
HF: Helbig Griffiths McDonald
F: Taylor Miller O'Reilly
Foll: Browne Martin Conca
Int: Contin, Jakobi etc.

Take the gimme first draft picks out (Martin + Conca), take the relatively safe second rounders out (Batchelor + Astbury), take the recycled players out (Houli, Grigg, Miller), then look at what is left unbolded and you'll have a pretty good picture of our drafting and development over the last two years.

Since when did coaches head up the recruiting department?

Since never, but I fully recommend you try pointing that out around here and see how it flies.

Could be wrong but Conca and Batch will definitely make it IMO. Grimes and Astbury both a great chance. Houli had a great year and wouldn't be surprised if he could walk into almost any starting 22 now. Include Martin and thats 6 players from 2 years without even looking at the possibles down the list (Derickx etc). If you said to me the Tigers would pick up 3 top 22 players from each draft from here on in I'd take it for sure. May not win us a premiership next year, but in the long run would go a long way towards it.

I always look at list building the way you've expressed it in your last sentence North, I think the Wallace era gave us a lot to work with and at least we've got our 1st and 2nd rounders pretty right during the Hardwick era, plus picked up a couple of decent recycled options.

I find it quite interesting that both coaches era's commenced with a massive player cleanout and 10(?) delistings, followed by a pretty lousy draft which didn't reap us the number of players we'd hoped it would.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Re: Trent Cotchin 2011 Jack Dyer Medal Winner

I'm well aware of that, but at the same time, the head coach gets his way and the rest fall in line. Clearly you're not going to get anyone voting for what amounts to the opposite opinion to the head coach every week, or any week.



Sherlock!



I argued strongly that Wallace had left us with a good list to work with and I've been proven correct. While many doubted the players we had (especially our young key talls like Vickery and Rance) I was among the very small minority backing them in. Our progress this year has been built largely on the back of their efforts and on the back of our other strong drafting during the Wallace era. As I've pointed out several times late this season, the only actual Hardwick draftees seriously contributing to what we did this season were Martin, Conca, Batchelor and a brief (but very good) stint from Grimes. Take Martin falling into our lap out of that lot, include the injured Astbury and it's a fairly thin (albeit very talented) list to date with Hardwick's first draft certainly not yielding us what we'd hoped for when we delisted that many. The rest either haven't done anything of note yet, have already left the club in numerous cases, or are recycled players traded in the same way we nabbed King and Nahas during the Wallace era.



Wallace is long gone, I still think a good board would have rightly prized his tactical coaching abilities and brought in a more 'matey' senior assistant or two to fill the inter-personal holes Wallace obviously couldn't, but that's history now.

With the possible exception of Leon Cameron, I don't think there's anyone more talented than Mark Neeld going around ATM, he's got the kind of football brain we need and like most of the genuinely great footy brains, he's seriously underrated. As I've said many times before, it's virtually impossible to get the complete package with a coach, you need to surround them with people who compliment their strengths and paper over some of their weaknesses. A combo like Neeld and Craig would be truly formidable and I fervently wish we were pursuing it.

Rayzor I'd suggest that you wouldn't have many supporters of your view that TW left us with a good list .
Dimma would have a huge influence over who gets votes on cards other than his , that's why they don't only one vote card ?
I fail to see a mass of players who have sagnated or gone backwards under
Dimma , possibly your two loves Tuck and Jackson, and with zones becoming more apparent the need of good decision making has become more necessary , which isn't a strength of either .
I do however see a number of players who have been able to turn their careers around under Dimma .

 

[richoatthedisco]

Re: Trent Cotchin 2011 Jack Dyer Medal Winner

LMAO...well done RatD, you found an outstanding - does it mean outstanding? Reads to me like the only outstanding Hardwick has ever found for Tucky is that he's been outstanding in copping his (Hardwick's) poor judgement and man-fetish antics. "Much loved by the coaching staff?" C'mon mate, al-Sahhaf would blush.

I just googled 'Hardwick Tuck outstanding' and that was the first result.

Outstanding ball winners are outstanding footballers under good coaches who minimise their downsides and maximise their upsides. If Tuck were really "unbelievably dumb" as you assert, then he couldn't possibly become an outstanding ball winner and he sure as hell wouldn't keep bobbing up taking defensive marks where he's read the play superbly, outmarking ruckmen through better positioning and all the other never ending examples of Tuck's wonderful, innate football intelligence. Surely I don't need to explain to someone of your obvious intelligence and professional background, that intelligence comes in many different forms?

No doubt I was a little harsh calling him that and you're right, he does read the play pretty well. Ball in hand though, he makes plenty of poor decisions you wouldn't expect from a senior player.

As for kicking blindly, well maybe you missed a few too many games this year or maybe you didn't get the chance to watch as closely as you may otherwise have in the past, but nobody hacked the ball blindly out of the centre more than Cotchin, and not only did he do that right from the outset of the year, the deeper he got into being our main ball winner as the season wore on, the more often he did it. So tell me mate, is Cotchin breaking team rules, wrecking the midfield game plan, or giving us the last thing we want when he hacks the ball out of the middle, or just Tuck? For all the times you've hung Tuck for kicking blindly, do you credit him when that same fast ball movement breaks lines we weren't breaking prior to that and ends in a goal? For all the turnovers, do you concede the possibility he would have been tackled and lost the ball anyway if he hadn't kicked fast and blind, then deduct them from the total? Somehow I doubt these things.

I was thinking more of the times when he has time and space and throws it on the boot. He does that plenty; Cotch never does. Yeah he hacks some under intense physical pressure at a clearance (so does Pendlebury) but given an inch and a split-second, he does a lot better than Tucky does with a yard and a second - a footballing eternity. You can't possibly compare Cotch's vision and awareness with Tucky's.

Lazy, soft players can't and don't grind their way over the top of opponents at the end of games like Graham has all year.

They can and do if they've done sfa for three quarters. I dispute he's done it 'all year' either. 'On a few occasions' would be more accurate.

Lazy, soft players can't and don't lead the league's rucks for tackles and keep pace with many taggers for tackles. Sorry mate, it's pure ignorance to see him do those things week in, week out and then come up with a verdict of "lazy and soft" - it's lazy analysis.

No more lazy than using stats to counter what others see. How many blocks does Graham lay? How much running does he do? How often does he push forward and get dangerous, or push hard back into defence? Why do opposition forwards take marks on the goal line from set-shots, with Graham standing 20-30 metres away?

He doesn't switch on often enough to do his role as well as he can...What matters to me is that he's strong in concentration, commitment, and strength at the end of games.

I'd rather he show those things from the start.

Do you really think we couldn't find something equally embarrassing or worse from every player we have if we're going to cherry-pick isolated incidents?

Not isolated. I saw it at Coburg three years ago (it was a rover that time) and more than once since.

Dead right, but he equally almost never gets outmarked by his opponent at kick-ins from either end and he brings the ball to ground - a combination which is perfectly fine with me.

He gets outmarked a lot more than he outmarks.

I'll give you bluntly honest - like his inability to stop barracking for Essendon when he commentates, he's too frickin' dumb for his brain to stop the first thing that pops into his head from coming out his mouth a fraction of a second later. As for one of the best analysts, it's such a poor field that he may scrape into the top half by default.

I'll give you the Essendon thing but he's not dumb. If you listen to the sound of his voice he sounds it, granted, but Dermie sounds intelligent if you don't listen to what he's actually saying.

I'm pretty sure we see it every time Pia is mentioned.

Woof!

I'm not sure there's any hard evidence to support any of those claims beyond premiership player and assistant coach, there only seems to be speculation and guesses?

Anecdotal evidence: people have said it. Players and coaches have given Hardwick a lot of credit for Hawthorn's success.

Earlier in the year, (before the Carlton game IIRC ), you asked me to shut up about Tuck, I should just accept that he was gone, Hardwick was right etc.,

I'm sure I would never ask you to shut up. I can't recall but I bet it was more like 'let it go'. I came to the conclusion Tuck was gone because the coach wasn't playing him. Simple. Raging against it on a forum was a waste of energy. I was thinking of your mental health.

so let me ask you this: do you still support Hardwick's decision to leave Tuck and Graham out, knowing that it cost us a finals campaign, millions in revenue, experience for our juniors, and all we could have implemented for next season with better finances? Or, in hindsight, do you believe I was right that Hardwick erred?

I can see why Hardwick left Tuck out, for sure. He doesn't think he's part of the future and wants the team to cope without him. He wants Tuck to play a certain way and Tuck hasn't. Do you think Hardwick has something personal against Tucky? That's absurd.

As for Graham, he deserved to get dropped. Browne came in and took on Hille, Ryder and Bellchambers and we won the game. Correct selection. They need to get games into Browne, he has far more potential than Graham.

It's not about this year. If we'd made the finals we would have been smashed like Essendon was. Hardwick, like the rest of us, does not want to make up the numbers, he wants to win the damn thing. If dropping a couple of games this year stands us in better stead for the future, I'm all for it.

Hardwick has made it plain from the start: he's going to get games into young 'uns. I'll pre-empt your comeback and say he brought Tucky back in to alleviate the kind of morale-destroying smashings we saw Melbourne cop. Kids get tired, but I'll back him playing them from day one. Get them in there, give them a taste early, then they know the level they need to reach. Could we have done that with Tuck in the side? Possibly, probably, I dunno. I'm not exposed to the inner workings. I don't know why he wasn't getting a game other than the reasons Hardwick gave. I'll take the man at his word because he seems a straight-shooter to me.

If we're going to discuss Hardwick again, I think you owe me a little follow up on the first discussion.

How'd I do? I think I need a lie-down.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Re: Trent Cotchin 2011 Jack Dyer Medal Winner

Ball in hand though, he makes plenty of poor decisions you wouldn't expect from a senior player.

I think we've done little to minimise them. We don't really have designated kickers, for better or worse...personally, when I see a better kick handball to Tuck when they were clear to kick themselves, it's not Tucky's intelligence I'm questioning if he blows the kick.

I was thinking more of the times when he has time and space and throws it on the boot. He does that plenty; Cotch never does. Yeah he hacks some under intense physical pressure at a clearance (so does Pendlebury) but given an inch and a split-second, he does a lot better than Tucky does with a yard and a second - a footballing eternity. You can't possibly compare Cotch's vision and awareness with Tucky's.

In the main you're right, but there's still no shortage of times where Tuck's (and Jackson's for that matter) superior core strength gets him out of situations that Cotchin still struggles with. Rather than split hairs over who hacks better , I'd rather debate why we've gone so hard to get Cotchin and Martin in the middle before they're genuinely ready for brutal full-time duties, and then as often as not they're being forced to use their undeniable talent to hack in much the same way Tuck's always been criticised for (I have to take issue with you there, Cotchin really did hack completely blind the exact same way many times). I mean, did we stick them in the centre and say 'get ball kick ball?' - because they played a fair bit of that kind of footy where the head was down and the hack was on its way before any handball options were remotely canvassed in the brain.

They can and do if they've done sfa for three quarters.

And here's the great unexplained of Graham's year - why didn't he jump at the ball the same way all game? If he jumped at his best at the beginning of games then faded, we'd have a simple answer, but what do we conclude when he spends three quarters seldom jumping at the ball, then suddenly starts climbing a full hand above his opponent and winning hitouts at will in the last quarter? I know what my best guesses were - what's your take?

How many blocks does Graham lay? How much running does he do? How often does he push forward and get dangerous, or push hard back into defence? Why do opposition forwards take marks on the goal line from set-shots, with Graham standing 20-30 metres away?

I'd rather he show those things from the start.

Wouldn't we all? I didn't expect Graham to run anywhere near as hard and long as he did this year, he took on a massive increase in workload last year, and rather than having the 'luxury' of aiming to improve towards the same benchmarks required back in 2010, he had his benchmark raised another 30% higher. These are massive issues for a bloke with less than 50 games of AFL hardening.

What really impressed me, was that you could quite visibly see him tire and switch off in games and start making the concentration lapses you outline above, but he simply refused to tire and refused to switch off when games were in the balance.

That scores big points in my book.

I would also argue that any of the above comments about switching off through fatigue, letting the side down defensively because of it etc., can also be laid at the feet of all three of our other ~40 game players at one time or another this year. In fact, I'm pretty sure Martin's pile would match or exceed Graham's - I know I didn't just imagine those dozens of times I screamed at him (and most of our other mids for that matter) to man up or get goal side.

Not isolated. I saw it at Coburg three years ago (it was a rover that time) and more than once since.

Would that make it 4-5 times in three years? If that doesn't amount to isolated incidents, what does?

I'll give you the Essendon thing but he's not dumb.

Within his own very narrow perception of football and more especially, footballers, he can say the odd worthwhile thing. Around that he'll have made maybe a dozen or more glaring factual errors ranging from getting players' names completely wrong through to a whole bunch of long bow conclusions that are based wholly and solely on errors. Not occasionally either, every time I have to suffer through him. His bias against players which don't fit his Essendon man-fetish criteria is enough to make me throw up.

Have you read the things he laid on Knighter?

Sorry mate, there's no chance anyone could ever convince me Lloyd's a bright fella, or a decent one for that matter.

Anecdotal evidence: people have said it. Players and coaches have given Hardwick a lot of credit for Hawthorn's success.

Fair call, I've heard much the same, I just don't know what can be extracted from it as certainty, or transferred to any other circumstance. If Franklin had come to us and Coughlan and Brown had stayed fit, maybe we'd have won a Bradbury flag, Hawthorn would have finished 9th that year and Hardwick would never have become a senior coach.

I don't think that's at all beyond the realms of possibility if fate had been a little less kind to Hawthorn and a little kinder to us.

I came to the conclusion Tuck was gone because the coach wasn't playing him. Simple. Raging against it on a forum was a waste of energy.

I'm not entirely sure about that.

Do you think Hardwick has something personal against Tucky? That's absurd.

Without wanting to belabour the point, I think he rated Tuck largely on perception, rather than as a coach who was intimate with his whole career having watched a stack of our old tapes and saw value in getting him into the kind of form that makes him as dangerous a commodity in the centre of the ground as any inside mid in the comp. I think that most normal human beings couldn't possibly comprehend the capacity of Campbell to hold a grudge and act on it to the full extent of his slyness - in Hardwick's ear from day one, like he was in Rawlings' ear and Tuck got dumped that year. Barely 6 months earlier Tuck was the form inside mid of the entire comp and recording staggering numbers as we pushed for finals. His career nose-dived the same day Campbell got a coaches box without Wallace to work in and despite his best efforts over some really great games, has never recovered.

Browne came in and took on Hille, Ryder and Bellchambers and we won the game. Correct selection.

Was it therefore incorrect selection when we lost all those games with him in? Browne's place is at Coburg developing something resembling the tank required to play as a no.1 ruck now - the 30% increase this year has made it incredibly hard for him to make it. Gus may have his brain fades, but Browne had plenty too and IMO, showed nowhere near enough evidence to suggest he was any closer than 2-3 years minimum - if ever - away from matching Graham's tank, his finish to games and his general athleticism.

If dropping a couple of games this year stands us in better stead for the future, I'm all for it.

I can't see how all we gave up (as I listed previously) stands us in better stead, so I therefore can't see where your "f" possibly stems from?

I'd really like to have seen us get much closer to our financial ambitions and I'd have dearly loved the boys to get some September action under their belts. I submit that with the five collectively best clearance mids from last year of any side and with the right brains trust in place, we could have scared any team in the land and I stand by that position. For all their strength, both Geelong and Collingwood's midfields have significant weaknesses and the rest have massive weaknesses.

Hardwick has made it plain from the start: he's going to get games into young 'uns.

How many young 'uns from last year who we apparently desperately needed to get 50 games into ASAP, got regular games again this year? Martin only? Do you think the games we gave Browne and Helbig this year may well turn out the same - no games for them next year and some of us are scratching our heads about why best-22 players were left out to fast track their development...and then the same coach puts an abrupt halt to their badly needed development the very next season?

How'd I do? I think I need a lie-down.

LOL...you were brilliant as usual, if a little misguided.

FWIW, I was bouncing back and forth between here and email today trying to source a particularly rare guitar from Texas from a bloke who refuses to use the phone or any form of contact other than written...I strongly suspect the guitar won the word count in the end and it was worth every keystroke.

 

[tigerdan]

Rayzor,

I don't want to get stuck into you for the sake of getting stuck into you, because actually I think we do agree on quite a few things, e.g. Tuck (I will resist the temptation to mention the J word though ), but some of your points don't necessarily follow.

It's debateable whether the votes are seen by all coaching staff when they award them. My guess is it's a 'secret balot' type thing where votes are essentially anonymous. It would be quite odd if it was overseen by Hardwick IMHO.

The bit about 'being proven right' about the state of the list 'post Wallace' is not proof. It could well be simply coincidence.

Personally I think that Wallace tried to invent a new style of team, which if it came off would have been a stroke of genius. He went for fast runners and 'small' utility type big men. Maybe it was a dud plan, maybe it was a good plan but we drafted the wrong players. Hard to tell really. But the end result has to be a big disappointment for the RFC, and failure for TW.

As for Hardwick, he blew it with those few silly losses against Port and particularly the Gold Coast. I hope we wont see the same mistake made again, but nobody is perfect, and two poor coaching efforts in the course of the season is not the end of the world, just as two bad playing efforts is not the end of the world either (though it is disappointing).

 

[RICHOLEGEND12]

Re: Trent Cotchin 2011 Jack Dyer Medal Winner

all i can be bothered adding to this argument:

to say tuck is "unbeilavably dumb" is a very stupid thing to say. and you should take a look at yourself, keyboard warrior.

and the other thing i know for a fact campbell does not like tuck

 

[dothebowdenshuffle]

Has anyone noticed that we are tracking under Hardwick, very similarly to Hawthorn under Clarko's first 2 years? Hawks won 5 and 9 games respectively and averaged 83.5% For/Against. We have won 6 and 8.5 games and averaged 80% F/A. Hardwick - obviously due to his coaching apprenticeship being served at hawks - has often referred to them as his model and there is a lot of similarity in our progress. For example at end of 2006 (Hawks 2nd year under Clarko) they won their last 4 games, during same period in 2011 for us we went 3-1 from our last 4 and I think we weren't really too fussed either way about winning the last game v Norf (seemed we were a lot more interested in maintaining an aggressive pressing structure than addressing an apparent safety loophole which led to several easy Norf goals).

Hawks in Clarko's 3rd year went 13-9 and 113%, I'm not confident we can replicate that, but I do think a 50-50 win-loss and 100% is very gettable.

 

[Tigerbob]

Has anyone noticed that we are tracking under Hardwick, very similarly to Hawthorn under Clarko's first 2 years? Hawks won 5 and 9 games respectively and averaged 83.5% For/Against. We have won 6 and 8.5 games and averaged 80% F/A. Hardwick - obviously due to his coaching apprenticeship being served at hawks - has often referred to them as his model and there is a lot of similarity in our progress. For example at end of 2006 (Hawks 2nd year under Clarko) they won their last 4 games, during same period in 2011 for us we went 3-1 from our last 4 and I think we weren't really too fussed either way about winning the last game v Norf (seemed we were a lot more interested in maintaining an aggressive pressing structure than addressing an apparent safety loophole which led to several easy Norf goals).

Hawks in Clarko's 3rd year went 13-9 and 113%, I'm not confident we can replicate that, but I do think a 50-50 win-loss and 100% is very gettable.

Well said. Great read.

 

[santa claws]

Re: Trent Cotchin 2011 Jack Dyer Medal Winner

Rayzor,

If Tuck is that good, why didnt any other club want him last year when we would of taken a packet of twisties as a fair trade?

If wallet was so great why is he now unemployeable in the afl ?

If Graham is so good, why will his career end when Richmond delist him?

If Hardwick is that bad in developing and improving players how do you describe the improvement in Cotchin, Martin, Deledio, Rance, Nahas, Houli, Grigg, Jack, Vickery ect,

So are a very eloquent communicator buddy but you are as biased as all hell, its ridiculous

1/ whos to say noone wanted him, perhaps those that were interested were not prepared to give up what we wanted for a 29 yr old in what i think was a strong draft.

2/ I agree wallaces time at an afl club is well and truly over. While i disagree with Raysor about Wallace, i think most of us fail to recognise what he did do well. As little as that may have been at richmond.

3/ While i think Angus Graham a very ordinary player and should be replaced he does have a contract to the end of 2013.
who knows what may transpire over the next two yrs. A big presumtion that he will be delisted.
Imo he will at the least be persevered with until we actually have someone step up and take over.

4/ On Hardwick and development. Has anyone stopped to ask what would the natural progression of each player mentioned have been under any coach who may have got the job.how much is development and how much is natural progression.
theres a few mentioned there who i would question if they have improved at all. Grigg in particular.

 

[YellowandBlackBlood]

I am very happy with Hardwick so far.
As a rookie coach he has to be give some slack as he is learning the caper as he is going.
The players clearly like him but also respect him.
He'll get some things right and some things wrong but what I like is the improvement in our list has come from the youngsters. In fact, our best players are our youngsters as can be seen in the B&F.
Some people on this board are ruthless. They want him not to make ANY mistakes which clearly is unreasonable and impossible. Next year will be defining year for our club. We need to step up into the bottom half of the eight. This is more difficult than it seems because the sides in the eight this year don't look like sliding for a while although the Saints are the most vulnerable. North, Freo and the Dees are probably our nearest competitors for this position in the eight. Both have much stronger ruck divisions than us. Hopefully that can be addressed in the trading period.
Our players need better physical development and more strength. That is also being attended to.

What else can I say except bring on 2012! Go tiges!

 

[Truetiger]

I still feel we should offer him a new contract some stage between now and round 1. Whos with me

 

[dothebowdenshuffle]

I still feel we should offer him a new contract some stage between now and round 1. Whos with me

So what is Hardwick's contract status? 2012 the last of a 3 year deal or has it already been extended to end of 2013? Personally i think coaches tend to do better when they are slightly hungry. Plenty of examples of teams dropping off following a mid-year extension. This has to be balanced with the media feeding frenzy that can descend when a coach whose contract is up for renewal at season's end has his team under-perform in first half of season (eg 2011 Eade, Craig, Bailey). Start talks about Round 5 and conclude by mid-season. Fingers crossed we are playing good consistent footy through that period.

 

[MightyTiger]

So what is Hardwick's contract status? 2012 the last of a 3 year deal or has it already been extended to end of 2013? Personally i think coaches tend to do better when they are slightly hungry. Plenty of examples of teams dropping off following a mid-year extension. This has to be balanced with the media feeding frenzy that can descend when a coach whose contract is up for renewal at season's end has his team under-perform in first half of season (eg 2011 Eade, Craig, Bailey). Start talks about Round 5 and conclude by mid-season. Fingers crossed we are playing good consistent footy through that period.

Or things could turn ugly and Hardwick do a Ross Lyon on us, why should he show loyalty to us when it's obvious we will ditch him the minute things go pear shaped?

 

[nikolasmia]

Re: Trent Cotchin 2011 Jack Dyer Medal Winner

1/ whos to say noone wanted him, perhaps those that were interested were not prepared to give up what we wanted for a 29 yr old in what i think was a strong draft.

2/ I agree wallaces time at an afl club is well and truly over. While i disagree with Raysor about Wallace, i think most of us fail to recognise what he did do well. As little as that may have been at richmond.

3/ While i think Angus Graham a very ordinary player and should be replaced he does have a contract to the end of 2013.
who knows what may transpire over the next two yrs. A big presumtion that he will be delisted.
Imo he will at the least be persevered with until we actually have someone step up and take over.

4/ On Hardwick and development. Has anyone stopped to ask what would the natural progression of each player mentioned have been under any coach who may have got the job.how much is development and how much is natural progression.
theres a few mentioned there who i would question if they have improved at all. Grigg in particular.

can't win sometimes if the players improve its because of natural progression and if they don't its because the coach is crap.

Wallace didnt improve the players enough for us to be competitive, hardwick will, its that simple. Now the truth is that the raw talent that hardwick has at his disposal is better than what wallet had. But it is also true that wallets demands of 600k a year meant that we didnt have any money left to help develop them properly or invest in recruiting, that was the difference between clarko and wallet, clarko put the club first and took a pay cut to bring in the right people in development and sports science, no way in the world wallet would ever be so selfless. By the end the players knew this and his goose was cooked. Ultimately his appointment was a big mistake by Greg Miller.

We are on the right track with Harwick. Anybody that thinks wallet was better or that misses wallet is just not aware of all the facts or biased because its a completely illogical conclusion to make. Ultimately Wallet will never ever have a job with an Afl club again, even though there are 2 new clubs that are dying for experience they don't want him. What does that tell you?

 

[AstroboyUK]

Re: Trent Cotchin 2011 Jack Dyer Medal Winner

can't win sometimes if the players improve its because of natural progression and if they don't its because the coach is crap.

Correct: infact, probably the best way to measure this part of the coach's (or specifically Hardwick's) performance is to ask how many players didnt progress at all or went backwards.

Very few havent progressed well in the last 2 years, only a couple have tread water and even less have gone backwards: on that measure it implies we're doing a much better in this area.

In amongst those there are some players who we know are going to struggle for ability altogether, therefore its not a reflection on the coach that they havent 'progressed' in relation to the team/league benchmark.

the RFC's lack of ability to develop potential is one of the worst legacies of our culture in the past 15 years... best example being Ottens... I find it very very comforting that we are slowly re-learning how to do it.

 

[Rayzorwire]

It's debateable whether the votes are seen by all coaching staff when they award them. My guess is it's a 'secret balot' type thing where votes are essentially anonymous. It would be quite odd if it was overseen by Hardwick IMHO.

Everything's debatable when we're speculating dan, but put it this way mate, if I was coaching a club, you were my assistant, and I had the major say in whether or not you got 'restructured' next year for one of the dozens of bright people who want your job, would you buck my opinion every week and vote the opposite to what you know I will, simply because that's the way you saw it, or tow the line?

The bit about 'being proven right' about the state of the list 'post Wallace' is not proof. It could well be simply coincidence.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at...are you saying that if someone's predictions turn out to be correct, then it could well amount to sheer coincidence? If so, at what point does coincidence disappear and be replaced by ability?

Personally I think that Wallace tried to invent a new style of team, which if it came off would have been a stroke of genius. He went for fast runners and 'small' utility type big men. Maybe it was a dud plan, maybe it was a good plan but we drafted the wrong players. Hard to tell really. But the end result has to be a big disappointment for the RFC, and failure for TW.

A smart club sees where we were with a shocking list back in 2005 and correctly appraises what happened thereafter. Nathan Brown was bloody horrible in 2004 under Frawley, he was in Brownlow form under Wallace the very next year, then he was cruelly snatched from us forever with that injury. Goodbye tenure as far as Wallace's 'within 5yrs' chances of success went - right then and there, before we begin to add Coughlan and all the other key injuries.

He inherited the bottom team, took the last player signed on that list (Tuck) and made him into close to our best onballer over a single pre-season. That's player development - can anyone name a single AFL coach who can boast of doing better than that? There's many great highlights from Richo's career, but considering where his body was at, nobody got close to getting the same effectiveness out of him as what Wallace did. He knocked the sulk out of him while he was at it. Most people forget how much disrespect Richo earned pre-Wallace for his tantrums and on-field antics. By the end he was the most respected man in football and everyone had forgotten the childish stuff he used to be so infamous for. Another 'coincidence' I guess.

I've seen this club lose so many times when it would have won if half a brain had been involved. To watch us go to Kardinia Park in 2006 with a plan for playing the ground which was way better than what Geelong had (and taught them lessons they'll never forget), no Nathan Brown, and beat them hands down all day at the style of football they were still trying to emulate from Wallace's days at the Dogs. I'd spent two miserable decades waiting for that kind of football brain to come along and save Richmond from itself.

Take a good hard look at the side he took in that day:

B: P. Bowden Hall A. Kellaway
HB: Newman J. Bowden Raines
C: Tivendale Coughlan Hyde
HF: Pettifer Simmonds Deledio
F: Krakouer Richardson Pattison
Foll: Knobel Tuck Johnson
Int: Foley (he got 10 possessions in the game and still had a very long way to go, Deledio got 9 possessions FWIW) Tambling Polo Meyer

Any side he 'failed' with was a whole lot worse on paper when it came to personnel. Wallace's 'failures' were with sides where our injury list was so long we couldn't take more than four genuine talls into the game and had similar impossible to overcome handicaps.

I had no like whatsoever for Wallace when he came to the club. Like most I still had the day the Dogs stitched up Knighter burned in my brain - and the best we could do in return was a handful of 'Cambo' girlie slaps followed by a yelp-free flogging. Pure humiliation. A 'let's jump the fence at the Adelaide Oval for Bert Oldfield' kind of Richmond moment if ever there was one and Wallace was the architect to some degree.

But when you walk into a season like 2005 hoping that you might win a game in the 2nd half of the season, unlike the year before, and hopefully more than four games, unlike the year before, and you suddenly see the league's ugliest team, chock-full of duds, turned into a bonafide giant killing unit over one pre-season, then how can you have anything but enormous respect for the person responsible?

In his early years he was magically turning Knobel's, Tuck's, Simmonds', Hyde's and Pettifer's into heroes because we had nobody else. Ordinary players playing well above themselves within a system designed to maximise their strengths and minimise their deficiencies. By 2008 when even none of these average blokes were still available to him thanks to injury, when we beat the Hawks late in the year, 12 of our 16 goals were kicked by Cartledge, Connors, Edwards, McMahon, Morton, Tambling, Tuck and White. The only multiple goalkickers for the game were Connors and Morton. Potent bunch, eh?

Wallace coached like a chess master, he knew everything about every pawn in the game from both sides and could stack the matchups and their timing to give us a massive advantage. That's how we ended up with freakish footballing anomalies like Chris Hyde kicking four goals and Dean Polo's debut game where you swore he was a gun - Wallace shuffling his least pawns around under the radar where nobody expects the attack to come from and the game's long over before the opposition brains trust knew what happened. Sheedy blubbering and babbling about 'basketball crap' (the flood/press/rebound) and 'ugly football' (numbers to contests) at the press conference after losing to Wallace again, totally shell-shocked, totally oblivious to where football was heading. I loved every minute of it.

The club failed, not Wallace.

'Doesn't get along with the players well enough like he's their mate'
and
'can't win often enough with absolute rubbish if half of them are injured'
are pathetic reasons to dump a coach that brilliant - a one of a kind football brain.

While plenty of people would like to paint this as a case of me being a jilted Wallace fanboy who won't give Hardwick a break, nothing could actually be further from the truth. I didn't like Wallace's appointment at all, I was very quickly forced to change my mind. I liked Hardwick, looked forward to his football brain being at the club after the successful environments he'd been in, and expected that he'd be great for us. Again, I've been forced to change my initial mind.

two bad playing efforts is not the end of the world either (though it is disappointing).

If it was just two games then we wouldn't have a problem. Truth is, we didn't play much good team football at all this year and our systems were often a disgrace. We had a lot of great individual efforts which sometimes combined into some good quarters and wins, but very few occasions where we played well as a team.

 

[turtle27]

Razor should be banned from posting, they're just too long.

 

[tugga]

Razor should be banned from posting, they're just too long.

I know you're only taking the piss Turtle, but while we may not agree with everything he has to say, but nobody can question his passion and his willingness to explain his side of the story without resorting to cheap shots. The board is a better place for differing views and opinions.

 

[turtle27]

I know you're only taking the piss Turtle, but while we may not agree with everything he has to say, but nobody can question his passion and his willingness to explain his side of the story without resorting to cheap shots. The board is a better place for differing views and opinions.

I am, yes. No issues with Ray's passion for the club, but I can honestly say I don't read his posts due to their length. That's probably not his fault though given the lack of my attention span sometimes.

Just on his last post, I remember that game at Geelong, I watched it, and listened to Rex Hunt talk about potential premierships being on the horizon at the Tigs. For some reason it all capitulated very quickly. But from the look of things, Ray is suggesting that wasn't Plough's fault, that it was all the clubs. I simply don't agree with that.