Lowest Ladder Position

[_RT_]

Asked this on the main board and am now going to post it on the Richmond board. Quite simply what is the lowest ladder position you would accept at the end of the 08 season?

Basically allowing for the worst possible outcome in terms of injury and outside influences what is the lowest position you would still publically back Wallace and the team?

For me it is 12th, any lower than that and I will have run out of the ability to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Frankly for Richmond to be getting anywhere near the Flag in 2011 and beyond as Wallace has suggested we need to be improving by at least 4 spots on the ladder this year. If we don't then I couldn't give a rats clacker about honourable losses and the development of the kids, because frankly if we are not showing any improvement in 4 years under Wallace we never will.

 

[smokey_58au]

For me it is 12th, any lower than that and I will have run out of the ability to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Frankly for Richmond to be getting anywhere near the Flag in 2011 and beyond as Wallace has suggested we need to be improving by at least 4 spots on the ladder this year. If we don't then I couldn't give a rats clacker about honourable losses and the development of the kids, because frankly if we are not showing any improvement in 4 years under Wallace we never will.

This might come as a surprise to some on here but I agree. I have a very firm positive belief in the structure and direction of the list as it stands today and with the way it has all gone up until now I am totally convinced of an improvement of at least 4 spots this year (barring a bizarre year when you might finish 13th or lower on 9-10 wins). Anything less and I will agree that Wallace and the current coaching panel are not getting the best out of the players, and that it will be time to seriously review ALL positions on the panel. However, it will take a couple more years of 'total' failure to convince me that our list is not significantly better and capable of being very competitive and successful in the near (2-3 years) future.

 

[The Rusty Trombone]

12th is a good number to hold your breath on and toe the company line but I believe we are capable of making the 8. I'd be really dissappointed if we didn't play finals especially if we have a good run with injuries. I never wanted Wallace but think he has been doing a great job and believe we will have a very good year and he will be offered another 2 -3 years at seasons end.( At the time I wanted Gary O'donnel as coach and Terry Daniher as assistant) I'm worried about our height in the backline when I look at our team but it will be alright. Surely our ruck situation from last year can't happen again.

 

[one eyedtiger]

like u guys i think 12 and above. it will be great if we can be challenging for the 8 and i hope we do.

 

[wart101]

1 position on the ladder for me, i'm impatient and want to see billions of black and yellow flags waving come september this year!!!!!!!!!!!! for me there's no other way!!!!

 

[tugga]

I hate to be the one to say it, but it depends on what happens regarding injuries.
The clubs with the lowest injury lists will be the ones who figure prominently in the eight. If we suffer injuries to key players, then it's bottom two or three again, for one more year. If we don't then I don't think beyond the realms of possibility to sneak into 8th, but more likely
9th to 12th.

 

[Madtiger2006]

Last year was our injury year. Every team has a bad injury year and it was our turn last year. We are good enough to win half our games as we showed in 2005 and 2006, so with our full list back and the kids alot better now we should do better than 2006. I would hope we finish around the middle of the ladder at the worst

 

[IDGAF]

Honestly .... does not faze me where we finish

as long as the kids continue to develop , messrs Rance Cotchin and Putt show a bit ... we stay competetive playing an attacking , hard brand of footy ... and we don`t have any 25 goal floggings .

If we come bottom with 5-6 wins , but a good percentage in the high 80`s (showing our competitiveness) ... then i would not be burning the punt rd. stand down .

Bit of luck goes our way and we get 8 - 10 wins ... that would be excellent for mine .

2009 is the year i would truelly hope to see some real inroads

2008 is what i would call our last "foundation" year

 

[gotigers01]

Honestly .... does not faze me where we finish

as long as the kids continue to develop , messrs Rance Cotchin and Putt show a bit ... we stay competetive playing an attacking , hard brand of footy ... and we don`t have any 25 goal floggings .

If we come bottom with 5-6 wins , but a good percentage in the high 80`s (showing our competitiveness) ... then i would not be burning the punt rd. stand down .

Bit of luck goes our way and we get 8 - 10 wins ... that would be excellent for mine .

2009 is the year i would truelly hope to see some real inroads

2008 is what i would call our last "foundation" year

this is spot on for me, if we do by chance get the spoon again this year it would be because of the limited improvement in shultz, tivendale, hyde, moore, meyer, JON. These are the guys that have been on our list for enough years to be taking their games to the next level. We have shown faith in these players particularly shultz, hyde and moore and its time to repay us with some good performances. If we continue to not be competitive i feel the broom needs to keep sweeping the place out until we get the combination right. Eventually that weak minded lazy culture our club has had for so long will be weeded out. I believe in wallace and our management and regardless of ladder position he should be the man to continue this journey at the helm until we taste that ultimate success in september.

 

[Rayzorwire]

I hate to be the one to say it, but it depends on what happens regarding injuries.
The clubs with the lowest injury lists will be the ones who figure prominently in the eight. If we suffer injuries to key players, then it's bottom two or three again, for one more year. If we don't then I don't think beyond the realms of possibility to sneak into 8th, but more likely
9th to 12th.

Dead on the money tug.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

I posted this on the main board in response to this same question, with additional stuff in [].

It's very difficult to quantify satisfaction in relation to ladder position, as one missed goal could determine the difference between 10th and 14th in a pack of teams. In addition to this, final ladder position can be far too dependent on the results of other games and the draw that are beyond the control of my own team. It's no insult to the coaching staff of Team X that Team Y might make a late charge and knock them down a rung, especially if Team Y happened to have a friendlier run home. [Eg. If Richo's push in the back had not been paid against him v Essendon, we would have finished 15th, not 16th. Seriously, were we a one-place-worse team simply due to one hgihly questionable umpiring interpretation?]

In terms of Richmond, it's not so much ladder position nor even how many wins that is the big decider - it's the how they win or lose. If Richmond happened to finish 12th with 8 wins, most of which are a result of big performances by the usual suspects such as Richo, Bowden, Foley and Browny, then I'd be really disappointed. And I would imagine Plough would be, wrongly or rightly, in a bit of strife.

Yet if Richmond happened to lose a sizeable combination of Richo, Bowden, Simmo, Browny, Johnson and Cogs [to long term injury] throughout the season yet still finished 12th on 8 wins, then that's different. Particularly if most of these 8 wins were due to the big performances of Deledio, Edwards, Tambling, Meyer, Schulz, Hughes, Patto, Riewoldt, Connors etc. In this latter case, I'd be very satisfied with our status. This would, in my opinion, validate the drafting/development process of Wallace and co over the last three years and would provide an endorsement for his role as ongoing coach. I'd even extend his contract by another year.

 

[polakthetiger]

Particularly if most of these 8 wins were due to the big performances of Deledio, Edwards, Tambling, Meyer, Schulz, Hughes, Patto, Riewoldt, Connors etc. In this latter case, I'd be very satisfied with our status. This would, in my opinion, validate the drafting/development process of Wallace and co over the last three years and would provide an endorsement for his role as ongoing coach. I'd even extend his contract by another year.

I am sure Terry will be very glad to hear that GJJ

 

[Tigersman]

Wont be happy unless we are well clear of the bottom 3.
8-10 wins with no real thumpings would be ok.
The only acceptable reason for a bottom 3 finish is a horror injury run.
If the injuries arent bad its time to show at least something in the way of consistant performances.
How much longer do we excuse up and down form from young guys who have been around for 3 years or more?
Its this year that we start the climb or or make the call on some players.

Imagine another rebuild if this one does'nt turn out!!!

 

[GhostofJimJess]

I am sure Terry will be very glad to hear that GJJ

It's true, though. If it was the Class of 2004, 2005 and 2006 who were leading the way in the season of 2008, then it would be a direct endorsement of the decisions made and methodology implemented during the Terry Wallace reign.

What else do you want of a coach?

But if there appears to be nothing emerging from that 2004-07 period, then he is very vulnerable.

 

[polakthetiger]

It's true, though. If it was the Class of 2004, 2005 and 2006 who were leading the way in the season of 2008, then it would be a direct endorsement of the decisions made and methodology implemented during the Terry Wallace reign.

What else do you want of a coach?

But if there appears to be nothing emerging from that 2004-07 period, then he is very vulnerable.

Hey, I am with you all the way. I was having a go at your inference that you were involved in the decision to extend his contract

As you said, everyone can see a special group of kids being put together, but not all can see it will take a few years to get them being competitive. IMO, the 'quality', from a skill perspective, of the playing group now, is the best for as long as I can remember. So in a sense, this puts more pressure on the coach, and also his player development team, to get the best onfield results from them over the next few years.

I rate Plough as a coach and hope he gets a 'good' extension (2-3 years) on top of this one, provided, as you said, improvement can be seen from the kids. Our lack of success in many of the games, injuries aside, was the average efforts of some of our mid-senior group last season. The Bummers and Wobbles in particular, had this group of 3-4 players stand up and get them 4-5 wins in close games, getting them over the line, where ours didn't. But as long as the kids are developing and sticking to the game plan, keeping Wallace is best I think. Last season, teams using this fast running style, started to show it can overcome the lockdown Sydney style of play.

What we need is an 'average' injury year in 08 to see just how well the coach can go. With an 'average' injury toll, if we are bottom 3 with not much out of the likes of Meyer, Schulz, Moore, White and Hughes and not much more improvement from Raines, Polak, McGuane, King and Jackson, he will be under pressure. All of those players are 21-24 and need to be developed and coached to be 'competitive' with top 8 sides THIS SEASON!

Better input from that middle-senior group of Hyde, Tiv, Johnson, Tuck and Newman, will see more games won, but I think we would all be happier seeing that younger group stepping up. (and Morton and McMahon)

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Hey, I am with you all the way. I was having a go at your inference that you were involved in the decision to extend his contract

As you said, everyone can see a special group of kids being put together, but not all can see it will take a few years to get them being competitive. IMO, the 'quality', from a skill perspective, of the playing group now, is the best for as long as I can remember. So in a sense, this puts more pressure on the coach, and also his player development team, to get the best onfield results from them over the next few years.

I rate Plough as a coach and hope he gets a 'good' extension (2-3 years) on top of this one, provided, as you said, improvement can be seen from the kids. Our lack of success in many of the games, injuries aside, was the average efforts of some of our mid-senior group last season. The Bummers and Wobbles in particular, had this group of 3-4 players stand up and get them 4-5 wins in close games, getting them over the line, where ours didn't. But as long as the kids are developing and sticking to the game plan, keeping Wallace is best I think. Last season, teams using this fast running style, started to show it can overcome the lockdown Sydney style of play.

What we need is an 'average' injury year in 08 to see just how well the coach can go. With an 'average' injury toll, if we are bottom 3 with not much out of the likes of Meyer, Schulz, Moore, White and Hughes and not much more improvement from Raines, Polak, McGuane, King and Jackson, he will be under pressure. All of those players are 21-24 and need to be developed and coached to be 'competitive' with top 8 sides THIS SEASON!

Better input from that middle-senior group of Hyde, Tiv, Johnson, Tuck and Newman, will see more games won, but I think we would all be happier seeing that younger group stepping up. (and Morton and McMahon)

Yeah, I'm hearing you. It's reached a pretty sad point where we're craving just an "average" injury year. We'd take it in a heartbeat.

And interesting you mentioned those 3-4 mid-sen group standing up to get us over the line for some tight wins, cause that's essentially what happened in 2006.

As for being a part of the decison making on Wallace's extension? I reckon it would involve too many meetings, and I hate meetings.

 

[1980]

Honestly .... does not faze me where we finish

as long as the kids continue to develop , messrs Rance Cotchin and Putt show a bit ... we stay competetive playing an attacking , hard brand of footy ... and we don`t have any 25 goal floggings .

If we come bottom with 5-6 wins , but a good percentage in the high 80`s (showing our competitiveness) ... then i would not be burning the punt rd. stand down .

Bit of luck goes our way and we get 8 - 10 wins ... that would be excellent for mine .

2009 is the year i would truelly hope to see some real inroads

2008 is what i would call our last "foundation" year

You'll change your tune after 5 games. And I mean that in a nice way

 

[1980]

Happy with 12th? No way.

There has to be substantial improvement in 2008.

I am not happy with Wallace getting another free ride this year and doing a Gaspar next year in the final year of his contract.

We need to win no less than 10 games this year. 8 if we were unlucky to lose a couple by less than 6 points and the result wasnt decied until 3 seconds before the siren blew.

Highest paid coach in the league needs to earn it. There's plenty of Clarksons around.

 

[tugga]

I think most of us here can see the foundations that are taking place and are happy with the vision Terry has for our club. Most of us can probably accept a six or seven win season in 2008, providing the light at the end of the tunnel appears a bit brighter then what it does now.
I only expect us to win seven or eight games. Will that be enough to save Wallace? I hope so. I like the vision he has shown for the side. He is reshaping the list.
The thing is, that while most of us here realise what's taking place, we're in the minority. Trust me. There are some really stupid people out there.
Most of the bogan masses will see that we've won seven games and will go feral. I was talking to a fellow RFC supporter (not a member) on NYE and he was crapping on about how Wallace should be sacked etc. Blah, blah, blah. After a while I'd had enough and in my alcohol induced stupor, asked him where he saw our list and what he thought we should do. He didn't have an answer. He knew nothing. He even said that Frawley should be given another go because 'at least he took us to a preliminary final'. When I pointed out what Frawley did after 2001 and he he systematically r*ped the club and set it back a decade, he was shocked. He just said that if we didn't win our first three games this year, Wallace should be sacked.
Sadly folks, this represents the majority out there. they don't realise that you can't just click your fingers and play finals. Like a spoiled little child they say "I want to play finals Daddy, and I want it now!".
Sir Alex Ferguson has been manager of Scumchester Utd for 21 years. Sam Allerdice got sacked from Newcastle Utd during the week, making the next manager their 11th in 21 years.
It's time for stability. Let Wallace have his five years. If by the 5th year, the results aren't there then he dies by his own sword.
Back to the orignal question, 12th is where I see us finishing, but I see it as no reason to panic. Like IDGAF, 2009-10 is where the drastic improvement will come.
And finally, I believe Terry was telling the truth when he said 2011 is our window. He was telling the truth about that folks. Truth hurts sometimes.

 

[telsor]

Mostly I'm just going to repeat what others have said here, but...

Ladder position doesn't matter as much as how we get there.

I think ( hope?) that all the kids we've been playing will be better next year, and that even just being a little better will make a big change in how we play.

I know it'll get a few people going to say that I don't think there is a huge difference between AFL teams in terms of skills, but rather the more important difference is in confidence, both in yourself and those around you. Knowing that if you run hard to an open space your teammate will see you and even if they don't send the ball your way, it was only because there was a better option elsewhere, so you run hard again to get to the next space.

In themselves, players need to get that extra little bit of confidence to put themselves in for the ball, and the confidence to take that extra second to spot a good option and deliver it well, knowing your teammates will be working to give you one. ( and the knowledge and experience to know when you don't have that second ).

These are the things I want to see next year. If they happen, then rising up the ladder will be inevitable and frankly, how much they rise is irrelevant.

Fitness will also be better, as the young players mature, so instead of playing 15 mins/qtr and trying to fill the rest with 'tempo football', we'll run out 20 mins ( and in '09/10, full qtrs/games ).

My hopes..
2008..team plays better.
2009..finals
2010..finals + in mix for GF.
2011 and beyond, well, fingers crossed.

As for injuries, of course they'll affect things, but I think that because we're getting less reliant on a few players, it will have to be a horrendous year next year to be as bad as '07, so even an average/bad year should have us moving up.

 

[Team Chemistry]

This is a general question for anyone to answer, would you prefer to see Richmond continue to play the style of football that they played last year, which despite being beaten in most games, was attacking and entertaining and say finish 13th or would you prefer to see Richmond revert to 2006 when they played "basketball football" and finish 9th and challenge for finals?

Just interested to see the views on this question.
Cheers TC

 

[tugga]

This is a general question for anyone to answer, would you prefer to see Richmond continue to play the style of football that they played last year, which despite being beaten in most games, was attacking and entertaining and say finish 13th or would you prefer to see Richmond revert to 2006 when they played "basketball football" and finish 9th and challenge for finals?

Just interested to see the views on this question.
Cheers TC

The only way to learn is to make mistakes.
Good sides can switch from an attacking mode to a slow-tempo mode at the flick of a switch. We need to be able to play both.
Both styles of play require making mistakes to learn. Tempo footy needs to be precise and near-perfect. Attacking footy runs the risk of handballs going astray and getting caught with the ball.

 

[telsor]

This is a general question for anyone to answer, would you prefer to see Richmond continue to play the style of football that they played last year, which despite being beaten in most games, was attacking and entertaining and say finish 13th or would you prefer to see Richmond revert to 2006 when they played "basketball football" and finish 9th and challenge for finals?

Just interested to see the views on this question.
Cheers TC

As Tugga said, they need to be able to play both.

Plan A should be the attacking style you're referring to though, as it's the one that'll take us further in the long run, and suits the players Wallace has recruited ( speed, speed, speed ).

I don't think there is much doubt that this will be the style played ( mostly ).

 

[emperor]

I don't have any preconceived ideas for the 'lowest acceptable finish'. I'm in the same boat as IDGAF and others who just want to see our boys show us what we are in store for in years to come. This season really is a case of taking it as it comes for me. Don't want another spoon though

 

[smokey_58au]

This is a general question for anyone to answer, would you prefer to see Richmond continue to play the style of football that they played last year, which despite being beaten in most games, was attacking and entertaining and say finish 13th or would you prefer to see Richmond revert to 2006 when they played "basketball football" and finish 9th and challenge for finals?

Just interested to see the views on this question.
Cheers TC

It was actually 2005 when we finished 9th and that was in Wallace's first year with a team that was much more experienced, match-hardened and undergoing the initial stages of restructuring, although not very good in terms of ability. Since then, we have continued the list restructuring and have become substantially less experienced, almost completely non match-hardened but with much much, much more 'potential' ability. The gameplan in the first year was much less 'run' oriented than it is now - as much a legacy of what Wallace had to work with as anything. Now he can spend the time developing a team in tandem with a gameplan and because of the nature of both, this will take time. So short answer to your question - we will continue playing the attacking style that the list is being structured to do and as the players grow into themselves so the results will come. As a Geelong supporter you would have seen a bit of this yourself already!