Coach Nicks does not rate McAsey, Worrell or Murray

[maxlilly]

Clearly we drop Butts, otherwise we would have been going with Butts-Murray recently

Even the last game Murray played we couldn't get him out of the backline quick enough and he finished up forward

It's hard enough being the swing man at the best of times, we are asking Murray to be our swing man in his 2nd game
Takes a couple of good marks in the last qtr up forward.
And then dropped , crazy/crows development

 

[Bovo]

Clearly we want transparency, however it’s not up to the club to justify its selection choice to us fans. We are therefore left with personal opinion. I’m of the opinion that Nicks thinks the kids aren’t ready. I also think if we are going to lose, we may as well do it while giving exposure to our young players, so I’m not a fan of our selection policy. My opinion only

 

[Redline]

I can't believe Nicks believes in this structure. I always think a coach rebuilding should have their structure and fit the players around that. As time goes on and you get better players you target the weaknesses but you can see what is being built.

I think long term the other two will overtake him but I think for now Murray should be playing and over time he gets replaced but it allows the other defenders to play their best positions.

 

[Redline]

Clearly we want transparency, however it’s not up to the club to justify its selection choice to us fans. We are therefore left with personal opinion. I’m of the opinion that Nicks thinks the kids aren’t ready. I also think if we are going to lose, we may as well do it while giving exposure to our young players, so I’m not a fan of our selection policy. My opinion only

Picking up Murray makes no sense if we don't think he is ready?

 

[Bovo]

Picking up Murray makes no sense if we don't think he is ready?

Okay hold, tell me about Murray, I’m obviously missing something. Was he a mature age recruit?

 

[Red mist]

It's hard enough being the swing man at the best of times, we are asking Murray to be our swing man in his 2nd game
Takes a couple of good marks in the last qtr up forward.
And then dropped , crazy/crows development

How has Butts efficiency gone when he’s has had the pill down back? seems better than Talia to me. This guy could be great.

 

[Red mist]

Okay hold, tell me about Murray, I’m obviously missing something. Was he a mature age recruit?

Sort of. He played GWS reserves both forward and back.

 

[Bovo]

Sort of. He played GWS reserves both forward and back.

Many thanks. So now I’m up to date, we snared him as a rookie and had him earmarked for a KPD.

based on this, you have to think he either has to work on some things or he’s not what they expected??

 

[Red mist]

Many thanks. So now I’m up to date, we snared him as a rookie and had him earmarked for a KPD.

based on this, you have to think he either has to work on some things or he’s not what they expected??

Yeah every newbie has to work. Just think the establishment doesn’t want to pull the trigger cos it’s all about team balance. Yada, yada, yada.

 

[Skippos]

I reckon this whole thing about Murray being the 'ready made KPD cover' we need is a bit rubbish.

He's 20. He's three months older than Fischer McAsey. He's had half a pre-season in the AFL system. Talia took 18 months in the system as an elite junior to get a debut. Butts took 18 months in the system to get a debut - and debuted older than Murray. Fish has taken his time, and 18 months in still needs some time.

I don't think we grabbed Murray to impact immediately. I think we grabbed him because we thought he could develop into a good player. We know KPDs take time, and he's had less time in the elite system than any of our current ones. Shouldn't be expecting him to play/impact/cover our gaps this early in his career; he's not 25, he's 20.

 

[Red mist]

I reckon this whole thing about Murray being the 'ready made KPD cover' we need is a bit rubbish.

He's 20. He's three months older than Fischer McAsey. He's had half a pre-season in the AFL system. Talia took 18 months in the system as an elite junior to get a debut. Butts took 18 months in the system to get a debut - and debuted older than Murray. Fish has taken his time, and 18 months in still needs some time.

I don't think we grabbed Murray to impact immediately. I think we grabbed him because we thought he could develop into a good player. We know KPDs take time, and he's had less time in the elite system than any of our current ones. Shouldn't be expecting him to play/impact/cover our gaps this early in his career; he's not 25, he's 20.

Agree, he’s not ready made. We grabbed him for versatility in the way he either goes back or forward.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I reckon this whole thing about Murray being the 'ready made KPD cover' we need is a bit rubbish.

He's 20. He's three months older than Fischer McAsey. He's had half a pre-season in the AFL system. Talia took 18 months in the system as an elite junior to get a debut. Butts took 18 months in the system to get a debut - and debuted older than Murray. Fish has taken his time, and 18 months in still needs some time.

I don't think we grabbed Murray to impact immediately. I think we grabbed him because we thought he could develop into a good player. We know KPDs take time, and he's had less time in the elite system than any of our current ones. Shouldn't be expecting him to play/impact/cover our gaps this early in his career; he's not 25, he's 20.

Butts is only 21 and we played McAsey last year

Whatever way you slice it, it's an odd approach

 

[Red mist]

Butts is only 21 and we played McAsey last year

Whatever way you slice it, it's an odd approach

How’s Butts handled being thrown at it though. People screamed when we threw him at Harry Mackay against Carlton last yr. He’s only taken it and learned. McAsey was probably too earl with a negative effect. Hence Butts has a better temperament.

 

[earlsta]

We’re literally tanking, it’s the easiest way to do it without being too obvious. Doedee has always played 3rd loose defender until now. Hell we could even try Himmelburg as a 2nd KPD but we don’t.

imo we are trying hard for Horne.

 

[Johnny Rutten]

Like most, I was shocked when Murray, especially, wasn't picked for this game.

I perceived the non-selection of Murray/McAsey/Worrell not as an indicator that Nicks doesn't rate them, but more that he doesn't think they are ready. The message is clear. Get better, or we'll keep playing short people ahead of you.

 

[Red mist]

Like most, I was shocked when Murray, especially, wasn't picked for this game.

I perceived the non-selection of Murray/McAsey/Worrell not as an indicator that Nicks doesn't rate them, but more that he doesn't think they are ready. The message is clear. Get better, or we'll keep playing short people ahead of you.

That’s entirely what the basis is. They are not prepared to play them on balance and preparedness. They could introduce those but get caught up in the experience/balance ratio that coaches believe hamper actual competitiveness. As a supporter I’d just throw them In. As the AFC business they don’t cos reasons.

 

[Skippos]

Butts is only 21 and we played McAsey last year

Whatever way you slice it, it's an odd approach

Yeah, I absolutely agree, it's an odd approach - and I'd probably prefer to throw a raw but structurally important kid into the role than go in with short people. But I think the above poster is probably correct - they want the kids to earn it/learn to dominate at a lower level. Butts has also had three pre seasons with us though. And McAsey clearly wasn't ready last year - I think they're learning a bit now.

I think the Murray pickup was odd for a variety of reasons - in that there already were 2-3 good prospects in his role/age bracket and it's extraordinarily unlikely that a 20 year old with no AFL history in a position that takes time to develop will be able to positively impact an AFL side.

Think it's probably time to give one of them a game though. Or throw Himmelberg/Frampton back there and let them know that they're in the last chance saloon and the only way they can really make a future for themselves is to make this role their own - it's not an uncommon transition; Liam Jones, Tom McCartin, Jeremy McGovern, Dougal Howard, Steven May, Darcy Moore, Jayden Laverde, Lewis Young, Josh Walker, James Stewart and David Astbury are all key defenders who started their career as forwards and weren't at the level required, but had the size/athletic ability to make key defense, a far simpler position, their new homes.

EH & Frampton both have the 'skeleton' to do that too. I'd be looking to try that if the kids aren't ready.

 

[rocket18]

Got nothing to do with the kids not physically ready to play as a kpd.

If Nicks wanted a second tall he could try Billy or Berg down back to see how they go.

He is happy with our defensive structure how it is, how scary is that.

 

[Red mist]

Yeah, I absolutely agree, it's an odd approach - and I'd probably prefer to throw a raw but structurally important kid into the role than go in with short people. But I think the above poster is probably correct - they want the kids to earn it/learn to dominate at a lower level. Butts has also had three pre seasons with us though. And McAsey clearly wasn't ready last year - I think they're learning a bit now.

I think the Murray pickup was odd for a variety of reasons - in that there already were 2-3 good prospects in his role/age bracket and it's extraordinarily unlikely that a 20 year old with no AFL history in a position that takes time to develop will be able to positively impact an AFL side.

Think it's probably time to give one of them a game though. Or throw Himmelberg/Frampton back there and let them know that they're in the last chance saloon and the only way they can really make a future for themselves is to make this role their own - it's not an uncommon transition; Liam Jones, Tom McCartin, Jeremy McGovern, Dougal Howard, Steven May, Darcy Moore, Jayden Laverde, Lewis Young, Josh Walker, James Stewart and David Astbury are all key defenders who started their career as forwards and weren't at the level required, but had the size/athletic ability to make key defense, a far simpler position, their new homes.

EH & Frampton both have the 'skeleton' to do that too. I'd be looking to try that if the kids aren't ready.

Our development system is from the outside to stop the flow and start defending. AFL is a 22 piece chess game and you just can’t have it like you used to play. We will design your role and we won’t let you play naturally unless you are truly gifted. Stopping first. Creative second. That’s why you see guys like Rankine struggle cos the creativity is being damped by team and game structure.
The game is overcoached. Richmond has a system but is probably under coached and a lot is left to the players.
imo the game would be more free flowing by throwing out the 6/6/6 rule, third man up rule, and adopting the last touch out of bounds rule.

 

[Skippos]

Our development system is from the outside to stop the flow and start defending. AFL is a 22 piece chess game and you just can’t have it like you used to play. We will design your role and we won’t let you play naturally unless you are truly gifted. Stopping first. Creative second. That’s why you see guys like Rankine struggle cos the creativity is being damped by team and game structure.
The game is overcoached. Richmond has a system but is probably under coached and a lot is left to the players.
imo the game would be more free flowing by throwing out the 6/6/6 rule, third man up rule, and adopting the last touch out of bounds rule.

I disagree with most of this. I agree that the game is ever more tactical and role-based, but I don't think that stifles creativity; the opposite - I think it places a higher importance on it. And I couldn't disagree more than it's about stopping first.

Rankine struggles for no other reason than he aspires to be able to swan around running half as hard for half as long as the other 43 blokes on the field. That's not the fault of coaching or systems, it's on him for a dreadful work rate.

Richmond's system, and Hawthorn's before it, is exceptionally structured. It's why it works. The players look like they're being creative because they're so well trained and across the system that behaving in line with it is second nature to them.

Most systems are built on a similar set of fundamentals. Pressure high, pressure hard, allow your defence to set up / or force rushed entrances into 50 and exploit the turnover. Having personnel within that defence who can work within that system and know when to sag off and intercept (and ideally the creativity to rapidly counter) is what enables it. Limited stoppers are a liability in these systems.

I think that's what Nicks is working towards - a system where the work upfield means defenders aren't isolated. He's allowing Doedee and Kelly to play as the 2nd/3rd talls because with how he envisages our defence functioning, they won't be isolated much one on one. It's an idea that works for other sides - the Bulldogs this season have often played Easton Wood/Bailey Williams as KPD 2/3, defending much taller than they are. The idea is that while they'll be a bit weaker if those dudes are isolated, they're backing the mids and forwards to make that a rare occurrence, and the offensive/intercepting power those smaller blokes offer is worth the trade-off.

Our problem is that our mids regularly get smashed and it's a hard and fast game of bombardment, so the tradeoff probably isn't worth it.

 

[Red mist]

I disagree with most of this. I agree that the game is ever more tactical and role-based, but I don't think that stifles creativity; the opposite - I think it places a higher importance on it. And I couldn't disagree more than it's about stopping first.

Rankine struggles for no other reason that aspires to be able to swan around running half as hard for half as long as the other 43 blokes on the field. That's not the fault of coaching or systems, it's on him for a dreadful work rate.

Richmond's system, and Hawthorn's before it, is exceptionally structured. It's why it works. The players look like they're being creative because they're so well trained and across the system that behaving in line with it is second nature to them.

Most systems are built on a similar set of fundamentals. Pressure high, pressure hard, allow your defence to set up / or force rushed entrances into 50 and exploit the turnover. Having personnel within that defence who can work within that system and know when to sag off and intercept (and ideally the creativity to rapidly counter) is what enables it. Limited stoppers are a liability in these systems.

I think that's what Nicks is working towards - a system where the work upfield means defenders aren't isolated. He's allowing Doedee and Kelly to play as the 2nd/3rd talls because with how he envisages our defence functioning, they won't be isolated much one on one. It's an idea that works for other sides - the Bulldogs this season have often played Easton Wood/Bailey Williams as KPD 2/3, defending much taller than they are. The idea is that while they'll be a bit weaker if those dudes are isolated, they're backing the mids and forwards to make that a rare occurrence, and the offensive/intercepting power those smaller blokes offer is worth the trade-off.

Our problem is that our mids regularly get smashed and it's a hard and fast game of bombardment, so the tradeoff probably isn't worth it.

Great stuff, but I still think they stifle noobs with defence.

 

[King Elvis]

“Not ready” is such crap. Butts isn’t ready either, but we need him so we play him.

It is so blatantly obvious we need another KPD - so pick the best available and play him.

 

[Thylacinus]

I think Nicks has wanted a quick, rebounding defence to help set up play (running off tall forwards), but that is no good if those down back are haemorrhaging goals and not getting their hands on the ball. I personally would bring in McAsey as the key lockdown back who can still take a decent mark. This frees up both Butts and especially Doodee, both who have run and are athletic, to play their natural game, defending, taking intercept marks but also providing run and offence. Suddenly we have structure down back as well as the personnel with Smith, Brown, Hamill, Seedsman, Jones etc to still do plenty of constructive setting up and rebounding.

 

[Vhaluus]

Jesus, there are some shithouse posters on this board.

Big of you to call yourself out like that mate. But recognising it is the first step to trying to get better.

 

[hey shorty]

I think Nicks has wanted a quick, rebounding defence to help set up play (running off tall forwards), but that is no good if those down back are haemorrhaging goals and not getting their hands on the ball. I personally would bring in McAsey as the key lockdown back who can still take a decent mark. This frees up both Butts and especially Doodee, both who have run and are athletic, to play their natural game, defending, taking intercept marks but also providing run and offence. Suddenly we have structure down back as well as the personnel with Smith, Brown, Hamill, Seedsman, Jones etc to still do plenty of constructive setting up and rebounding.

This is about the whole of it IMO. I mean you can even see a guy like Kelly had worked hard on his transition game in the off season.

He'd be expecting our midfielders to provide a bit better cover for the undersized defence, and would still have to if we brought in a KPD as they're raw.

As for the OP, we clearly rate them enough to bring them in and in 2 cases extend their contracts. I just hope the messaging to these 3 guys is better than what we're getting.