Media doing their jobs it seems
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Oppo Camp Opposition Team Discussion
- Thread starter Grockadoc
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
To me, Griff is a natural CHB, and undoubtedly played his best football there in 2012-13 or was it 13-14. It best allows us to take advantage of his kick, which is prodigious, but doesn't need to be as accurate when you are booming it out of defence.
Again I'll get howled down, but he is basically a key forward by virtue of some ordinary recruting and even worse development of talls, where it;s now a case of natural attrition that he is there. He is the luckiest bloke on our list right now - that honour went to TV last year, as we have virtually no one putting pressure on Grif with the VFL calibre Elton, Chol and Moore the only talls under consideration. The competition doesn't get any better if you substitute a genuine tall for a mid-size tall like Lennon.
I'm not changing my thoughts about Griff turning into a half decent FF, thought he turned the corner somewhat last season, but I also thought he played pretty well as a backman. He has a good handball and a good kick, (just not at goal). I am probably the only one on this board that actually though Schultz all those years ago had the makings of a gun CHB, just before we got rid of him. Good in the air and on the ground, tough and courageous and the best 50m boot in the side, flat and hard and always hit his man.... But what would I know.
Plenty. Schulz was a very good backman.
I get your point RE Clarkson and Hardwick, and that's a demonstrable fact - Clarkson is the better coach, although to be fair, Clarkson has a ton more experience than Hardwick too, and Hardwick is one of Clarkson's first disciples to get a gig at senior level.
See let's not forget that Damien Hardwick was also apart of one of Clarko's premierships as an assistant coach, and despite that nearly being a decade ago now, it still deserves a mention. Dimma is not as good as Clarkson is, of course he isn't, but Dimma's also not as terrible a coach as some would suggest either, and the evidence of that was his work between 2011-2013, building a side from nothing to on the cusp of Top 4.
Yes, he may not have been able to get the job done in finals, but is that all on him? Or is that partly on the players dropping their bundles at key moments, and the level of the talent on the list not quite being there in those years? Personally I think it's a bit of both, but again I've said this a million times before, a solid performance over a 22 round season shouldn't be discarded because of a poor finals series, nor should taking a team from the very bottom of the ladder to a 15 win season in the space of 3 years be disregarded either.
In some ways, Dimma is very much the coaching equivalent of your description of Tyrone Vickery. He's shown he's got the talent, but he hasn't quite put everything together and had it all click yet. Despite this, the signs are there that he IS capable of doing it, which is why I think he's still our coach. Those brownie points are only valid for so long though, and 2017 is definitely a make-or-break year for him as a coach, just as it is for a number of our players.
Anyway, back onto Vickery, again I understand your point of thinking that Clarko will get more out of him based on previous history, but Clarko can only do so much, the player also has to step up, and that's where I just don't see how you can think Vickery will meet Clarkson halfway, when it's never been demonstrated that he's willing to do so? Is Clarkson a magician that can make anybody better, regardless of whether they want to buy in or not?
As you pointed out very clearly regarding the Griffiths and Vickery combo, they have always teased without stepping up and claiming a spot as their own, the difference being that Vickery had always been the favoured one over Griffiths and given more opportunity, but clearly failed to live up to the expectation.
Griffiths has not had the same chances at the RFC that Vickery has had, and the proof is in the amount of games played - again, 119 for Vickery, 61 for Griffiths.
Vickery is a proven quantity over a career that is double the size of Griffiths, and the main reason for that is injury concerns to Griffiths. Now that he's clear of them, and has been for the best part of the last few seasons, I can genuinely see good reason why Griffiths' prospects are just as good, if not even better than Tyrone's.
And I'll say this, hand on my heart, not a word of a lie, if Griffiths had gone to the Hawks, and Vickery was the one who stayed with us, I'd be saying the exact same thing, and lamenting that Griffiths had left instead of Vickery, because to me it's clear as day that Ben has the brighter future in the game, and that's been my thoughts for a number of years now.
Hardwick's undoubted strength - particularly early in his coaching career - was his projection as a credible figurehead and the message he was selling.
As I am on record several times, I am always grateful for where he took us - from great depths to a finbal side, albeit a failed one.
It still baffles me he was handed a two year extension after the club's own criteria for success was a finals win in 2014 and again in 2015 and he didn't deliver. Rewarding him for what the club said was a failure. But that aside, his 2016 was an absolute disaster. It didn't sit well with some here who hate the media but glad they called him out regularly on the conflicting messages he sold. He barely made any sense a lot of weeks last year and the way he represented us was quite frankly shambolic. We dished up absolute rubbish v St Kilda and Sydney and he's in the presser cracking lame jokes and mocking our performnace? He lost me.
Nantes
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 18, 2016
- 5,110
- 9,651
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Re - Vickery. I'll be honest, I wanted him to stay and I would have far preferred him to Griff, I think with the right coaches/motivators around him he could build on positive consistency.
When a standard inconsistent player goes from a middle poor club to an elite successful club, two things are on the cards...firstly they fail as they don't cope with the pressure and eventually are forced out of the club, the second option is success (however you define it I suppose) due to having all the tools and program's that suit you with a reality check that it's show something or VFL is calling. I think the latter will happen and he will succeed but not dramatically.
Put it like this, if there is one loaf of bread left at the bakery you are going to be motivated to walk that little bit faster than if you know it's got a large amount in stock. Basically, he can't rest on his average/inconsistent laurels which I think will help him.
Good luck Ty. But welcome the freshness of the new recruits.
When a standard inconsistent player goes from a middle poor club to an elite successful club, two things are on the cards...firstly they fail as they don't cope with the pressure and eventually are forced out of the club, the second option is success (however you define it I suppose) due to having all the tools and program's that suit you with a reality check that it's show something or VFL is calling. I think the latter will happen and he will succeed but not dramatically.
Put it like this, if there is one loaf of bread left at the bakery you are going to be motivated to walk that little bit faster than if you know it's got a large amount in stock. Basically, he can't rest on his average/inconsistent laurels which I think will help him.
Good luck Ty. But welcome the freshness of the new recruits.
Heisenberg_
17🏆19🏆20🏆
Give it a rest
This is a long post, so bear with me. But sorry for the TL;DR all the same!
Now, I understand the frustration when you look at the overall picture, I'm probably just as frustrated as you are in all honesty, because I'm dying for some sustained Richmond success more than most, seeing as I've barely seen any in my lifetime.
But if you look at certain things within their proper context, much of it can be explained and has reasoning behind it. For example, the last two weeks of 2016 that you mentioned, yes they were pretty ordinary, but at that point during a season, with finals gone and players spent after a tough year, as well as trying new rookie players out and really having one eye on 2017, is it really that hard to believe that we'd peter out a bit and end the year poorly?
I don't think you can lay the blame all at Hardwick's feet for our last couple of weeks of 2016, I think it's pretty clear that we were playing some players who weren't probably ready for senior footy just yet in that Sydney game, and in that Saints game, well the Saints weren't much better than us that day in all honesty, but nobody really jumps down their throat about it. That game was really just two teams begging for the finish line and wanting to reset for 2017, imo.
As for Hardwick's response in those post-match pressers, I also understand that it could come off as insulting to the fans that he was so nonchalant about the losses, but again look at the context of it - he's just had probably his toughest year in the coaches box besides his 1st season in charge, we've crashed out of the final calculations about 6 or 7 weeks prior, and we're in the process of blooding some young talent... he was clearly approaching those last few games for what they were, which for us given our situation, were glorified pre-season matches.
I would also argue quite strongly that the light-hearted attitude was almost necessary to try and offset the negativity that he was probably feeling inwardly at our poor performances over the course of the season as a whole. I don't think he expected us to fall as far as we did in all honesty, and if I had to guess, he may have expected us to still be contending for finals late in the season, despite knowing that some kind of drop was probably coming as he prepared for the future. Finally, I highly doubt that he'd have been acting the same way if those late-season matches had more on the line, like for example a finals berth or a Top 4 finish.
As for his messages to the media earlier in the season, with the whole "this is the most talented list I've had" line, I'll concede that they were probably not well-worded, but it didn't take a rocket scientist to get the message he was trying to deliver, which actually WAS pretty consistent for the most part. The message was this - that he feels the talent that he's got currently on the list at his disposal has more long-term potential and benefits than he's seen before.
The media, naturally, took that soundbyte and ran with it, which made him look like a bit of a dickhead, but for anybody who was actually listening to what he was saying with the full context in place, it made sense.
I'm not saying he's some demi-god that should be defended at all costs, but at the same time, the failures of our group are not all on his shoulders, and if you look at what he put together with a relatively weak list (in hindsight) during 2013-2015, he's proven he can coach. What he needs is a more talented list, and I think that's why he was excited to see the list growth during 2016.
Our on-field performance was poor, but I think during most of 2016, at least from about the first month onwards, he's had somewhat of an eye on the next 12-24 months, because he knew we weren't going to do anything of note in 2016.
The biggest criticism that the club deserves is not doing anything to significantly improve the list after the 2015 finals loss, and not being aggressive during that trading period. But AGAIN, looking at the context of that decision, I also understand why they went that way, because it's clear that they wanted to start building through the draft rather than going the previous "moneyball" route, and so they didn't want to give up any significant picks.
Bringing it Townsend, Moore, and Marcon as some bottom-end depth didn't work, and the proof that they recognized that was the delistings of Moore and Marcon. Townsend is still young enough to persist with for another season, but it's likely he won't be here after his contract expires either, unless he has a breakthrough.
The point is, they thought adding depth to the bottom end would be enough to maintain the performance of 2015, while building for a better future list with their top end picks. They were right about the second part, just look at the growth of Daniel Rioli!
But they were proven wrong about the first part of that equation, when the group clearly wasn't performing at its' 2015 level anymore, and they copped that on the chin as a failure in that regard.
As a result, over the 2016 off-season they did the exact opposite thing by adding depth to the top end of the list, but trading away some quality picks and players to do so, such as Pick 6, Vickery, and Deledio, in exchange for a 23 year old Prestia, a 23 year old Caddy, a 22 year old Nankervis, and a future 1st round draft pick.
The reason why the vast majority of people are praising our 2016 off-season is because the RFC recognized the missteps they took after 2015, and corrected them. If we're able to do that off the field, I'm willing to believe that Hardwick is capable of doing it ON the field as well.
This might end up being proven wrong, we're not to know yet, we can only guess. And although I'm optimistic, that attitude comes with a healthy side-dose of cautiousness, because I know things could go wrong and it may not work out.
But I'm choosing to believe that we've learnt lessons from the failures, and the evidence I'm seeing so far over the course of the pre-season is that we're better placed to be a good team in 2017 than we were in 2016.
Its a good discussion but just a few points.
Yes Hardwick took us from the cellar but we could only go up, it is very debateable that it would not have mattered who took over, some improvement was inevitable.
Yes we managed 15 wins but there were many who said it was a false achievment or we actually overachieved for whatever reasons. Some of us did see the obvious short comings in the list and the over rating of players. This is always just fobbed off by Hardwick defenders.At no stage did we remotely look like a competetive top 4 side.What actually transpired was were were not even a competetive top 8 side.
It really was a bit of yes 15 wins hes done well, but the real failure was not being able to identify where the list was really at.This failure has set us back an awful long way.
On Vicery and Griffiths all you can do is assess what they have done while with us. I dont give a s**t if he improves at Hawthorn when with us he was a bum.To be brutally honest Griffiths has been worse there are some serious flaws in this blokes make up.
Oh and finally Griffiths was drafted one yr after Vickery so theres 22 games. Add in the fact he has been so injury prone and it is just disingenuous to say Vickery has been given more opportunity. When fit Griffiths has been given plenty of opportunity and generally failed a bit like Vickery did as well.
The real failures here is both were given games because we failed to add adequate competition to the list for their spots and as such both were gifted games when they did not deserve them.This problem continues in Griffiths case.
Those reasons being that prior to Hardwick being spooked into playing a very defensive gamestyle, he actually had us playing an attractive brand of footy that covered for some of our weaknesses in the list.
I partly agree, I think what Hardwick and co were basing things on was natural improvement from the B.Ellis, Conca, Vlastuin types to continue the development of the list and keep us in the finals picture, and when that didn't happen in its' totality, he had to scramble a bit to freshen things up.
Some of the blame can be put at Hardwick's feet, but not all of it, some of these highly touted players need to take some responsibility for their improvement too, and guys like B.Ellis in particular have gone backwards at a rate of knots that Nostradamas would have struggled to predict.
You can't always blame the coach, or to be more accurate, you can't always JUST blame the coach.
"When fit" is the key phrase. I'm sure if Griffiths body wasn't made of paper mache early in his career, that he'd be at similar numbers to Ty is, but the fact of the matter is, the guy played 19 games in his first 4 years at the club. Compare that to Vickery, who managed to play 54 games in his first 4 seasons.
The numbers even up somewhat after that, but even in Griffiths' "fit" years, he's struggled to play more than about 60% of possible games.
Out of a possible 179 games that Tyrone could have played (including finals), he played 119 games. Which is about 66% of possible games, or 2/3's.
In compairson, out of a possible 157 games that Ben could have played (also including finals), he's played 61. Which is about 38% of possible games, or just over 1/3.
That's a massive difference in my mind for players only 1 draft year apart.
While they have both had some special treatment over the time, Griffiths has not been gifted NEARLY as many games as Tyrone has been imo.
Griffiths has had mediocre games and been retained, but he's also been dropped for bad games too, but there was a time not too long ago where Vickery literally couldn't get dropped, regardless of what he did (or rather didn't do).
- Apr 27, 2014
- 29,247
- 57,710
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- The Fanboi Farters
DH Trump let's make Richmond great again. Patience please Goldy.
- Apr 27, 2014
- 29,247
- 57,710
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- The Fanboi Farters
Balme is the reason why the RFC has had a massive change in direction . Successful operators bring in successful people and good habits.its called bringing in a Winning culture.
Balme doesn't come to Punt RD and DR and DH would still be sucking their thumbs with BH and Casino clapping in the background. Balme's first press conference on SEN said it all and the heavy sighs in it also backed up his words that there was a lot of work to be done.
DH comes back for the first PC of the year and craps on with an embarrassing Trump line.
He continues to show he's not cut out for the job as he just can't grow or develop from the embryonic level that the job demands let alone
give accountable feedback to the members. If the media wasn't so infested with Essendon buddies he would have been savaged like Malthouse.
Balme doesn't come to Punt RD and DR and DH would still be sucking their thumbs with BH and Casino clapping in the background. Balme's first press conference on SEN said it all and the heavy sighs in it also backed up his words that there was a lot of work to be done.
DH comes back for the first PC of the year and craps on with an embarrassing Trump line.
He continues to show he's not cut out for the job as he just can't grow or develop from the embryonic level that the job demands let alone
give accountable feedback to the members. If the media wasn't so infested with Essendon buddies he would have been savaged like Malthouse.
Last edited:
Hot tigers
All Australian
- Nov 5, 2014
- 897
- 2,098
- AFL Club
- Richmond
To be fair we really don't know what has happened since Balme was employed although a lot of good decisions over trade and draft period obviously occurred..
As you said with winning cultures and good ppl, lets say Dan was over his head (RFC have moved him sideways so not a long bow to draw), DH would by virtue have a his boss above him giving him appropriate advice and mentorship..
Now i am not looking to place blame on DR, however i also don't want to assume that DH was completely responsible for all wrong...
I along with most are rapt with Balmes appointment and presence, lets see if he can assist and provide direction to the FD that was obviously missing previously, and lets be mindful that he oversaw all coaches, medical, development and players, some would have a dual report to DH but at the end of the day he was the footy chief..
Will be interesting anyhow and i just hope we have a great year and go deeeep..
Last edited:
- Apr 27, 2014
- 29,247
- 57,710
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- The Fanboi Farters
The results are already obvious that there's been a positive change, but let's not kid ourselves that the job is done. There's a hell of a lot more work to be done , but at least the wheels have been oiled and put into motion after four years of stability .
Hot tigers
All Australian
- Nov 5, 2014
- 897
- 2,098
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I agree, i guess the point i was trying to make was it appears DH had very little mentorship, leadership or direction and as you said ppl and success go hand in hand, a successful coach where there is a FD chief that isn't up to it, is in these times almost impossible for a coach to do it all alone.
Im not sure if he's a good coach or not, i think he did well to get 2 seasons with 15 wins with a small group of elite players.. Last year i was dismayed and eventually wanted him to go, however the points above are fair and lets see if with good leadership and direction he can actually improve and assimilate to the changes and drive us to where we all want to go, deeep finals and flags.
HumanMeatball
Brownlow Medallist
All I know is when you bring good players in good things happen
- Apr 27, 2014
- 29,247
- 57,710
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- The Fanboi Farters
That's only one element of the game.
Very, very good points. And the 'competiton' trend is something that continues to this day.
Now, instead of gifting Vickery games, we will gift Griffiths games with no adequate competition waiting in the wings.
Our list management, particularly when it come3s to tall forwards, has been diabolical.
What I alluded to in the 'Does the last 36 years really matter' thread.
Yes, 36 past years do matter when it's all about culture and a losing one at that.
It was only when Balme walked through the gate that things he started to swing upwards.
We didn't have to go up. We could've stayed where we were or thereabouts. Improvement is not inevitable. It must be achieved.
I love that term 'Hardwick hater'.
The Richmond board equivalent of the old school yard 'My dad is tougher than your dad'.
When a poster has to resort to branding someone a 'Hardwick hater' you know there's nothing left in th etank when it comes to debating or discussing a topic.
The Richmond board equivalent of the old school yard 'My dad is tougher than your dad'.
When a poster has to resort to branding someone a 'Hardwick hater' you know there's nothing left in th etank when it comes to debating or discussing a topic.
Anybody can hate him as much as they like. Especially all those who claim ownership of clear thinking and commonsense.I love that term 'Hardwick hater'.
The Richmond board equivalent of the old school yard 'My dad is tougher than your dad'.
When a poster has to resort to branding someone a 'Hardwick hater' you know there's nothing left in th etank when it comes to debating or discussing a topic.
This is a long post, so bear with me. But sorry for the TL;DR all the same!
Now, I understand the frustration when you look at the overall picture, I'm probably just as frustrated as you are in all honesty, because I'm dying for some sustained Richmond success more than most, seeing as I've barely seen any in my lifetime.
But if you look at certain things within their proper context, much of it can be explained and has reasoning behind it. For example, the last two weeks of 2016 that you mentioned, yes they were pretty ordinary, but at that point during a season, with finals gone and players spent after a tough year, as well as trying new rookie players out and really having one eye on 2017, is it really that hard to believe that we'd peter out a bit and end the year poorly?
I don't think you can lay the blame all at Hardwick's feet for our last couple of weeks of 2016, I think it's pretty clear that we were playing some players who weren't probably ready for senior footy just yet in that Sydney game, and in that Saints game, well the Saints weren't much better than us that day in all honesty, but nobody really jumps down their throat about it. That game was really just two teams begging for the finish line and wanting to reset for 2017, imo.
As for Hardwick's response in those post-match pressers, I also understand that it could come off as insulting to the fans that he was so nonchalant about the losses, but again look at the context of it - he's just had probably his toughest year in the coaches box besides his 1st season in charge, we've crashed out of the final calculations about 6 or 7 weeks prior, and we're in the process of blooding some young talent... he was clearly approaching those last few games for what they were, which for us given our situation, were glorified pre-season matches.
I would also argue quite strongly that the light-hearted attitude was almost necessary to try and offset the negativity that he was probably feeling inwardly at our poor performances over the course of the season as a whole. I don't think he expected us to fall as far as we did in all honesty, and if I had to guess, he may have expected us to still be contending for finals late in the season, despite knowing that some kind of drop was probably coming as he prepared for the future. Finally, I highly doubt that he'd have been acting the same way if those late-season matches had more on the line, like for example a finals berth or a Top 4 finish.
As for his messages to the media earlier in the season, with the whole "this is the most talented list I've had" line, I'll concede that they were probably not well-worded, but it didn't take a rocket scientist to get the message he was trying to deliver, which actually WAS pretty consistent for the most part. The message was this - that he feels the talent that he's got currently on the list at his disposal has more long-term potential and benefits than he's seen before.
The media, naturally, took that soundbyte and ran with it, which made him look like a bit of a dickhead, but for anybody who was actually listening to what he was saying with the full context in place, it made sense.
I'm not saying he's some demi-god that should be defended at all costs, but at the same time, the failures of our group are not all on his shoulders, and if you look at what he put together with a relatively weak list (in hindsight) during 2013-2015, he's proven he can coach. What he needs is a more talented list, and I think that's why he was excited to see the list growth during 2016.
Our on-field performance was poor, but I think during most of 2016, at least from about the first month onwards, he's had somewhat of an eye on the next 12-24 months, because he knew we weren't going to do anything of note in 2016.
The biggest criticism that the club deserves is not doing anything to significantly improve the list after the 2015 finals loss, and not being aggressive during that trading period. But AGAIN, looking at the context of that decision, I also understand why they went that way, because it's clear that they wanted to start building through the draft rather than going the previous "moneyball" route, and so they didn't want to give up any significant picks.
Bringing it Townsend, Moore, and Marcon as some bottom-end depth didn't work, and the proof that they recognized that was the delistings of Moore and Marcon. Townsend is still young enough to persist with for another season, but it's likely he won't be here after his contract expires either, unless he has a breakthrough.
The point is, they thought adding depth to the bottom end would be enough to maintain the performance of 2015, while building for a better future list with their top end picks. They were right about the second part, just look at the growth of Daniel Rioli!
But they were proven wrong about the first part of that equation, when the group clearly wasn't performing at its' 2015 level anymore, and they copped that on the chin as a failure in that regard.
As a result, over the 2016 off-season they did the exact opposite thing by adding depth to the top end of the list, but trading away some quality picks and players to do so, such as Pick 6, Vickery, and Deledio, in exchange for a 23 year old Prestia, a 23 year old Caddy, a 22 year old Nankervis, and a future 1st round draft pick.
The reason why the vast majority of people are praising our 2016 off-season is because the RFC recognized the missteps they took after 2015, and corrected them. If we're able to do that off the field, I'm willing to believe that Hardwick is capable of doing it ON the field as well.
This might end up being proven wrong, we're not to know yet, we can only guess. And although I'm optimistic, that attitude comes with a healthy side-dose of cautiousness, because I know things could go wrong and it may not work out.
But I'm choosing to believe that we've learnt lessons from the failures, and the evidence I'm seeing so far over the course of the pre-season is that we're better placed to be a good team in 2017 than we were in 2016.
Bits in red. I have no doubt Hardwick thought he's be contending for finals, but the only excuse/explanation/comment he continued to offer up was 'we've been here before, we'll turn it around', which eventually gave way to "it will be a quick rebound'. Yes, you can't pin it all on one guy but if the best he can offer is 'I'm certain this will turn around' we were in trouble and that's exactly what we got. He didn't have any answers - none. He just persisted with the same under-performing players who couldn't get it done and then, almost as a n excuse, he turned to young players who weren't ready to try and hide the fact it was a poor season.
I doubt it was the best list he's ever had - and to be honest even this year, while personnel has improved - it's still a very poorly structured list bereft of key position depth. We'll again be asking an awful lot of our bookends in Rance and Riewoldt.
As for Townsend, Moore and Marcon ..... lol. Not telling me anything I don't know. While a great number of posters on here were getting seduced by adding a couple of hard bodies in Townsend and Moore who were going to do wonders for Cotchin in particular, I didn't buy that, so it's probably not worth mentioning. I often wonder how much actual football some people who post on here watch, particularly non-Richmond games, because a bloke who couldn't get a game at Port was always going to struggle with us and Townsend had shown bugger all outside one game with GWS. I was convinced these blokes would not help us, and they didn't. But I know nothing about footy.
- Status
Similar threads
