The timing of this is pretty funny for me...
www.richmondfc.com.au
Only yesterday I was debating with a friend that the commentary around Richmond's "charmed" (actual word used multiple times by media) injury run has gotten to the point of being unfair.
He said it's hard for me to be objective which I don't dispute, I'm obviously biased and don't deny that, and he said every team has injuries. But I wasn't trying to talk about the injuries being the cause of our form or not, I was only trying to say that it wasn't fair to call us charmed when we've had three pretty rotten years with injury in a row now, and bias has nothing to do with me knowing that fact, so there's no debate, it's just fact. Then this article comes out a day later haha...
Anyway, my belief is that the public and media view of us having a "charmed" run is because, in 2017 and 2018, we did, we often had our full best 22 available and as a result we played consistently good footy. Although I should note that people will forget our style in 2017 was partly born out of necessity; our second key target (Griffiths) went down with concussion in round 2 and never played footy again. So, ironically, our success started with something forced on to us due to injury, go figure hey.
But again, people see tidbits in the media and that forms their lasting opinion, just like the term "mud sticks". Because we were called charmed in 2017/18, people just remember that and still see us as charmed. Fast forward to 2021 and that's still the impression people have of us despite all the outs, we're charmed with injury. It's pretty ridiculous now.
So anyway, I just tried to make the point that, no, we can't be called charmed anymore because over the last 3 seasons we've kept losing players to little or long injuries, it keeps happening to multiple players at once and, whilst in 2019 and 2020 we managed to somehow stay afloat and then start winning when the soldiers returned, this year it has just been incessant week after week (I still laugh ironically that we finally picked a second ruck and lost Nankervis 0.01s into the match, despite him playing it out). Again the point was not to say we have it any better or worse than any other team, just that the commentary itself is wrong and that it needs to stop now.
However, moving on to my biased (or not-so, up to you) opinion, injuries from 2019 through till now have definitely hugely impacted our ability to play at our best consistently. How we beat the Giants with basically our whole midfield out I'll never know. I'm of the firm belief that something about our style has relied on having each and every member of the best 22 available and that we don't "click" until that group is together for a prolonged period. We also don't have the luxury of solid depth (I'm actually starting to question our recruiting a little bit but that's another matter) so a few outs can spell catastrophe for our system and style.
Anyway, just thought I'd post this for people to see. I actually reckon the article could have gone a little deeper into things, neutrals might not know who some of those players are, it needs to be more obvious that they are/were all vital best 22 members. Greenberg also missed a few, eg. the matches Cotchin missed in 2020 at the same time the other players were also out, things like that. Also not sure how many clubs have had two ACLs to best 22 players across two seasons, one of which being to the best defender of the generation... Short memories hey.
Cheers everyone
Setting straight the great Richmond injury myth
Despite the narrative that Richmond have had a charmed injury run, Richmond has been hard hit by long-term injuries to key players since 2019.
Only yesterday I was debating with a friend that the commentary around Richmond's "charmed" (actual word used multiple times by media) injury run has gotten to the point of being unfair.
He said it's hard for me to be objective which I don't dispute, I'm obviously biased and don't deny that, and he said every team has injuries. But I wasn't trying to talk about the injuries being the cause of our form or not, I was only trying to say that it wasn't fair to call us charmed when we've had three pretty rotten years with injury in a row now, and bias has nothing to do with me knowing that fact, so there's no debate, it's just fact. Then this article comes out a day later haha...
Anyway, my belief is that the public and media view of us having a "charmed" run is because, in 2017 and 2018, we did, we often had our full best 22 available and as a result we played consistently good footy. Although I should note that people will forget our style in 2017 was partly born out of necessity; our second key target (Griffiths) went down with concussion in round 2 and never played footy again. So, ironically, our success started with something forced on to us due to injury, go figure hey.
But again, people see tidbits in the media and that forms their lasting opinion, just like the term "mud sticks". Because we were called charmed in 2017/18, people just remember that and still see us as charmed. Fast forward to 2021 and that's still the impression people have of us despite all the outs, we're charmed with injury. It's pretty ridiculous now.
So anyway, I just tried to make the point that, no, we can't be called charmed anymore because over the last 3 seasons we've kept losing players to little or long injuries, it keeps happening to multiple players at once and, whilst in 2019 and 2020 we managed to somehow stay afloat and then start winning when the soldiers returned, this year it has just been incessant week after week (I still laugh ironically that we finally picked a second ruck and lost Nankervis 0.01s into the match, despite him playing it out). Again the point was not to say we have it any better or worse than any other team, just that the commentary itself is wrong and that it needs to stop now.
However, moving on to my biased (or not-so, up to you) opinion, injuries from 2019 through till now have definitely hugely impacted our ability to play at our best consistently. How we beat the Giants with basically our whole midfield out I'll never know. I'm of the firm belief that something about our style has relied on having each and every member of the best 22 available and that we don't "click" until that group is together for a prolonged period. We also don't have the luxury of solid depth (I'm actually starting to question our recruiting a little bit but that's another matter) so a few outs can spell catastrophe for our system and style.
Anyway, just thought I'd post this for people to see. I actually reckon the article could have gone a little deeper into things, neutrals might not know who some of those players are, it needs to be more obvious that they are/were all vital best 22 members. Greenberg also missed a few, eg. the matches Cotchin missed in 2020 at the same time the other players were also out, things like that. Also not sure how many clubs have had two ACLs to best 22 players across two seasons, one of which being to the best defender of the generation... Short memories hey.
Cheers everyone
