Roast The Chronicles of Alan Richardson - Part II - Richo Resigns (16/07)

[George]

Agreed.

6 years he's had to sort it out.

Sack Richo.

There's no fish in this pond.

 

[kernelT]

There's no fish in this pond.

Come to papa'

 

[Mowman]

Come to papa'

That made me chuckle loudly

 

[jwikked]

Frankly, I disagree. As I've been saying the last few weeks, given injuries and the quality of the opposition, the likelihood of us winning them was extremely low. There are significant strategic advantages that come from the club being realistic about those games:

1. It stops players risking injury in a futile attempt to win, whether by trying excessively in games to the point of injury, or even playing at all (some players have benefitted over the last few weeks from being managed).
2. It avoids them being shamed and guilted for failing to achieve the impossible, ie, "we suck because we couldn't win". That is a pointless sucking of morale.
3. It gets them focussing on winning the war, that is, getting into finals. Nobody cares WHICH 13 wins you win to get into finals - they just care that you win 13 games.
4. It gives them other achievable goals in those games, which the team can build on to improve in the second half of the season, which is full of more winnable games. I've written about this at length in several post-game thread posts recently. That builds morale, and confidence going into those more winnable games.

The whole "go out there to win every game" is noble, but strategically flawed, in my opinion.

Aka the Melbourne blueprint. Develop a culture based around losing because you’re not meant to be winning those games. Worked wonders, they were s**t and constantly rebuilding and had a losers culture for years and years.

 

[Mowman]

This next 2 games are big games , get flogged by the Pies and beaten by the Blues and the wheels fall off.

We get past the Blues game at 5 and 5 and we will still be alive for finals with Hannebery , Carlisle and Steven a chance to come back.

Every chance all 3 dont play again this year

 

[lewdogs]

Every chance all 3 dont play again this year

Not according to the club.

 

[Mowman]

Not according to the club.

And I hope that is right
but they also said before Xmas Hannebery 3 -4 weeks
Take all injury updates with a grain of salt #Hamil2weeks

 

[StCicatriz]

Happy to agree on some points George .....disagree on the big one


Had to get off field in order before on field , rapt with the effort of Admin for that one .

With RSEA Park will be recognised as a life time achievement made the club relevant and sustainable.

i tend to agree. i don't see why it had to occur in a sequential nature? it should be in parallel, they're two different outcomes. both were needed. we need the offield and onfield sorted. not one before the other.

the offield has improved considerably. the onfield is the worst we've seen since the 80s.

 

[StCicatriz]

I don't think I am...I think 8 more wins is achievable given the soft back half of the fixture.

I agree with you on entry and score - it's my main concern too. I think if we get that right (or much better) we will easily play finals.

You're sick of hearing about our injuries but it's a valid point. You mention Collingwood missing 6 players - well they have much better depth than us and just came off a Grand Final. Collingwood losing 6 players doesn't hurt them the same way it does us. Melbourne have 14 unavailable and look at where they are on the ladder. To be 4-4 with our injuries is a great effort.


It's just rubbish mate. Who expected us to beat Adelaide, GWS or West Coast. I felt like we could've beaten the Eagles but I wasn't surprised that we didn't - they are the reigning premiers. And if you didn't expect us to beat those three sides at the start of the year then you probably didn't expect us to beat Melbourne Essendon or Hawthorn at the start of the year either but we did. We are fine. Even if we lose on Saturday we are still fine. What matters to us is beating sides below us and getting a few scalps against sides above us. So far we have done one and we will see on the other.

if you look at this season in isolation compared to last year, then you are correct, no one would have picked us to beat them

but if you are looking at it holistically and where we should be after 5 years under finnis and a further two rebuilding before that, then yes, we should be beating top 8 and top 4 sides. instead of looking at a block of sides and thinking they are beyond us.

 

[Premium]

Carlton game is huge isn't it?

A whole lot riding on that one for Richo IMO, and they have been playing pretty well lately without getting wins, but have scored 605 points to our 604, but have conceded a few more goals.

12 or more wins and it's my shout at the bar... just a pot though and no fancy craft ****.

I'll shout you one as well , no problems there

 

[StCicatriz]

And I think that one of the BIG wins against the Eagles on the weekend was the shift to attempts to lower the eyes. That was most illuminating. It revealed the reason why the coaches have been loath to do it - namely, that the disposal skills of the mids delivering the ball into the 50, and separation skills of the forwards have been identified by the coaches as not being good enough. What was significant about the Eagles game was that, rather than just conceding that and choosing the low-skill option of bombing it instead, the coaches finally decided to do the harder, more long-term process of starting to practice it in games.


That is a key reason we lost - and I don't care. If we're going to get forty-something attempts to kick into into the fifty, I'd rather every single one of them was a practice at precision delivery and we stuffed up thirty-five of them, than that we bomb it in and score off twenty of them. Over time, the players will get more in sync, and learn their way to proper disposal. This is a quintessential example of my "sacrificing a pawn" idea: I'm willing to put a game we're already likely to lose, and make it completely unwinnable, if in the process we improve our forward-50 entries. In the short term that's frustrating, but in the long term it will allow us to win far more games.

well said

 

[StCicatriz]

In truth, we mismanaged the contracts/list in the Ross Lyon years, hired Pelchen to fix the problem.. we had to get rid of some of our senior players in Dal Santo/Goddard who was on big money or wanted more money.. Pelcen’s strategy was not wrong, by rebuilding the list through trading and drafting. trading was ok, but coaching and drafting was really poor, Richardson did not recognise midfield is our big problem, instead of drafting/trading for gun mids, we focused on system/flooding/pressure, drafting utilities rather

Future potential is good and encouraging, but we need help now.. imagine a small Gresham or skinny Clark going against Bont, Neal, Wines, Mitchell, Oliver, Crouch brothers, Kennedy, Shuey, Dangerfield (can’t be bothered to list everyone), Ross and Steele are good, but they ar not your big ball winning mids that almost every club has.. the engine room of every side. That’s why we need to get someone from the mid-season draft, then try to add more through trading/FA, we have enough kids, adding more is not going to help until 2-3 years down the line. By the way, Steven is not an inside mid, he was forced to play there because we don’t have anyone after Lenny, and Armo’s one season wonder..

good point! RE: pelchen, although i think there was a disconnect between the strategy in trading and what was in the draft and what was needed to support the kids coming through.

 

[StCicatriz]

It's not even so much the kicking accuracy as opposed to the gameplan for entry. Even if they are average kicks they should all still be looking to hit up a leading target inside the 50 instead of kicking to a pack. It's a gameplan thing for mine. Even if they are average field kicks I'd much prefer them give it a go than keep doing what hasn't been working.

i think it's a bit of both

i fell off my chair when i was told this by someone at the club "we don't have many good kickers. we haven't drafted them, you should see richo go through the list after the game, he can't kick, he can't kick, he's ok, he can't"... i said "the club communicated to fans when pelchen was there that they were going to focus on drafting good kickers of the football"

so obviously there's a disconnect there.

i think we have some great users of the footy, some poor ones. but i think both fail under pressure. look at wce, they're very good at performing consistently. everything is precise. it's almost robotic like. cripps/sheed etc. who i wouldn't classify as amazing kicks have no issues going back slotting them from the pocket at distance. there's very few who can do that for us.

i agree the game plan is big reason for it but i also think drafting and skills development hasn't been where it needs to be

richo can't draft players, but he's responsible for the other two.

 

[StCicatriz]

Aka the Melbourne blueprint. Develop a culture based around losing because you’re not meant to be winning those games. Worked wonders, they were **** and constantly rebuilding and had a losers culture for years and years.

the worry is we lose sight of any real expectation. if we continually just look to last season and improving on that then we can run into a cycle of year 1 bad, year 2 good because we improved.

there needs to be accountability on a vision longer than 1 season.

 

[Diehard Saint]

And I think that one of the BIG wins against the Eagles on the weekend was the shift to attempts to lower the eyes. That was most illuminating. It revealed the reason why the coaches have been loath to do it - namely, that the disposal skills of the mids delivering the ball into the 50, and separation skills of the forwards have been identified by the coaches as not being good enough. What was significant about the Eagles game was that, rather than just conceding that and choosing the low-skill option of bombing it instead, the coaches finally decided to do the harder, more long-term process of starting to practice it in games.


That is a key reason we lost - and I don't care. If we're going to get forty-something attempts to kick into into the fifty, I'd rather every single one of them was a practice at precision delivery and we stuffed up thirty-five of them, than that we bomb it in and score off twenty of them. Over time, the players will get more in sync, and learn their way to proper disposal. This is a quintessential example of my "sacrificing a pawn" idea: I'm willing to put a game we're already likely to lose, and make it completely unwinnable, if in the process we improve our forward-50 entries. In the short term that's frustrating, but in the long term it will allow us to win far more games.

Great post, Percy. Along with the previous couple.

 

[Saintbloke]

The worry for me, is that after all the strange recruiting, plus 5 years of Richo, I see we are still falling down through basic team football skill errors- over and over, season after season. Richo cannot be let off lightly as head coach- any manager in business with that record would be long gone.

 

[MrFoster]

i think it's a bit of both

i fell off my chair when i was told this by someone at the club "we don't have many good kickers. we haven't drafted them, you should see richo go through the list after the game, he can't kick, he can't kick, he's ok, he can't"... i said "the club communicated to fans when pelchen was there that they were going to focus on drafting good kickers of the football"

so obviously there's a disconnect there.

i think we have some great users of the footy, some poor ones. but i think both fail under pressure. look at wce, they're very good at performing consistently. everything is precise. it's almost robotic like. cripps/sheed etc. who i wouldn't classify as amazing kicks have no issues going back slotting them from the pocket at distance. there's very few who can do that for us.

i agree the game plan is big reason for it but i also think drafting and skills development hasn't been where it needs to be

richo can't draft players, but he's responsible for the other two.

Would a coach normally dictate what type of players to draft or trade for? Or at least have a big say in it? we did get some good kicks, but they are all flanker types who can’t win their own ball or can’t play mid.

 

[mightymalaka]

Frankly, I disagree. As I've been saying the last few weeks, given injuries and the quality of the opposition, the likelihood of us winning them was extremely low. There are significant strategic advantages that come from the club being realistic about those games:

1. It stops players risking injury in a futile attempt to win, whether by trying excessively in games to the point of injury, or even playing at all (some players have benefitted over the last few weeks from being managed).
2. It avoids them being shamed and guilted for failing to achieve the impossible, ie, "we suck because we couldn't win". That is a pointless sucking of morale.
3. It gets them focussing on winning the war, that is, getting into finals. Nobody cares WHICH 13 wins you win to get into finals - they just care that you win 13 games.
4. It gives them other achievable goals in those games, which the team can build on to improve in the second half of the season, which is full of more winnable games. I've written about this at length in several post-game thread posts recently. That builds morale, and confidence going into those more winnable games.

The whole "go out there to win every game" is noble, but strategically flawed, in my opinion.

I hear what your saying Perse and in a bigger picture kind of way, i'm sure certain people at the club feel the same way
But in my view, soon as you allow players to think that way then you have a big problem and you do get the Melbourne culture, which surely
Any competitive club would want to avoid. That last particular game was very winnable and by giving a get out clause that we were not
Expected to win so therefore let's not get too disappointed philosophy is deeply flawed and explains why certain clubs don't have much success!

You think Hawthorn approached their GWS game the same way?

 

[MrFoster]

i think it's a bit of both

i fell off my chair when i was told this by someone at the club "we don't have many good kickers. we haven't drafted them, you should see richo go through the list after the game, he can't kick, he can't kick, he's ok, he can't"... i said "the club communicated to fans when pelchen was there that they were going to focus on drafting good kickers of the football"

so obviously there's a disconnect there.

i think we have some great users of the footy, some poor ones. but i think both fail under pressure. look at wce, they're very good at performing consistently. everything is precise. it's almost robotic like. cripps/sheed etc. who i wouldn't classify as amazing kicks have no issues going back slotting them from the pocket at distance. there's very few who can do that for us.

i agree the game plan is big reason for it but i also think drafting and skills development hasn't been where it needs to be

richo can't draft players, but he's responsible for the other two.

So rather than getting mids who can kick, get the ball.. he designed a game plan (flooding, pressure & tackles) to even up the playing field. A bit like what Ross Lyon did, but Ross had an awesome midfield in Hays, Dal, Goddard, Joey then add tryers in Jones and Ray can get the ball. I know it’s water under the bridge now, but what we should have done in 2013/14/15 was to get pure mids, and more pure mids.. keep the good ones and then add forwards/backs.. Seeing the bulldogs adding Daniel, Mclean, Webb, Ling Jong in 1 draft or Geelong picking up gems from VFL, WAFL with late picks really showed how poor our drafting/list management have been.

 

[sunny3193]

Would a coach normally dictate what type of players to draft or trade for? Or at least have a big say in it? we did get some good kicks, but they are all flanker types who can’t win their own ball or can’t play mid.

That DID NOT happen when Ratts was at Carlton.
Players were drafted with minimal input from the coaching panel.
In fact, one year they drafted players the coaching panel did not even want.
That caused a major argument internally, and undoubtedly ultimately cost Ratts the gig.
Hence why I’m skeptical about any suggestion that Ratts would ever return to coach Carlton.
Ironically guess which club employed that Carlton recruiter?
Hint: rhymes with Hilda.

 

[Mowman]

That DID NOT happen when Ratts was at Carlton.
Players were drafted with minimal input from the coaching panel.
In fact, one year they drafted players the coaching panel did not even want.
That caused a major argument internally, and undoubtedly ultimately cost Ratts the gig.
Hence why I’m skeptical about any suggestion that Ratts would ever return to coach Carlton.
Ironically guess which club employed that Carlton recruiter?
Hint: rhymes with Hilda.

Said the day that bloke started at our club it was a a stupid appointment and we would regret it.

 

[StCicatriz]

Would a coach normally dictate what type of players to draft or trade for? Or at least have a big say in it? we did get some good kicks, but they are all flanker types who can’t win their own ball or can’t play mid.

Richo is on record stating he has very little say in who we draft as he doesn't have the body of work behind him to really drive any decisions. Richo is on the list management committee, which if you read Emma Quayle's draft book has the List Manager, Head Recruiter, Senior Coach, Footy GM and CEO sitting on it. from what i can gather in that book the Head Recruiter really tells everyone who they think they will take or the order. The others challenge it and then tick off on it. Richo seems more to ask questions to understand what they're like and where they seem them playing. Questions some of the vision etc.

So going back to Richo it's not a knock that he has formed that view. I mean its the reality of the situation. He only has so much time and all of it its put into the AFL side. I think he will have input in terms of the type of players he wants/needs but that's it. I think he would have more of a say into any AFL listed players currently playing AFL i.e. the ones he would see though. As he would be dealing with that/have exposure to it.

I do re-call a while back Richo was quoted talking about how Koby Stevens ended up at the club. Basically trout thought we need to get a bit more competitive inside, so he identified Koby and suggested him to Richo. So that kind of shows you how it works for someone Richo would have been exposed too.

From memory Richo was also quoted raising his concerns on Paddy AFTER we drafted him. He had concerns about his skin folds and if he would ever get in the condition required for AFL.

An area I think Richo would have a very large say in would be for the players we already have. Basically how they're going, his concerns, trade/keep/delist type stuff.

So you can see there is a bit of a disconnect between the Senior Coach and the List Management, which would be at every club!

 

[StCicatriz]

That DID NOT happen when Ratts was at Carlton.
Players were drafted with minimal input from the coaching panel.
In fact, one year they drafted players the coaching panel did not even want.
That caused a major argument internally, and undoubtedly ultimately cost Ratts the gig.
Hence why I’m skeptical about any suggestion that Ratts would ever return to coach Carlton.
Ironically guess which club employed that Carlton recruiter?
Hint: rhymes with Hilda.

is the club Norf?

 

[gringo2011]

The worry for me, is that after all the strange recruiting, plus 5 years of Richo, I see we are still falling down through basic team football skill errors- over and over, season after season. Richo cannot be let off lightly as head coach- any manager in business with that record would be long gone.

Not one player that was listed in 2010 played for us on the weekend. We only have Stuv, Geary and Armo left and none contributing at the moment. None of them were regular players in our best sides of that era. Only 17 out of 45 listed players from 2015 are still playing. We churn through them.

 

[VDS66]

That DID NOT happen when Ratts was at Carlton.
Players were drafted with minimal input from the coaching panel.
In fact, one year they drafted players the coaching panel did not even want.
That caused a major argument internally, and undoubtedly ultimately cost Ratts the gig.
Hence why I’m skeptical about any suggestion that Ratts would ever return to coach Carlton.
Ironically guess which club employed that Carlton recruiter?
Hint: rhymes with Hilda.

And he didn't want lose Betts. Club thought otherwise.