Was it poor drafting or poor development...??

[nut]

Seeing so many kids improving I think our biggest problem in the last 10 years has been our development of our kids.

Turning our club culture around to would be another factor in the improvement.

Players like Meyer, Patison, JON, Rodan, Shulz, Hughes...etc... perhaps were unfairly judged on the back of being neglected by an under resourced

 

[NQTIGER]

Development tottaly, the list we have contains many players drafted in the wallace era, and it would be foolhardy to assume that nason, martin, astbury have been the difference.

The clear adherence to a game plan and the development of players to suit that plan has shown to be the catalyst for our improvement.

Whilst i am not suporting wallace per se, he did leave the list in a reasonably good shape personell wise.

Sure RT and others will say we cut 14 last season, but the core of the playing group which is performing is wallace acquired.

Rayzor got pilloried in another thread, but lets hang guys that need to be hung and give credit when its due.

 

[Bazzar]

Poor development.

The clear adherence to a game plan and the development of players to suit that plan has shown to be the catalyst for our improvement.

And the amount of current players who have said this year that the biggest difference between Wallace and Hardwick is having a single clear game plan and rules structure.

Thats huge. They then go out every single week, doing the exact same thing, getting better and better at it, just like they are doing now.

When Dimma took over i remember him saying how he wanted only one predictable style of play, just like the best teams in the comp. He said he wasnt interested in surprising teams with different plays, just to get one that works and mastering it. Looks like he has so far kept the promise.

 

[tigerdan]

Development tottaly, the list we have contains many players drafted in the wallace era, and it would be foolhardy to assume that nason, martin, astbury have been the difference.

The clear adherence to a game plan and the development of players to suit that plan has shown to be the catalyst for our improvement.

Whilst i am not suporting wallace per se, he did leave the list in a reasonably good shape personell wise.

Sure RT and others will say we cut 14 last season, but the core of the playing group which is performing is wallace acquired.

Rayzor got pilloried in another thread, but lets hang guys that need to be hung and give credit when its due.

I disagree, I think it is poor drafting. I don't mean that we necessarily drafted dud players, I mean that we drafted the wrong *type* of players.

You can look at our golden draft where we had 5 of the top 20 picks yet we managed to stuff it up. Wallace wanted to form a unique team full of fast running outside types. A team that would be so different to the opposition that it would take years for them to catch us.

Unfortunately for all of us the plan was deeply flawed and we are left to sift through the ashes to find players who can cut it. It's not surprising that we still have some talented players on our list from that episode. But IMHO the players no longer with us were always going to be found out with the way football progressed. Wallace gambled and lost and we have to pay for it.

It's kind of the same as how we drafted favourites like DK and Jamie Tape who started off in the backline as traditional negating backline players when at the time the Eagles were drafting attacking type backmen who would run it out of defence. That type of player is pretty much how all small backmen play these days.

I'm not having a dig at DK or Tape by the way... just pointing out that drafting the right type of player is as important as the development of them.

Dan

 

[Bruce Monteath]

Both.

 

[theyellowsash]

mostly development. wallace could not teach the basics and skills, only gameplans, so we saw the skills of kids get worse and worse. also, see how well some of our kids that we thought would always be sticks, like edwards, have bulked up.

 

[ata33cro]

I think it comes down to both. Yeah, we have recruited quite bad. But look at the improvement of some of our players like King, Edwards and Connors. Even Tambling has started to tackle.

Plus, it helps if we have a game plan

 

[Calcium Man]

I disagree, I think it is poor drafting. I don't mean that we necessarily drafted dud players, I mean that we drafted the wrong *type* of players.

You can look at our golden draft where we had 5 of the top 20 picks yet we managed to stuff it up. Wallace wanted to form a unique team full of fast running outside types. A team that would be so different to the opposition that it would take years for them to catch up.

the 2004 draft was weak. We actually didn't do to badly. Okay Tambling wasn't the best pick. But apart from Franklin no one else in the Top 20 is a superstar most have been delisted/playing ressies, there are a couple of average player and one or two above average footballers. Outside of the top 20 there is really only Prismal, Lecras and knights as A graders and alrights in Rosa, Van Berlo and Sherman.

In 2005 JON hurt, but Clarke has had one good season, Higgins and Jones are stars. Birchall, Hurn and Varcoe are good Footballers and wouldn't mind them but not fussed we missed out and maybe Douglas and Mustan would have been alright. After Hughes at 24 there is really only Vince, swallow and Patfull.

So maybe we didn't draft to well but they weren't great drafts overall. 2006 we actually ended up doing pretty well with Riewoldt, Connors and Edwards, and really have done well from then til now.

Overall I think it's probably 30% recruiting and 70% development that has seen the young boys improve this season.

 

[CoggaRules]

mostly development. wallace could not teach the basics and skills, only gameplans, so we saw the skills of kids get worse and worse. also, see how well some of our kids that we thought would always be sticks, like edwards, have bulked up.

Dont agree, development is essential, what is also essential is a platform to develop from. The deal with our drafting and its shitness was more to do with seeing a kid being able to show up in the junior leagues that could not handle the step up to the big time. Its the same as players who shine at VFL level i.e. Ezra Poyes, that were pure dudsville in the big time.
At the end of the day as I and a few others have suggested, if a kid is gunna make it, game 1 or 2 will show you signs. And its not about pure skill etc its about looking like they belong once or twice in those couple of opening games. Prime example Shane Edwards, has been through the ringer up until recently, but to those that understand what is required, he showed he wanted in where he belonged from game 1. Thats a player you can develop. You cant develop what isnt there to develop. Skills etc are part and parcel of the influx of draftees etc, they didnt get there because they didnt have that kind of shit, its the shit that matters that they havent and will never have.

 

[Dr Tigris]

I disagree, I think it is poor drafting. I don't mean that we necessarily drafted dud players, I mean that we drafted the wrong *type* of players.

You can look at our golden draft where we had 5 of the top 20 picks yet we managed to stuff it up. Wallace wanted to form a unique team full of fast running outside types. A team that would be so different to the opposition that it would take years for them to catch us.

Unfortunately for all of us the plan was deeply flawed and we are left to sift through the ashes to find players who can cut it. It's not surprising that we still have some talented players on our list from that episode. But IMHO the players no longer with us were always going to be found out with the way football progressed. Wallace gambled and lost and we have to pay for it.

It's kind of the same as how we drafted favourites like DK and Jamie Tape who started off in the backline as traditional negating backline players when at the time the Eagles were drafting attacking type backmen who would run it out of defence. That type of player is pretty much how all small backmen play these days.

I'm not having a dig at DK or Tape by the way... just pointing out that drafting the right type of player is as important as the development of them.

Dan

Agree very much. Not only did we draft outside running players we drafted for utility types rather than pure position players, and we neglected kicking skills, attitude etc. For example, I reckon Patto is OK, but he is not a true ruckman and only maybe an OK forward. The Wallace plan of run, run, run would be OK if other coaches didn't develop the flood and pressure style. Which means that you can run, but you run into trouble and have to hit targets through good footskills. We didn't draft for those skills - simple. Whatever else was wrong in the Wallace years there was a logic he used - it just didn't work. I have no idea whether he was on another planet, or it was just bad luck.

A couple of years ago our drafting people got free of the Wallace Miller template and the drafting has been good since then.

But, once drafted we have to develop the kids. They were developed for a game plan that didn't work. An example is Thursty saying that he was told, under Wallace, to develop a lean running body, but then played on the monsters. It makes perfect sense in the Wallace world, it just didn't work in the real AFL.

I'm happier with the current game plan and approach to drafting and developing players. Wallace's approach was crash or crash through - he crashed. We are now developing the game plan that wins 9/10 grand finals (totally out of my backside statistics, but you get the point). How we go from here - lets see.

 

[TigerTime88]

POOR DEVELOPMENT

Tambling, JON, Meyer, Pattison and Polo all taken in the top 20 it is no coincedence that they all failed.

Polo's first game was awesome and showed his talent but I have no doubt a mix of the culture created under Wallace plus the development has F***** this guys career. Seriously I know his adittude is not amazing but I would think if he was an 18yr old starting with Dimma he would be alot better off.

 

[Calcium Man]

In 2004 and 2005 apart from JON and to a lesser extent Tambling, who will still play 200 games for us. We drafted as well as we could. Look at the players taken around our picks, none of them are substantially better then we picked and most have been delisted. They were both very poor drafts.

Since 06 we have done very well I think. It probably conicides with Francis but the reality is that it's so much more about development then recruitment.

 

[CoggaRules]

POOR DEVELOPMENT

Tambling, JON, Meyer, Pattison and Polo all taken in the top 20 it is no coincedence that they all failed.

Polo's first game was awesome and showed his talent but I have no doubt a mix of the culture created under Wallace plus the development has F***** this guys career. Seriously I know his adittude is not amazing but I would think if he was an 18yr old starting with Dimma he would be alot better off.

culture created under Wallace = in Bowden, Hyde, Tivendale, Pettifer out a newbie after 1 game. Then after seeing the same old same old and hearing the same old same ole, i.e. we let the jumper down etc etc and all that shit, it was out Bowden, Hyde, Tivendale, Pettifer in a couple of newbies. Then when the flames had been put out, after a week it was in Bowden, Hyde, Tivendale, Pettifer out the newbies.
If you were playing under that type of coach who was pulling everyone's pud, then sitting back and hearing how you were not part of the team because of your attitude then saw the Pettifers and Bowdens of this worlds attitude, hands on hips, lacksidasical you name it it was couldnt give a flying ****..then you yourself would have thought, WTF am i doing here.

 

[Spluff]

Both. We've only ever nailed one draft (06), other than that we've done pretty poorly in most drafts for various reasons (though 09 looks good at this point). That said, our development has made it even harder for these players to prove themselves.

 

[Tzatziki_Man]

I don't mind Cotchin from the 07' draft Spluff, who did we take in 08'? I can't even remember...

 

[Mario Speedwagon]

Obvioualy Dimma's getting more out of these guys than Treading Water ever did...but I'm still far from convinced that guys like White & Edwards can play at a sustainable AFL standard....King may have improved...but he can't seriously still be in the frame going forward...good luck to him if he proves me wrong though, for unless JON wins the B&F at West Coast, it'll be the greatest turn-around from a player in the history of the game and would rank Hardwick up there with Paul Roos for player development...

 

[Spluff]

I don't mind Cotchin from the 07' draft Spluff, who did we take in 08'? I can't even remember...

It's the later picks that show the quality of our drafts.. obviously Cotchin was always going to be good in 07, that's hardly a tick for the recruiters. After that we took Rance (borderline player), traded for Jordan McMahon (big no), traded for Mitch Morton (despite recent form he's shown way too much at AFL level to be anything but a tick) and drafted Putt (no), and Gourdis in the PSD (borderline pick, I'll give it a tick because it was so late), and nobody of note in the Rookie draft. 07 turned out about average.

In 08 we drafted Vickery who will be a player, and then Post (borderline), and then gave up picks for Hislop and Thomson in the strongest draft in recent memory (huge NO). We did do okay in the PSD and rookie drafts with Nahas and Browne. For the strength of the 08 draft, it's a thumbs down from me (Hislop and Thomson are a huge disaster when we could have picked up genuine AFL quality players with those picks).

 

[Tzatziki_Man]

Agreed!

09' has been solid so far, our best draft year since I can remember.

Nason at 71# was an amazing pick, each game he plays makes me even more impressed.

If Martin was eligible, you would think along with Hannebery, he would be favourite for the rising star.

Webberely has turned out good, we need to give him more time.

Griffiths has lots of potential and Dea has an injury, but looked okay before then.

We've gotten something from every player in our 09' draft, pretty happy with it.

 

[Mr Magic]

A lot of it comes down to drafting.

Some of the players didn't have the physical scope for improvement. Note Collins , although lack lustre in youth had the body scope for improvement, tallish, balanced etc.. compared with the more ackward Polo

Hughes ran on railway tracks, a lot of the others where too light with this mad emphasis on outright pace eg JON. There was an over emphasis on mediocre Ruckman like Putt and Pattison as well. If you get Ruckman you get good ones like Vickery or projects like Sandliands IMO - there is no in between due to the risk reward.

We have been given second hand players far too much credibility like Thomson and so for. McMahon was a failure at the Bulldogs . It was plan to see. Wallace didn't have a clue but he did allow us to get Martin and Cotchin due to his ineptness so the preiod was productive. I wouldn't get too ahead of ourselves. We have some talented players for a change but we have a long way too go and many deficiencies still unless some of our players can improve drastically in terms of winning a premiership .

BTW King definitely has the jury still out for me, White a little less, Nahas and Nanos a little less but these players and more need to do more to make their positions safe IMO

 

[BF Tiger]

Either way, it get backs to Terry Wallace.

 

[santa claws]

Either way, it get backs to Terry Wallace.

no it gets back to the type of player we constantly recruited.
little wonder we can actually implement some sort of plan and structure when you recruit half decent kicks for starters. wallace could only work with what he had and yep he bought most of the ills on himself.

skilled players it seems to me have all progressed quite okay under wallace when all factors are considered.
theres an old saying you cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

its still the glass half fulls who will hold us back.

 

[TO HOT TO HANDLE]

A bit of both
Shultz Lazy and lack of developement
JON Has learning disability not found until recruited by wce therefore developement a big issue I hope its not too late for him.
Meyer both confidence and developement issues.
Pattison mainly not up to it, therefore maybe developement
Pettifer Attitude therefore developement, when he was on he was a gun injuries did not help.
Raines definetely developement will be a gun.
Several others were injury prone but Collard Noble Kingsley Hudson were just plain stupid decisions.
Simmonds was cut down by injuries as were Brown and Coughlan.
Letting go of RODAN the worst decision eva.
Finally we are the complete package.
On Gus 9 months ago he could not mark overhead and you could see that Hardwick was shocked but he kept faith and now we have a great over head 200 cm marker. Without the proper developement he would have gone thanks to our great coaching staff we still have him. There has been a marked improvement in all of our list. So give every player until the end of the year to prove their worth.
The BEN COUSINS DECISION was a master stroke that should and will continue.

 

[Truetiger]

Plus, it helps if we have a game plan

Madtiger said we had a good style of game Plan under Wallace. We also went Direct down the middle most of the time

 

[santa claws]

Obvioualy Dimma's getting more out of these guys than Treading Water ever did...but I'm still far from convinced that guys like White & Edwards can play at a sustainable AFL standard....King may have improved...but he can't seriously still be in the frame going forward...good luck to him if he proves me wrong though, for unless JON wins the B&F at West Coast, it'll be the greatest turn-around from a player in the history of the game and would rank Hardwick up there with Paul Roos for player development...

is he really. its easy to bag wallace because he did get so much wrong. but just how much individual players have improved under hardwick is debatable.

lets have a look see players who were bought to the club while wallace was there.

browne - rookie ruckman if he takes another two or three yrs who would be surprised. he does not count as wallace had him for such a short time.

collins - drafted as a very skinny mid forward in 06. played some good footy at both coburg and showed signs at richmond. he battled op his first two yrs and missed the last half of last yr his third. is it just a case of hardwick developing him in just 6mnths or was it he is injury free got some size on his frame and he was ready to make the next step in his 4th yr haveing done most of the apprenticeship.

connors - did his apprenticeship for two yrs at coburg was drafted in 06 as a late pick so time at coburg was expected. made his debut in 07. and has been made to earn a spot his coburg form was not impressive. last yr he copped a hand injury early but did show some good signs at coburg. entering his 4th yr fitter and wiser was he ready to step up.

cotchin - do we blame wallace for persistent injuries and missed preseasons.was always going to step up at some stage. i reckon wallace gave him a decent go at senior level .

cousins - well clearly hardwick hasnt had to develop cuz.

deledio. - has continually got better and won b and fs along the way. how much credit should hardwick take for deledio. little imo.

edwards - is one who has improved a fair bit recently. still have question marks about and was another drafted in 06 as a very skinny mid. was going to take time early because of size. some would say edwards clicked half way thru last yr and saved his career. again is it a case of a player in his 4th yr taking natural steps up or hardwick.

foley - developed quite nicely under wallace my only gripe here was wallace should have played him sooner and given him more game time early on.

graham - another player drafted in 06 so hes in yr 4 was always going to take 4 yrs or more if he lasted.

jackson - sheesh he came second in the best and fairest last yr before hardwick came. imo hes still a deficient player who is learning to work within those deficiencies.

hislop - deficient player who wallace had for just one yr in fact thats wrong wallace had him for 12 games. be interesting to see if hardwick can develop him.

king - not playing much different to when wallace had him still makes the same mistakes and skill errors. he was a darling of all in his first yr.apparently hes okay now that hrdwick is here.

mcguane - again a deficient player who is still making the exact same descion and skill errors.

mcmahon - has not got a game under hardwick clearly he could not be developed not at 27 anyway. yep hes a wallace mistake but some could argue hes gone backwards under hardwick.

moore - came of age in 08 and regressed because of injuries and form in 09. hes finding the same sort of form this yr that he displayed in 08. has hardwick developed him.

morton - deficient player but has gone backwards under hardwick. to me this is a case of hopefully being made to go backwards to go forward.

nahas - gone backwards but was always going to happen .deficiencies.

polo - has not stepped up under hardwick or wallace. again deficiencies make it hard to develop this type.

post - has he improved or shown more under hardwick dont think so. very early into his apprenticship under hardwick and even earlier under wallace.

rance. - well he got more games under wallace.thats not really a criteria. another of those with chronic deficiencies be interesting to see just how much hardwick can improve him if at all.havent seen any sign of it so far.

riewoldt - took another step this yr just like he did last yr and the yr before that. again taken in 06 in his 4th yr just a little bit bigger and 20 more games under his belt. i would say jack was going to continue to improve no matter who took over.

tambling - shown no improvement beyond what wallace got out of him.

thomson - showed little under wallace and little under dimma.has plenty deficiencies.

thursfield. - if anything gone backwards.

tuck - is having a good yr had 3 pretty decent seasons under wallace and a few ordinary ones. still has the same deficiencies that hes always had.

vickery - again a ruckman who was in his first yr under wallace did wallace mismanage him i dont think so. any improvement vickery has had was going to happen.

white. - has played some passable games under dimma but did so with wallace as well. has his disposal and decision making improved or his ability to find more ball i dont think so, one of those glass half fulls who always revert to type.

i really think old terence is blamed for far to much by our supporters it seems to me those who were reasonably well rounded developed okay.

to me hardwick should be better than wallace he does not have so many deficient players to work with. in the main he at least has mostly decent kicks on the list.
i think it shows if you recruit poorly fill the list up with players lacking in the basics development can be impossible for not only individuals but as a team as well.this has been shown to be the case not only at richmond but other clubs as well.
the old question again. how many poor kicks and decision makers can you take into a game before you lose any chance to win. if you are going to take these types into games you better get the balance right and those types had damn well better bring something to the table that the team is desperately lacking.

lucky for us it seems hardwick knows that the right balance between big bodies size height and skills is paramount this makes for good structure and an ability to compete this is where the improvement has come from this and work on defensive attributes that all are required to master.

 

[Goldust]

POOR DEVELOPMENT

Polo's first game was awesome and showed his talent but I have no doubt a mix of the culture created under Wallace plus the development has F***** this guys career. Seriously I know his adittude is not amazing but I would think if he was an 18yr old starting with Dimma he would be alot better off.

Probably more due to the rfact he was an unknown commodity, expectations were not high and Essendon allowed him to run unchecked as most clubs pay rookies little respect.
Geez, even JON was decent that night.
Others that spring to mind who looked the goods in their debut - Martin McGrath, Justin Murphy, the prized number one draft pick Richard Lounder, Cameron Howat, Craig Ednie, John Mrakov, Darren Bower.
It's what you do afterwards that counts!!