A.F.L Thread

[Matt79]

Wallace failing doesn't mean the theory was wrong though. Malthouse got a long-term deal with Collingwood when he arrived.

None the less, whether its Rawlings, Hardwick or whomever, we won't be handing out another 5 year deal.

But if Richmond were going to get Mick (which a few weeks ago I was 100% for, and even now would have not necessarily been upset if he got it), I don't see how him being there for 2 years and then possibly going would have been the best option.

He's an excellent coach, but like Sheedy, he's in no position to rebuild a list. He would have been a great mentor for Rawlings and Campbell, and done wonders for membership, but considering we'll likely wipe out a third of our list or something similar, better have a young guy go all the way with these kids.

Recruit him on that basis - whether he'd be willing to do it is another thing - there would have to be factors other than short-term on-field success that would make him want to do it. "We want you to come in, cut deep, and start putting into place the setup and culture that will position us for success when the fruits of this rebuilding mature."

What Malthouse or Leigh Matthews (although I think Mick has adapted better than Leigh in the latest evolution of the game) would have brought is the reputation, CV, and toughness to be able to stay the course and insist things are done the right way.

It's a fairer to ask that of someone like Malthouse than it is of someone like Rawlings. Get a new coach and his formative years as a coach are spend tanking for picks, getting smashed, and then probably getting the flick a year or two before the benefits of that approach start to bear fruit.

 

[vic_orthdox]

It's a fairer to ask that of someone like Malthouse than it is of someone like Rawlings. Get a new coach and his formative years as a coach are spend tanking for picks, getting smashed, and then probably getting the flick a year or two before the benefits of that approach start to bear fruit.

Al Clarkson says "Hi".

 

[Jono]

Recruit him on that basis - whether he'd be willing to do it is another thing - there would have to be factors other than short-term on-field success that would make him want to do it. "We want you to come in, cut deep, and start putting into place the setup and culture that will position us for success when the fruits of this rebuilding mature."

What Malthouse or Leigh Matthews (although I think Mick has adapted better than Leigh in the latest evolution of the game) would have brought is the reputation, CV, and toughness to be able to stay the course and insist things are done the right way.

It's a fairer to ask that of someone like Malthouse than it is of someone like Rawlings. Get a new coach and his formative years as a coach are spend tanking for picks, getting smashed, and then probably getting the flick a year or two before the benefits of that approach start to bear fruit.

I agree with a lot of what you say. But as a Richmond supporter, I firstly don't think we're as far away as many think, but that may just be my opinion. I think the rubbish of our list holds us back, but there is plenty of good that can go unnoticed.

That's why I think if we were to take Mick, I'd want him there for 3 years, then with the option to see if he wants to keep going (providing he's done the job). I think in an ideal world (i.e. without our annoyingly **** culture), we'd be legitimately challenging for September in 2012 if we get a good coach in 2010. That may be fanciful to some, but not me.

With regards to your last point, I don't think that'd happen. Richmond should be aiming for a Clarkson-type appointment. A few years of trouble but with the right youth policies and support from the club, 3-4 years in he would be coaching for finals. Not being fired for another specialist coach, like many thought Hawthorn would and should have done with Clarkson. Instead he's a premiership coach.

Of course Hawthorn are a special case, and some say they peaked earlier than many thought they should have. But that's neither here nor there. What they did right was the process of a young coach with backing and time given to do what was needed.

Malthouse likely didn't want to put in that time (same with Matthews and Richmond didn't want him or Sheedy anyway). So a younger coach is probably the best option.

 

[Jono]

Haha yeah vic posted exactly the same time as I did. Clarkson example is perfect for Richmond now (even removing the Premiership success).

The ultimate juxtaposition is what Hawthorn vs. Richmond from 2005 onwards.

Both got new coaches, both were rebuilding, one had the balls to strip bare, the other chose a hybrid of rebuilding plus filling gaps (Kent Kingsley, Graham, Jordan McMahon)

 

[Matt79]

@ Vic - And plenty of others don't, because no-one knows where they are now.

The overuse of Hawthorn as proof that the decimate-and-rebuild strategy is the ONLY way to achieve success is so annoying. Geelong didn't really do that.

 

[Jono]

But we're talking coach, NOT strategy.

Whether Mick was used, or a young coach, the same strategy for Richmond's list will be used. You justified it yourself too.

There's no other option with this list. You can't just fill the gaps Port style.

 

[vic_orthdox]

@ Vic - And plenty of others don't, because no-one knows where they are now.

The overuse of Hawthorn as proof that the decimate-and-rebuild strategy is the ONLY way to achieve success is so annoying. Geelong didn't really do that.

Since the draft has become the altar at which everyone must bow, then I think that Peter Rhode is just about the only one. The rest of them are still in jobs, except Wallace who compromised his efforts at times, and had a flawed drafting policy (Greg Miller holds a lot of responsibility for the current position of Richmond IMO).

Geelong built a list over a much longer time than most clubs.

 

[Matt79]

I agree with a lot of what you say. But as a Richmond supporter, I firstly don't think we're as far away as many think, but that may just be my opinion. I think the rubbish of our list holds us back, but there is plenty of good that can go unnoticed.

So, you're not that far away, but you're going to dump a third of your list and rebuild with youth - during a period where the draft will be compromised massively by GCFC and presumably West Sydney? And not all of those kids will work out in the way you hope anyway.

Not advocating the extent of short-termism that Wallace displayed, although tbf, I think that as much as anything it was his selections that went wrong.

Meh, not really sure what I'm arguing - I don't think I really know what the best way is, but I find the IMF-World Bank style, one-size-fits-all mantra from the media of "cut your entire list, bottom out, rebuild, win a flag in 7 years time" really annoying. It won't work most of the time.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Richmond have been down the bottom of the ladder long enough to have a group of kids that can take them some places. They have for a fair time, it's just that their development has been deplorable. The best sign is how over the past 6 weeks, they've put the faith in their kids and gotten rid of the dead wood (Pettifer, McMahon [at times], Bowden, Schultz) and let them sink or swim.

Think Rawlings will be a good fit for them, to be honest. Another quality person, with a good understanding of the game. Hope he gets the gig.

 

[Matt79]

Agree with you re: the draft. As I said, I don't really know what the solution is, but I think there's a problem when the draft picks you get at the end of the year become (apparently) the main determinant of your team's prospects. The priority pick, for one, has to go. Maybe some form of lottery amongst the bottom eight teams for at least the first round as well, with the top eight getting picks 9-16 in the reverse order of their finishing.

 

[Matt79]

Richmond have been down the bottom of the ladder long enough to have a group of kids that can take them some places. They have for a fair time, it's just that their development has been deplorable. The best sign is how over the past 6 weeks, they've put the faith in their kids and gotten rid of the dead wood (Pettifer, McMahon [at times], Bowden, Schultz) and let them sink or swim.

Think Rawlings will be a good fit for them, to be honest. Another quality person, with a good understanding of the game. Hope he gets the gig.

Agree that he's been impressive and I like what I've seen of him to date. Richmond could do much worse.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I'm all for the lottery going as long as it's not before this draft, (face).

 

[superkingdave]

Hopefully Jade will get the job and go after Brady during trade week Nah, Jade's got a good wrap amongst North supporters despite not being with us for long and not being the best player to come through.

From what i've hear Rawlings isn't on the team selection panel at the moment?

 

[superkingdave]

So Karmichael Hunt to play for Gold Coast then? After a year of Rugby Union apparently, 3 codes in 3 years is a decent effort. Was highly rated as a 14 year old, wonder where he will play?

 

[Craig]

Nothing more then a publicity stunt. He will probably get his arse kicked.

 

[howardj]

So Karmichael Hunt to play for Gold Coast then? After a year of Rugby Union apparently, 3 codes in 3 years is a decent effort. Was highly rated as a 14 year old, wonder where he will play?

My spies tell me that there will be no Rugby Union. Rather, in his gap year (2010), he will be playing VFL/QFL for the Gold Coast.

He probably has a better chance than most league players - being young, agile, and having played the game before.

That said, you have to be able to read the game in the AFL - otherwise you won't get the ball. You have to have AFL instincts otherwise you can run around all day and get no possessions.

Guys like Abblett, Judd, Cousins - they just know where and how to get the ball. That's something that is instinctive and only comes after a long time.

 

[pasag]

Haha.

 

[vic_orthdox]

My spies tell me that there will be no Rugby Union. Rather, in his gap year (2010), he will be playing VFL/QFL for the Gold Coast.

He probably has a better chance than most league players - being young, agile, and having played the game before.

That said, you have to be able to read the game in the AFL - otherwise you won't get the ball. You have to have AFL instincts otherwise you can run around all day and get no possessions.

Guys like Abblett, Judd, Cousins - they just know where and how to get the ball. That's something that is instinctive and only comes after a long time.

Depends. You've also named all midfielders.

Note that a lot of the Irish players in recent times tend to play in defense (Begley, Kennelly and Clarke). Sometimes they progress into the midfield, but generally they are attacking, rebounding defenders. This allows them to be led to the ball, and released by the bigger backman through handball to be released from defence.

Reckon that Hunt is best placed for this role; the biggest issue being his ability to use the ball by foot. That's where the Irish had a bit of a head start on Hunt.

 

[Matt79]

Buckley had a kick to kick with him and said he was already 'adequate' with his kicking. And he'll have excellent situational awareness in general terms. Looking forward to seeing some crunching tackles from him as well.

Oh yeah - die league die btw.

 

[howardj]

Buckley had a kick to kick with him and said he was already 'adequate' with his kicking. And he'll have excellent situational awareness in general terms. Looking forward to seeing some crunching tackles from him as well.

Oh yeah - die league die btw.