-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
as everyone knows talls ahve been a bug bear with me for many yrs now and i mean genuine talls 190cm +. and yes there are the odd few genuine kpps/ talls who are slightly below 190cm. i dont include them. besides we dont have any.
when looking at all lists i have broken it down to 4 groups of talls. i could have broken it down more but didnt.
genuinely tall utilities - that is players who are more flankers mids running types they can play as a third tall option if needed. they are not kpps. collingwoods pendulbury is an example.
kpps - this includes players who are genuine kpps and third talls capable of playing kpp if needed and third talls in development who are likely to become kpps.
ruckmen - well yes genuine ruckmen.
rookies - tall players on the rookie lists it covers all of utilities kpps and ruckmen. this group does not add to ruckmen on teams list as i have put them in the rookie category.
what has prompted me to do this was a quick peruse of clubs talls. in the end i went thru all clubs and shock horror the club with least talls on its lists is richmond. and this from a club widely regarded by everyone in footy to be badly deficient in this area.and to be probably the worst club in the comp when it comes to talls.
why is this the case when common sense says to develop and build a decent core of talls ruckmen and to catch up to other clubs we should have more talls than any other club on our list. yet we have the least. imo we need to do a carlton get 22 24 on the list and then weed thru them.we also need to target out and out quality with very early picks.
clubs like wce port geel in fact most clubs have at one stage or another in the immediate past had 20 plus talls on their list.
where as in the last 5 or 6 yrs we have seen our list of talls down to as few as 9 and constantly hover around 12 we currently have 16 the most i can ever remember us haveing.little wonder we strugglle to build a spine of quality with depth or find a dominant ruckman. throw in the fact we have not used a top 10 pick on a tall since ottens in 97 no wonder we are so poor in this area.
we neither use quality picks on talls and we dont load up with talls with late and and rooke draft picks. there is no other way to do it , except trade for recycled in the main at best average types. and lets face it we have been the kings at doing this. wheres it got us.
a list of 16 talls with more question s about half of the players than answers. in fact we are relying on every single one of our talls making the grade and we all know this just wont happen.hence one of the needs to load up with 20 22 talls.
i dont know what the figure is but i would say at least 50% of all talls drafted fail. this coupled with the time it takes to develop talls says you have to load up with them especially when in rebuild mode. if half our talls fail and richo and simmo retire in the next couple of yrs we could have as few as 7 talls left. and imo this is being kind.
i have constantly stated you need a minimum of 12 ready to go talls which may include 2 or 4 advanced development types just to get you thru a season you then need players at various stages of development.
when a list has been built right the ideal minimum imo is 16. 4 ruckmen 6 defenders 6 forwards you may have a pendulbury corey type or two on top of these.
ffs rfc lets copy the method that most clubs follow to build decent spines to get one of quality please lets be prpared to use some very early picks as well.
anyway heres the numbers of genuine talls on each clubs lists. i wont do the utility ruckmen kpps breakdown if anyones interested they can do it themselves.
ad - 17
br - 18
ca - 22
co - 17
es - 22
fr - 18
g - 19
ha- 18
me - 22
nm - 18
pa - 20
ri - 16
st- 18
sy - 17
wc - 20
wb 17.
interestingly melb ess and carlton fellow cellar dwellars have all loaded up with talls in their rebuilds.
when looking at all lists i have broken it down to 4 groups of talls. i could have broken it down more but didnt.
genuinely tall utilities - that is players who are more flankers mids running types they can play as a third tall option if needed. they are not kpps. collingwoods pendulbury is an example.
kpps - this includes players who are genuine kpps and third talls capable of playing kpp if needed and third talls in development who are likely to become kpps.
ruckmen - well yes genuine ruckmen.
rookies - tall players on the rookie lists it covers all of utilities kpps and ruckmen. this group does not add to ruckmen on teams list as i have put them in the rookie category.
what has prompted me to do this was a quick peruse of clubs talls. in the end i went thru all clubs and shock horror the club with least talls on its lists is richmond. and this from a club widely regarded by everyone in footy to be badly deficient in this area.and to be probably the worst club in the comp when it comes to talls.
why is this the case when common sense says to develop and build a decent core of talls ruckmen and to catch up to other clubs we should have more talls than any other club on our list. yet we have the least. imo we need to do a carlton get 22 24 on the list and then weed thru them.we also need to target out and out quality with very early picks.
clubs like wce port geel in fact most clubs have at one stage or another in the immediate past had 20 plus talls on their list.
where as in the last 5 or 6 yrs we have seen our list of talls down to as few as 9 and constantly hover around 12 we currently have 16 the most i can ever remember us haveing.little wonder we strugglle to build a spine of quality with depth or find a dominant ruckman. throw in the fact we have not used a top 10 pick on a tall since ottens in 97 no wonder we are so poor in this area.
we neither use quality picks on talls and we dont load up with talls with late and and rooke draft picks. there is no other way to do it , except trade for recycled in the main at best average types. and lets face it we have been the kings at doing this. wheres it got us.
a list of 16 talls with more question s about half of the players than answers. in fact we are relying on every single one of our talls making the grade and we all know this just wont happen.hence one of the needs to load up with 20 22 talls.
i dont know what the figure is but i would say at least 50% of all talls drafted fail. this coupled with the time it takes to develop talls says you have to load up with them especially when in rebuild mode. if half our talls fail and richo and simmo retire in the next couple of yrs we could have as few as 7 talls left. and imo this is being kind.
i have constantly stated you need a minimum of 12 ready to go talls which may include 2 or 4 advanced development types just to get you thru a season you then need players at various stages of development.
when a list has been built right the ideal minimum imo is 16. 4 ruckmen 6 defenders 6 forwards you may have a pendulbury corey type or two on top of these.
ffs rfc lets copy the method that most clubs follow to build decent spines to get one of quality please lets be prpared to use some very early picks as well.
anyway heres the numbers of genuine talls on each clubs lists. i wont do the utility ruckmen kpps breakdown if anyones interested they can do it themselves.
ad - 17
br - 18
ca - 22
co - 17
es - 22
fr - 18
g - 19
ha- 18
me - 22
nm - 18
pa - 20
ri - 16
st- 18
sy - 17
wc - 20
wb 17.
interestingly melb ess and carlton fellow cellar dwellars have all loaded up with talls in their rebuilds.