List Management | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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.

List Management

Willo

Tiger Legend
Oct 13, 2007
18,257
6,133
Aldinga Beach
Its interesting in regard to some of the comments posted about players that should have been delisted, traded etc.
Some posters (not necessarily mine) wanted to see any or all of Schulz, Hyde, Meyer, JON, Hughes, Tivendale, White etc given the flick.
However given that you must delist a minimum of 3 to take part in ND if all these were gone to give us more picks in this years ND who would go next year.
In what supposedly was a shallow draft what would be the option in 2008 ND if they were gone
You can't flick contracted players unless you pay them out, new draftees given minimum of 2 years. It would have been a costly exercise. That's maybe why some of these guys were given a 12 month contract, perform or else.
Its a very naive view to say more pruning was needed, when all the facts aren't taken into account. The club has to balance up needs, finances and availability. in my opinion I think they've got it right. If next years draft is a good one it leaves some flexibility to either trade or delist non performers at minimal cost to the club.
Hopefully with Craig Camerons' appointment it will get to a stage in a couple of years time that the choice of who to delist will bring some disappointment, with not having too many "popular" candidates will mean our list is getting in the right shape
 

the claw

thufferin thuckertash
Jun 17, 2003
11,978
0
WA
willo said:
Its interesting in regard to some of the comments posted about players that should have been delisted, traded etc.
Some posters (not necessarily mine) wanted to see any or all of Schulz, Hyde, Meyer, JON, Hughes, Tivendale, White etc given the flick.
However given that you must delist a minimum of 3 to take part in ND if all these were gone to give us more picks in this years ND who would go next year.
In what supposedly was a shallow draft what would be the option in 2008 ND if there were gone
You can't flick contracted players unless you pay them out, new draftees given minimum of 2 years. It would have been a costly exercise. That's maybe why some of these guys were given a 12 month cotract, perform or else.
Its a very naive view to say more pruning was needed, when all the facts aren't taken into account. The club has to balance up needs, finances and availability. in my opinion I think they've got it right. If next years draft is a good one it leaves some flexibility to either trade or delist non performers at minimal cost to the club.
Hopefully with Craig Camerons' appointment it will get to a stage in a couple of years time that the choice of who to delist will bring some disappointment, with not having too many "popular" candidates will mean our list is getting in the right shape
i disagree there are as many as 15 to 20 who could go and they wont really be missed after all we are coming of a spoon.
look at who actually got the chop this yr and look at their contributions and their deficiencies. there are many similar types like them still on the list.

personally i think we should have taken 28 for schulz while hes still worth something. and i believe pick 64 should have been used so thats one other probably hyde.that still leaves 5 of your above list and like i said theres plenty of glass half full types who can be added to your list.

list management is also about not hanging onto mediocre players for to long this is something we still get wrong. hopefully under cameron this will change.
 

Mr Brightside

Tiger Legend
Jul 1, 2005
24,857
12,244
Wang
the claw said:
i disagree there are as many as 15 to 20 who could go and they wont really be missed after all we are coming of a spoon.
look at who actually got the chop this yr and look at their contributions and their deficiencies. there are many similar types like them still on the list.

personally i think we should have taken 28 for schulz while hes still worth something. and i believe pick 64 should have been used so thats one other probably hyde.that still leaves 5 of your above list and like i said theres plenty of glass half full types who can be added to your list.

list management is also about not hanging onto mediocre players for to long this is something we still get wrong. hopefully under cameron this will change.
You dont have an opinion on pick 19

Name the 20 you would get rid off Id be intreted to see these 20 duds for future reference

Willo on list managment I think its intresting to have a look an compare our list to Hawthorn I dont think we have ended up as bad as some would think an personally think our back half KPP looks better
 

Willo

Tiger Legend
Oct 13, 2007
18,257
6,133
Aldinga Beach
the claw said:
i disagree there are as many as 15 to 20 who could go and they wont really be missed after all we are coming of a spoon.
look at who actually got the chop this yr and look at their contributions and their deficiencies. there are many similar types like them still on the list.

personally i think we should have taken 28 for schulz while hes still worth something. and i believe pick 64 should have been used so thats one other probably hyde.that still leaves 5 of your above list and like i said theres plenty of glass half full types who can be added to your list.

list management is also about not hanging onto mediocre players for to long this is something we still get wrong. hopefully under cameron this will change.
Its what i'm trying to get at Claw. Yep in some eyes the list maybe bigger. But you can't chop too many in one year especially if they're still contracted.With the likes of Schulz, Hughes kpps that we don't have a lot of, do you give them the opportunity to develop or cut your losses and given the time already put into them, they may develop at their next club that may have a bit more patience.
I don't think its that simple to say "dud" then flick them. Some take longer to develop than others. It ok to turn your list over but there still must be a long term view with how you do it, not just reactionary.

I know your views on making midfielders into flankers but I think hbf is part of the midfield anyway, I think nowadays midfield stretches back to the flanks and there is still a role for a classy hbf who can hit targets, rather than an inside or outside mid covering the same role. Some can do it, some can't. It's easy to say convert them but the reality is its a bit more difficult. Its easier to find a hbf than a mid then taking the time to develop them in this role.

15-20 more players, who and what are their ages, their size,their opportunities I thought that's why wce were good they could develop their own, people say we can't, or is it impatience and we won't.
Who do we replace them with? more kids, then in 2 years they haven't developed enough and out they go and we start again? There has to be some sort of stability and development plan.
 

the claw

thufferin thuckertash
Jun 17, 2003
11,978
0
WA
CC TIGER said:
You dont have an opinion on pick 19

Name the 20 you would get rid off Id be intreted to see these 20 duds for future reference

Willo on list managment I think its intresting to have a look an compare our list to Hawthorn I dont think we have ended up as bad as some would think an personally think our back half KPP looks better
ha of course i have an opinion on pick 19 as you well know.

you want 20 i dont rate or shall i phrase it 20 we could easily find better versions of or how about 20 we have concerns over of who a decison will have to be made soon. anyway i will give you 15 for now.
lets start with that pick 19.mcmahon should not be wearing a rfc jumper full stop. if he has another yr like this one willl truly enter the dud category. i have no time at all for soft unaccoutable turn over merchants and that is exactly what mcmahon was this yr.


you have the 7 willo has already mentioned schulz hyde meyer jon hughes tivendale and white.im not saying all of them will get the chop but geez they are under the pump and there are clearly many better rounded players about than them. would they be missed.

one that has to find a new role and improve his kicking is raines. morton and mcmahon spell trouble for andrew. johnson will be 30 coming of an atrocious yr.

and yes morton what if he produces exactly what hes served up at wce very soft. kel moore sheesh how long again has he been there. tuck abysmal kick is required short term though.pettifer well like mcmahon i have no time for soft slow unaccountable squibs. pattison polakhalf glass full types we can do better.

some have not ben in the system very long and itmay be unfair to make a call on them but theres heaps who have had more than long enough.
 

IrockZ

Tiger Champion
Jul 18, 2007
3,820
0
CC TIGER said:
You dont have an opinion on pick 19

Name the 20 you would get rid off Id be intreted to see these 20 duds for future reference

Willo on list managment I think its intresting to have a look an compare our list to Hawthorn I dont think we have ended up as bad as some would think an personally think our back half KPP looks better

what about forward and rucks? ;D

schulz, meyer, moore, hyde, tivendale, white are all in trouble for 08 imo
 

IrockZ

Tiger Champion
Jul 18, 2007
3,820
0
CC TIGER said:
Taylor DUD-Campbell Just-Renouf attrocious kick-Bailey potential but Knee reco-Mcentee see Renouf.

id still take it over ours unfortuantely, taylor and campbell are nothing special but they hold their own and are a good presence to have, renouf i havent seen much of but i rate bailey a lot

forwards?
 

mb64

Tiger Legend
Jul 26, 2004
29,650
83
Melbourne
IrockZ said:
id still take it over ours unfortuantely, taylor and campbell are nothing special but they hold their own and are a good presence to have, renouf i havent seen much of but i rate bailey a lot
Agree
 

Mr Brightside

Tiger Legend
Jul 1, 2005
24,857
12,244
Wang
In the 10 rucks at both teams there is only one A-grade an he is a RFC player there is only 2 potential A grade rucks of the rest an both Hawthorn an us have one.
 

mb64

Tiger Legend
Jul 26, 2004
29,650
83
Melbourne
CC TIGER said:
In the 10 rucks at both teams there is only one A-grade an he is a RFC player there is only 2 potential A grade rucks of the rest an both Hawthorn an us have one.
Could you please explain in english cc.
 

Mr Brightside

Tiger Legend
Jul 1, 2005
24,857
12,244
Wang
English ::)

We have 5 rucks Simo,Pato,Gus,Putt,Cartledge

They have 5 as well(I stand corrected if they have more)Campbell,Taylor,Renouf,Mcentee,Bailey

Now at this stage Simo would be the only ruck who could be classed as A grade

An IMHO I would say Putt an Bailey are the only other 2 who "potentially" could become A grade,though I think Putt will be more of a forward but with the kicking skills of just about all the others there is no way they could become AA
 

mb64

Tiger Legend
Jul 26, 2004
29,650
83
Melbourne
CC TIGER said:
English ::)

We have 5 rucks Simo,Pato,Gus,Putt,Cartledge

They have 5 as well(I stand corrected if they have more)Campbell,Taylor,Renouf,Mcentee,Bailey

Now at this stage Simo would be the only ruck who could be classed as A grade

An IMHO I would say Putt an Bailey are the only other 2 who "potentially" could become A grade,though I think Putt will be more of a forward but with the kicking skills of just about all the others there is no way they could become AA
Thats better,good post
 

tigerlee

Tiger Champion
Sep 24, 2005
4,063
24
Melbourne
willo said:
Its what i'm trying to get at Claw. Yep in some eyes the list maybe bigger. But you can't chop too many in one year especially if they're still contracted.With the likes of Schulz, Hughes kpps that we don't have a lot of, do you give them the opportunity to develop or cut your losses and given the time already put into them, they may develop at their next club that may have a bit more patience.
I don't think its that simple to say "dud" then flick them. Some take longer to develop than others. It ok to turn your list over but there still must be a long term view with how you do it, not just reactionary.

I know your views on making midfielders into flankers but I think hbf is part of the midfield anyway, I think nowadays midfield stretches back to the flanks and there is still a role for a classy hbf who can hit targets, rather than an inside or outside mid covering the same role. Some can do it, some can't. It's easy to say convert them but the reality is its a bit more difficult. Its easier to find a hbf than a mid then taking the time to develop them in this role.

15-20 more players, who and what are their ages, their size,their opportunities I thought that's why wce were good they could develop their own, people say we can't, or is it impatience and we won't.
Who do we replace them with? more kids, then in 2 years they haven't developed enough and out they go and we start again? There has to be some sort of stability and development plan.

Im with you here willo - we need a development plan - why delist too many when we cannot really replace them with enough talent to come in to take their places. I dont think it is as easy as people think - sack 10 and replace them with what? Steady as we go I say - no point sacking them all only to get injuries next year and we cant replace them as the kids we replaced them with are just not up to the standard of the ones we let go!

What would I know though - I wanted some of them gone too - but at least I seen the dangers of doing that in such a shallow draft this year ;)
 

Willo

Tiger Legend
Oct 13, 2007
18,257
6,133
Aldinga Beach
tigerlee said:
Im with you here willo - we need a development plan - why delist too many when we cannot really replace them with enough talent to come in to take their places. I dont think it is as easy as people think - sack 10 and replace them with what? Steady as we go I say - no point sacking them all only to get injuries next year and we cant replace them as the kids we replaced them with are just not up to the standard of the ones we let go!

What would I know though - I wanted some of them gone too - but at least I seen the dangers of doing that in such a shallow draft this year ;)
Unless their contracts up, you'd still have to pay it out. Or if they were traded there may be part component to pay. Financially we couldn't do it as well as the reasons you stated Lee.
Otherwise if you don't keep them contracted and they're showing improvement you could lose them for nothing. Bit of a Catch 22 situation
 

Willo

Tiger Legend
Oct 13, 2007
18,257
6,133
Aldinga Beach
Just a question for you Claw.
If we took 2. Cotchin 18. Rance 19. Gourdis 51. Putt then McMahon psd 1. etc
Would you have been satisfied with that?
Is it the methodology or the end result that's your biggest gripe?
 

pahoffm

No one player is bigger than the club.
Mar 24, 2004
21,145
1
Interesting topic that has come up just as I'm beginning the first of the team previews for 2008, which not unexpectedly, but conveniently, is on the Tiges.

This, I believe, is our list by age by height.

Fig.1, The List
Matthew Richardson 195 105 33
Kane Johnson 187 86 30
Nathan Brown 182 83 30
Troy Simmonds 196 99 29
Joel Bowden 188 91 29
Greg Tivendale 185 85 28
Shane Tuck 189 90 26
Kayne Pettifer 183 83 26
Mark Coughlan 186 85 25
Chris Hyde 186 83 25
Chris Newman 182 84 25
Kelvin Moore 189 86 24
Jordan McMahon 185 78 24 new
Jake King 174 74 24
Graham Polak 194 93 23
Tristan Cartledge 199 93 22 new rookie
Adam Pattison 197 98 22
Jay Schulz 193 95 22
Jarrod Silvester 191 89 22 new rookie
Andrew Raines 184 81 22
Nathan Foley 177 80 22
Cleve Hughes 193 84 21
Will Thursfield 191 83 21
Luke McGuane 190 84 21
Daniel Jackson 187 90 21
Dean Polo 186 80 21
Mitch Morton 185 79 21 new
Danny Meyer 183 76 21
Cameron Howat 182 77 21 rookie
Richard Tambling 179 78 21
Matthew White 179 78 21
Angus Graham 200 93 20
Brett Deledio 188 89 20
Jarrad Oakley-Nicholls 188 76 20
Travis Casserly 186 75 20
Jack Riewoldt 192 85 19
Andrew Collins 184 71 19
Daniel Connors 183 79 19
Clayton Collard 182 90 19 new rookie
Shane Edwards 180 69 19
Dean Putt 202 90 18 new
David Gourdis 193 88 18 new
Alex Rance 192 87 18 new
Trent Cotchin 184 81 17 new

Simple enough.
Nine new players, including rookies.
This is what it looks like as a spread.

Fig.2, The Spread
<180 180-184 185-189 190-194 195-199 200+
28+
Brown 182 30 F Johnson 187 30 M Richardson 195 33 F
J.Bowden 188 29 D Simmonds 196 29 RF
25-27 Tivendale 185 28 M
Pettifer 182 26 F Tuck 188 26 M
Newman 182 25 D Coughlan 186 25 M
Hyde 186 25 M
22-24
King 174 24 D Raines 182 22 D McMahon 185 24 D Polak 194 23 D Pattison 198 22 RF
Foley 177 22 M Howat 182 22 M Moore 189 24 D Schulz 193 22 F Cartledge 199 22 R
Silvester 191 22 D
18-21
Tambling 179 21 M Meyer 184 21 F Jackson 187 21 F Thursfield 191 21 D Graham 200 20 R
White 179 20 D Collard 182 19 F Morton 185 21 F McGuane 190 21 D Putt 202 18 RF
Connors 183 18 U Polo 186 20 M Hughes 193 21 F
Collins 184 18 M Deledio 188 20 M Riewoldt 192 19 F
Edwards 180 18 M Casserley 186 20 D Rance 192 18 D
Cotchin 184 17 M Oakley-Nicholls 188 20 D Gourdis 193 18 U

Unfortunately, the width of the screen prevents the entire spread being shown.

Further, here is the list in seemingly positional order, though this tends to be very subjective on my part, as I sometimes place players outside of their regular positions.

Fig.3 - Positional Depth
B: White 179 21 D Thursfield 191 21 D Silvester 191 22 D
Collard 182 19 F Gourdis 193 18 U McGuane 190 21 D
HB: J.Bowden 188 30 D Polak 194 23 D Newman 182 25 D
McMahon 185 24 D Rance 192 18 D Raines 182 22 D
Moore 189 24 D
Casserley 186 20 D
C: Tivendale 185 28 W Coughlan 186 25 M Howat 182 22 W
Hyde 186 25 W Cotchin 184 17 M Collins 184 19 M
Polo 186 20 M Edwards 180 19 M
Oakley-Nicholls 188 20 W
HF: Morton 185 21 F Richardson 195 33 F Pettifer 182 26 F
Deledio 188 20 M Hughes 193 21 F Meyer 184 21 F
Connors 183 19 U
F: Pattison 198 22 RF Schulz 193 22 U Brown 182 30 F
Putt 202 18 RF Riewoldt 192 19 F
R: Simmonds 196 29 RF Johnson 187 30 M King 174 24 D
Cartledge 199 22 R Tuck 188 26 M Foley 177 22 M
Graham 200 20 R Jackson 187 21 M Tambling 179 21 M

In respect to the posted debate between Willo & Claw, from my viewpoint I believe that there were some listed players that were given an extra year given the relatively weak 2007 draft pool and the belief that there maybe a better one in 2008. Although, it's not yet for certain.

Again, I like to look especially at those talls, approaching 24yo, who haven't made it yet. Schulz still has a couple more years but must show more than merely a "one trick pony".

As you can see the list does need a couple of junior talls, 195-198cm, of 18-20 years. Maybe in 2008.

More so, the mediums above 22yo, who are still questionable as to whether they have "arrived" or not. Hyde & Moore, both well over 22yo, must be under scrutiny in 2008. Especially with a few junior mediums coming on.

Of the smalls, both Krakouer & Hartigan felt the chop for NOT having made it by 20yo. Me thinks that there is definitely the space there for 2 more speedy goal-kicking rovers on the list. We really lack a Brent Harvey or Peter Bell type that can tear opposition defences apart.
Hopefully we can find a couple of these in 2008.
 

the claw

thufferin thuckertash
Jun 17, 2003
11,978
0
WA
willo said:
Just a question for you Claw.
If we took 2. Cotchin 18. Rance 19. Gourdis 51. Putt then McMahon psd 1. etc
Would you have been satisfied with that?
Is it the methodology or the end result that's your biggest gripe?
the above scenario i would be disappointed in from a personal point of view . gourdis in front of collier selwood pearsw and a couple of others was not the way to go. but you have hit it on the head ive complained bitterly about methodology for yrs, your above scenario should have read mcmahon 28 for schulz. 2 cotchin 18 rance 19 selwood/ pears/ collier. 35 morton 51 putt/ renton 64 mcginnity/gourdis psd mcginnity gourdis. rookie 1 collard rookie 4 should have been renton. very close to what we did its just the way we went about it.