No-Bias Richmond review: 2005. / The New, Revised, Updated Version of the UnBiased report on Richmon

[JR8]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005.

Thought a review meant in retrospect, past. Can't review something that hasn't happened IMO.
Call it a preview if you must, either way it's the biggest load of uninformed rubbish I've read in a long time .
Same old same old.
(Get my drift? )

I agree wholeheartedly Anduril. This guy/girl can't be very intelligent if they dont know the difference between review and preview :

Most likely a 13/14 year old (like most of the posters on that board).

Geelong supporter anyway. Who cares what they think?

When was the last time they won a premiership?

They're great at losing them though :hihi :hihi

 

[Mikee]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005.

Geez, Bentleigh, if I was to believe all that, I don't think any of us would be looking forward to 2005 in any shape or form.

Don't know who wrote it, and don't intend to access the link, but wonder if he or she is a Richmond person. Sounds like it, but there are factors not taken into account.... mainly it is based on last year's effort, if one can call it effort.

What's more I don't agree with some of the summation re players, eg, my own opinion is that Chaffey is better than "servicable."


BTW, is this your view as well??

Saw this post on BF. The person who wrote it is a Cats fan.

Go Tiges!!!

 

[iameviljez]

The New, Revised, Updated Version of the UnBiased report on Richmond

I decided to fix this up because the original was shallow and ******** but the ratings were fairly accurate IMO.
jez

ON THE FIELD
DEFENCE: The issue in the Tiger's defence is the lack of quality bigmen and this was well illustrated last year. Gaspar's horror slump (canyon?) of form continued into the 2004 season to the point where Miller issued a statement to fans pleaing for leniency to the cause of the once AA FB. His contested marking and influence around the backline seems to have become an issue but admittedly he's not getting a whole lot of support back there. Hall contested the other post for much of the year and held his spot with the Tigers but admittedly he wouldn't have done so in many other teams. He's not a high possession getter off CHB and doesn't take too many marks either but the real issues occured when Stafford got injured and Hall had to move into the ruck. At this point a number of pinch-hitters had to move into CHF (even young Jackson did a stint; I was there at the MCG against the Catters) and the Tigers struggled there, this being a contributor to their end of season slide. The recruitment of Graham may be to patch this up for a year or two till the kids come through which isn't a bad idea to be honest but again he's not quite the best player in the AFL. The idea reminds me a little of the recruitment of Salmon and Allen at Essendon to prepare for Hille to come through. Jackson however does seem a likely "Archeresque" type but not in season 2005.
The two bright lights in the defence, though, are Hartigan and Bowden, both of whom found great touch last year, Bowden to pinch the Jack Dyer trophy from under the noses of Brown, Johnson and Richardson in my opinion (haven't seen the voting) and Hartigan providing good tackling and drive out of the BP. Hartigan wants to move into the midfield next year but in my opinion he's needed too much down back. Mind you moving him into the midfield would give another underachiever the opportunity to reinvent themselves a la Joel Bowden, who picked up more touches than Robert Harvey on the Chinese Swimming Team Cocktail.
Overall, however, the KPPs in defence are no doubt the weakest in the league and one needs replacement, the other one needs reinvention and in between that they need cover for the two of them.
Rating: 2/10 (even a Leaky Sieve gets a rating of 2.5)

MIDFIELD: There's no doubt in my mind that the midfield is the strongest part of the Tiger's setup but it's still just below average in the league. The Tigers have two players who would be core performers in the engine room in any club in the league bar perhaps Brisbane and they are Johnson, the workhorse, and Brown who is just all quality. Coughlan should join the top 50 players in the AFL over the next two years but this year was laid low by injury and sorely missed. The issue is what's below that. Chaffey is serviceable and certainly consistent, which is more than what could be said for Tivendale who can turn it on but doesn't do so very often. The players who the binoculars will be firmly focussed on this year will be Rodan and Krakouer; if these boys can start playing 3/4s of the game in the middle and get 20+ touches more often than not then that will go a long way towards easing some Tiger pain.
Don't expect Deledio and Tambling to have an impact until at least next season - but if they do, then that's a bonus.
Rating: 4/10 due to the three top-end players.

FOWARDS: Richo, Richo, Richo. What on earth happens when he retires I have no idea. His is really the only solid spot in the Tiger's foward line however. CHF has proven to be a huge headache for the Tigers over the last year with many players being tried in the position with little or no success. Schulz did kick 6 against the Lions but has done nothing, nothing of note since to suggest he will do it again but he is only 20 this year. Shane Morrison earnt a recall after kicking seven one game in the reserves and did absolutely squat in the seniors. Simmonds has been recruited to fill the gap and will make a reasonable fist of it I believe whilst providing backup to Stafford. Had a good year at Freo last year and will take some heat off the big man but is not yet qualified to be labelled as The Answer.
PS - What happened to that kid who kicked 5 on debut in late 2003?
Rating: 4/10, 2 of those belong to Richo.

RUCKS: Stafford will be backed up this year by Ray Hall, Trent Knobell and Troy Simmonds in the ruck which isn't too bad a combo but it's definetely not quality. None of Stafford, Knobel or Hall do much around the ground and they certainly aren't three of the best tap ruckmen in the league but it's not too bad a combo and certainly one that StKilda wouldn't mind having.
Rating: 4/10

FUTURE:
YOUTH: There's still a fair way to go at Tigerland. There's not much tall quality youth coming through. Supporters often bandy around names like Schulz, Archibald, Pattison and McGuane and whilst two of those are draftees from this year (I believe) the reality is that none of them have shown a whole lot. The real stories from this year are Deledio and Tambling; perhaps the best two players in this year's draft and Tambling was certainly exciting last night by all accounts. Coughlan, Rodan and Hartigan are all still young and suggest that the Tigers' midfield has a good future. Also, Raines, Roach and Jackson all enjoyed good debuts last year and all of them showed something.
Rating: 6/10, still some development to be done.

LEADERSHIP: The Tigers are still choosing their captain which sums up the situation fairly well to be honest. Johnson would have to be the standout favourite for the job ahead of Richo, Brown and Bowden but Wallace has promised them all a turn. It's not a great selection to be honest, but Campbell wasn't ever really that much better than anonymous, at least to the public eye.
Rating: 3/10.

OTHERWISE:
COACH: The Tigers went in hard and couldnt've asked for better in my opinion than Terry Wallace who, within the space of six months, managed to fashion the Bulldogs from a ragtag team into a professional, driven unit that could have and maybe should've won a flag in 1997/8. Wallace is good working the with the development of young players and always got the best out of his team. People are already saying that the Tigers seem to possess a newfound intensity - not that it means a whole lot at this point of the season.
Rating: 8/10 - the right man for the right job.

OFF THE FIELD: Who was that moronic supporter who started petitioning against the club and took a rival team's umbrella to a Tiger's match? And of course there was the famous "spit", and then there was the effect of the season upon poor Danny Frawley. To be honest, after the board election settled matters, the only person to remain with his reputation intact was Greg Miller. However, the fact that they managed to secure the best coach going does say something. The Tigers do at least seem to be headed the right way; but they do need patience. They will not make the finals in 2005 or even 2006 in my opinion.
Rating: 4/10.

On-field rating: 14/40
Future rating: 9/20
Otherwise rating: 12/20
OVERALL RATING: 34/80.
An ordinary score reflects that there's a long way to go, especially with the volatile nature of the supporters.
To all those on PRE - thanks for your opinions, and to answer some criticisms...

billyb, 34/80 - well I'm not about to pull out the calculator to calculate out of 100 but the best team so far has been Brisbane with 68/80 (I think) and the worst was Hawthorn with 28/80 (you guys were next though)

Graystar, I can understand that the players seem more motivated this season (they'd better be) but they should be motivated anyway and we won't know much until about that until round 10 when the season gets tough to be honest. I'm also pretty happy with Ottens as he was the best option at the time to fill our needs and I'm confident that he'll do the job at FF.

Rinso19 - At the start of this year I didn't rate either Hawthorn or the Tigers at all although I did think that Richo would keep you away from the spoon. I was almost right - had we kicked straighter at KP against the Hawks in Rd22 then they would be spooners 2004. I did not think that we were even top eight material though to be honest.

Best of luck to the Tiges in 2004 barring of course your two fixtures against us when I naturally hope that we smash you. Looking foward to seeing Rodan especially take the next step.

 

[FightingFury]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005. / The New, Revised, Updated Version of the UnBiased report on Ric

Unfortunately I agree with probably 75-80% of his assessment.

The backline is smiled.
Our KP defenders are worrying to say the least.

Purely assessing on last seasons showing,he's nearly 100% right,but hasn't allowed for better structure or any of the debutants to make any impact at all.

Time will reveal all.

 

[iameviljez]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005. / The New, Revised, Updated Version of the Un

Purely assessing on last seasons showing,he's nearly 100% right,but hasn't allowed for better structure or any of the debutants to make any impact at all.

Time will reveal all.

No, but at the start of the season you assume that the new recruits generally won't make much impact. It's a bit hard to predict, say, Archibald, to make the step up and not only that, but MAKE A DIFFERENCE at AFL level when he hasn't done anything there yet, but it could always happen, you know what I mean? For goodness' sakes, who saw Rivers coming?

 

[Rosy]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005. / The New, Revised, Updated Version of the UnBiased report on Ric

I can't follow whether the ratings are for the 2004 season or a preview of 2005. There's talk of this years changes mixed in with last seasons happenings, ie comments on who might pinch the 2004 b&f. Confusing.

 

[FightingFury]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005. / The New, Revised, Updated Version of the Un

Purely assessing on last seasons showing,he's nearly 100% right,but hasn't allowed for better structure or any of the debutants to make any impact at all.

Time will reveal all.

No, but at the start of the season you assume that the new recruits generally won't make much impact.  It's a bit hard to predict, say, Archibald, to make the step up and not only that, but MAKE A DIFFERENCE at AFL level when he hasn't done anything there yet, but it could always happen, you know what I mean?  For goodness' sakes, who saw Rivers coming?

I know exactly what you mean,and I wasn't criticising your assessment when making my comment.
Im certainly not one for overrating our list,and although the undisputed kings of poor early draft picks,we finally have some genuine talent who are capable of a postive impact.
I have attended training 3 times and can optimistically predict that 3 of these lads are better than maybe 3-5 guys who played last season.
Just how good remains to be seen.
Obviously the intangables are also there IE:
Good trainers aren't always good players
Unprven at this level
Underdeveloped bodies ect

There will be some we recruited that wont cut it too,each club has this dilemma.

But for what Ive seen,and knowing who was getting (IMO) undeserved game time in 04,we can safely add a new positive dimention.
We also appear to have a vastly better assistant coaching panel which will be advantageous as well.

 

[iameviljez]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005. / The New, Revised, Updated Version of the Un

I can't follow whether the ratings are for the 2004 season or a preview of 2005. There's talk of this years changes mixed in with last seasons happenings, ie comments on who might pinch the 2004 b&f. Confusing.

Fair enough. It's just supposed to be a review of where Richmond are at now, at this point in time.

 

[Tigerdog]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005. / The New, Revised, Updated Version of the Un

I can't follow whether the ratings are for the 2004 season or a preview of 2005.  There's talk of this years changes mixed in with last seasons happenings, ie comments on who might pinch the 2004 b&f. Confusing.

Fair enough.  It's just supposed to be a review of where Richmond are at now, at this point in time.

A couple of observations.
The 'moronic supporter who petitioned' is a poster on this forum.
You seem to have expressed your views without knowing the political situation at our club. Many people supported that 'moronic supporter'. And many of those that didn't initially support him, later acknowledged his efforts in a process which helped to ensure a full board election.

Also, there is a young man named Mark Coughlan who you don't seem to have factored in. That would be understandable if it was a REVIEW of last year. But I am with the others I can't tell if it is a review, an observation at this point in time, or a mixture of review/preview and current standings.

Anyway, on Rodan, I am very confident that he will have a good year for the mighty Tigers. Don't forget to slot him into your dreamteam. 8)

 

[iameviljez]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005. / The New, Revised, Updated Version of the Un

I can't follow whether the ratings are for the 2004 season or a preview of 2005.  There's talk of this years changes mixed in with last seasons happenings, ie comments on who might pinch the 2004 b&f. Confusing.

Fair enough.  It's just supposed to be a review of where Richmond are at now, at this point in time.

A couple of observations.
The 'moronic supporter who petitioned' is a poster on this forum.
You seem to have expressed your views without knowing the political situation at our club. Many people supported that 'moronic supporter'. And many of those that didn't initially support him, later acknowledged his efforts in a process which helped to ensure a full board election.

Also, there is a young man named Mark Coughlan who you don't seem to have factored in. That would be understandable if it was a REVIEW of last year. But I am with the others I can't tell if it is a review, an observation at this point in time, or a mixture of review/preview and current standings.

Anyway, on Rodan, I am very confident that he will have a good year for the mighty Tigers.  Don't forget to slot him into your dreamteam.  8)

I did factor in Coughlan (one of the three top-end players mentioned in the midfield assessment) but I am cautious of his immediate effect upon games following a year out. It's an observation that was originally posted by Bentleigh as a review but that's all cool. The original title when it was posted on Bigfooty was Rate a Club: (Richmond) which pretty much sums the document up.
Sorry if I ruffled your fur a little. I have no doubt that you do have far more knowledge regarding the current/immediate past politics in Tigerland and that's sortof the reason why this post is here - so enlighten me!

 

[Tigerdog]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005. / The New, Revised, Updated Version of the UnBiased report on Ric

Ok the confusion of the title is in the translation. No problems.

And looking back as a review on last year, you have made many accurate assesments.
Looking forward to this year is a different story again.

In regards to club politics. I am not about to try and explain the goings-on of that in a single post.
If you are at all interested feel free to visit the 'off-field discussions' board and go for your life.
WARNING. Get comfortable and maybe even pack a lunch for the journey.

 

[Tom_Hafey]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005. / The New, Revised, Updated Version of the UnBiased report on Ric

Very quick summation of the political events.

1. Richmond was very quickly heading for disaster on and off the feild.
2. A supporter decided that something drastic needed to be done about it.
3. He did something about it in the form of a petion for an EGM to oust the board.
4. Some people applauded him for his actions, Some thought he was destroying the club through his actions.
5. Alot of verbal abuse between the two factions in point 4 ensued.
6. The club came to the realisation that this supporter meant business and started on a plan to get the club running right.
7. The supporter kept the pressure up on the club until what he considered a viable option in the form of the alternative ticket came into being.
8. The supporter backed off in his own push for an EGM and allowed the alternative ticket to now carry the ball.
9. The encumbents having been given a good kick in the backside by the actions of the supporter and were now wide awake and were in full swing on making the changes to right the club.
10. The alternates had made alot of ground and were looking very threatning to the encumbents.
11. Greg Miller joined the encumbent ticket and the alternates were sunk.
12. The encumbents won the election.

The supporter did a great job in this whole episode, he woke the club up and forced their hand in getting positive changes made. In the end I don't think it mattered who got in, what needed to be changed was changed.

If at all we have any future success (in the next 5 years) It will be in no small measure to the work of this supporter and that supporters name is Phantom :clap.

 

[iameviljez]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005. / The New, Revised, Updated Version of the Un

Fair enough then mate, I'll back off him then.
PS - Just quickly off the topic, I did see Hafey speak at my school way back when, and it was the most inspiring speech I have ever been given. It wasn't about football at all; it was about making the most of what you have and the importance of love and relationships. Amazing stuff.

 

[pahoffm]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005. / The New, Revised, Updated Version of the UnBiased report on Ric

Very quick summation of the political events.

1. Richmond was very quickly heading for disaster on and off the feild.
2. A supporter decided that something drastic needed to be done about it.
3. He did something about it in the form of a petion for an EGM to oust the board.
4. Some people applauded him for his actions, Some thought he was destroying the club through his actions.
5. Alot of verbal abuse between the two factions in point 4 ensued.
6. The club came to the realisation that this supporter meant business and started on a plan to get the club running right.
7. The supporter kept the pressure up on the club until what he considered a viable option in the form of the alternative ticket came into being.
8. The supporter backed off in his own push for an EGM and allowed the alternative ticket to now carry the ball.
9. The encumbents having been given a good kick in the backside by the actions of the supporter and were now wide awake and were in full swing on making the changes to right the club.
10. The alternates had made alot of ground and were looking very threatning to the encumbents.
11. Greg Miller joined the encumbent ticket and the alternates were sunk.
12. The encumbents won the election.

The supporter did a great job in this whole episode, he woke the club up and forced their hand in getting positive changes made. In the end I don't think it mattered who got in, what needed to be changed was changed.

If at all we have any future success (in the next 5 years) It will be in no small measure to the work of this supporter and that supporters name is Phantom :clap.

That was very kind of you Tommy. Many thanks.

 

[chemical]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005. / The New, Revised, Updated Version of the Un

A Carlton supporters perspective

Defence

Shocking. Seriously, when Bowden has to go back there to help for most of the year, you know that the defence is crumbling. Bowden would have played midfield if there was suitable defence. Also Campbell was stuck down there a lot of the time. With him and Bowden there was little run. Hartigan is a trier and should improve. Gaspar came off a knee reco but played absolutely shocking - no excuses there. Also, Graham is past it. A trier, but is past it. Need some KP with some muscles!

Not one of the backs could match up on Fevola. He destroyed them last time. Will probably happen when they meet early on in the season.

Midfield

Where Bowden should be playing....Coughlan needs to shrug off the injury concerns and start playing some football. Brown should be a midfielder/forward and rotate when possible. Fairly ordinary midfield, but in a couple of years it will be pretty potent. The aboriginal kids in Krak and Rodan need to step up.

Forwards

Richo. Maybe the title should just be Forward...Brown is a gun when he wants to be and Schulz goes alright (sometimes) but when Richo doesn't fire, Richmond generally lose (much like Fevola). Tambling should play a couple of games this year in the forward line and provide something to look forward to but apart from that its skeleton thin. Simmonds will probably step up but wont be the savior that Richmond need. They need youth.

Ruck

Fairly good with the loss of Ottens. Staffords a trier and Knobel is alright. Halls hopeless. Simmonds will rotate with Stafford and should be somewhat effective. Need some young kids for the future here..

To all the Richmond supporters who think they will make the eight, be realistic *points at rosy*. Richmond will be a very very good side in three years when the young kids hit their straps. Richmonds 2005 season is just like Carltons 2003 season WITH DRAFT PICKS . Deledio and Tambling should dominate the league but patience is a virtue. Wallace will still need to clean out at the end of the season (such players like Chaffey) but stick in there because Richmond will finally turn good. Well we hope 8)

 

[Rosy]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005. / The New, Revised, Updated Version of the Un

The aboriginal kids in Krak and Rodan need to step up.

David isn't aboriginal.

To all the Richmond supporters who think they will make the eight, be realistic *points at rosy*.

To all Carlton supporters who will be sulking after their round 7 loss *points at chemical* suffer in ya jocks. :rofl

 

[chemical]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005. / The New, Revised, Updated Version of the Un

The aboriginal kids in Krak and Rodan need to step up.

David isn't aboriginal.

To all the Richmond supporters who think they will make the eight, be realistic *points at rosy*.

To all Carlton supporters who will be sulking after their round 7 loss *points at chemical* suffer in ya jocks. :rofl

Meh sorry Rodan . And :blah :blah :blah whos gonna stop Fev? olice:

 

[FightingFury]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005. / The New, Revised, Updated Version of the UnBiased report on Ric

Agree with alot of your assessment too Chemical.

We are paying the price of not biting the bullet in 2002 when it was clear to all (well...nearly all ) that we needed to punt off up to 10 non performing passengers.The brutal decisions were not made by the players friend Danny boy and his staff of incompetants.
The backline is deplorable and will cost us games no matter how well the new recruits initially perform,or how effective an attacking gameplan becomes.
The lack of KP backmen is particularly worrying.

Not everyone overrates our list,I'll be happy with 6 wins next season,and think we'll be around 14-15th.

Im not get convinced that we'll be finalists until the list is better balanced,and that may take longer than 2-3 years,however much I hope otherwise.

So where do you expect Carlton to finish??
I thought they'd be 12-16th last season,but probably have the best coach in the business saving there bacon.
Im tipping 10-13th.

 

[Curtiger]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005.

Big footy = absolute rubbish  : A waste of space imo

A rabble of a site. Don't enjoy it, inaccurate information which renders it pointless.

Meh sorry Rodan . And :blah :blah :blah whos gonna stop Fev? olice:

Suffer in ya jocks, Chemical. 
Fevola won't need stopping as it will be YOUR team lacking the skill to deliver to him (even though he gets Tarrant ball on the wings and flanks).

Best you go to the  now, to save yourself the embarassment of PRE witnissing your suffering. 

Curtis

 

[Bentleigh]

Re: No-Bias Richmond review: 2005. / The New, Revised, Updated Version of the Un

A Carlton supporters perspective

Defence

Shocking. Seriously, when Bowden has to go back there to help for most of the year, you know that the defence is crumbling. Bowden would have played midfield if there was suitable defence. Also Campbell was stuck down there a lot of the time. With him and Bowden there was little run. Hartigan is a trier and should improve. Gaspar came off a knee reco but played absolutely shocking - no excuses there. Also, Graham is past it. A trier, but is past it.  Need some KP with some muscles!

Not one of the backs could match up on Fevola. He destroyed them last time. Will probably happen when they meet early on in the season.

Midfield

Where Bowden should be playing....Coughlan needs to shrug off the injury concerns and start playing some football. Brown should be a midfielder/forward and rotate when possible. Fairly ordinary midfield, but in a couple of years it will be pretty potent. The aboriginal kids in Krak and Rodan need to step up.

Forwards

Richo. Maybe the title should just be Forward...Brown is a gun when he wants to be and Schulz goes alright (sometimes) but when Richo doesn't fire, Richmond generally lose (much like Fevola). Tambling should play a couple of games this year in the forward line and provide something to look forward to but apart from that its skeleton thin. Simmonds will probably step up but wont be the savior that Richmond need. They need youth.

Ruck

Fairly good with the loss of Ottens. Staffords a trier and Knobel is alright. Halls hopeless. Simmonds will rotate with Stafford and should be somewhat effective. Need some young kids for the future here..

To all the Richmond supporters who think they will make the eight, be realistic *points at rosy*. Richmond will be a very very good side in three years when the young kids hit their straps. Richmonds 2005 season is just like Carltons 2003 season WITH DRAFT PICKS  . Deledio and Tambling should dominate the league but patience is a virtue. Wallace will still need to clean out at the end of the season (such players like Chaffey) but stick in there because Richmond will finally turn good. Well we hope  8)

chemical, that was utter *smile*.