-
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.
Rogers, Pettifer, Hall, Zantuck, Fiora etc.
- Thread starter Redford
- Start date
MC24 said:
That's so far from my attitude it's not funny. I'd prefer the club to have a win at all costs attitude and that would involve playing the best players available.
We're 4-2 on the ladder and havn't needed to bring in players for the sake of it, and we've given one new guy a run already and had a few kids step up a notch.
I don't believe in kids getting charity spots without earning them.
I also accept the club would probably know better than us what stage the kids' development is at.
Even if we aren't a big threat in finals it is extremely important we make them at least. Even one week of finals experience will benefit the team for next season when we've hopefully sorted out our list ready to be a real threat.
I expect big changes at the end of the season, but for now I'd prefer to enjoy the footy without analyzing it so much.
Go Tiges, Eat Em Alive.
TigerFury said:
Is the list that much shorter than last year of the year before TF?
Irrespective of that, we have to make the most of what we have, because if we are waiting for the "ideal" or "perfect" conditions to suddenly appear, we could be waiting till the twelfth of never.
We got ourselves into the mess in the first place, we have to get ourselves out of it. I don't know that waiting till next season or the season after that for everything to suddenly be hunky dory is the right approach to take.
rosy3 said:
While I respect your opinion Rosy, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Personally, I can't see the long-term benefit in that type of approach. I don't want to be up one year and down for 5. I would like a consistent, competitive team over a decade and I'm prepared to sacrifice one or two more years to get that.
Heck I've waited this long, one or two more years in the wilderness is not going to make that much difference to me.
Harry, I certainly agree.
I understand why we are in the situation we are in and I even have some sympathy for the administrators that put us here. After '95 we looked good, we looked close. However, we got spooked about rumoured offers on our players (entirely invented by their managers I understand) and got on a treadmill of offering outlandish, and long, contracts. This creates a "run" on contracts and right now we are still paying for that legacy. This is why I disagree with Redford that we could turn the list over really fast, that just isnt contractually possible.
But. The environment is different now, its a club not players market, the last of those millstone contracts are running out at the end of 03 and we have a new administration. It is time to change.
Likewise it is time to change on the field. I dont think we have been anywhere near bold enough in introducing new talent at the selection panel. And convervatism is no longer an option. The selection panel should come out publically and address issues like:
Why Pettifer is still getting games. (averaging 5 possessions a game)
Why did we play Biddiscomb in place of Richo? (he got 11 possessions and was our least effective player)
Why does we insist on bringing players into the seniors in fringe positions and off the bench where they cant progress?
This post is sort of meandering around but to bring it too a close I see our problem like this:
Our top 6 players (Richo, Campo, Cogs, etc) are good, our middle six players (Cameron, A Kella, Chaffey) are ok, but our bottom six (Biddiscomb, Pettifer etc) are amongst the worst in the comp. At the end of the day, the risk associated with dropping a 6-12 possession player and playing a youngster is small and the potential payout is huge. Its a gamble worth taking and we have to start doing it soon.
I understand why we are in the situation we are in and I even have some sympathy for the administrators that put us here. After '95 we looked good, we looked close. However, we got spooked about rumoured offers on our players (entirely invented by their managers I understand) and got on a treadmill of offering outlandish, and long, contracts. This creates a "run" on contracts and right now we are still paying for that legacy. This is why I disagree with Redford that we could turn the list over really fast, that just isnt contractually possible.
But. The environment is different now, its a club not players market, the last of those millstone contracts are running out at the end of 03 and we have a new administration. It is time to change.
Likewise it is time to change on the field. I dont think we have been anywhere near bold enough in introducing new talent at the selection panel. And convervatism is no longer an option. The selection panel should come out publically and address issues like:
Why Pettifer is still getting games. (averaging 5 possessions a game)
Why did we play Biddiscomb in place of Richo? (he got 11 possessions and was our least effective player)
Why does we insist on bringing players into the seniors in fringe positions and off the bench where they cant progress?
This post is sort of meandering around but to bring it too a close I see our problem like this:
Our top 6 players (Richo, Campo, Cogs, etc) are good, our middle six players (Cameron, A Kella, Chaffey) are ok, but our bottom six (Biddiscomb, Pettifer etc) are amongst the worst in the comp. At the end of the day, the risk associated with dropping a 6-12 possession player and playing a youngster is small and the potential payout is huge. Its a gamble worth taking and we have to start doing it soon.
KL - thats got nothing to do with my argument. The facts are that RFC stated that they would clean out the list last year. The facts are that King was given a one year contract. The facts are we didn't clean out any dead wood. The facts are that we as members were lied to AGAIN.
KL - Don't be surprised if these 3 are given another contract at the end of the year.
KL - Don't be surprised if these 3 are given another contract at the end of the year.
So MC24, you'd honestly hope for the club to go bad as you stated just so you can see Schulz, McGrath etc play seniors.
Unreal, yeah I'll happily disagree with that. ;D
What if it happens they just don't happen to live up to your expectations anyway?
To me that's an an approach to adopt at the end of the season when there's no hope of making finals.
Until then I expect the RFC to go all out to win the premiership.
I can't believe anyone would hope for things to get grim to see one or two kids added to the side.
Unreal, yeah I'll happily disagree with that. ;D
What if it happens they just don't happen to live up to your expectations anyway?
To me that's an an approach to adopt at the end of the season when there's no hope of making finals.
Until then I expect the RFC to go all out to win the premiership.
I can't believe anyone would hope for things to get grim to see one or two kids added to the side.
Rosy,
things dont have to get really bad to look at adding some kids to our side, we are there right now.
Ok, I'll say right off the bat that footy cant be reduced to numbers and that any "effectiveness" rating will be biased against certain players who play deep in the forwards, negative defensive roles, or off the bench, however, thats not to say they dont give some guide to whats going on. Especially when comparing like with like.
Using the effectiveness ratings published on the Sun site our worst four (on average) players, average 31 points per game. The worst four for the lions ave 44, Port - 44, Crows - 50 and Bombers 43. In that list our bottom 4 are also the most experienced (averaging around 25-35 games).
This must change. This is where a culture of mediocrity breeds. Getting selected to play seniors must, at this level, be ruthlessly directed towards the future of the team. The difference between Biddiscomb getting 11 possessions and *smile* getting 8 (assuming he went pretty badly) last week would have had little effect on the outcome, but...
a. he might have got 20 (which bidders would never do)
b. or he could at least get a taste and push even harder to develop. (which bidders cant do)
So why did we play bidders? I cant think of a single, rational reason apart from fear. When we are talking about the bottom four players in the selected side we have to stop thinking, "whats the worst that could happen if we selected these guys" and start thinking "whats the best that could happen".
things dont have to get really bad to look at adding some kids to our side, we are there right now.
Ok, I'll say right off the bat that footy cant be reduced to numbers and that any "effectiveness" rating will be biased against certain players who play deep in the forwards, negative defensive roles, or off the bench, however, thats not to say they dont give some guide to whats going on. Especially when comparing like with like.
Using the effectiveness ratings published on the Sun site our worst four (on average) players, average 31 points per game. The worst four for the lions ave 44, Port - 44, Crows - 50 and Bombers 43. In that list our bottom 4 are also the most experienced (averaging around 25-35 games).
This must change. This is where a culture of mediocrity breeds. Getting selected to play seniors must, at this level, be ruthlessly directed towards the future of the team. The difference between Biddiscomb getting 11 possessions and *smile* getting 8 (assuming he went pretty badly) last week would have had little effect on the outcome, but...
a. he might have got 20 (which bidders would never do)
b. or he could at least get a taste and push even harder to develop. (which bidders cant do)
So why did we play bidders? I cant think of a single, rational reason apart from fear. When we are talking about the bottom four players in the selected side we have to stop thinking, "whats the worst that could happen if we selected these guys" and start thinking "whats the best that could happen".
I'm with you on this one Rosy. Win at all costs. Winning means harsher competition for spots which can only enhance players development and make them play better. We are currently in 5 th spot and a good chance of making the finals. once in the finals anything can happen. I am not going to predict a flag but i would be dissappointed if they werent trying for one. If younger players earn a spot in the team on merit then put them in, otherwise let them earn it. If they are not performing at Coburg consistently what makes you think theyd be any better at Richmond. Even if they are and they find it hard to get a spot that is only good for the club. I am a strong believer in earning your spot in a team, it makes it worthwhile. you appreciate it more and work harder to stay there than have things gift wrapped for you.
Pmac: I agree with you on that one, Biddiscombe shouldnt be in the team anyway, he had one good game for Coburg as did Schulz. Bringing in Schulz (or Vardy but i would have preferred Schulz as he is more of a forward than Vardy) for Richo would have been obvious. His size would have had more of an impact than Biddiscombe could possibly on the game on Saturday night.
Just to add the opportunity is there if the player is showing a semblence of form then fair enough blood them. Now with the injuries if they are showing something it is a good time. If they dont deserve a spot on form though then i disagree wiht the point of bringing them in for hte sake of developiong. I think they would be better off getting confidence in coburg with full games and learning then wasting on the bench like they would at seniors. Maybe if they were given full game time but most coaches wont do that. The results do mean something.
Just to add the opportunity is there if the player is showing a semblence of form then fair enough blood them. Now with the injuries if they are showing something it is a good time. If they dont deserve a spot on form though then i disagree wiht the point of bringing them in for hte sake of developiong. I think they would be better off getting confidence in coburg with full games and learning then wasting on the bench like they would at seniors. Maybe if they were given full game time but most coaches wont do that. The results do mean something.
PMac said:
He might have also been set back because he's not quite ready yet. The club has stated all along that McGrath and Schulz are long term prospects.
It amazes me how people here think they know the players better than the honchos at the club do.
I look forward to Schulz playing too, but I am more interested in his developement and value to the team long term.
He'll play when the club think he's ready.
Harry said:
Don't you understand we can only play the calves that are up to it as well. I don't think we've got an abundance of Brennans and Goddards waiting for selection.
Rosy,
I used *smile* as an example but what about Nicolls, Mills, Hyde or Pickering. These guy's certainly dont qualify as "calves" anymore.
To answer one of your questions, I dont think I know the players better than the selection panel, instead, I'm bring a different set of values and beliefs to the selection process. No one in their right mind thinks bidders is going to get more than 12-15 touches in a game, I know that, you know that and the selection team knows that. Right now none of us know how Nicolls, Pickering, McGrath, *smile* would go, the question is what are you prepared to risk to find out and right now I reakon we (the frustrated supporters) are prepared to risk more than the selection panel.
I suppose it comes to this. Our current team is not good enough, particularly our bottom four to six, there replacements might be better, might be worse or might be no different. But I cant see any point in sticking with what you know when what you know isnt enough.
I used *smile* as an example but what about Nicolls, Mills, Hyde or Pickering. These guy's certainly dont qualify as "calves" anymore.
To answer one of your questions, I dont think I know the players better than the selection panel, instead, I'm bring a different set of values and beliefs to the selection process. No one in their right mind thinks bidders is going to get more than 12-15 touches in a game, I know that, you know that and the selection team knows that. Right now none of us know how Nicolls, Pickering, McGrath, *smile* would go, the question is what are you prepared to risk to find out and right now I reakon we (the frustrated supporters) are prepared to risk more than the selection panel.
I suppose it comes to this. Our current team is not good enough, particularly our bottom four to six, there replacements might be better, might be worse or might be no different. But I cant see any point in sticking with what you know when what you know isnt enough.
We are sittign fifth and playing well. Why does everyone make it sound like things are in dire straits. I am sure Schulz and McGrath will be good players in the future, possibly even great, but until they are developed properly and have the necessary attributes to succeed at AFL level i dont see a need to rush them. Just my opinion, i think it can only hurt their careers by bringing them in when not ready. In my sporting life i have seen it happen t many. They dont have the respect of their peers weither getting charity berths and i think that is important as they may not be used as options becuase of this as teamates may feel these palyers arent the options to use. I've seen it in the past, these guys need to earn their stripes.
rosy3 said:
Well how come it was suddenly OK to bring in Mark Coughlan last year, just to give supporters some hope and something to hang their hat on, even though his form would not have gained him a call up if things had been going swimmingly?
They might know the players better than we do, but when it seems to suit they can suddenly find room for these players. Go figure.
Using the Coughlan example from last year, same could go for Pettifer. Put him on teh ball for a while and you never know, his attitude doesnt seem right but perhaps all he needs is a good solid run in the middle to show it off. It has worked for Rodan as well to an extent. I agree that Frawley is loath to use youngsters in crucial positions on the ground, perhaps when blokes have earned the right to be in the team they can play roles in those places, or at least should be given a chance in a role they will not be doomed to fail. Pettifer is not a forward he is destined for failure there.
Or maybe the coaching staff got their timing just exactly right!
I'll go for logic rather than a mantra of negativity every time.
My hope is thatwe'll put a competitive team on the ground who'll give there all and keep us in striking distance of the top 4. Getting even half of our best players back this year will help us be ultra competitive. Go Tiges!
I'll go for logic rather than a mantra of negativity every time.
My hope is thatwe'll put a competitive team on the ground who'll give there all and keep us in striking distance of the top 4. Getting even half of our best players back this year will help us be ultra competitive. Go Tiges!
