The harsh reality...

[deerys]

Just posted this on another board but on second thoughts thought it best to start a fresh topic.

The stats say it all...

Season Club Year Games W L D Win% Finished
1 Footscray 1996 10 3 7 0 30.00 15
2 Western Bulldogs 1997 24 15 9 0 62.50 3
3 Western Bulldogs 1998 24 16 8 0 66.67 3
4 Western Bulldogs 1999 24 15 8 1 64.58 6
5 Western Bulldogs 2000 23 12 11 0 52.17 8
6 Western Bulldogs 2001 22 10 12 0 45.45 10
7 Western Bulldogs 2002 21 8 12 1 40.48 12
8 Richmond 2005 22 10 12 0 45.45 12
9 Richmond 2006 22 11 11 0 50.00 9
10 Richmond 2007 22 3 18 1 15.91 16
11 Richmond 2008 22 11 10 1 52.27 9

With TW in charge we've never won more than 11 games in an entire season - hard to believe we will win 11 out of the remainder this year. Also, best Win% 52.27. TW would have to SMASH that to get the 11 required wins to put us in finals contention.

I hope I'm wrong, and will be the first to eat a serve of humble pie if I am. Happily.

 

[Rosy]

There's been a lot of talk about Terry being given an initial 5 year contract. If he'd had a 3 year one, and we only had 3 wins in his 3rd year, I wonder if his contract would have been extended and if not how we'd be faring now under a different coach. It's something we'll never know of course, but interesting to ponder just the same. I hope we never give lengthy contracts again so we are at least free to weigh up situations and take action if it's deemed necessary.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

It's not just the length of the contracts, it's the messiah complex that Richmond supporters have. We've got to to stop seeing the current coach as the one who will lead the side to the flag. That bloke, whoever it is, is just there to put the blocks in place from whoever takes over from him, it could even be the coach after that. The plan has to be long term 10 - 15 years.

 

[Rosy]

I don't quite get your point sorry Carn.  Do you think we should re-sign Terry for another 5 year term to let him continue his work? Whether it's 3 years or 15 years surely there comes a time when the coach must be judged on team results.

 

[Tigerfan]

10 years ago the news was everywhere that guys weere laughing at us when the club asked them to come to an interview. Now there are guys out there willing to coach us.

Culture on the improve I'd say

 

[Massai]

I don't quite get your point sorry Carn. Do you think we should re-sign Terry for another 5 year term to let him continue his work? Whether it's 3 years or 15 years surely there comes a time when the coach must be judged on team results.

God no, we don't resign TW or any of his coaching staff beyond this season PERIOD.

This review that is being done, that holds the key to the way forward. The review should be like any good solid business plan, identifying the strengths (bugger all) and the weaknesses (one hell of a lot), of not only the playing group, but the coaching/football department, fitness, medical, training equipment etc etc etc.

Now a good business plan is one set for 10 years but is fluid enough to change (update) itself as it goes along. Hawthorn have adopted such an attitude (its got them one lucky flag but Geelong were "cocky" and got caught out), Carlton ditto, Geelong likewise, Doggies most likely, St Kilda yes and so on.

The plan should allow for a 3 year coaching contract, same for assistance coaches and other football department staff. The KPI is quite clear that by Year 3, finals are a must, in order for these people to gain extensions on their contracts again 3 year or 2 year deals.

The KPI for the players is somewhat different, they need to develop if they are young draft picks aged 17 or so, that means that by age 20 they should be playing AFL games, no player no matter how good gets a contract longer than 3 years, with the option to extend by up to 2 years or 3 years if a player has got a Brownlow to their name. The KPI for the players must be even harder than for the coaches, as its the players that have to win on the field, therefore if they don't perform they are out the door.

Trading for all intents and purposes to gain a more "seasoned" AFL player should be abandoned. No point and our playing list is pretty thin for trading players. The club would be better served to make draft selections right up to pick 80 or somesuch if need be, after all a 17 year picked at 70, is more likely to want to prove himself than another AFL retread looking for an easy meal ticket and all too often Richmond have provided easy meal tickets.

Finally, off field, the Board of Management has to have its own KPI's clearly laid out and these KPI's made known to the members who voted them in to run the club. Again if the KPI's are not met, then the members can vote the relevant Board Members or the entire Board out the door.

To do the above, means that Richmond is going to have to be prepared to spend some considerable money and put significant time into its young players, which so far to date has not been done or if it has its been done bloody poorly. Only when the relevant resources are in place, can the players develop and then we'll see win's on the board, what we've got right now and to continue down that same path is simply not an option IMHO.

 

[Rosy]

God no, we don't resign TW or any of his coaching staff beyond this season PERIOD.

Yeah I agree... I just didn't understand Carn's post in the context of my comments about Terry's contract.

 

[geoffryprettyboy]

I don't think Carn is saying to re-sign Wallace but I don't agree with his opinion. When Wallace stepped in I can bet that he had no intentions to leave the club without a premiership, that's what it's all about at the end of the day. When a coach departs a club they don't depart because they are going to retire and cash in their superannuation and go live in Port McQuarie, they leave either because their contract expires or they get the chop, or in rare circumstances due to ill health. In the case of Wallace, he will depart leaving this club probably in a better condition, list wise, than Frawley. I can tell you one thing, when Edmond Hillary climbed Mount Everest he had no intentions to ascend half way leaving the other to finish the conquest.

I'll leave it at that, I think I'm sounding like Malthouse.

 

[Punxsutawney Phil]

10 years ago the news was everywhere that guys weere laughing at us when the club asked them to come to an interview. Now there are guys out there willing to coach us.

Culture on the improve I'd say

As long as they are good candidates who want to coach us DDT, not just blokes like Pagan and Ayres who seem willing to take whatever job they can just to get back into the game. I am sure we won't be the only club changing coaches at the end of the season, so prospective coaches may have an opportunity to pick and choose. There are likely to be more attractive options than Richmond come season's end.

I hope to god we aren't left with the dregs like we were when Frawley took over.

 

[the claw]

God no, we don't resign TW or any of his coaching staff beyond this season PERIOD.

This review that is being done, that holds the key to the way forward. The review should be like any good solid business plan, identifying the strengths (bugger all) and the weaknesses (one hell of a lot), of not only the playing group, but the coaching/football department, fitness, medical, training equipment etc etc etc.

Now a good business plan is one set for 10 years but is fluid enough to change (update) itself as it goes along. Hawthorn have adopted such an attitude (its got them one lucky flag but Geelong were "cocky" and got caught out), Carlton ditto, Geelong likewise, Doggies most likely, St Kilda yes and so on.

The plan should allow for a 3 year coaching contract, same for assistance coaches and other football department staff. The KPI is quite clear that by Year 3, finals are a must, in order for these people to gain extensions on their contracts again 3 year or 2 year deals.

The KPI for the players is somewhat different, they need to develop if they are young draft picks aged 17 or so, that means that by age 20 they should be playing AFL games, no player no matter how good gets a contract longer than 3 years, with the option to extend by up to 2 years or 3 years if a player has got a Brownlow to their name. The KPI for the players must be even harder than for the coaches, as its the players that have to win on the field, therefore if they don't perform they are out the door.

Trading for all intents and purposes to gain a more "seasoned" AFL player should be abandoned. No point and our playing list is pretty thin for trading players. The club would be better served to make draft selections right up to pick 80 or somesuch if need be, after all a 17 year picked at 70, is more likely to want to prove himself than another AFL retread looking for an easy meal ticket and all too often Richmond have provided easy meal tickets.

Finally, off field, the Board of Management has to have its own KPI's clearly laid out and these KPI's made known to the members who voted them in to run the club. Again if the KPI's are not met, then the members can vote the relevant Board Members or the entire Board out the door.

To do the above, means that Richmond is going to have to be prepared to spend some considerable money and put significant time into its young players, which so far to date has not been done or if it has its been done bloody poorly. Only when the relevant resources are in place, can the players develop and then we'll see win's on the board, what we've got right now and to continue down that same path is simply not an option IMHO.

ha apart from a few minor points almost out of the claw manual. good post.