Chris Pelchen

[Davo23]

Statistically Tambling has surpassed Roughead and quite easily, it's really a matter of opinion who is the superior footballer. In regards to Buddy it wasn't our astute drafting it was the total ineptnes if Richmond that allowed our star to come to us.

Well done - genuinely funny posting, mate !

Richmond has just given away a great player ...











When do school holidays end ?

 

[TwoBeaus]

On the matter of Pelchen, I'm glad we have him running things. This time last year everyone was mad that we hadn't picked up a ruckman. Now, a year later, our ruck situation hasn't really changed - we do pick up a ruckman, and everyone is complaining.

Picking up Burgoyne was brilliant. He is exactly what we need - we mostly all agree that we lack pace in the midfield currently - well where would we be on the front if we didn't have Burgoyne?

Trades cannot be measured just by what you get but also by what you give up. Burgoyne is fine player, but he is past his prime and we gave up a lot to get him. He may still prove to be worth it but Im not sure he filled our greatest need.

One would think that you would be willing to give up your best draft picks for your greatest need (eg Collingwood with Jolly)

Then you might give up your later picks for lessor needs.

What some people are concerned with is the amount of resources used on various needs.

We have penny pinched in the areas that some supporters see as important such a genuine KPD and ruck , and spend a lot in draft picks on an ageing midfielder (burgoyne) , a dubious ruckman (hale) and undersized KPD (gibson).

To give credit, we picked up a bargain in Stratton. And skipper cost us nothing.

The other issue is character. We let outstanding men in kennedy, mcglynn walk due to lack of opportunity and contract length, then draft the flaky hooper. Performance is the combination of ability and application. I would always take the application of a player like mcglynn over the ability of a player like hooper.

Although it may have been beyond the hawks control, the loss of brown and the gain of hale is not a step forward for the the club, more a sideways step which we all hope somehow works.

I sincerely hope Hale becomes the super sub from hell as a goalkicking resting ruckman. To justify the price paid he will certainly need to.

The fact is if you look at Pelchens drafting / list management 2005-2010 as a whole, there have been many more misses than hits. And the much heralded structure aint that solid after 5 years. When injuries have hit, one of shallowest lists in the league has been revealed. If you were compiling a drafting / trading ladder for the last 5 years, Hawthorn wouldnt be in the top 8.

 

[tige19]

Well done - genuinely funny posting, mate !

Richmond has just given away a great player ...











When do school holidays end ?

School holidays? Ok, got my degree 6 yrs ago pal and probably double your wage but that's irrelevant.

It is purely a matter of opinion as to who is the better footballer between Rough and Tambling. I'm not saying I side with Tambling but really how is there much difference? What has Roughead done over recent times to suggest
he is so superior? Enlighten!?

 

[DannyJ]

School holidays? Ok, got my degree 6 yrs ago pal and probably double your wage but that's irrelevant.

It is purely a matter of opinion as to who is the better footballer between Rough and Tambling. I'm not saying I side with Tambling but really how is there much difference? What has Roughead done over recent times to suggest
he is so superior? Enlighten!?

219 goals in the last 4 seasons.

50 odd in 2010.

 

[tige19]

219 goals in the last 4 seasons.

50 odd in 2010.

Clutching at straws, you have to do better than that. As the go to power forward inside 50 and given many upon many chances to kick goals 50odd doesn't cut it. Ablett Kicks 50 on one leg and floats in the forward line for spells ever so often, J.Riewoldt plays in a young struggling team and converts his limited chances, hell even Mark Lecras kicks alot more in terrible team.

I'm not on either side but saying Rough is better cause he kicked 50 goals is rubbish, 70 should be the minimum we expect from the bloke. He struggles to touch the footy more than 7-8 times a game and were lucky to get him tackle (granted he does chase). I'd love to see Rough fire and be the footballer he should be but ATM he doesn't cut it.

Rough vs Tambling debate is 50/50, both with more hype than substance, in saying that Tambling improved in 2010 Rough did not.

 

[DannyJ]

Clutching at straws, you have to do better than that. As the go to power forward inside 50 and given many upon many chances to kick goals 50odd doesn't cut it. Ablett Kicks 50 on one leg and floats in the forward line for spells ever so often, J.Riewoldt plays in a young struggling team and converts his limited chances, hell even Mark Lecras kicks alot more in terrible team.

I'm not on either side but saying Rough is better cause he kicked 50 goals is rubbish, 70 should be the minimum we expect from the bloke. He struggles to touch the footy more than 7-8 times a game and were lucky to get him tackle (granted he does chase). I'd love to see Rough fire and be the footballer he should be but ATM he doesn't cut it.

Rough vs Tambling debate is 50/50, both with more hype than substance, in saying that Tambling improved in 2010 Rough did not.

I suppose he should kick more than Riewoldt, considering Roughead is our ONLT target up forward. We have no other targets do we?

50 goals is a good return for a KPF. Not superstar status, but a 'good return'.

Tambling has done nothing in his career. This isn't even an arguement worth talking about.

 

[Rioli magic]

I'm not on either side but saying Rough is better cause he kicked 50 goals is rubbish

Comparing a Key Forward to a Back Flanker is rubbish. How many key forwards kicked more goals than Roughead lately? How many back flankers stopped goals and rebounded more than Tambling lately?

 

[Rioli magic]

Rough vs Tambling debate is 50/50, both with more hype than substance, in saying that Tambling improved in 2010 Rough did not.

I'm convinced you didn't do a thesis!! Also have doubts you watch football.

 

[Prudster]

Clutching at straws, you have to do better than that. As the go to power forward inside 50 and given many upon many chances to kick goals 50odd doesn't cut it. Ablett Kicks 50 on one leg and floats in the forward line for spells ever so often, J.Riewoldt plays in a young struggling team and converts his limited chances, hell even Mark Lecras kicks alot more in terrible team.

I'm not on either side but saying Rough is better cause he kicked 50 goals is rubbish, 70 should be the minimum we expect from the bloke. He struggles to touch the footy more than 7-8 times a game and were lucky to get him tackle (granted he does chase). I'd love to see Rough fire and be the footballer he should be but ATM he doesn't cut it.

Rough vs Tambling debate is 50/50, both with more hype than substance, in saying that Tambling improved in 2010 Rough did not.

Roughead kicked more goals than Brown, Fevola, Podsiadly, and Tippett. I suppose if all of these are worse then Tambling, they must all be spuds. Roughead had one of his worst season, after having his kicking style changed, which affected his accuracy.

The fact that he had something like 100 shots on goal (based on goals and points, out on the fulls not included), so he is still getting the ball. J Riewoldt had like 110 shots on goal, Franklin had like 105, nobody else had over 100 except for Barry Hall, who had 120. Add his accuracy back in, which should come abck once his kicking style is changed back, and Roughy could have almost won the coleman.

Tambling is a spud. At his best he was laughed at by Richmond fans. Roughy is one of the best forwards in the competition. At his best easily a top 5 full forward.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Marks/I50 Target:
Ricky Henderson 57%
Lachlan Hansen 50%
Travis Cloke 49%
Lynden Dunn 48%
David Hille 44%
Daniel Bradshaw 42%
James Podsiadly 41%
Jarrad Waite 41%
Jay Schulz 37%
Taylor Walker 37%
Nick Riewoldt 35%
Jonathan Brown 34%
Kepler Bradley 33%
Jarryd Roughead 33%
Matthew Pavlich 33%
Barry Hall 32%
Adam Goodes 32%
Scott Gumbleton 32%
Chris Dawes 31%
Kurt Tippett 30%
Mark Lecras 30%
Jack Riewoldt 29%
Brett Burton 27%
Josh J Kennedy 25%
Setanta O'Hailpin 25%
Lance Franklin 23%
Brendan Fevola 19%
David Hale 19%


Shots per I50 Target:
Lynden Dunn 130%
Ricky Henderson 105%
Kepler Bradley 89%
Matthew Pavlich 72%
Jarrad Waite 71%
Lachlan Hansen 70%
Travis Cloke 66%
Taylor Walker 65%
James Podsiadly 63%
Lance Franklin 60%
Adam Goodes 59%
Mark Lecras 58%
David Hille 58%
Nick Riewoldt 55%
Josh J Kennedy 53%
Jarryd Roughead 53%
Jay Schulz 51%
Jonathan Brown 50%
Daniel Bradshaw 50%
Jack Riewoldt 49%
Setanta O'Hailpin 47%
Barry Hall 47%
Scott Gumbleton 44%
Brett Burton 43%
Kurt Tippett 43%
Chris Dawes 42%
Brendan Fevola 40%
David Hale 37%



Goals per I50 Target:
Lynden Dunn 61%
Ricky Henderson 52%
Jarrad Waite 45%
Kepler Bradley 44%
Matthew Pavlich 42%
Lachlan Hansen 37%
James Podsiadly 37%
Mark Lecras 36%
Josh J Kennedy 32%
Lance Franklin 32%
Jay Schulz 31%
Jonathan Brown 31%
Taylor Walker 31%
Barry Hall 28%
Jack Riewoldt 28%
David Hille 28%
Daniel Bradshaw 27%
Adam Goodes 26%
Setanta O'Hailpin 26%
Travis Cloke 26%
Jarryd Roughead 26%
Nick Riewoldt 25%
Chris Dawes 23%
Scott Gumbleton 22%
Kurt Tippett 22%
Brendan Fevola 21%
David Hale 21%
Brett Burton 13%

Stats - sorry for formatting. Will look at and comment shortly. If a player's not here, they're not in the top-100 for one of the categories (I50target, Marks I50, Total Shots) - or I've "deemed" them to not be a key position forward (eg Betts, Johnson, Wonaemirri).

 

[tige19]

Love it how you blokes are so precious about Roughy, Scouring the net to find a stat to prove he is a better player than Tambling. Facts are he doesn't get enough footy and doesn't convert enough chances, until he does that he will always be known as a couldabeen with talent.

 

[Dewnior]

Love it how you blokes are so precious about Roughy, Scouring the net to find a stat to prove he is a better player than Tambling. Facts are he doesn't get enough footy and doesn't convert enough chances, until he does that he will always be known as a couldabeen with talent.

I think you've mistaken this for the Richmond board.

Click here 3 times and say "there's no place like home."

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=16

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

The stats show that Franklin is a woeful KPF, amongst the worst in the league....but counters that by being one of, if not the best running forward (can't really call him "small" can you).

Roughead is approximately the same level as Brown, Reiwoldt, Pavlich, Hall - indeed most genuine #1 forwards. What he lacks is the ground level contribution of Franklin...(then again, who does have that?).

Hale is included here....but rather depressing reading for anyone viewing him as a potential forward target.

Based on those stats, then you'd have a very strong argument that we look for (and go to) Franklin FAR too much, to our own detriment. Direct the ball evenly between the two, and Roughead leaves the likes of Brown and Reiwoldt in his wake.

Is it chicken or egg though? Do we ignore Roughead when he presents, or does Roughy just not work hard enough?

 

[Rioli magic]

Love it how you blokes are so precious about Roughy, Scouring the net to find a stat to prove he is a better player than Tambling.

Hardly surprising using stats when you open the debate with:

Statistically Tambling has surpassed Roughead and quite easily,

What exactly was this almighty degree in again? Even ignoring stats I don't think you can ignore the positions they play and how they help the team and those around them. You're completely ignoring the value of the player in what is ultimately a team sport if you think Tambling is ahead of Roughead.

 

[Prudster]

Love it how you blokes are so precious about Roughy, Scouring the net to find a stat to prove he is a better player than Tambling. Facts are he doesn't get enough footy and doesn't convert enough chances, until he does that he will always be known as a couldabeen with talent.

Love how your memory is so short that you can't even remember past 2010. Last year, Roughead kicked 51.27, that's pretty accurate in my books. 75.51 the year before that. All of this while playing second fiddle to one of the best forwards in the league. Get back his accuracy, which, like i said, he should get back once his kicking style is changed back, and he is one of the best key forwards around. Tell me when Tambling even had some sort of semblance of being even average. Roughead could basically walk straight into any clubs starting 22.

Maybe you should spend a little more time scouring the net to get some stats, as you obviously have no idea about football.

 

[TwoBeaus]

the tambling roughead debate is irrelevant to the Pelchen debate

2004 draft nov 2004. Pelchen hired May 2005

the hawks were a little bit lucky and little bit wise with 2004 draft when bucky and clarko chose roughy and buddy as KPP for a rebuild after footscray and richmond chose midfielders

the 2008 Cup was based on the 2001 and 2004 drafts and some gut instinct picks by clarko which pelchen begrudgingly allowed thru against his magical model (eg Dew, Guerra, Gilham all players coached by clarko at PA)

Pelchens main contribution to 2008 was rioli and ellis

as to the roughead/tambling debate. As dermie would say "Tambling is a foot soldier, Roughy is the heavy artillery"

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Sean Rusling

Mitchell Thorp

Daniel O'keefe

Tom Hislop

Albert Proud

Clayton Collard

Danny Myers

Danny Stanley

Darren Pfieffer

Ryan Cook

Cleve Hughes

John Meeson

Adam Thompson

Chris Egan

Adam Pattison

Ryan Willits

Matt Little

Austin Lucy

Brad Howard


What do all these players have in common?
There are all first and second round picks that have either been discarded or are touted to be before the list deadlines of this year.

And that's not all of them either.

Seriously, people need to realise that recruiting is not an exact science, and not every player that is rated highly or drafted in the first and second rounds will ultimately make it.

 

[Buckemenico]

which is exactly why Pelchen is stupid for not picking up Hill for pick 37. Stupid stupid stupid.

 

[whiteTiga2k]

kinda disappointed we didn't get hill... deflated bad

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

the hawks were a little bit lucky and little bit wise with 2004 draft when bucky and clarko chose roughy and buddy as KPP for a rebuild after footscray and richmond chose midfielders

Our first choice, if he was still available, was going to be Deledio. The moment he was snapped up, they turned their tac to gaining the best couple of talls available. Luckily, Buddy was still on the table when pick 5 came around.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Seriously, people need to realise that recruiting is not an exact science, and not every player that is rated highly or drafted in the first and second rounds will ultimately make it.

I really wish people would work that out. I get really annoyed with all this retrospective talk about draft choices.