you could fabricate a story on any angle , fact is it took them 8 years under thompson to salute, Let me say that again 8 $%%# years
So the rule of thumb is that you need to employ a coach for 8 years to achieve improvement or success?
Try and take 8 years to get YOUR job right.
Wallace can't achieve anything of any note, in area of our club in 3 years, and you want to give him at least 8!!
Now go on Bojangles Blame Frawley for Wallace's failure in 3 years.
Bring out the blame game...
Nut check the date that was written, it was about 12 months back IIRC, back when we were in the same boat we are now waiting for those kids to come on and show something. AS I mentioned earlier of that group only Deledio, Foley, Pattison and Thursfield have shown anything at all in terms of improvement.
So we got a few games under their belts but who has really established themselves as a player that has taken or looks like taking the next step. As I mentioned Edwards, Connors and King played their first seasons so they need to step up again in 08 before I label them as players to watch, Polak played his first season at the club and as stated has done jack in the preseason to suggest he is going to be any better in 08.
There is a difference between getting games and performing in those games. So like I said while our kids do get games they very rarely perform in those games. Tell me this in next weeks game against Carlton who are the players you're relying on to win the game for us? Guys like Pattison, Morton, Riewoldt or players like Simmonds, Brown and Richo?
There is a difference though most of the players we have had on our list for 3-6 years aren't performing consistently. Guys like Meyer, Polo, Tambling, JON, Hughes, Casserly, Jackson, Raines, Schulz & Moore have all had more than enough time to show something at AFL level and yet with the exception of Raines and Tambling (and even they have only shown glimpses of their potential) none of them have really shown anything to suggest they are going to lead Richmond away from the bottom of the ladder.
Of course your getting confused, because all you want to see is that we are on the right track. How can we be on the right track if we are still relying on the same old players as we have been in the last 5 years to win us games? If we were on the right track wouldn't we be relying on the kids, like the ones I named, to win us games instead of still relying on Richo, Bowden, Brown and co?
This is a very interesting discussion, as i was one person who was thinking that Bomber just wasn't getting the best out of the group in those first five rounds of last year.
I think a major difference though in the 8-year thing is that Geelong made a Preliminary final in 2005, and a second-semi the following season, and it was clear that say by 2004, players with then 4 years under their belts in Chapman, Ling, Corey, Enright and even Cam Mooney were by that point solidly part of the midfield. The 2001 group of Gary Jr, S.Johnson, Bartel and Kelly were by the end of 2004 players with 35-50 games, and also had shown talent by that stage, as Geelong went from 1-4 in 2004 to finish 15-7 in 4th place on the H & A ladder.
But an illuminating thing to note in 2004 was that in Rd 2, with a game against a Carlton side that had lost it's previous 11 games, Geelong had lost through injury Riccardi, King, Scarlett and Graham. Geelong had no player with 100 games experience, and duly were thrashed by Carlton in an embarrasing loss. After that game, Bomber also took a huge amount of heat, but despite losing to the Swans a week later, they regained some poise and looked good.
Richmond probably need to have a season in which the transistion of their midfield in particular becomes one where Foley, Deledio, Polo etc become the ones to take ownership of the responsibility. Johnson, Tivendale etc are not the future of the Tigers. This 'ownership' sort of blossomed for Geelong in 2004, as they went from 1-4 to win 14 of their next 17 games. In some respects though this great recovery by Geelong, and the emergence of the younger brigade also raised expectations, so having established a standard, any non-performance up to that level would be looked at very harshly by our fans. Thus 2006 was looked upon as a disaster. In some respects 10-11-1 is not terrible, but the talent at the club was such that a result like that was unacceptable.
I have said before, but i think Richmond this year may well have a year like Geelong in 2003. That season saw the younger brigade begin to be given the responsibility of running the team....as Geelong's only senior midfielder at that stage was Riccardi, and he was more a wingman type rather than an extractor. Also, the building blocks by Bomber was midfield first. His opinion was that a strong engine is the heart of any successful club. Brisbane had a very powerful midfield, the 'Fab 5' were all-conquering in the early '00's. Thompson wanted to model Geelongs midfield on that example. Now, after the 7-8 years, it's looking very close to a copy!
But the importance of the midfield is that it gives confidence to the other areas of the side. A strong, hard midfield begins to prevent easy ball entering the defensive area, helping the backmen. It also allows the forwards to get more and better supply, helping that area. It also is a bit easier to 'build' a forward line when you know what you're working with supply wise. Foley is a gun at his role, he is a great extractor and he gets clearances. If he had a few mates, then the Tigers will find footy a much more rewarding exercise. But that young midfield group need to be the ones who want to take ownership of the side. I'm sure all your Tiger fans will be happy if you see a red-hot go by the midfield, hard tackling and hard running, even if the forwards as yet are not ready to capitalise. That will come in time....believe me it does.
In fairness to Richmond's team....Geelong's 2004 results came 5 years after the 1999 draft. Richmond's 2004 draft, essentially their first 'genuine bulding' draft...is still a year sooner than what Geelong's was. Give Wallace his remaining two seasons and see what he can construct with his midfield. If nothing appears to be happening in that aspect, then maybe a new direction is required. But as a previous poster highlighted, Bomber was in the gun a long time at Geelong...but mainly because tastes of success had been revealed, and the side just didn't put it together consistently enough until ironically playing your good selves in Rd 6 last year.
This is a very interesting discussion, as i was one person who was thinking that Bomber just wasn't getting the best out of the group in those first five rounds of last year.
I think a major difference though in the 8-year thing is that Geelong made a Preliminary final in 2005, and a second-semi the following season, and it was clear that say by 2004, players with then 4 years under their belts in Chapman, Ling, Corey, Enright and even Cam Mooney were by that point solidly part of the midfield. The 2001 group of Gary Jr, S.Johnson, Bartel and Kelly were by the end of 2004 players with 35-50 games, and also had shown talent by that stage, as Geelong went from 1-4 in 2004 to finish 15-7 in 4th place on the H & A ladder.
But an illuminating thing to note in 2004 was that in Rd 2, with a game against a Carlton side that had lost it's previous 11 games, Geelong had lost through injury Riccardi, King, Scarlett and Graham. Geelong had no player with 100 games experience, and duly were thrashed by Carlton in an embarrasing loss. After that game, Bomber also took a huge amount of heat, but despite losing to the Swans a week later, they regained some poise and looked good.
Richmond probably need to have a season in which the transistion of their midfield in particular becomes one where Foley, Deledio, Polo etc become the ones to take ownership of the responsibility. Johnson, Tivendale etc are not the future of the Tigers. This 'ownership' sort of blossomed for Geelong in 2004, as they went from 1-4 to win 14 of their next 17 games. In some respects though this great recovery by Geelong, and the emergence of the younger brigade also raised expectations, so having established a standard, any non-performance up to that level would be looked at very harshly by our fans. Thus 2006 was looked upon as a disaster. In some respects 10-11-1 is not terrible, but the talent at the club was such that a result like that was unacceptable.
I have said before, but i think Richmond this year may well have a year like Geelong in 2003. That season saw the younger brigade begin to be given the responsibility of running the team....as Geelong's only senior midfielder at that stage was Riccardi, and he was more a wingman type rather than an extractor. Also, the building blocks by Bomber was midfield first. His opinion was that a strong engine is the heart of any successful club. Brisbane had a very powerful midfield, the 'Fab 5' were all-conquering in the early '00's. Thompson wanted to model Geelongs midfield on that example. Now, after the 7-8 years, it's looking very close to a copy!
But the importance of the midfield is that it gives confidence to the other areas of the side. A strong, hard midfield begins to prevent easy ball entering the defensive area, helping the backmen. It also allows the forwards to get more and better supply, helping that area. It also is a bit easier to 'build' a forward line when you know what you're working with supply wise. Foley is a gun at his role, he is a great extractor and he gets clearances. If he had a few mates, then the Tigers will find footy a much more rewarding exercise. But that young midfield group need to be the ones who want to take ownership of the side. I'm sure all your Tiger fans will be happy if you see a red-hot go by the midfield, hard tackling and hard running, even if the forwards as yet are not ready to capitalise. That will come in time....believe me it does.
In fairness to Richmond's team....Geelong's 2004 results came 5 years after the 1999 draft. Richmond's 2004 draft, essentially their first 'genuine bulding' draft...is still a year sooner than what Geelong's was. Give Wallace his remaining two seasons and see what he can construct with his midfield. If nothing appears to be happening in that aspect, then maybe a new direction is required. But as a previous poster highlighted, Bomber was in the gun a long time at Geelong...but mainly because tastes of success had been revealed, and the side just didn't put it together consistently enough until ironically playing your good selves in Rd 6 last year.
This is a very interesting discussion, as i was one person who was thinking that Bomber just wasn't getting the best out of the group in those first five rounds of last year.
I think a major difference though in the 8-year thing is that Geelong made a Preliminary final in 2004, and a second-semi the following season, and it was clear that say by 2004, players with then 4 years under their belts in Chapman, Ling, Corey, Enright and even Cam Mooney were by that point solidly part of the midfield. The 2001 group of Gary Jr, S.Johnson, Bartel and Kelly were by the end of 2004 players with 35-50 games, and also had shown talent by that stage, as Geelong went from 1-4 in 2004 to finish 15-7 in 4th place on the H & A ladder.
But an illuminating thing to note in 2004 was that in Rd 2, with a game against a Carlton side that had lost it's previous 11 games, Geelong had lost through injury Riccardi, King, Scarlett and Graham. Geelong had no player with 100 games experience, and duly were thrashed by Carlton in an embarrasing loss. After that game, Bomber also took a huge amount of heat, but despite losing to the Swans a week later, they regained some poise and looked good.
Richmond probably need to have a season in which the transistion of their midfield in particular becomes one where Foley, Deledio, Polo etc become the ones to take ownership of the responsibility. Johnson, Tivendale etc are not the future of the Tigers. This 'ownership' sort of blossomed for Geelong in 2004, as they went from 1-4 to win 14 of their next 17 games. In some respects though this great recovery by Geelong, and the emergence of the younger brigade also raised expectations, so having established a standard, any non-performance up to that level would be looked at very harshly by our fans. Thus 2006 was looked upon as a disaster. In some respects 10-11-1 is not terrible, but the talent at the club was such that a result like that was unacceptable.
I have said before, but i think Richmond this year may well have a year like Geelong in 2003. That season saw the younger brigade begin to be given the responsibility of running the team....as Geelong's only senior midfielder at that stage was Riccardi, and he was more a wingman type rather than an extractor. Also, the building blocks by Bomber was midfield first. His opinion was that a strong engine is the heart of any successful club. Brisbane had a very powerful midfield, the 'Fab 5' were all-conquering in the early '00's. Thompson wanted to model Geelongs midfield on that example. Now, after the 7-8 years, it's looking very close to a copy!
But the importance of the midfield is that it gives confidence to the other areas of the side. A strong, hard midfield begins to prevent easy ball entering the defensive area, helping the backmen. It also allows the forwards to get more and better supply, helping that area. It also is a bit easier to 'build' a forward line when you know what you're working with supply wise. Foley is a gun at his role, he is a great extractor and he gets clearances. If he had a few mates, then the Tigers will find footy a much more rewarding exercise. But that young midfield group need to be the ones who want to take ownership of the side. I'm sure all your Tiger fans will be happy if you see a red-hot go by the midfield, hard tackling and hard running, even if the forwards as yet are not ready to capitalise. That will come in time....believe me it does.
In fairness to Richmond's team....Geelong's 2004 results came 5 years after the 1999 draft. Richmond's 2004 draft, essentially their first 'genuine bulding' draft...is still a year sooner than what Geelong's was. Give Wallace his remaining two seasons and see what he can construct with his midfield. If nothing appears to be happening in that aspect, then maybe a new direction is required. But as a previous poster highlighted, Bomber was in the gun a long time at Geelong...but mainly because tastes of success had been revealed, and the side just didn't put it together consistently enough until ironically playing your good selves in Rd 6 last year.
So by agreeing with what Catsace has posted you have, in a round about way, agreed with what I was saying and that is we need to make the change from relying on players like Richo, Bowden, Brown, Johnson and co and need to start looking to the kids to improve the position of the side.
