Matthew Richardson

Would you want Richardson at the eagles?

  • Definately! He would be the ideal addition to the club

    Votes: 3 12.5%

  • Yes. If he's cheap

    Votes: 5 20.8%

  • NO! We don't need an injury prone, undisciplined player

    Votes: 16 66.7%

  • Who's Matthew Richardson?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    24

Remove this Banner Ad

daddy_4_eyes

daddy_4_eyes

Brownlow Medallist
Veteran West Coast Eagles Board Tipping Champion Chess Club Member
Dec 7, 2000
11,135
7,026
Victoria home of football
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Eagles
Considering the rumours flying around, I though why not ask this hypothetical. Would we want Richo next year?

It would solve the problem we have at CHF and release Gardi into the ruck as well as take the pressure off Cox. On the otherhand Richo would ask for big money, and with his injuries he could quite easily end up playing a handful of games a year.
 
I chose option 3

We had a man who brought the club down for 2 years, and look at the effect it had on our wins and losses.

Can you imagine that boofhead at CHF for us with the way some of our blokes kick it into the forward 50? If you think the way he reacts now is bad it could be 10 times worse. He is damaged goods and I wouldnt touch him. Develop our young blokes rather than investing in an injury prone sook.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I'd say no, but hell no would be more appropriate.
We are currently up to our eyeballs in forwards- even the historic CHF position isn't that much of a problem anymore- indeed, with the rise of Cox as a potent ruckman, look for Gardiner to specialise more as a CHF.
Richardson is a sook, and an injury prone one dimensional player who frankly, i've always considered a tad over-rated anyhoo. More to the point, he is certainly not in the right age bracket in terms of what we should be looking to pick up.
so to summarise- heck of an attitude problem, injury prone, too old, single position player in a position which is already stacked. No thanks.
 
I voted 3. A good player is often a motivated one and I don't think Richardson would be motivated enough to play for us. Even if he was playing well and without injuries he might just come here for the money; not because he would feel anything for our colours. What we need is players that really want to play for us or at least with the potential to develop some allegiance for the club. The acquisition of "star players" isn't always a good investment. Sometimes they aren't flexible enough to fit in a new club, with new methods and a new kind of tradition and may become just mercenaries with no pride and no commitment for the club. It's always better to develop our own Matthew Richardsons.
 
I voted 2 - at the right price anyone's a good trade. He may well be useful at CHF, but could also be tried down back as a replacement to Jako (letting him play out his days up forward). He would have to be SUPERCHEAP for this deal to work.
 
Well lets just get one thing out of the way. Matthew Richardson is a superstar and when healthy is one of the most damaging forwards in the game.

Is he the answer to our problems though? No. He is just too injury prone and is now on the wrong side of 25.
 
No.

Too moody, too spoilt.

Agreed he is a fantastic player, but I don't think we need that type of player at the club who acts like a spoilt little boy.....
 
I dont think Id want him at the club...for all the above reasons.
Im not sure he'd come to the club either..he's tasmanian and Im preety sure he'd find Perth is too far away from his family. I dont think our salary cap would cover him either!
 
I voted 3, since he'd be too expensive, too moody and no assurances that we'd get many games out of him.

If he was a cheapie, the club should definately look at him, since our biggest downfall is our CHF area.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I vote #3.
He will not be worth his current price tag, and in the last three seasons has spent more time injured than onfield.
Richmond have not a got a reasonable return on their investment in him.
Injuries are bad luck, and on his day Richardson can win a game off his own boot....but those days are too infrequent.
He has never struck me as a team player either...and I think those type of players, can be more trouble than they are worth.
I would not be even slightly interested.

Same goes for Carey...who is also on the market for next year. Different reasons, but same conclusion...not interested.

Let's stick with the youth policy that is already starting to pay dividends. They are cheaper too!
 
It's number 3 for me. For all the reasons above, but mainly because he's already in the wrong side of 25. We're better off developing kids like Lynch who'll give us good service for many more years.

Belgarion
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Matthew Richardson

Back
Top