Terry Wallace's 5 years

[rado]

i rekon terry's done an ok job.
if you look back at our team in 03, it was seriously an absolute joke. if you look at it now it is not only competitive, it can compete with any club on any given day.
so to say he should of made finals by now is a bit of a stretch becuase it was such a shit team.
in saying that you give him a fit and firing mark coughlan and nathan brown over 05-08 and finals would of eventuated at least once or twice instead of those 9th placed finishes.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Their list should enable the to fight for a top four spot. If he doesn't make the top 6 this year he should go IMO.

 

[santa claws]

This is true, too an extent. FWIW, I think Richmond will scrape into the 8 this year.

There's no doubt Clarkson drafted better than Wallace and yes there may have been some luck involved. However, when Clarkson took over, the Hawks had some pretty good players on their list that later went onto win a flag. At the end of the 04 season, the Hawks beat the tigers with some of these players remaining from that game. Here's the players left from the end of that season (4 years ago) that went on to win the flag.

Hodge, Brown, Ladson, Osborne, Mitchell, Williams, Crawford, Sewell, Campbell, Bateman, Croad.

The Hawks had 50% of their premiership side all ready. Besides Richo and Brown, I can't think of too many other players from that era that are now on Richmonds list that have much value.

The point is, most Hawk fans knew we would be in the mix within a few years due to the quality of some of the players on our list. We sure had a few dud's there as well, just not as many as Richmond. If any club needed to be spot on come draft time, it was the Tigers.

nice sentiment but i tend to disagree. wallace himself said he thought we had the better list just shows ya what dibble comes out of his mouth.

players who were there at the end of 08 who were there when he first came to the club.

bowden, brown,coughlan,foley, hyde, jackson, johnson, moore, newman, pettifer, raines, richardson, schulz, tivendale tuck,he never cut deep enough and drafting has been ordinary.

 

[santa claws]

Thank god, some common sense. Yes, the Hawks got Buddy and we got Tambling, but this has not been the only difference between the sides in the past couple of years.

To compare the jobs that Wallace and Clarkson had ahead of them 5 years ago is just ridiculous.

Clarkson got there and had the nucleus of a good side, when Wallace got there he had a lot less to work with.

The whole issue is a lot bigger than who picked Buddy and who picked Tambling.

FWIW Wallace has done a great job in strengthening our list, and if he is sacked at seasons end, I would love to be the next guy walking in to the gig.

And to that knob that said Wallace was recruiting for himself and not the future at the club, you can not rebuild forever. There has to come a time in a rebuild when you think you are on the verge of a good thing pretty soon, so it makes sense to top up.

has he built a list that can sustain finals for a 5 yr period because thats what you need to win a gf .

what has he done that suugests hes built for the future.

3 of 5 drafts hes used just 3 nd picks.hes maintained 5 30 yr olds and added another to it. 6 30 yr olds what happens when they go.hes regularly traded for mature players and totally ignored list needs in his first three yrs.take cotchin and deledio out of the equation and you find your self asking what his recruiting is like.

he complains about holes in the list but is currently doing a fine job of createing holes at the bottom of the list.
he ignored a dire need for ruckmen kpps and inside mids its only been the last yr or so hes done anything about this.
ask yourself how many good kicks of the football are at the club or should i say poor kicks

theres question marks over polak schulz hughes pattison graham silvester and gourdis with richo and simmonds not to far away from retirement whats sustainable in that.doesnt leave many talls who may hang around for the long haul.and the ones that are left in the main lack size.

 

[Sgt Slaughter]

Richmond wont make the 8. Wallace is toast. Rightly so.

I reckon they might. They looked like a team on the verge of making the finals when they played the Dogs last year (I know they're not known as Ninthmond for nothing, but last year they looked like a team on the rise).

But, and here's the big but, they may be better off looking for another coach (although Wallet will probably get at least another year if they do make the finals). I can only speak from experience of his time at the Doggies, who he left in reasonable condition (if a little light-bodied, so Eade and Clayton have had to focus on KP's more recently), but Wallet seems to prefer a fast running, high precision game style which leaves a lot of room for error if your skills are down on any particular day or you're under a lot of pressure. Combine that with light-bodied players and you're just not set-up to win high pressure finals games. You'll probably win some great games during the season though...

Now I'm not sure if it's exactly the same at Tigerland these days as it was in his last days at the Western Oval, but the Tigers 08 did look and play a lot like the Doggies of the early to mid 00's...

 

[schwabby4]

Wallace doesn't deserve to still be there

He has one of the worst coaching records for the amount of time he has had, if he wasn't so sucky and "friendly" to the media he would be roasted alot more then he has been.

Also, the amount of times he has passed blame and made excuses to save his own butt is pathetic

the guy is the definition of tosser

 

[OneEyedHawk]

Gotta give it to Wallace. He's played the media off a break these past few years IMO, and alot of the footballing public as well. But no amount of patented Terry spin will save him at the end of the year IMO, barring a minor miracle.

Tigers will probably make the 8, or thereabouts, but an objective observer would suggest that's not a good enough return for a 5yr, $3 Million + investment. IMO Terry has been the beneficiary of a now gun-shy Richmond environment. I think the club (and it's supporters), mindful of their previous propensity for ill though-out, reactionary sackings, have been hesitant to be seen as repeating the mistakes of yesteryear. But in doing so, they've "backed the wrong horse".

They will IMO, or at least should, cut their losses at season's end.

 

[TigerCleavage]

Wallace doesn't deserve to still be there

He has one of the worst coaching records for the amount of time he has had, if he wasn't so sucky and "friendly" to the media he would be roasted alot more then he has been.

Also, the amount of times he has passed blame and made excuses to save his own butt is pathetic

the guy is the definition of tosser

No need for any of that here mate. This topic isn't for personal bashings and your post is incredibly uneducated.

And as for TW having one of the worst coaching records for his time at the club. Of course it's not going to look great when you take over a club in a position that we were in when he started. It took 4 years to get us to play consistently.
FYI we won 8 of the last 11 games of 2008 and played a very exciting, confident brand of footy.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Wallace is actually beginning his 12th season as an AFL coach. How many coaches can last 12 seasons without winning a premiership?

Your monotonous anti-Richmond bias notwithstanding, it's a fair question you raise. Wallace is 5th on the list of games coached without a premiership (with Eade 9 games ahead in 4th), and 2nd for games coached without a GF appearance. That alone would tell him it's crunch time.

 

[Strawbs]

For all the arm chair experts out there, I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Richmond supporters, I'd encourage your honest thoughts especially.

If YOU were appointed the coach of Richmond 5 years ago, do you believe that you'd be able to coach them into the finals this year (or perhaps you could have achieved it even earlier?)

I ask because I genuinely believe that with a proper AFL assistant coaches support and recruiters and everything that I would be able to coach an AFL club into the finals at some point within the 5 years.

Is just making the finals a pass for Wallace?

With Wallace suggesting that he will be sacked if he misses the finals, it sounds like no matter what happens, if he makes finals, he'll get another contract.

I personally feel that Wallace should be delivering a premiership this year and that anything less then top 4 should see him sacked.

If he walked into a job interview for the tigers and said "I can't get you to the finals within the first 4 years, but I'll get ya there in the 5th year" surely he wouldn't have been hired.

I'm sorry, if I offend anyone, I just became bemused by this today, it sunk in how rediculous the situation is.

All the best for the Tiges in '09!

Gee, you must really be keen for Malthouse to get the flick then.

 

[tigertiger]

nice sentiment but i tend to disagree. wallace himself said he thought we had the better list just shows ya what dibble comes out of his mouth.

players who were there at the end of 08 who were there when he first came to the club.

bowden, brown,coughlan,foley, hyde, jackson, johnson, moore, newman, pettifer, raines, richardson, schulz, tivendale tuck,he never cut deep enough and drafting has been ordinary.

as usual you are wrong,

Raines was drafted after Wallace arrived

Would you have cut these players in the first year?

Bowden, Brown, Coughlan, Foley Richardson, Johnson, Moore, Newman, Tuck, Jackson, Schulz.

So that leaves Tivandale, Hyde and Petifer

We cut 20 players in the first 2 years of his tenure how many more can you cut and actually win any games?

 

[rose jam]

as usual you are wrong,

Raines was drafted after Wallace arrived

Would you have cut these players in the first year?

Bowden, Brown, Coughlan, Foley Richardson, Johnson, Moore, Newman, Tuck, Jackson, Schulz.

So that leaves Tivandale, Hyde and Petifer

We cut 20 players in the first 2 years of his tenure how many more can you cut and actually win any games?

Drafting has far less to do with the coach then you think.

Wallace had no plan. He bumbled around for 3 and a half years then decided to cut his losses but playing the "youth card", which he clearly wasn't willing to do for the majority of his coaching tenure

 

[camsmith]

Tough question. I think if Terry wanted he could have got us to the finals one or two years perhaps. But he wanted to build a list capable of consistently playing finals and imo he has done just that.

I has probably taken a year too long but if you look at the list he inherited to the one now you can see how big a turnaround it was. We probably now have our best list on paper since 1995.

 

[GAS PANIC]

Tough question. I think if Terry wanted he could have got us to the finals one or two years perhaps. But he wanted to build a list capable of consistently playing finals and imo he has done just that.

I has probably taken a year too long but if you look at the list he inherited to the one now you can see how big a turnaround it was. We probably now have our best list on paper since 1995.

Question: Do you think Richmond are capable of making the finals if a player like Richo goes down long term.

 

[Beckers]

Wallace is 5th on the list of games coached without a premiership (with Eade 9 games ahead in 4th), and 2nd for games coached without a GF appearance. That alone would tell him it's crunch time.

Wallace is going very close to making history......and i wish him all the best

 

[Beckers]

Tough question. I think if Terry wanted he could have got us to the finals one or two years perhaps. But he wanted to build a list capable of consistently playing finals and imo he has done just that.
I has probably taken a year too long but if you look at the list he inherited to the one now you can see how big a turnaround it was. We probably now have our best list on paper since 1995.

When Terry took over he said he thought that Richmonds list was better placed than Hawthorns to forge ahead - WRONG!

He then went about drafting experienced players to fill gaps in the list. Enter Kant Kicksley and Mark Graham. - WRONG again!

Terry then pulled his biggest master stroke by deciding to draft Little Richie instead of Big Buddy - bzzt, WRONG again!

I could go on all day but this guy is such a great media spin master that he apparently has the Richmond board, fans and the media all sucked in.

 

[Grimreepah]

I don't think Terry deserves credit for 'rebuilding the list'. Any coach can finish down the bottom of the ladder and pick up talented players with high draft picks.

 

[camsmith]

Question: Do you think Richmond are capable of making the finals if a player like Richo goes down long term.

Yes. Perhaps not this year, but in coming years, yes. Richo sure will be hard to replace but as we develop KPP like Jack, Vickery, Hughes etc.. and our midfield players improve, yes we can still make finals without him.

Of course Richo in the side makes it a far better side but I think the quality of our side overall is enough to cover a Richmond minus Richo (I hate even typing those last three words ).

When Terry took over he said he thought that Richmonds list was better placed than Hawthorns to forge ahead - WRONG!

He then went about drafting experienced players to fill gaps in the list. Enter Kant Kicksley and Mark Graham. - WRONG again!

Terry then pulled his biggest master stroke by deciding to draft Little Richie instead of Big Buddy - bzzt, WRONG again!

I could go on all day but this guy is such a great media spin master that he apparently has the Richmond board, fans and the media all sucked in.

Of course he talked up Richmonds list. What is he going to say? Get all the supporters and players down by saying the list was rubbish? That would be the Kevin Rudd way of doing it, talking the list down. But Terry was a realist and kept the faith, and at the time the list was ok (should have make the finals if Browny didn't break his leg) but for long-term success it needed to be re-structured.

As for drafting old players, big deal? You have to look at the big picture, he was building a youthful team yet topping up the team with older more experienced players which cost us next to nothing but did help teach the kids and add depth.

Terry alone wouldn't have made the Tambo instead of Buddy call. Plus, weren't Hawthorn going to take Tambo before him also? Remember they took Roughy before Buddy and didn't the Bulldogs also pass on Buddy?

Where we were at the time we needed quick, skillful midfielders.. in hindsight obviously we would have picked Buddy but thats how the draft works.. win some lose some. You are again picking out one little example to justify your broader argument that Terry hasn't improved the list, which is crazy.

Yes Terry recruited a few older players for depth at a cost of next to nothing, as many sides do especially with such a young side. Yes Richmond picked Tambo ahead of Franklin.. but after that what argument do you have? Have a look at our young midfielders, defence and improving forward line.

imo if anyone wants to criticise TW for something it should be for our game plan. He has turned our list around and set it up for sustained success.. yet our strategy on game day is sometimes baffling. Our lack of tacking and taking the game on through foot is where criticism should really be directed.

List management however has been close to spot on. Only criticism being not picking Buddy, not developing a good 2nd ruckman and taking a year or two too long. But all that is in the past and with Vickery perhaps coming on as a 2nd ruckman and that year or two has passed we're now set for a good 5-10 years of footy with finals in at least half of them.

 

[camsmith]

I don't think Terry deserves credit for 'rebuilding the list'. Any coach can finish down the bottom of the ladder and pick up talented players with high draft picks.

The thing is we haven't been finishing right at the bottom for continuous years like say Carlton. So he does need credit for drafting a good team.

 

[Grimreepah]

The thing is we haven't been finishing right at the bottom for continuous years like say Carlton. So he does need credit for drafting a good team.

Being 'not as bad as Carlton' isn't much of a commendation.

 

[Henry Jr]

Rather than look at Wallace vs Clarkson (been flogged to death), be interesting to do a comparision of Wallace vs Eade recruitments since both took over their respective clubs.

I think Wallace will get another gig provided the Tiges make the 8. If they miss, she's all over and doubt another club would touch him.

 

[GAS PANIC]

Rather than look at Wallace vs Clarkson (been flogged to death), be interesting to do a comparision of Wallace vs Eade recruitments since both took over their respective clubs.

I think Wallace will get another gig provided the Tiges make the 8. If they miss, she's all over and doubt another club would touch him.

In the way of that what is the best player to have come from eades recruiting aside from griffen because i am struggling to think of one. It seems he too inherited a reasonable core of the teams current major players eg. Cross, Lake, Murphy, Johnson, Cooney, Gilbee, Giansiracusa, Minson and Morris.

 

[camsmith]

Being 'not as bad as Carlton' isn't much of a commendation.

No thats not my point. My point is that being "not as bad" as Carlton in previous years has cost us better draft picks and therefore making it harder to build a team from the bottom. We haven't gone the Carlton or Hawthorn route.

But now we have a solid list with good management we can build on it in the coming years without having to bottom out for a year or two (wouldn't be intentional of course).

 

[eldorado]

N. We haven't gone the Carlton or Hawthorn route.

.

Bwahahaha.

We NEVER got the spoon.

We fought hard to avoid it, #1 pick or not.


We were genuinely shit for two years, thats it.

 

[RogerC]

Look, I'm a Hawthorn supporter and even I can't seriously argue that Richmond drafting Tambling in 2004 was a mistake. Not at the time, anyway. A lot of Hawthorn fans were angry at the club for, apparently, letting Wallace draft both the best players that year. Looks good now, of course, but at the time not so much. It was just that Richmond had a best-available policy and Hawthorn were looking to build a spine. When you look at their respective lists at the time, it's not so surprising.

I think Wallace is a good motivator - he seems to get good performances out of his teams - and he's shown he can develop a game plan to outwit an opposition coach on his day. But he has two major flaws.

The first is that he's a bit of a huckster. He's selling his squad all the time - he did it on the very first draft day, when he wheeled out Deledio and Tambling and anointed them the two best players of the 2004 draft. He didn't need to do that, and all it did was inflate expectations and put pressure on himself and his key recruits. If Wallace had baldly stated the project ahead of him from the start, and said that any early gains would be a bonus in terms of the longer project, he would have had a lot more goodwill.

His other trouble is that he thinks and plans too much in the short-term. Even with a five year contract, he always spoke in terms of what the team would be doing in the next year or two. He's changed his tune lately, but I think that might have a bit more to do with his own contract, and creating an impression that he's partway through a strategy that requires him to stay at the club. When you look at what's actually happened, though, he's always been on the lookout for ready-mades.

Maybe it was just a bad fit of coach with club. Wallace can coach all right, but he's better suited to a side that's been basically put together, but needs some rounding off and motivation. And Richmond have put a side together now, but it probably could have happened more quickly and resulted in a better-balanced side if the strategy had been outlined and followed from the start. What they have now is lots of talented kids being held together by some over-30s players, who may not be there once the kids mature. It's a small window they have before they need to replace key players again.

Which all sort of means that Richmond are now at the place where Wallace can coach them, but it won't last long. They're better off keeping him, at least until the veterans retire.