The "We must get Tom Lynch at all costs...or maybe not" Thread

[Robroy22]

It's the other way around.

Yes they had have their issues but they have resolved them and come back better. Like North they failed to take advantage of their 70's & 80's success. Unlike North they realised it and did something about it. They had Don Scott initially rasie the alarm, then act. He then came in later when they were languishing until Kennett came along. Scott was putting together a board challange (I know one of the members of the ticket). Kennett was a circuit breaker and he ran the club well. Long before all of his they had the likes of Kennedy with huge influence.

Success doesn't cover problems it comes from dealing with problems and being a well run club. It isn't possible to have real success withough being well run. How well run and for how long determines how sucessful and how long the club is successful for.

Administrations drive success.

So Carlton's "Brown paper bags" Admin was a successful administration? And North's Aylett led "10 year rule" Admin (Ron Joseph) that was fabulous administrating! And the Tiges when they sacked Tommy Hafey after he'd won them 4 flags....fantastic administrating! And lets not forget Mick's time at the WCE when drugs flowed freely and the administration didn't mind as long as no-one knew and they kept winning flags!

Good admin is essential I'll admit. But shady admin often gets just as good as results (and usually faster!)

Sad, sad world eh?

 

[MarkT2]

So Carlton's "Brown paper bags" Admin was a successful administration? And North's Aylett led "10 year rule" Admin (Ron Joseph) that was fabulous administrating! And the Tiges when they sacked Tommy Hafey after he'd won them 4 flags....fantastic administrating! And lets not forget Mick's time at the WCE when drugs flowed freely and the administration didn't mind as long as no-one knew and they kept winning flags!

Good admin is essential I'll admit. But shady admin often gets just as good as results (and usually faster!)

Sad, sad world eh?

Time and place with Elliot. Carlton were in the doldrums until they recruited Barassi. They were very well run in the 70's as were Richmond under Wilson and Richmond. They attracted a lot of quality players and their recruiting networks were very good, They got good zones - they lobied well. Carltom were well run in the 80s for the most part.

The brown paper bags were part of the 80s era. As it was though they were the tail end of not being able to cope with change and Carlton have been poorly run since that time. Aside from the obvious rorting when it all got to hard to balance the books, which ultimately smashed the club to pieces, they were very well for a long time, even under Elliot. They had a blow up post 1979 but they recovered well. Eventualy Elliot and his adminstration became too arrogant and outdated. There is something in Kennett's limitation of tenure argment.

North took advantage of a rule better than anyone else. They recruited the coach of the era. They were a laughing stock until then.

Shady administration gets found out. I don't think North were shady they just lost their adminstrators to the AFL and elsewhere. Yes Carlton were shady but their success preceeded that time. Tigers sacked Hafey and fell in a hole. Same with Melbourne when they sacked Norm Smith. Good adminstrations are not eternal even if they are headed by the same people. People have use by dates. Some expire quicker than others.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

It's the other way around.

Yes they had have their issues but they have resolved them and come back better. Like North they failed to take advantage of their 70's & 80's success. Unlike North they realised it and did something about it. They had Don Scott initially rasie the alarm, then act. The fact is they didn't merge and they didin't need to.

He then came in later when they were languishing until Kennett came along. Scott was putting together a board challange (I know one of the members of the ticket). Kennett was a circuit breaker and he ran the club well. Long before all of his they had the likes of Kennedy with huge influence.

Success doesn't cover problems it comes from dealing with problems and being a well run club. It isn't possible to have real success withough being well run. How well run and for how long determines how sucessful and how long the club is successful for.

Administrations drive success. Over the last 30-40 years Hawthorn have had the most success because they have been the best run. They haven't won every flag and they hevn't been the absolust best at everything every year but the record speaks fopr itself. By contrast we have ben all over the shop. Bitter elections, threatened player strike in he 70s, series of coaches in the 80s, broke more than once, sucession plan that de-railed the whole club. In between some quality administration and achievements. There is a reason we haven't won morer flags and it isn t the AFL's fault or bad luck. It is administration. We have the resources to match anyone. We should have won more flags. Clarke, McDonnald, McAllister all were problematic. Eddie has been great and terrible at times.

You make good points.

Rarely have I seen an administrator kick the ball.

It does assist and helps the whole club tick along. Sometimes it can be destructive.
Though Carlton overcame the Harris brawl and losing Jesaulenko and kept winning flags. Great players?

But to me every time you see a Club win multiple flags in an era I always see the same thing:

Great players!

Use hawthorn in the 80s as an example.

Matthews Tuck Breteton Ayres Langford Dunstall Platten Jarman
Dipierdomenico Buckenara

With those types they’d have to knock up winning flags.

Players players players.

And when success comes the admin tends to be all ok too. Everything happy no agitated types.

We did stuff up in the 60s 70s with the players we had but some of those crazy losses had nothing to do with whose far behind was sitting at the presidents lunch in my view.

But I do understand your view.

Bitterness through a club is a killer.

 

[Apex36]

What did?

His desire to return home.

 

[magpie_marty]

You make good points.

Rarely have I seen an administrator kick the ball.

It does assist and helps the whole club tick along. Sometimes it can be destructive.
Though Carlton overcame the Harris brawl and losing Jesaulenko and kept winning flags. Great players?

But to me every time you see a Club win multiple flags in an era I always see the same thing:

Great players!

Use hawthorn in the 80s as an example.

Matthews Tuck Breteton Ayres Langford Dunstall Platten Jarman
Dipierdomenico Buckenara

With those types they’d have to knock up winning flags.

Players players players.

And when success comes the admin tends to be all ok too. Everything happy no agitated types.

We did stuff up in the 60s 70s with the players we had but some of those crazy losses had nothing to do with whose far behind was sitting at the presidents lunch in my view.

But I do understand your view.

Bitterness through a club is a killer.

Hawthorn also had great depth,I think Dipper played something like 90 odd reserves games.

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

Honestly guys, he has a very good track record. Yes, he got Treloar wrong (as did a lot of media people because Treloar was telling us he was coming), but he's gotten so many more right and he's been doing so for years. Hampson, Petterd, Prestia, Nankervis. He brought up Schache's name as a player of interest the year before the media even reported it (as he's done again with Lynch).

Please don't take this the wrong way either. I just thought it might help to give you a bit of context as to why the Richmond board is trusting this guy so emphatically. He doesn't bullshit.

Treloar never said he was going to Richmond you delusional idiot.

Some idiots on your board made that crap up when they had pie on their face after Treloar came to the pies. Never, ever has he even nearly indicated that the pies were his second choice.

You've been fooled if you think that

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Hawthorn also had great depth,I think Dipper played something like 90 odd reserves games.

Early on he did, Tuck did as well.

But in those days lists ran with greater numbers and players could arrive at an early age and be prepared for senior footy.

But make no mistake, once the player was ready for seniors they played seniors eg Leigh Matthews.

Speaking of Leigh, I heard him speak to us Collingwood people at a Collingwood function about this very topic.

“Don’t ever let anyone fool you that Hawthorn kept players back until they did their time.

If you were in the best 20 you played.”


Incidentally Leigh also said

“Don’t let anyone fool you, Hawthorn knew how good Gary Ablett Snr was. They didn’t.”

 

[CFC2010]

Early on he did, Tuck did as well.

But in those days lists ran with greater numbers and players could arrive at an early age and be prepared for senior footy.

But make no mistake, once the player was ready for seniors they played seniors eg Leigh Matthews.

Speaking of Leigh, I heard him speak to us Collingwood people at a Collingwood function about this very topic.

“Don’t ever let anyone fool you that Hawthorn kept players back until they did their time.

If you were in the best 20 you played.”


Incidentally Leigh also said

“Don’t let anyone fool you, Hawthorn knew how good Gary Ablett Snr was. They didn’t.”

Just a little off topic Saintly.

Who do you think is responsible for the Hawks being top five at the moment?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Just a little off topic Saintly.

Who do you think is responsible for the Hawks being top five at the moment?

Mason Cox and Jordan De Goey.

 

[Leviathan Pie]

Honestly guys, he has a very good track record. Yes, he got Treloar wrong (as did a lot of media people because Treloar was telling us he was coming), but he's gotten so many more right and he's been doing so for years. Hampson, Petterd, Prestia, Nankervis. He brought up Schache's name as a player of interest the year before the media even reported it (as he's done again with Lynch).

Please don't take this the wrong way either. I just thought it might help to give you a bit of context as to why the Richmond board is trusting this guy so emphatically. He doesn't bullshit.

'Has a very good track record'

Throw enough darts, one-or-two are bound to land.

 

[MarkT2]

Rarely have I seen an administrator kik the ball.

No they hire the people that decide who kicks the ball, teaches them how to kick the ball better and coaches them when and where to kick it. Games of foootball are won off the ground befiore any player takes the field. How many no 1s and early draft picks have Carlton had this century? Where has it got them? Why have GC and GWS gone in such different directions? WHat is the difference between Richmond this decade and Richmond last decade? It's their administration.

Sometimes it can be destructive.
Though Carlton overcame the Harris brawl and losing Jesaulenko and kept winning flags. Great players?

Yes they styarted 1980 with some talent on the list. They replaced Jessa with Jones but quickly realised he was a dud and got Parkin. They recruited good players from interstate. It added up to back to back flags. They brought Parkin back at the right time and won aghaion in 1995. I agree you need good players to win flags. You need good people to find, keep develop and coach the good players and those good people are appointed by the administrators.

 

[MarkT2]

Hawthorn also had great depth,I think Dipper played something like 90 odd reserves games.

So did Tuck which is astonishing when you consider he played well over 400 senior games.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Just a little off topic Saintly.

Who do you think is responsible for the Hawks being top five at the moment?

Same as always.
Players first.
Coach and coaching group second.
Very even competition third.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Just a little off topic Saintly.

Who do you think is responsible for the Hawks being top five at the moment?

I could have been a smarty and said Buddy and Steele

 

[CFC2010]

Same as always.
Players first.
Coach and coaching group second.
Very even competition third.

At least you're consistent.

Feel sorry for Bucks and Clarko considering the players have carried them both this year.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

No they hire the people that decide who kicks the ball, teaches them how to kick the ball better and coaches them when and where to kick it. Games of foootball are won off the ground befiore any player takes the field. How many no 1s and early draft picks have Carlton had this century? Where has it got them? Why have GC and GWS gone in such different directions? WHat is the difference between Richmond this decade and Richmond last decade? It's their administration.
Yes they styarted 1980 with some talent on the list. They replaced Jessa with Jones but quickly realised he was a dud and got Parkin. They recruited good players from interstate. It added up to back to back flags. They brought Parkin back at the right time and won aghaion in 1995. I agree you need good players to win flags. You need good people to find, keep develop and coach the good players and those good people are appointed by the administrators.

Fair points raised.

The difference is the quality of players.

Richmond wins without Martin, Rance, Riewoldt?

No way.

Give us (ofcourse this won’t hapoen) Martin, the Bont, Rance and we are top 2! Assuming they fully fit.

Players of high quality make the single biggest difference.

For what it’s worth, our club is far from perfect but we’re running ok, it’s a united club. Apparently we have money.

You think Treloar, a fully fit Elliott, and a few others and were not top 4?

But it is never that simple.

Ps te Elliott it’s his back and that no team could fix with anything but it coming good in it’s own.
There’s no fairy dust for bad backs.

 

[wicksy]

Is this the Tom Lynch thread or the "Hawthorn rulez" thread?
In fact, what board am I even on?!

 

[MarkT2]

Fair points raised.

The difference is the quality of players.

Richmond wins without Martin, Rance, Riewoldt?

No way.

Give us (ofcourse this won’t hapoen) Martin, the Bont, Rance and we are top 2! Assuming they fully fit.

Players of high quality make the single biggest difference.

For what it’s worth, our club is far from perfect but we’re running ok, it’s a united club. Apparently we have money.

You think Treloar, a fully fit Elliott, and a few others and were not top 4?

But it is never that simple.

Ps te Elliott it’s his back and that no team could fix with anything but it coming good in it’s own.
There’s no fairy dust for bad backs.

I understand where you are comming from. I am a firm believer that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You definitely need the players. The point though is how do Richmond get, develop and keep those players without a quality administration? We could have some handy players instead of Freemam, Scharenburg, Broomhead & Kenedy running around this week. That would make us a better side. The fact is we took who we took and our list is a product of how we ran our club.

As for us being top 4 - yes a few players being fit would help. A different draw would hinder. We haven't played finals for a long time. That's becasue we haven't had the list, the coaching team and the development progress. We haven't had a CEO that has united the club. We have had a president that has run his own race. We had a lot of distractions of our own making post 2010. It's not coincidental that Eddie has been a lot quieter this year.

You definately need quality players to achieve quality results. They don't fall from the sky though. Carlton and Melbourne are perfect examples of clubs with numerous early picks that achieved nothing. Melbourne seem to be better run since an AFL appointment. That isn't coincidental either. Even with Melbourne though, they would be better off with Kelley but they chose another path. They chose quantity over quality. These decisions are pivital.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

At least you're consistent.

Feel sorry for Bucks and Clarko considering the players have carried them both this year.

I don’t get why people always want to make it all about an almost all or nothing discussion about this mythical coach business.

Ofcourse they play an important role, getting the players that “carry them” going in the right direction etc.

They are important but if they get bog ordinary players they better try getting better players or they’ll meet their own end.

And done coaches lack authority and never look like a leader so that won’t help them eg Bolton, Neeld, Rhode.

If Clarkson was Melbourne coach instead of Neeld, if I raised his name today you’d all laugh at me and say that angry ant dud.
And he’s no dud but an all time great.

A little luck in who you start with never goes astray.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Is this the Tom Lynch thread or the "Hawthorn rulez" thread?
In fact, what board am I even on?!

Well said.
Too much circle work with the obligatory weightlifting clean and jerk going on.

 

[CFC2010]

I don’t get why people always want to make it all about an almost all or nothing discussion about this mythical coach business.

Ofcourse they play an important role, getting the players that “carry them” going in the right direction etc.

They are important but if they get bog ordinary players they better try getting better players or they’ll meet their own end.

And done coaches lack authority and never look like a leader so that won’t help them eg Bolton, Neeld, Rhode.

If Clarkson was Melbourne coach instead of Neeld, if I raised his name today you’d all laugh at me and say that angry ant dud.
And he’s no dud but an all time great.

A little luck in who you start with never goes astray.

Do you agree we have been decimated by injuries this year?

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I understand where you are comming from. I am a firm believer that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You definitely need the players. The point though is how do Richmond get, develop and keep those players without a quality administration? We could have some handy players instead of Freemam, Scharenburg, Broomhead & Kenedy running around this week. That would make us a better side. The fact is we took who we took and our list is a product of how we ran our club.

As for us being top 4 - yes a few players being fit would help. A different draw would hinder. We haven't played finals for a long time. That's becasue we haven't had the list, the coaching team and the development progress. We haven't had a CEO that has united the club. We have had a president that has run his own race. We had a lot of distractions of our own making post 2010. It's not coincidental that Eddie has been a lot quieter this year.

You definately need quality players to achieve quality results. They don't fall from the sky though. Carlton and Melbourne are perfect examples of clubs with numerous early picks that achieved nothing. Melbourne seem to be better run since an AFL appointment. That isn't coincidental either. Even with Melbourne though, they would be better off with Kelley but they chose another path. They chose quantity over quality. These decisions are pivital.

Fair points.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Do you agree we have been decimated by injuries this year?

They have certainly been horrible to us.
With quality like Elliott and Treloar all year we win last week.

I might get smashed for this, because the horse has bolted, but if Wells was fully fit we win at least two more games this year.

 

[CFC2010]

They have certainly been horrible to us.
With quality like Elliott and Treloar all year we win last week.

I might get smashed for this, because the horse has bolted, but if Wells was fully fit we win at least two more games this year.

My point is Bucks and his assistants have been brilliant this year. I think they deserve some more credit for our year thus far.

 

[Anzacday]

My point is Bucks and his assistants have been brilliant this year. I think they deserve some more credit for our year thus far.

Agree - I am astounded and very proud of the resilience within the group.
We've probably had more injuries and to more important players than last year, (haven't checked and won't).