List Changes Before the New Coaches Arrive??

[rodgerfox]

Obviously, the club has to tell players their fate.

But I find it curious, and fairly scary that it's highly probable that we're cutting players based on Richardson's pathetically woeful theories on how to win games of footy.


We know, god knows we know FFS, that Richardson likes players that are 'strong' (whatever that even means) and apply pressure, and effort and are pleasing etc. etc. This seems to be code for guys that can't kick, that are slow, that make errors every week and get concussed every second week.

But what happens when Ratten and these guys walk in and say 'Dude, WTF are you talking about?'?

I don't think there's much option though to be honest, but are we potentially wasting 2019 already by letting Richardson have a say in who stays, and who goes?

[parkeysainter]

Obviously, the club has to tell players their fate.

But I find it curious, and fairly scary that it's highly probable that we're cutting players based on Richardson's pathetically woeful theories on how to win games of footy.


We know, god knows we know FFS, that Richardson likes players that are 'strong' (whatever that even means) and apply pressure, and effort and are pleasing etc. etc. This seems to be code for guys that can't kick, that are slow, that make errors every week and get concussed every second week.

But what happens when Ratten and these guys walk in and say 'Dude, WTF are you talking about?'?

I don't think there's much option though to be honest, but are we potentially wasting 2019 already by letting Richardson have a say in who stays, and who goes?

I would think Gallagher and Lethers have more say on who stays and goes.

[bigcarl]

Obviously, the club has to tell players their fate.

But I find it curious, and fairly scary that it's highly probable that we're cutting players based on Richardson's pathetically woeful theories on how to win games of footy.


We know, god knows we know FFS, that Richardson likes players that are 'strong' (whatever that even means) and apply pressure, and effort and are pleasing etc. etc. This seems to be code for guys that can't kick, that are slow, that make errors every week and get concussed every second week.

But what happens when Ratten and these guys walk in and say 'Dude, WTF are you talking about?'?

I don't think there's much option though to be honest, but are we potentially wasting 2019 already by letting Richardson have a say in who stays, and who goes?

I would think Gallagher and Lethers have more say on who stays and goes.

One would hope so

[rodgerfox]

It's my belief, that Richardson is why player development is so glaringly terrible.

His love of 'strong' players, that apply 'pressure' and 'effort' - but can't kick and are slow is what has crippled the development of our players.

It seems that his main KPI is that you get concussed every second week. And that the other KPI is that you don't use any of your natural talent or flair as a footballer, but instead focus on running around like a viking and 'bringing the ball to ground'.


I read on here once from an ITK, that we have roles for the team, and basically each player has a role. We have the 'A guy' at that role, and another one sitting in the two's ready to come in should the other get injured. I'm paraphrasing, but that was the jist of it.
This means that for example, Freeman may have been a better player than a dozen players in the 1s - but because the 'A guy' playing his role was 'playing his role' as per the coach's instructions, Freeman sits in the 2s.

I understand roles, and I understand team balance etc. But I have genuine concerns that Richardson takes things way too literally, and doesn't have the strategic nous to think outside the box at all, and to comprehend that many of these rules that most clubs adopt, are guidelines. Frameworks. They're not necessarily literal.

I remember on AFL360 last year, when Gerard Whateley or Robbo asked the coaches which was more important - pressure or skill? And Scott jumped in and said 'both'. He was adamant that pressure without skill and method was a waste of time - and Richardson nearly fell off his chair. The look on his face was like h'e just been told that Santa Claus isn't real!

It reinforced my view that he simply had nothing up his sleeve other than 'being strong, and applying pressure'. Here we are, 18 months later and we still have not anything to suggest otherwise.


Now as for Kingsley....

He was clearly the strategy guy. He's the 'highly regarded' one. Yet he was absolutely pathetic in his role as 'transition coach'. We were without doubt, totally inept in our transition. It was utterly putrid, and embarrassing to watch our lack of cohesion.

So it begs the question, especially given that Richmond have snapped him up - whether or not Richardson's selection policy (that according to Tom Browne's article yesterday on Nathan Freeman that he holds so dearly and treats with such extreme integrity) just didn't align with Kingsley's strategies.
Were the guys that are 'strong' in the contest yet incapable of basic skills that get picked every week, not able to carry out the strategy setup by Kingsley?

And if so....can someone please reassure me that Richardson won't be involved in any way, shape or form in the list management going forward? Because unless we get Alan Joyce or Tom Hafey in as our Transition Coach for next year, our outdated selection model will not match up with any strategy that a modern day coach brings to the table.

[dragit]

It's my belief, that Richardson is why player development is so glaringly terrible.

I couldn't agree more.

Richo seems to be totally happy for multiple blokes to be performing one simple task for a match, like applying pressure (mav), being big (brown)… meanwhile we aren't developing younger guys who could potentially go two ways > apply pressure AND use the football to our advantage.

A horror run with injuries the only reason we saw some players that should have been tried much earlier.

If Richo doesn't go, I can foresee an exodus of players looking to get the F out of our archaic environment.

[rodgerfox]

It's my belief, that Richardson is why player development is so glaringly terrible.

I couldn't agree more.

Richo seems to be totally happy for multiple blokes to be performing one simple task for a match, like applying pressure (mav), being big (brown)… meanwhile we aren't developing younger guys who could potentially go two ways > apply pressure AND use the football to our advantage.

A horror run with injuries the only reason we saw some players that should have been tried much earlier.

If Richo doesn't go, I can foresee an exodus of players looking to get the F out of our archaic environment.

I don't even think it's about developing them in the 1s necessarily. Plenty of guys 'do their time' in the ressies and become legitimate guns in the AFL. My issue is that it appears that they're being taught to be far too one dimensional. To just learn to play one role.

An example, is when Dangerfield goes forward at Geelong. His first thought when attacking a marking contest, is to mark the f****** ball. A distant second, is that if he can't mark it - he doesn't get outmarked and the ball goes to the front of the pack.
I'm 100% certain that our forwards the role of 'tall forward' in our team is primarily to bring the ball to the ground. Marking seems the distant second priority. It's why Bruce and McCartin go at the ball with flat hands so often. They almost spike it to the front of the pack, instead of savagely attacking it with intent to mark.

And then people wonder why McCartin doesn't seem to be developing! It's because he's begin taught to be a drone, that doesn't play football but instead performs menial tasks each week for 120 minutes.

I'm certain that the same can be said for almost the entire squad. Talented young kids are having the skill and talent coached out of them, and instead are being taught to 'play roles' and perform insignificant tasks every week.

[Yorkeys]

Transition: the process or a period of changing from one state or condition to another. It was literally applied in 2018: we had the ball and then we gave the ball away. Perfect example of transition. Now if we had a "keep the ball and score coach" it may have been different. I find it hard to accept that the players role play because no one can fluff their lines that much. I suspect the coaches just couldn't follow the KIS principle, Richo never got what Kingsley was on about and the players had no cues from the footlights. And AR cannot/could not adapt to there being so many injuries; plus his idea of running all the forwards away from the attacking 50 meter area was self defeating but took ages to be recognised. So as for assurances - I can assure you AR will not be directly involved in list management into the future (he will be politely consulted and politely ignored). He will have only one vote in selection and hold no veto. Wright, Goddard and Freeman are not necessarily a cause for alarm, but of course regret. Connellan should have been given an opportunity in the firsts. The next few weeks and drafts will be when the rubber hits the road. Alan's role is to get the players fit, don't sweat the transition stuff Al, Ratts has it covered.