Roo : Richardson sacking 18 months in the making

[st.byron]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/ric ... 528bz.html

“St Kilda great Nick Riewoldt said there had been "question marks" for 18 months before Saints coach Alan Richardson was sacked on Tuesday.
Richardson's six-year relationship with the Saints ended with the club languishing in 14th spot on the AFL ladder and highly unlikely to play finals for an eighth straight season.”

The article doesn’t go on to say what the ‘question marks’ were, but does talk a bit about how players manage when the coach is sacked mid-season.

[Myron Gaines]

Fairly obvious Lethlean’s football department review concluded that Richo was unsuitable but due to contractual obligations couldn’t exit him up until now. The moment Lethlean entered the building the coaches demise was written. Before then, Richo, Finnis & football department were cruising along unaccountably.

[st.byron]

Fairly obvious Lethlean’s football department review concluded that Richo was unsuitable but due to contractual obligations couldn’t exit him up until now. The moment Lethlean entered the building the coaches demise was written. Before then, Richo, Finnis & football department were cruising along unaccountably.

Interesting to consider that in the light of Lethlean saying at the end of last season something like, “we’re not going to sack Alan, we’re going to support him”. Did they really think he might be able to deliver with new assistants, or was it purely being in a financial bind. I think the latter.

[saynta]

Fairly obvious Lethlean’s football department review concluded that Richo was unsuitable but due to contractual obligations couldn’t exit him up until now. The moment Lethlean entered the building the coaches demise was written. Before then, Richo, Finnis & football department were cruising along unaccountably.

Pretty right I would think. Should not have been given that two year extension imho.

[Myron Gaines]

Fairly obvious Lethlean’s football department review concluded that Richo was unsuitable but due to contractual obligations couldn’t exit him up until now. The moment Lethlean entered the building the coaches demise was written. Before then, Richo, Finnis & football department were cruising along unaccountably.

Interesting to consider that in the light of Lethlean saying at the end of last season something like, “we’re not going to sack Alan, we’re going to support him”. Did they really think he might be able to deliver with new assistants, or was it purely being in a financial bind. I think the latter.

I agree. Given that the club was in 12M debt & was essentially being controlled, or at least required approval from Head Office, sacking Richo & paying him out 1M + was not an option.

[Myron Gaines]

Fairly obvious Lethlean’s football department review concluded that Richo was unsuitable but due to contractual obligations couldn’t exit him up until now. The moment Lethlean entered the building the coaches demise was written. Before then, Richo, Finnis & football department were cruising along unaccountably.

Pretty right I would think. Should not have been given that two year extension imho.

I think it’s pretty clear that the standards & accountability of staff on & off field has been extremely low. Unfortunately for Richo he played a large part in creating this culture & not a lot could be changed until he departed.

[bigred]

A couple of things here.

His extension was done in 2017. On the back of two seasons where improvement was a definite thing.
12/10 in 2016 and 11/11 in 2017 just missing the finals.

I would think that the performance part of the extension would have been more than fair and reasonable at that point.

You don't plan these things to go backwards, or stay the same.

2018 was the killer. Seriously, that was the season from hell.

[saynta]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/mis ... p527tj.htm



The next St Kilda coach will inherit a better list than Alan Richardson had.

Or at least the next coach will enjoy a list Richardson never really got his hands on. The next coach might have a fit Jack Steven, he might have Dan Hannebery playing – though to what level remains a question – he might get Dylan Roberton back, though that, too, remains uncertain.

He will have Max King ready to make his debut and he will hope to have Jarryn Geary and Jake Carlisle for full seasons, not bits of them. Richardson was judged in his last year without any of them in a meaningful way.
Jarryn Geary, one of the sidelined Saints, faces the media on Tuesday.

Jarryn Geary, one of the sidelined Saints, faces the media on Tuesday.Credit:Justin McManus

It is difficult to assess St Kilda’s list because we have not truly had a proper look at St Kilda’s list. This point is also curious when applied to the logic of sacking Richardson (or make his decision for him to resign) now.
Advertisement

Richardson was sacked because of six years of missed finals, and just six wins in his sixth year. He was also sacked because he oversaw a list that was not good enough to make finals for five years and not fit enough or good enough yet to make it in the sixth year.

St Kilda’s own action on their list, list management and recruiting staff over the last year or so showed they felt a significant fault for where they found themselves resided not just in the coaching staff but with the talent they had brought into the club.

The new list regime’s big-ticket item last year was Hannebery. To all but St Kilda this sounded like an unwise trade for various reasons not the least being the player’s body and age and then the length and size of the contract. One year In and it does not look any better.

But the underlying logic of the Hannebery trade was about where St Kilda was as a club more than where Hannebery was as a player. It was overwhelmingly weighted towards the fact Hannebery gave them something they didn’t have: class.

Beyond that he was also a high-profile player who actually wanted to come to the club after so many others had turned them down.

St Kilda had been a list of safe, unadventurous draft choices. Even as recently as the 2017 draft they had two picks in the top 10 and took Hunter Clark and Nick Coffield. Clark looks like he will be a good player and, while it is still early days, the jury remains out on Coffield.

The Western Bulldogs in the same draft also had two first-round picks and took Aaron Naughton and Ed Richards with later picks than the Saints.

Consequently the Saints were a team without a lot of colour or pace.

One of Richardson’s problems this year with the injuries was that it had an effect not only in terms of the players not playing but on those who were playing. It created complacency for there were players who knew they’d be getting a game each week and so were more comfortable in their position than they should have been. This, too, makes it hard to judge the list.

The “vanilla list” label has been attached to the club. It is a remnant of the previous list management for players lacking dare and boldness.

“I was unsure about their draft choices last year but I rate what they did now looking back on it,” a respected list manager at another club said.

“Matty Parker is definitely not a vanilla player, nor is Robbie Young – he has some dash and could be a good player. Nick Hind has that real outside speed and was a good pick at 54. I was really surprised Melbourne didn’t go for him given his pace.

“Parker, Young and Hind are not vanilla players.”

They also picked up Rohan Marshall in the rookie draft and he has been one of the finds of the season. He is a legitimate talent and looks a long-term player even if the Saints see him as forward and second ruck rather than No.1 ruck.

“If you had your choice of jobs at the three clubs you would take Carlton,’’ one list manager said.
Another senior list manager is unpersuaded by the Saints’ list still: “I think it is a pretty ordinary list. And I think Richo has done a good job to get them playing with aggression because he didn’t have any leg speed [on the list] at all.

“They brought in Hind and Young last year for pace and Hind looks OK. I have big doubts on Robbie Young. [Jack] Bytel is a good inside mid – he’s not quick but they have a heap of those types.
“I think one thing you can saw about the Saints and their list is they look like they will be very aggressive with it at the end of the year.”

[skeptic]

The true tragedy IMO has been that the last 18months for Richo have been more about saving his job then they were about doing what’s right for the club...

It’s not Alan’s fault that they put that ridiculous stipulation on him that he needed to win a final in 2019 or be sacked but IMO that pretty much was the end of his career tenure there.
IMO it was plain to see that 2018 indicated that we overrated our list and prospects. That’s ok if you recognise it and react accordingly instead of doing what we did which is carry on as though we were finals bound with little change to the list, trade in players that pbly won’t contribute to the next tilt and experiment as little as possible.

Ironically, given how conservative Richo’s tenure has been, it’s the experimenting/new things he’s done that have paid the biggest dividends
Battle down back
Wilkie, Hind + Parker
Marshall as primary ruck

Not much else gained this season

[saintsRrising]

Ironically, given how conservative Richo’s tenure has been, it’s the experimenting/new things he’s done that have paid the biggest dividends
Battle down back
Wilkie, Hind + Parker
Marshall as primary ruck

Not much else gained this season

'
IMO you are clutching at straws in both departments. Experimenting/ new things, or rather forced to?

Marshall only got the gig as Longer and Pierce were both out injured and they had traded out Hickey.

Battle down back. Done after Carlisle had continued back problems in the pre-season and cemented one Robbo had is heart problems. Bit at least in this case there was some reasoned logic and preparation going on rather than oh s***, who can we play there now.


New things?
Wilkie. Hardly an experiment playing him in the position that he played in the SANFL.

Parker. Played in the position he was recruited for and no where else.
Hind. Richo basically refused to play him till injuries forced his hand as he could not find a spot for him down back. Richo had Hind in mind to play forward as much as he had Marshall in mind to play No1 ruck.

[skeptic]

Ironically, given how conservative Richo’s tenure has been, it’s the experimenting/new things he’s done that have paid the biggest dividends
Battle down back
Wilkie, Hind + Parker
Marshall as primary ruck

Not much else gained this season

'
IMO you are clutching at straws in both departments. Experimenting/ new things, or rather forced to?

Marshall only got the gig as Longer and Pierce were both out injured and they had traded out Hickey.

Battle down back. Done after Carlisle had continued back problems in the pre-season and cemented one Robbo had is heart problems. Bit at least in this case there was some reasoned logic and preparation going on rather than oh s***, who can we play there now.


New things?
Wilkie. Hardly an experiment playing him in the position that he played in the SANFL.

Parker. Played in the position he was recruited for and no where else.
Hind. Richo basically refused to play him till injuries forced his hand as he could not find a spot for him down back. Richo had Hind in mind to play forward as much as he had Marshall in mind to play No1 ruck.

In fairness my point wasn’t really to praise the coach there... agree with you 100%.

[sunsaint]

The article doesn’t go on to say what the ‘question marks’ were, but does talk a bit about how players manage when the coach is sacked mid-season.

Roo posed the very simple question 18 months ago - "what is the game plan?"
internally the EARLY contract extension points the finger at management and board

[SAINT-LEE]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/mis ... p527tj.htm



The next St Kilda coach will inherit a better list than Alan Richardson had.

Or at least the next coach will enjoy a list Richardson never really got his hands on. The next coach might have a fit Jack Steven, he might have Dan Hannebery playing – though to what level remains a question – he might get Dylan Roberton back, though that, too, remains uncertain.

He will have Max King ready to make his debut and he will hope to have Jarryn Geary and Jake Carlisle for full seasons, not bits of them. Richardson was judged in his last year without any of them in a meaningful way.
Jarryn Geary, one of the sidelined Saints, faces the media on Tuesday.

Jarryn Geary, one of the sidelined Saints, faces the media on Tuesday.Credit:Justin McManus

It is difficult to assess St Kilda’s list because we have not truly had a proper look at St Kilda’s list. This point is also curious when applied to the logic of sacking Richardson (or make his decision for him to resign) now.
Advertisement

Richardson was sacked because of six years of missed finals, and just six wins in his sixth year. He was also sacked because he oversaw a list that was not good enough to make finals for five years and not fit enough or good enough yet to make it in the sixth year.

St Kilda’s own action on their list, list management and recruiting staff over the last year or so showed they felt a significant fault for where they found themselves resided not just in the coaching staff but with the talent they had brought into the club.

The new list regime’s big-ticket item last year was Hannebery. To all but St Kilda this sounded like an unwise trade for various reasons not the least being the player’s body and age and then the length and size of the contract. One year In and it does not look any better.

But the underlying logic of the Hannebery trade was about where St Kilda was as a club more than where Hannebery was as a player. It was overwhelmingly weighted towards the fact Hannebery gave them something they didn’t have: class.

Beyond that he was also a high-profile player who actually wanted to come to the club after so many others had turned them down.

St Kilda had been a list of safe, unadventurous draft choices. Even as recently as the 2017 draft they had two picks in the top 10 and took Hunter Clark and Nick Coffield. Clark looks like he will be a good player and, while it is still early days, the jury remains out on Coffield.

The Western Bulldogs in the same draft also had two first-round picks and took Aaron Naughton and Ed Richards with later picks than the Saints.

Consequently the Saints were a team without a lot of colour or pace.

One of Richardson’s problems this year with the injuries was that it had an effect not only in terms of the players not playing but on those who were playing. It created complacency for there were players who knew they’d be getting a game each week and so were more comfortable in their position than they should have been. This, too, makes it hard to judge the list.

The “vanilla list” label has been attached to the club. It is a remnant of the previous list management for players lacking dare and boldness.

“I was unsure about their draft choices last year but I rate what they did now looking back on it,” a respected list manager at another club said.

“Matty Parker is definitely not a vanilla player, nor is Robbie Young – he has some dash and could be a good player. Nick Hind has that real outside speed and was a good pick at 54. I was really surprised Melbourne didn’t go for him given his pace.

“Parker, Young and Hind are not vanilla players.”

They also picked up Rohan Marshall in the rookie draft and he has been one of the finds of the season. He is a legitimate talent and looks a long-term player even if the Saints see him as forward and second ruck rather than No.1 ruck.

“If you had your choice of jobs at the three clubs you would take Carlton,’’ one list manager said.
Another senior list manager is unpersuaded by the Saints’ list still: “I think it is a pretty ordinary list. And I think Richo has done a good job to get them playing with aggression because he didn’t have any leg speed [on the list] at all.

“They brought in Hind and Young last year for pace and Hind looks OK. I have big doubts on Robbie Young. [Jack] Bytel is a good inside mid – he’s not quick but they have a heap of those types.
“I think one thing you can saw about the Saints and their list is they look like they will be very aggressive with it at the end of the year.”

I agree with some
But saying Richo didn't have a list with the goods when he started? Pure garbage.


I dare you to provide the list and games played from 2014 vs 2020.

Very uninformed comment.

I can prove it if you want?

[saynta]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/mis ... p527tj.htm



The next St Kilda coach will inherit a better list than Alan Richardson had.

Or at least the next coach will enjoy a list Richardson never really got his hands on. The next coach might have a fit Jack Steven, he might have Dan Hannebery playing – though to what level remains a question – he might get Dylan Roberton back, though that, too, remains uncertain.

He will have Max King ready to make his debut and he will hope to have Jarryn Geary and Jake Carlisle for full seasons, not bits of them. Richardson was judged in his last year without any of them in a meaningful way.
Jarryn Geary, one of the sidelined Saints, faces the media on Tuesday.

Jarryn Geary, one of the sidelined Saints, faces the media on Tuesday.Credit:Justin McManus

It is difficult to assess St Kilda’s list because we have not truly had a proper look at St Kilda’s list. This point is also curious when applied to the logic of sacking Richardson (or make his decision for him to resign) now.
Advertisement

Richardson was sacked because of six years of missed finals, and just six wins in his sixth year. He was also sacked because he oversaw a list that was not good enough to make finals for five years and not fit enough or good enough yet to make it in the sixth year.

St Kilda’s own action on their list, list management and recruiting staff over the last year or so showed they felt a significant fault for where they found themselves resided not just in the coaching staff but with the talent they had brought into the club.

The new list regime’s big-ticket item last year was Hannebery. To all but St Kilda this sounded like an unwise trade for various reasons not the least being the player’s body and age and then the length and size of the contract. One year In and it does not look any better.

But the underlying logic of the Hannebery trade was about where St Kilda was as a club more than where Hannebery was as a player. It was overwhelmingly weighted towards the fact Hannebery gave them something they didn’t have: class.

Beyond that he was also a high-profile player who actually wanted to come to the club after so many others had turned them down.

St Kilda had been a list of safe, unadventurous draft choices. Even as recently as the 2017 draft they had two picks in the top 10 and took Hunter Clark and Nick Coffield. Clark looks like he will be a good player and, while it is still early days, the jury remains out on Coffield.

The Western Bulldogs in the same draft also had two first-round picks and took Aaron Naughton and Ed Richards with later picks than the Saints.

Consequently the Saints were a team without a lot of colour or pace.

One of Richardson’s problems this year with the injuries was that it had an effect not only in terms of the players not playing but on those who were playing. It created complacency for there were players who knew they’d be getting a game each week and so were more comfortable in their position than they should have been. This, too, makes it hard to judge the list.

The “vanilla list” label has been attached to the club. It is a remnant of the previous list management for players lacking dare and boldness.

“I was unsure about their draft choices last year but I rate what they did now looking back on it,” a respected list manager at another club said.

“Matty Parker is definitely not a vanilla player, nor is Robbie Young – he has some dash and could be a good player. Nick Hind has that real outside speed and was a good pick at 54. I was really surprised Melbourne didn’t go for him given his pace.

“Parker, Young and Hind are not vanilla players.”

They also picked up Rohan Marshall in the rookie draft and he has been one of the finds of the season. He is a legitimate talent and looks a long-term player even if the Saints see him as forward and second ruck rather than No.1 ruck.

“If you had your choice of jobs at the three clubs you would take Carlton,’’ one list manager said.
Another senior list manager is unpersuaded by the Saints’ list still: “I think it is a pretty ordinary list. And I think Richo has done a good job to get them playing with aggression because he didn’t have any leg speed [on the list] at all.

“They brought in Hind and Young last year for pace and Hind looks OK. I have big doubts on Robbie Young. [Jack] Bytel is a good inside mid – he’s not quick but they have a heap of those types.
“I think one thing you can saw about the Saints and their list is they look like they will be very aggressive with it at the end of the year.”

I agree with some
But saying Richo didn't have a list with the goods when he started? Pure garbage.


I dare you to provide the list and games played from 2014 vs 2020.

Very uninformed comment.

I can prove it if you want?

Who are you addressing your comment to?

The article was written by Michael Gleeson not me, and I very much doubt he would even see you post, much less reply to it.

[SAINT-LEE]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/mis ... p527tj.htm



The next St Kilda coach will inherit a better list than Alan Richardson had.

Or at least the next coach will enjoy a list Richardson never really got his hands on. The next coach might have a fit Jack Steven, he might have Dan Hannebery playing – though to what level remains a question – he might get Dylan Roberton back, though that, too, remains uncertain.

He will have Max King ready to make his debut and he will hope to have Jarryn Geary and Jake Carlisle for full seasons, not bits of them. Richardson was judged in his last year without any of them in a meaningful way.
Jarryn Geary, one of the sidelined Saints, faces the media on Tuesday.

Jarryn Geary, one of the sidelined Saints, faces the media on Tuesday.Credit:Justin McManus

It is difficult to assess St Kilda’s list because we have not truly had a proper look at St Kilda’s list. This point is also curious when applied to the logic of sacking Richardson (or make his decision for him to resign) now.
Advertisement

Richardson was sacked because of six years of missed finals, and just six wins in his sixth year. He was also sacked because he oversaw a list that was not good enough to make finals for five years and not fit enough or good enough yet to make it in the sixth year.

St Kilda’s own action on their list, list management and recruiting staff over the last year or so showed they felt a significant fault for where they found themselves resided not just in the coaching staff but with the talent they had brought into the club.

The new list regime’s big-ticket item last year was Hannebery. To all but St Kilda this sounded like an unwise trade for various reasons not the least being the player’s body and age and then the length and size of the contract. One year In and it does not look any better.

But the underlying logic of the Hannebery trade was about where St Kilda was as a club more than where Hannebery was as a player. It was overwhelmingly weighted towards the fact Hannebery gave them something they didn’t have: class.

Beyond that he was also a high-profile player who actually wanted to come to the club after so many others had turned them down.

St Kilda had been a list of safe, unadventurous draft choices. Even as recently as the 2017 draft they had two picks in the top 10 and took Hunter Clark and Nick Coffield. Clark looks like he will be a good player and, while it is still early days, the jury remains out on Coffield.

The Western Bulldogs in the same draft also had two first-round picks and took Aaron Naughton and Ed Richards with later picks than the Saints.

Consequently the Saints were a team without a lot of colour or pace.

One of Richardson’s problems this year with the injuries was that it had an effect not only in terms of the players not playing but on those who were playing. It created complacency for there were players who knew they’d be getting a game each week and so were more comfortable in their position than they should have been. This, too, makes it hard to judge the list.

The “vanilla list” label has been attached to the club. It is a remnant of the previous list management for players lacking dare and boldness.

“I was unsure about their draft choices last year but I rate what they did now looking back on it,” a respected list manager at another club said.

“Matty Parker is definitely not a vanilla player, nor is Robbie Young – he has some dash and could be a good player. Nick Hind has that real outside speed and was a good pick at 54. I was really surprised Melbourne didn’t go for him given his pace.

“Parker, Young and Hind are not vanilla players.”

They also picked up Rohan Marshall in the rookie draft and he has been one of the finds of the season. He is a legitimate talent and looks a long-term player even if the Saints see him as forward and second ruck rather than No.1 ruck.

“If you had your choice of jobs at the three clubs you would take Carlton,’’ one list manager said.
Another senior list manager is unpersuaded by the Saints’ list still: “I think it is a pretty ordinary list. And I think Richo has done a good job to get them playing with aggression because he didn’t have any leg speed [on the list] at all.

“They brought in Hind and Young last year for pace and Hind looks OK. I have big doubts on Robbie Young. [Jack] Bytel is a good inside mid – he’s not quick but they have a heap of those types.
“I think one thing you can saw about the Saints and their list is they look like they will be very aggressive with it at the end of the year.”

I agree with some
But saying Richo didn't have a list with the goods when he started? Pure garbage.


I dare you to provide the list and games played from 2014 vs 2020.

Very uninformed comment.

I can prove it if you want?

Who are you addressing your comment to?

The article was written by Michael Gleeson not me, and I very much doubt he would even see you post, much less reply to it.

Sooooo you're saying you're not secretly Michael Gleeson?

[WellardSaint]

Fairly obvious Lethlean’s football department review concluded that Richo was unsuitable but due to contractual obligations couldn’t exit him up until now. The moment Lethlean entered the building the coaches demise was written. Before then, Richo, Finnis & football department were cruising along unaccountably.

Interesting to consider that in the light of Lethlean saying at the end of last season something like, “we’re not going to sack Alan, we’re going to support him”. Did they really think he might be able to deliver with new assistants, or was it purely being in a financial bind. I think the latter.

Like a politician.
Justify your decision in a very plausible way.
You have to sell it with lies 'for the greater good'.
Can't ever disclose that the $$ is the main reason.

I reckon...
'Bring Ratten in- he's worked with AR before, he's been a senior coach (Blues treated him poorly IMHO), he would like a second crack.'

The plan (for mine) was Ratten as the succession plan.
Just my take

[st.byron]

Fairly obvious Lethlean’s football department review concluded that Richo was unsuitable but due to contractual obligations couldn’t exit him up until now. The moment Lethlean entered the building the coaches demise was written. Before then, Richo, Finnis & football department were cruising along unaccountably.

Interesting to consider that in the light of Lethlean saying at the end of last season something like, “we’re not going to sack Alan, we’re going to support him”. Did they really think he might be able to deliver with new assistants, or was it purely being in a financial bind. I think the latter.

Like a politician.
Justify your decision in a very plausible way.
You have to sell it with lies 'for the greater good'.
Can't ever disclose that the $$ is the main reason.

I reckon...
'Bring Ratten in- he's worked with AR before, he's been a senior coach (Blues treated him poorly IMHO), he would like a second crack.'

The plan (for mine) was Ratten as the succession plan.
Just my take

Fairly cynical, but plausible

[bigred]

Bingo.

[st.byron]

The article doesn’t go on to say what the ‘question marks’ were, but does talk a bit about how players manage when the coach is sacked mid-season.

Roo posed the very simple question 18 months ago - "what is the game plan?"
internally the EARLY contract extension points the finger at management and board

Yes agree. It’s fair to argue that the extension was on the back of an upward trajectory, but, with a few shining examples the lack of effective match-day strategy and leadership were always there with Richardson.

[Special]

thank god there was that finals clause for 2019 in his contract.

Imagine if we were forced due to contracts/soft cap to keep Cho for another season??

The past one and half seasons have been excruciating

[B.M]

Marshall did not get the ruck position because Pierce and Longer were injured?!

Both were injured playing at Sandy, whilst Rowan was in the ruck at StK.

Pierce was selected in front of Marshall R1. But dropped thereafter. Longer took Marshall spot when Rowan missed a game through injury, but Rowan was straight back in as soon as he was fit the next game

[saynta]

Marshall did not get the ruck position because Pierce and Longer were injured?!

Both were injured playing at Sandy, whilst Rowan was in the ruck at StK.

Pierce was selected in front of Marshall R1. But dropped thereafter. Longer took Marshall spot when Rowan missed a game through injury, but Rowan was straight back in as soon as he was fit the next game

Pierce was actually concussed in a pre season game and played round one with that concussion when he should not have.

Hasn't played since.

[Josh Battle]

Ask yourself this question:

Knowing Richo and his penchant for a big strong contest at the centre bounce, who do you think Richo would have had as first ruck if Billy Longer was fit during the JLT and was fit and ready in round 1?

Richo's preference for mediocre players that fitted in to his philosophy of how the game should be played and won was evident in 2017 when he chose to play Billy Longer over Tom Hickey. Richo even emphasised that he wanted Longer for his size and strength as compared to a trimmer and less aggressive Hickey.

Longer had 5-4-6- and 5 possessions for four games in a row from round 6 onwards in 2017. Richo had made the statement that we needed someone 'strong' to contest in the middle and he stubbornly stuck to his guns even though the ruckman was showing signs of being a liability. It culminated in that soul destroying loss against Port late in the season when Ryder absolutely monstered Billy around the ground and especially in that dying minute of the game

What really pissedmeoff even more was the fact that Tom Hickey had emerged in 2016 as one of the leagues best young rucks and he was building in confidence when all of a sudden his coach just wanted to be totally negative on the player and point to his deficiencies instead of assisting Tom and helping him to get better.

History has shown with Tom still performing well (and with a new extended contract at the Eagles) while Billy has struggled to regain his spot in the seniors this year (even prior to the concussion and due to his contract situation may never play AFL again) that Richo got that one totally wrong

[saynta]

Not Richo's finest moment.

[sunsaint]

BinGo - JB & Saynta
the same would have befallen Marshall if cards didnt fall his way
i totally get that coaches have favourite go to players - but when it goes against the way the game is played today - it is more than reasonable to question the coach and staff as to their motivations