How bad Richmond?

[joffaboy]

Why would there be that expectation? It's a praccy match. Conversely, where Harvey was going at about 70% last night (as he always does pre-season) the Saints' new players and young guys would be going at 110% - they want a spot.

It is quite simple RF. I explained the expectation. I am sorry if it is a bit complex for you. I see you are negative toward the game you only watched on TV from another thread so I suppose I wouldn't get anything positive from you.

Oh and you can only go at 100% not 110%.

It was expected that Richmond would want to hit the ground running in 2008 after their dreadful 2007 and the Saints would struggle against a more cohesive senior team.

Who expected it?

The punter and the bookies.

I'd imagine the Saints had a lot more to prove in terms of 2007 than anyone in the comp.

Started well and then spoiled by injury in the season proper. Got beaten in a quagmire in Cairns in the pre season

It's worth noting too, that in fairness to Richmond they aren't overly experienced anyway.

Why is it worth noting? They nearly had a full team in, much more experienced than our team last night.

It happens every year. February flag favourites pop up, and wooden spoon favourties pop up.

Thanks Sherlock. Who is taking it seriously? We are discussing Richmond and the fact that they were woeful. Aren't we allowed to discuss a game?

It still amazes me that anyone still correlates the NAB Cup with the real stuff.

It amazes me how obtuse you are. Nobody is proclaiming anything except for the mouths on radio who are all predicting St.Kilda for a top four

Oh please tell us when you deem it allowable to discuss a game that you didn't even turn up to.

Would be terrible to be optimistic wouldn't it?

[rodgerfox]

Why would there be that expectation? It's a praccy match. Conversely, where Harvey was going at about 70% last night (as he always does pre-season) the Saints' new players and young guys would be going at 110% - they want a spot.

It is quite simple RF. I explained the expectation. I am sorry if it is a bit complex for you. I see you are negative toward the game you only watched on TV from another thread so I suppose I wouldn't get anything positive from you.

Oh and you can only go at 100% not 110%.

It was expected that Richmond would want to hit the ground running in 2008 after their dreadful 2007 and the Saints would struggle against a more cohesive senior team.

Who expected it?

The punter and the bookies.

I'd imagine the Saints had a lot more to prove in terms of 2007 than anyone in the comp.

Started well and then spoiled by injury in the season proper. Got beaten in a quagmire in Cairns in the pre season

It's worth noting too, that in fairness to Richmond they aren't overly experienced anyway.

Why is it worth noting? They nearly had a full team in, much more experienced than our team last night.

It happens every year. February flag favourites pop up, and wooden spoon favourties pop up.

Thanks Sherlock. Who is taking it seriously? We are discussing Richmond and the fact that they were woeful. Aren't we allowed to discuss a game?

It still amazes me that anyone still correlates the NAB Cup with the real stuff.

It amazes me how obtuse you are. Nobody is proclaiming anything except for the mouths on radio who are all predicting St.Kilda for a top four

Oh please tell us when you deem it allowable to discuss a game that you didn't even turn up to.

Would be terrible to be optimistic wouldn't it?

You're not dicsussing the game you *********.

You're discussing the future of a club that completed their first pre-season hitout.

I think it's foolish and bordering on moronic to be making any 'real reason' judgements on the pre-season comp. It's just as stupid to have expectations on anything in Feb.

Is that too difficult for you to understand you unhappy little *******?

Post edited by mod, poster warned and will be suspended for 3rd warning

[joffaboy]

lol - tell us when you actually get to a game RF.

Oh and remember to tell us when we can discuss a game you didn't even attend

Naughty words and abuse as well - oh dear, oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Touched a nerve did I?

Oh you have been reported BTW

[Teflon]

Ofcourse there were expectations on Richmond - supportesr FFS have been screaming to see something ANYTHING under Wallet for the last 3 yrs FFS!

What is so hard to understand about that? or maybe its just a case of needing the conflict...

[|Andy|]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=414926

lol, richmond fans pissed off at themselves.

[ace]

Only goes to show that Dumb-metriou and alcoholics anonymous Anderson have no idea of what a bottom team really needs to become competitive.
St Kilda had 11 players out, Richmond had 3 players out.
That means Richmond are at least 8 players short of being competitive.

Teams at the bottom don't need No1 or No2 superstar draft picks.
They only accumulate a handful of stars surrounded by rubbish. Take a look at Carlton's list of No1 and No2.
What teams at the bottom need is multiple numbers of very good players - multiple first round draft picks e.g 3 or 4 picks around 10 to 20 instead of Kreuzer or Cotchin.
Club politics, supporters and sponsors prevented Carlton and Richmond trading their superstar picks for multiple good picks.
When a team becomes competitive then they need superstars to win a premiership.

11 v 3 Best teams would not have included rookies or first year recruits.
Gram, L Fisher, Hayes, Baker, Riewoldt, Schneider, Ball, Goddard, Gilbert, Dempster, Maguire versus Coughlan, McGuane, Polo

[saint66au]

Ace..I actually think there is merit in your suggestions...but i dont think we need to throw the "alcoholics anonymous" name tags in do we??..no matter nhow we get frustrated with the AFL

Just cheapens your argument

[plugger66]

Only goes to show that Dumb-metriou and alcoholics anonymous Anderson have no idea of what a bottom team really needs to become competitive.
St Kilda had 11 players out, Richmond had 3 players out.
That means Richmond are at least 8 players short of being competitive.

Teams at the bottom don't need No1 or No2 superstar draft picks.
They only accumulate a handful of stars surrounded by rubbish. Take a look at Carlton's list of No1 and No2.
What teams at the bottom need is multiple numbers of very good players - multiple first round draft picks e.g 3 or 4 picks around 10 to 20 instead of Kreuzer or Cotchin.
Club politics, supporters and sponsors prevented Carlton and Richmond trading their superstar picks for multiple good picks.
When a team becomes competitive then they need superstars to win a premiership.

11 v 3 Best teams would not have included rookies or first year recruits.
Gram, L Fisher, Hayes, Baker, Riewoldt, Schneider, Ball, Goddard, Gilbert, Dempster, Maguire versus Coughlan, McGuane, Polo

I cant believe how stupid the AFL are. Yes lets give the bottom side multiple picks but if you finish second bottom bad luck. Or give them picks as well. Why not give all the bad sides heaps of picks and within one or two years they will be top and the other sides who were on top will then get the picks. Sounds good to me. Stupid AFL.

[ace]

I am starting a rumour.

Rumour is Richmond has stopped selling memberships to prospective members. They have started paying prospective members to accept a membership.