I'm looking at their list and their progress. They've beaten North and Brisbane. Whoop de do. Martin has led the way. They're up and running and playing with some confidence. We're not.

No one is accepting mediocrity here. It's understanding the list and factors that have influence. It's a tough gig.

agree to disagree... IMO our efforts 4 years in under DB are totally unsatisfactory..and I would love to be proven wrong .. enough said

Look at the list Hardwick inherited at the start of last year and the progress they have made in 12 short months (not 4 years !) ... and get back to us !! We are way too accepting of mediocrity here. This is a results-driven business - don't expect people to continue to put $$ in and continue to turn up to watch efforts like that !

Hardwick inherited a better list than Bailey did. Richmond had already started their rebuild prior to him joining.

I guess you would have been pumping Voss's and Scott's efforts last year at the Lions and North.

agree to disagree... IMO our efforts 4 years in under DB are totally unsatisfactory..and I would love to be proven wrong .. enough said

Would you agree that our list resembled a shambles at the beginning of '08 ? When Bailey started.

It was a disastrous list that Bailey inherited. It's taken until recently to turn over the entire playing list and get new structure in, generate a new midfield (which is still from completion - I understand it is ever evolving). We've had plenty of retirements, we've on traded to get picks for Grimes, Gysberts.

What gets dismissed after such a loss when many want to slit their wrists and tear up their memberships, is the hard work being done behind the scenes. List managing, building foundations, building assets, creating a brand. Simple fact is they see Bailey "been in the job" 4 years. Full stop. They forget the two-three years of pain of peeling the layers right back, on struggle street, filling up holes on the list via the draft and obtaining "yearlings", whilst trying to increase membership all at the same time.

Given what I've mentioned, I believe it's incorrect to base the "win-loss" on his 4 years to date. I think it's unfair to include his first two years at the helm. Bailey and the FD had a mandate to turn over the list where fit and be competitive in the meantime. Tough gig.

When there is a full on re-build, to get to "in-the-game", you've got to essentially get games into the future earmarked players as best as you can, without trying to upset the apple cart too much. 2010 showed us glimpses of 'good' and 'bad' - as expected, some would somewhat refer to some of the results as - "ahead of schedule".

Moving on Miller, Junior, and then the unexpected loss of Bruce who walked out triggered an alarm for me re: 2011. If you look back at threads and posts late 2010, early 2011...(maybe something along the lines of list management or predictions for 2011), you will see some references regarding 'supporters should temper their expectations in 2011, etc.

Then came the injuries to key players. Namely Scully, McKenzie...and Frawley was already out early January and rehabilitating.

These don't excuse the "lack of effort" in instances so far in 2011, but they compound the problem for inconsistent results. And they have a significant impact on the dynamics of our engine room, particularly KPI's (ie contested possessions, tackles).

The jury is out regarding how the team responds and whether they can step up to the pressure applied. Particularly the frontal pressure applied by opposition. The players have a huge say in performances, not just the coach. They're the ones that can improve the contested ball and the pressure they apply themselves. They're the basics and the fundamentals that need to be addressed first and foremost on top of being first to the pill.

Enough said ?

Hardwick inherited a better list than Bailey did. Richmond had already started their rebuild prior to him joining.

I guess you would have been pumping Voss's and Scott's efforts last year at the Lions and North.

Can't agree with that. We have a better and more even spread of talent than Richmond. Beyond Martin (maybe tanking wasn't such a good idea!!) Deledio, Riewoldt, Cotchin and Foley there's a bunch of battlers. If our list is worse than Richmond's then we can forget a Premiership.

I'm looking at their list and their progress. They've beaten North and Brisbane. Whoop de do. Martin has led the way. They're up and running and playing with some confidence. We're not.

Win lose or draw they play like their lives depend on it .

If we had half the committment to the cause they do , no-one here would be complaining .

When was the last time you saw Melbourne players pounding their hearts and clutching at their jumpers after kicking goals ?

When was the last time you saw Melbourne players pounding their hearts and clutching at their jumpers after kicking goals ?

Last year.

Last year.

Please link me to this video?It's something I so rarely see,i have doubts it exists

Can't agree with that. We have a better and more even spread of talent than Richmond. Beyond Martin (maybe tanking wasn't such a good idea!!) Deledio, Riewoldt, Cotchin and Foley there's a bunch of battlers. If our list is worse than Richmond's then we can forget a Premiership.

I have to agree with "Rhino Richards" here.

Hardwick inherited a better list.

It might not have greater talent or potential, but it is more advanced in terms of its physical maturity and ability to compete, in my view.

Please link me to this video?It's something I so rarely see,i have doubts it exists

At least tell us which game .

Win lose or draw they play like their lives depend on it .

If we had half the committment to the cause they do , no-one here would be complaining .

When was the last time you saw Melbourne players pounding their hearts and clutching at their jumpers after kicking goals ?

Did you see Collingwood '11 or Geelong '10 do this?

Did you see Collingwood '11 or Geelong '10 do this?

From that annoying weasel Brad Dick I did but your missing the point .

With Melbourne and Richmond I see 2 clubs at similar stages of developement .

1 having a red hot go every week , the other not .

If we were playing the Tiogs this weekend , they'd win .

Not cause they're better than us , it's because they're committed and they want it more .

Edited May 3, 201114 yr by Fork 'em

Please link me to this video?It's something I so rarely see,i have doubts it exists

At least tell us which game .

Short memories.

Think Brad Green, think Liam Jurrah, think Lynden Dunn, think Ricky Petterd, think the Port Adelaide game in Darwin. There are other instances.

Can't agree with that. We have a better and more even spread of talent than Richmond. Beyond Martin (maybe tanking wasn't such a good idea!!) Deledio, Riewoldt, Cotchin and Foley there's a bunch of battlers. If our list is worse than Richmond's then we can forget a Premiership.

You miss the point.

Richmond's class is based on the midfield and Riewoldt. Riewoldt aside, he is a genuine A grader and we have nothing like that on the ground at this time. The players I mentioned in the midfield for Richmond are class and will get better and give them a good basis for the future. At this present moment this year, they are more accomplished than the best we can put out in the midfield. Our situation is not helped by having two crucial players in the midfield missing (Scully and McKenzie), Morton has had no pre season. At the moment our midfield is 3rd world with senior players that are C grade flat trackers that go missing and young players that are still learning the caper (Trengove - he will be good)

Neither side has to date beaten much this year and both will be lower 8 of the ladder at years end.

From an overall list perspective I still think the MFC list has greater potential for improvement in the coming years. I think Richmond are getting the max out of some ordinary players who I believe will be steamrolled against good opposition. But Richmond has still recruited some good gems but they have alot of ordinary pebbles. They will improve but i think MFC upside is greater.

You miss the point.

Richmond's class is based on the midfield and Riewoldt. Riewoldt aside, he is a genuine A grader and we have nothing like that on the ground at this time. The players I mentioned in the midfield for Richmond are class and will get better and give them a good basis for the future. At this present moment this year, they are more accomplished than the best we can put out in the midfield. Our situation is not helped by having two crucial players in the midfield missing (Scully and McKenzie), Morton has had no pre season. At the moment our midfield is 3rd world with senior players that are C grade flat trackers that go missing and young players that are still learning the caper (Trengove - he will be good)

Neither side has to date beaten much this year and both will be lower 8 of the ladder at years end.

From an overall list perspective I still think the MFC list has greater potential for improvement in the coming years. I think Richmond are getting the max out of some ordinary players who I believe will be steamrolled against good opposition. But Richmond has still recruited some good gems but they have alot of ordinary pebbles. They will improve but i think MFC upside is greater.

But was that the case when Jordan McMahon's goal went through after the siren?

Interesting comparison to watch these 2 clubs grow over the next 5 years.

But was that the case when Jordan McMahon's goal went through after the siren?

Relevance???

It is. Dennis Pagan won two flags, but looked like a chump at Carlton with terrible cattle. Unlike Carlton at the time I think that the basis of our list is good and can continue to be tweaked over the next couple of years.

For a moment let's deal in known knowns. We know that Malthouse is finishing as the coach of Collingwood later this year and we know that Paul Roos is also not engaged in a senior coaching role. We also know that they are recognised throughout the industry as terrific senior coaches with a track record of success. We believe that we have a quality young list and have a 4 year coach coming out of contract that has yet to taste finals (I'm obviously making an assumption here). If we're tracking ok mid year, but still have question marks as to whether we've got the right coach to take us to a flag, do we sit down to negotiate a new contract, or do we make approaches to one or both of the above and go all out to secure one of their services ?

I have to say that the thought of Malthouse, or Roos taking control of our playing list in a quest for a flag has much appeal.

Any coach will look like a chump if he doesn't have the players, or they've got no experience, or if he's not getting the support he needs. Bailey has at least 2 of this criteria.

Relevance???

The relevance is people were laughing at the Tigers back then, not just MFC supporters either & drooling over our list potential

Seems a lot has changed in 18 months to me.

The relevance is people were laughing at the Tigers back then, not just MFC supporters either & drooling over our list potential

Seems a lot has changed in 18 months to me.

Football changes week to week. 18 months is an eternity.

List changes, structures, injuries, ...

Football changes week to week. 18 months is an eternity.

List changes, structures, injuries, ...

Yes everything is transient, but the difference between the 2 lists in the last 18 months is a little concerning to me.

It may just needs tweaking, but that time is now.

Yes everything is transient, but the difference between the 2 lists in the last 18 months is a little concerning to me.

It may just needs tweaking, but that time is now.

OK so what happened at the Jordie McMahon game is not relevant to now.

And how you tweak a list at the end of round 6? What would you tweak?

Yes everything is transient, but the difference between the 2 lists in the last 18 months is a little concerning to me.

It may just needs tweaking, but that time is now.

The only thing that needs tweaking is your understanding of the 2 lists and what has transpired and really, football in general. There is so many permutations and factors. 18 months ago Foley wasn't playing; on the weekend he had 40 possessions and is up and running. Martin wasn't playing 18 months ago. Riewoldt wasn't what he is now 18 months ago. Deledio wasn't playing at CHB 18 months ago....shall I continue ??

I haven't even touched on Melbourne's variables from now to 18 months ago. But, I'm crossing my finger's you may have some understanding or inkling that there has been fundamental differences in the timeframe.

Any coach will look like a chump if he doesn't have the players, or they've got no experience, or if he's not getting the support he needs. Bailey has at least 2 of this criteria.

Or if he's not a great tactician, not great at getting the most out of his players, or put simply an ordinary coach.

Despite the never ending excuses of some, into his 4th year the answer is looking more and more likely.

If the Tigers list is more balanced and experienced than our own, then who are their best 3 players over 23 years of age? And how do they compare with our best 3?

Put simply their kids are playing better at an earlier age than ours. And yet they still find room in their side every week for Edwards, King and Brad Miller.

The only thing that needs tweaking is your understanding of the 2 lists and what has transpired and really, football in general. There is so many permutations and factors. 18 months ago Foley wasn't playing; on the weekend he had 40 possessions and is up and running. Martin wasn't playing 18 months ago. Riewoldt wasn't what he is now 18 months ago. Deledio wasn't playing at CHB 18 months ago....shall I continue ??

Very true.

Over a year ago I attended a Wellman's lunch in which McLardy (an old Boy) attended and Connolly was guest speaker. Connolly spent the first 5 minutes humourously deriding Richmond's list and stating how the next 10 years was incredibly bleak for them. He even made a couple of poor sod Tigers fans identify themselves by putting their hands in the air, much to the guffaws of the rest of us.

Even Richmond supporters I know acknowledged that whilst they went down the reaches of the ladder before Melbourne they were in fact 18 months behind in development after Hardwick cut hard into the list.

Richmond have no right to be playing as well as us and certainly no right to be better, but no doubt the apologists on here will do their utmost to make excuses.

Cotchin is finally starting to show his worth, Martin impacts games, Foley's last two games have been good, Deledio is important off half back and Riewoldt is a quality key forward. In the main though they have some very ordinary C graders, many of whom wouldn't get into our side. A blend of a best 22 would be interesting.

Your Richmond friends are wrong. They were not 18 months 'behind' us in terms of development.

Their ceiling is a lot lower than ours though.

They won't have nearly as many top end talents peaking at the same time, but they are still ahead.

2 different and often confused concepts.