29 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Jayden Short , 21 yo, 32 games
Daniel Rioli, 19 yo, 43 games
Jacob Townshend,  24 yo, 37 games
Kane Lambert, 26 yo, 52 games
Shai  Bolton , 29 yo, 6 games
Kamdrn Macintosh, 23 yo, 53 games
Nathan Broad, 24 yo 12 games
Connor Menedue, 21 yo 28 games
Nathan Drummond, 22 yo, 5 games
Dan Butler, 21 yo, 23 games
Jason Castagna, 21 yo, 30 games

It's about winning games and a flag, regardless of list age, talent or reputation 

Richmond key players Martin, Rance, Riewoldt & Cotchin all sit in over 26yo bracket plus, over 100 games, and hardly missed a game for the season! That’s why they won the flag!

10 hours ago, D4Life said:

Richmond key players Martin, Rance, Riewoldt & Cotchin all sit in over 26yo bracket plus, over 100 games, and hardly missed a game for the season! That’s why they won the flag!

Sure, lots of things went their way and they have home grown, experienced talent. The point being that you can still win with considerable inexperience in the side.

11 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Jayden Short , 21 yo, 32 games
Daniel Rioli, 19 yo, 43 games
Jacob Townshend,  24 yo, 37 games
Kane Lambert, 26 yo, 52 games
Shai  Bolton , 29 yo, 6 games
Kamdrn Macintosh, 23 yo, 53 games
Nathan Broad, 24 yo 12 games
Connor Menedue, 21 yo 28 games
Nathan Drummond, 22 yo, 5 games
Dan Butler, 21 yo, 23 games
Jason Castagna, 21 yo, 30 games

It's about winning games and a flag, regardless of list age, talent or reputation 

What is interesting about this list - nearly every one was taken later in the draft and everyone is very "teachable/coachable" then has been developed to play a specific role in the team. 

So much for early draft picks being the panacea to all your problems, sure they are elite talent but have the right development programmes and you can get talent from nearly anywhere in the drafting process.

Go Dees 

22 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Being the youngest or least experienced list was always a mirage. It's not good, or bad, or anything meaningful. Certainly nothing to hang our hats on.

Only one statistic counts. Games won.

   Not hanging my hat on any of these stats - there are far too many variables and other factors. 

But saying  "Only one statistic counts. Games won"  doesn't add anything to a discussion, it's just tough talk.  If we really believed that we would never discuss what causes a team to win or lose games. The forum would be pretty empty.

26 minutes ago, sue said:

   Not hanging my hat on any of these stats - there are far too many variables and other factors. 

But saying  "Only one statistic counts. Games won"  doesn't add anything to a discussion, it's just tough talk.  If we really believed that we would never discuss what causes a team to win or lose games. The forum would be pretty empty.

I agree with you saying things like"Only one statistic counts. Games won" & "winning is the answer to everything" is just pure rubbish - AFL clubs live on stats. Plus we live in a game where every week you have 9 winners and 9 losers - sometimes you need to do the analysis to why you won or lost - then you are on the right path. Sadly, some forums only focus on the negative side of the debate.  

16 hours ago, jackaub said:

Rackham you are so right!!!!

Many on here have used it as an ongoing excuse for lack of heart and determination

NO MORE EXCUSES DEES

Absolutely. 

5 great winning games is so much better 70 crap games which is what we were served up for nearly 10 years

The previous Richmond supporting CEO has so much to answer for, but of course he will never do that. 

Analysing the differences between teams to determine why one team may be better than another is not making excuses for any team.  It is simply discussing footy.    Reasons are not necessarily excuses.

Simply stating NO MORE EXCUSES DEES is only meaningful if you have analysed the team and its competitors and decide that the team more than matches all others in every way, personnel, team plan, etc. and is maybe lacking in some less tangible attribute like spirit.  Otherwise it is merely an expression of (understandable) frustration with our past poor performance or arm chair player-motivation.  

So to those saying NO MORE EXCUSES DEES I express my joy that you have such a solid basis for expecting a great 2018 and hope you are right. Others may wish to discuss the reasons (not excuses) why we may not be certainties to win the flag and areas in which we need to improve.

My apologies if the above appears pedantic, but hairy-chested tough guy statements like NO MORE EXCUSES DEES really annoy me. I guess I should be used to them on a footy forum.

1 hour ago, sue said:

Analysing the differences between teams to determine why one team may be better than another is not making excuses for any team.  It is simply discussing footy.    Reasons are not necessarily excuses.

Simply stating NO MORE EXCUSES DEES is only meaningful if you have analysed the team and its competitors and decide that the team more than matches all others in every way, personnel, team plan, etc. and is maybe lacking in some less tangible attribute like spirit.  Otherwise it is merely an expression of (understandable) frustration with our past poor performance or arm chair player-motivation.  

So to those saying NO MORE EXCUSES DEES I express my joy that you have such a solid basis for expecting a great 2018 and hope you are right. Others may wish to discuss the reasons (not excuses) why we may not be certainties to win the flag and areas in which we need to improve.

My apologies if the above appears pedantic, but hairy-chested tough guy statements like NO MORE EXCUSES DEES really annoy me. I guess I should be used to them on a footy forum.

We’ve come from a hopeless list when Roos took over, to one that coughed up a finals spot 4 years later, even after a shocking run with injuries and ordinary draw. 

Next year our draw is okay and if we have some good luck with injuries, if we miss a finals birth, there will be no excuse. Our team is getting older and in the right age bracket.

Yes, Richmond has 6 players 22 and under and another 5 players who haven’t played over 50ish games. But everything else went right in their season, virtually no injuries, very good year and peaked in September. Take Martin out of Richmond and they wouldn’t have even played finals last year!

Sue I was merely referring to some on here that use it as an excuse not reality

Not sure about hairy chested comment. You may be hirsute but  me, I am a clean skin and I can only wonder at the link between hairy chest and tough.Anyway you seem to know so I defer absolutely.

Edited December 2, 20177 yr by jackaub

12 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Sure, lots of things went their way and they have home grown, experienced talent. The point being that you can still win with considerable inexperience in the side.

Think the point is more that you can't win *without* considerable experience in the side - and shared experience at that. Not only are the key players at Richmond all (very) experienced and talented, they've played their whole careers together.

If that's in place sure, play kids, honest grafters, other clubs' rejects etc. etc.

"Only one stat matter, games won"

Tell that to Adelaide.

And I mean that in more than just the 'ha ha they lost the final' sense.

Their premiership years of 97/98 each featured just 13 wins in the home and away season. They've equaled or passed that mark ten times since then, including two minor premierships.

St Kilda might also point out they had a 20-2 home and away record in 2009... and only lost 1 final. And now Nick Reiwoldt is just a regular retired great, instead of being the greatest hero in St Kilda's history.

Even Geelong might pull a stool over and pour a beer to tell you about the 1990s, or indeed, the one that got away, when they won 23 games and only lost two for the whole of 2009... and now instead of them, Hawthorn is considered the greatest team of this century.

 

I suppose I am just echoing a point that Paul Roos made an awful lot of times - there's no point climbing up the ladder a bit if you haven't laid the foundations of a team ethos that will win under pressure and will follow the plan first, last and always.

Again, Geelong will tell you the difference between getting good wins and looking impressive (to, say 2006) and forming a hardened culture that is determined to do the things it takes to really win when it counts.

We saw glimpses of it last year but this must be the year of finding a way.

It clearly went to pieces versus Collingwood where we ‘found a way’ to lose despite having everything to play for and a close to full strength squad (sans Viney). You could say the same in the other four ‘gimme’ games we dropped.

But mid year, we gutted out some wins without key players. We weren’t prepared to use injury as an excuse and used the hand we were dealt to win. (Carlton, WCE, Collingwood on QB).

If we miss out questions need to be asked. Goody can get a two year extension next year should he make the finals. If he misses out, he fights for one in the last year of said agreement. I won’t go all hysterical but that should be the situation.

On 01/12/2017 at 12:37 PM, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Agree and disagree... simply writing games and age for the whole squad doesn't tell you a whole lot.  A break-down of the age and experience of their best 22 tells you a lot more.

Was gonna say this exactly. It depends on the 22 playing each week, having Colin Garland sitting in the stands last year was irrelevant even though he bumped up our averages.

5 hours ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

We saw glimpses of it last year but this must be the year of finding a way.

It clearly went to pieces versus Collingwood where we ‘found a way’ to lose despite having everything to play for and a close to full strength squad (sans Viney). You could say the same in the other four ‘gimme’ games we dropped.

But mid year, we gutted out some wins without key players. We weren’t prepared to use injury as an excuse and used the hand we were dealt to win. (Carlton, WCE, Collingwood on QB).

If we miss out questions need to be asked. Goody can get a two year extension next year should he make the finals. If he misses out, he fights for one in the last year of said agreement. I won’t go all hysterical but that should be the situation.

Well put Colin B

this 10 year rebuild has run out of excuses

2017 Round 23 was a pathetic performance and it will cost memberships

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Well put Colin B

this 10 year rebuild has run out of excuses

2017 Round 23 was a pathetic performance and it will cost memberships

I think that hope can be regained if we can roll Baby Jesus and the Cats round 1. I reckon we can do that if we get back to the style of niggle we displayed prior to Tommy Bugg’s knock out punch on Mills, I reckon we are a genuine chance.

I think as observers we need to also be on for the long haul to an extent. I remember too well the roasting Bails got in 2011 when the season was still alive. Hell, even before 186, we could still make the finals. 

The final grade needs to be decided at the end of the year and not via mid year theatrics.

21 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

I think that hope can be regained if we can roll Baby Jesus and the Cats round 1. I reckon we can do that if we get back to the style of niggle we displayed prior to Tommy Bugg’s knock out punch on Mills, I reckon we are a genuine chance.

I think as observers we need to also be on for the long haul to an extent. I remember too well the roasting Bails got in 2011 when the season was still alive. Hell, even before 186, we could still make the finals. 

The final grade needs to be decided at the end of the year and not via mid year theatrics.

The past - you need to listen to Goody a touch more - what happened in the past has no influence with this current team. Its working to build its own future. 

Gone are the days we look backwards - today we look forward with the belief we are finally going somewhere as an AFL football club.

Not to say the job is done - far from it - good 4-8 years to go. But we are on the right path. 

2 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

The past - you need to listen to Goody a touch more - what happened in the past has no influence with this current team. Its working to build its own future. 

Gone are the days we look backwards - today we look forward with the belief we are finally going somewhere as an AFL football club.

Not to say the job is done - far from it - good 4-8 years to go. But we are on the right path. 

With the team, I agree with you but I am talking about  how we as supporters react.

12 hours ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

 I am talking about  how we as supporters react.

Dont forget  the "supporters" should lay the foundations for the culture of the club, normally they elect the board, who appoints the CEO and all other key positions ie  Head of Footy Dept, Coach etc.  

Our single biggest problem has been "the veil of negativity" ( as pointed out by Roos ) and the overtly political nature of our supporters ( as pointed out by Jackson) 

However, dont worry ... its why the AFL appointed our board and recommended or CEO - the AFL also understands SOME of our so called "supporters" are the problem.

But such is life - we also have some of the best supporters who are loyal, resilient and have more than reasonable amounts of patience. 

On 12/1/2017 at 12:37 PM, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Agree and disagree... simply writing games and age for the whole squad doesn't tell you a whole lot.  A break-down of the age and experience of their best 22 tells you a lot more.

I agree, 14 of our squad have played less than 10 games, leaving 30 who will make up our playing group each week especially in the first half of the year.  I did a calc to exclude the 14 from the Age/Experience which effectively gives us the' playing group' or an approximation of the best 22.

• Average Age: 25 years
• Average Experience: 64 games

To give a bit more insight and remove the bias from the 'average' of players like Vince, Lewis and Jones at one end and Weideman at the other I looked at the Median (ie the midpoint of the group):

• Median Age: 24
• Median Experience:  46

The only way to really compare is to do the same thing for each club (can't be bothered...) so hard for people to draw conclusions compared to the other clubs listed. 

We now have a core group around 25 years of age who will be in the 50 to 150 game experience.  It is many a year since we have had more than a handful of players in that core group.  We are well placed to have an extended period of success.  How far up the ladder that is, well who knows.

 

On a side note, I can't wait to see Hogan, Oliver, Petracca, Brayshaw and Salem play together.  With their various injury woes over the last 3 years I doubt they have played more than a handful of games together.  If they click then it will be great watching. 

On 12/1/2017 at 6:23 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

I heard that interview with Ben. It was fascinating. 

Smart guy 

Interesting, I'd say that Port, for example and hopefully Collingwood, too - are in for a tougher than normal year. Scattergun approaches abound and taming the shrew will be tough for a consistent season ahead. These days, it is rare to see a 'young-ee' with talent star across a game, let alone put in four consistent quarters. It does happen, of course, but it is rare. However, the player who uses his skills and attributes for team purposes - which is also often rare - regardless of age, generally makes that big difference. It aligns itself to some modification of coaching skills and directions in order to be effective.