Damning Post on Richo

[Teflon]

Too much focus on the coach (sure he’s made mistakes and the biggest is not giving some of our youngsters a go).
It’s almost becoming a witch hunt or a Rich hunt. This thread is disturbing, full of innuendo, and I bet off the mark.

Reality is ——
St Kilda has no A grade players, has too many players with below average skills and has recruited inside midfielder after inside midfielder when we needed skilful outside midfielders to balance things up. To top it all off, we’ve suffered disruptive injuries to players - including to players who are important to structure. Roberton alone was a big blow.
Our expectations need to be lowered accordingly ... and we need to stare reality in the face.

Richo may have expected a lot more from our team —- but the injuries haven’t helped things — and we were a very average team to start off with, anyway.

We need to nail our recruiting - that should be our focus - we need skilful outside midfielders and Steven is getting on - we can’t leave it all up to him.
We need to recruit skill and outside run - and I’d trade all our surplus inside midfielders for one decent A grade inside midfielder!

This post suggests NO real accountability for match day performances from the coach and is completely off the mark
Let’s be clear:

1. Many said 12 months ago we struggled for A grade talent ....a cliff was coming Post Riewoldt and Co.....Alan and club sold us a “top 4 list”. That p!ss poor cheap management of expectations to get member $ and bums on seats alone is sackable ...
2. Development - 5 years as Senior Coach to get :
(a) his assistant mix right
(b) insist the clubs development program (he’s been touted as the guru developer) gets an overhaul. 5 years!! No change.
3. Game day - time and again we see a side get a run on against and we fail to react.Lethlean himself said recently in games we could’ve done things/reacted quicker.....but Apparently this has nothing to do with Alan..
4. Match selection - weeklygod damn mystery....same old same old NO Imagination and continually playing underperforming players

Of course the list is Shyte - that too needs to be looked at but will take time. We’ve already sacked recruitment head. It is now the Senior Coach’s time to step up and face the music. He isn’t up to it and the fact that done are still hiding behind nonsensical reasons to avoid this conclusion astounds me.

[spert]

Yes but have you zeroed your turd radar -- adjusted it for injuries, for no A graders, for an average list and for poor recruiting over the years?
You might be getting a false reading

I'm not touching my turd radar any more than I have to! It never lies

[saintsRrising]

I don’t buy the idea that out of all our players in the young but played enough games to have developed their craft cohort - Dunstan, Acres, Bruce, Billings, Sinclair, Steele, Membrey, Webster, White, Rice, Mackenzie, Minchington, Robertson - that there are no A graders amongst them. My question is why haven’t they developed to their potential and why have numerous of them gone backwards? And my conclusion about that is - coaching. The development of the players and their on-field performance has to rest at the coach’s door. Otherwise there is no accountability for his role.

Exactly, and even morseo as supposedly a big reason why went went for Richo was that he was meant to be an excellent development coach.

Our Board seem to believe they have another Hardwick, whereas I believe that we have another Brendan McCartney.

[HitTheBoundary]

He's only had 5 years.

Let's give him another 5 years and see how he goes.

Maybe he'll get better.

lol.

[YoungGeorge]

With all respect samoht - perhaps recommending that we read ‘The Fugitive Soldier’ isn’t such a great idea for you. I’ve got better things to do than waste time reading any more of your twaddle !
Of course Richo has to go....his job is to win games or at least set us in the right direction. Winning, hope and performance drive football clubs, not miserable lacklustre stability.
Some of the AFL’s greatest clubs have thrived on field while being a ‘dogs breakfast’ off it, - the sniff of finals or a flag drive everything.
After 5 years all we can sniff is a turd at the bottom of the ladder, - Winning, Hope, Performance - that’s your job Alan.

[WellardSaint]

Yes but have you zeroed your turd radar -- adjusted it for injuries, for no A graders, for an average list and for poor recruiting over the years?
You might be getting a false reading

I'm not touching my turd radar any more than I have to! It never lies

my turd radar shows several hot spots at Richo's House, Finnis' mansion, and the bachelor pad of 'Superstud' Lethlean

[Cairnsman]

Way too much focus on the coach bordering on a witch hunt.

The smart way forward is to hold your nerve and focusing on improving ALL of the areas not performing to expectation.

Sacking the coach won't fix things like injuries or recruitment and all it will serve to do is set the next coach up for sacking.

And just who has claimed this? Just who has advocated such an approach of only sacking the head coach as the method to address our current poor position ?

The smart way forward is to work with Richo and help him improve while the other areas of the club in need of improvement are worked on. The sum of all parts.

No one is saying that the only thing we need to do is to replace Richo. Absolutely no one.

Read through this and other forums (including this thread) and you will see plenty of discussion on all aspects of the club that need addressing.

Everyone is saying that we need to address ALL of the club. Everyone.

With Richo he has had 5 years. 5 years to have shown that he has the right stuff.

Ok let us turn it around, please list what Richo brings to the table for why he should be kept and supported?

Why do you see him as the best man for the job?

Player Development?
Strategy and Gameplan?
Match day coaching?

SR the logic of the 5 year time frame used as the metric for measuring failure is interesting to me. It seems to be a popular criteria for the "sack the coach" brigade and most likely the amplification of Chinese whispers on internet steroids and certainly one the media enjoy to their advantage.

Irrespective of how that metric has gained legs as a strong argument for sacking, when you try to take it to it's logical conclusion as a criteria you quickly start wondering why. If the areas Richo needs to improve on have been identified and workshoped and the club are confident Richo is capable of change then why wouldn't they give him that respect as a professional to respond to requested change. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater just because a commitment to a timeline wasn't reached.

Richo's strength was promoted as being one of a developer, that job is not complete from where I see it, IMO we are 2-3 years away from having a list that transitions from the development phase to production (excuse my industry speak). Up until this season most pundits were lauding the club, coach and list, a list that developed quicker than most expected, Richo is a 'proven' developer, does that make him the best man for the job?, I think it's antiquated to think the coach has to be the best, he's just like any other role player in an organisation, just got to execute to strengths.

Strategy, gameplan, match day coaching, if Richo needs support in these areas then get support for these areas. Is the club already doing this?

The pros for giving Richo another 12 months outweigh sacking him if you accept his shortcoming are capable of workshoping and the other areas effecting team performance can be plugged.

The rod for its own back has possibly been made by the club for communicating a timeline that wasn't reached and/or is a victim of it's unexpected and accelerated rise up the ladder in 2016-17 which led to predictions of finals, top 4 even. Right there is something all rebuilding clubs need to be cautious about, getting the balance right between PR, marketing and promotion and what you can mostly likely deliver. Gold Coast arguably are the best example of how bad you can get that balance wrong.

[saintsRrising]

SR the logic of the 5 year time frame used as the metric for measuring failure is interesting to me. It seems to be a popular criteria for the "sack the coach" brigade and most likely the amplification of Chinese whispers on internet steroids and certainly one the media enjoy to their advantage.

Metric, logic?

The 5 years is being used as tat is how long he has been with us.

If he is here in 12 months time people will use 6 years.

[Cairnsman]

SR the logic of the 5 year time frame used as the metric for measuring failure is interesting to me. It seems to be a popular criteria for the "sack the coach" brigade and most likely the amplification of Chinese whispers on internet steroids and certainly one the media enjoy to their advantage.

Metric, logic?

The 5 years is being used as tat is how long he has been with us.

If he is here in 12 months time people will use 6 years.

So taking your logic to it's conclusion the past five years have been a waste of time, the reset button needs hitting, coach, list, gameplan, development have all gone backwards since Richo walked in the door. There is nothing to work and Richo is not capable of improvement, even if the club trys? The club is just not capable of working as a professional unit and helping Richo be better? Geez it sounds like they should just hire a CAT D10 and run riot up Linton Street.

2016-17 results seem like a complete accident according to you?

So if this time next year the team have turned things around then Richo should still go because it's been 6 years?

[saintsRrising]

Strategy, gameplan, match day coaching, if Richo needs support in these areas then get support for these areas. Is the club already doing this?

You are still to indicate the strengths and reasons why we need to keep Richo?

Keeping a guy on solely so we can hire others to address his weaknesses does not seem that logical to me.

8 years to develop players?

Sorry but while player development is an ongoing process, we after 5 years should already be seeing evidence of this amongst the players gained in the early years. That we are not seeing the bar raised is to me setting off alarm bells. Remember this was meant to be Richo's strength.

So IMO we are not seeing any strengths, just weaknesses.

Again why should Richo stay on. What is it in his performance that makes him worth keeping?

[Saintmatt]

I don’t buy the idea that out of all our players in the young but played enough games to have developed their craft cohort - Dunstan, Acres, Bruce, Billings, Sinclair, Steele, Membrey, Webster, White, Rice, Mackenzie, Minchington, Robertson - that there are no A graders amongst them. My question is why haven’t they developed to their potential and why have numerous of them gone backwards? And my conclusion about that is - coaching. The development of the players and their on-field performance has to rest at the coach’s door. Otherwise there is no accountability for his role.

Exactly, and even morseo as supposedly a big reason why went went for Richo was that he was meant to be an excellent development coach.

Our Board seem to believe they have another Hardwick, whereas I believe that we have another Brendan McCartney.

Interesting comparison. McCartney was sacked because he largely turned into an unforgiving bully and completely unable to find a way to communicate with their very young list. Then he somehow managed to get the elder statesmen (Cooney, Griffin) off-side too.

Richo on the other hand - is completely the opposite. A genuinely nice guy who's heart is in the right spot but is not nearly as challenging, confronting and demanding of standards being met as he should.

It's the same outcome; just a different mode to get there.

[samoht]

With all respect samoht - perhaps recommending that we read ‘The Fugitive Soldier’ isn’t such a great idea for you. I’ve got better things to do than waste time reading any more of your twaddle !
Of course Richo has to go....his job is to win games or at least set us in the right direction. Winning, hope and performance drive football clubs, not miserable lacklustre stability.
Some of the AFL’s greatest clubs have thrived on field while being a ‘dogs breakfast’ off it, - the sniff of finals or a flag drive everything.
After 5 years all we can sniff is a turd at the bottom of the ladder, - Winning, Hope, Performance - that’s your job Alan.

I'm just saying there's too much focus on the coach - I'm not saying he's perfect - and I even pointed out his failings.
We attach too much importance to coaches in general - case in point RL the 19-0 coach with us and the 0-10 coach at Freo,with just one or two things going wrong at Freo. It didn't take much for his train to derail.
Wasn't it RL's job to win games? Doesn't he have a 5 year plan??
There's been more than 1 or 2 things going wrong at St Kilda this year - we need to keep it all in perspective.

[saintsRrising]

So taking your logic to it's conclusion the past five years have been a waste of time, the reset button needs hitting, coach, list, gameplan, development have all gone backwards since Richo walked in the door. There is nothing to work and Richo is not capable of improvement, even if the club trys?

You seem incapable of discussing just the Head Coach and his performance as an issue in itself. IMO he has proven unsuitable for the role. How do you rate him and what has he done well?

If I have a company with many employees yes I can performance manage those in the junior jobs (ie this is what we should be doing with our players = developing them).

If the person in a key position is the problem, then no I do not have the luxury of waiting years to see IF he can turn it around.


I am on record in various posts re our list etc. So again let me be clear the head coach is not our only problem.
And yes I posted last season that we needed to reset things. That does not mean 100% wiping out everything though, it means fixing the broken or underperforming parts (ie Richo, as well as other things). Richo's role is too crucial to performance manage him especially when I see no evidence that he will ever be a suitable head coach.

Would we have done better with a better list, less injuries and the like = Yes

Would we have done better with a better head coach and better player development = IMO Yes

I just fail to see what value Richo adds, and the argument that he may yet come good in 2 years is not a luxury that we have.

[Cairnsman]

Strategy, gameplan, match day coaching, if Richo needs support in these areas then get support for these areas. Is the club already doing this?

You are still to indicate the strengths and reasons why we need to keep Richo?

Keeping a guy on solely so we can hire others to address his weaknesses does not seem that logical to me.

8 years to develop players?

Sorry but while player development is an ongoing process, we after 5 years should already be seeing evidence of this amongst the players gained in the early years. That we are not seeing the bar raised is to me setting off alarm bells. Remember this was meant to be Richo's strength.

So IMO we are not seeing any strengths, just weaknesses.

Again why should Richo stay on. What is it in his performance that makes him worth keeping?

I did, his strength is development and the 2016 and 2017 seasons have been cited by the pundits proof he is a proven performer in that space. Heaps of media backs that up. There are pundits still claiming there is a lot to like about where the list is at albeit there is work to do.

The list still needs development, that's the reason. No problem with providing support to help with other areas and refresh ideas. Thats why they are called assistants. Do you want to go back to the Norm Smith model of management?

Richmond and Collingwood proved what happens when you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[saintsRrising]

We attach too much importance to coaches in general - case in point RL the 19-0 coach with us and the 0-10 coach at Freo,with just one or two things going wrong at Freo. It didn't take much for his train to derail.
There's been more than 1 or 2 things going wrong at St Kilda this year - we need to keep it all in perspective.

I actually think it is good evidence that a coach needs to coach for year that he currently is in.

RL was successful at the Saints for a while because the gameplan he honed made the most of our strengths, covered our weaknesses and gave us an edge over our opposition at the time.

Our opponents evolved though and learnt how to counter that gameplan. Ross has barely moved on with his style of play and has suffered as a result. Clarko by contrast keeps resetting and adapting how the Hawks play.

We saw similar with the GT/Bundy Gameplan. We had the streak, but then other clubs evolved to counter it.

Richo's gameplan is way too outmoded and teams know how to counter it. We are playing yesterday's football and worse than that it opposition coaches and players know how to beat it.

In AFL you evolve or perish.


So I agree that you do not necessarily need any one particular coach (though I would love Clarko, arsehole he may be but can he coach!), but you need a coach that can evolve with the times and who can motivate players.

[samoht]

Would we have done better with a better list, less injuries and the like = Yes

Would we have done better with a better head coach and better player development = IMO Yes

I just fail to see what value Richo adds, and the argument that he may yet come good in 2 years is not a luxury that we have.

What value was RL adding when Freo was 0-10?
Does he have a 5 year plan --- if so, is it to laugh all the way to the bank?
Can we afford the luxury of a new million dollar a year coach, of the calibre of RL?

[saintsRrising]

I did, his strength is development and the 2016 and 2017 seasons have been cited by the pundits proof he is a proven performer in that space.

Err no. What players who played in these years were developed by Richo?

Richmond and Collingwood proved what happens when you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As opposed to the Doggies who did move on their coach who was hired because he was a fantastic developer of young players, but who had lost the plot?

And lets us be serious both the Pies and the Tigers ditched heaps of babies. We are just discussing which babies to through out. Just keeping the head coach in itself means nothing.

Comparing the Tigers of 2017 to the Saints of 2018 is a deeply flawed argument that has been debunked by many people.

[saintsRrising]

What value was RL adding when Freo was 0-10?
Does he have a 5 year plan --- if so, is it to laugh all the way to the bank?
Can we afford the luxury of a new million dollar a year coach, of the calibre of RL?

I am not sure you read my post? The part where I said that RL had not evolved his gameplan.

He has not evolved strategically and this is a negative comment by me on where RL is at now. It is the polar opposite of saying he should be coaching us now.

Just to be clear, if RL was coaching us now with that same gameplan I would be recommend his removal as well.

[samoht]

Even Clarko - where would he be without the recruitment of stars - like O'Meara and Mitchell, etc..
He'd be going backwards without the solid recruiting.
Success is 1% coach and game plan --- and 99% recruiting of star players or stars in the making - skilful players like Burgoynes, Riolis, Hodge, Jordan Lewis, Breust, Isaac Smith, Ryan Burton, Jarryd Roughead, Jack Gunston, Liam Shiels etc... (and let's not forget luck with injuries) .
We don't need a coach of Clarko's calibre --- but we do need A grade players of that calibre to succeed.

[David-Lee]

We are all wasting our breath. This coach is staying.
He wasted his first year as coach because Scott Waters made a mess, but he still had a team of A grade/gun players - at least 6.
He produced rubbish then we watched careers end slowly and now he's chewing through our next generation.

[Cairnsman]

I did, his strength is development and the 2016 and 2017 seasons have been cited by the pundits proof he is a proven performer in that space.

Err no. What players who played in these years were developed by Richo?

Richmond and Collingwood proved what happens when you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As opposed to the Doggies who did move on their coach who was hired because he was a fantastic developer of young players, but who had lost the plot?

And lets us be serious both the Pies and the Tigers ditched heaps of babies. We are just discussing which babies to through out. Just keeping the head coach in itself means nothing.

Comparing the Tigers of 2017 to the Saints of 2018 is a deeply flawed argument that has been debunked by many people.

You have got it bad SR, you think there has been no player development at all. Your mindset is blinding you.

So how long does the new coach get to achieve stuff? What other metrics are you using for measuring acceptable achievement.

[spert]

We are all wasting our breath. This coach is staying.
He wasted his first year as coach because Scott Waters made a mess, but he still had a team of A grade/gun players - at least 6.
He produced rubbish then we watched careers end slowly and now he's chewing through our next generation.

Not as A-grade as some make them out to be..all that A-grade and no premiership. They showed their true colours under Watters who wanted to move a few of them on.

[st.byron]

SR the logic of the 5 year time frame used as the metric for measuring failure is interesting to me. It seems to be a popular criteria for the "sack the coach" brigade and most likely the amplification of Chinese whispers on internet steroids and certainly one the media enjoy to their advantage.

Metric, logic?

The 5 years is being used as tat is how long he has been with us.

If he is here in 12 months time people will use 6 years.

So taking your logic to it's conclusion the past five years have been a waste of time, the reset button needs hitting, coach, list, gameplan, development have all gone backwards since Richo walked in the door. There is nothing to work and Richo is not capable of improvement, even if the club trys?

Yep, the past five years have been a waste of time coz look where we are at the end of it. Just how much time do you give him? Another five years of this tripe we’re being served up? Because he’s capable of improving and the club is trying?
And as sRs has asked, what evidence is there that he is going to get better? That things are going to improve? Where is the glimmer of hope? Looks pretty bleak to me whilst Richardson remains in charge.

[Cairnsman]

SR the logic of the 5 year time frame used as the metric for measuring failure is interesting to me. It seems to be a popular criteria for the "sack the coach" brigade and most likely the amplification of Chinese whispers on internet steroids and certainly one the media enjoy to their advantage.

Metric, logic?

The 5 years is being used as tat is how long he has been with us.

If he is here in 12 months time people will use 6 years.

So taking your logic to it's conclusion the past five years have been a waste of time, the reset button needs hitting, coach, list, gameplan, development have all gone backwards since Richo walked in the door. There is nothing to work and Richo is not capable of improvement, even if the club trys?

Yep, the past five years have been a waste of time coz look where we are at the end of it. Just how much time do you give him? Another five years of this tripe we’re being served up? Because he’s capable of improving and the club is trying?
And as sRs has asked, what evidence is there that he is going to get better? That things are going to improve? Where is the glimmer of hope? Looks pretty bleak to me whilst Richardson remains in charge.

I reckon you give him 1 more year.

The evidence is the rapid rise up the ladder in 2016/17 against all predictions and expectations.

The evidence is his ability to achieve those results only 2 years after taking over a club that was a basket case across the board.

I asked SR this and I'll ask you the same, how long has the new coach got if you sack Richo this year.

Bearing in mind the resources the new coach gets are significantly greater than Richo was given 5 years ago, list quality and training facility specifically as starters.

How long do you give him to achieve a flag? It must be significantly less than 5 years.

[lefty]

There's more joy being a Brisbane support than St.Kilda.
Last year Brisbane were a joke, look at them now...