Alan Richo should get some credit

[johnearljames]

The picture of Nick Dal Santo's dick deserves as much credit for how we're going this year...just as much as Richo

There's some debate as to whether it was the photo of Riewoldt's dick, but I'm confident it was Nicky D's willy. Guaranteed!

On a serious note...anyone who understands professional sport understands that Richo did not improve as a senior coach and did not grow and thrive in the role. Of course there'll be individuals in professional sport who will motivate themselves but what about some of the ones who lack the confidence or go through form slumps?

You need a coach to be able to prosper and show great energy, innovation and enthusiasm. Richo failed as a senior coach in these areas and he could not inspire or lead the Saints. That's why we played a terrible brand of footy

I'd be interested to know who understands professional sport on here.

Plenty do, just ask them after they have knocked off their 100th Dorito corn chip.

[Secret Kiel]

The picture of Nick Dal Santo's dick deserves as much credit for how we're going this year...just as much as Richo

There's some debate as to whether it was the photo of Riewoldt's dick, but I'm confident it was Nicky D's willy. Guaranteed!

It sounds like it's your expert subject matter so I'll take your word for it.

[SAINT-LEE]

This thread is about Richo's development of our younger players that were drafted or traded in during his reign, not his coaching ability or record or personality. Young fellas like Dunstan, Billings, Steele, Membrey, Gresh, etc.

Read the post properly next time for the skeptics.

Fact is, Alan developed a few of our young fellas pretty well it seems. Ratts has put the icing on the cake.

It does seem odd to have to divorce Richo’s coaching ability from the development of players he coached... but given who we’re talking about, it does seem entirely plausible that in his philosophy, coaching and development are entirely unconnected.
Hence I guess that criticism should stand.

Regardless, it feels flawed giving Richo credit for development of players that have improved markedly, appear more skilled and are far more consistent in performance from immediately following the period he left.

What players might that be?

Rowan Marshall's stats are down
Gresham stats are down

Shall I continue?

Or were you alluding to players like Coffield, Clark and Steele whose trajectory has not skyrocketed but continued upward as expected?

I do agree some players are more consistent. I also would absolutely deny the core are remarkably improved.

Butler, Hill, Jones and Ryder have created significant ball movement goal assists and opportunity that was lacking in 2018, 2019.

Battle has had more than double his goal output over 2019, but we'd expect that surely in his 4th year? He has definitely improved in that area but he's playing in different roles as well even ruck.

I see wins which is great. But I see imports greatly impacting and players who were developing continuing that development, no shocking changes due to coach.

E.g. a player suddenly has broken out no one expected because he was held back by coaching.
We expected Clark, Coffield, Steele, Hind, Gresham, Battle, Long....to all keep improving and getting better each year.

Has Ratts mattered!? 100% different game style ( actually a similar plan) and different personality ( more like Thomas - who players said they "loved")...a blokey, emotional, passionate type.

[Secret Kiel]

This thread is about Richo's development of our younger players that were drafted or traded in during his reign, not his coaching ability or record or personality. Young fellas like Dunstan, Billings, Steele, Membrey, Gresh, etc.

Read the post properly next time for the skeptics.

Fact is, Alan developed a few of our young fellas pretty well it seems. Ratts has put the icing on the cake.

It does seem odd to have to divorce Richo’s coaching ability from the development of players he coached... but given who we’re talking about, it does seem entirely plausible that in his philosophy, coaching and development are entirely unconnected.
Hence I guess that criticism should stand.

Regardless, it feels flawed giving Richo credit for development of players that have improved markedly, appear more skilled and are far more consistent in performance from immediately following the period he left.

What players might that be?

Rowan Marshall's stats are down
Gresham stats are down

Shall I continue?

Or were you alluding to players like Coffield, Clark and Steele whose trajectory has not skyrocketed but continued upward as expected?

I do agree some players are more consistent. I also would absolutely deny the core are remarkably improved.

Butler, Hill, Jones and Ryder have created significant ball movement goal assists and opportunity that was lacking in 2018, 2019.

Battle has had more than double his goal output over 2019, but we'd expect that surely in his 4th year? He has definitely improved in that area but he's playing in different roles as well even ruck.

I see wins which is great. But I see imports greatly impacting and players who were developing continuing that development, no shocking changes due to coach.

E.g. a player suddenly has broken out no one expected because he was held back by coaching.
We expected Clark, Coffield, Steele, Hind, Gresham, Battle, Long....to all keep improving and getting better each year.

Has Ratts mattered!? 100% different game style ( actually a similar plan) and different personality ( more like Thomas - who players said they "loved")...a blokey, emotional, passionate type.

The Richo haters will never accept the club was doing a lot of things right during his time at the club, and had the list not been ravaged by injury in 2018 and 2019 then we most certainly would have played finals by now. BR has inherited that same list plus a great recruiting outcome before his first season as head coach so the expectation in AFL circles was/is, anything less than a finals birth in 2020 will be viewed as a step backwards.

And yes you are very right about the game plan not having changed very much, BR himself is on the record as acknowledging that Richo's game plan didn't need many changes with only the mechanism into the forward line his only tweak.

And credit for the backline performance specifically this year has to almost 100% go to Richo.

[skeptic]

This thread is about Richo's development of our younger players that were drafted or traded in during his reign, not his coaching ability or record or personality. Young fellas like Dunstan, Billings, Steele, Membrey, Gresh, etc.

Read the post properly next time for the skeptics.

Fact is, Alan developed a few of our young fellas pretty well it seems. Ratts has put the icing on the cake.

It does seem odd to have to divorce Richo’s coaching ability from the development of players he coached... but given who we’re talking about, it does seem entirely plausible that in his philosophy, coaching and development are entirely unconnected.
Hence I guess that criticism should stand.

Regardless, it feels flawed giving Richo credit for development of players that have improved markedly, appear more skilled and are far more consistent in performance from immediately following the period he left.

What players might that be?

Rowan Marshall's stats are down
Gresham stats are down

Shall I continue?

Or were you alluding to players like Coffield, Clark and Steele whose trajectory has not skyrocketed but continued upward as expected?

I do agree some players are more consistent. I also would absolutely deny the core are remarkably improved.

Butler, Hill, Jones and Ryder have created significant ball movement goal assists and opportunity that was lacking in 2018, 2019.

Battle has had more than double his goal output over 2019, but we'd expect that surely in his 4th year? He has definitely improved in that area but he's playing in different roles as well even ruck.

I see wins which is great. But I see imports greatly impacting and players who were developing continuing that development, no shocking changes due to coach.

E.g. a player suddenly has broken out no one expected because he was held back by coaching.
We expected Clark, Coffield, Steele, Hind, Gresham, Battle, Long....to all keep improving and getting better each year.

Has Ratts mattered!? 100% different game style ( actually a similar plan) and different personality ( more like Thomas - who players said they "loved")...a blokey, emotional, passionate type.

It’s not about numbers though... it’s about performance.

I would argue that Marshall, Gresh, Paton and a bunch of those players + others are actually playing better but predictability you’ve put it all aside as ‘natural improvement’.

I would look at a guy like Coffield... who was played as a midfielder, back stopper off the HBF as someone who has correctly been identified as a play making HBF with reasonable defensive skills as a player who has responded to a clearer role.

Yes there’s natural improvement but he’s also playing to his strengths

I would argue that Hind is not just a forward pocket, is not being played that way and has looked better

Long who also played a predominantly a FP has looked much better on the HBF and using his aggression in the middle.

Steele has been around a bit longer than the rest and gone from an in and out of the team midfielder to close to an elite mid... but apparently that’s natural development noting the consistency achieved this year.
Billings too has looked much better with marked improvements in his disposal

Marshall’s numbers may be down but he’s spending less time in the ruck as he’s sharing it with Ryder. To me, I reckon he’s looked better or showing signs of progression

I’m bloody hell... if it’s all natural improvement where was it the two years before hand.

Sure, naturally some of these performances are on account of players getting experience, fitness etc but a lot of it is confidence from a clearer game plan, better selection and just plan better development.
The fact that Billings actually looks capable of kicking a set shot from 40m isn’t natural development. Accuracy isn’t 5 new recruits, only one of which plays forward.

[asiu]

the ‘lets have a go’ mindset
would be a huge part of it
‘n thats also all about ... timing

richo’s time was circle the wagons ,
rebuild the stockade , get everyone heading in
the appropriate direction

every overnight success
doesn’t happen from a vacuum

[Secret Kiel]

This thread is about Richo's development of our younger players that were drafted or traded in during his reign, not his coaching ability or record or personality. Young fellas like Dunstan, Billings, Steele, Membrey, Gresh, etc.

Read the post properly next time for the skeptics.

Fact is, Alan developed a few of our young fellas pretty well it seems. Ratts has put the icing on the cake.

It does seem odd to have to divorce Richo’s coaching ability from the development of players he coached... but given who we’re talking about, it does seem entirely plausible that in his philosophy, coaching and development are entirely unconnected.
Hence I guess that criticism should stand.

Regardless, it feels flawed giving Richo credit for development of players that have improved markedly, appear more skilled and are far more consistent in performance from immediately following the period he left.

What players might that be?

Rowan Marshall's stats are down
Gresham stats are down

Shall I continue?

Or were you alluding to players like Coffield, Clark and Steele whose trajectory has not skyrocketed but continued upward as expected?

I do agree some players are more consistent. I also would absolutely deny the core are remarkably improved.

Butler, Hill, Jones and Ryder have created significant ball movement goal assists and opportunity that was lacking in 2018, 2019.

Battle has had more than double his goal output over 2019, but we'd expect that surely in his 4th year? He has definitely improved in that area but he's playing in different roles as well even ruck.

I see wins which is great. But I see imports greatly impacting and players who were developing continuing that development, no shocking changes due to coach.

E.g. a player suddenly has broken out no one expected because he was held back by coaching.
We expected Clark, Coffield, Steele, Hind, Gresham, Battle, Long....to all keep improving and getting better each year.

Has Ratts mattered!? 100% different game style ( actually a similar plan) and different personality ( more like Thomas - who players said they "loved")...a blokey, emotional, passionate type.

It’s not about numbers though... it’s about performance.

I would argue that Marshall, Gresh, Paton and a bunch of those players + others are actually playing better but predictability you’ve put it all aside as ‘natural improvement’.

I would look at a guy like Coffield... who was played as a midfielder, back stopper off the HBF as someone who has correctly been identified as a play making HBF with reasonable defensive skills as a player who has responded to a clearer role.

Yes there’s natural improvement but he’s also playing to his strengths

I would argue that Hind is not just a forward pocket, is not being played that way and has looked better

Long who also played a predominantly a FP has looked much better on the HBF and using his aggression in the middle.

Steele has been around a bit longer than the rest and gone from an in and out of the team midfielder to close to an elite mid... but apparently that’s natural development noting the consistency achieved this year.
Billings too has looked much better with marked improvements in his disposal

Marshall’s numbers may be down but he’s spending less time in the ruck as he’s sharing it with Ryder. To me, I reckon he’s looked better or showing signs of progression

I’m bloody hell... if it’s all natural improvement where was it the two years before hand.

Sure, naturally some of these performances are on account of players getting experience, fitness etc but a lot of it is confidence from a clearer game plan, better selection and just plan better development.
The fact that Billings actually looks capable of kicking a set shot from 40m isn’t natural development. Accuracy isn’t 5 new recruits, only one of which plays forward.

One of the emerging trends I've noticed is people painting themselves into a corner with Richo and the refusal to acknowledge the injury crisis the club had throughout 2018 and 2019 and had the list been as healthy as it is now we would have most certainly played in finals before 2020. A very smooth transition to a new coach who hasn't changed the game plan exept for a small tweak to the F50 entry mechanism and a successful recruiting campaign has been a big part of why the team is showing postive signs. As most people with footy knowledge acknowledge, success doesn't happen by accident and it doesn't happen over night.

And not to make too fine a point of it, we haven't achieved anything yet so the judging should be held back until we have a decent sample size when full strength competion resumes.

[The_Dud]

Are we still talking about Mr 30%?!

Stayed a year and a half too long. Good coach, just not for the top job.