Ted Richards (Older thread brought up again)

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Towards the end of the first quarter I watched as a ball cleared a pack and bounced high towards a Port player. The Port player had to wait for the ball to come down while Ted Richards' ran towards him.
Posters who have played the game know Ted had two choices. He could run hard and leap at the ball in order to spoil the ball before the Port player could gain posession.
OR
He could tuck himself up for inpact and run through the Port player.
Unfortunately Ted did neither, he de-celerated and allowed the Port player to take posession and then dispose of the ball.

To be beaten by a quicker or more skillfull opponent is one thing, and muffing a shot at goal or spilling a mark can happen to the best. But opting out of a physical clash is not acceptable and unfortunately I don't think this was an isolated incident.

[Legs Akimbo]

RnR, I noticed the same thing. It was soft. It was what he got a reputation for at Essendon. He is afraid of physical contests. The technical term is wimp. I think it is the reason that he drops a lot of marks too, because he is a naturally gifted pack mark but just drops his head too often. If he could learn to have eyes for the ball and develop his physical presence he would become a much better and more valuable player.

Ted, if you read this RWO drivel, stop being a wimp.

[TheMase]

Re: Ted Richards

Yep. Saw that also. Was not very impressed.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Agreed, he has the increasingly rare talent to take a high mark, yet as you say, as soon as there's some preassure he loses the ability. He increasingly reminds me of Saddington.

We've tried him in the backline, we've tried him up forward, we've even run him in the ruck and frankly I can't see any position where another player wouldn't be a better bet.

[sydneyswans1989]

Seen him do abit of that this season, i guess the correct term has been used 'whimp'. He needs to be more like....ummm.....KIRK! yes kirk is the perfect example of what teddy needs to be & for that to happen he needs a kick to the head.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Ruck'n'Roll
Agreed, he has the increasingly rare talent to take a high mark, yet as you say, as soon as there's some preassure he loses the ability. He increasingly reminds me of Saddington.

Yep, without Saddo's skill. That makes two dud trades this year to go with what appears to be one from last year.

[bandwagon]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
... That makes two dud trades this year to go with what appears to be one from last year.

Last year - Spriggs? Thought we got him in the PSD...oh dear!

As our drafting of youngsters is generally pretty good with the lower draft picks, perhaps we should take a lot more care with using picks on speculative trades.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Saddo's skill

Don't you mean Saddo's speed?

[garethb83]

Originally posted by Ruck'n'Roll
Agreed, he has the increasingly rare talent to take a high mark, yet as you say, as soon as there's some preassure he loses the ability. He increasingly reminds me of Saddington.

We've tried him in the backline, we've tried him up forward, we've even run him in the ruck and frankly I can't see any position where another player wouldn't be a better bet.

Or Nick Riewoldt without his skills?? Soft as warm butter!

[SimonH]

Originally posted by bandwagon
Last year - Spriggs? Thought we got him in the PSD...oh dear!

As our drafting of youngsters is generally pretty good with the lower draft picks, perhaps we should take a lot more care with using picks on speculative trades.

Something is seen as 'speculative' if it doesn't work out. For example, Nick Daffy was 'speculative', Wayne Schwass was trading in a senior player.

Even if Chambers can't develop his craft to become a legitimate 2nd ruck (don't laugh), we're looking at 1.5/4 in trading in mature talent over the last 2 years (Jolly was a success by any reasonable definition of the word, and despite everyone's skepticism Richards is still a 50/50), which is far from perfect. However, stats indicate that you'd only likely get 1.5/4 if you used those picks on kids... and take many more years (in which they're occupying spots on your list) to know which will make it and which won't.

The world is not divided in a black & white way between 'duds' and 'guns'; there are certain ineffable qualities of physical and mental maturity, poise and even low-level leadership that a 23 yo who's been kicking around the top level for a few years provides, that an 18 or 19 yo can't.

I doubt we would have won a premiership without picking up Jolly in 2004, or that our list would look so balanced now if we had none of those players, but instead 4 more 18/19 year olds.

[swannieserin]

Originally posted by garethb83
Or Nick Riewoldt without his skills??

Now now, he's not a pinhead!

[garethb83]

Originally posted by swannieserin
Now now, he's not a pinhead!

Yes yes, was more just referring to the softness... watched him avoid physical contact again on Saturday despite them winning by 100+ points... pathetic really, could be a real star.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by bandwagon
Last year - Spriggs? Thought we got him in the PSD...oh dear!

As our drafting of youngsters is generally pretty good with the lower draft picks, perhaps we should take a lot more care with using picks on speculative trades.

Can't recall how we picked him up, but he was an 'established player' and that's what I was thinking of.

[mocaholic]

Originally posted by SimonH
Something is seen as 'speculative' if it doesn't work out. For example, Nick Daffy was 'speculative', Wayne Schwass was trading in a senior player.

Nick Daffy was what we had to take to get Barry Hall. Plus the Tiges paid his salary.

Stinga was speculative!!

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Nick Daffy was also swapped for Greg Stafford