SA Footy

Ok, so i know this is a bit early in the season, but it was prompted by a facebook post by a richmond supporter that i know, who said that richmond's list was "way better than the crows, with better young guys and ridiculous salary cap space"

I refuted him and thought the crows list was much better placed.

So, if you had to take over a team at the end of the season, who would you like?

Both teams have pretty close to their strongest team on the park at the moment, so it is worth looking at.

Richmond's Team This week

RICHMOND

B Troy Chaplin, Dylan Grimes, Alex Rance
HB Bachar Houli, Matt Dea, Brett Deledio
C Dustin Martin, Shane Edwards, Matthew Arnot
HF Chris Newman, Ty Vickery, Daniel Jackson
F Reece Conca, Jack Riewoldt, Anthony Miles
FOL Ivan Maric, Brandon Ellis, Trent Cotchin
I/C Jake Batchelor, Nathan Foley, Ricky Petterd
SUB Brett O'Hanlon

Players Missing that are in their Best 22
Griffiths (maybe)
Grigg
Morris

Gone at the End of the year
newman, stephenson, edwards, king, knights (possibly other delistings but i was mostly talking about the older players)

Just last year everyone was expecting this list to take a big step forward, but it just seems like their big name players, with the exception of possibly martin this year, just go missing too often. none of them seem to show the leadership required for richmond to take the next step.

They do have a good group of young midfielders, but their defence is suspect and their forward line is very average besides riewoldt. I wouldnt call any of their team "hard" really, and i think that is why their team is so inconsistent.

ADELAIDE CROWS

B Andy Otten, Daniel Talia, Luke Brown
HB Ricky Henderson, Ben Rutten, Brodie Smith
C Brad Crouch, Patrick Dangerfield, Rory Sloane
HF Eddie Betts, James Podsiadly, David Mackay
F Taylor Walker, Josh Jenkins, Tom Lynch
FOL Sam Jacobs, Scott Thompson, Richard Douglas
I/C Matthew Jaensch, Matthew Wright, Brodie Martin
SUB Rory Laird

Missing from 22:
Kerridge, Van Berlo

Gone at End of Year:
Rutten, Porplyzia, Thompson (possibly), Pods (possibly), Reilly (probably)

I think the crows are much better placed. Both their defence and forward line are young and on the improve, and their midfield is also one of the best in the competition when it is firing. Depth is the issue with the crows, it drops off a bit if their best 22 is not on the park, but i think that can also be said of richmond. Dangerfield needs to be helped more often. The skills of the crows are what needs to improve. They are a great contested ball team, but they need to use it better.

So, what do you guys think. Would you take the crows or Richmond if you had a choice?

Adelaide's. Richmond have some quality and some that will only get better (Vlaustin) but they have a lot of players you just couldn't ever imagine being part of a genuine premiership contending team. That's not to say the Crows don't have some of them too, but I think a few less than Richmond.

If you merged the clubs, Riewoldt, Cotchin, Rance, Deledio, Martin, Jackson and Maric would make a combined squad of 30. You could argue that Grimes, Morris, Grigg and maybe Conca and Vlaustin have enough upside to be taken into account as well.

For me, them racing to re-sign blokes like Brandon Ellis smacks of where their list is at.

That doesn't say much about the list a Princes Park, Optus Oval, MLC Labour Park then or what ever other name it goes by this week!!!!

Bit like comparing Amanda Vanstone to Marty Feldman when it comes to good looks.

A team that still has Chaplin in its side is on a road to nowhere.

Two words. ..... Tyrone Vickery

Cows list is miles ahead. Richmond has far too many spuds to be anywhere near a finals side, they will have to target FA aggresively but who would want to go there, with their history multiple sackings are just around the corner

who cares, neither will make a grand final this century.

Probably sums up where both clubs are at, a debate over who has the best list

I am still in complete amazement that this thread exists.

Maybe your amazement comes from your lack of reading and comprehension skills. The question came up on Facebook and I thought it was an interesting question.

Why do you and days have to be tools about it?

Neither will play in a GF in the next ten years

whufc wrote:Neither will play in a GF in the next ten years

Not the question I was asking, but cheers for the input.

whufc wrote:Neither will play in a GF in the next ten years

10 years is also impossible to say. In the next few years I would agree unfortunately

Wanted to vote for the "both shithouse" option but it was not available. Voted for Adelaide though. Richmond are in a world of hurt.

Regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:Wanted to vote for the "both shithouse" option but it was not available. Voted for Adelaide though. Richmond are in a world of hurt.

Regards,

REB

Yep, Richmond continue to recycle average players from other clubs while taking forever to develop the players they drafted as kids.

Booney wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:Wanted to vote for the "both shithouse" option but it was not available. Voted for Adelaide though. Richmond are in a world of hurt.

Regards,

REB

Yep, Richmond continue to recycle average players from other clubs while taking forever to develop the players they drafted as kids.

And then guys like Schulz and White who couldnt get a kick at Richmond move clubs and perform well

I thought Schulz was a complete dud. Well maybe not complete dud, but I would have thought 30/40 goals a year would have been a massive pass mark.

Shows something is a bit wrong at Richmond when stuff like that happens

bennymacca wrote:I thought Schulz was a complete dud. Well maybe not complete dud, but I would have thought 30/40 goals a year would have been a massive pass mark.

Shows something is a bit wrong at Richmond when stuff like that happens

Schulz got played out of position a fair bit. Remember Richo was the key forward and Schulz was just used a foil for him and often played higher up the ground.

Yeah that is true. Still thought he would be no more than a handy player, rather than in Coleman contention