What can five random doors into RTSSG Members reveal about the size of the archive?

Richmond lost its first 24 VFL meetings with Carlton. The Tigers eventually broke that sequence on the 25th attempt. A club can spend years describing a rival as its nemesis, but the interesting question is what actually changed when the result finally turned. Was Richmond stronger, was Carlton weaker, or had the Tigers found a different way to play?

That is the useful thing about old football stories. They can be admired, but they can also be interrogated. The same applies to a rainy preliminary final, three enormous September crowds and the young footballers on Richmond's list now. The surface details are familiar. Their implications are not.

When does a bad result reveal a problem the club refused to solve?

Richmond's 1971 preliminary final against St Kilda is frequently remembered for the wet conditions. Yet both clubs played on the same ground. If the weather mattered, why did it matter more to one side than the other? Was Richmond beaten by the rain itself, or by an opponent better able to adapt when its preferred football became difficult? The 1971 investigation separates the conditions from the decisions made inside them.

The long losing sequence against Carlton poses a different test. Twenty-four defeats can create a historical storyline so strong that it becomes an explanation in its own right. But a streak is a record, not a cause. What changed by the 25th meeting, and what does the breakthrough reveal about Richmond's ability to challenge an apparently settled hierarchy? The Carlton investigation looks at the moment the sequence finally broke.

What would prove Richmond's 2027 development is actually progressing?

Josh Smillie's path to an AFL debut has been delayed by physical setbacks. Potential remains relevant, but it cannot substitute forever for a sequence of measurable progress: getting through training, sustaining match loads, winning a role and showing he can repeat the required actions. What does Richmond need to see before selection becomes responsible rather than hopeful? The Smillie investigation examines the proof that must come before the next opportunity.

The team's development has an equally practical test. A defender may find the first kick out of congestion without creating a genuine exit. If the next two possessions are hurried and predictable, the opposition gets the ball back in a more dangerous position. What structure should Richmond build so the first three kicks operate as one connected action? The 2027 defensive-exit investigation follows the chain beyond the first disposal.

What does an enormous crowd actually change?

Richmond's 2017 finals attracted crowds of 95,028, 94,258 and 100,021. Those numbers testify to the size of the Tiger Army, but they do not explain what the presence of that crowd changed for the players, the opposition or the sense of momentum across three successive matches. Could supporter noise and scale make the experience of a final different, and how would anyone distinguish that from the strength of the team itself? The 2017 crowd investigation tests the effect behind the attendance figures.

All of these stories contain an easy shortcut: blame the weather, celebrate the streak ending, trust the talent, praise the first kick or marvel at the crowd. The harder work is to identify what actually caused the outcome and what would happen if the circumstances were repeated.

The full RTSSG Members investigations use those questions to turn Richmond history and current decisions into something more useful than nostalgia or optimism.

Not a member yet? Join RTSSG and read the full investigations.

RTSSG.com: the place to go after the first headline.

Richmond news by Richmond people, for Richmond people.