Opinion Should we ever be gifting kids games of footy?

[Dynamics]

I don't think that it's really "gifting" a player a spot if we genuinely believe that:

A) the player has the potential to replace an aging player in their position when they vacate that spot, or

B) the player has the potential to be better than the incumbent.

The second one can definitely appear like it's gifting because the incumbent often appears like the better choice.

The other question is "are we a legit flag chance this year?" If so, at this stage of the season you want your best players on the park, gaining or maintaining form.

So it's a fluid answer, dependent on the position, the player and the premiership opportunity.

I think that this year and next is the time to get certain players in and leave them in for an extended run if they are able to at least hold their own, for the long term good. Broomhead, Adams and Karnezis spring to mind. I'd also play Witts every week regardless of whether or not Grundy or White play.

 

[legendstatus]

Dont think we would gift a game to a young player who hasnt shown anything in the 2nds, no club would do that.

I do think we put the Q in the rack though, lower draft position coupled with an easier draw care of the AFL and their BullSh1t system would set us up next year barring NO injuires and a couple of new recruits.

The prize is just as BIG at the other end of the ladder.... funny system we have!

 

[76woodenspooners]

It all depends on your definition of 'gift'.

'Gift' is defined the act of selecting a player for reasons other than them being best 22 available for that week.

That takes into account fitness, form, matchup on opposition, etc, etc.

Let's take the Ball/Adams situation. Ball is arguably ahead of Adams at the moment but Adams is an obvious replacement.

I don't see playing Adams instead of Ball a 'gift'.

If Ball is injured or needs resting, then I'd agree. If Ball is fully fit and is deemed a better player for that week, then I'd disagree.

It becomes grey I suppose when the decision to 'rest' a player (eg: Ball) or not depends on the form of their replacement.

 

[doodles98]

It all depends on your definition of 'gift'. Let's take the Ball/Adams situation. Ball is arguably ahead of Adams at the moment but Adams is an obvious replacement.

I don't see playing Adams instead of Ball a 'gift'. It is part of list management and list management is arguably the biggest determiner of success. More important than the Coach and the facilities etc. Good lists win premierships.

I agree. If playing Adams is a gift then we've been naughty boys and Santa's not happy with us.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I agree. If playing Adams is a gift then we've been naughty boys and Santa's not happy with us.

Curious linguistic fact ... the word 'gift' exists in both English and German. Both are derived from the common root "geben" which means "to give to somebody"

So in English the word 'gift' evolved to mean 'a present' (something you give to somebody)

And in German the word 'gift' evolved to mean 'poison' (something you give to somebody)

 

[domin8tors]

nice post.. I don't think kids should be gifted games. but I think if a kid is doing all the right things.EG) training hard doing extra sessions, eating well, and keeping to the coaches instructions I think if the team is in position to give a kid a game they should. I can't think if an example from the top of the head but some players just plod along for various reasons at VFL level or WAFL etc and then step up at AFL level and slot right in. and is they old saying goes you don't know what you don't know so if you play the kid and they are no good then delist them but some may surprise

 

[Leigh Lowther]

I think Kids have to be integrated into a team structure slowly. You can't expect 4-5 or so new players to enter a senior side and be able to play a tactically sound game of Footy. If that were the case everybody would be screaming at Buckley 'Our players don't have any idea what they're doing, where has our structure gone' So while ideally we want to give the younger kids the game time - It's not as simple as letting them play.

I don't know why some players that seem like they deserve to be selected aren't(Martin for example). But I do know that even if Blair/Goldsack aren't performing to expectations - They at least understand their role in the side and how to mesh into the team, its a hard compromise.

I'm also a person who has noticed that despite what people seem to think - We have been integrating PLENTY of new players in Frost, Grundy, Witts, Langdon, Adams, Thomas.

 

[Soul_Pie]

We are gifting the likes of Blair and Lumumba games every week, and they're not kids so they have no excuse for continually lacklustre performances. One set of rules for some, another set for the others. They may be premiership players but they haven't played like it for years now. There are guys working hard giving it all in the VFL trying to iron out their supposed flaws but they've hit a ceiling at that level; heck I don't even rate Armstrong all that highly but he at least deserves a go based on what I've seen. Part of the success we had in the past was that our younger guys and VFL guys forced out the older club stalwarts if their form was good enough, (ironically enough Blair got a game because of this) right now they don't seem to be afforded that opportunity.

 

[CasuallyDressed]

I think there is more to benefit from giving kids a run than continuing to play players who simply don't add to the side.

I'd rather keep guys like Seedsman, Williams, Kennedy and Langdon playing than drop them to play guys like Young, Blair, Dwyer and Lumumba. However, if there form simply isn't at standard in the twos, obviously the jump isn't ready to be made.

We're probably at the stage now where keeping the young guys in the side will be more beneficial for the future.

 

[ClaytonM]

'Gift' is defined the act of selecting a player for reasons other than them being best 22 available for that week.

That takes into account fitness, form, matchup on opposition, etc, etc.



If Ball is injured or needs resting, then I'd agree. If Ball is fully fit and is deemed a better player for that week, then I'd disagree.

It becomes grey I suppose when the decision to 'rest' a player (eg: Ball) or not depends on the form of their replacement.

Picking teams based on 'best 22 this week' basis all the time has the potential to be a disaster. The Australia cricket team did this a couple of times and it ended badly. Lillee, Marsh and Chappell all retired on the same day and it took years to recover. More recently we had Hayden, Langer, Martin, Gilly, Warne, McGrath all retire in a very short time. What happened, the Poms started beating use consistently.

Look at what happened to St Kilda when their 'best 22' aged.

I'd rather we 'gift' talented kids a few games when appropriate to broaden our depth and build the next generation. Otherwise Carlton will start beating us.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Picking teams based on 'best 22 this week' basis all the time has the potential to be a disaster. The Australia cricket team did this a couple of times and it ended badly. Lillee, Marsh and Chappell all retired on the same day and it took years to recover. More recently we had Hayden, Langer, Martin, Gilly, Warne, McGrath all retire in a very short time. What happened, the Poms started beating use consistently.

Look at what happened to St Kilda when their 'best 22' aged.

I'd rather we 'gift' talented kids a few games when appropriate to broaden our depth and build the next generation. Otherwise Carlton will start beating us.

It's difficult to tell with Collingwood.

Under Malthouse you would rarely bother with looking at team selection, the vast majority of the time it never changed.

Under Buckley, it's been the other extreme with having so many injuries over the last three years, players are in and out of the team all the time. Players like Mooney, Martin, Paine, Yagmoor, were given games when they weren't ready.

 

[Piestration]

At the moment I think the problem is more that we are gifting games to underperforming senior guys. If senior players are not pulling their weight and showing consistent poor form or attitude... then I think it is in the best long term interests of the team that they take a spell in the VFL and we bring in someone new to give them a chance to show they can do better... even if they haven't been setting the world on fire in the 2's it's useful to get games into them... Without doing this you are sending a message that poor performances will be tolerated and players will get games on seniority or reputation.

Well said.
Someone may correct me if I'm wrong but I can't recall too many debutants this year (except maybe Langdon). Considering as you said doodles we have had many under performing seniors you would have thought that Bucks would have trialed at least a few (deserved not gifted) of the obvious VFL players. Frost and Langdon have stood up quite well straight out of the box so I feel it's been criminal to not trial any others for an opportunity to shine. We've had a limp midfield at best so an injection of speed and enthusiasm may have been the key.

 

[Bring_Back_Brad]

Well said.
Someone may correct me if I'm wrong but I can't recall too many debutants this year (except maybe Langdon). Considering as you said doodles we have had many under performing seniors you would have thought that Bucks would have trialed at least a few (deserved not gifted) of the obvious VFL players. Frost and Langdon have stood up quite well straight out of the box so I feel it's been criminal to not trial any others for an opportunity to shine. We've had a limp midfield at best so an injection of speed and enthusiasm may have been the key.

Broomhead debuted, as did Adams and White if you count them. Of the draftees, without freeman and sharanberg available, oxley mostly out injured it only leaves Ramsay and marsh who probably aren't really in contention for selection at this stage. Armstrong deserves a run I think, certainly can't be worse than some of the performances the other guys are putting up.

 

[Piestration]

Broomhead debuted, as did Adams and White if you count them. Of the draftees, without freeman and sharanberg available, oxley mostly out injured it only leaves Ramsay and marsh who probably aren't really in contention for selection at this stage. Armstrong deserves a run I think, certainly can't be worse than some of the performances the other guys are putting up.

Yeah I probably should have worded it a bit better than that but you know what I was getting at. I was thinking more the guys that haven't had much of gig at AFL and deserved a FULL game at some stage in the year like Martin, Broomhead, Kennedy. Arguable but even Armstrong like you said couldn't have been much worse than some others. The point is if these guys did get a game occasionally it would create competition for spots and ultimately raise the work rate of the others. And who knows what could happen. One or two of them may grab the chance and not let go this time.

 

[TradeDraft]

Vote after game on sunday

 

[Tbone McGraw]

Dont think we would gift a game to a young player who hasnt shown anything in the 2nds, no club would do that.

I do think we put the Q in the rack though, lower draft position coupled with an easier draw care of the AFL and their BullSh1t system would set us up next year barring NO injuires and a couple of new recruits.

The prize is just as BIG at the other end of the ladder.... funny system we have!

This is a great post.

In most sports in Australia, you dont gift kids games. However due to the draft, every club now gifts kids games when they are out of the running.

The system is the problem, but in saying that i do like the draft process.

 

[rand corp]

I think you they need to show real potential and form at VFL level and then getting games into them only helps

 

[Scodog10]

Horses for courses. You pick your best 22 to beat a side on any given day if you're top 4 or bottom 4. Whether they be a talented youngster or seasoned veteran no player should ever be gifted a game.

I was a long time critic of MM's staunch support of his favourite's, but Buckley is seemingly worse and it's starting to grind my gears. Adams, JT, Young, Blair and Goldsack are just completely out of form ATM and should not be getting gifted the games they have been.

 

[jmac70]

Great suggestion 76....surely there are heaps of cashed up Collingwood toffs out there that would love to buy their spoilt teenager a game of footy for Collingwood. I will email this to Pert.