Suggestions that he should have been played in the midfield from the start because he did well in the last couple of games are simple-minded. Wayne Hughes was interviewed at the RS Award, and was asked whether Gibbs was played down back out of necessity or whether it was pre-planned. WH said that the year went pretty much as planned. He said that playing him down back took the pressure off him and allowed him to develop. He also said that Gibbs will show the benefit of that next year.

I only needed to see Jackson come in and look generally pretty good the instant Pagan was out the door to know he was holding back young blokes worthy of getting game time into them.

Now i'm not trying to dig up the past here or anything like that.

If we were remotely interested in the Rising Star Award, then we've recruited the wrong sorts of players.

Gibbs was an underage recruit, and he wasn't comfortable with the tempo when he arrived. Go back over his early interviews, and you'll read that in his own words. If we wanted to groom him for the RS award, we needed to limit his games to 9 or 10, and put him forward for it next year. As it was, we played him in every game this year. We blew it big time. On the plus side, however, we have put 22 games into him and he'll be much better for it next year.

Suggestions that he should have been played in the midfield from the start because he did well in the last couple of games are simple-minded. Wayne Hughes was interviewed at the RS Award, and was asked whether Gibbs was played down back out of necessity or whether it was pre-planned. WH said that the year went pretty much as planned. He said that playing him down back took the pressure off him and allowed him to develop. He also said that Gibbs will show the benefit of that next year.

But what would WH know? Clearly, it's always a good idea to look at the end result and then assume that the same development would have been effected by throwing players into the deep end.

Using the above philosophy, it's now obvious that Michael Tuck was robbed of 40 or so senior games by sticking him in the reserves for the first 2 years. Bruce Doull should have been played in a key-defensive post right from the start rather than being sheltered in the reserves. And Hamish McIntosh should have been played as the No. 1 ruckman at the Kangaroos as soon as he was drafted rather than being wasted in the magoos. Couldn't those responsible see their potential?

We also shouldn't have gone for Hampson at 17. He was always going to take time to develop, so we blew a chance at the RS Award right there.

Grigg and Anderson were too injury-prone, so we blew their selections too.

Benjamin and Austin were never going to be ready in their 1st years. They might well have great potential, but will take too long to garner a RS award.

We need to go for overage recruits like Goldsack. Then when we stick them in the seniors, everyone will marvel at how well they fare against the underage recruits.

And Hamish McIntosh should have been played as the No. 1 ruckman at the Kangaroos as soon as he was drafted rather than being wasted in the magoos.

In a conversation with Neil Balme recently he stated that in 2006 Collingwood spent $300k on player development coaches for new recruits!!!! He arrived at Geelong and they didn't even have a budget for this type of coaching. He ensured that Geelong then budgeted for this and spent it as in his view the Collingwood recruits flourished under the development coaching.

Bower didn't get nominated because he is a below average footballer - hopefully this will change in time.

The others you can blame on Pagan not giving them adequate game time and unfortunate injuries etc

On the Gibbs issue...........If it was all about development then why don't we start all our recruits in the same position? Going on that basis, why didn't we start Murphy down back?

If it's because we don't want to put too much stress on the young kids body then why in the name of god did we play him against Sydney when he was CLEARLY injured! And the same the week before too.............

We draft him as a midfielder yet we play him down back.
We drafted Kennedy as a Full Forward / KP yet we play him in the ruck?

Collingwood drafted marty clarke as a wingman / midfielder and they play him there.
Port drafted Westhoff as a full forward and shock horror......i never saw him heading into the ruck!

I could be wrong (and somebody please correct me if i am) but i don't think Selwood was asked to 'develop' as a full back at any stage this year.

You could of course argue that further and say that port never needed him in the ruck thanks to Lade and Brogan.............whereas we needed Kennedy in the ruck due to injuries.
But i'd just argue that even further still by saying that HAD lade and/or brogan gone down with an injury, Port would have promoted a kid that they drafted to be a ruckman.

For the 2nd year now, we have but 1........... just 1 nomination in the NAB Rising Star award.

Last year it was Murphy, this years it's Gibbs.

For a team that is constantly talked up as being a list full of potential and young superstars, i find it hard to understand how we can only have 1 nomination and just 2 for the past 2 years.

Kennedy, Bower, Grigg, Aiskaie (who was still eligable this season but will not be for 08'), are just 4 players that i had seen as CERTAINTIES to earn a nomination this year.

Largly, i blame Denis for the way he played our kids. He had alot of supporters on this and alot of critics also, but the proof is in the pudding on two kids who i constantly commented on being played out of position by Pagan.

They were Gibbs & Bower............

Let's have a look at their Stats During Pagan's reign & afterwards.

GIBBS

- Pagan - - Ratten -
11.6 disp 16.8 disp
3.6 marks 5.6 marks

BOWER

- Pagan - - Ratten -
10 disp 14.8 disp
3.5 marks 5 marks


Now i'm not trying to dig up the past here or anything like that. But those averages speak for themselves.

The two teams who i thought showed great strength and belief in thier youth this year were (IMHO) Collingwood & Port Adelaide.

Both have a total of three...................3.............nominations EACH in todays Rising Star Award......and only one each were a first round picks. The others were late picks and or rookies.
(side note:- Both these teams are also playing finals football with these nominees playing KEY roles in their sides finals campaigns).

Mark Williames was brilliant in bringing in Westhoff & Gray when he needed more options up forward. Westhoff went on to kick 32 goals in just 14 games and Grey stepped up to fill the void that Tredrea left.

Ditto Malthouse with his decision to promote Marty Clarke & Tyson Goldsack in replace of the lost bodies through the midfield and defense that should have seen his team drop down the ladder......instead, they proved quite a few people wrong (including me) and are satisfying their many fans by playing last years grand finalists at the MCG in the elimination final.........IN WHICH THEY WILL GO INTO AS FAVOURITES!


Now look at our situation...............

We had Cloke go down early and Ackland not showing so much as a hint of giving two shits about the club, it's players or the game itself. We had a great, no make that a PERFECT, opportunity to bring in a young ruckman such as Aisakie or Jacobs or the very raw Hampson. All had been proving their worth in the Bullants.

But instead, we bring in Kennedy..........who we drafted as a forward / KP. I have no doubt that had we brought in a ruckman to replace Cloke (such as Aisakie) and left Kennedy to develop as the foward we drafted him as, we would have had at least another nomination this year! Possibly two. (perhaps a few more wins also)

Where Collingwood and Port Adelaide had the guts & belief...........we had excuses.

Now, after Hampson was given an opportunity in the final 2 games of the bloody year (we have a habit of doing that - see Bower & Jackson last year), we're already talking him up as a starting ruckman for season 08'.

YES, he's RAW...............but that's just it........so are 99% of draftees in their first 2-3 seasons.
Westhoff was RAW. Marty Clake was RAW. Tyson Goldsack is RAW. All of them are playing finals this week and guess what..............they're still very RAW!

But that doesn't mean they cannot be effective and play a major role in their team whislt developing.

What's my point...........................

Well, for those of you who think i'm demanding that we play Kreuzer in the ruck from round 1 and expect him to get 350+hitouts for the year and win the rising star nomination...........your wrong. I'm not expecting that at all. And even thou i was not happy with how Denis used Gibbs earlier on in the season, Gibbs exceded my expectations and i couldn't ask for anything more from the kid, who at 18 has played all 22 games this season.

What i AM saying is that the list that we played on Sunday night.......one of, if not, THE youngest list we've ever put out, showed that whilst we do need to tread carefully with these kids and not expect the world from them, that we also need to show some belief and opportunity in them too.

Next year, Aisakie MUST be starting in the ruck with Cloke as a backup and Hampson named as an emergency. If Cloke doesn't perform, the Hampson must be brought in. No excuses. No 'Oh, he's only young and still very raw'........just bloody do it!

In just two rounds, Hampson showed more than Ackland has all year and i think, if i'm not wrong, has already outdone Ackland for contested marks????

Bower & Grigg must be played in the same positions that they played in last sunday night that saw them earn more than 42 posessions BETWEEN them.

THAT, in a nutshell, is what i want more than anything in 2008. No more excuses, no more kids getting 20min of gametime, no more playing a bloody midfielder as a fullback and calling it development.

Create opportunites.............not excuses..............cause giving a kid an opportunity is in itself the perfect tool for their development!.....just ask Justin Westhoff, or Tyson Goldsack, or Marty Clarke, etc, etc, etc.

AGAIN.............I MUST STRESS THAT i'm in no way expecting greatness from these kids. But if we do draft Kreuzer.........play him to the role he is supposed to develop into and give him opportunities. I better not see him playing as a fullback lining up on Matty Llyod or sitting on the god-damn bench for 90mins of the game.

Anyway. That's my rant for the day. GO BLUES and good luck and CONGRATULATIONS to Bryce Gibbs for his Rising Star Nomination and Congratulations to all our young list for their efforts this year. Keep it up boys.

I didn't read much through the rant, but did read the basic premise, and IMO, it's complete garbage.

Aside from a frustration with Pagan for not playing the kids as much as the fans would like, I think Ryan's looking at the Rising Star situation through his "I hate Pago" glasses, and blaming him for all the ills of the world. I'm sure if he could, he'd pin the equine influenza problem in the country to Pagan too.

I'm sure if he could, he'd pin the equine influenza problem in the country to Pagan too.

What i AM saying is that the list that we played on Sunday night.......one of, if not, THE youngest list we've ever put out, showed that whilst we do need to tread carefully with these kids and not expect the world from them, that we also need to show some belief and opportunity in them too.

But Simpleton Blue reckons you just get them to play games and they will develop.

OK, fair call about me saying what you were on about is garbage based on a quick scan.

Yes, tru also that you have given Pagan credit where it's due.

And I also have some frustration with the lack of match time some of the younger players get, however trying to see the long view, I still feel that it will play in our advantage in the long run.

I don't think that backing up your arguments with match stats and Rising Star noms helps you, though.

Our kids appear to be having less success at slotting into an AFL line-up, when compared to kids at other clubs.

I believe this issue is one of the most important issues facing the club as it will determine our onfield, and therefore off-field, future.

Sydney Blue,

I'm not wanting to buy into your discussion with Woof but;

There is a big difference between a development coach and an assistant coach - at least in the context of how Collingwood, Eagles Power and Cats engage development coaches.

A development coach is in addition to the assistant coaches and works solely with the new recruits. In effect the new recruits have a development coach, an assistant coach and the head coach all helping them. When you consider the club's that have this type of structure and look at their young recruits it seems to work.

regards

Bottom line that i'm trying to say is this..........

Our kids ARE good enough to win and or earn a rising star nomination....................but for whatever reason............they are not!