You can argue around the edges and say this particular player didnt get enough time but when you look at it overall Pagan played kids. Most of the kids he did not play were due to injury
Grigg got straight back in after injury. Should have played a few more games but not a great cost here
Hartlett- Totally been a fitness issue for two years.
Edwardes- Yes worth a game early in the season but no form for 10 weeks
Flint- Give him a go but no way does he deserve a spot on form. Andersen was a better bet.
Aisakie- Have to agree.
Jacobs/Austin- Only warrant a game now. Their last 3 weeks have been good.
To my reckoning Aisakie & Edwardes a little unlucky. Pity about Griggs injury. Otherwise: Russel, Gibbs, Hartlett, Kennedy, Anderson, Bower, Setanta & Murphy all have had a good go.
I am more about players performing and taking responsibility. Also you play well you get more game time.
To my memory the young Harmes, Buckley, Johnston, Sheldon, Ratten etc played better. and even some of them JB for one took a couple of years to get going. I just do not believe this Youth thing is a panacea for all our problems. It is more performance level of the kids thats the issue.
molsey wrote:
Its an interesting issue with a few important points:
1 Overall games played by kids
2 Time on ground when selected and
3 Potential games kids could have played by displacing others
The games played show that under 1) there has been an increase in games played by kids at Carlton in 2007. Im tracking this for a Blueseum article but a number of kids (who ive defined as those who played <20 games as at the start of the year) have been given a game this year.
Added to that is that for the first time in a while, Pagan didn't have his go-tos that would come in on a merry go around of ins and outs. In 2005 - 2006 this was Sporn, Prenders, Teague, Livo, Longmuir, Chambers. I think our inability to bite the bullet on the list has been a weakness, but thats a point for another thread. We entered 2007 without many of these players and as such, we created opportunities for younger guys to get a game. This was a good thing.
The listing of JR and JK as 2 guys who benefitted from this is also a good thing. A solid run of games to show something, with JR in particular getting game time, was a good move.
On the flip side the ins then out of Kennedy (brought back 1 game), Hartlett and Grigg (1 game in then out) looked very poor. Jacko was unfortunatley injured early.
2 Time on ground
This is a battle between easing players in and letting them impact on games. My view is that we've failed generally on this throughout 2007. Yes JK got some games (7 in a row) but in how many was he on the field for 50% of the game?
3 Potential other games
This is the crux of it. yes we have played more kids than in 2007 but could we have done better? Of course we could. What did we hope to achieve in 2007? Finals footy? Why werent we setting out to develop more players with real game time / exposure? Aisake could have been played earlier, Hartlett could have had more games, Grigg could have been played pre-injury, Edwards could have got a game early in the year (before his form went missing)...I just think there was a mindset to give JK and JR a go and that was the extent of the planning.
A real positive of entering 2007 was the promise of seeing the kids play more football. That's the hope created - not that we're a finals team, but that our list is moving somewhere. We don't move somewhere without rotating the kids in for blocks of time (as a minimum) to give them a taste.