What do you reckon guys about rotation policies.....

ie, giving some guys a week off to try and bring some of our other players in for a run.

Not an "omission"... but a formal rotation policy, similar to what is used in international sports that have a more intensive schedule

For example, where guys like Browne are dropped to make room for players and Pfeiffer, Edwards, Austin etc etc are banging on the door and not getting a chance, we could consider instituting a policy for everyone outside our core group (ie leadership group) where you get a week's rest twice a year or something to get everyone game-time.

Too Grant Thomas?

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

Benny Gale would squeal like a stuck pig!

Benny Gale can eat shit and die

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

Dont like it. Give a young guy a rest if he needs it. A key to all winning teams is keeping a settled team on the park, a rotation policy would throw all that out the window. A team sport like footy needs players to continuously play together so they can build an understanding and that only comes by playing together constantly.

Plus, i like the idea of having to earn your spot. If you deserve it, your in the 22. Keeps a high standard and puts pressure on those in the 22 to keep performing, reward for effort rather than games just being given.

Having said that, Ratten did say he needs to balance the act of keeping a settled team and blooding young guys. So not so much a strict rotation policy as such, just on a week to week basis what they think is best.

_________________
Carlton Premiers '10

well by default they would be getting a rest by being "rested"

come finals time..... happy days. Fresher players

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

we aren't the bumbers, we don't give people easy games for bs reasons (refer Dean Rioli)

_________________
Between our dreams and actions lies this world

you're soft!

do you read the bullants reports? Would giving Austin a game be for an "easy reason"??

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

yeah, you make a fair point, but his time will come, someone is bound to put in a shit performance sooner rather then later (wiggo?) or for the purpose of match ups he'll get his chance.

_________________
Between our dreams and actions lies this world

Ratts said Mark is really close on the Carlton website but is unlikely to get a game this week or the next as he wants a settled team and really, none of our defenders deserve to be dropped. But he said he's mindful of rewarding him and giving him a game soon. He'll definetely play seniors in the next 5 rounds i think, we wouldnt want him to look elsewhere for opportunities.

_________________
Carlton Premiers '10

that doesn't exactly constitude a "plan" kk

Don't forget that we have to squeeze Walker back in and besides dropping Hampson and/or resting Kreuzer, there isn't a lot of fat to trim from this side.

That means Browne, Pfeiffer, Edwards, Austin, Anderson etc etc will be short of a run in the firsts and can't do much more to earn a game and won't get much more out of playing in the seconds.

My suggestion is about being proactive about getting experience into them. They all have a lot of potential and really need firsts experience to make the most of it.

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

_________________
Carlton Premiers '10

Good, keep building Rome!

No matter which way you look at it or sugar coat it how you like, if a player is playing well in the firsts then gets 'rotated' back to the Ants he can't possibly take it well.

History shows that players will get there chances via the ebb and flow of other players form or lack thereof.

The following players will be back at the Ants at some stage:

Wiggo, Grigg, Armfield, Hampson, Setanta, Bentick, - add to that injuries to others and it will happen.

Don't @#$%&! with a winning team for 'rotations' sake.

_________________
Between our dreams and actions lies this world

To be in the position of haveing players in the Bullants in form who are unable to break into the senior team is fantastic. I wouldn't rotate for its own sake. Given Austin is a defender, you would need to have a defence slot free for him to come in. At the moment, there's no need.

Although Wiggo is hard at it and form is OK, I'd replace him with pfeiffer or Edwards before "resting" Armfield or Kreuzer.

Competiton for spots coming from the Bullants is a wonderful thing.

But not necessarily for those players, which is the worry

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

it happened to Browne, and to Edwards and Pfeiffer before then

Would it not be better to be rotated out knowing you'll get back in the forseeable future?

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

Not necessarily. keeping them hungry means they'll be operating at a higher intensity week in and week out. If they know that if 2 or 3 weeks in the Ants, they'll play seniors again it may breed complacency

no way. buzah is right it might breed complacency. This forces players to perform at a high level week in, week out. All good teams have them. You dont see Hawthorn, Geelong or the Bulldogs rotating their younger players just for the sake of it.

If they are in the 22, its because they earned it and i'll think they'll respond better once they get their chance in the seniors knowing that they earned it through hard work and it wasnt just handed to them.

_________________
Carlton Premiers '10

Sorry to seem rude but, the worst idea i have ever heard and frankly there is no chance of it happening.

This is the AFL not some country league, there is no chance of it happening.
If guys earn a spot then let them stay in until they are not playing good enough or others are forcing their way in.

If you start rotating then it really it stops the chance of competition for spots.

_________________
Blue boy thru and thru