Id like to see Browne grigg anderson armfield all be equally experienced and equally developed. I think what tyrant is suggesting is reasonable but i think it will take care of itself.

Young blokes are not going to be up for all games in a season. THeir form will be up and down. So the changes will happen anyway.

We must keep our eye on the big prize and continue to develop players even while we attempt to make the bottom of the eight.

I agree we keep the ratations going but no need to make it an official policy.

Browne heading to the Bullants last week was an indication that the club is already doing what tyrant is suggesting.

Grigg and Hampson out this week.

Browne and Anderson in perhaps.

Tyrant, question for you. What do you make of the Australian One Day Cricket Team rotation policy? Does it work?

_________________
17 4 10

People used to have the same perception about being interchanged. You only went to the bench when you [REDACTED] up, now it is considered an invaluable ploy to rest your stars during a game. If we had the depth across all the lines I think it would be a great idea, but at the moment we don't.

_________________
"our guest is dressed by hand-me-downs, hair designed by pillow"

The real question is if a younger player is doing a job, and doing it well, should guys like Walker, Houla, Bannister, Bower etc be walk-up starts when they return from injury. Or should they have to wait for their opportunity too?

Obviously you're not going to leave Walker out for a depth player like Wiggins, but after that it's becoming incrasingly less clear cut IMO.

Fancy having some depth. It's almost as bewildering as being in the 8.

yeah see that is the point we disagree on... and its really a player management issue more than anything else.

I see a greater risk in creating hopelessness in the player and having them go backwards. If Austin knows no matter how well he plays he's unlikely to get a game, would that not affect his motivation? Depending on the psyche of the player, that could be detrimental to their "hunger".

Not all players, have this burning desire to please. I know the club has focussed on recruiting players of a particular (positive, determined) mindset, but in practice given that they're 19/20 years old I don't think a hard-line always works and you need to be a bit more proactive in their development.

Just like the kid in school who looks bored... could be either that he has no scholastic aptitude or he's too intelligent for the material to be stimulated. My proposed approach is to stimulate that interest


The fundamental differences between AFL and other codes (ie european football) are that:

a) In other world codes they play more often and hence more matches, and hence a rotation policy is the only sensible option

b) AFL doesnt' have a culture of rotating players. We have a "dropping" culture.

I am asking you guys to challenge why players have to be "dropped" and can't be given a week off to rest their bodies and give someone else a go... and then you pick your best 22 for the finals.

Of course injuries can interrupt that so you would need a process that was flexible.

What I'm seeing is a picture like:

"Leadership group" - play every game... 10 players

Judd, Fevola, Thornton, Waite etc etc

"Work in progress" group -ie new draft picks, rookies etc who are unlikely to get a game (except in the case of injuries or excellent form)

Ellard, Benjamin etc

"Rotation group" - a roster approach, or based on player wear an tear

everyone else


And when you get a week off you get a week off... ie no games. Or you can sit in the box with Ratts or have some other "team duty".

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me