Robert Walls came out this week declaring that the career of Ben Cousins is coming to an end in this article. Whilst it was hardly ground breaking stuff from Captain Obvious himself, there was one quote that stuck out to me when referring to whether Richmond should be playing kids ahead of Cousins.

"But a team at the bottom of the ladder, they just need to get games into young players with a young coach."

Cousins is clearly past his prime, but even with time no longer on his side he is still a good player and one of the better players at Richmond. But not only that, his experience, leadership and football smarts are as strong as ever.

The issue therefore, is what is better for player development in the long-run.

Is it better to have fewer young players playing with senior players who may be on their last legs but are still valuable in the short-term in terms of their ability, experience and/or leadership?

Or is it better to simply get games into more kids, even if pound-for-pound in the short-term they are not as good as the experienced player left out as Walls has suggested?

Daniel Bradshaw was overlooked in the PSD because of his age, despite the fact that he would provide Melbourne with the key forward they so desperately need for at least two seasons.

The argument against picking up a player such as Bradshaw is that he wouldn't be there if or when Melbourne did make it to a Grand Final. But what about the time building up to that point if it is ever to happen?

Would Watts and Jurrah have had better long-term development if Bradshaw was there along side them, or would he have just got in the way? Would they have been better off playing second fiddle to Bradshaw for a couple of years, or will they develop more efficiently and effectively by being the main focus of the forward line?

Is player development simply about the quantity of games young footballers play, or is their long-term development better off by playing in a team that is stronger and more likely to win in the short-run?

NOTE: I have simply used Bradshaw as an example and whilst I would like him in the current side, the topic goes beyond him.

EDIT: Formatting

Edited April 1, 201015 yr by Clint Bizkit

Games into the young kids is the key... But not play (for example) Maric & Martin for 2 games and then play them again 12 rounds later, the young kids need to string together a dozen games together AS A UNIT, until there is some consistency its going to be a difficult process.

Just my opinion.

Has always been a pet hate of mine. Sheedy was the worst. Pick a player, play them half a game and then drop them.

Nothing more annoying than seeing a young bloke for a couple of games, and then when they make a couple of errors thay are off the ground and dropped. While the more experienced players get chance after chance, or the players who played more game time in a losing team stay in the team above a player who gets less time. (speaking from personal experience too, very painful!)

Melbourne is hell bent on game time into the young players, and I know we cant play them all, but when we do, give them at least 70% game time, and give them 5 games at least. You cant get much from one game, no matter how bad or well they play. Many young players are still scared to take the game on, are not used to the pace, or dont want to take risks. They may feel the pressure to not make mistakes with the fear of being dragged. You need to give them the confidence and the chances, and then hopefully they will stand up and play well.

So, to answer the actual post, I would love to have some forwards like Bradshaw in the team, cos we bloody well need them. but we dont have them, so just play the kids and keep playing them. If it does not work, I am guessing the new coach will come in and change the team again anyway.

It helps when the players want to play for your team. There's a difference between Bradshaw who basically declared zero interest in playing for us and Cousins who was on his last legs, without a club and needed somebody to take a chance on him to continue his career. I'll bet he wouldn't have gone to Richmond if any of the good sides had offered to take him.

Having said that if we can get them and they want to play for us I wouldn't object. Christ I probably would have taken Matthew Lloyd for a year if he was into it. At least it would raise our chances of getting a free inside 50.