I was making the point that protracted injuries don't just hurt you for the time players are injured, especially with young players ... they hurt you because their development is also hindered. It's different with a 100- or 200-game player because they have developed nearly as much as they are going to and they can come in from even a 6-8 week injury spell and still be nearly as effective.

Here's the actual games each player has played versus the total AFL games that Melbourne have played since they joined the club (not counting NAB etc.). It shows how little AFL football they've played, due to a combination of injury and development time. Six of these players were top 20 picks, some are players on which we were basing our future midfield, the area that is so lacking at the moment.

Cook 0/29 (0%)

Fitzpatrick 2/51 (4%)

Gawn 4/51 (8%)

Blease 6/73 (8%)

Strauss 11/73 (15%)

Gysberts 18/51 (36%)

Tapscott 19/51 (38%)

Jetta 30/73 (40%)

Grimes 38/95 (40%)

Contrast Blease and Strauss with players taken in the same year (2009) and the number of games they've played e.g. Stephen Hill 74, Sidebottom 66, Rich 66, Redden 54, Yarran 49, Hurley 47, Vickery 45. Many of these players have already had finals experience. If our players had managed 50+ games with a couple of finals we might be in a different position.

Interesting post. thanks./

Surely giving Lucas Cook a game wouldn't be a crime.

Surely giving Lucas Cook a game wouldn't be a crime.

No, but nor would it make sense.