DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL

Posted August 6, 200717 yr

by Scoop Junior

It was a nice touch by Melbourne to give Byron Pickett the honour and the responsibility of calling the pre game toss to mark his 200th AFL game - a well deserved accolade for one of the toughest men to pull on a guernsey in the modern game. Pickett called correctly and, to the surprise of many, elected to kick into a strong wind at Manuka Oval. I'm not sure what the protocol is these days but his decision also highlighted the Demons' current plight – one that is magnified immeasurably when it plays its games out of its home state. It also leads me to ask why wasn't Pickett instructed as to the choice of end to kick to given his team's poor starts in such games this year?

Yes, the first quarter has been an unmitigated disaster for Melbourne on its interstate trips in 2007. The opposition has racked up an enormous 30 goals 19 behinds in five first terms, while the Dees have managed a paltry 5 goals 7 behinds. In other words, Melbourne is averaging a 30-point plus deficit at quarter time on its road trips. Given the difficulty of winning on the road and the need to start well, not only to build confidence but also to silence the partisan home crowd, a 5-goal head start to the opposition means it's just about game over virtually before it has even started.

So what's going on down at Demonland? The common thread from the coaches after interstate matches this year is "well, we started badly, but we did well to fight back after quarter time."

Big deal - the game was as good as dead by quarter time anyway.

Why has this become a recurring problem and why hasn't it been addressed?

Now, I understand that we are having a horrible year and in these circumstances, even the optimists don't expect for one second to beat interstate sides on the road in the team's current form but surely, professional footballers should come out hungry at the start of a game. Fade-outs are common for struggling clubs but usually they come out, have a crack only to discover they ultimately cannot sustain the effort over four quarters. So why is it that Melbourne comes out looking uninterested from the outset and is effectively shut out of the game 10 minutes into the first quarter?

Just as with Neale Daniher, the players do not appear to be showing much respect to Mark Riley.

And on that subject, it is becoming increasingly difficult to understand what is going on at selection. When Riley took over the coaching reins, he stated quite emphatically that the rest of the season would be about development for 2008 and putting Melbourne in the best position to rebound next year. On Sunday, Paul Roos made the comment that the Demons' team did not have a developmental look about it. Riley countered with the argument that there was plenty of youth on show, citing Jones and McLean, amongst others, as examples.

But the issue is not about youth. It's about development. Jones, McLean and Bate are best 22 players and would be in the side even if we were making a run to September. What a "developmental" focus rather than a "youth" focus means is playing the likes of Lynden Dunn, Chris Johnson, Paul Johnson and Jace Bode who was upgraded from the rookie list just days before this game. The only young players in our side against the Swans who are not the best 22 were Simon Buckley and Michael Newton (although you could already mount a fair case for having Juice in your best 22).

What Riley has done, in playing tried and sometimes true veterans or near veterans in Nathan Brown, Simon Godfrey, Ben Holland, Byron Pickett and Daniel Ward suggests an attempt to get a better result on the scoreboard. In other words, the prime focus of development seems to be giving way to the need for results. But who needs results when development for the future is supposed to be our focus?

Perhaps you can't blame Riley who, after all, is auditioning for the coaching job. He has admitted that big losses will not bode (pardon the pun) well for his prospects in that regard. But the club is bigger than the individual and we need to ensure that the prime focus, in fact the only focus, is on development for 2008 and beyond.

The dissenters out there may well argue that you cannot play too many young blokes in the one side. Well, let me put this question to you: can we do any worse?

The team kicked a meagre five goals up until three-quarter time, with four of those directly from free kicks. That we could only manufacture one goal of our own accord in three quarters of footy pretty much speaks volumes for the performance or should I say, lack thereof. In fact, if there's anything more indicative of Melbourne's pathetic performances of late, it's the fact that this review has disregarded the actual game and has instead focused on other issues. Anyone who witnessed those two hours of boredom and ennui on Sunday surely does not want to re-visit it and read about what happened (or should that be what didn't happen).

So if we can't do any worse, why not play the Dunns and Johnsons of this world? The other argument that may be raised is that these blokes benefit more from games at Sandringham than at AFL level. Well, I don't subscribe to that theory, and neither do the majority of expert commentators, who repeatedly say that each game of senior footy for a young bloke is worth 10 matches, such is the steep learning curve.

Yes Brown, Godfrey, Holland and Ward have been great servants to the MFC. Perhaps they could offer something to the club next year. But this business is about building for premierships and I don't think playing Holland up forward is developing the side for a shot at the flag. All it is doing is attempting to mitigate the loss. Similarly, even if Brown goes on next year and plays a role, replacing him with a young player for the final rounds is in the best interests of the club and makes sense from a developmental perspective. In other words, Dunn will benefit more from four rounds of senior footy now than Brown.

Put simply, I'm disappointed in what's happening at Melbourne post Daniher. I'm not expecting Riley to work miracles and indeed, I don't expect him to win another game for the year. But what we need is to invest game time in our development players. Season 2007 is long gone and there's no better time than now to throw them in the deep end. While Riley has certainly had an eye to development, I don't think it's as focused as it should be. It should be the sole purpose and not just one of a number of purposes.

So with four rounds to go, let's invest some capital in the club's development and give some fresh faces get the chance to cut their teeth at senior level to at least provide some sort of bright light in the train wreck that has been season 2007.

Melbourne 0.2.2 3.4.22 5.5.35 9.10.64

Sydney 5.1.31 10.5.65 14.9.93 17.10.112

Goals

Melbourne Holland 3 Davey 2 Jamar Miller Neitz Newton

Sydney J Bolton Buchanan Jolly O'Keefe Schneider 2 Ablett Davis Goodes Grundy Hall Malceski O'Loughlin

Best

Melbourne Carroll Wheatley Ferguson Holland

Sydney Buchanan Goodes C Bolton Schneider Everitt Bevan

Changes

Melbourne Robertson (back) Frawley (foot) replaced in selected side by Buckley and Jamar

Injuries

Melbourne Bate (corked thigh)