Straight Sets Simon

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. 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

This is last years team.

No, Thomas was pretty clear that he didn't think that Bailey should be a senior coach.

I'm just watching Footy Classified now as I recorded it, and a comment early on from Lyon that was of interest: "I didn't like the way they [Melbourne] set up forward of the ball." Finally people are starting to see it.

I saw it at the time (although I was more focused on watching the ball) and it wasn't malicious. My issue is the total backflip the AFL have done with regards to head high contact. The Kosi hit on the weekend looked very similar to the Long hit in the 2000 Grand Final and Kosi only got three weeks! He should have got eight.

Agreed.

Ross Lyon is an interesting one. In his first year he was overly defensive, without doubt his plan has evolved (tweaked) over time to become more attacking because it was clear that St Kilda were just too defensive.

Winning is best for the development of the team, I see no benefit in having a whole lot of kids running around in a team that gets flogged most weeks.

Round 1, 2007 to be exact. Good old Runs and Curry.

You handball when you need to handball, you kick when you need to kick. Which ever is the best option is the one you choose. If you can handpass two metres or kick to a teammate fifty metres away on a lead you go with the 50 metre option. The issue for Melbourne is that too often because of poor structure from the first bounce there isn't that option up forward. Players aren't going to kick it if there isn't anyone clear to kick it to. The result is more turnovers, because players are forced to handpass as it is their only option, often to a teammate who is under just as much pressure and in a worse position. EDIT: Typo.

That's because Melbourne had no one in the clear forward of the ball to kick it to. It's been the problem since round 1, 2007.

The team that I would like to see next week in these positions: FB: Cheney Warnock Macdonald HB: Bennell Frawley Strauss C: Trengove Moloney Sylvia HF: Scully Rivers Davey FF: Bruce Jamar Green Foll: Martin McDonald Grimes Int: Bate Jones Petterd McKenzie OUT: Dunn, Miller, Spencer IN: Sylvia, Martin, Cheney Load the forward line with as much experience as possible. Bruce, Green and Jamar will at least provide a contest and know when and where to lead. I'm not so keen on Martin the ruck, I think he needs to be played down back but Spencer doesn't exactly excite me and Jamar is needed as a target up forward. I'd like to see Rivers up forward too, he has very good hands and reads the play well, worth a shot.

In 1997 my best friend barracked for St Kilda and I went along with him to their final training session before the Grand Final. That was the year that Melbourne four games and the spoon and I very nearly became a St Kilda supporter.

Melbourne's players are capable of hitting targets, that's not the issue. It surely can't be that Melbourne has somehow managed to draft the only players who can't kick. Strauss, Grimes, Trengove, Davey, Green and Bennell are all capable of hitting targets, but we saw them miss players and fluff kicks yesterday. As Cameron Schwab mentioned they miss targets becuase Hawthorn put Melbourne under pressure. Pressure comes from the fact that Hawthorn are a better drilled team and want the ball more. But there is also another factor that has been clear since round 1, 2007 that other people are only now starting to pick up on. That is, there are no options up forward. And by "forward", I don't just mean the forward line, I mean forward of the ball. Furthermore, by "options" I mean anyone, not just big forwards. The point is, if a player has the ball on the half back line, looks up and has no options up forward then they are forced to chip and handpass ("fart arse") sideways. If there are clear options (players who aren't outnumbered) up forward then they don't need to. The more time spent chipping and handpassing around means the more time Hawthorn had to apply pressure to the ball carrier who is looking for options. The more pressure the ball carrier is under the more likely they are to turn the ball over.

Melbourne should have drafted Matt McGuire instead of Fitzpatrick and Bradshaw instead of Macdonald.

Man-on-man football. Who would have thought that with a young list with little experience that keeping things as simple as possible and allowing them to not have to worry about zones and flooding would work? February 2010:

A player such as Fevola (or Bradshaw who Melbourne could have got for free) would bring Melbourne's chances of a Premiership forward. They would help other players develop, and develop more quickly and effectively as they would be developing in a stronger team and not losing every week. Sure, they may not be there if Melbourne did make a Grand Final but they should help them get there. You lot can have your five year plans.

How would trading for a Fevola (off-field stuff aside) not help Melbourne win a Premiership in the future?

Spot on Robbie. My concern is that the club expects young players to all develop and get better, despite the fact that the team keeps losing and losing badly at that. It's not just about the number of games the players play, it's the quality of games that impact on development.

Spot on in all accounts Redleg. The two highlighted sections are key and are issues that I have been thinking about in recent time.

This attitude really annoys me and epitomizes the Melbourne Football Club. Basically, this is saying that if you don't raise expectations then you won't be disappointed. It's OK that Melbourne got thrashed by a less-experience and younger side becuase it was expected. Because supporters need to be patient. Compare this to the attitude that Brad Scott has taken from the start: "We don't want to use that term (development) at all because we've got good young players and we want to see what they can do. "It's not a development year for us, we'll be out for the ultimate success." North Melbourne coach has spring in step Scott isn't making excuses for himself or his team, he knows what it takes to win Premierships and he is not going to dilly-dally around with "competitive" speak. At the same time, he isn't coming out and saying that North Melbourne will play finals, but he is making it clear that it is their aim, not just being "competitive". I started a thread in 2008 regarding the same issue and nothing has changed.

Go back to round 1, 2007 and you will find that this has been a problem since then.

Melbourne should be looking to trade for an established forward. Should have got Bradshaw.

Agreed.

This was mentioned after round 1, 2007. EDIT: It was also mentioned in 2008 and 2009.