Originally Posted by
Lantern
ps.
Quote from the article: ''He showed his worth at the weekend, His attack on the footy and his attack on the opponent was terrific. it's marvellous, isn't it, but we expect a lot of younger players but once they play 25, 20 or 40 games it seems a lot easier for them. they make good decisions.''
Interesting one, almost related to Sockeye's 20-game rule.
Is it also an insight into his changed stance this year with younger players? We seem to have played quite a few more than usual (probably forced to) and they are starting to respond, with Jones, Ward, Grant and Stack (yes, Stack) starting to contribute. We still need to get the balance right (ie. Minson on current form over Roughead every day of the week) but it's good to see the development focus this year while still being very competitive. (In fairness, some of our senior players from years past -- Johnno, Aker etc. -- were absolute guns that would have been hard to drop. Hahn last year and Eagle were probably the two that stood out a bit though.)
I think it's actually the right way to go about development -- have young players come in around a hardened side, so even losses are pretty close and they contribute to wins regularly, as opposed to Dean Bailey's ridiculous "we'll lose by 100 points every week for three years but wait till they grow up!" tanking strategy.