Coaches and Favourites: Strategy or Unfair Bias

[mjp]

I’ve been reading all the 'Best 22' teams being submitted and found myself thinking (a lot) about the perception of coaches playing 'favourites' when selecting teams or giving opportunities to certain players. Is it strategic, or does it sometimes cross the line into unfair bias?

On one hand, it’s easy to see why a coach might lean on players who they TRUST to deliver under pressure—those who consistently show up in games, execute the game plan, and lead by example. But on the other hand, does this come at the cost of younger or less-established players who might be ready to step up if only given a proper chance?

We’ve all seen examples of fringe players stuck in the VFL/pinned to the bench/playing secondary roles despite strong performances, while others who seem 'out of form' (at best) keep getting a game. It raises questions like:

• Is selection simply about rewarding effort and loyalty, or does it sometimes blind coaches to better options?
• Do successful coaches balance faith in their "tried and true" with the need to inject fresh energy and give developing players a shot?
• As fans, do we sometimes confuse what we perceive as favouritism with what the coach would see as consistency?

From my own experience coaching (and watching teams closely), I know how hard it is to balance these decisions. You’re not just picking the best players; you’re selecting the best team. Trust matters—especially in high-stakes games. But is there a risk of playing it too safe?

Which players in the group now are too often overlooked but DESERVE more opportunities?
Is there a particular coach in the league TODAY who you think gets the balance right?

[Rusty12]

100% agree with your thoughts here.

For the Dogs:
I think Rylie West is one who had to overcome his coach's lack of support/faith or negative bias, and did overcome it.

The way you have proposed the questions raises more questions for me on JOD and Gallagher, as there was never any reason to have so much faith or positive bias in the first place; team balance did not seem to improve with them, so a big head-scratcher.

VDM fits team balance perfectly and contributes as much to the team's balance as anyone, so we fans see him butcher the footy, do silly stuff, and think he is favoured. However, the match committee would see him very differently.

Garica is the only one I can think of who may be impacted by the lack of trust or faith, who is yet to overcome it, but he might this year.
I don't think we have anyone else who is not getting an opportunity who is impacted by a negative bias.

Other coaches, Chris Scott. Mainly due to his win %, going deep finals so often, with a list that is not any better than other teams. Not many leave, many come.
Those who don't make it, get delisted after a fair crack.
Tells me, they have that balance right.

[mjp]

Thanks mate - that's an awesome post...loved reading it.

I agree with your Geelong comments by the way...just feels that players there get the chances they deserve...probably the bit of separation I have from that place helps (not as invested) vs with us where it feels like I live and die with the opportunities afforded to younger players.

[GVGjr]

I’ve been reading all the 'Best 22' teams being submitted and found myself thinking (a lot) about the perception of coaches playing 'favourites' when selecting teams or giving opportunities to certain players. Is it strategic, or does it sometimes cross the line into unfair bias?

On one hand, it’s easy to see why a coach might lean on players who they TRUST to deliver under pressure—those who consistently show up in games, execute the game plan, and lead by example. But on the other hand, does this come at the cost of younger or less-established players who might be ready to step up if only given a proper chance?

We’ve all seen examples of fringe players stuck in the VFL/pinned to the bench/playing secondary roles despite strong performances, while others who seem 'out of form' (at best) keep getting a game. It raises questions like:

• Is selection simply about rewarding effort and loyalty, or does it sometimes blind coaches to better options?
• Do successful coaches balance faith in their "tried and true" with the need to inject fresh energy and give developing players a shot?
• As fans, do we sometimes confuse what we perceive as favouritism with what the coach would see as consistency?

From my own experience coaching (and watching teams closely), I know how hard it is to balance these decisions. You’re not just picking the best players; you’re selecting the best team. Trust matters—especially in high-stakes games. But is there a risk of playing it too safe?

Which players in the group now are too often overlooked but DESERVE more opportunities?
Is there a particular coach in the league TODAY who you think gets the balance right?

This is far from an informed view but I do think some players 'get' what their coach wants from them and make sure they do their best to achieve that every time pm the track and because of that consistency of effort and performance the coach is willing to rise out some of the leaner times with them.
For example Vandermeer is a very misunderstood player within our supporter base and is often seen as a Bevo favourite and Bevo has got it wrong.
After seeing the way he goes about things at training I don't think he is a favourite but Bevo appreciates his consistency and the way he has earned his way into the weekly selections process.
There are also players like Daniel who despite their limitations athletically had the coaches confidence that he would adapt his natural style to whatever he was asked.
Understanding your role and rocking up to work each day and being prepared to toll up your sleeves will win a lot of coaches over.

Garcia made a lot of progress last year but clearly the MC didn't quite have the faith in him to adapt in non midfield roles for us. He does seem to have recovered from some non selections now.
Gardner is injury free and has adapted far better than I thought into a new role as a ruck man. Will he benefit from Marra's absence I don't know but he will at least be discussed as an option
Poulter must has won over at least some of the coaches to his new role as a forward.

[mighty_west]

It's a great topic and one where a lot of supporters get frustrated with certain selections and i use Jamarra as a classic example, the shiny brand new number one pick toy to come in and make an immediate impact even though his junior season prior was non existent due to Covid, where's players like Logan MacDonald had that leg up not only being able to play games but against men, huge advantage, yet early days Bevo was copping it from all quarters, supporters and media, in the end people like Cornes is applauding Bevo for making the kid wait until he was "ready", for team balance, i don't really see the point in bringing in players too early when they are clearly not ready for that standard just to be pushed around but develop at the top level, it also takes away the team aspect, it would most likely make that position easier for the opposition and especially for a side expected to play finals.

It can be easy to be seduced sometimes by usually younger players in the two just to give them a go "Charlie Clarke" another example because he was playing "ok" at VFL level, certainly from my eyes wasn't exactly knocking the door by any extent yet many thought he deserved a shot, comes in and no good what so ever, like rabbit in the headlights.

At the end of the day it's all about team over individuals and because someone in the VFL may be better than a player playing for the AFL side but may not actually make the team better depending on the types of roles needed for certain positions.

[Mofra]

I think part of it comes from the old days of just selecting your best players and letting things work themselves out. Team sleection and team balance just doesn't work like that anymore in an era of zones, 6 man forwardlines, and the myriad of terms for roles players play that bear no resemblance to the position names of 30 years ago.

AFL simply gets more sophisticated every year so if a player is 'good' but doesn't have a defined role, or his role at VFL level is being filled by an excellent player at AFL level (e.g. Sanders killing it late last year, but Libba was ahead of him as that pure inside/extractor type) then he isn't getting picked.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Wonderful post and responses so far.

I know the overall posts are not about bia perse, but I think bias is an interesting aspect of the topic.

Sometimes I feel as if some fans (not this discussion) look to confirm perceived personal bias of the coach unduly favouring a player over others. If there is bias occasionally shown by the match committee in selections, like JOD, Gags at times Buku too, I’d like to think it's still geared towards what they believe the player may ultimately contribute to the team both short and long term, as opposed to an out of thin air selection largely driven out of personal bias.

It may be that the player did certain things in training or at the VFL level in a particular scenario that stimulated comments among the committee, such as:

• "I think James has displayed key examples that he might be able to add a dimension we’re looking for in our game plan. Given his background and physical attributes, we believe his skill development will come and benefit from prolonged exposure in a specific role in the firsts. He fits a real need that adds further dimension to (insert XX aspect ) in our team, and if he follows the path we think he can, he could add another dynamic to our existing game strategy playing (insert role). Yes, he might be limited in some crucial aspects, but we think we can mitigate that by adjusting X’s role or moving play a different way or (insert real coaching move to mitigate his current weaknesses."

That so far JOD maybe hasn’t lived up to that side of the bargain enough to fully repay the faith, I can live with. Yes, he either has made mistakes or ultimately, as Rusty points out, has not improved team balance.
I'm overall okay with these kind of selections and prepared to wear the mistakes the come with them, especially as I think they are more easily spotted by fans and made more of at times than perhaps their real impact on a game. If anything I think in some cases fan bias may highlight these players' errors more prominently than other players and contribute/confirm their assessment that they should not have been selected to begin with.

I know this isn’t just a JOD conversation; I’m using him as an example for continuity. I think Bramble has been another who initially was perceived as getting games when he wasn’t ready or up to the role, but he’s now showing signs of being a great example of the match committee having faith in what they perceive a player can bring in and mitigating or limiting their weaknesses. Ultimately creating a long term Netplus to our team in Bramble's case (Gee he better bloody have a good year now!!!


I’ve never played a game of senior footy nor coached at any capacity, so I’m not going to die in a ditch defending the above. I happily defer to others on this. I really enjoy this type of conversation and agree with the overall tenor of all posts here that, I’m extremely confident that in a high-tech, data-enhanced professional sporting environment, match committee decisions are rarely capricious, made on a whim, or driven by personal bias. Each decision would be viewed through specific metrics, even if those metrics might build a case for future development rather than immediate form as the prime justification for selection.

[jeemak]

100% agree with your thoughts here.

For the Dogs:
I think Rylie West is one who had to overcome his coach's lack of support/faith or negative bias, and did overcome it.

The way you have proposed the questions raises more questions for me on JOD and Gallagher, as there was never any reason to have so much faith or positive bias in the first place; team balance did not seem to improve with them, so a big head-scratcher.

VDM fits team balance perfectly and contributes as much to the team's balance as anyone, so we fans see him butcher the footy, do silly stuff, and think he is favoured. However, the match committee would see him very differently.

Garica is the only one I can think of who may be impacted by the lack of trust or faith, who is yet to overcome it, but he might this year.
I don't think we have anyone else who is not getting an opportunity who is impacted by a negative bias.

Other coaches, Chris Scott. Mainly due to his win %, going deep finals so often, with a list that is not any better than other teams. Not many leave, many come.
Those who don't make it, get delisted after a fair crack.
Tells me, they have that balance right.

Not sure I subscribe to the Chris Scott doesn't have a list that is better than other teams narrative. He's had amazing defensive structure, good to very good forward structure and a highly competitive midfield throughout his tenure, plus a massive home ground advantage to leverage. I know that's not the entire point of the thread or your quality contribution, but it irks me.

Garcia is an interesting one. He turns and kicks the ball high, he lacks discipline, but also gives 100% each time he hits the field. Interrupted preseasons after an interrupted start to his career, plus no real spot for him given we have Libba and Treloar in his ideal role. Does that equate to a lack of trust, or limitations on what he can deliver in a constrained opportunity environment?

West is in a similar position (and had similar flaws as Garcia does), but was actually given tastes in the senior team to experience what is required of him positionally if he's to have a career at the elite level. To his credit he's adapting and may just yet forge a career.

The JOD stuff has for mine as much to do with regeneration or rejuvenation or whatever. But.......Beveridge might have a soft spot for JOD given he all but admitted he was a SOD sycophant. As for Gallagher, I think it's just about how well he presents and how hard he works that gets him across the line, and again, being in the right place at the right time when it comes to the rebuild nobody admits we've been undertaking since we lost to Fremantle in the 2022 finals.

Anyway I guess there's always MC favourites, but it hardly matters given every decision the MC takes can be usually justified at the time. So I just don't worry about it because I don't know.

[Rusty12]

All great points lads, us fans are more than capable of our own positive and negative bias to.

How do you assess the quality of a list?

With a hard salary cap, bottom-to-top draft, and restricted free agency, do you have a quality list because you are better at developing talent, your players are happy and know their role? Or have you been gifted 20 top 10 picks?
I give the Cats and Chris Scott credit for this (It hurts me to say it, because I hate that football club)

The first place to start with assessing the quality of a list is how many first-round 1 picks are in it, or how many top 10 picks etc, based on this, I think the cats are incredible at recruitment, development, selection integrity and game-day coaching.

[Rusty12]

[QUOTE=jeemak;n1312169]

Not sure I subscribe to the Chris Scott doesn't have a list that is better than other teams narrative. He's had amazing defensive structure, good to very good forward structure and a highly competitive midfield throughout his tenure, plus a massive home ground advantage to leverage. I know that's not the entire point of the thread or your quality contribution, but it irks me.

Garcia is an interesting one. He turns and kicks the ball high, he lacks discipline, but also gives 100% each time he hits the field. Interrupted preseasons after an interrupted start to his career, plus no real spot for him given we have Libba and Treloar in his ideal role. Does that equate to a lack of trust, or limitations on what he can deliver in a constrained opportunity environment?

West is in a similar position (and had similar flaws as Garcia does), but was actually given tastes in the senior team to experience what is required of him positionally if he's to have a career at the elite level. To his credit he's adapting and may just yet forge a career.

I think this comes down to what happens following a loss and selection integrity.
For a long time, West would be dropped following a loss, despite outperforming certain players who were automatic selections, which he has overcome.
Garcia seems to fall into that category at the moment.
I am sure match committee saw something in Gallagher to select him, no problem, however during 3-4 match losing streaks, his player ratings were the lowest in data collection history and he was still picked Vs Garcia being dropped for making a couple of mistakes. Rightly or wrongly, that is the perceived favourites vs unfair bias that comes to mind for me, from MJP question.
Maybe it says more about our outside mid stocks, and the rest is my own bias.

[Go_Dogs]

I would expect there to be (for most, and particularly more junior players) a requirement that they’ve done X with their preparation. X would involve they’ve attended 95% of gym sessions and achieved growth in the areas they needed to, same with their attendance on track and demonstrated understanding of their role / game plan. Players who haven’t done the work aren’t in the frame - players like Treloar may be an exception to this rule to an extent - I guess we’ll learn more on that soon!

As far as the bias, if Treloar tells you he’s ready, you pick him.

Certain players who have ticked the boxes best that are perceived as most important may be favoured.

Senior players may be favoured in big games as they’ve delivered before.

I get it.

I think most of it is done in the right context (winning on the weekend) but this also depends on the list and where they’re at. Sometimes a longer horizon is ok.

Great thought provoker.