Why the reluctance to play 'kids'?

[rodgerfox]

Lyon has this old fashioned theory of footy being a '4 year apprenticeship'.

I believe it's outdated, old fashioned, counter productive and quite simply stupid.

Why would you lock yourself in to that style of thinking? Do players need 4 years?

Does this type of thinking delay, or stifle kids' development?

There's dozens of footballers debuting every year, that don't need a 4 year apprenticeship.


Or, is this just a line used to cover up poor recruiting?

Or to be fair, is it a line used to protect young players from unreasonable expectation?

[saintlee]

Or to be fair, is it a line used to protect young players from unreasonable expectation?

This one

[Spinner]

It has been some time since we had a new draftee slot striaght into the side.

[saintsRrising]

I think the "four year apprenticeship" and playing kids are different issues.

Younger, or new players have been played,...trouble is most have not been good enough to stay in when elevated to the seniors.

Attard for example while not a kid was new and was played straight away.

Armo despite being a lowish pick has been given chances but has simply not been good enough.

Geary and Eddy both young rookies were given reasonable periods in the seniors to see if they could bloom early.

With the "four year apprenticeship" I think it is more a realisation that not all players can make it ina season or two...



Another issue in playing the kids is that fora while now that the Saints are finishing in the top half of the ladder...so cracking it for a spot is a harder task.

When a team is skating along near the bottom a club is alot more likely to bllod their youth.

The as also mentioned in the OP...our draft picks are not as good (we have not had low pick for a long time....).

[goodie]

It has been some time since we had a new draftee slot striaght into the side.

It's been a while since we had one capable of slotting himself straight into the side

[Loyal]

the real period is 'three' years.

if you have shown a reasonable level of ability in the first three years there is a good chance that you'll get games and if not, you only have yourself to blame.

[Red]

4 year apprenticeship means that by the fourth year the player if good

enough should be a regular in the senior side. It doesn't mean they don't get

a game at all. You need to earn a spot and I'm not sure that too many of

the young guys have really showed an awful lot in the preseason to warrant

selection.

[evertonfc]

It's too long.

Rookies/late picks: Two years (maximum) to show something or axed. Sorry, but these are speculative for a reason.

Third/second round: Three years to show something.

First round: Four years to show something. They're taken highly for a reason.

That puts a few guys in the critical eye for this season.

- Luke Miles: has talent and does well at pre-season, but is he dominating VFL like he needs too?
- Andrew McQualter: has improved, must keep improving. All over if he stalls.
- Clint Jones: at 25, can he lift enough to keep pace with Steven, Ray and Armitage? And do his skills stand up to modern footy?
- James Gwilt: Coming into his fifth year and still hasn't nailed a position.
- Leigh Fisher: Big pre-season or not, must show he's a good footballer or will be chopped.
- Brad Howard: The decision to sign him to a two-year deal was bizarre. At least we sent him to the rookie list to see out one of those years; will probably get a payout at season's end unless he shows something.

And if they go backwards...

- Raph Clarke: Must build on last year's finish to the season. Simply has too; cannot stall at all. Any regression cannot be tolerated.
- David Armitage: Must at least show something. We're so bereft of young midfielders that we'll keep him even if he doesn't dominate, but if he doesn't play more than 8-10 games and play well in those games, he may come under some minor scrutiny.
- Jarryd Allen: Injuries have haunted him thus far, but he is living off a few good VFL games. If Paul Cahill rises into a player and Allen fails to fire, he may face a nervous October.
- Robert Eddy: I quite like him because he looks like a footballer, but he needs to start finding lots of ball this year. Must have at least five 20+ possesion games in 2009. His average of 11.8 touches isn't enough.
- Michael Gardiner: Hopefully won't be in this category much longer after an excellent pre-season. He looks to be back to AFL-level form.

Safe for mine, even if they stalled:
James Blake: So very bloody durable that I guess you have to say he's cemented his spot in the squad.
Xavier Clarke: We're a two-goal better team when he's playing well. I hope he can show everyone what he's really made of.
Sam Gilbert: We're so thin on key defenders and a third tall that, at the very least, he can fill in for these roles.

[MC Gusto]

Lyon has this old fashioned theory of footy being a '4 year apprenticeship'.

I believe it's outdated, old fashioned, counter productive and quite simply stupid.

Why would you lock yourself in to that style of thinking? Do players need 4 years?

Does this type of thinking delay, or stifle kids' development?

There's dozens of footballers debuting every year, that don't need a 4 year apprenticeship.


Or, is this just a line used to cover up poor recruiting?

Or to be fair, is it a line used to protect young players from unreasonable expectation?

I am not sure why you are asking when you have posted your answer to this <loaded> question on many other threads

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Given that Lyon has been quoted as saying it's a four year apprenticeship, I'm pretty sure the "real" period is four years...

To guess at context, I agree with sRr, it's not connected to the idea of playing kids.

I believe what it gets at is the theory that you're not drafting the kid available on draft day (where few are truly AFL worthy), you're drafting the guy that kid will be in <however many> years - for Lyon, that period is 4.

Among other things, it gives us a period of time at which we'd be able to evaluate a Ross Lyon building program. Having arrived in time for the '06 Draft, we'd expect to be seeing some results. i.e. we should be getting a picture of what the '06 kids are, and what they're capable of (e.g. Armitage is looking like a clearance/grunt mid, we should see him breaking into the centre more and giving us an idea whether over the long term he'll be a viable option in that role). By the end of next year ('10) we'll expect those guys to be either senior players or gone.

Allen's injury is dissapointing, especially in light of Howard having so far developed from 2nd rounder into rookie list player. Clinton Jones we've probably got a fair idea what we've got (one gets the feelign that whether you're in the hack-who-can't-kick camp or the better-than-Dal-Santo camp, we'll be having that argument for as long as Jones is around), Robert Eddy and Jarryn Geary will be interesting to see this year - they've made the senior list, can they continue to progress?

In a nutshell, I don't think the "4 year apprenticeship" is a statement that all players will get 4 years - more that that's the time Lyon thinks required to get from draftee to senior player for the majority of those who may not be superstars, but can make a career in the game.