DoD, the way I see it is that JLo (like all coaches) has to deal with a number of competing tensions. For example:
i. Winning now versus winning in the future.
ii. Giving greater opportunities to more talented players versus rewarding form/effort of less talented players.
iii. Getting a look at different players (or players in different positions) versus getting continuity in the team.
To use your example, Switta is a useful player, and if you were playing in a game for your life right now you might be tempted to pick him over Henry. But if the aim is to put together a premiership side then Switta barely moves the needle one way or the other (Switta is 5 years older than Henry, and though this is a bit unfair, you can grab his type of player in any draft); whereas someone with the talent of Henry could make a huge difference to our team in the future.
There are some coaches who will lean more heavily towards rewarding immediate form and effort because of the motivational affect it has on the rest of the squad. I’ve never really bought into the argument that all players should be treated equally. To me, it’s perfectly valid to give more talented players more opportunities. If that causes any issues in the squad then to me that’s more a management/cultural issue than a selection issue.
I also think continuity is really important. The hardest thing in a footy team is to build continuity between the midfield and attack. I don’t know where Henry will end up, be he strikes me as a likely candidate to be able to bridge that gap, and he won’t be able to build that continuity at Peel.
All that said, at some point JLo and Bell need to make a call on which of the guys like Crowden, Giro, Switta, Banfield and Schultz they are going to persevere with, and that’s hard to do without giving them game time. I would have through Giro would have dropped off the list (for example), but he looked really useful in some of the games he played this year.
