IN THIS column last week we discussed the pros and cons of resting players. This is basically exploring the premise that not putting your team’s absolute best team on the field this week will lead to better performance in the longer term.

When using St Kilda and Geelong as examples, it is about maximising their September performance given that both have virtually sewn up their finishing positions at first and second respectively.

While the resting method to get a better finals performance may be debatable, the footy morality behind it is of no great concern, particularly for Cats and Saints fans.

The principle of sacrificing the present a bit to increase a team’s premiership chances would be eagerly and enthusiastically embraced.

From the integrity of the game’s protection, as long as the players are trying their hardest to win then that ingredient is covered. Yet applying the same logic to teams near the bottom seems to be met with cries of foul play.

The generic term for a whole club – as opposed to that match’s 22-player team – not maximising its winning chances to get better draft choices is tanking, which for many is akin to being an axe murderer. The key planks of the AFL’s equalisation policies are the salary cap and the draft system.

The bottom club gets the first pick which, after a season of suffering, offers a summer of hope that comes from securing the best youngster in the country. It’s the tantalising prospect that from a bleak present will come a brighter future.

It is a system that works if all else is equal. For example, total equality will never exist because draft-day rankings inevitably change over ensuing years. The prize for the bottom club of getting first pick of course brings with it the temptation not to not maximise late-season winning chances.

Without instructing players not to do their best, which is clearly improper and impossible, this can still be aided by a selective selection policy and a deliberate tactical go-slow.

Deciding draft selection order earlier in the season may be a good PR exercise but if we use Melbourne and Richmond as an example, they were out of finals contention a couple of months into the year.

Jockeying for position at any nominated round would have the same tanking queries as we have now. The lottery system idea that does not guarantee the bottom team getting the first pick defeats the purpose of wooden-spoon despair becoming draft-day delight.

The current system may not be perfect but it is still the best of the options that are put forward. Drafting issues aside, picking a team’s best 22 every week does not always happen anyway.

 The fact is teams often decide to sacrifice short-term performance to stick to a development mentality. This makes coaches persevere with inexperienced youngsters in the hope they will eventually become the long-term answer. How often when teams are struggling do we hear the call of ‘play the kids’?

Leaving out experienced journeymen would not exactly help short-term chances. Look at Fremantle, which took a bunch of youngsters to Adelaide in round 15.

There are great similarities between tanking and prioritising the long-term future. The same people who would readily agree with the development philosophy for a struggling team then complain about teams tanking to get better draft choices. We should be and can be sure that the players are going flat out in every game.

If coaches of bottom teams manipulate their teams for long term gain in the last game or two and that is regarded as tanking, then so be it.

The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the clubs or the AFL.