Under19, Under18, Under17 ??

[whatever]

lol with the comment of getting more SA kids to play senior football.

easy fix - limit clubs to 5 interstate players (or whatever figure you want to pick.). No need to **** around with anything else

dont change that and there are only so many places in a side, even if it produces better players (which it wont) there can still only be so many playing senior football

[oldwiseman]

Be warned !!!! A major sponsor of the SANFL will pull the pin if this ridiculous proposition gets across the line.

[spell_check]

Be warned !!!! A major sponsor of the SANFL will pull the pin if this ridiculous proposition gets across the line.

Of which no doubt the AFLs coin is more substantial than what that sponsor puts in.

[Macca19]

I think the best junior stucture for the SANFL is the U17s and U19s set-up...

Agreed.

From my point of view, all changing to a U18 comp will do is make the amateur leagues stronger. As the point is made in the opening post by CD, late bloomers will either be pushed to the amateurs, or will be playing reserves probably before they are ready. Also as the opening post mentioned, players who have been tied to school football will also either be pushed to reserves or amatuers without having that full year at U19 level to see if they will make it.

I can think of 4 players off the top of my head at the Magpies who have played league this year who could have been pushed to amateurs - Wait, Taylor, Watson and Mercer (debuting this weekend). In the end, Taylor and Watson make their debut at 20, Wait at 22 and Mercer will debut this weekend at 20.

I also cant see how its going to strengthen the State U18 system.

It will just be change for change sake. I say leave it how it is.

[whatever]

Just imagine how many sub par 19yo key position players will be playing reserves rather than playig under 19's.

All of a sudden a club is hit by injuries and the ripple effect is this kid then gets picked to play seniors to make up the numbers before he is ready. Either that or his club keeps the 22 yo reserves fringe player in the reserves and this kid has to go back to the country to play.

Not such a bad issue for midfielders but for KPP or rucks it is an issue.

The magpies will be forced to play Rhys Clinton in the reserves next year before he is phyically ready. It will more than likely destroy the kid rather than help his football development.

Norwood will be forced to Play Muster in the reserves, the kid has talent but you can not afford to have him as one of your 2 key position forward in the twos because he is no where near ready for senior football.

Pearce at Glenelg will have to battle with Grosser and Guilhaus for a ruck spot in the two's. All of them could play senior football eventually but you cant play the three in the same team. Another year in the 19'w would be good for his development.

[redandblack]

Each team will be allowed a few overage players.

The turnover of players at league clubs is amazing. Nobody is challenging the figures that say that less than 10% of all Under 17 players play even 1 league game.

The SANFL and Reserves are changing year by year and this is just an inevitable part of that process.

[am Bays]

Can some some interesting discussions within teh etropolitan leagues coming up. Smart SANFL clubs are going to adopt local clubs more to keep better track of their players too old for 19s and on the fringe of reserves.

What to stop say Glenelg going to Morphy Park, Norwood to PNU, Port to Port Districts, Eagles to Henley or SMOSH/WL and saying we'll give you the money we'll save on not having an additional junior team but you'll play our fringe players when and where we want. Thereby artificially making one club stronger than others in their respective leagues.

The other innovation clubs are going to ahve to look at is subsidising kids to do years 11 and 12 here in the city as they will need to get hold of them earlier. Under the old systems kids could do year 12 at home and then come down. With shrinking country populations and limited subject choices at high schools, it will be a strong attraction for country parents to have their kids schooling subsidised at a metropolitan school

I'm sure that'll go down well in metropolitan and Country meetings at the SANFL.

Hey your league delegate voted this way we have to adapt to meet the impositionimposed on us.

Not saying this will happen but league clubs are going to have to adapt and this is one possible way.

You can tell all your clubs up there Dogwatcher this decision will not stop kids leaving country footy clubs, infact I believe there will be more pressure on kids to come down earlier when they are 15 instead of 17 now so they can get a full two years in U/18s. As I said Under the U/19s system kids could come down once they finished year 12.

[whatever]

Nobody is challenging the figures that say that less than 10% of all Under 17 players play even 1 league game.

because that is the nature of the game

clubs debut about 5 players on average per year, on average lets say 2 of these will become 100 game players

each club let say uses 50 kids through the under17's per year so the best a club can hope for out of the under 17's is for 10% of these kids to make it to senior football. As other players come through from sources other than under 17's of course the progression figure is very low.

QUESS what these figures will be the same if we have an under 18 competition.

[am Bays]

Each team will be allowed a few overage players.

The turnover of players at league clubs is amazing. Nobody is challenging the figures that say that less than 10% of all Under 17 players play even 1 league game.

The SANFL and Reserves are changing year by year and this is just an inevitable part of that process.

R&B only 3 kids form the silver medal winning mens U/21 Australian Hockey team in 2005 are off to the 2008 Olympics. Yes that is 20% but those athletes are four years older so you would expect a better conversion rate. The transference rate from junior elite squads to senior elite squads is always low.

Sports Development demands a critical mass of kids/athletes/participants whatever you call it at the junior level and very few of those ever make it to the senior level. However you need a critical mass at the base of the support for teh sports development model to allow for teh top to be strong. Compromise your base and you compromise the top, as Kris Grant has alerted to.

If you compared that to other sports you'll find 10% success rate of kids from the U/17 level progressing to league level is pretty good.

Only two kids from the 2002 Australian U/19 team has been selected in the Australian senior cricket team - Michael Clarke and Beau Casson and how long has it taken Casson to break through?

Sports Administrators, you compromise your base of Participation and Development at your peril.

[TigerBoss]

The junior tennis ranks had the same scenario. Lleyton Hewitt was one of the few ultra talented junior tennis players to break through...many others gave up trying, or are still battling around on the satellite circuit...you see a few of these guys every time the Adelaide Hardcourt was played, or in the media attempting to be granted wildcards for singles and doubles events at the Aussie Open...

Now in this era, the talent of these kids was sensational...and yet, Hewitt is the only real breakthrough to have occurred...

Goes to show that the true talent will be picked up regardless of the resources on offer to the kids in the main...I think this applies to the 17s and 19s concept in opposition to the 18s...

[topsywaldron]

What's to stop say .. Norwood going to PNU,and saying we'll give you the money we'll save on not having an additional junior team but you'll play our fringe players when and where we want.

Because Macca would tell them to get ****?

[redandblack]

There will still be a shortened Under 16 program, I would think.

What will happen is that the Under 18 comp will become a much higher standard junior comp than we have now. At this stage of the season, many clubs are filling up their 17's with Under 15 players, their 19's with Under 17 players, because the best of the Under 19's are playing Reserves and even League by now.

Some of the players running around in the 17's now aren't ever goiing to be remotely up to league standard.

Looking at Westies over the past ten years or so, we've had many drafted who would have been drafted whatever the comp, but a very small proportion of the rest have become regular league players. Most clubs are the same and several clubs who are crying about this are the worst when it comes to throwing big dollars at interstate players.

[am Bays]

Then you have some clubs sending regular U/19s back to local clubs due to their strength of their league and reserve squads and injury management practices.

We've had some kids this year who would have been lost to the system if we didn't have an U/19s Teh other week we had to drop about six regulars with the 19s with kids coming back from representaive commitments and due toteh lack of spots int eh 2s.

not saying we haven't had to do what you've said in the past but over the last five years our club has worked diligently through the 17s and 19s to build up a strong squad and then with selective recruiting to teh position now where it is dam hard to crack a spot in our reserves squad.

Why should clubs like mine, Port, Centrals and Sturt have to cop a penalty because we have worked diligently at building up our club through good juniors (Mules, Sugars, Ruwuldt, Sellar, Allan, Guilhaus, Button, Bode, Holmes, Pannozzo, Willoughby and Liebelt). Look at the Stanley H Lewis trophy to get a gauge of teh strength of teh clubs and how they voted...

Granted Westies have had good success in getting kids drafted but where are all teh good kids Rehn and Wiederman promoted - why haven't some of them stayed?

[Wedgie]

Look at the Stanley H Lewis trophy to get a gauge of teh strength of teh clubs and how they voted...

I think its pretty silly looking at one year's results and making such an outlandish statement.
Perhaps base it over the last few and you'll get a more accurate picture that allows for peaks and troughs, I know that North have been one of the most successful clubs when it comes to juniors and overall results in recent years.
And unlike some clubs who have changed their minds on a couple of occasions they made the exact same vote when they were sitting top of the Stanley H Lewis.

[am Bays]

Look at the Stanley H Lewis trophy to get a gauge of teh strength of teh clubs and how they voted...

I think its pretty silly looking at one year's results and making such an outlandish statement.
Perhaps base it over the last few and you'll get a more accurate picture that allows for peaks and troughs, I know that North have been one of the most successful clubs when it comes to juniors and overall results in recent years.

granted but your success like ours didn't just happen and it is reflective of a lot of hard work over teh past five years that is only bearing fruit now...

AS I've said before I'm not adverse to reviewing the 17s but I think to replace the 19s with an U/18 comp is a backward step. Would ahve been more than happy with a modified 17s comp and an U/19s comp. As I said one of the reasons why we are stronger now is that we were able to give country blokes like Mules, Allan, and Panozzo time to develop in the 19s when they came up after school was finished.

An U/18 comp will compromise that.

Yes good kids will still get promoted - like Tom Holmes and Alex Carey (an U/17 playing reserves) at the Bay right now - but those are the kids that will amke it regardless and ultimately will go to the AFL. SANFL clubs rely on players who take longer to develop into league footballers - they are your core group who you huild a successful side around with recruits - that is what builds long term success.

And for that you need to look no further than Port in the 80s and 90s and now Centrals , yes they got good recruits that top up their squad but it is the home grown players (Thomas, Dutchke, Steinburner, Havelburg, Faulkner (if I knew teh CDFC better I could name more) are all products of Central junior development) who take time to develop that long term success is built around - not flash in the pan up for a couple of seasons and then back down you go.

[Wedgie]

Look at the Stanley H Lewis trophy to get a gauge of teh strength of teh clubs and how they voted...

I think its pretty silly looking at one year's results and making such an outlandish statement.
Perhaps base it over the last few and you'll get a more accurate picture that allows for peaks and troughs, I know that North have been one of the most successful clubs when it comes to juniors and overall results in recent years.

granted but your success like ours didn't just happen and it is reflective of a lot of hard work over teh past five years that is only bearing fruit now...

Exactly but that's completely irrelevent when it comes to your outlandish statement that it had to do with their standing on the Stanley H Lewis in 2008 as to which way they voted. Some people do get carried away when they have one decent year.
Where clubs sit on the SHL in 2008 has nothing to do with the way they voted, but clubs with country zones a fair way away has everything to do with it. Pure and simple.
If a club is worth half a pinch of salt in regards to looking after their area then it wont affect them and will be of benefit eventually.
The people who voted against it are very short sighted and I honestly haven't seen one decent argument that can't be shot down immediately against the idea although Ive heard multiple benefits. Some clubs need to put the game ahead of themselves but I can understand why they vote the way they will as it saves them some petrol money but Id imagine the increased grant expected would more than make up for that.
Anyway, its been voted on, time for the people who missed out to stop whinging and move on and put their energies into something else.

[am Bays]

See my edited post.

[spell_check]

Look at the Stanley H Lewis trophy to get a gauge of teh strength of teh clubs and how they voted...

I think its pretty silly looking at one year's results and making such an outlandish statement.
Perhaps base it over the last few and you'll get a more accurate picture that allows for peaks and troughs, I know that North have been one of the most successful clubs when it comes to juniors and overall results in recent years.

granted but your success like ours didn't just happen and it is reflective of a lot of hard work over teh past five years that is only bearing fruit now...

Exactly but that's completely irrelevent when it comes to your outlandish statement that it had to do with their standing on the Stanley H Lewis in 2008 as to which way they voted. Some people do get carried away when they have one decent year.
Where clubs sit on the SHL in 2008 has nothing to do with the way they voted, but clubs with country zones a fair way away has everything to do with it. Pure and simple.
If a club is worth half a pinch of salt in regards to looking after their area then it wont affect them and will be of benefit eventually.
The people who voted against it are very short sighted and I honestly haven't seen one decent argument that can't be shot down immediately against the idea although Ive heard multiple benefits. Some clubs need to put the game ahead of themselves but I can understand why they vote the way they will as it saves them some petrol money but Id imagine the increased grant expected would more than make up for that.
Anyway, its been voted on, time for the people who missed out to stop whinging and move on and put their energies into something else.

Keep in mind this is on discussion and not whinging, but where exactly is your argument for? Or can you point me to where you have already stated your benefits. And as I understand, the Mount Gambier area is not exactly close to Adelaide, either.

[spell_check]

Disregard that last sentence by the way in the post above this one, before you focus your answer on that only. And too, I can see positives and negatives on both sides; not just one side of the argument that can always be "shot down". Perhaps a good start would have been to listen to those states that have already the 18s comp and see what they say. I think they have in this thread already.

[whatever]

AS I've said before I'm not adverse to reviewing the 17s but I think to replace the 19s with an U/18 comp is a backward step.


Yes good kids will still get promoted - like Tom Holmes and Alex Carey (an U/17 playing reserves) at the Bay right now - but those are the kids that will amke it regardless and ultimately will go to the AFL. SANFL clubs rely on players who take longer to develop into league footballers - they are your core group who you huild a successful side around with recruits - that is what builds long term success.

here here, well said