Under19, Under18, Under17 ??

[cd]

Personal post only

I believe our proposal was a better option in that ages stayed same but we didnt have the younger lads being pulled between school, us, local clubs and travelling for the country lads by having a shortened u17 comp.
Plus concentrated our gameday resources to 3 teams.

This is what is proposed but at u16 & u18 with some u19 in the u18. Seems to me u17/u19 in the form we put forward was a better arrangement than this. My personal thoughts only.

Col D

[whatever]

for those that went to the football yesterday can you imagine how bad the ovals would have been at the end of the day if an extra game was played on them in the morning.

[Ian]

for those that went to the football yesterday can you imagine how bad the ovals would have been at the end of the day if an extra game was played on them in the morning.

The other side to that is how much better would the grounds be that had no games yesterday.

[Wedgie]

for those that went to the football yesterday can you imagine how bad the ovals would have been at the end of the day if an extra game was played on them in the morning.

The other side to that is how much better would the grounds be that had no games yesterday.

Exactly, yet another argument against quashed.

[am Bays]

for those that went to the football yesterday can you imagine how bad the ovals would have been at the end of the day if an extra game was played on them in the morning.

The other side to that is how much better would the grounds be that had no games yesterday.

What you'll find is that league ovals not used with three games at the one venue (18s, 2s and 1s) will actually be used (especially at this time of the year when it is wet) by amateur and metropolitan leagues.

Glenelg oval didn't get a rest yesterday, it was used for an amateur match.

if you think there is going to be less traffic on league ovals as a result of this move think again

[Wedgie]

for those that went to the football yesterday can you imagine how bad the ovals would have been at the end of the day if an extra game was played on them in the morning.

The other side to that is how much better would the grounds be that had no games yesterday.

What you'll find is that league ovals not used with three games at the one venue (18s, 2s and 1s) will actually be used (especially at this time of the year when it is wet) by amateur and metropolitan leagues.

That's only if the club chooses to do that, a responsible club would only elect to do that if their ground will be unaffected by the extra traffic.

Another anti change argument quashed.

[am Bays]

Mate we don't own the ovals the councils do so if we get told...

I'm not sure of how it came about whether we agreed to it or got told to do it. All I'm saying is that with our better maintained ovals free in July and August expect pressure from the councils and the metro leagues (amateurs) for our ovals to be used in lieu of the other council ovals leased by the amateur clubs.

[Wedgie]

Mate we don't own the ovals the councils do so if we get told...

Not one council has insisted an amateur game be played at an oval that an SANFL club is the primary tenant of, it has to include the approval of the primary tenant.
Argument quashed, next......

[CUTTERMAN]

not sure if this has been mentioned yet. With the changes that apparently WILL happen to the U17 & U19 comps is there any thought given to what the players are going through during these ages? During U17's most kids are still at school and doing their final exams, this would be the same if the U18 comp is brought to bare, so a kid in the U18's has the added pressure of his working future being decided at this time by his efforts at school and that it's one of his only chances to prove himself in a semi-mature junior comp. Keeping the U19's gives some of these kids an extra year or 2 to prove themselves on the footy field after their final exams. The other issue is how will the SANFL clubs that have a high % of kids HAVING to play for their Private Schools fit into all of this, again the U19's provide an avenue for them.
With the AFL expanding to an 18 team comp and each club has a playing list of 40? that's an extra 80 players needed not including rookies, surely keeping the U19's improves the percentages of more kids being available to elite and 2nd tier footy.
Then there is the kids who are late in developing their games and body's, the U19's gives them a couple more years to prove themselves.

[Ian]

With 9 home games a year the suburban grounds are seeing 18 weeks of footy, 2 games per week = 36 games in total

If U18's were to replace U17's/U19's, it would be 9 weeks of footy, 3 games per week = 27 games in total, with 9 additional weeks of total match day rest.

Surely the 2nd option would be better for the grounds.

[redandblack]

I'm sure that not all Under 18 games will be played as triple-headers anyway.

Also, I would think there'll be an allowance for 4 or 6 'overage' players to play.

I don't think one argument is totally right and one totally wrong with this argument. I'd ask people to look at this from a position that's not entrenched and to give it a go.

I think the current system can be greatly improved and I support the change, but look forward to a constructive debate.

[am Bays]

I'm sure that not all Under 18 games will be played as triple-headers anyway.

Also, I would think there'll be an allowance for 4 or 6 'overage' players to play.

I don't think one argument is totally right and one totally wrong with this argument. I'd ask people to look at this from a position that's not entrenched and to give it a go.

I think the current system can be greatly improved and I support the change, but look forward to a constructive debate.

I agree the current system should be improved and that change is an important part of evolving the code of Austrlian football.

As I've said I have no problems with making changes to the current u/17s as it is compromised with the independant school system. My beef is that the 19s have been scrapped for virtual combined 17s and 19s as an U/18s.

That why i think the Eagles proposal on face value was the best one.

Having worked in elite sport the principle of overload and training kids in a higher age group - we would have much better chance of competing aginst the likes of Vic Metro and Country if our elite U18s played week in and week out aginst U/19s than agaisnt U/18s.

Still have the academies at each club, as is currently proposed, but just make it an u/19 comp with a reduced 17s competition.

FFS its not rocket science...

R&B as I understand it the current proposal is for four overage players.

To me that isn't enough. I would accept the current U/18 proposal if clubs could have 8-10 overage players six as abre minimum. You need the flexibility to allow for the late developers - generally the tall kids and the kids for whatever reason have come to the club u/18 "acadamies" late (have stayed in country to finish school).

Four isn't enough IMO

[whatever]

for those that went to the football yesterday can you imagine how bad the ovals would have been at the end of the day if an extra game was played on them in the morning.

The other side to that is how much better would the grounds be that had no games yesterday.

What you'll find is that league ovals not used with three games at the one venue (18s, 2s and 1s) will actually be used (especially at this time of the year when it is wet) by amateur and metropolitan leagues.

That's only if the club chooses to do that, a responsible club would only elect to do that if their ground will be unaffected by the extra traffic.

Another anti change argument quashed.

A resposible club would be trying to give back to the community

I wennt to an under 17 game yesterday and I must say it was more enjoyable to watch than the league game I went to in the afternoon

[Wedgie]

With 9 home games a year the suburban grounds are seeing 18 weeks of footy, 2 games per week = 36 games in total

If U18's were to replace U17's/U19's, it would be 9 weeks of footy, 3 games per week = 27 games in total, with 9 additional weeks of total match day rest.

Surely the 2nd option would be better for the grounds.

Don't let logic and correct mathematics get in the way of some people's deluded and desperate arguments Ian!

[Macca19]

for those that went to the football yesterday can you imagine how bad the ovals would have been at the end of the day if an extra game was played on them in the morning.

The other side to that is how much better would the grounds be that had no games yesterday.

Exactly, yet another argument against quashed.

So where do the U16s play then? At the local park?

They'll still be playing at the opposite oval just like now.

[tigersupporter]

Any word as to when the SANFL are going to confirm selling out and going straight to the U/18 Comp. I thought it was meant to be this week.

Allegedly the latest count is 5 Clubs for an U/18's Comp - 4 Clubs against it.

Surely with such a close call the SANFL could not possibly go ahead with this set up. Once they go U/18's they wont go back to 17's & 19's. If the clubs themselves are unsure as to what is best for themselves and the comp then one would think that we shouldn't make any rash decisions.

Interestingly sturt, glenelg and centrals according to the rumour mill are against it. HMMMMMMM I wonder what these clubs have in common

Why would Central be against it, they are last in both 17s and 19s.

Because we focus on preparing players for league football. Having the two age groups serves that purpose best, in the clubs opinion.

The results in 17's and 19's are not relevant.

is that why centrals have only got about two players in the league team that played /17s & 19s

[smac]

Close, count again.

[tigersupporter]

that info came from someone who coaches in an U17 league that has players that play for the dogs. Apparently there are a lot of people involved with Gawler/Barossa teams that dont think highly of Centrals junior development. Yes, I know you won the U/15s.

[Dan The Man]

I would support an uner 18's competition. It's right down the midde of the existing comps and it makes more sense to have 1 underage comp instead of 2 you can then play all 3 grades (u18/s, reserves and league) at 1 venue) Will make it a hell of a lot easier for all voluntary staff at respective clubs and less wear and tear on grounds as well. It would also expose quality youngsters to senior level quicker as well.

100% AGREE !

[whatever]

SANFL would be better off helping clubs rather tha changing the system.

Is the motivation for this really coming from AFL clubs who find it difficult to monitor the junior grades of SANFL football and just want recruiting made easier.

I have yet to see a logical argument why it is better for the SANFL

Wedgie no doubt will be able to provide this argument to me. All the people I know in junior football dont want it but they would love the money.