SANFL U18s

[ca]

I know I won't be popular saying this but I like the new system. I can see the point about players not being allowed to play up at reserves level but they miss so much club football before the State Championships I'm not sure it has much impact.

[am Bays]

I know I won't be popular saying this but I like the new system. I can see the point about players not being allowed to play up at reserves level but they miss so much club football before the State Championships I'm not sure it has much impact.

Perfectly valid opinion, ca

[Wedgie]

I've read this thread a couple of times and am still a bit confused. Is it a debate of Under 19s/17s versus U18s or a debate on the stupid rules they've imposed on the U18s as a compromise to those that didn't want change?
I'm all for the Under 18s concept but the stupid artificial rules applied to it should be canned IMHO.

[bloods08]

I've read this thread a couple of times and am still a bit confused. Is it a debate of Under 19s/17s versus U18s or a debate on the stupid rules they've imposed on the U18s as a compromise to those that didn't want change?
I'm all for the Under 18s concept but the stupid artificial rules applied to it should be canned IMHO.

Couldnt agree more.

[FOURTH ESTATE]

Sounds like the AFL is running the show again with a hidden agenda. THEY JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT THE SANFL. Time to tell Andy and the rest of the Harbour Boulveard Suits to RACK OFF and leave us alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JK]

Sounds like the AFL is running the show again with a hidden agenda. THEY JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT THE SANFL. Time to tell Andy and the rest of the Harbour Boulveard Suits to RACK OFF and leave us alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Im not sure that they even go to the lengths of hiding the agenda mate

[Country Cousin]

That's a good post from Ron Fuller and this idea in particular has merit.
[QUOTE:] "We have a situation in the under 18 competition where up to 6 overage players are allowed to play down at any one time.
Perhaps a good compromise may be that up to a certain number of under 18 players are able to play up at any one time too." [END QUOTE]
As others have said, the U18 system is set in place and it's a matter of accommodating it in a way that becomes a win/win, both for the SANFL clubs and for the lads who want to advance their careers as AFL footballers.

[redandblack]

Sounds like the AFL is running the show again with a hidden agenda. THEY JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT THE SANFL. Time to tell Andy and the rest of the Harbour Boulveard Suits to RACK OFF and leave us alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And take their million dollars to the SANFL with them.

[heater31]

Ron follows it up this week again in his weekly address this time sharing his opinion on the new AFL qualification rule which now stands at 5 games

I have received some interesting feedback about last week’s blog especially from other SANFL clubs who agree it can inhibit a player’s progress if they aren’t allowed to perform at a higher grade.

Maybe 5 can be the magic number.

We could have a maximum of 5 players who are overage, able to come back into the under 18’s at any one time and conversely a maximum of 5 who are able to play higher at any one time.

Just another thought

[MagareyLegend]

That may be why the vics don't even rate our 18 comp and maybe why only 3 got drafted from our elite comp in 2009.

Wrong.

Don't know which vics (recruiters) you are referring to (Richmond?) but seriously all those that I deal with (which is all nationally) are unanimous in their view that SA will be the rich drafting State for at least the next 2 years - if you don't believe me go ask them.

Sort of shoots down your argument doesn't it?

[am Bays]

That may be why the vics don't even rate our 18 comp and maybe why only 3 got drafted from our elite comp in 2009.

Wrong.

Don't know which vics (recruiters) you are referring to (Richmond?) but seriously all those that I deal with (which is all nationally) are unanimous in their view that SA will be the rich drafting State for at least the next 2 years - if you don't believe me go ask them.

Sort of shoots down your argument doesn't it?

But is that due to the competition or the the particular age group??? I would argue the latter.

[scott]

Left Glenelg with about 10 mins left in the U/16s, Glenelg was in front 12.5.77 Sturt 8.11.59

[whatever]

Westies came from behind to win 8.6 to 6.8 or something like that.

Centrals have some impressive young kids in their team.

[85 WAS A GOOD YEAR]

Glenelg U18s beat Sturt by 90 odd points

[am Bays]

Bays v Dogs as curtain raiser to the Crows game today Bays by 25 goals. Yep, Eddie lock it in, a Bays v Port GF coming up again in the U/18s

[beenreal]

Bays v Dogs as curtain raiser to the Crows game today Bays by 25 goals. Yep, Eddie lock it in, a Bays v Port GF coming up again in the U/18s

Lot of talent coming through the Doggies?

[scott]

Central District 1.3 2.4 2.5 3.6 (24)
Glenelg 9.5 16.10 22.14 28.20 (188)

Armfield 9 goals for Glenelg, 164-pt win


North Adelaide 4.3 9.6 15.10 19.13 (127)
South Adelaide 3.4 4.6 8.7 10.7 (67)


Norwood 6.1 8.1 9.3 15.6 (96)
West Adelaide 4.1 7.4 13.10 20.12 (132)


Woodville/West Torrens v Sturt tomorrow at Woodville at 14.10

[scott]

Without looking at the records, Glenelg's score would almost certainly be the highest in the competition and Centrals' would be one of the lowest but I think Sturt scored a fraction less at the Bay last week to have the lowest.

[Wedgie]

Hooray, North had a win!

[MightyEagles]

Without looking at the records, Glenelg's score would almost certainly be the highest in the competition and Centrals' would be one of the lowest but I think Sturt scored a fraction less at the Bay last week to have the lowest.

I believe that you are right about Glenelg's score being the highest in the competition since the u18s started last year, just have to look through my records.