AFL Reserves Discussion...

[85 WAS A GOOD YEAR]

=D>
@ Spelly

I agree with everything Spelly's said.
I saw the link to this article, read it and thought "Who the hell is this guy? Never heard of him?"
He's looked at it with very Simplistic views, without understanding the real issues, and how the proposed structure will be maintained in the years to come.

I almost applauded Rucci on 5AA tonight at about 6.30 whilst driving home about this issue, and how the state league team this week would only have about half AFL listed players, with players coming from everywhere to top up.
He asked what the scenario would be if the SANFL Crows team was playing this week to keep or get a spot in the finals.
The AFL listed players had been on Mad Monday, had team revision and meetings Tues & Wednesday, and then had to front up to play Saturday to fight for their spot in the 5.

He also talked about how this would be counter-productive to the AFL players development when the guys around them aren't really up to the standard required.

Not too often I've bothered listening after he's taken his first breath. But did tonight.
He mentioned the WA AFL clubs still having a youth development program through their WAFL affiliated club U18s, and highlighted this was their plan for their future players and developing players.
Their 18s could aspire to play in their senior team, and were already part of their club's system.

There's plenty of headaches ahead trying to sort out this top up player fiasco, but this is what the WA clubs are using as a future planning move. Port are trying to keep their zones and 18s for the same reason, and I can see some merit in why they want it.

I definitely don't want to lose any Glenelg zoned kids, but if this AFL State League teams within the SANFL is going to happen, the players need to be a part of the system on a regular basis, and not just plucked out of their usual clubs for a week here and there. Otherwise how are they going to develop, and they'll be like outsiders at the club when they're selected.

Anyway that's my 2 cents worth

[Aerie]

=D>
@ Spelly

I agree with everything Spelly's said.
I saw the link to this article, read it and thought "Who the hell is this guy? Never heard of him?"
He's looked at it with very Simplistic views, without understanding the real issues, and how the proposed structure will be maintained in the years to come.

I almost applauded Rucci on 5AA tonight at about 6.30 whilst driving home about this issue, and how the state league team this week would only have about half AFL listed players, with players coming from everywhere to top up.
He asked what the scenario would be if the SANFL Crows team was playing this week to keep or get a spot in the finals.
The AFL listed players had been on Mad Monday, had team revision and meetings Tues & Wednesday, and then had to front up to play Saturday to fight for their spot in the 5.

He also talked about how this would be counter-productive to the AFL players development when the guys around them aren't really up to the standard required.

Not too often I've bothered listening after he's taken his first breath. But did tonight.
He mentioned the WA AFL clubs still having a youth development program through their WAFL affiliated club U18s, and highlighted this was their plan for their future players and developing players.
Their 18s could aspire to play in their senior team, and were already part of their club's system.

There's plenty of headaches ahead trying to sort out this top up player fiasco, but this is what the WA clubs are using as a future planning move. Port are trying to keep their zones and 18s for the same reason, and I can see some merit in why they want it.

I definitely don't want to lose any Glenelg zoned kids, but if this AFL State League teams within the SANFL is going to happen, the players need to be a part of the system on a regular basis, and not just plucked out of their usual clubs for a week here and there. Otherwise how are they going to develop, and they'll be like outsiders at the club when they're selected.

Anyway that's my 2 cents worth

Yep, spot on.

[SimonH]

Hear, hear Spelly.

The article does little more than rearrange all of the other AFL-centric opinion pieces on the issue. The only original thing in there is the hilarious concept that every year the Crows and Pahhhhr would be forced to rookie-list the best of the parklands players and star-smitten kids who rocked up to be in their 'support team'. He might as well have suggested that the Crows push for the AFL to allow them to take their 'we play better with a 19th man' slogan literally and let a lucky home viewer take to the field with their AFL side each week. Anyway, apart from that idea, which is surely the 'lantern on your head at 3am as the party finishes' of concepts for the restructuring of footy in this state, there's not a thing in the article that wouldn't be heartily endorsed by the AFC.

Tom Biddington has the same problem as at least 80% of NewsCorp opinion 'journalists' (I put that in inverted commas, because I'm old enough to remember a time when journalism was comprised of writing news stories, which could include quoting the opinions of other people, but rarely if ever involved the author shoving their views down the reader's throat): he promises that he's going to Tell It Like It Is, Upset the Applecart, Take No Prisoners, Piss Off the Vested Interests, Cut Through the Spin, Put a Torch to Political Correctness, etc etc. ('The Common Sense Crusade' is an almost laughably clichéd recycling of the standard MO.) But then when you read the actual substance of the opinion put forward— quelle surprise— it pushes the interests of the rich and powerful.

A tip for Tom Biddington: an actual opinion writer worthy of the name wouldn't just toss off a lazy, "Don't agree with me? Well, you come up with something better" at the end. He would actually analyse, and if he disagreed point out the flaws in, the variety of alternative plans for the future of the SANFL/ AFL reserves sides that have already been put forward during this debate. I'm hoping you know how to work the Google device, so you don't need me to find them for you.

[StrayDog]

The SANFL/AFL reserves debate for the Adelaide Crows and Port Adelaide Power can be easily solved
Tom Biddington, The Advertiser, September 02, 2013

MISSION STATEMENT: To cut through the clutter to identify the real issues and solutions in the sporting world.

I love sport - but I get frustrated at times.

Too often politics, egos, emotion, spin and money get in the way of making all sports, and the way we enjoy them, the best they can possibly be.

Issues will always crop up and whenever there are two opposing sides, the truth (and the best way forward) is normally somewhere in the middle.

It goes from one extreme to another and, really, there's just no need for the diatribe.

There's a distinct lack of common sense employed across the sporting world and I'm making it my weekly crusade to ensure it comes back and is used in the best possible fashion.

A crusade that might have some point to it.

That is, if the ego fuelled diatribe that followed wasn't simply more emotive politics and spin for the sake of a few more advertising dollars.

[heater31]

Never heard of this Tom Biddington journalist who wrote this pro AFL clap trap until this week. I open up today's newspaper at a Fast Food Restaurant over breakfast to discover this fellow writes articles for Thoroughbred racing only and nothing else

Did Trigg and co pay this bloke to write such garbage?

[Big Phil]

Never heard of this Tom Biddington journalist who wrote this pro AFL clap trap until this week. I open up today's newspaper at a Fast Food Restaurant over breakfast to discover this fellow writes articles for Thoroughbred racing only and nothing else

Did Trigg and co pay this bloke to write such garbage?

Tom also covers the Adelaide Bite baseball season, along with Robert Laidlaw, during the summer...

[Dutchy]

Never heard of this Tom Biddington journalist who wrote this pro AFL clap trap until this week. I open up today's newspaper at a Fast Food Restaurant over breakfast to discover this fellow writes articles for Thoroughbred racing only and nothing else

Did Trigg and co pay this bloke to write such garbage?

Also a Victorian who hasnt been here long so has NFI about SANFL heritage

[therisingblues]

Spelly! Spelly! Spelly!

[Apachebulldog]

Are you sure he is not from Wunkar in the Mallee ?????

[therisingblues]

Let's start by laying out the ugly truth.

The glory days of the 60s, 70s and 80s are gone and it's time to accept the SANFL is a second-tier/development competition where all clubs, players, fixtures and the administration are compromised.

As it stands, the nine-team setup just doesn't work. The byes are farcical. The availability of AFL-listed players, which can wildly affect a team's ability, changes week-to-week. Crowds are falling and, really, only the diehards remain.

The quality of play has been affected by the introduction of Gold Coast and GWS with more talent required at the top level, not to mention other AFL clubs picking the eyes out of the mature-age players.

Decisions at all levels of administration are made on club or personal interest and are affected by historical events irrelevant with the current situation.

I could go on but bottom line - it's not making the competition the best it can possibly be.

Let's conclude here with one bleeding obvious truth: the author is somebody who has zero interest in SANFL, never (or at best rarely) attends a game, and whose SANFL knowledge extends little further than noting how many touches AFL-listed players got last weekend.

Were this bloke remotely knowledgeable about the league, he'd have known that the nine team setup does work, with the byes allowing interstate recruits to have weekends back home. Yes, interstate recruits: now Vic talent comes to the SANFL, quite the reverse of the "glory days". Crowds might well be down this year, but considering longer-term figures crowds have been on the up - and this over a period when SA AFL crowds have been in decline. Anyone familiar with the standard of play over the last few years would debate that quality has fallen in the face of AFL expansion. Nobody denies that the glory days are over, but there are many people for whom the SANFL is king, and we do not appreciate people with no interest in out league telling us how the league should be run.

I wonder if the author has the balls to front up on Snout's Hill on Saturday arvo and see first hand what the diehards love about the SANFL. I doubt it.

My thoughts also Monsieur.
I can't get over this idea that because they aren't interested in the SANFL, then no one else could have a legitimate reason to like it either, therefore they can park their reserves or any other AFL garbage there and anyone who complains is "part of the problem".

[FlyingHigh]

Bingo theri, and it starts from the top, the AFL.
It is a problem all across Australia, not just SA. Where are the AFL in all of this? Why aren't they setting up a reserves/development league?
They have imposed themselves as the guardians of the game, get involved in and/or control what they want (eg Adelaide Oval), but if they don't want to, clubs are allowed to act in their individual best interests regardless of effects on lower levels.

FWIW I feel sorry for the Magpies and can understand the Power supporters angst that the Crows proposal got the nod, but this whole issue has created angst amongst footy fans in SA regardless of which side of the argument they're on. And the same for WA footy fans, VFL clubs and, seemingly, issues for QAFL clubs.

[Dogwatcher]

Attended a function last night at which 186 game North Adelaide player Heath Younie spoke.
Younie, who was sacked after a two-year stint with West Coast Eagles, is currently a development coach at the Crows after coaching juniors with the Roosters.
In, briefly, addressing the SANFL reserves issue, he said something like:
"I'm sure you've heard all the talk about the AFL reserves sides going into the SANFL. It's an emotive issue but for all that, it's great for someone like me."
An illuminating comment, if you extrapolate 'Me' as being the Adelaide Crows and their myriad of staff.

[gossipgirl]

Yep, I concur, how dare anyone write about $ANFL clubs standing on their own two feet. It's positively obscene.

and even worse using common sense and logic .... burn him at the stake !!!!!

[whufc]

Yep, I concur, how dare anyone write about $ANFL clubs standing on their own two feet. It's positively obscene.

and even worse using common sense and logic .... burn him at the stake !!!!!

Let me guess........... Your a big fan of the Advertiser and Sunday Mail as well

[therisingblues]

Yep, I concur, how dare anyone write about $ANFL clubs standing on their own two feet. It's positively obscene.

and even worse using common sense and logic .... burn him at the stake !!!!!

Unbelievable, a "give us money we are broke" Power supporter on a vigil to make SANFL clubs stand on their own two feet, being supported by some other citing non present "sense and logic".

[therisingblues]

FWIW I feel sorry for the Magpies and can understand the Power supporters angst that the Crows proposal got the nod, but this whole issue has created angst amongst footy fans in SA regardless of which side of the argument they're on. And the same for WA footy fans, VFL clubs and, seemingly, issues for QAFL clubs.

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but the Power's bid was rejected because they could reject it. They would have rejected the Crows' bid too except it was fronted with threats they found hard to ignore.
On the face of it the Power's original bid was the better of the two.

[Booney]

FWIW I feel sorry for the Magpies and can understand the Power supporters angst that the Crows proposal got the nod, but this whole issue has created angst amongst footy fans in SA regardless of which side of the argument they're on. And the same for WA footy fans, VFL clubs and, seemingly, issues for QAFL clubs.

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but the Power's bid was rejected because they could reject it. They would have rejected the Crows' bid too except it was fronted with threats they found hard to ignore.
On the face of it the Power's original bid was the better of the two.

I'm hoping (and starting to think it may happen ) that Port sit back next year with the system we now have in place and watch the "top-up" player debacle with the AFC unfold. Once the SANFL clubs that were willing to help the AFC with top-ups get the odd injury or can see they are finals bound they wont be interested in handing "depth" players over.

Then, with the prospect of taking a small piece of Port's recruting zones ( divide our zones by 8 ) the clubs will realise this is unlikely to satisfy the need for Adelaides and Port's top up players and Port might, just might be able to meet some compromise between Adelaides model and the one Port will work with.

Perhaps if Adelaide took some of Ports zones for top-up players and left the SANFL clubs alone then there might be a compromise. This could, in time, give Adelaide a team in the SANFL in reserves.

[SimonH]

Perhaps if Adelaide took some of Ports zones for top-up players and left the SANFL clubs alone then there might be a compromise. This could, in time, give Adelaide a team in the SANFL in reserves.

A lot of things might happen, but this is one that won't. They have an AFL club to run. They're not interested in having care, control & development of 1/18th of South Australia's junior players (half of one-ninth), including the 98% of those junior players that are never going to be on an AFL list. Hell, somewhere around 90% of them are either never, or not within the foreseeable future anyway, going to be of SANFL league standard. For them, being stuck as the exclusive care-giver for all players in a geographic zone, running 'development league' teams that lead nowhere, is just a dead loss. They want someone else to have care, control & development of all of South Australia's junior players, and then at a certain point they want to be able to skim off the cream of all of them, whether into an 'academy' or elsewhere (depending on what AFL rules let them do, and what SANFL clubs let them get away with— but that second part isn't so significant because we know that if bribed/threatened enough, SANFL clubs will let the Crows get away with anything).

The 'top up' player situation will almost certainly be a debacle for at least part of 2014. But, see above: for the price of a few more silver coins, to add to the 30 that have already been doled out, the impoverished SANFL clubs will let the Crows get away with anything. Including whatever players they feel like taking. I think that the Crows literally do not care what occurs with the Pahhhhr's non-selected players, because they feel confident that they are richer, they got here first, they can re-make the rules to suit themselves— and so they don't see any prospect that whatever arrangement the Pahhhhr ultimately comes to with the SANFL, is going to cramp their style.

[Booney]

Agreed. Even more bewildering then that the SANFL has demanded both clubs have the same (yet to be finalised) model.

I cant wait for the first SANFL club to tell Adelaide to "**** off" when they ask for "A couple of tall backman to top-up our reserves".

[beenreal]

Yep, I concur, how dare anyone write about $ANFL clubs standing on their own two feet. It's positively obscene.

and even worse using common sense and logic .... burn him at the stake !!!!!

Unbelievable, a "give us money we are broke" Power supporter on a vigil to make SANFL clubs stand on their own two feet, being supported by some other citing non present "sense and logic".

Last Saturday against Carlton summed up Port Adelaide's financial "arrangement" perfectly. 45,000 through the gate, yet the PAFC nets less than $200k of the takings.

But when your club generates $57M into $ANFL coffers over 15 years, feel free to comment.

But that would make your club an AFL club, not just one that relies on AFL players to field a side.