SA Footy

CAST YOUR VOTE FOR A 4 MAN INTERCHANGE BENCH IN THE SANFL ?

In recent weeks, both Andrew Jarman and Tim Ginevar have publicly mentioned that the SANFL should finally follow suite of the AFL and introduce an extra player for each team, extending the bench to 4 players, 22 for the team.

Now about 2 years ago, I got up my high horse on KG & Cornsey's 5AA talkback show and said I was suprised that the SANFL hadn't done this already. I was shot down pretty quickly by Mr Cunningham & Mr Cornes. Now, Jarman & Ginever's reasons might differ from mine at the time, but surely it should be looked into by the SANFL. Let's see what everyone else thinks, cast your vote here now...

My point, a couple of years ago, was that if we claim to be the 2nd best comp in Australia (which I have no doubt we are) then we need to keep up with the AFL in the important areas. I also expressed the thought that if teams have an extra player to select, it is going to give another player, possibly a young kid who is a local junior talent coming through the grades, a chance to prove themselves at this level.

Now I think the 2 coaches points of late are more relevant and I'm glad to see North Adelaide have stated they will be persuing this option, with the powers that be, until they are satisfied with the outcome. With the ever increasing pace of football in general, players are more prone to injury more often. Both North and Port were in a position at the weekend where they didn't actually have a fit player on the interchange bench. Along with my point above, this gives coaches that extra option of 1 more player to chose from.

I think that we are now the only state league competition that still has a 3 man interchange. I also think if it is something the SANFL take on board in the coming years (hopefully as soon as 2009 ?) they need to let it flow through to all the junior grades, affiliated leagues, country and amatuer competitions etc... The same principles apply in this situation as well, so why not I ask ???

HAPPY VOTING PEOPLE....

Big Phil...

yep good move bring us in live with the AFL and gives another player a chance to get a game each week and down the line means another kid gets a chance in the under 17's n that can only be a good thing for the game.

Tassie Blues wrote:yep good move bring us in live with the AFL and gives another player a chance to get a game each week and down the line means another kid gets a chance in the under 17's n that can only be a good thing for the game.

It means the under 17s would have to find another 4 kids from somewhere (it is already hard enough to find enough decent players with the schools poaching players all the time) and would make the standard of every grade a bit weaker.

the best player from the Reserves would be sitting on the bench in the League
the 2 best players from the under 19s would be sitting on the bench in the Reserves
the 3 best players from the under 17s would be sitting on the bench in the Under 19s.

Do we really want this

Plus there are the extra costs involved with having extra players, meaning there would be less room in the salary caps to attract players to the SANFL.

Ecky wrote:

Tassie Blues wrote:yep good move bring us in live with the AFL and gives another player a chance to get a game each week and down the line means another kid gets a chance in the under 17's n that can only be a good thing for the game.

It means the under 17s would have to find another 4 kids from somewhere (it is already hard enough to find enough decent players with the schools poaching players all the time) and would make the standard of every grade a bit weaker.

the best player from the Reserves would be sitting on the bench in the League
the 2 best players from the under 19s would be sitting on the bench in the Reserves
the 3 best players from the under 17s would be sitting on the bench in the Under 19s.

Do we really want this

Yep I reckon we do ... As much as I love the Lower grades of my own club as Im sure we all do, they will always be the "sacrificial lambs" in terms of the A-Grade ... Modern football means far geater rotations than before and I agree that keeping us in-line (or close to) AFL setup is still (unfortunately) in the best interests of the league .. As always, just IMHO.

Surely they're only after a 4 man senior team interchange bench.
How would that have bad flow on effects?
Sounds like a very good idea to me.

Constance_Perm wrote:

Ecky wrote:

Tassie Blues wrote:yep good move bring us in live with the AFL and gives another player a chance to get a game each week and down the line means another kid gets a chance in the under 17's n that can only be a good thing for the game.

It means the under 17s would have to find another 4 kids from somewhere (it is already hard enough to find enough decent players with the schools poaching players all the time) and would make the standard of every grade a bit weaker.

the best player from the Reserves would be sitting on the bench in the League
the 2 best players from the under 19s would be sitting on the bench in the Reserves
the 3 best players from the under 17s would be sitting on the bench in the Under 19s.

Do we really want this

Yep I reckon we do ... As much as I love the Lower grades of my own club as Im sure we all do, they will always be the "sacrificial lambs" in terms of the A-Grade ... Modern football means far geater rotations than before and I agree that keeping us in-line (or close to) AFL setup is still (unfortunately) in the best interests of the league .. As always, just IMHO.

I couldn't agree more Constance _Perm,

Yeah you are right Ecky, they have to find an extra 4 players for the under 17's to play and then that will have the flow on effect like shown above, BUT with the pace of todays game and the amount of player rotations taking place during a game, (just look at the bloody AFL for god sake) I don't think you are going to have a young guy sitting on the bench for the majority of the day. I'm sure there would be plenty of 15 or 16 year old kids itching to represent their SANFL club. I know it's a little different with the College Schools but I've never quite understood how playing for your school is more prestigious than playing for your SANFL club.

Yes, it is hard to get extra players and there are additional costs associated with extra players but it wouldn't be anything extreme. I think it would give more local guys a better chance of playing SANFL football. I know there has been an argument for higher up in the grades, hence a lot of fringe reserves and league players are going to the country or SAAFL because they van make $1,2,3,400 per game as apposed to the very small sum of $75 per game for a SANFL reserves game. Unfortunatley, now a days, money means more than loyalty ???

I believe Soth's Ian Prendergast has started up an SANFL Players Association (or in the process of doing so) and has been fighting for this to be improved so the fringe players are being lured away JUST because of big money.

Vote away people, I'm really enjoying your opinions as well, makes for interesting forum discussion...

Big Phil...

Rucciangelo wrote:Surely they're only after a 4 man senior team interchange bench.
How would that have bad flow on effects?
Sounds like a very good idea to me.

I can understand that...

I guess that would be a good starting point Rucc, but I personally reckon it should flow through ALL grades ?

Big Phil...

Personally, I'm not in favour of this (nor the AFL going to 6 on the bench).

It wasn't so long ago we had 25 minute quarters plus time on, and 2 on the bench. These days we have 20 min quarters (certainly in the AFL anyway) and more on the bench. I think the less time the game is played over and the more players on the bench will only result in more turnovers through the interchange gates. In athletics parlance, the modern game is more of a 400m race than a 1500 m race these days. Call me a traditionalist but I would prefer to have footy played in this way.

why? why copy the afl?

leave it as it is.

Less interchange = less rotations = less like basketball = more attractive football.

I wish Andrew Jarman would make up his mind. He is always critical of the way footy is played in the AFL (less 1-on-1 contests, etc), and yet he wants more interchange

The thing that makes SANFL enjoyable is the best players are on the park most of the match and that is how I like it. I don't want to watch footy where the hardest working person is the interchange steward.

I pay my money to watch footballers play, not coaches playing chess.

Yep make the interchange 4,solve Ecky's problems and make the 17's and 19' a Under 18 comp,play it before the reserves each game day.

I voted no, if only because I don't see why we should have to follow the AvFL.

Well, firstly it was good to see the question said I could choose up to 2 options in a "Yes' "No' question

I'm in favour, having seen the number of games where a team has 2 injured players in the first quarter and no flexibility for the rest of the game.

Big Phil wrote:In recent weeks, both Andrew Jarman and Tim Ginevar have publicly mentioned that the SANFL should finally follow suite of the AFL and introduce an extra player for each team, extending the bench to 4 players, 22 for the team.

That's a concern since North and Glenelg are the only clubs supporting the concept, must be some good communication at Port and Glenelg.

Im undecided on this one, I was dead against it in the past but the game is speeding up. I miss the days when a bloke on one leg would have stand in the forward pocket but I suppose with liability, court claims, compensation, etc I might have to admit those days are long gone.

Just because the AFL has 4 on the interchange doesn't mean our game would magically turn into the game 15 of the 16 clubs play in the AFL if we took it up. (If it made the 9 SANFL teams play like Geelong I'd welcome the change! )

redandblack wrote:Well, firstly it was good to see the question said I could choose up to 2 options in a "Yes' "No' question

I'm in favour, having seen the number of games where a team has 2 injured players in the first quarter and no flexibility for the rest of the game.

I think a point often overlooked is more interchange personel enhances injuries, therefore the need for more. Because AFL coaches can now rotate players, they are faster, fresher, stronger on the field at all times, therefore they can run harder, hit harder, etc.

This actually creates more injuries than ever before. This is why some people are arguing to restrict the number of rotations per game.

We saw the AFL, 2 wasn't enough so we had 3. Then that wasn't enough so we have 4. Now they want 6!! We won't be happy until we see Gridiron, Ice Hockey or Basketball where the benches are larger than the group on the playing arena.

IMHO, Three is plenty. Any coach who can't handle that is a very poor coach. If they need more, I would support having 2 players who played in the Reserves sitting on the bench but only used if a player is rendered incapable of continuing due to injury.

But to ensure coaches don't rort the system (as they would) the player who was replaced would automatically be unavailabe for the next 2 matches, as an "injured" player.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

redandblack wrote:Well, firstly it was good to see the question said I could choose up to 2 options in a "Yes' "No' question

I'm in favour, having seen the number of games where a team has 2 injured players in the first quarter and no flexibility for the rest of the game.

I think a point often overlooked is more interchange personel enhances injuries, therefore the need for more. Because AFL coaches can now rotate players, they are faster, fresher, stronger on the field at all times, therefore they can run harder, hit harder, etc.

This actually creates more injuries than ever before. This is why some people are arguing to restrict the number of rotations per game.

We saw the AFL, 2 wasn't enough so we had 3. Then that wasn't enough so we have 4. Now they want 6!! We won't be happy until we see Gridiron, Ice Hockey or Basketball where the benches are larger than the group on the playing arena.

IMHO, Three is plenty. Any coach who can't handle that is a very poor coach. If they need more, I would support having 2 players who played in the Reserves sitting on the bench but only used if a player is rendered incapable of continuing due to injury.

But to ensure coaches don't rort the system (as they would) the player who was replaced would automatically be unavailabe for the next 2 matches, as an "injured" player.

I agree with AH on this one!

Leave as if. If we move it to four this will restrict the clubs ability to recruit the stars that make this comp the second best in the country. You add that extra player to the team he will get something in the area of of $300 a game over 20 games the club is looking at $6000. Some clubs are already tight on the salary cap and this would restrict recruiting. The SANFL will not move the salary cap higher again as that has been done recently, which the AFL made a big stink about.
Also IMHO you will have 8 players in the SANFL a week getting a game when there probably not up to the standard similar to the problems district cricket have with having so many teams. This will be a follow on effect through all the grades devaluing the comp as a whole.

Big Phil wrote:BUT with the pace of todays game and the amount of player rotations taking place during a game, (just look at the bloody AFL for god sake) I don't think you are going to have a young guy sitting on the bench for the majority of the day.

Yes, this is the case in the AFL, but very different from what I have seen in the lower grades in the SANFL.

In the Glenelg Reserves last year (who were premiers), there were about 5 occasions where the 21st player was an under 19s kid who had played the day before, who was just making up numbers in the reserves. They were only brought on in the last 5 minutes of the game as a token gesture. Even when the 21st player hadn't played the day before, there were some occasions where they weren't used at all until the last quarter.

A clear sign that more interchange players are definitely not needed at this level!

4 is needed incase of injuries and the running players will appreciate it and also it gave another kid (be it 17's or 19's) but i dont think we need any more than that on the bench.

johntheclaret wrote:I voted no, if only because I don't see why we should have to follow the AvFL.

I don't think its about copying the AFL just for the sake of it - its the same game we are both playing we shouldn't be dismissing ideas solely on principle

Its about what's best for the game and the players in the SANFL

Reports I heard on the weekend said that Port (and maybe North?) had no fit players left on interchange at the end of their matches. The game is faster and rotations quicker why place restrictions on the SANFL coaches unnecessarially or potentially compromise the standard of our matches?

I'm not convinced the lower grades would need to follow suit, but even if they did I'd be staggered if an SANFL club can't find 4 extra players (juniors) through their zones.

It seems like a big issue now but in 10 years time we'll struggle to remember the exact year it was brought in is my tip. Pop quiz ... when did we go to 3?