SA Footy

SnappyTom wrote:I still contend the style and standard of games this season is a clear rung down on the last few seasons.

Sorry to quote you on this ST, cos you are not alone in terms of comments on this site. But this has been on my mind for quite a few weeks now.

Is the supposed "drop in standard" of SANFL - sited by many posters - due to the overhaul in the SANFL structure? i.e do away with the U17s and U19s and take up an U18s approach.

Has the AFL finally achieved what it has always wanted to achieve?

Souths results in U18's have been very poor, traditionally we did well in the U/17 - U/19 competitions, so for us I do think its been a huge step backwards!

i like it, been to a few games this year when cant be bothered travelling to watch league.

Sojourner wrote:South traditionally we did well in the U/17 - U/19 competitions

You are kidding me

purch wrote:

SnappyTom wrote:I still contend the style and standard of games this season is a clear rung down on the last few seasons.

Sorry to quote you on this ST, cos you are not alone in terms of comments on this site. But this has been on my mind for quite a few weeks now.

Is the supposed "drop in standard" of SANFL - sited by many posters - due to the overhaul in the SANFL structure? i.e do away with the U17s and U19s and take up an U18s approach.

Has the AFL finally achieved what it has always wanted to achieve?

I doubt that such a move would have had a flow-on effect yet purch. I think a drop in standard is a generational thing - there was a large list made in another thread of very good SANFL footballers who have helped improve the competition over the last ten year, but have retired over the last two years. (plus others such as Cicca and Ben Nelson who are getting close to the end).

My fear is that it possibly will but we won't know for about five years, when we have also been affectd by the entrance of the Gold Coast and West Sydney.

From the number of games I've seen this year, the standard is better in the Under 18's at this stage. Clean skills, quick, flow-on play and attacking football, by and large. The biggest benefit, by far of the restructure to this point, though is the mere fact many of us are talking about it. We didn't see anything like the same level of fan interest, media interest and publicity for the competition that we are seeing with the Under 18's, as with the old U17/U19's. It was rare to see any discussion on the old structure anywhere.

That alone, should be one of the biggest kudos for the new structure.

purch wrote:

SnappyTom wrote:I still contend the style and standard of games this season is a clear rung down on the last few seasons.

Sorry to quote you on this ST, cos you are not alone in terms of comments on this site. But this has been on my mind for quite a few weeks now.

Is the supposed "drop in standard" of SANFL - sited by many posters - due to the overhaul in the SANFL structure? i.e do away with the U17s and U19s and take up an U18s approach.

Has the AFL finally achieved what it has always wanted to achieve?

No apology required.
For mine, there are two themes at play here - and I'm the first to accept constructive criticism of my diatribe; alongside additional comments on where others seriously think our SANFL is headed:
U18s replacing U17s and U19s
You'd have to suspect the standard initially would be better. I am only concerned that we wouldn't have seen a Shannon Hurn play in 2 league GFs as an eligible U19, however (there would be others that have done this too).

Time will tell how the quality of young players sticking to their clubs pans out.

Changes to AFL that will influence SANFL
I suspect we'll see a four man bench some day (at least at league level), so from a standard point of view that's 9 extra players in league sides that wouldn't have been there before, possibly 18 (two per club) if the ressies get an increase also. Or will we see an eligible reserves player allowed 50% ressies match, and become the fourth bench for the league.

The other standard impact will come from the two new AFL teams - that's 80 players that will be in the system not currently there. So some of our fringe players (a Jeremy Clayton, Brett Backwell, Simon Arnott type) might just make it, rather than strengthening the SANFL as has been the case. If we suggest just 18 of those 80 come from the SANFL system alone, that would be another two players in every side that wouldn't have normally been in the SANFL.

There has to be some effect on the overall standard of the comp - U18s to a lesser degree.

Perhaps my only concern with Healy getting the gig at North follows with Heals being in the AFL system, especially in 2008, where the zone structure took hold. We've seen it in North's game this year, there are differences between the CDFC and NAFC styles. As a mate of mine said yesterday, you can hardly tell the difference in styles between AFL and SANFL now, unlike a few years ago - and i'll use 2003 as the glaring example - where there was an absolute difference. As a Brisbane member I got to see both my sides win flags, but play with vastly different structures, attitudes and game-plan (god I hate those words!). For those at the hallowed turf of The Ponderosa yesterday, if you watch patches of the second and third quarter IMHO it reflected the mini-league. The arm wrestle saw a rolling flood; at three distinct stages of the second quarter there was no player in either fifty zone. About half the players at the ball, in close; the other half within a kick and a half of the others. Of course, Elizabeth Oval is massive, so it's a lot more obvious. I just sincerely hope the style of the SANFL doesn't get to be a reflection of the horrid AFL, as it just doesn't look good (or work) at our SANFL level.

Apart from that, Healy will be a great coach - he was a great leader at our club!


As a few others have said, there are also generational changes afoot. We, for instance, have only eight players from even the 2005 premiership going around, three of those from five years earlier. The hope is that each new generation is better at commencement level than those before. I fear, however, this is not the case.

ST...

okay - I was against this move.

The standard actually started off rather high and I was pleaseantly surprised and the overage players strengthened the standard but more importantly the 17 year olds (1992 born) were being exposed to a higher standard of competition which should be good for their development.

So as much as I was against it I could see some real positives.

However the standard has dropped dramatically since the under 16's finished and the under 18 carnival stopped.

Some cluds are playing a very high number of under 16's now (Norwood are the major culprits) who just can not provide the 18 year olds with enough of a contest. Also you will see a mass exodos to reserves football after the carnival which will leave the standard of the 18's at a very low level.

Also I hate stand alone matches.

SANFL really need to look at playing 2 under 18's games as a double header at thebarton oval each week and then make the remainder of the matches as triple headers. Stand alone under 18 games at 11:15am just doesn't feel right and surely it has a high cost (or volunteer) factor attached to it.

Clubs need to be limited to the number of under 16's that can play. In general I would say 2. Maybe applications can be made to the SANFL if you can justify that they are better than those you are leaving out.

CK wrote:From the number of games I've seen this year, the standard is better in the Under 18's at this stage. Clean skills, quick, flow-on play and attacking football, by and large. The biggest benefit, by far of the restructure to this point, though is the mere fact many of us are talking about it. We didn't see anything like the same level of fan interest, media interest and publicity for the competition that we are seeing with the Under 18's, as with the old U17/U19's. It was rare to see any discussion on the old structure anywhere.

That alone, should be one of the biggest kudos for the new structure.

Agreed, it is better than the 17s standard, not quite U/19 standard IMO. In no way can you make any link between any perceived drop in league standard as a result of the change in underage structure. Way too early for that yet. Not sure of teh figures but I doubt that there would be more than 3% of league players up from the underage squads - way too small a percentage to affect the standard.

Only getting media talk because the SANFL are now promoting it and of the debate on her between the pros and the cons for the change.

purch wrote:Has the AFL finally achieved what it has always wanted to achieve?

Not yet. The AFL want to turn the entire SANFL into an underage competition. We can't allow that to happen at any price.

purch wrote:

SnappyTom wrote:I still contend the style and standard of games this season is a clear rung down on the last few seasons.

Sorry to quote you on this ST, cos you are not alone in terms of comments on this site. But this has been on my mind for quite a few weeks now.

Is the supposed "drop in standard" of SANFL - sited by many posters - due to the overhaul in the SANFL structure? i.e do away with the U17s and U19s and take up an U18s approach.

Has the AFL finally achieved what it has always wanted to achieve?

Yes, definitely a drop in standard, but more to do with tactics (what ST said). So much emphasis is placed on stopping goals rather than scoring them. No matter what the norm is - scoring or defending, the best teams always rise to the top half of the ladder.

spell_check wrote:

purch wrote:

SnappyTom wrote:I still contend the style and standard of games this season is a clear rung down on the last few seasons.

Sorry to quote you on this ST, cos you are not alone in terms of comments on this site. But this has been on my mind for quite a few weeks now.

Is the supposed "drop in standard" of SANFL - sited by many posters - due to the overhaul in the SANFL structure? i.e do away with the U17s and U19s and take up an U18s approach.

Has the AFL finally achieved what it has always wanted to achieve?

Yes, definitely a drop in standard, but more to do with tactics (what ST said). So much emphasis is placed on stopping goals rather than scoring them. No matter what the norm is - scoring or defending, the best teams always rise to the top half of the ladder.

Sorry Spelly don't get what you are trying to say.

If you are saying that U18s coaches are too defensive rather than offensive I would totally disagree with you.

MagareyLegend wrote:

spell_check wrote:

purch wrote:

SnappyTom wrote:I still contend the style and standard of games this season is a clear rung down on the last few seasons.

Sorry to quote you on this ST, cos you are not alone in terms of comments on this site. But this has been on my mind for quite a few weeks now.

Is the supposed "drop in standard" of SANFL - sited by many posters - due to the overhaul in the SANFL structure? i.e do away with the U17s and U19s and take up an U18s approach.

Has the AFL finally achieved what it has always wanted to achieve?

Yes, definitely a drop in standard, but more to do with tactics (what ST said). So much emphasis is placed on stopping goals rather than scoring them. No matter what the norm is - scoring or defending, the best teams always rise to the top half of the ladder.

Sorry Spelly don't get what you are trying to say.

If you are saying that U18s coaches are too defensive rather than offensive I would totally disagree with you.

The League clubs I mean. I've noticed the scoring is much more proficient in the 18s - the 19s and 17s over the past two years have been the same.

the 2 new AFL teams will have a dramatic impact on the standard of the SANFL, and for the worse IMHO.

whufc wrote:the 2 new AFL teams will have a dramatic impact on the standard of the SANFL, and for the worse IMHO.

Rationale for this?

MagareyLegend wrote:

whufc wrote:the 2 new AFL teams will have a dramatic impact on the standard of the SANFL, and for the worse IMHO.

Rationale for this?

what is there roughly 40 players on an AFL list, these players have to come from somewhere.

That will mean there will be 80 more kids in australia who won't be available to be recruited by SANFL teams.

The skills in the u18s match today between South and Eagles was poor by a lot of players and by some people that I don't care to mention on here as they appear in the Budget. NorMALly the standard has been pretty good allround.

whufc wrote:

MagareyLegend wrote:

whufc wrote:the 2 new AFL teams will have a dramatic impact on the standard of the SANFL, and for the worse IMHO.

Rationale for this?

what is there roughly 40 players on an AFL list, these players have to come from somewhere.

That will mean there will be 80 more kids in australia who won't be available to be recruited by SANFL teams.

Spot on. The AFL call it game development, but we all know it's simply an exercise in empire building.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

whufc wrote:

MagareyLegend wrote:

whufc wrote:the 2 new AFL teams will have a dramatic impact on the standard of the SANFL, and for the worse IMHO.

Rationale for this?

what is there roughly 40 players on an AFL list, these players have to come from somewhere.

That will mean there will be 80 more kids in australia who won't be available to be recruited by SANFL teams.

Spot on. The AFL call it game development, but we all know it's simply an exercise in empire building.

And highlights another example on why a governing body of a game shouldn't also be a League.

I think the SANFL need to look at the U18 set up again.

They put a request that if you are U18 and have not played league football then you should play U18s until after the carnival. Some clubs (north) didnt listen to this and played some of their players in the reserves early on, and North have been smashed in a few games.

The overage players puzzle me. The difference 6 overage players can make to any one side is massive. Norwood on the weekend played 3 or 4 U16s and they were smashed (20 goals in some windy and a little wet conditions). I can see that they would rather expose U16 players to a better standard of football rather than U19 players who cant get a reserves game.

The question also needs to be asked is if an overage player would really get any benefit from playing U18s as opposed to playing in Div 1 side when he is up against physically stronger players.