SA Footy

Yesturday @ Glenelg (2 PM)

Eagles 0.1 1.1 2.2 4.2.26
Glenelg 5.6 11.8 17.11 23.14.152

Played crap, we get the ball to half forward and the ball came out.

I guess the positive we can take out of this game is we were able to double our goals each quarter. Glenelg were only able to add 6 goals per quarter. Therefore, had the game gone for 8 quarters, we probably would have won. By 17 goals. Well done Eags.

Port won by 102 points over North. Terrible game of footy.

North looked very very average. I know they had 4 or 5 out of there best side, but so did Port.

Buhlmann kicked 7 for Port and Sam Gray had 30 touches and both should be considered for reserve football in the coming weeks.

We had about 9 changes, but still we played like crap.

West 25.15.165
Legs 6.9.45

Thiele wrote:West 25.15.165
Legs 6.9.45

Another one sided game, this is the one sided game round.

mmmmmm, all beltings by over 100 points, is this good for our young up and coming footballers in SA.

dont forget that the U/18's is a mixture of U/18's and U/19's players.

South beat Centrals by 5 goals.Agree all other games were very lop-sided.100 points the margin in all other games.I think results will vary a bit now with the state championships still on and kids playing up,but would hope we would get a few more competitive games thru out a round.

kookas wrote:dont forget that the U/18's is a mixture of U/18's and U/19's players.

Your point? Serious question.

We are now seeing the standard drop of this 18's comp and the very reasons why it should not have been implemented in the first place. Don't be fooled by artificial results at 18 national carnival. This would have happened anyway with this batch of very good kids. Anyone could have coached em to second. The underlying problems still exist. Ask the 120 junior footballers that are not playing SANFL footy anymore because of the change to the structure. Either 16's or 19's. Talk about short sightedness. But then again the SANFL as a whole is in decline as shown by our ranking as a the third state now. It is a real shame that those with other agenda's have damaged our game for future generations.

Interesting to note a current League Commissioner and Hall of Famer was an interested observer at the Bay on Saturday as the Bays U/18s with 10 first choice players out gave the Eags a touch up.

Would have no doubt just been watching his future Bays league players go around....

am Bays wrote:Interesting to note a current League Commissioner and Hall of Famer was an interested observer at the Bay on Saturday as the Bays U/18s with 10 first choice players out gave the Eags a touch up.

Would have no doubt just been watching his future Bays league players go around....

Don't make it too hard to guess ... I'm assuming he'll get some matchday acknowledgement of his recent achievement soon considering the boys are at home for the next month and he's back in Adelaide?

has been wrote:We are now seeing the standard drop of this 18's comp and the very reasons why it should not have been implemented in the first place. Don't be fooled by artificial results at 18 national carnival. This would have happened anyway with this batch of very good kids. Anyone could have coached em to second. The underlying problems still exist. Ask the 120 junior footballers that are not playing SANFL footy anymore because of the change to the structure. Either 16's or 19's. Talk about short sightedness. But then again the SANFL as a whole is in decline as shown by our ranking as a the third state now. It is a real shame that those with other agenda's have damaged our game for future generations.

You are ill-infomed. This was never seen to be a good batch of U18 kids. Those 120 junior footballers were not up to SANFL standard and are better suited to suburban football.

The standard has definetly dropped since the carnival started.

SA representatives missing, injuries starting to take a couple of players out as well so the standard is starting to drop.

On top of this those with talent will be given games in the reserves now.

The standard in the last half of the year will not be as good as the first half.

Those that are disadvantaged by under 18's (the 120 refered to above) may not have made SANFL football but are now missing out on the development that they could have received.

Those that are advantaged by this structure is the under 17's who are exposed to a better level of competition than they would have been exposed to last year. This is going to be the group that will be interesting to watch their development. If these guys develop better then the argument for under 18's will be vindicated.

As for this group not having the depth of last year, that is debateable. Certainly it does not have the top end talent (AFL talent) that last years had but I personally think more of this group will make good SANFL footballers than last year.

This is going to be such a judgemental arguement but from one who was against it I still think the main thing is to improve the coaching at junior level and then we will reap the rewards.

Magarey Legend - you Tossa. 120 kids out of a SANFL environment plus their families etc - how can that be good for their development and hence the game at the grass roots. They might not be good enough now but 12 or 24 months down the track .........

Whatever - he sums it up in one. Make the coaching better and the standard improves. Those clubs that thought by changing to 18's would miraculously make the standard better have no idea. Ironic isn't it that the clubs that were top in 17's and 19's (ie Glenelg, port, sturt) are also the top 3 in 18's and the bottom clubs are still the same ......... but then again winning is a by product of good development programs and a teacher of good habits. Competition is healthy and develops charachter and culture.

This group of 18's may surprise a few at the end of the day. The SANFL is definately in decline and it needs the people running these programs to get their acts together including some of you guys on here making judgements.

wycbloods wrote:

kookas wrote:dont forget that the U/18's is a mixture of U/18's and U/19's players.

Your point? Serious question.

My point is that each team is allowed to play up to 6 U/19's players each week. These players are meant to be the ones that are just out of reserves selection but are the next crop. The comp should have been an all U/18's competition.
My views though are why tamper with something that was working well for so many years, the U/17's and U/19's competition was a great one. We decided to change just to please the AFL is all wrong.

kookas wrote:

wycbloods wrote:

kookas wrote:dont forget that the U/18's is a mixture of U/18's and U/19's players.

Your point? Serious question.

My point is that each team is allowed to play up to 6 U/19's players each week. These players are meant to be the ones that are just out of reserves selection but are the next crop. The comp should have been an all U/18's competition.
My views though are why tamper with something that was working well for so many years, the U/17's and U/19's competition was a great one. We decided to change just to please the AFL is all wrong.

But it wasn't working well and it was unaffordably expensive what planet have you people been on?

... and it is the model that the thriving states (eg WA, Victoria) have already implemented.

The only thing that is stopping this from working even better is:

1- the College system
2 - some pigheaded SANFL clubs who have gone against the spirit of the new system (eg NAFC & WWTFC) and pushed U18 players up too early because they cleaned out their Reserves lists prematurely.

Out of interest ML as you appear to be in the know.

I was wondering if you could enlighten me on the cost side of things as I have no idea.

1 - what did it cost the SANFL clubs to run under 19 and under 17's

2 - what is the budgeted cost of running the under 18's and under 16's

3 - what does it cost to run a TAC team in victoria, or at least what is there budget.

I would suggest (I admit that I dont know) that the TAC competition is a lot more expensive than the SANFL and I would suspect that there is no difference in cost to the SANFL clubs between the two systems.

MagareyLegend wrote:The only thing that is stopping this from working even better is:

1- the College system
2 - some pigheaded SANFL clubs who have gone against the spirit of the new system (eg NAFC & WWTFC) and pushed U18 players up too early because they cleaned out their Reserves lists prematurely.

I must agree both of these have a major impact on the standard of competition.

Private school football - this is an issue that if the schools were to put the game before the school they would insist on kids playing for sanfl clubs instead of the school team. This is not going to happen because of their self interest. And yes I am considering sending my sons to one of these said schools.

SANFL clubs pushing up kids has not helped the situation although it was going to eventually happen. I am actually on the SANFL side in that I think it is better for these kids to play the first half of the year in the under 18's.