SA Footy

Here's hoping.

Unfortunately it will never happen.

why dont you ask the sanfl

magpie in the 80's wrote:why dont you ask the sanfl

I think he was looking for an intelligent response!!!

I assume the recent change was driven by economics, in which case it won't change back..

Personally I would love it go back to the u17s and u19s, but it will only go back to that years from now. Basically not for a while if ever.

MightyEagles wrote:Personally I would love it go back to the u17s and u19s, but it will only go backthat years from now. Basically not for a while if ever.

i heard the Vics are thinking about going back to 17's & 19's.

burglar wrote:

MightyEagles wrote:Personally I would love it go back to the u17s and u19s, but it will only go backthat years from now. Basically not for a while if ever.

i heard the Vics are thinking about going back to 17's & 19's.

You heard wrong, wont ever happen in our life time.

burglar wrote:

MightyEagles wrote:Personally I would love it go back to the u17s and u19s, but it will only go backthat years from now. Basically not for a while if ever.

i heard the Vics are thinking about going back to 17's & 19's.

Well if they do, then it wont be long before the SANFL follows suite

NO

What would be the advantages of reverting back to 2 unerage levels in the SANFL?

& Pigs Fly wrote:

magpie in the 80's wrote:why dont you ask the sanfl

I think he was looking for an intelligent response!!!

you'd be the one to ask for an intelligent response wouldnt ya?

1. Allow late developers to stay in the league club structure later - the Ty Allens of the world. The guns (Trengroves, Gibbs, Nick Fosdikes of this world) will always amke no matter what system we need to think of waht is the best system to allow for the development of SANFL league players too.
2. Allow country kids to stay at home and finish year 12 (U/17) and then come down and have two years learning elite footy while trying to adjust to city life rather than having to make it in 1 year.
3. The longer the time a kid is in the club stucture the more likely they are liely to stay and build an affinity for it. If they don't make it they become supporters/sponsors. Talking to ex-juniors of the bay who didn't make they still hold the club in high regard and still go to games - with their kids.
4. Smart clubs didn't treat the 17s as a KPI for how many future league players but as the R&D arm of their club. Kids get tried in different position, mix and match, experiment with country kids for the odd game etc. Most didn't make it but you occasionally found a diamond, like this small skinny kid a the Bay who finally got his chance Rd 6 1990 - seven goals later Craig McRae....

Not to mention the 30-odd who will finish up with the club and play out their adult years at amatuer league clubs. Not convinced, sorry.

Didn't exepct you to be, they are my opinions. I'm sure there are plaenty of others on here willing to put a counter argument.

A BIG FAT NO, thanks to the AFL, who pushed the SANFL into making the decision

I think it's worked well with the U18 competition. I doubt any players have really been lost to the system that wouldn't have been lost anyway in the near future. The triple headers have been good and from what I hear the standard is much better overall.

How they deal with the U16's is interesting. I can see why they might not want to have a full season but it can be hard to manage what these guys do for the second half of the year.

I know of a number of Sturt players that would still have been eligible to play U19 and cannot break into the reserves. They are lost to the club, as a are their families, helpers and quite possibly their siblings.

If you want to put all your eggs in the U18 basket then so be it, the majority of clubs have decreed it so. But why invent a mickey mouse half baked effort like the U16s?

To answer the thread question, they would certainly not revert back this soon after only one year.

To me the U18 concept is about the sanfl making that the second tier.
That will take time to achieve, but the little tweaks going on here and there, will surely make it so eventually.

And as the commission seems to be headed at present, they appear to be getting ever less likely to reinstate the 4 team competition as we knew it.

Despite losing families of the juniors, my greatest fear is losing the relevance of a robust reserves competition. That would expose the backside of the league competition to too much inflence and pressure from those who would in turn potentially seek to diminish its current relevance to the SA footy public.

.......and I think everyone knows who that might be.

ca wrote:I think it's worked well with the U18 competition. I doubt any players have really been lost to the system that wouldn't have been lost anyway in the near future. The triple headers have been good and from what I hear the standard is much better overall.

How they deal with the U16's is interesting. I can see why they might not want to have a full season but it can be hard to manage what these guys do for the second half of the year.

Standard is much better? Looking at the average scores I think not.

And consider this. It was supposed to reduce the amount of blow out margins.

100+ margins:
2008: 10 (96 matches) 10.4%
2009: 12 (86 matches) 14.0%

50+ margins:
2008: 43 (96 matches) 44.8%
2009: 35 (86 matches) 40.7%

10- margins:
2008: 18 (96 matches) 18.8%
2009: 8 (86 matches) 9.3%

The average winning margin:
2008: 48.96
2009: 53.31

The median winning margin:
2008: 43.5
2009: 42

In other words, when considering the same exodus to college football and the above, it's just the same with a flashy name!