SA Footy

Listening to a bit of 5AA this week, particularly around the Glenelg coaching saga, and a lot of the feedback from Glenelg people has been that having so many AFL listed players available (whom the club is pretty much compelled to play if they dont want to risk losing them) has been a disruptive influence.

Im sure other clubs have felt the same way about it before, and then you look at a club like the Dogs who has minimal disruption (most of their AFL listed players generally seem to be original Doggies anyway).

Then look at say Westies who seem to perform much better when they have some decent quality AFL-listed's returning, so I guess it's swings and roundabouts.

Does the league need to consider spreading these numbers over future years to even them out a bit?

Im not suggesting taking players aligned with one SANFL club to another, but do we need to consider altering the mini-draft to try and keep the numbers similar across all clubs?

Personally I think if a club is rooted to the foot of the ladder, adding more AFL-listed players each season isn't necessarily of additional longer term benefit - It might help you get better and off the bottom but can also interfere with taking that next step to a genuine contender.

Just thought I would throw it out there for discussion to.

I think the AFL clubs have a lot to answer for here. They should really be encouraging thheir guys to perform at SANFL level and ensure their attitude is right if playing with the SANFL club. I think Neil Craig generally does this .

As you say it works for some clubs so maybe Glenelg is just an exception and there maybe otherreasons why their players are not performing.

How many non Glenelg origin players are aligned with the Bays?

JK wrote:Listening to a bit of 5AA this week, particularly around the Glenelg coaching saga, and a lot of the feedback from Glenelg people has been that having so many AFL listed players available (whom the club is pretty much compelled to play if they dont want to risk losing them) has been a disruptive influence.

Im sure other clubs have felt the same way about it before, and then you look at a club like the Dogs who has minimal disruption (most of their AFL listed players generally seem to be original Doggies anyway).

Then look at say Westies who seem to perform much better when they have some decent quality AFL-listed's returning, so I guess it's swings and roundabouts.
Does the league need to consider spreading these numbers over future years to even them out a bit?

Im not suggesting taking players aligned with one SANFL club to another, but do we need to consider altering the mini-draft to try and keep the numbers similar across all clubs?

Personally I think if a club is rooted to the foot of the ladder, adding more AFL-listed players each season isn't necessarily of additional longer term benefit - It might help you get better and off the bottom but can also interfere with taking that next step to a genuine contender.

Just thought I would throw it out there for discussion to.

It was only last year that there were games when we had no AFL players in our team at all. Sometimes I think they AFL players can be a hinderance too. Robbie Gray played a game a couple of years ago and it was "suggested" that he take things a little easy during the game.

Brodlach wrote:

JK wrote:Listening to a bit of 5AA this week, particularly around the Glenelg coaching saga, and a lot of the feedback from Glenelg people has been that having so many AFL listed players available (whom the club is pretty much compelled to play if they dont want to risk losing them) has been a disruptive influence.

Im sure other clubs have felt the same way about it before, and then you look at a club like the Dogs who has minimal disruption (most of their AFL listed players generally seem to be original Doggies anyway).

Then look at say Westies who seem to perform much better when they have some decent quality AFL-listed's returning, so I guess it's swings and roundabouts.
Does the league need to consider spreading these numbers over future years to even them out a bit?

Im not suggesting taking players aligned with one SANFL club to another, but do we need to consider altering the mini-draft to try and keep the numbers similar across all clubs?

Personally I think if a club is rooted to the foot of the ladder, adding more AFL-listed players each season isn't necessarily of additional longer term benefit - It might help you get better and off the bottom but can also interfere with taking that next step to a genuine contender.

Just thought I would throw it out there for discussion to.

It was only last year that there were games when we had no AFL players in our team at all. Sometimes I think they AFL players can be a hinderance too. Robbie Gray played a game a couple of years ago and it was "suggested" that he take things a little easy during the game.

I only see Westies results and lineups without actually seeing them play much, so I might have been off the mark with that assumption mate, but it just seems as though they play much better if they have say a Davenport, Pettigrew, Lobbe or Moran in their lineup.

At Norwood, last season I think Will Young and Walker (for 3 or 4 games) were the only AFL listed players we had to accommodate and this season we've had Walker x 2, Phillips x 2, Young x 2, Rodan x 1 and Jonas (rookie list) so we really haven't had much disruption and I think it's been a helpful factor in developing the players that we can rely on having week in and week out (injury permitting).

Go back to the Trevor Hill years though, and unless we got lucky with Lower, Walker, Massie or Thomas we were pretty much rubbish.

Personally, I think it's pretty fair at the moment. Obviously part of the reason Centrals (for example) have less players, is the mini draft is the reverse of the finishing order at the end of the season. Last year, Central received no selection in the draft.
I believe it's an advantage to have the players, and get the draft pick. It's extra depth without the cost. If a club thinks it's not in their best interest, they can pass in the draft. Or they can drop a player to the reserves and if that player is then transferred to another club, so be it. Central lost Surjan for playing him in the reserves and Lockwood also to Port (for a dubious reason). Gunston, Henderson and Symes have all been a benefit when they've returned. All have played well (another point against the reserves idea).
I like the system at the moment as each club can decide how they use the system, once they have a player.

The Eagles seem to have found a way to do this pretty well too.
Think it comes down to the players attitude, rather than whether they are locals originally. Chris Knights and Luke Thompson always put in, McKenzie came back to the Eagles, at times Brett Burton's interest in playing at the Eagles was questioned, and then there are blokes like Luke Peel and Mitch Banner who doesn't really bother if you have them or not.

What could happen, and this might be a bit idealistic, is for the AFL and SANFL clubs to collaborate on interstate draftees to see which club would be able to give a player the best opportunity in his position. Again, this could mean them going to more bottom clubs, but, for instance, did Centrals really need ruckmen like Griffin and Giles and would it have been better for their careers if they were allocated to another SANFL club in need of a ruckman? Perhaps this is an area the AFL clubs need more say, without them sending all their draftees to the one club?

Giles was a Kapunda boy, wasn't he?
That'd mean he was one of our anyway.

FlyingHigh wrote:The Eagles seem to have found a way to do this pretty well too.
Think it comes down to the players attitude, rather than whether they are locals originally. Chris Knights and Luke Thompson always put in, McKenzie came back to the Eagles, at times Brett Burton's interest in playing at the Eagles was questioned, and then there are blokes like Luke Peel and Mitch Banner who doesn't really bother if you have them or not.

What could happen, and this might be a bit idealistic, is for the AFL and SANFL clubs to collaborate on interstate draftees to see which club would be able to give a player the best opportunity in his position. Again, this could mean them going to more bottom clubs, but, for instance, did Centrals really need ruckmen like Griffin and Giles and would it have been better for their careers if they were allocated to another SANFL club in need of a ruckman? Perhaps this is an area the AFL clubs need more say, without them sending all their draftees to the one club?

Yes, we needed Giles and Griffen. Giles was a local. However, perhaps if we didn't have Griffen we would have kept Giles for a bit longer (in hindsight, and in the end didn't matter anyway re success).
Also, a majority of the draftees we have got Stevens, Guerra, Williams, Henderson, Gunston, even though "late" draft picks have all been very good for the club and good club men. There's a few exceptions.

no thanks, I don't want too many, it seems to work in reverse.

Im more concerned about evening out the amount of AFL listed players that are ALLOWED to play in SANFL finals

Good topic this.

I would think the Crows and Power should have a say in where some go ie: Rucks and Key Position Players, but midfielders probably not cos every club needs multiple in that area.

West is a good example, they have Moran and Lobbe plus a couple of their own. If they play the AFL guys wouldnt it affect the development of their own players? I would think so. Especially if they are all playing well.

Wheres as if they were spread around and go to a club weak in rucks might be more beneficial to all.

Cheers

Dont forget that Moran has barely played for the past 2 years, Davenport played most of his games last year with the Power, Pettigrew was injured most of last year and has played with the Power more than West this year. Lobbe certainly last year played a fair bit and was good for us. This year its a different story. We expected him to miss league selection by playing with the Power but this year, due to injury, his form has been terrible and has been playing reserves.

peterc wrote:Good topic this.

I would think the Crows and Power should have a say in where some go ie: Rucks and Key Position Players, but midfielders probably not cos every club needs multiple in that area.

West is a good example, they have Moran and Lobbe plus a couple of their own. If they play the AFL guys wouldnt it affect the development of their own players? I would think so. Especially if they are all playing well.

Wheres as if they were spread around and go to a club weak in rucks might be more beneficial to all.

Cheers

When Port Power have a say, don't most of them seem to go to Port Magpies? Generally, for some reason that's deemed to be the best place for the players development.

JK wrote:Listening to a bit of 5AA this week, particularly around the Glenelg coaching saga, and a lot of the feedback from Glenelg people has been that having so many AFL listed players available (whom the club is pretty much compelled to play if they dont want to risk losing them) has been a disruptive influence.

A big YES to the above. One more way in which the AFL has negative influence on the SANFL.

It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if any of the non-original AFL players were transferred to other clubs (between seasons, natch) where the Crows and Power can wreak havoc as they see fit. OTOH I would be severely bothered to see any born-and-bred Bays (Cornesey!) lining up with other teams.

I have occasionally thought that the distribution of AFL recruits to the SANFL clubs should be more a process of "histogram equalisation" rather than round-robin in reverse premiership order. That is, take any non-aligned AFL recruits and allocate them to the clubs having the least number of AFL listed players - with the goal of having the distribution of AFL talent converge to uniformity.

Unfortunately that system - and in fact no system - can anticipate how much time any given player is likely to spend at his SANFL club, his AFL club, or injured. No system can anticipate which players will be consistent SANFL/AFL players, and which will be fringe players, in and out of the SANFL teams like a yo yo. This makes a mockery of the stupid AFL rule which requires dropped AFL players to play 3 weeks in the SANFL before being dropped to SANFL reserves.

So evening out the player-distribution would be treating the symptom of the problem, not the cause. The real fix is this: Allow the SANFL clubs to play AFL talent how they see fit in the senior team. Allow SANFL clubs to drop AFL talent to the reserves as form warrants. If the AFL club insists on having a bloke play in a given position/role/etc, then it has the right to insist that player lines up in the reserves and fills that role. The AFL club has no right to demand a SANFL league team pander to its wishes when those wishes run contrary to the raison d'etre of the league team: to win a league premiership. Follow these rules and it will not matter how many AFL players are listed with any given SANFL team.

sjt wrote:When Port Power have a say, don't most of them seem to go to Port Magpies? Generally, for some reason that's deemed to be the best place for the players development.

Two words: Ryan Willits.

Mitch Farmer

Pseudo wrote:

sjt wrote:When Port Power have a say, don't most of them seem to go to Port Magpies? Generally, for some reason that's deemed to be the best place for the players development.

Two words: Ryan Willits.

three words: Lockwood, Surjan, Gilligan.

Mitch Banner also went to Port. Was Gilligan at the Crows?

sjt wrote:

FlyingHigh wrote:The Eagles seem to have found a way to do this pretty well too.
Think it comes down to the players attitude, rather than whether they are locals originally. Chris Knights and Luke Thompson always put in, McKenzie came back to the Eagles, at times Brett Burton's interest in playing at the Eagles was questioned, and then there are blokes like Luke Peel and Mitch Banner who doesn't really bother if you have them or not.

What could happen, and this might be a bit idealistic, is for the AFL and SANFL clubs to collaborate on interstate draftees to see which club would be able to give a player the best opportunity in his position. Again, this could mean them going to more bottom clubs, but, for instance, did Centrals really need ruckmen like Griffin and Giles and would it have been better for their careers if they were allocated to another SANFL club in need of a ruckman? Perhaps this is an area the AFL clubs need more say, without them sending all their draftees to the one club?

Yes, we needed Giles and Griffen. Giles was a local. However, perhaps if we didn't have Griffen we would have kept Giles for a bit longer (in hindsight, and in the end didn't matter anyway re success).
Also, a majority of the draftees we have got Stevens, Guerra, Williams, Henderson, Gunston, even though "late" draft picks have all been very good for the club and good club men. There's a few exceptions.

Thanks sjt & DW, my mistake about Giles