Page 1 of 2
Compromised

Posted:
Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:15 am
by Mark_Beswick
On top of all the reasons we shouldn't have an AFL side in the SANFL league rotations is that word compromised.
We will have top up players not deserving of a league game against their name playing at league level. They will have father-son rights in the future.
Kids will be credited league games that would otherwise have had to earn their stripes with their league clubs, not given games to make up the 21 required for a game. Its the same reason those old night cup gaes are not as valued as H&A premiership point games.
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:13 pm
by JamesH
Football isnt football at any level any more
The amateur league pays,
Country footy is more attractive than league footy for some
There is no incentive to play or go to games anymore as there is back-to-back footy on TV
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:52 pm
by SANFLnut
Surely that has already occurred with the introduction of the Crows and Power? SANFL league games post 1990 are very different on your cv than those in the 80s and earlier. There would be heaps of current league regulars that would not have got a sniff in the 80s.
I'm not happy with having AFL teams in SANFL comp because they can't be trusted to try. Once their senior team is not going to play finals they will shut up shop very quickly. They have pulled 6,8,10 players out from SANFL clubs combined in a week before and no reason they won't do it in the last couple of rounds with their own team. Would certainly rather play Power reserves in rd 23 this year rather than round 1.
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:20 pm
by Ronnie
SANFLnut wrote:Surely that has already occurred with the introduction of the Crows and Power? SANFL league games post 1990 are very different on your cv than those in the 80s and earlier. There would be heaps of current league regulars that would not have got a sniff in the 80s. I'm not happy with having AFL teams in SANFL comp because they can't be trusted to try. Once their senior team is not going to play finals they will shut up shop very quickly. They have pulled 6,8,10 players out from SANFL clubs combined in a week before and no reason they won't do it in the last couple of rounds with their own team. Would certainly rather play Power reserves in rd 23 this year rather than round 1.
To a small degree. I remember thinking (with respect to old Woodville supporters) how some of their lesser players from the early 80s were really getting league games by default almost. In essence to me league football has stayed true to it's standards over many years. M Beswick has raised an excellent point, if so called 'top up' players are juniors shoved straight into league football just to fill a side it's hard to think of a better way to cheapen the notion of what a league game really is about.
It's also hard to believe that the AFL club's can think that a serious competition should even consider devaluing their own competition, whatever the power imbalance is.
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:17 pm
by SDK
Ask players like Luke Brown, Mitch Grigg, Tom Jonas, even Taylor Walker where they would prefer to play when they are not in the Crows or Power A team ! These players grew up as Norwood players and still have strong affinity with the club as such will try and thus improve their performance as opposed to playing for some meaningless souless manufactured reserves side.
I am using Norwood players as an example only because I know them. The same principal applies to Eagles, Centrals, North etc. Would Ian Callahan, Brad Symes, etc prefer to play for Centrals or what !!!?????
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:49 pm
by teaoby
I think they would like to play wherever they have the greatest chance to get picked for the AFL side who is their employer, and in all those guys eyes the pinnacle of current day football.
It would be nice to see these guys continue to play for their local club, but lets be honest the SANFL has endured for the last 20 years of AFL in South Australia and it will continue to through this imo! look on the bright side, it will give you an added team to loathe!
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:15 pm
by Ecky
But it is very hard to loathe a team that doesn't care if they win or not when they play against you.
It doesn't matter what the level of sport is, when one team isn't trying 100% to win then everyone loses interest in the game very quickly - both players and spectators.
That is the big issue here that those in favour of the proposal don't seem to understand. At the moment, even though there are AFL listed players in the SANFL, they at least (or 99% of them do...) respect the clubs they are playing for and do their best to help their team win, and even if they don't truly care, they are in a very small minority so it has very little impact on the competition. But as soon as a team is in the competition purely for developmental purposes, the whole atmosphere around the games will change and the true integrity of the competition that has always existed in 100+ years will be gone.
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:12 pm
by PhilH
Some would say we would have a form of "tanking" (ie winning not the main aim) in up to 40% of our games each week.
Or you could at least refer to it has having 40% of matches like the NAB Cup where one team thinks that yes winning is nice but its not the main goal.
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:38 pm
by SDK
All reasons to xxxx off out of our SANFL we dont want it !
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:43 am
by FlyingHigh
SANFLnut wrote:Surely that has already occurred with the introduction of the Crows and Power? SANFL league games post 1990 are very different on your cv than those in the 80s and earlier. There would be heaps of current league regulars that would not have got a sniff in the 80s.
I'm not happy with having AFL teams in SANFL comp because they can't be trusted to try. Once their senior team is not going to play finals they will shut up shop very quickly. They have pulled 6,8,10 players out from SANFL clubs combined in a week before and no reason they won't do it in the last couple of rounds with their own team. Would certainly rather play Power reserves in rd 23 this year rather than round 1.
Agree. This is why they have to be in the SANFL reserves.
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:12 pm
by SANFLnut
Perhaps the "saviour" of the SANFL will be allowing them into SANFL comp and then charging them with a Melbournesque crime of tanking games. Fine each of them ,say $250k (obviously Port just submit an IOU) and then ban them from the comp on a second offence.
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:05 pm
by Groucho
We don't want them at all. Even having them in the reserves competition comprises the League. Apply to VFL or SAAFL even the WAFL or NEAFL.
No crows or Power in the SANFL. Period.
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Mon Apr 08, 2013 9:31 am
by FOURTH ESTATE
We in the SAAFL don't want them either!!!!
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:22 pm
by Hazydog
Speaking of compromised - and to highlight how the current set up compromises the League - Centrals had no AFL aligned players in either League or Reserves on Saturday night. Take Stewart & Johnston out of North's attack for starters and it looks a bit less imposing. Just another reason to remove all AFL aligned players from the SANFL all together.
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:36 pm
by Wedgie
Hazydog wrote:Speaking of compromised - and to highlight how the current set up compromises the League - Centrals had no AFL aligned players in either League or Reserves on Saturday night. Take Stewart & Johnston out of North's attack for starters and it looks a bit less imposing. Just another reason to remove all AFL aligned players from the SANFL all together.
North must have had AFL players in the Under 16 and Under 18s too then with big wins happening in all 4 grades.
Its not like Central could ever be beaten by a better club at any level.
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:22 pm
by robranisgod
Hazydog wrote:Speaking of compromised - and to highlight how the current set up compromises the League - Centrals had no AFL aligned players in either League or Reserves on Saturday night. Take Stewart & Johnston out of North's attack for starters and it looks a bit less imposing. Just another reason to remove all AFL aligned players from the SANFL all together.
So I assume the premierships that Central one with AFL listed players like Dew, Guerra, S Cochrane and Symes were all compromised too?
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:31 pm
by topsywaldron
Hazydog wrote: Centrals had no AFL aligned players in either League or Reserves on Saturday night. Take Stewart & Johnston out of North's attack for starters and it looks a bit less imposing.
LMAO.
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:33 pm
by Dogwatcher
Another quality contribution.
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:35 pm
by am Bays
Hazydog wrote:Speaking of compromised - and to highlight how the current set up compromises the League - Centrals had no AFL aligned players in either League or Reserves on Saturday night. Take Stewart & Johnston out of North's attack for starters and it looks a bit less imposing. Just another reason to remove all AFL aligned players from the SANFL all together.
Hooray!!!
Based on that logic, Glenelg Football Club 2008 SANFL Premiers.
We were the first club since the XXXX (date doesn't exist any more

) GF not to have an AFL listed player. Centrals had Westhoff, Williams, Nash etc playing.
Re: Compromised

Posted:
Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:39 pm
by topsywaldron
Dogwatcher wrote:Another quality contribution.
Don't be bitter sweetheart.
When a poster writes merde like that it gets what it deserves, naked derision.