Draft - SANFL winners and losers.

[am Bays]

1. I didn't know "support" for a development structure was the determing factor in players getting drafted.

2. As I've said ad nauseum I don't believe the change in stucture will have any significant effect on the amount of AFL draftees as the biggest determinant in a kid getting drafted is the kid himself not the structure. They are the ones with the talent. With kids getting drafted at 17-18 their time in teh SANFL clubs is short and AFL clubs take over their development into high perforamce athletes.

3. Where I think it is a negative is for the late developers - the future SANFL league players. They are less talented than AFL palyers so they need more nurturing and dvelopment that those that got picked up on Saturday. They need to stay in the club structure longer - six over age U/19s is not enough.

So as I've always said my beef with the change is nothing to do with the amount of AFL kid getting drafted as despite what the Clubs, SANFL and MR Phillips think their impact on a player being picked is negligible comapred to the impact of the root the kids parents had 18 years before hand giving the kid their genetic ability to play high level sport.

In a practical sense as a S&C coach my fitness programs aren't worth the paper they are written on unless the kid wants to do the work and has the genetic ability to work at a high level.

It is the impact on the development of SANFL footballers where I have my beef with the change of structure.

[redandblack]

Quotes from TM:

1 A 225% increase on SANFL draftees in 2008, surely that is a reflection of our current outstanding development and player pathways (17s, 19s, ressies and 1s) seems a shame we are going to lose that....

2. As I've said ad nauseum I don't believe the change in stucture will have any significant effect on the amount of AFL draftees as the biggest determinant in a kid getting drafted is the kid himself not the structure.

I'm a bit confused with your argument, TM

[redandblack]

To clarify further, how do you make a program develop players to SANFL standard and no further?

[am Bays]

1 A 225% increase on SANFL draftees in 2008, surely that is a reflection of our current outstanding development and player pathways (17s, 19s, ressies and 1s) seems a shame we are going to lose that....

*sigh*

R&B I'll say it very slowly for for the third time in this thread, I only raised the "change in structure" argument as it was used to justify the change by the SANFL when we only had 4 SANFL players drafted in Nov 2007. Now when we have 13....

As we both agreed stats can be used to justify any argument.

As I've consistantly said for the past four months the change in system will have negligible effect (IMO) on the amount of draftees as it comes down to talent and work ethic the kids have and the OPINIONS of AFL clubs (it is a subjective process) not the structure of the underpinning programs.

It is the effect on the development on SANFL league players that I am most fearful of - the late developers - that this change in structure will have.

I'm not that interested in AFL draftees I care about the SANFL

[Dogwatcher]

Hear hear Tassie.

The AFL can, and will, look after itself.

SANFL clubs should be proud of the number of players they have drafted. But that should not be their focus.

[redandblack]

Let's call it a day on this, it has become a circular argument.

[am Bays]

Let's call it a day on this, it has become a circular argument.

Agreed, I will say that I respect your points of view on this matter R&B.

[redandblack]

Ditto, TM, you're also passionate about your footy and I always enjoy our debates

[SimonH]

Here's as good a thread as anywhere: One 'winner' out of the whole AFL list management process has been Norwood.

At the start of 2008 it had 11 players attached to it who were on an AFL club list (Cockshell, Bassett, Jericho, Hugh Minson, Campbell, Massie, Walker, Kite, Thomas, N Lower, Rodan). This was probably the highest in the SANFL. Lots of these players were fringe players at their AFL clubs who were in a bit, then out a bit. Fair criticism was levelled that the on-field instability of such a huge number of AFL-listed players didn't help the club moving forward in being an on-field force (none of Centrals' flags have been won off the back of AFL-listed players).

Fast forward to the end of 2008 and we've reduced that number by 6 (the first 6 in the above list) with 4 delistings and 2 retirements. The only realistic hope to still get back on an AFL list is Cockshell, and if he is drafted/rookied it will be by Richmond, so one way or t'other he won't be added back to the list. We will get one more player in the mini-draft and maybe have one or two of our youngsters rookied by Port or Crows, but we'll certainly be back to a far more manageable number of AFL-listed players in 2009.

And even better: we've signed on 2 of the old AFL-listers (Campbell and Massie) as full-time Norwood players; with Jericho and Cockshell still possibilities to go that way too.

[Ecky]

Tassie, I'd just like your take on the following observation.

Four SANFL clubs opposed the change to the underage competition. They were Port, Centrals, Sturt and Glenelg.

Those four clubs contributed the grand total of 2 players between them to the drafted players total this year.

The Clubs who supported the change contributed 11 of the 13.

Perhaps there's a lesson there for those clubs, or perhaps readers can draw their own conclusions about those clubs.

Interesting.

And yet, Glenelg, Sturt and Port were 3 of the top 4 sides in the Under 19s competition.
So a theory could be...
If you want to get players drafted, promote your juniors to the Reserves and League teams. (Like the Eagles did)
If you want to keep players and win premierships, keep your juniors in the Under 19s.

Which is the better strategy?

(Note: I'm just throwing around ideas, I don't even totally believe that theory myself...)