Draft Rewards

[redandblack]

I think you've missed my point. But it's OK, your club is doing so much better than mine.

Well, I think that just confirms what I've been saying about the response.

As for Wedgie's contribution, I have to say that I think that was a well thought out answer with some good points (even about the salary cap debate, unfortunately)

[smac]

When we West supporters ask for facts in these discussions, all we get is hearsay and 'observations'.

Would anyone like to answer my question - How do you develop players to be drafted? Are the other 8 clubs deliberately holding back the development of their players so that they'll only play to good SANFL standard? If so, how do they manage that? If not, are they not doing their job properly?

OK, I'll excuse myself from self imposed laziness and have a crack at this for you, would hate you to think the internet was created to make West Adelaide supporters feel persecuted.

All clubs have development programs. The one at Centrals, without giving away any trade secrets, offers different development programs for different players, based on skill, attitude and other attributes that the club feels important. This puts some players on a track to play AFL footy. Others on a track to play SANFL footy. Others are on a path that does not ultimately involve our club. Not all players make it to the end of their track, but the tracks exist.

There is no effort to develop players only for SANFL or only for AFL, but a combination of both.

[am Bays]

Hey r&b, hearsay and observations, reminds me of the salary cap debate!

In all seriousness I agree with r&b, in fact if a SANFL club was developing players to only play SANFL and not AFL then they're not doing their job IMHO.
I think it comes down to good/bad luck too and things do go in cycles, also I think a lot of Westies youngsters come from the southern suburbs who don't have a lot of affinity to the SANFL let alone West Adelaide. They might have a few 2nd level players that might play on if they were brought up in the local area of a club where SANFL was more popular.

It can't be argued that West aren't developing their youngsters as obviously they are with the draft results they've had.

When it comes to recruiting players a club could be blamed for recruiting the wrong sort of player, ie interstaters who soon move on or dget drafted but when it comes to developing players yet having most of them move onto SANFL its just plain bad luck for the club involved.

Not sure if it would work but perhaps the best way around it would be to eliminate the salary cap but implement a points system similar to the NBL where a player might be rated a 10 if he's Ben Hart or similar but a 1 if he's a junior. Points could be allocated differently to different clubs if they lose different amounts of players in the draft, just a thought. Would be easier to administer than the salary cap too as its completely transparent.

Noone is suggesting West aren't developing youngster their AFL results suggest that (mind you for some kids your most significant development work is done at the SANFL zone table when they are drawn up or when you recruit their father to play for your club a la Glenelg with Bryce Gibbs - some kids are destined to make it no matter what) However it is that next tier down where good development comes into where you can develop both AFL and SANFL players as smac suggested. SANFL clubs get paid good money by the AFL/SANFL to develop both AFL and SANFL players.

[Squawk]

What about 1 premiership point for every player drafted? That would offer incentive!

OK, shout me down, but would clubs have a different view if this was the case?

[redandblack]

Thanks for that answer, smac.

I think I just get tired of people getting stuck into Westies just because of recent results, with kneejerk reactions and arguments devoid of any facts, so I apprecaite you taking the time to answer properly. I might disagree, but at least it's a considered answer.

The wheel turns and I'll enjoy it when it does.

[captain dangerous]

Westies recent history suggest they do a pretty good job getting young fellas drafted, but as tassie referred to in the second post on this topic, they have struggled with the kids left over. Buckley, Hutchins, Caire and Bricknell were players listed to be the next senior group a couple of years back. My theory is these kids played way before they were ready, and were not able to develop in the junior program. The best clubs introduce one or two kids at a time, play them on wings and flanks with lots of experience around them.

The kids i mentioned confidence looks shot, because they get in the second best comp in the country, play against men and struggle. Most of these kids have gone backwards since.
Even with the senior team struggling these new kids need to be held back, nurtured and slowly introduced, otherwise i fear they will suffer the same fate as their slightly older mates.

[am Bays]

The kids i mentioned confidence looks shot, because they get in the second best comp in the country, play against men and struggle. Most of these kids have gone backwards since.
Even with the senior team struggling these new kids need to be held back, nurtured and slowly introduced, otherwise i fear they will suffer the same fate as their slightly older mates.

Which is why I am such a strong advocate of teh U/19s - I can handle the 17s being modified.

Next year to keep talented 18 yo in our club some of them you will have to play them in the reserves this means you will have to make harsh calls on 19 and 20 years olds who aren't quite yet up to league standard but in two years time could be.

They go off to metro league clubs develop bad habits and become could've beens who never was'

For the sake of 12 months we could have the best of both worlds a strong 19s comp to develop our 18 draftable stars (some will play league and reserves too) and you can have a competition that also allows clubs to develop good SANFL league players.

[redandblack]

Tassie, you keep ignoring the fact that next year a Club can play 6 Under 19 players at any game and they can be a different 6 each week, if necessary.

That gives plenty of sciope for a player to be looked after in the Under 18's.

[am Bays]

Tassie, you keep ignoring the fact that next year a Club can play 6 Under 19 players at any game and they can be a different 6 each week, if necessary.

That gives plenty of sciope for a player to be looked after in the Under 18's.

Do you read my post?

I put the word some in with respect to 18 year olds - to account for the six.

I am fully aware of the the six players I was one of the first to raise it on the other thread.

Six in the context of developing future SANFL league footballers and meeating the SANFL's draft targets with the AFL is not enough.

AS I've said ad nauseum I acknowledge the need for change particularly around the U/17s but to me the U/19s competition is sancrosanct when it comes to giving clubs the best structure to develop BOTH AFL and SANFL footballers.

[Wedgie]

And isnt it what their age is on Jan 1 so most kids who are 18 are eligible as under 18s?

[whatever]

Players who could be drafted include (All have been closely looked at or spoken to)
1 Hartlett (Draft Camp)
2 Martin (Draft Camp)
3 Stanley (Draft Camp)
4 Slattery (Draft Camp)
5 Webb
6 S Blesing (State Screening)
7 Nichols
8 Silverlock (Still an U/17 but can the Gold Coast grab U/17s this year?????)
9 Nathan Brown
10 S Morris
11 D Sukkel

Is adding Mitch Robinson to that list to big a bow to draw