AFL Reserves Discussion...

[daysofourlives]

I suspect that our mate Burtenshaw actually wrote it - a lot of it and the writing style sounds suspiciously like his answers on here.

Yeah, reading it back a second time you're right.

I look at it the other way, I think DB was Trigg. No way could a communications officer be as arrogant as DB's profile was but would make perfect sense if it was Trigg

[zipzap]

It's certainly a keeper...looking forward to referring to it when the Crows pull players come finals time (which as we all know will be a forgone conclusion come 2014 and every year thereafter)

[sjt]

I must have missed something. I don't give a rats if they're competitive. I'd like to seem them get thrashed by 20 goals week in week out, though it would be karma if they knocked one or more of the 6 yes clubs out the finals. Might cost more than the $40k + bribes.

[Aerie]

Have people lost interest in the league already?

Have fans of the finalists become a bit ho hum about it all?

Something is missing in the air for me...

To me it feels like the moment when the music stops, the lights are turned on and your glass is empty.

Time to stumble home.

Except this time on the last song you go up and dance with two very well dressed women who looked fine with the beer goggles on. One of them only plays away, but the other one will have all 3 of you back at her house after some, but not very much, convincing. It could be the greatest night of your life. The fresh air does you a world of good and you hop into the taxi; "down Port Rd thanks" the slightly larger one says...

What will happen next? Choose your own adventure...

[Pseudo]

I'm still getting my head around the genius of the Commission thinking that by killing the competition they'd be saving it.

It's got a weird East German Stasi vibe about it where everything they do and say has the opposite effect and different meaning.

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[Aerie]

If you can be bothered reading it, here's a piece from the keyboard of S. Trigg. There isn't anythng particularly new here, just reinforcing the suggested benefits and trying to ease our concerns. I do chuckle however at the emphasis on maintaining the integrity of the competition, while at the same time admiting that there will be players in their side who aren't up to league standard who are getting a game anyway.

*************

Since the SANFL League Directors endorsed the SA Football Commission’s recommendation to allow our entry into the SANFL League competition in 2014, there has been an enormously positive response.

Everyone within the Club, and the vast majority of those connected to the Club in some way have seen and understood the positive(s) in having an Adelaide Crows State League team. In fact within, there’s been an incredibly upbeat lift in the optimism as to where we can now take our young list as a result of this very significant decision.

But of course, as is always the case with such significant decisions, there’s an element out there who can’t see those same positives and who are choosing to denigrate the SANFL, their Club’s Management or indeed our Club for what they see as primarily a breach to the integrity of their competition.

As it settles, a few points need to be landed, and a few myths expelled.

From the very first presentation made by our Club to the Commission, the issue of (SANFL) competition integrity was understandably a central issue for all stakeholders. When we then personally met with the SANFL Clubs to discuss the issue, protecting the ‘integrity’ of the comp continually came through, being defined such that our state league team would:

- Play to win

- Be appropriately competitive

- Not send players off prematurely for surgeries/rest and

- Generally respect the competition

Through a series of stated and detailed commitments, our Club’s response has focused on preserving, and where possible, enhancing the integrity of the SANFL competition. And now that the decision has been made, far from resiling from those commitments we are reassuring the clubs that we will work with them, we will respect the integrity of the competition, and we will involve ourselves in a process of finalising the finer details, and documenting our various commitments.

Of the myths that have begun to emerge, our push for a ‘one team set-up’ for our ‘leftover’ players – is not simply a Brenton Sanderson request. It’s true that Brenton has seen firsthand (at the very successful Geelong) the benefits of having all players in the one team. But this issue has been on the Club’s radar for several years, well before Brenton arrived and urged for it to be pursued.

The reason that it has been on that radar for so long, is that there is a very clear view that to have all non AFL selected player together in the one team creates:

1. Better and quicker player development

2. Quicker assimilation (back into) the AFL team, and

3. Better retention of players (especially of those originating from interstate)

When young draftees (say) from Victoria or WA arrive in SA, to date they’ve had not one but two new clubs to settle into, a new home and a whole host of demands. From the outset, to have them train and play with those around them on their AFL list is a very significant benefit. So much so, that we were most assuredly prepared to place a team into the Amateur League competition if that’s what was required. Whatever the view would be of the calibre of competition, our absolutely core objective was to get this group on our list to be coached, developed and cared for by our own people. It was no bluff.

There is now a team set to work on the detailed rules and regulations around our State League Team’s operation within the SANFL as the competitions tenth team.

One of the more emotive issues that seems to pervade our entry is that of ‘top up’ players. That is, we’ll need 21 players week by week to make up the state league team, and that most often we’ll need ‘extra’ players from outside our list to top up to the required 21.

For the sake of perspective, based on the number of injuries to our list in 2012, we would have needed (on average) just 1.6 players each weekend. And in 2013 that (average) requirement is just 3.5 players per round. It’s true that at this point in time we have encountered a higher than average (collision) injury rate, and so we’d be needing more players to ‘top up’. But the average over the past two years reflects that relatively few ‘extra’ or top ups would be needed.

That said, where they come from exactly has (for some) created a stir. As it currently stands, and in simple terms, six of the eight SANFL clubs are prepared and happy to have up to two of their ‘development’ (18 years old or over and been through a draft) players ‘on loan’ to Adelaide as ‘top ups’. The strategy is to have players, who are not yet quite ready for senior action at their own clubs, spend time in an AFL system to accelerate their development.

But it’s acknowledged that it’s not a perfect solution, and that it’s not for all SANFL clubs. For our part, and to be very clear, we’re not fixed or welded onto any particular top up model. Whatever the model, we wanted and still want:

1. For the top ups to be regular participants in our team (to ensure familiarity),

2. For the SANFL clubs to be happy and engaged with it, and

3. For our Club to play a part in the development of players and football in this state.

It follows that with six of the eight clubs being positive about the SANFL model we’re prepared to take that path and make it work. As with several aspects of our entry however, a decent review at the end of the year will be important on top ups, and it should be said and understood that if Port Adelaide Power do eventually have an AFL (State League) team; that review will be sooner rather than later.

Whichever way it eventually lands, our Club is committed to working with the SANFL clubs and in their zones and development programs to the extent they want us involved. It’s an important commitment for us in maintaining our connection to SA grass-roots football.

We’re not permitted under AFL rules to have a developed so-called Academy for 17 and 18 year olds who have not been through a draft. So our view is that our best or most effective option is supporting grass-roots development in SA is to do so via the SANFL clubs, who have existing structures and areas established.

All of that detail is important, and if we work collaboratively with the SANFL and the Clubs, we will get it to work and work well. And if that means that if top up players come exclusively from ‘community football’, then our Club will find a way to make that work too.

We’re genuinely very excited about next year. We firmly believe our AFL team can bounce back quickly, and that our new State League team will be great for us, and that it will be a boost to the SANFL competition.

For those who already had their thinking tested as to who they’d barrack for in the SANFL competition – their current SANFL team or the new Crows State League team – please don’t feel conflicted. Support and barrack for your SANFL team. Almost all of our senior football and management personnel have a SANFL heritage and (at least one) SANFL team they support.

Those same people, from Brenton Sanderson and Alan Stewart to Scott Camporeale, Mark Bickley and Nigel Smart – all have their football roots in the SANFL. We all therefore have an affinity with the competition, a deep respect for it and a team that we’ve loved or still love to see doing well. Which simply underlines our collective desire to see the SANFL competition healthy and growing – and we honestly believe our involvement as the tenth team will be a winner for everyone.

And then back to the real world and all the talk on the radio while I was listening tonight was about who would get to be the "home team" for the first game at Adelaide Oval and the general consensus was it would be Port, but don't worry Crows fans, you'll get to lock in a permanent ANZAC Day fixture in the evening at Adelaide Oval, every season.

WTF? Surely this flies in the face of "promoting the SANFL". They can't leave one day alone. Rowe's genius idea was to have the SANFL game as the curtain raiser.

[Jim05]

I must have missed something. I don't give a rats if they're competitive. I'd like to seem them get thrashed by 20 goals week in week out, though it would be karma if they knocked one or more of the 6 yes clubs out the finals. Might cost more than the $40k + bribes.

Ive said this from day 1, hopefully a 20 goal hiding every week with a few injuries thrown in aswell.
Dont ever want to see the day they become competitive

[heater31]

I must have missed something. I don't give a rats if they're competitive. I'd like to seem them get thrashed by 20 goals week in week out, though it would be karma if they knocked one or more of the 6 yes clubs out the finals. Might cost more than the $40k + bribes.

Ive said this from day 1, hopefully a 20 goal hiding every week with a few injuries thrown in aswell.
Dont ever want to see the day they become competitive

With half their list available to the SANFL each week not even worthy of League football I can't see them being overly competitive.

[whufc]

I love Trigg preaching about integrity!

Mmmmmm Tippett anyway

[SimonH]

The Burtenshaw missive only shows how low the bar is set for being a Communications Manager at an AFL club.

You "dispel" myths, David. You "expel" naughty kids from school, or (more relevantly here) foreign matter from your body.

Only someone who's blitzed the Stalinist Doublespeak Course (the real Steven Trigg obviously was also a star student) could compose a phrase like "an incredibly upbeat lift in the optimism".

And, under the watchful eye of our Dear Leader, the One State Support Team will fulfil and overfulfil our Five Year Plan, leading the huddled masses joyfully into the sunrise of a brighter tomorrow.

EDIT: Funny Pseudo, I started composing my message without having seen yours (or similar ones on the same topic) at all.

[gossipgirl]

I am concerned no one has posted on this thread this month

[saintal]

Ok, just for you GG, here's the hypothetical Ravens team from the weekend just gone:

Jack Osborn (Central): Three handballs, 23 hit outs
Jarryd Lyons (Glenelg): 15 kicks, 15 handballs, 13 clearances
Matthew Jaensch (Sturt): 17 kicks, seven handballs, 3.0
Tim McIntyre (Sturt): Ten kicks, four marks, 1.3
Angus Graham (Sturt): Five kicks, two handballs, four marks, 16 hit outs, 2.1
Jared Petrenko (Eagles): Five kicks, 13 handballs, 0.1
Cam Ellis-Yolmen (Eagles): Four kicks, nine handballs
Rory Atkins (Sturt): 15 kicks, two handballs, four marks, eight rebound 50s

A few gaps to fill I think?

I guess by this time next year we'll be into finals, so the Ravens will be done and dusted.

[sjt]

Ok, just for you GG, here's the hypothetical Ravens team from the weekend just gone:

Jack Osborn (Central): Three handballs, 23 hit outs
Jarryd Lyons (Glenelg): 15 kicks, 15 handballs, 13 clearances
Matthew Jaensch (Sturt): 17 kicks, seven handballs, 3.0
Tim McIntyre (Sturt): Ten kicks, four marks, 1.3
Angus Graham (Sturt): Five kicks, two handballs, four marks, 16 hit outs, 2.1
Jared Petrenko (Eagles): Five kicks, 13 handballs, 0.1
Cam Ellis-Yolmen (Eagles): Four kicks, nine handballs
Rory Atkins (Sturt): 15 kicks, two handballs, four marks, eight rebound 50s

A few gaps to fill I think?

I guess by this time next year we'll be into finals, so the Ravens will be done and dusted.

Given Trigg wrote;
"For the sake of perspective, based on the number of injuries to our list in 2012, we would have needed (on average) just 1.6 players each weekend. And in 2013 that (average) requirement is just 3.5 players per round. It’s true that at this point in time we have encountered a higher than average (collision) injury rate, and so we’d be needing more players to ‘top up’."

Does anyone know how many Crows listed players actually played on the weekend (including reserves)?

[zipzap]

Via Muddy Waters on db.org. A staggering piece of 'journalism' IMO...



The SANFL/AFL reserves debate for the Adelaide Crows and Port Adelaide Power can be easily solved
Tom Biddington, The Advertiser, September 02, 2013

MISSION STATEMENT: To cut through the clutter to identify the real issues and solutions in the sporting world.

I love sport - but I get frustrated at times.

Too often politics, egos, emotion, spin and money get in the way of making all sports, and the way we enjoy them, the best they can possibly be.

Issues will always crop up and whenever there are two opposing sides, the truth (and the best way forward) is normally somewhere in the middle.

It goes from one extreme to another and, really, there's just no need for the diatribe.

There's a distinct lack of common sense employed across the sporting world and I'm making it my weekly crusade to ensure it comes back and is used in the best possible fashion.

There's been one particularly emotive issue circling around recently and it leaves me shaking my head - the SANFL/AFL reserves debate.

So I figured what better way for this column to debut than to annoy the traditionalists by making a heap of sense.

Let's start by laying out the ugly truth.

The glory days of the 60s, 70s and 80s are gone and it's time to accept the SANFL is a second-tier/development competition where all clubs, players, fixtures and the administration are compromised.


As it stands, the nine-team setup just doesn't work. The byes are farcical. The availability of AFL-listed players, which can wildly affect a team's ability, changes week-to-week. Crowds are falling and, really, only the diehards remain.

The quality of play has been affected by the introduction of Gold Coast and GWS with more talent required at the top level, not to mention other AFL clubs picking the eyes out of the mature-age players.

Decisions at all levels of administration are made on club or personal interest and are affected by historical events irrelevant with the current situation.

I could go on but bottom line - it's not making the competition the best it can possibly be.

So if that's the reality, what's the solution?

As an old boss drummed into me, we need to ask the wonderful question, 'what are we trying to achieve?'.

Without doubt the SANFL can (and should aim to) be the second-strongest league in the country, featuring players on the fringe of AFL selection, good quality senior footballers and the best young talent coming through.

There should be 10 teams that can stand on their own two feet, putting a competitive product on the park week-in, week-out, which in turn drives interest and fan support.

Sound fair enough so far?

The two SA-based AFL clubs need their own reserves sides. This isn't up for debate. It's essential for the development of their players and puts them on an even keel with the other clubs in the league.

By entering a Crows affiliate (let's call them the Ravens) and then allowing the Port Adelaide Magpies to be the Power's reserves outfit, we've got a 10-team structure in the SANFL, which is proven as the best and fairest number for running any competition.

You play each team home and away. Very straight forward.

I think most people understand these things but there seems to be a lot of hyperbole about the best way to implement it.

Try this out.

Outside of their AFL-listed players, both the Ravens and the Magpies, assemble squads of enthusiastic footballers who want the opportunity to train and play in an elite environment.

The catch? There's no money for them (maybe a small fixed match-fee if that works better) and no guarantee of a regular game.

The carrot for these players, aside from wanting to improve themselves, is that each AFL club has to offer one of them a spot on the rookie list for the following season.

Hawthorn did this very successfully with the Box Hill Hawks for years. It's not a big price to pay for the AFL clubs.

This works twofold. It actually creates a competitive team environment but also ensures the best players (who obviously command some bigger dollars) go to other clubs and spreads the talent across the league.

It means we don't have the ridiculous situation of players potentially playing for different teams in the same competition a week apart.

Neither has an SANFL reserves team, so players from the squads who don't get a game can play for an affiliated amateur team if they feel the need.

I guarantee neither squad would ever be short of players.

Each AFL club pays a $400,000 license fee (or some other arbitrary number), which is evenly split between the other eight clubs, allowing them to invest an extra $100,000 in good structures and/or quality players.

The removal of AFL-listed players from the other SANFL clubs forces them to look in their own backyard and get their structures and development right. How can this be a bad thing?

There's no more 'luck' at the mini-draft.

The responsibility of being a competitive outfit now rests squarely on the shoulders of each SANFL club.

Now, to address the specific issues with the Magpies and Ravens.

If Adelaide doesn't want the headache of organising a home ground for the Ravens, that's A-OK - they play away every week and the other teams all benefit.

I'm sure if the Crows were playing away on a Saturday night and the Ravens were playing on a Sunday afternoon down at Glenelg, a better crowd would turn up than anything else they're getting now.

The Magpies want to continue playing at Alberton? That's fine, too. Each team has a right to play at home unless they give up that privilege.

They want to keep their junior teams? No problem - the under-16s and under-18s should operate on the same fixture as the seniors and just have a bye when they're scheduled to play the Crows.

I hear people whining about keeping recruiting zones but it's actually pretty irrelevant.

Once players come through the underage system, they've got a decision to make.

Those they don't get drafted to an AFL team can chose to stay a part of the Magpies senior squad (which they don't get paid for) or open themselves up to other offers and change clubs.

Pretty straight-forward, really.

Does that strike a balance between keeping the Magpie tradition and moving forward into the realities of the 21st century? Call me crazy but, from a completely neutral perspective, I think it does.

Will the Ravens and/or Magpies dominate? I doubt they can on a consistent basis.

Their only commitment to the league is to be competitive and put out a good product.

When it comes down to it, any team's fortunes can fluctuate from year to year as injury, form and circumstance dictate.

Enabling the other eight teams to remain competitive and putting in place structures to ensure they do that (and not run themselves into the ground) is vital.

For them, there won't be any uncertainty about the availability of players and coaches can do their jobs without incurring the wrath of their AFL counterparts.

In terms of quality, senior SANFL footballers will rule the roost.

The extra money and opportunities can go a long way to helping the foundations of these clubs, ensuring they have the ability to get things right on and off the field.

As far as I'm concerned a poorly run club doesn't deserve to succeed. You need to make your own luck, take responsibility and stop being a victim.

If you're a traditionalist and sit there reading this column saying 'it won't work' - you're part of the problem, not the solution. Come up with a better option.

The current system isn't sustainable and any more compromises will only ensure the SANFL and the SA-based AFL clubs fail to reach their full potential.

This one creates a much better environment for fans, for players, for clubs and for the competition.

Those in positions of power need to put aside their self-interest and get the best result for football in SA.

That's just common sense.

Agree? Disagree? Have a better idea? Tweet me!
You can follow Tom Biddington on Twitter - @TomBiddington.

[beenreal]

Yep, I concur, how dare anyone write about $ANFL clubs standing on their own two feet. It's positively obscene.

[spell_check]

The SANFL/AFL reserves debate for the Adelaide Crows and Port Adelaide Power can be easily solved
Tom Biddington, The Advertiser, September 02, 2013

MISSION STATEMENT: To cut through the clutter to identify the real issues and solutions in the sporting world.

I love sport - but I get frustrated at times.

Too often politics, egos, emotion, spin and money get in the way of making all sports, and the way we enjoy them, the best they can possibly be.

Issues will always crop up and whenever there are two opposing sides, the truth (and the best way forward) is normally somewhere in the middle.

It goes from one extreme to another and, really, there's just no need for the diatribe.

There's a distinct lack of common sense employed across the sporting world and I'm making it my weekly crusade to ensure it comes back and is used in the best possible fashion.

Cool, but it would be better for the entire population you spend your time crusading to common sense politicians.

There's been one particularly emotive issue circling around recently and it leaves me shaking my head - the SANFL/AFL reserves debate.

So I figured what better way for this column to debut than to annoy the traditionalists by making a heap of sense.

In your opinion.

Let's start by laying out the ugly truth.
The glory days of the 60s, 70s and 80s are gone and it's time to accept the SANFL is a second-tier/development competition where all clubs, players, fixtures and the administration are compromised.

Sure it ain't the 'glory days', the VFL took care of that. But you obviously are going to continue by putting forward more compromised proposals than what there is already, aren't you...

As it stands, the nine-team setup just doesn't work.

Why?

The byes are farcical.

Why? Asked the players if they were farcical? Why did the AFL have byes at some stage? Surely if they were farcical, they would have admitted two teams instead of one in 1991 and 2011.

The availability of AFL-listed players, which can wildly affect a team's ability, changes week-to-week.

Love your use of the word wildly. Name all the wins where you can safely say that AFL players inclusions were the difference between winning and losing.

Crowds are falling and, really, only the diehards remain.

Hey, you sound like someone who hasn't done their homework and is using the AFL-centric sales pitch. Other than this years weather affected season, got any stats to back that up since the Port started in the AFL?

The quality of play has been affected by the introduction of Gold Coast and GWS with more talent required at the top level, not to mention other AFL clubs picking the eyes out of the mature-age players.

And adding a tenth team won't affect the quality of play either, given you need to find more footballers?

Decisions at all levels of administration are made on club or personal interest and are affected by historical events irrelevant with the current situation.

Ever heard of quality, not quantity? Is it any reason that from the mid 70s onwards there were many articles that 10 teams in a population was too many, especially when the VFL had 12 teams with a population almost three times as many? That not relevant to now?

I could go on but bottom line - it's not making the competition the best it can possibly be.

So if that's the reality, what's the solution?

As an old boss drummed into me, we need to ask the wonderful question, 'what are we trying to achieve?'.

Without doubt the SANFL can (and should aim to) be the second-strongest league in the country, featuring players on the fringe of AFL selection, good quality senior footballers and the best young talent coming through.

There should be 10 teams that can stand on their own two feet, putting a competitive product on the park week-in, week-out, which in turn drives interest and fan support.

Sound fair enough so far?

Are two development teams 'competitive'?

The two SA-based AFL clubs need their own reserves sides. This isn't up for debate. It's essential for the development of their players and puts them on an even keel with the other clubs in the league.

Since you are on a sporting crusade, can you now sort out Western Bulldogs, Melbourne and St Kildas reserves teams problems for me? K thx!

By entering a Crows affiliate (let's call them the Ravens) and then allowing the Port Adelaide Magpies to be the Power's reserves outfit, we've got a 10-team structure in the SANFL, which is proven as the best and fairest number for running any competition.

Proven. Was it not proven that 8 teams play each other three times with 7 home, 7 away and 7 neutral is the best? 12 teams with 11 home and 11 away not proven?

You play each team home and away. Very straight forward.

I think most people understand these things but there seems to be a lot of hyperbole about the best way to implement it.

Try this out.

Outside of their AFL-listed players, both the Ravens and the Magpies, assemble squads of enthusiastic footballers who want the opportunity to train and play in an elite environment.

The catch? There's no money for them (maybe a small fixed match-fee if that works better) and no guarantee of a regular game.

The carrot for these players, aside from wanting to improve themselves, is that each AFL club has to offer one of them a spot on the rookie list for the following season.

Ooh, ooh, can I be an 'enthusiastic' footballer? Better still, why not make a reality series out of it and let any male aged between 17 and say 32 try out!

Hawthorn did this very successfully with the Box Hill Hawks for years. It's not a big price to pay for the AFL clubs.

Obviously. You want to find players who will be paid even less than SANFL Reserves players!

This works twofold. It actually creates a competitive team environment but also ensures the best players (who obviously command some bigger dollars) go to other clubs and spreads the talent across the league.

This doesn't make sense...you want everyone who is not an AFL listed player on the Crows and Power second team to play for basically nothing, and even entice those on big coin at other clubs to join them in hope of gaining that one spot? Do you mean every current Port Magpie player that doesn't want to stay and get paid nothing will be spread around?

It means we don't have the ridiculous situation of players potentially playing for different teams in the same competition a week apart.

Eureka! I've stumbled upon something that does make sense! That is, if you are referring to next years proposed set up. If not, and you have Ben Dowdell in mind, again, you have failed in your homework when you consider something like 21 players in the last 30 years to have played at two clubs in one season.

Neither has an SANFL reserves team, so players from the squads who don't get a game can play for an affiliated amateur team if they feel the need.

I guarantee neither squad would ever be short of players.

But would they actually be any good?

Each AFL club pays a $400,000 license fee (or some other arbitrary number), which is evenly split between the other eight clubs, allowing them to invest an extra $100,000 in good structures and/or quality players.

The removal of AFL-listed players from the other SANFL clubs forces them to look in their own backyard and get their structures and development right. How can this be a bad thing?

Don't they do this already?

There's no more 'luck' at the mini-draft.

I think it's a testament to the SANFL environment that some players who were delisted by their AFL club chose to play on in the SANFL instead of returning home. Andrew Geddes and Mark McKenzie say hi.

The responsibility of being a competitive outfit now rests squarely on the shoulders of each SANFL club.

Now, to address the specific issues with the Magpies and Ravens.

If Adelaide doesn't want the headache of organising a home ground for the Ravens, that's A-OK - they play away every week and the other teams all benefit.

I'm sure if the Crows were playing away on a Saturday night and the Ravens were playing on a Sunday afternoon down at Glenelg, a better crowd would turn up than anything else they're getting now.

That's not too hard, after all, Glenelg will finish last this year.

The Magpies want to continue playing at Alberton? That's fine, too. Each team has a right to play at home unless they give up that privilege.

They want to keep their junior teams? No problem - the under-16s and under-18s should operate on the same fixture as the seniors and just have a bye when they're scheduled to play the Crows.

I hear people whining about keeping recruiting zones but it's actually pretty irrelevant.

Once players come through the underage system, they've got a decision to make.

Those they don't get drafted to an AFL team can chose to stay a part of the Magpies senior squad (which they don't get paid for) or open themselves up to other offers and change clubs.

Pretty straight-forward, really.

Does that strike a balance between keeping the Magpie tradition and moving forward into the realities of the 21st century? Call me crazy but, from a completely neutral perspective, I think it does.

Will the Ravens and/or Magpies dominate? I doubt they can on a consistent basis.

Their only commitment to the league is to be competitive and put out a good product.

When it comes down to it, any team's fortunes can fluctuate from year to year as injury, form and circumstance dictate.

Enabling the other eight teams to remain competitive and putting in place structures to ensure they do that (and not run themselves into the ground) is vital.

For them, there won't be any uncertainty about the availability of players and coaches can do their jobs without incurring the wrath of their AFL counterparts.

In terms of quality, senior SANFL footballers will rule the roost.

The extra money and opportunities can go a long way to helping the foundations of these clubs, ensuring they have the ability to get things right on and off the field.

As far as I'm concerned a poorly run club doesn't deserve to succeed. You need to make your own luck, take responsibility and stop being a victim.

Oh, so you are talking about the Crows now and Power recently?

If you're a traditionalist and sit there reading this column saying 'it won't work' - you're part of the problem, not the solution. Come up with a better option.

Why bother? The SANFL reserves was fine with all those stuck in the mud toss pots if all this 'change is for the better' mantra has to be.

The current system isn't sustainable and any more compromises will only ensure the SANFL and the SA-based AFL clubs fail to reach their full potential.

This one creates a much better environment for fans, for players, for clubs and for the competition.

Those in positions of power need to put aside their self-interest and get the best result for football in SA.

'football' or really 'AFL football' in SA?

That's just common sense.

Agree? Disagree? Have a better idea? Tweet me!
You can follow Tom Biddington on Twitter - @TomBiddington.

Wait a sec, Tom who? Sure you aren't Rucci or Fjelstad in disguise?

[saintal]

Love your work spelly

Had intentions of posting that opinion piece also.

[LPH]

@ Spelly

[Pseudo]

Let's start by laying out the ugly truth.

The glory days of the 60s, 70s and 80s are gone and it's time to accept the SANFL is a second-tier/development competition where all clubs, players, fixtures and the administration are compromised.

As it stands, the nine-team setup just doesn't work. The byes are farcical. The availability of AFL-listed players, which can wildly affect a team's ability, changes week-to-week. Crowds are falling and, really, only the diehards remain.

The quality of play has been affected by the introduction of Gold Coast and GWS with more talent required at the top level, not to mention other AFL clubs picking the eyes out of the mature-age players.

Decisions at all levels of administration are made on club or personal interest and are affected by historical events irrelevant with the current situation.

I could go on but bottom line - it's not making the competition the best it can possibly be.

Let's conclude here with one bleeding obvious truth: the author is somebody who has zero interest in SANFL, never (or at best rarely) attends a game, and whose SANFL knowledge extends little further than noting how many touches AFL-listed players got last weekend.

Were this bloke remotely knowledgeable about the league, he'd have known that the nine team setup does work, with the byes allowing interstate recruits to have weekends back home. Yes, interstate recruits: now Vic talent comes to the SANFL, quite the reverse of the "glory days". Crowds might well be down this year, but considering longer-term figures crowds have been on the up - and this over a period when SA AFL crowds have been in decline. Anyone familiar with the standard of play over the last few years would debate that quality has fallen in the face of AFL expansion. Nobody denies that the glory days are over, but there are many people for whom the SANFL is king, and we do not appreciate people with no interest in out league telling us how the league should be run.

I wonder if the author has the balls to front up on Snout's Hill on Saturday arvo and see first hand what the diehards love about the SANFL. I doubt it.

[zipzap]

Onya Spelly et al. Thanks for coming up with those counterpoints - I feel so much dumber since reading it I doubt I could coherent actually sentence a together string