SA Footy

I have been reading with interest the expectation that both Adelaide AFL clubs have sought permission to have a number of "underdone" players trial with their allocated SANFL clubs.

Personally I have some issues with it in terms of some of the names mentioned would not play at all during the year with SANFL clubs. In most cases after injury, players like Brogan, Wanganeen to name two would be straight back into the Power. What could happen this week is a number of SANFL league players could find themselves in the ressies due to the AFL players having to have a run - not good preparation one week out from the first round.

An example of this is the Port Magpies who could get 5 players from the Power this week. I would be peeved off if all of a sudden all of North's AFL listed players returned for a run at the expense of players expected to play in the North side each week. This is more highlighted by the fact North's recruiting over the past 2 years has been to get Key postion players so as there is little or no reliance on getting or hoping players like Damon White come back each week for example.

I know there is no alternative (no reserves teams for the Power or Crows) and the system is not perfect but it is going to cause disruption and possibly grief to coaches, fine tuning game plans and some players chances at the SANFL level.

It will be interesting to hear the views of others on this topic?

I can understand you being pi55ed off Drebs but you've got to remember that the SNAFL is now a 'feeder' competition and that the clubs have to 'play ball'. The coaches would be aware of this and should prepare for the season accordingly.

regards,

REB

It is a good point you raise Drebs. I have been thinking about this abit since hearing there could be a number of Crows players who could play for the Eags this week. I think the SANFL club should have the right to play them in the Ressies (for the pre season games). We had Skippy and Shats on the weekend. Two isn't bad but any more than that you really begin to rob some players of the chance to impress. It must be hard for SANFL coaches with the AFL clubs putting pressure on them to play certain players.

Can the Clowns/Smears not play a friendly trial, or orgainse their own internal trials?

at westies

playing might be jericho(should be a permanant, welsh, walsh and even roo, they may need the run and might play only a half in the reserves

daymon white wont play as most have the weekend of and players like lonie on your list are going home this weekend to family, mayne the likes of a franco would play if avail but he is in serious injury trouble i believe

I think you guys shouldnt really worry about it too much. They probably only have a light run, and like dash61 said, its really only underdone players.

drebin wrote:I have been reading with interest the expectation that both Adelaide AFL clubs have sought permission to have a number of "underdone" players trial with their allocated SANFL clubs.

Personally I have some issues with it in terms of some of the names mentioned would not play at all during the year with SANFL clubs. In most cases after injury, players like Brogan, Wanganeen to name two would be straight back into the Power. What could happen this week is a number of SANFL league players could find themselves in the ressies due to the AFL players having to have a run - not good preparation one week out from the first round.

An example of this is the Port Magpies who could get 5 players from the Power this week. I would be peeved off if all of a sudden all of North's AFL listed players returned for a run at the expense of players expected to play in the North side each week. This is more highlighted by the fact North's recruiting over the past 2 years has been to get Key postion players so as there is little or no reliance on getting or hoping players like Damon White come back each week for example.

I know there is no alternative (no reserves teams for the Power or Crows) and the system is not perfect but it is going to cause disruption and possibly grief to coaches, fine tuning game plans and some players chances at the SANFL level.

It will be interesting to hear the views of others on this topic?

Surely its give and take .... clubs seem (in general) more than happy to accept AFL players within their list come SANFL minidraft day. SANFL is now a feeder comp. and clubs probably have to take the good with the bad.

Tredders just said on channel 9 that Gavin Wanganeen will get a run with the Magpies this week. I have no problem with it as I reckon it's a great chance for the youngsters at the Magpies to learn something from AFL experienced players (Brownlow medallists and premiership players even)

I'm not sure how the SANFL coaches will use them-it will vary from club to club I'd reckon. Timmy Ginever will be more intent on settling a side than giving Gav a full game.

welsh will play for westies on sat

From memory Jack played a couple of high profile Power players in the reserves trial last year as, rightly so, he wanted to settle his Team before the 1st round.

REB - Not sure about other Clubs but I know the Dog's first priority is to win a Premiership and developing AFL players is just a part of that goal. Surely every SANFL club would be wanting to play as close as possible to their Rnd 1 side this weekend?

The likes of Wangas & Co will get just as much match practice in the magoo's and pass on the benefit of their experience to the youngsters - who would benefit much more than the seasoned League players

As these are only trial games I can't see why not. The clubs could agree to extend the benches to give more players a go. Also if any of those players find themselves back in the SNAFL during the year they would have at least met their team-mates before.[/b]

I knew there would be an even split agreeing with and disagreeing with my post but it was put up for discussion.

If you talk to the coaches away from public glare you may find most would concede it is disruptive to have players going back and forth, although when your team is struggling (as per North in pre 2004 and even in 2004) it is good to get players like D. White, Hudson, Perrie back. In 2004 it no doubt added to our stength but we also copped the jibes about relying on AFL listed players. In 2005 we only had Damon White for half the games and no Hudson and Perrie. The downside was come finals for example in 2004, Damon White played like shit because he was emergency all through the finals for the Power and up until our last game against Sturt that year - was still in Grand Final calculations and he went at about 60% against Sturt so as not to get injured - just in case.

I have no problems with players like Stephen Gillam who spend most of the year in the SANFL as you can factor that in as they are not expected to et into the AFL sides especially if both are going well without injuries. Most clubs have players like that available each week. Fortunately this year we have none and recruited around that fact.

I can't help but wonder if Hudson, Perrie and White all ended up at North one week? Who would go to the ressies out of our forwards and rucks. All of them can't play. You would then get the absurd situation of having Daniel Wakelin (V/Capt) in the two's along with any combination of Alleway, Gill, Weatherly and Hargraves. That would piss them off no doubt. You could play the AFL listed players in the two's to keep your regular SANFL players in for team unity. Our recruits were recruited to help North - not move aside for AFL players. That sort of situation drives players to leave. Food for thought and it has been discussed by some North players in a hypothetical but it could happen.

What is the answer - who knows?

I reckon the blokes who are regular AFL players should get a hit out in the 2's in the SANFL trials. fk em!

Well said Jimmy!
Can relate to Drebin's concerns. SANFL clubs have to run like SANFL clubs are of most importance, and not of second priority to AFL concerns. As Jimmy put it...F**K 'EM! If the SANFL coach in charge of a given club thinks the youngsters may benefit from a run with somebody from the AFL then it should be up to that coach to decide, and not dictated to by another who deems himself "higher". Pre-season is for coaches to give the unproven a chance, AFL players can get a good run in the reserves if they need it.
Mind you I don't complain when the sudden inclusion of a fringe "AFLer" boosts our stocks just in time for an important game, but I think I remain consistent in declaring that the SANFL club should always be of first importance. U17's sacrifice for the sake of U19s, reserves sacfrice for the sake of the League, and that's where the foodchain ends. Anything else is outside of the club's responsibility and should remain so.

There's an article in today's Advertiser about Jericho and Weed's belief in him:

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/footy/story_page/0,8747,18557112%255E25397,00.html

I'm sure the coaches will do the right thing by their clubs and play the AFL players where it suits the SANFL clubs. I still think that their influence around the younger players is a positive, regardless of which grade they actually front up for.

During the season proper though, isn't there a rule that the first week an Afl player is dropped they have to play in the League side? Has that caused major disharmony amongst SANFL sides? I believe that by failing to abide by the rule, some SANFL clubs have had AFL players removed from their club.

Isn't it just a matter of picking the best available team each week?

portentous wrote:I'm sure the coaches will do the right thing by their clubs and play the AFL players where it suits the SANFL clubs. I still think that their influence around the younger players is a positive, regardless of which grade they actually front up for.

During the season proper though, isn't there a rule that the first week an Afl player is dropped they have to play in the League side? Has that caused major disharmony amongst SANFL sides? I believe that by failing to abide by the rule, some SANFL clubs have had AFL players removed from their club.

I think the only player actually forcibly moved by the AFL clubs was Tom Gilligan when he went from North because he playing in the ressies - why because he was useless and didn't warrant a league spot. There have been a few players switching clubs since to further develop opportunity but those times the clubs a greed and the AFl club didn't just yank them out with out consultation. I know speaking to North players that some players on AFL lists who come into the SANFL via the mini-draft think their shit doesn't stink and they should be a walk up start for a league berth e.g. Luke Peel and he got his way when he spat the dummy and went to the Eagles. That certainly helped his career - played 1 league game maybe if lucky. He just wasn't good enough.

I'll tell you what my only real major gripe about the situation is:

There were instances in the last couple of years where Roger James and Matthew Primus would return from injury and play for Norwood reserves.

The Power would instruct Norwood to have them play just in the 1st half, and as you can only choose 21 players in a match, Norwood would be restricted to just 2 on the bench for the 2nd half. This would cause an advantage to the opposition as they now have an extra player to rotate off the bench. And what if you had a couple of injuries??!!

Pretty sure there was another instance where Roger James was instructed to play 3 qtrs the following week in the league side. Either have them availabe for the full match or allow 22 to be named if the AFL player cannot play a full game!!

HeartBeatsTrue wrote:I'll tell you what my only real major gripe about the situation is:

There were instances in the last couple of years where Roger James and Matthew Primus would return from injury and play for Norwood reserves.

The Power would instruct Norwood to have them play just in the 1st half, and as you can only choose 21 players in a match, Norwood would be restricted to just 2 on the bench for the 2nd half. This would cause an advantage to the opposition as they now have an extra player to rotate off the bench. And what if you had a couple of injuries??!!

Pretty sure there was another instance where Roger James was instructed to play 3 qtrs the following week in the league side. Either have them availabe for the full match or allow 22 to be named if the AFL player cannot play a full game!!

Yeah, I'd have a problem with this too. It undermines the authority of the coaching staff of the SANFL. I think that if an AFL player is playing for a SANFL club then the AFL club can REQUEST certain conditions but not madate them. This is something the SANFL needs to develop a policy for as a whole so that individual clubs can't be bullied. After all the SANFL is providing a pretty good recruitment and development ground for the AFL.