SA Footy

With the SANFL getting some perhaps negative coverage in the Advertiser over the issue of having AFL Reserves Teams in the SANFL and the various negative ideals being focused towards SANFL supporters that are opposed to the idea, its given me cause to ponder why it is that we currently have a scenario of 24 rounds of the season, byes, then the finals series all structured around the AFL season?

Spelly was good enough to give me some stats and its interesting to see how the SANFL season has been stretched to stay in line with the AFL season, despite the fact that half the number of sides play in our competition and our players all have to hold down employment rather than being professional players. Its my opinion that the strain on our players including those that play in our own Reserves competition is quite high and I am not convinced that we are getting anything like the return that we should be for those players and the clubs.

Its interesting to note that the SAAFL and other Competitions don't have a season length anything like ours and are able to provide good players with a good financial return for playing and a shortened season to remain in peak fitness and training for, which no doubt assists them to encourage players to make the cross over, especially if they have young kids of their own, jobs to go to and so on.

I have to say that I don't wonder if the SANFL clubs own interests might be better served by shortening the SANFL season to a number that best suits us rather than the AFL? I am suggesting that the 9 SANFL sides, play each other the twice then we have the finals series, start at the same time, we take advantage of the warmer weather to have the SANFL night footy bring in the season then have the SANFL Grand Final prior to the AFL finals series. SANFL Players then are not asked to train at a time longer than the AFL season and the clubs themselves don't have to pay out for putting on as many home matches. One would think that a shortened season would save significant $$$ for the SANFL clubs which if true would be a good thing for several of our clubs that are struggling.

Perhaps at one stage I thought there was some merit in having the SANFL Grand Final on the weekend after the AFL Grand Final, yet it seems that in any event it always gets stuff all publicity anyway, with often post AFL Grand Final discussions going over it and trade talk speculation being the order of the day on the media with the SANFL being a second mention to it all. Then there is the fact that it has to be on a Sunday in case the AFL final is a draw.

As for what the S.A AFL clubs do with their players who really cares. Organize trials against one another is one option for them to finish off their season - when the shoe is on the other foot and the AFL club is no longer in the finals, their interest in the SANFL finals seems to diminish quite rapidly and often players simply end their association for the year with the club, so perhaps its not unreasonable for the same to happen in reverse?

I suspect many may have a view on this topic, please feel free to add it accordingly!

yes, totally agree. Play each other twice (once at home, once away), it's the fairest way. And go back to the final 4, you shouldn't have more sides qualifying for the finals than don't.

CENTURION wrote:yes, totally agree. Play each other twice (once at home, once away), it's the fairest way. And go back to the final 4, you shouldn't have more sides qualifying for the finals than don't.

x2

doggies4eva wrote:

CENTURION wrote:yes, totally agree. Play each other twice (once at home, once away), it's the fairest way. And go back to the final 4, you shouldn't have more sides qualifying for the finals than don't.

x2

gives an opportunity for a pre-season trial game "mini-season", where each side can play against each other? 8 matches, shortened quarters?

Interestingly the Eagles & Dockers proposed this month to the WAFL clubs that they play an 18 week season with 4 byes so that WAFL teams on byes can play proposed AFL reserves sides.

It was rejected outrightby the WAFL clubs.

CENTURION wrote:

doggies4eva wrote:

CENTURION wrote:yes, totally agree. Play each other twice (once at home, once away), it's the fairest way. And go back to the final 4, you shouldn't have more sides qualifying for the finals than don't.

x2

gives an opportunity for a pre-season trial game "mini-season", where each side can play against each other? 8 matches, shortened quarters?

Or it makes room for a pre-season comp between the best from each league. Everything that the FickTel Cup isn't.

perhaps we should just play with ourselves without a ball

CENTURION wrote:

doggies4eva wrote:

CENTURION wrote:yes, totally agree. Play each other twice (once at home, once away), it's the fairest way. And go back to the final 4, you shouldn't have more sides qualifying for the finals than don't.

x2

gives an opportunity for a pre-season trial game "mini-season", where each side can play against each other? 8 matches, shortened quarters?

Maybe with a shortened season we could have a Foxtell Cup type comp where the top teams of the various leagues compete. Perhaps if it didn't interfere with the regular season more clubs and better quality players would participate. I would like to see that. (apologies to Psoodo - I wrote this then read his comment).

Or you could have all the teams from the VFL/WAFL/SANFL and then the NEAFL premier, making 32 teams in a competition at the start of the season.

8 groups of 4 (3 games against the other teams in your group).
Top of each group goes through to knockout QF > SF > GF.

That is 6 weeks needed at the start of the season. Add the shortened SANFL season at 18 rounds and you have the same number of rounds you have now.

Or just get rid of Foxtel Cup/State Games and keep the SANFL as is with a better fixture. Either way..

Pseudo wrote:

CENTURION wrote:

doggies4eva wrote:

CENTURION wrote:yes, totally agree. Play each other twice (once at home, once away), it's the fairest way. And go back to the final 4, you shouldn't have more sides qualifying for the finals than don't.

x2

gives an opportunity for a pre-season trial game "mini-season", where each side can play against each other? 8 matches, shortened quarters?

Or it makes room for a pre-season comp between the best from each league. Everything that the FickTel Cup isn't.

no, because teams from here wouldnt play in it still

I'm not against the idea of having a 16 match minor round competition... followed by the finals.

... the potential to significantly reduce costs due to less games is interesting.

I would wonder whether clubs would still spend the same amount of money on players, but I suppose if that's the only football cost that remains the same (i.e. basically paying more per game to get better players) then that's OK. At the same time, sponsorship might reduce because there is less exposure, less games as stated. I haven't thought about it too much, but maybe by reducing the number of rounds we just end up with a proportional decrease in revenue and costs?

As for the top 5 versus 4... I still like the top 5.

I'd much rather see the SANFL introduce a combined country side to get back to 10 teams, then we can have 18 rounds. I'd vote for that for sure...

Yeah i agree CSBowes

For me the perfect set up would be

10 teams
18 games (home and away)
top 5 finals system

where you get the 10th side from is debatable and would have to be backed for the long term.

Funny how many people want to shorten the season and replace it with something less meaningful like more trial matches or another version of the Foxtel cup that will have the same issues the current one does.

Only change I'd make is a top 4 instead of a top 5. The other ideas achieve nothing or have too many logistical issues without solutions. There's currently no viable option for a 10th team and in the environment of SANFL not being the top show in town, creating a new club would be next to impossible.

The comp is great as it is. I'm not one of these "if it aint broke don't fix it" people because that attitude would have us still sitting around campfires throwing spears at anything that moved for a feed, but I can't see any realistic way of making much of a change to the comp without causing bigger troubles.

I think given the limited market available to the SANFL clubs, IF there were to be a change to the competition it's more likely a reduction to 8 rather than an increase to 10.

Should that ever occur a 21 round season with each club playing each opponent 3 times (1 home, 1 away, 1 neutral) would be a good outcome.

The byes are annoying for fans I know, but for players and voluntary staff I reckon they would be well received, so there's probably not too much wrong with how things currently stand.

If the SANFL season didnt conencide with the AFL season, any player that wasnt in Port or the Crows first 22 wouldnt be getting any game time.

This would lead to -

- match fitness dropping,
- players denied opportunities to play AFL,
- the AFL clubs would be rocked by injury towards the end of the season,
- the two Adelaide based AFL clubs would be disadvantaged compared to other states that have leagues that run the full length of their season.

The disadvantage is mostly on the AFL teams, but if you look at it from budding young footballers point of view trying to get their chance in the big league, I think players from home and interstate wouldnt stay to play SANFL when they could get better opportunities in other states.

Grahaml wrote:Funny how many people want to shorten the season and replace it with something less meaningful like more trial matches or another version of the Foxtel cup that will have the same issues the current one does.

Only change I'd make is a top 4 instead of a top 5. The other ideas achieve nothing or have too many logistical issues without solutions. There's currently no viable option for a 10th team and in the environment of SANFL not being the top show in town, creating a new club would be next to impossible.

The comp is great as it is. I'm not one of these "if it aint broke don't fix it" people because that attitude would have us still sitting around campfires throwing spears at anything that moved for a feed, but I can't see any realistic way of making much of a change to the comp without causing bigger troubles.

Ummmm having the draw so each team plays each other twice once home once away is a solution to the current fixture issues, the logistics would have alot less issues than they currently do while making the draw.