SA Footy

Dutchy wrote:

The Bedge wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Isn't this why you have promotion/relegation, all this stuff sorts itself out over 12 months anyway?

To a degree, yes, but promotion/relegation system doesn't allow for new clubs coming in, or clubs who spend up big win a flag/promotion and then drop multiple grades the following year or so.

Promotion/relegation doesn't account for OSB coming into the comp, it doesn't account for Para Hills returning 12 months after it was supposed to by in D4 following a D5 premiership and playing D7, it doesn't account for Salisbury West dropping after losing a D4 GF to D7.

To be fair I think the AdFL have got it pretty right with Brighton, Morphie Park's, OSBL, Edwardstown and Marion's entry, could argue they maybe came in one div to low but again they find their way to the right Div in 12 months anyway.

So you want all clubs to show their annual player spend budgets in Jan each year and make decisions based on player spend?

Got to love this division, two days ago we were discussing how much clubs like Houghton spend and today it is how the promotion and relegation system is stuffed, IMO there isn't much wrong with it, not like OSB and Marion have blown everyone out the water this season.
If you base it on recruits what happens when a group of them might decide to leave a week before round one and you have already been graded under your theory.
In a nutshell what exactly is the problem?

Dutchy wrote:So you want all clubs to show their annual player spend budgets in Jan each year and make decisions based on player spend?

No, not at all, but it's not hard to look over previous season results, see who has come in or out of a club leading into the season and be pretty well in the ball park.

I'll use Greenacres as an example again (sorry GFC), last year they struggled to field 2 sides in D5, they got pumped every week, over the break they lost Asfaha, Clark-Rantasa x2, Dolley, Maniotis, Liddle, Smith, Polkinghorne, Wheaton - so out of a side that lost by plenty already, they've now lost their best players.

Recruited reasonably well, but brought in B grade depth - picked up a swag of B graders from St Pauls who were mid table at best in the division BELOW where they were playing this year.

Add to that they fronted to their trial games with barely a full side, and had 50 scoring shots against them is a good indicator. Got touched up by OSB in one trial, where OSB also lent them players to fill a side - that should've been the final indicator to know these clubs were around the wrong way.

And here i was thinking we always said on here you cant take anything out of a trial game result as most clubs always have heaps missing.

The Bedge wrote:

Dutchy wrote:So you want all clubs to show their annual player spend budgets in Jan each year and make decisions based on player spend?

No, not at all, but it's not hard to look over previous season results, see who has come in or out of a club leading into the season and be pretty well in the ball park.

I'll use Greenacres as an example again (sorry GFC), last year they struggled to field 2 sides in D5, they got pumped every week, over the break they lost Asfaha, Clark-Rantasa x2, Dolley, Maniotis, Liddle, Smith, Polkinghorne, Wheaton - so out of a side that lost by plenty already, they've now lost their best players.

Recruited reasonably well, but brought in B grade depth - picked up a swag of B graders from St Pauls who were mid table at best in the division BELOW where they were playing this year.

Add to that they fronted to their trial games with barely a full side, and had 50 scoring shots against them is a good indicator. Got touched up by OSB in one trial, where OSB also lent them players to fill a side - that should've been the final indicator to know these clubs were around the wrong way.

And Pulteney only beat OSB/ Lonsdale by 3 goals in a trial. Should they have been put in the same Div then? We were told they had 8 good players out. Trial game form doesn't always give a good indication of a teams ability. There is 1 win between 3rd and 7th and 6th missed a shot after the siren to beat 1st, and beat 2nd. Central United were talked up early and they sit 7th. From a newcomer this looks like an exciting season. Hardly a dogs breakfast.

Is this not one of the most, if not the most, competitive divisions out of the lot (I haven't looked at all the others closely). The top 6-7 sides look to be able to compete and beat each other on any day.. Yes OSB and Marion are up the top end (St Pauls too who not many would have predicted), but someone has to be there, I think results have shown that all clubs are vulnerable and can be pushed...

I myself thought that coming into division 7 would be relaxing and a bit of fun (it is fun), I didn't think I would be stressing every week and every game with all these close margins and competitive games

Nothing wrong with this division imo..

Courtney Fish wrote:And Pulteney only beat OSB/ Lonsdale by 3 goals in a trial. Should they have been put in the same Div then?.

Umm that just adds weight to the argument that OSB should've taken Greenacres spot in D6.

cossi11 wrote:Nothing wrong with this division imo..

Point of the discussions isn't necessarily about this division, and this season - the whole point is that the AdFL should have greater power to intervene as they see required across grades prior to the season.

The Bedge wrote:

cossi11 wrote:Nothing wrong with this division imo..

Point of the discussions isn't necessarily about this division, and this season - the whole point is that the AdFL should have greater power to intervene as they see required across grades prior to the season.

Good bump... play on

The Bedge wrote:

Courtney Fish wrote:And Pulteney only beat OSB/ Lonsdale by 3 goals in a trial. Should they have been put in the same Div then?.

Umm that just adds weight to the argument that OSB should've taken Greenacres spot in D6.

My point being Pulteney had half their team out and trial game results are misleading.

Courtney Fish wrote:My point being Pulteney had half their team out and trial game results are misleading.

Yeah I agree that trial games can be misleading on the most part, but still give a reasonable indication. The same PFC side had 50 scoring shots in 60min of footy against Greenacres.

The Bedge wrote:

Courtney Fish wrote:My point being Pulteney had half their team out and trial game results are misleading.

Yeah I agree that trial games can be misleading on the most part, but still give a reasonable indication. The same PFC side had 50 scoring shots in 60min of footy against Greenacres.

Did Greenacres request to drop down to Div 7?
Apparently Marion requested Div 6. Was this swap ever considered?

Courtney Fish wrote:Did Greenacres request to drop down to Div 7?
Apparently Marion requested Div 6. Was this swap ever considered?

Nah too much pride to request to go further down.. silly ****.

Oh well, no need to worry, they'll be dead soon enough.

Unless you have a crystal ball you can;t do what you are suggesting bedge, imagine deciding gradings on trial games!

Flaggies lost to Goodwood by a goal in a trial this year, if we went into the AdFL you would put us into Div 1!!!

The Bedge wrote:

cossi11 wrote:Nothing wrong with this division imo..

Point of the discussions isn't necessarily about this division, and this season - the whole point is that the AdFL should have greater power to intervene as they see required across grades prior to the season.

3 Pembroke OS 67-35 437 Kilburn 0-1 1 D3 26/04/2014
4 Plympton 67-31 433 Kilburn 0-1 1 D3 9/08/2014
5Unley Mercedes Jets 63-29 407 Kilburn 2-0 12 D3 12/04/2014
6 Mitcham 61-25 391 Kilburn 2-2 14 D3 24/05/2014
21 Seaton Ramblers 54-23 347 Kilburn 1-0 6 D3 5/04/2014
23 Modbury 51-33 339 Kilburn 0-0 0 D3 14/06/2014
25 Athelstone 50-22 322 Kilburn 1-0 6 D3 17/05/2014
37 Seaton Ramblers 48-25 313 Kilburn 3-3 21 D3 21/06/2014

This is probably the best example as these 8 scores are in the Top 50 all time in League history

Courtney Fish wrote:

The Bedge wrote:

Courtney Fish wrote:My point being Pulteney had half their team out and trial game results are misleading.

Yeah I agree that trial games can be misleading on the most part, but still give a reasonable indication. The same PFC side had 50 scoring shots in 60min of footy against Greenacres.

Did Greenacres request to drop down to Div 7?
Apparently Marion requested Div 6. Was this swap ever considered?

Greenacres would've had to have agreed to any such swap. I think they were adamant about staying in D6.

Dutchy wrote:Unless you have a crystal ball you can;t do what you are suggesting bedge, imagine deciding gradings on trial games!

Flaggies lost to Goodwood by a goal in a trial this year, if we went into the AdFL you would put us into Div 1!!!

FML... where did I say decide grading's purely on trial games?

Seriously how can I soar like an eagle when i'm surrounded by turkeys?

Executive Member wrote:

The Bedge wrote:

cossi11 wrote:Nothing wrong with this division imo..

Point of the discussions isn't necessarily about this division, and this season - the whole point is that the AdFL should have greater power to intervene as they see required across grades prior to the season.

3 Pembroke OS 67-35 437 Kilburn 0-1 1 D3 26/04/2014
4 Plympton 67-31 433 Kilburn 0-1 1 D3 9/08/2014
5Unley Mercedes Jets 63-29 407 Kilburn 2-0 12 D3 12/04/2014
6 Mitcham 61-25 391 Kilburn 2-2 14 D3 24/05/2014
21 Seaton Ramblers 54-23 347 Kilburn 1-0 6 D3 5/04/2014
23 Modbury 51-33 339 Kilburn 0-0 0 D3 14/06/2014
25 Athelstone 50-22 322 Kilburn 1-0 6 D3 17/05/2014
37 Seaton Ramblers 48-25 313 Kilburn 3-3 21 D3 21/06/2014

This is probably the best example as these 8 scores are in the Top 50 all time in League history

Must've pissed down.

Dutchy wrote:

The Bedge wrote:Lets be serious, every year we know clubs that are incorrectly graded, if the league had the power to intervene, adjustments could be made to make it a more competitive/even comp. Generally speaking it's the lower half divisions that have the most inconsistency.

Example - Greenaces was obvious to everyone pre-season they'd struggle, and OSB appeared to be a side that would go well after some strong recruiting.. wouldn't have hurt to swap the two.

Egos/pride of clubs get in the way though and affect decision making in the best interests of their club IMO.

Are you suggesting the AdFL executive should be making calls and grading clubs on clubs pre-season's and recruiting success? That would open a massive can of worms.

Is there actually a problem? Why is there so much concern around 1 or 2 teams that are in trouble? Promotion/relegation generally sorts it out in a year or two.

You cannot use preseason results unless they become organised by the league, effectively extending the season, or by reducing the season and using the first 3-4 weeks for grading like they do at the local social basketball competition - not sure either of those would be desirable.

If the system is broken (which it clearly is not), the only way to manage it would be by grading on known factors (previous year's position, and transfers in and out).

How about a system where each club is ranked 1-68, with the Div1 Premiers given 68 points, lowest club 1 and all the rest in order (taking into account the grandfinalists placing higher than the bottom two in the above division)

Each time an A-grade player is recruited in, 1 point gets added to the points allocation. For every A-Grade player cleared out, one point is taken off. Divisions get populated accordingly. Points system would minimise how high a team could progress "un-naturally"
Transfers would then need to be locked from round 1.

Stupid idea in response to a stupid problem statement

Look Good In Leather wrote:Stupid idea in response to a stupid problem statement

Rich coming from someone whose own competition has been in a steady decline for the past 15yrs but continue to keep their heads in the sand.

Bedge - you have mentioned 2-3 clubs in trouble that maybe out of their div this season, this is out of what 60 odd clubs in the whole competition? Pretty good strike rate confirming the current system works.