SA Footy

Posted: **Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:39 pm**

Don't worry AWFUL football will take up the slack

Posted: **Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:43 pm**

heater31 wrote:Clubs struggling for numbers??? maybe that is a sign that there simply are not enough blokes playing the game any more due to outside inflences such as family balance, work pressures

All that and maybe too many clubs. It's only a matter of time IMO that work, social status and family end up seeing less numbers in all clubs. I mean unless you are getting a quid or are totally dedicated and love your club to bits, why play and risk all those things, and I'm hearing it more and more from players.

Posted: **Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:03 am**

morell wrote:But srs.

It could work. You could have a minimum of 16, but a maximum of 21 still. So that clubs with the numbers can still pick a "full" side but on the field its only 16 v 16.

This could mean those clubs that have only been able to field one side might've been able to field two. Like us in 2014.

Ultimately, it would mean more control over the integrity of the competition and avoid Salisbury West/North Pines and Mitchell Park/Flinders Uni type situations.

Surely 2x players isn't all that's making a difference/impact in sides fielding two teams? I fail to see how reducing the numbers is going to improve the chances of fielding an additional side - still need depth in the list over the year to begin with?

Maybe if clubs were capped at the number of registered players and the excess went elsewhere it might help, but thats a crap idea and opens up a whole new can of worms.

Posted: **Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:06 am**

Given most B grade sides use excess of 50 different players a season I am very concerned about a cap.. I used 67 players last year for instance. We had nearly 100 registered players for 3 teams yet struggled to field a C grade at times

Posted: **Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:06 am**

human_torpedo wrote:Given most B grade sides use excess of 50 different players a season I am very concerned about a cap.. I used 67 players last year for instance. We had nearly 100 registered players for 3 teams yet struggled to field a C grade at times

I have 52 x players who have said they want to play C grade this year. Filled a full side for Round 1 with 7 on the bench. Still 27 blokes that I could not select for various reasons. People just don't have the passion to play the game like they used to. Other things are more important to them which I totally understand. I should have listened to @morell #neveragain

Posted: **Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:00 pm**

They should have a pool where registered players form one club that miss out on a game can be lent to another to top up, they don't have to be in the same division or anything, it gives those that miss out a chance to still have a kick and eliminates forfeits.

Posted: **Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:21 pm**

Lightning McQueen wrote:They should have a pool where registered players form one club that miss out on a game can be lent to another to top up, they don't have to be in the same division or anything, it gives those that miss out a chance to still have a kick and eliminates forfeits.

Most people I know would rather miss out than play for another club

Posted: **Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:37 pm**

Zartan wrote:
morell wrote:But srs.

It could work. You could have a minimum of 16, but a maximum of 21 still. So that clubs with the numbers can still pick a "full" side but on the field its only 16 v 16.

This could mean those clubs that have only been able to field one side might've been able to field two. Like us in 2014.

Ultimately, it would mean more control over the integrity of the competition and avoid Salisbury West/North Pines and Mitchell Park/Flinders Uni type situations.

Surely 2x players isn't all that's making a difference/impact in sides fielding two teams? I fail to see how reducing the numbers is going to improve the chances of fielding an additional side - still need depth in the list over the year to begin with?

Maybe if clubs were capped at the number of registered players and the excess went elsewhere it might help, but thats a crap idea and opens up a whole new can of worms.

Its a critical mass argument, in essence.

As we know most lower level B Grade sides would have 10-15 regular dyed in the wool types that you can count on and then 10+ flakeys.

It would reduce the burden and reliance on those types as well IMO.

Posted: **Fri Mar 31, 2017 4:51 pm**

Lightning McQueen wrote:They should have a pool where registered players form one club that miss out on a game can be lent to another to top up, they don't have to be in the same division or anything, it gives those that miss out a chance to still have a kick and eliminates forfeits.

Think this idea has alot of merit but would be hard to organise/police as such as those players obviously from time to time would be required at their own club

SA Footy

Clubs struggling for numbers ...

Re: Clubs struggling for numbers ...

Re: Clubs struggling for numbers ...

Re: Clubs struggling for numbers ...

Re: Clubs struggling for numbers ...

Re: Clubs struggling for numbers ...

Re: Clubs struggling for numbers ...

Re: Clubs struggling for numbers ...

Re: Clubs struggling for numbers ...

Re: Clubs struggling for numbers ...