2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Adelaide Footy League Talk

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby finn » Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:52 pm

The Dark Knight wrote:
TEX07 wrote: Pleasing for us was because NH C grade would get slaughtered by their D grade

They definitely would and our president is really not happy about it. Our whole C/D grade set up has become a farce, too many guys preferring to play D's with our C's struggling to fill a side. Expecting things to change next season and I think we'll drop our D grade.


What will happen with the leftover players?
It's a double edged sword; it's good that players are electing to play but it can be annoying when lower sides have bigger numbers than the higher grade sides. At uni we've faced this for years and have accepted that it's better to have people playing rather than dictate the sides they're playing in; for example, a regular a grade player did his shoulder in 2014 and essentially retired. He then played c1 for half a year last year, regained his enthusiasm and tested his shoulder in a lower pressure environment and is back playing a grade this year. If the club dictated his playing he would still be retired. Essentially our c grade in div 7 is comprised of younger players with possible potential and desire to play higher while the lower grades are full of people playing with mates or coming to the end of their careers who have different priorities like children, work etc.
We've also found that it's easier to get people to double up or play with minimal reserves than drop a side completely as not getting selected is a much bigger turnoff than potentially having to play 2 games.
always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them so much
finn
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: adelaide
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 22 times
Grassroots Team: Adelaide University

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby Pag » Tue Aug 09, 2016 4:04 pm

The Dark Knight wrote:
TEX07 wrote: Pleasing for us was because NH C grade would get slaughtered by their D grade

They definitely would and our president is really not happy about it. Our whole C/D grade set up has become a farce, too many guys preferring to play D's with our C's struggling to fill a side. Expecting things to change next season and I think we'll drop our D grade.

Good luck with it mate. We did the same a couple of years ago and it has given the place a better feeling.
User avatar
Pag
Coach
 
Posts: 5422
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:57 pm
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 498 times

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby The Dark Knight » Tue Aug 09, 2016 5:44 pm

finn wrote:
The Dark Knight wrote:
TEX07 wrote: Pleasing for us was because NH C grade would get slaughtered by their D grade

They definitely would and our president is really not happy about it. Our whole C/D grade set up has become a farce, too many guys preferring to play D's with our C's struggling to fill a side. Expecting things to change next season and I think we'll drop our D grade.

What will happen with the leftover players?
It's a double edged sword; it's good that players are electing to play but it can be annoying when lower sides have bigger numbers than the higher grade sides. At uni we've faced this for years and have accepted that it's better to have people playing rather than dictate the sides they're playing in; for example, a regular a grade player did his shoulder in 2014 and essentially retired. He then played c1 for half a year last year, regained his enthusiasm and tested his shoulder in a lower pressure environment and is back playing a grade this year. If the club dictated his playing he would still be retired. Essentially our c grade in div 7 is comprised of younger players with possible potential and desire to play higher while the lower grades are full of people playing with mates or coming to the end of their careers who have different priorities like children, work etc.
We've also found that it's easier to get people to double up or play with minimal reserves than drop a side completely as not getting selected is a much bigger turnoff than potentially having to play 2 games.

Well there's been a bit of talk about it over the past few weeks. We have alot of older guys in the D's which I think are looking to go out on a high and win a premiership to end their career. With that I think most of these guys will retire come seasons end.

While we might have 100 plus registered footballers it hasn't actually ment there's been 15/20 missing out each week. Along with short term and long term injuries and various unavailabilities throughout the season we have alot of guys that come and go and have only played a handful of games this season. Many have just been ring ins for the C grade in the last half of the season when they've been struggling for numbers, especially the last month.

There's also been talk of having an over 35s team next year instead of the D grade.

I don't lay the blame of the C grade struggling for numbers purely with the blokes in the D grade this season because it's been a trend happening for the last 5 years now. It's just got to a point now where the club has to cut its losses and move back to 3 senior sides.

This seems to be a bit of a trend around the league with Pag mentioning above that Salisbury went through it and so did Hope Valley, if I remember correctly.
Last edited by The Dark Knight on Tue Aug 09, 2016 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
The Dark Knight
Coach
 
Posts: 34427
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:32 pm
Location: Gotham City
Has liked: 10298 times
Been liked: 1516 times
Grassroots Team: North Haven

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby TEX07 » Tue Aug 09, 2016 6:27 pm

The Dark Knight wrote:
finn wrote:
The Dark Knight wrote:
TEX07 wrote: Pleasing for us was because NH C grade would get slaughtered by their D grade

They definitely would and our president is really not happy about it. Our whole C/D grade set up has become a farce, too many guys preferring to play D's with our C's struggling to fill a side. Expecting things to change next season and I think we'll drop our D grade.

What will happen with the leftover players?
It's a double edged sword; it's good that players are electing to play but it can be annoying when lower sides have bigger numbers than the higher grade sides. At uni we've faced this for years and have accepted that it's better to have people playing rather than dictate the sides they're playing in; for example, a regular a grade player did his shoulder in 2014 and essentially retired. He then played c1 for half a year last year, regained his enthusiasm and tested his shoulder in a lower pressure environment and is back playing a grade this year. If the club dictated his playing he would still be retired. Essentially our c grade in div 7 is comprised of younger players with possible potential and desire to play higher while the lower grades are full of people playing with mates or coming to the end of their careers who have different priorities like children, work etc.
We've also found that it's easier to get people to double up or play with minimal reserves than drop a side completely as not getting selected is a much bigger turnoff than potentially having to play 2 games.

Well there's been a bit of talk about it over the past few weeks. We have alot of older guys in the D's which I think are looking to go out on a high and win a premiership to end their career. With that I think most of these guys will retire come seasons end.

And while we might have 90-100 odd registered footballers we have alot of guys that come and go and have only played a handful of games this season. Many have just been ring ins for the C grade in the last half of the season when they've been struggling for numbers, especially the last month.

There's also been talk of having an over 35s team next year instead of the D grade.


It is a tough spot and one we were in about 5-6 years ago and it is really not the best look. We ended up missing out on a GF in the end anyway. We have a core group of guys that dont want to play any higher than D grade but these guys are 35+ with the exception of a couple that are younger but cant play later games etc. I know that there was a few guys that doubled up for you on Saturday too. When I played Tea Tree Gully earlier in the year and saw the age of the guys running around in the D grade I thought that they should have been playing up too - that was until I saw their C grade! TTG are the best side in C3 and C5 by a fair margin and I think that they are actually in the wrong divisions. They could easily be C1 and C3 and still be more than competitive. I am not blaming them - they play where they are put.
hola acabo de hacer que el yo se resuelve lo que este los medios en español
TEX07
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:40 pm
Has liked: 140 times
Been liked: 49 times
Grassroots Team: Golden Grove

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby The Dark Knight » Tue Aug 09, 2016 6:41 pm

TEX07 wrote:
The Dark Knight wrote:
finn wrote:
The Dark Knight wrote:[quote="TEX07"] Pleasing for us was because NH C grade would get slaughtered by their D grade

They definitely would and our president is really not happy about it. Our whole C/D grade set up has become a farce, too many guys preferring to play D's with our C's struggling to fill a side. Expecting things to change next season and I think we'll drop our D grade.

What will happen with the leftover players?
It's a double edged sword; it's good that players are electing to play but it can be annoying when lower sides have bigger numbers than the higher grade sides. At uni we've faced this for years and have accepted that it's better to have people playing rather than dictate the sides they're playing in; for example, a regular a grade player did his shoulder in 2014 and essentially retired. He then played c1 for half a year last year, regained his enthusiasm and tested his shoulder in a lower pressure environment and is back playing a grade this year. If the club dictated his playing he would still be retired. Essentially our c grade in div 7 is comprised of younger players with possible potential and desire to play higher while the lower grades are full of people playing with mates or coming to the end of their careers who have different priorities like children, work etc.
We've also found that it's easier to get people to double up or play with minimal reserves than drop a side completely as not getting selected is a much bigger turnoff than potentially having to play 2 games.

Well there's been a bit of talk about it over the past few weeks. We have alot of older guys in the D's which I think are looking to go out on a high and win a premiership to end their career. With that I think most of these guys will retire come seasons end.

And while we might have 90-100 odd registered footballers we have alot of guys that come and go and have only played a handful of games this season. Many have just been ring ins for the C grade in the last half of the season when they've been struggling for numbers, especially the last month.

There's also been talk of having an over 35s team next year instead of the D grade.

It is a tough spot and one we were in about 5-6 years ago and it is really not the best look. We ended up missing out on a GF in the end anyway. We have a core group of guys that dont want to play any higher than D grade but these guys are 35+ with the exception of a couple that are younger but cant play later games etc. I know that there was a few guys that doubled up for you on Saturday too. When I played Tea Tree Gully earlier in the year and saw the age of the guys running around in the D grade I thought that they should have been playing up too - that was until I saw their C grade! TTG are the best side in C3 and C5 by a fair margin and I think that they are actually in the wrong divisions. They could easily be C1 and C3 and still be more than competitive. I am not blaming them - they play where they are put.[/quote]
Yes we've had plenty of blokes double up for the C's including many of us in the B grade (Played second half of the C grade). I doubled up 3 times to help out while a mate of mine doubled up 5 times and I think 5 of the young fellas introduced in our B grade this season have also doubled up at least 3 times.

I doubled up against TTG and yeah they're a bloody good C grade team. They would beat our B grade this season.

As for playing we're you put- we should of been in C4. Our president was promised we would be in C4 yet we were placed in C3, only to be belted again by the teams we faced in Div 8 in previous years. I hope this time common sense prevails and our C's are placed in C4 next season.
User avatar
The Dark Knight
Coach
 
Posts: 34427
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:32 pm
Location: Gotham City
Has liked: 10298 times
Been liked: 1516 times
Grassroots Team: North Haven

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby jo172 » Tue Aug 09, 2016 9:50 pm

TEX07 wrote:
The Dark Knight wrote:
finn wrote:
The Dark Knight wrote: . I am not blaming them - they play where they are put.


Except for the playing where they were originally put part anyway ;)
jo172
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 6:00 pm
Has liked: 1198 times
Been liked: 724 times

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby TEX07 » Tue Aug 09, 2016 9:56 pm

have no idea about that to be honest, if they were put higher and requested lower then it was a poor decision by the league. They do have form in the c and d grade in doing that in the past.

I think that at the least if your a div 1 club and you have the numbers then you should be in C1 as a minimum and then D grade a few grades down. Really they are the only team that's out of place in the comp imo.v
hola acabo de hacer que el yo se resuelve lo que este los medios en español
TEX07
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:40 pm
Has liked: 140 times
Been liked: 49 times
Grassroots Team: Golden Grove

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby finn » Tue Aug 09, 2016 11:30 pm

TEX07 wrote:have no idea about that to be honest, if they were put higher and requested lower then it was a poor decision by the league. They do have form in the c and d grade in doing that in the past.

I think that at the least if your a div 1 club and you have the numbers then you should be in C1 as a minimum and then D grade a few grades down. Really they are the only team that's out of place in the comp imo.v


With regards to the first part, it's why TTG should have been told to play where initially placed which I believe was div 7 or c1. C2 and c4 seem to reflect last year's div 8 rather than the better sides there being placed in c1 then another grade. The upper end of c1 is a good standard and, from what I've seen this year, TTG would hold their own in it. For our club, our sixth side went from playing c grade sides of Div 2 and below clubs in c2 to trying to compete with c grade sides of div 1 teams like TTG and PAOC; from the above it seems North Haven requested to not do the same.

Next year it appears that div 7 won't hold any c grade sides so I'd expect another rejig of the grades with c1 holding the best c grade sides regardless of the desire of teams to play together, then c 2 to have the next rung and so on. I'd expect c4 to reflect, as much as possible, c1 and c5 to reflect c2 accordingly. Hopefully these gradings will also reflect the higher grades of those clubs too.

Certainly the desire of the SAAFL is to have grades of similar ilk so that games are competitive across the board. This also will help people to stay interested in the whole season rather than consistent floggings.

Personally I think the standard of the c grades has improved over the last 5 years and the League and clubs themselves have done an excellent job in getting rid of those people more interested in hitting others making it also a much more enjoyable pastime as well. The only problem I have is the staggered start of the lower grades; we've got our c grade playing finals in div 7 while the c1 and c3 sides are still playing minor rounds while the c5 is finished. For a club that does a club wide Super Sunday/Mad Monday its hard to organise a day that fits.

Good luck to all playing finals or finishing their 2016 season in the next few weeks. (Unless of course you're playing c1 in which case I hope you play well but the Blacks triumph)
always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them so much
finn
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: adelaide
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 22 times
Grassroots Team: Adelaide University

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby Pag » Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:30 am

The Dark Knight wrote:
finn wrote:
The Dark Knight wrote:
TEX07 wrote: Pleasing for us was because NH C grade would get slaughtered by their D grade

They definitely would and our president is really not happy about it. Our whole C/D grade set up has become a farce, too many guys preferring to play D's with our C's struggling to fill a side. Expecting things to change next season and I think we'll drop our D grade.

What will happen with the leftover players?
It's a double edged sword; it's good that players are electing to play but it can be annoying when lower sides have bigger numbers than the higher grade sides. At uni we've faced this for years and have accepted that it's better to have people playing rather than dictate the sides they're playing in; for example, a regular a grade player did his shoulder in 2014 and essentially retired. He then played c1 for half a year last year, regained his enthusiasm and tested his shoulder in a lower pressure environment and is back playing a grade this year. If the club dictated his playing he would still be retired. Essentially our c grade in div 7 is comprised of younger players with possible potential and desire to play higher while the lower grades are full of people playing with mates or coming to the end of their careers who have different priorities like children, work etc.
We've also found that it's easier to get people to double up or play with minimal reserves than drop a side completely as not getting selected is a much bigger turnoff than potentially having to play 2 games.

Well there's been a bit of talk about it over the past few weeks. We have alot of older guys in the D's which I think are looking to go out on a high and win a premiership to end their career. With that I think most of these guys will retire come seasons end.

While we might have 100 plus registered footballers it hasn't actually ment there's been 15/20 missing out each week. Along with short term and long term injuries and various unavailabilities throughout the season we have alot of guys that come and go and have only played a handful of games this season. Many have just been ring ins for the C grade in the last half of the season when they've been struggling for numbers, especially the last month.

There's also been talk of having an over 35s team next year instead of the D grade.

I don't lay the blame of the C grade struggling for numbers purely with the blokes in the D grade this season because it's been a trend happening for the last 5 years now. It's just got to a point now where the club has to cut its losses and move back to 3 senior sides.

This seems to be a bit of a trend around the league with Pag mentioning above that Salisbury went through it and so did Hope Valley, if I remember correctly.

Not sure how NH works with training and the like mate, but it makes things a whole lot easier playing a triple header at the same ground for 14 weeks of the 18. Also allows blokes across all three grades to mingle and get to know each other more, we were basically two separate clubs (A/B Grade, C/D Grade) when we had four teams due to different training nights and different venues on a Saturday. When the B Grade were short there were no C graders wanting to come up and play in a team where the didn't talk to anyone. This has all evaporated now and three teams is clearly the best way forward for our club.
User avatar
Pag
Coach
 
Posts: 5422
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:57 pm
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 498 times

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby S Demon » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:46 am

finn wrote:
TEX07 wrote:have no idea about that to be honest, if they were put higher and requested lower then it was a poor decision by the league. They do have form in the c and d grade in doing that in the past.

I think that at the least if your a div 1 club and you have the numbers then you should be in C1 as a minimum and then D grade a few grades down. Really they are the only team that's out of place in the comp imo.v


With regards to the first part, it's why TTG should have been told to play where initially placed which I believe was div 7 or c1. C2 and c4 seem to reflect last year's div 8 rather than the better sides there being placed in c1 then another grade. The upper end of c1 is a good standard and, from what I've seen this year, TTG would hold their own in it. For our club, our sixth side went from playing c grade sides of Div 2 and below clubs in c2 to trying to compete with c grade sides of div 1 teams like TTG and PAOC; from the above it seems North Haven requested to not do the same.

Next year it appears that div 7 won't hold any c grade sides so I'd expect another rejig of the grades with c1 holding the best c grade sides regardless of the desire of teams to play together, then c 2 to have the next rung and so on. I'd expect c4 to reflect, as much as possible, c1 and c5 to reflect c2 accordingly. Hopefully these gradings will also reflect the higher grades of those clubs too.

Certainly the desire of the SAAFL is to have grades of similar ilk so that games are competitive across the board. This also will help people to stay interested in the whole season rather than consistent floggings.

Personally I think the standard of the c grades has improved over the last 5 years and the League and clubs themselves have done an excellent job in getting rid of those people more interested in hitting others making it also a much more enjoyable pastime as well. The only problem I have is the staggered start of the lower grades; we've got our c grade playing finals in div 7 while the c1 and c3 sides are still playing minor rounds while the c5 is finished. For a club that does a club wide Super Sunday/Mad Monday its hard to organise a day that fits.

Good luck to all playing finals or finishing their 2016 season in the next few weeks. (Unless of course you're playing c1 in which case I hope you play well but the Blacks triumph)

How about Sunday 25th September :shock:
User avatar
S Demon
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4590
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:44 am
Location: The Doghouse
Has liked: 312 times
Been liked: 370 times
Grassroots Team: Hope Valley

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby finn » Thu Aug 11, 2016 1:30 pm

S Demon wrote:
finn wrote:
TEX07 wrote:have no idea about that to be honest, if they were put higher and requested lower then it was a poor decision by the league. They do have form in the c and d grade in doing that in the past.

I think that at the least if your a div 1 club and you have the numbers then you should be in C1 as a minimum and then D grade a few grades down. Really they are the only team that's out of place in the comp imo.v


With regards to the first part, it's why TTG should have been told to play where initially placed which I believe was div 7 or c1. C2 and c4 seem to reflect last year's div 8 rather than the better sides there being placed in c1 then another grade. The upper end of c1 is a good standard and, from what I've seen this year, TTG would hold their own in it. For our club, our sixth side went from playing c grade sides of Div 2 and below clubs in c2 to trying to compete with c grade sides of div 1 teams like TTG and PAOC; from the above it seems North Haven requested to not do the same.

Next year it appears that div 7 won't hold any c grade sides so I'd expect another rejig of the grades with c1 holding the best c grade sides regardless of the desire of teams to play together, then c 2 to have the next rung and so on. I'd expect c4 to reflect, as much as possible, c1 and c5 to reflect c2 accordingly. Hopefully these gradings will also reflect the higher grades of those clubs too.

Certainly the desire of the SAAFL is to have grades of similar ilk so that games are competitive across the board. This also will help people to stay interested in the whole season rather than consistent floggings.

Personally I think the standard of the c grades has improved over the last 5 years and the League and clubs themselves have done an excellent job in getting rid of those people more interested in hitting others making it also a much more enjoyable pastime as well. The only problem I have is the staggered start of the lower grades; we've got our c grade playing finals in div 7 while the c1 and c3 sides are still playing minor rounds while the c5 is finished. For a club that does a club wide Super Sunday/Mad Monday its hard to organise a day that fits.

Good luck to all playing finals or finishing their 2016 season in the next few weeks. (Unless of course you're playing c1 in which case I hope you play well but the Blacks triumph)

How about Sunday 25th September :shock:


There is that but the c5 side will have been done for 6 weeks; even if they played finals they'd been done for about three. You like to have it near the end of season to capitalise on the attendance that this automatically generates. Hopefully that will be the Sunday to celebrate a premiership though...
always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them so much
finn
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: adelaide
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 22 times
Grassroots Team: Adelaide University

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby jo172 » Thu Aug 11, 2016 4:37 pm

finn wrote:
S Demon wrote:
finn wrote:
TEX07 wrote:have no idea about that to be honest, if they were put higher and requested lower then it was a poor decision by the league. They do have form in the c and d grade in doing that in the past.

I think that at the least if your a div 1 club and you have the numbers then you should be in C1 as a minimum and then D grade a few grades down. Really they are the only team that's out of place in the comp imo.v


With regards to the first part, it's why TTG should have been told to play where initially placed which I believe was div 7 or c1. C2 and c4 seem to reflect last year's div 8 rather than the better sides there being placed in c1 then another grade. The upper end of c1 is a good standard and, from what I've seen this year, TTG would hold their own in it. For our club, our sixth side went from playing c grade sides of Div 2 and below clubs in c2 to trying to compete with c grade sides of div 1 teams like TTG and PAOC; from the above it seems North Haven requested to not do the same.

Next year it appears that div 7 won't hold any c grade sides so I'd expect another rejig of the grades with c1 holding the best c grade sides regardless of the desire of teams to play together, then c 2 to have the next rung and so on. I'd expect c4 to reflect, as much as possible, c1 and c5 to reflect c2 accordingly. Hopefully these gradings will also reflect the higher grades of those clubs too.

Certainly the desire of the SAAFL is to have grades of similar ilk so that games are competitive across the board. This also will help people to stay interested in the whole season rather than consistent floggings.

Personally I think the standard of the c grades has improved over the last 5 years and the League and clubs themselves have done an excellent job in getting rid of those people more interested in hitting others making it also a much more enjoyable pastime as well. The only problem I have is the staggered start of the lower grades; we've got our c grade playing finals in div 7 while the c1 and c3 sides are still playing minor rounds while the c5 is finished. For a club that does a club wide Super Sunday/Mad Monday its hard to organise a day that fits.

Good luck to all playing finals or finishing their 2016 season in the next few weeks. (Unless of course you're playing c1 in which case I hope you play well but the Blacks triumph)

How about Sunday 25th September :shock:


There is that but the c5 side will have been done for 6 weeks; even if they played finals they'd been done for about three. You like to have it near the end of season to capitalise on the attendance that this automatically generates. Hopefully that will be the Sunday to celebrate a premiership though...


The gap between the end of season for a D4 - D7 and C4-C6 side that doesn't make finals and a D1 side that makes a Grand Final is humongous.

Take PAOC who look the goods to go far in D1 . Their C5 lads will have been finished for 6-7 weeks and well into cricket training.

The other odd fixture quirk this year is that the Under 18 Grand Final is scheduled for next week. When D1 will still be in Round 17. Leads to a bit of disconnect within the Club.
jo172
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 6:00 pm
Has liked: 1198 times
Been liked: 724 times

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby Fricky » Sat Aug 20, 2016 8:25 pm

Season done and dusted for our C grade, put in a good show against Scotch for 3 qtrs just didn't have the legs to match them in the last. Thanks to the Scotch trainers who help stretcher off our player who did his ankle badly in the last quarter. He was in a lot of pain amd they were there as quick as our trainers to help out.

Good luck to the C2 sides in the finals
User avatar
Fricky
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1507
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:16 pm
Location: The Cattery
Has liked: 93 times
Been liked: 120 times
Grassroots Team: Walkerville

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby finn » Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:25 pm

Suri, Just wondering on how the standard of c2 is in comparison to c3 and/or c1 ?
Thinking with the potential new sides and muttering about that div 7 may be a wholly a grade comp that a new c grade comp with PAOC, TTG, Modbury, Goodwood, ROCs, Uni, Henley, Athelstone as a start would be an absolute cracker with hard fought games each and every week. Are there any c2 sides that could stack up?
Failing that, PAOC's c3 side should move up to either c2 or above while TTG and Modbury should re-enter div 7 as they're clearly much better the opposition around them. I know Uni's c3 side is not that bad but was dismantled by both very very easily.
always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them so much
finn
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: adelaide
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 22 times
Grassroots Team: Adelaide University

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby LaughingKookaburra » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:27 am

I watched a C2 game a couple weeks ago and one team was 2nd. Plympton in C4 I think would roll both of them.
Can you bring a man to his feet when defeat is on repeat?
LaughingKookaburra
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:22 am
Has liked: 72 times
Been liked: 738 times
Grassroots Team: Kenilworth

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby Fricky » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:07 am

finn wrote:Suri, Just wondering on how the standard of c2 is in comparison to c3 and/or c1 ?
Thinking with the potential new sides and muttering about that div 7 may be a wholly a grade comp that a new c grade comp with PAOC, TTG, Modbury, Goodwood, ROCs, Uni, Henley, Athelstone as a start would be an absolute cracker with hard fought games each and every week. Are there any c2 sides that could stack up?
Failing that, PAOC's c3 side should move up to either c2 or above while TTG and Modbury should re-enter div 7 as they're clearly much better the opposition around them. I know Uni's c3 side is not that bad but was dismantled by both very very easily.


Not sure which C2 sides would do well in C1 I didn't see a lot of games this season, Broadview would probably do well. C grade is a hard grade to pick which are strong sides due to the high amount of changes that can happen each week depending on injuries to higher grades and players being unavailable. We pushed Flinders Park both times this year (10pt and 18pt losses) and they finished 2nd to our 7th.

I heard that the league are thinking of moving the C grade back to how it was a few years ago where it reflected who the A's and B's played against, so we would move to C3 as our A's our in Div 3. Not sure how this move will be received by everyone.
User avatar
Fricky
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1507
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:16 pm
Location: The Cattery
Has liked: 93 times
Been liked: 120 times
Grassroots Team: Walkerville

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby marbles » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:43 am

Paoc imo would topple all cgrades at present simply cos their club is flourishing and they got 5 teams. In 2 or 3 years this will differ

The div 7 virus has likely hit again with talk the once supreme 4 sides of unley may now drop their dgrade to become a 3 team club and all simply because they played a season as pawns for the div 7 agraders. And now youre suggesting... oh lets dump modbury and ttg in div 7 in 2017.... what for a race to see who can lose their dgrade first and also become a 3 team club like the other 5 clubs who were once in div 7 in recent years but now only have 3 teams now as a result

Ttg and modbury would be thrilled to join div 7..... #not

C3 would be higher standard than c2 imo because most c3s have a dgrade at present.
User avatar
marbles
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Titan
Has liked: 275 times
Been liked: 258 times

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby marbles » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:21 pm

goody saints finished 4th and play athelstone (5th) in C1 elimination but the final is at athelstone??

goodys bgrade play ttg bgrade at 12pm - couldnt goodies cgrade follow their bgrade if theyre not keen on paying for a final - give ttg oval the match
User avatar
marbles
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Titan
Has liked: 275 times
Been liked: 258 times

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby S Demon » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:29 pm

Suri wrote:
finn wrote:Suri, Just wondering on how the standard of c2 is in comparison to c3 and/or c1 ?
Thinking with the potential new sides and muttering about that div 7 may be a wholly a grade comp that a new c grade comp with PAOC, TTG, Modbury, Goodwood, ROCs, Uni, Henley, Athelstone as a start would be an absolute cracker with hard fought games each and every week. Are there any c2 sides that could stack up?
Failing that, PAOC's c3 side should move up to either c2 or above while TTG and Modbury should re-enter div 7 as they're clearly much better the opposition around them. I know Uni's c3 side is not that bad but was dismantled by both very very easily.


Not sure which C2 sides would do well in C1 I didn't see a lot of games this season, Broadview would probably do well. C grade is a hard grade to pick which are strong sides due to the high amount of changes that can happen each week depending on injuries to higher grades and players being unavailable. We pushed Flinders Park both times this year (10pt and 18pt losses) and they finished 2nd to our 7th.

I heard that the league are thinking of moving the C grade back to how it was a few years ago where it reflected who the A's and B's played against, so we would move to C3 as our A's our in Div 3. Not sure how this move will be received by everyone.


1 Tea Tree Gully - Div 1
2 Modbury - Div 2
3 Old Ignatians - Div 2
4 Golden Grove - Div 3
5 Prince Alfred OC - Div 1
6 Adelaide University - Div 1
7 Hope Valley - Div 4
8 Pembroke OS - Div 3
9 North Haven - Div 4

If you look at C3 this year, it gives a good indication that the higher ranked clubs were much stronger and there would be some merit in aligning clubs according to their A grade. If PAOC and Uni had their C grade sides in this comp, I would assume they would be higher on the ladder, most likely pushing down Golden Grove. The Div 1/2 clubs were a fair way ahead of the Div 3/4 clubs and that would be the case even more so if it was PAOC and Uni's 3rd best side competing..

TTG are in a class of their own as shown by the job they did on Modbury on Saturday who kicked their first goal 10mins into the 3rd quarter after the gullies already had 12 on the board
User avatar
S Demon
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4590
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:44 am
Location: The Doghouse
Has liked: 312 times
Been liked: 370 times
Grassroots Team: Hope Valley

Re: 2016 C Grades thread - general discussion

Postby S Demon » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:34 pm

marbles wrote:goody saints finished 4th and play athelstone (5th) in C1 elimination but the final is at athelstone??

goodys bgrade play ttg bgrade at 12pm - couldnt goodies cgrade follow their bgrade if theyre not keen on paying for a final - give ttg oval the match

Surely the club with the higher ranking team (Athelstone A grade) has more pull than a club's B grade?
User avatar
S Demon
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4590
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:44 am
Location: The Doghouse
Has liked: 312 times
Been liked: 370 times
Grassroots Team: Hope Valley

PreviousNext

Board index   Football  Other Footy Leagues  Adelaide Footy League

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |