SA Footy

scottroo wrote:Agree with that Dutch, however it is also the pulling power of the area, using your club as an example, it is a massive suburb and surrounding areas full of young families. Down the hill clubs are very close together.

Not much difference, we have Blackwood (with their High School having a footy program) and Happy Valley both within 2km's, 2 big clubs. I know all 3 get juniors from other suburbs who drive past many other poorly run clubs.

Dutchy wrote:

Iron Fist wrote:What Pag wrote is pretty much spot on I reckon. There must be scores allowed so the kids can learn how to lose.
You also raised a very valid point Gadj that alot of clubs dont have the luxury of choosing a coach that isnt all about winning, problem for alot of clubs is that if that person doesnt coach then there isnt a team.
One issue I see that the SANFL is causing is that clubs can have multiple sides in each age group while other clubs in the same area are struggling to fill one side. In this happening, children that play at these clubs with to many players, the kids arent able to get a full game each week. Or the club may stack one side with the the better players and one side with the not as good (or less developed) players. Surely thats not good for a childs development.
I personally think that each club should only be able to have one side in each age group and limit the number of kids to say 30-32. In turn all clubs would then be able to have a healthy number of players and kids would have a better chance of developing.
It would also help local football as a whole as each club would have a good number of junior players filtering up into the senior sides.
Currently what is happening is the good get better and the average get weaker.
This was how alot of us would have grown up playing football and it worked then so I dont understand why they changed it.

You cant put a cap on how many players play for a club, if you do that kids will go play another sport, they want to play with their mates more than anything and their parents understandably want them playing at a well structured and run club. The clubs that cannot attract juniors need to learn off the more successful clubs and change the way they do things, this all takes time and good management which is the issue.

So much this. Any such rule would have the greatest effect of kids being lost to the sport.

If we're talking greater good/keeping more clubs alive I suspect a much better rule would be capping the number of teams each senior club can field at two or three (albeit I tend to suspect this would similarly result in more people lost to the sport).

One tactic Ive used over the years when you have a talented team v a struggling team is to load up your talent in the back line giving less talented kids exposure to the midfield and forward line while also ensuring the ball moves up and down the field more often while teaching the talented kids how to play defence and run off opponents/provide switch options (all SANFL clubs complain about how they only get midfielders and forwards sent to them for development squads, very few defenders)

Dutchy wrote:One tactic Ive used over the years when you have a talented team v a struggling team is to load up your talent in the back line giving less talented kids exposure to the midfield and forward line while also ensuring the ball moves up and down the field more often while teaching the talented kids how to play defence and run off opponents/provide switch options (all SANFL clubs complain about how they only get midfielders and forwards sent to them for development squads, very few defenders)

Like that Dutchy, hopefully others will follow your lead.

I was lucky when i coached juniors of the list i had, quite regularly had backs play forward and vice versa.

also remember another game when i was JP that i watched, saw our side kick 11 to zip in the 1st 1/4 so the coach swapped the backs to go forward, the forwards went back and the midfield sat the 1/4 out and the inter change lads got a run in the midfield, result the backs kicked 13, so much for that idea,

Here is my 10 cents worth.
Ive coached for the past 9 seasons, from Auskick right through to 13's.

I dont see a problem with scoring and a premiership table, just dont need finals really.
What the SANFL needs to do is change from having an age group for each grade Ie. 8's, 9's, 10's, 11's etc.
There needs to be a 2 year gap, 8's, 10's, 12's etc.
This way, one year a team may struggle a bit being younger, smaller and the next season they become the bigger, older kids.
The way we have it now, means if you struggle in say Under 10's, you are still playing a lot of the same team/kids the following season, and the trend continues.
There are divisions, but that only helps a fraction.
My under 13's played a side last season who had an A grade 13's, and B grade 13's (for want of a better phrase). Said team lost every game by a margin over 10 goals, except when they played us twice. Their top team (Div 1) had byes, so they dropped 8 players down.
It was a farce, and against the spirit of the game.

SANFL also allow too many "Play down" permits. There are equalization rules in place, so if a team has 15 players, the opposition plays the same.
Too many clubs say "We wont have a team if we cant get 14 year old Johnny to play under 13's".
The under 12 Div 3 Premiers from 2016 had 3 14 year olds playing, they dominated.

There is no silver bullet for this, unless we stop buying our kids console games and boot them outside like our parents did.
We are kind of responsible for the soft under belly kids have today.

Moe wrote:Here is my 10 cents worth.
Ive coached for the past 9 seasons, from Auskick right through to 13's.

I dont see a problem with scoring and a premiership table, just dont need finals really.
What the SANFL needs to do is change from having an age group for each grade Ie. 8's, 9's, 10's, 11's etc.
There needs to be a 2 year gap, 8's, 10's, 12's etc.
This way, one year a team may struggle a bit being younger, smaller and the next season they become the bigger, older kids.
The way we have it now, means if you struggle in say Under 10's, you are still playing a lot of the same team/kids the following season, and the trend continues.
There are divisions, but that only helps a fraction.
My under 13's played a side last season who had an A grade 13's, and B grade 13's (for want of a better phrase). Said team lost every game by a margin over 10 goals, except when they played us twice. Their top team (Div 1) had byes, so they dropped 8 players down.
It was a farce, and against the spirit of the game.

SANFL also allow too many "Play down" permits. There are equalization rules in place, so if a team has 15 players, the opposition plays the same.
Too many clubs say "We wont have a team if we cant get 14 year old Johnny to play under 13's".
The under 12 Div 3 Premiers from 2016 had 3 14 year olds playing, they dominated.

There is no silver bullet for this, unless we stop buying our kids console games and boot them outside like our parents did.
We are kind of responsible for the soft under belly kids have today.

Absolutely, it gets abused big time.

Interesting article here about flag football vs tackle football in the US

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/spor ... D0JiMCF3bI

Personally I think kids need to be learning to tackle and learning to be tackled from as young an age as possible.

Take a look at the AFL and the amount of head injuries we see from players who don't correctly brace themselves whilst been tackled.

The longer we don't allow juniors to tackle and be tackled the longer they don't understand how to protect themselves, the longer they don't understand the risk/fear of being tackled.

If we don't allow tackling we will see a next generation of footballers who want to take on, get around multiple players every single time, they will put themselves in more and more dangerous positions. There instinctive awareness will not exist. Personally I think coaches should focus more on the 'first give' which will see a reduction in injuries.

whufc wrote:Personally I think kids need to be learning to tackle and learning to be tackled from as young an age as possible.

Take a look at the AFL and the amount of head injuries we see from players who don't correctly brace themselves whilst been tackled.

The longer we don't allow juniors to tackle and be tackled the longer they don't understand how to protect themselves, the longer they don't understand the risk/fear of being tackled.

If we don't allow tackling we will see a next generation of footballers who want to take on, get around multiple players every single time, they will put themselves in more and more dangerous positions. There instinctive awareness will not exist. Personally I think coaches should focus more on the 'first give' which will see a reduction in injuries.

Couldn't agree more. A lot of the worst injuries happening in the women's leagues arise from a lack of instinct about tackling and being tackled.

Where is the push for altering rules and modifying competitions coming from?

Is it because player numbers are decreasing? Is retention getting more difficult? Coach/parent behaviour driving people away.

Or do governing bodies legitimately think this is the best format for kids to play? No finals, no score, no tackling

Tony Clifton wrote:Where is the push for altering rules and modifying competitions coming from?

Is it because player numbers are decreasing? Is retention getting more difficult? Coach/parent behaviour driving people away.

Or do governing bodies legitimately think this is the best format for kids to play? No finals, no score, no tackling

In other news, numbers in soccer are increasing despite the higher costs and the fact that under 6's play for a title.

whufc wrote:Personally I think kids need to be learning to tackle and learning to be tackled from as young an age as possible.

Take a look at the AFL and the amount of head injuries we see from players who don't correctly brace themselves whilst been tackled.

The longer we don't allow juniors to tackle and be tackled the longer they don't understand how to protect themselves, the longer they don't understand the risk/fear of being tackled.

If we don't allow tackling we will see a next generation of footballers who want to take on, get around multiple players every single time, they will put themselves in more and more dangerous positions. There instinctive awareness will not exist. Personally I think coaches should focus more on the 'first give' which will see a reduction in injuries.

Excellent point, the biggest issue I see in junior footy is kids who tackle with their arms not their bodies. Kids that dont change this habit are exposed to broken arms once the bodies get bigger and stronger. They need to get their shoulder into the body 1st and then the arms come around.

Mentally wanting to tackle is a big thing also.

Dutchy wrote:

whufc wrote:Personally I think kids need to be learning to tackle and learning to be tackled from as young an age as possible.

Take a look at the AFL and the amount of head injuries we see from players who don't correctly brace themselves whilst been tackled.

The longer we don't allow juniors to tackle and be tackled the longer they don't understand how to protect themselves, the longer they don't understand the risk/fear of being tackled.

If we don't allow tackling we will see a next generation of footballers who want to take on, get around multiple players every single time, they will put themselves in more and more dangerous positions. There instinctive awareness will not exist. Personally I think coaches should focus more on the 'first give' which will see a reduction in injuries.

Excellent point, the biggest issue I see in junior footy is kids who tackle with their arms not their bodies. Kids that dont change this habit are exposed to broken arms once the bodies get bigger and stronger. They need to get their shoulder into the body 1st and then the arms come around.

Mentally wanting to tackle is a big thing also.

You teach the kids to tackle now and then the rules will change by the time they are adults, what used to be a great tackle is now illegal, the standard of tackling nowadays is crap compared to how it used to be, I see it while umpiring, tackles are very sloppy now, back in the day you'd crouch and watch the hips to see which way the body was moving them wrap them up, now they just fall into them, grab them high or try grabbing the guernsey, I pay more free kicks for poor tackles than anything else.

I do like your last line, if you don't actually want to tackle you'll never be any good at it.

You see so many kids that go into a tackle not 100% committed to it, you can see it a mile away, need to get that right before technique comes into it.

Its also almost impossible to get done for a sling tackle if you tackle with your whole body.

gadj1976 wrote:

Iron Fist wrote:What Pag wrote is pretty much spot on I reckon. There must be scores allowed so the kids can learn how to lose.
You also raised a very valid point Gadj that alot of clubs dont have the luxury of choosing a coach that isnt all about winning, problem for alot of clubs is that if that person doesnt coach then there isnt a team.
One issue I see that the SANFL is causing is that clubs can have multiple sides in each age group while other clubs in the same area are struggling to fill one side. In this happening, children that play at these clubs with to many players, the kids arent able to get a full game each week. Or the club may stack one side with the the better players and one side with the not as good (or less developed) players. Surely thats not good for a childs development.
I personally think that each club should only be able to have one side in each age group and limit the number of kids to say 30-32. In turn all clubs would then be able to have a healthy number of players and kids would have a better chance of developing.
It would also help local football as a whole as each club would have a good number of junior players filtering up into the senior sides.
Currently what is happening is the good get better and the average get weaker.
This was how alot of us would have grown up playing football and it worked then so I dont understand why they changed it.

Hey Fisty, haven't seen you on here for a long time.

Ideally, what you say is right. However, if you know our area, we have TTG, Golden Grove, Modbury, Pooraka, Ingle Farm and even Houghton and Para Hills all within a 10-15km radius of each other. Last year I think TTG, Golden Grove and Modbury fielded 13 or 14 U9 sides between them and that's NOT an isolated case.

Question is, where do those kids go? Secondly, the SANFL aren't going to turn those numbers away, so it's in their best interest not to do that. I get what you mean however this 'monopoly' just isn't occurring.

Recently, our club helped out neighboring clubs when our team didn't have enough to field a side, we cleared players out to other clubs so they could get a game. The reciprocal occurred last year with another local club when they didn't have enough so they sent some players our way. There is a 3 player rule so we can't go and poach others, not that that is in our best interest anyway.

On top of all that, if we cleared say 3 players in every grade to Para Hills (for example) would they go there anyway, or would we discourage them from the sport entirely? The SANFL wouldn't risk it in this economic climate where it seems they are all about participation and not 'win at all costs'.

Im on the road for work these days so only get to look at this every so often and usually don't have a chance to reply to anything.

You raise good points and I suppose there is no real way to fix that.
Like Dutchy commented, it does come back to the way the clubs run their junior programs.
I personally would still like to see at least a cap on the number of teams that each club could have, initially I think we may lose a few kids but my guess would be these would be the kids that usually drop away around 16-17 anyways. If a young kid wants to play footy they will find a way. Video games like someone mentioned definitely don't help.

Interesting good discussion. When it comes to your kids and sport I would be the first to admit that logic takes a second place sometimes (unfortunately.) I am lucky that my lad is in a good club and the coaches have taught me a lesson or 2 in how junior teams should be managed.

Without guidance, I would have been a coach that would have gone for the win. What the last 3 years (6 to 9 yo) has demonstrated to me is despite the folly of some of these modified rules, by balancing out the team you really do see a magic combination of the talented and less talented. Our team was a good team, winning most games, and we all take delight in watching our kids do well. However one of the best moments for our team happened last year when one of the lads who struggles developmentally, got the ball and kicked a goal. His Dad could not help himself and ran onto the ground, all the kids ran up to him in jubilant scenes. Out of all the wins and the rousing renditions of the song, that was the most memorable moment of the past 3 seasons. A real credit to our coaches, the club and the philosophies that they have in place.

The idea is not complicated, each week have different combinations of 3 kids (complementary skills) in each zone, rotate them through each zone for the game. Emphasise helping each zone member out, but do not overdo the equal sharing stuff, individuals should be able to develop and use the ball creatively. What not to do is stack the good players in the same position to win, its obvious to most of us and as I indicated before it is only through my own education that you realise this.

wild dog wrote:Interesting good discussion. When it comes to your kids and sport I would be the first to admit that logic takes a second place sometimes (unfortunately.) I am lucky that my lad is in a good club and the coaches have taught me a lesson or 2 in how junior teams should be managed.

Without guidance, I would have been a coach that would have gone for the win. What the last 3 years (6 to 9 yo) has demonstrated to me is despite the folly of some of these modified rules, by balancing out the team you really do see a magic combination of the talented and less talented. Our team was a good team, winning most games, and we all take delight in watching our kids do well. However one of the best moments for our team happened last year when one of the lads who struggles developmentally, got the ball and kicked a goal. His Dad could not help himself and ran onto the ground, all the kids ran up to him in jubilant scenes. Out of all the wins and the rousing renditions of the song, that was the most memorable moment of the past 3 seasons. A real credit to our coaches, the club and the philosophies that they have in place.

The idea is not complicated, each week have different combinations of 3 kids (complementary skills) in each zone, rotate them through each zone for the game. Emphasise helping each zone member out, but do not overdo the equal sharing stuff, individuals should be able to develop and use the ball creatively. What not to do is stack the good players in the same position to win, its obvious to most of us and as I indicated before it is only through my own education that you realise this.

Where does your lad play?

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:Where is the push for altering rules and modifying competitions coming from?

Is it because player numbers are decreasing? Is retention getting more difficult? Coach/parent behaviour driving people away.

Or do governing bodies legitimately think this is the best format for kids to play? No finals, no score, no tackling

In other news, numbers in soccer are increasing despite the higher costs and the fact that under 6's play for a title.

Depends on the organisation, Federation is expensive, amateur is not. Elizabeth Downs juniors are flourishing, cheap costs, great coaches and community club.

I have followed Australian Rules all my life, but now it is the AFL show; this has lead to the disintegration of club and community in SA - maybe Port is keeping a toehold. With hardly and support for other tiers of Australian Rules, the SANFL has become a compromised mess. Soccer is better to watch for the juniors, rules are essentially the same and it is a world game. Pathways are clear, systems are in place and the genetics of the code are diverse. Australian Rules in SA is a case in nepotism.

My lad plays both codes, but I encourage soccer as much a I can. Unfortunately though he is an Australian Rules natural.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

wild dog wrote:Interesting good discussion. When it comes to your kids and sport I would be the first to admit that logic takes a second place sometimes (unfortunately.) I am lucky that my lad is in a good club and the coaches have taught me a lesson or 2 in how junior teams should be managed.
......

Where does your lad play?

As a proud northern suburbs lad myself....... Glenunga. There I said it.

wild dog wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Tony Clifton wrote:Where is the push for altering rules and modifying competitions coming from?

Is it because player numbers are decreasing? Is retention getting more difficult? Coach/parent behaviour driving people away.

Or do governing bodies legitimately think this is the best format for kids to play? No finals, no score, no tackling

In other news, numbers in soccer are increasing despite the higher costs and the fact that under 6's play for a title.

Depends on the organisation, Federation is expensive, amateur is not. Elizabeth Downs juniors are flourishing, cheap costs, great coaches and community club.

I have followed Australian Rules all my life, but now it is the AFL show; this has lead to the disintegration of club and community in SA - maybe Port is keeping a toehold. With hardly and support for other tiers of Australian Rules, the SANFL has become a compromised mess. Soccer is better to watch for the juniors, rules are essentially the same and it is a world game. Pathways are clear, systems are in place and the genetics of the code are diverse. Australian Rules in SA is a case in nepotism.

My lad plays both codes, but I encourage soccer as much a I can. Unfortunately though he is an Australian Rules natural.

Have always heard excellent reports about the Downs.