Ch9 AFL Division 3 - 2015

[jo172]

I hold the view it's about the kids rather than the Clubs. It should be about creating the best environment for children to play football rather than creating some kind of socialized environment to ensure some kind of equal arrangement amongst clubs

[Q.]

I hold the view it's about the kids rather than the Clubs. It should be about creating the best environment for children to play football rather than creating some kind of socialized environment to ensure some kind of equal arrangement amongst clubs

At the end of the day it's the choice of a parent/child. If they want to be at a club with 937 junior teams then so be it.

[Demon Juke]

I hold the view it's about the kids rather than the Clubs. It should be about creating the best environment for children to play football rather than creating some kind of socialized environment to ensure some kind of equal arrangement amongst clubs

At the end of the day it's the choice of a parent/child. If they want to be at a club with 937 junior teams then so be it.

Won't be much of a comp if only 4 clubs left with junior's.

[turk186]

I hold the view it's about the kids rather than the Clubs. It should be about creating the best environment for children to play football rather than creating some kind of socialized environment to ensure some kind of equal arrangement amongst clubs

At the end of the day it's the choice of a parent/child. If they want to be at a club with 937 junior teams then so be it.

Won't be much of a comp if only 4 clubs left with junior's.[/quote]

How true this observation could well be unless things change

[Jetters]

It's naive to think clubs with multiple juniors teams don't deserve them. In my experience the junior programs at the bigger junior clubs (GG, TTG, Modbury etc.) offer kids a much better environment to learn, develop and enjoy football.

Just little things like having a white and red age group allowing kids to play at an appropriate skill level is great for kids.

That's ultimately what it should be about.

Nah that's a bit BS.

What you said is self fulfilling, big clubs can offer the best environment because they have the most players (resources, success etc).

You have to find a balance between encouraging clubs to provide great junior programs so they prosper and also allow competition.

I think NEJFA have this balance pretty far off

and let the other clubs with less of a junior program to fold their juniors??

all clubs should help out each other so that everyone can prosper

I think this is equally as 'wrong' as @jo172's post.

Everyone is not entitled to 'prosper', and clubs shouldn't really be required to help each other.

The rules should allow good programs to prosper, but also allow competition. Crappy programs should suffer.

It's a clubs' own responsibility to run a good program, not other clubs' responsibility to 'help'.

Needs to be a balance.

[Jetters]

I hold the view it's about the kids rather than the Clubs. It should be about creating the best environment for children to play football rather than creating some kind of socialized environment to ensure some kind of equal arrangement amongst clubs

Of course it's about the kids.

If a parent 'knows' that one club will certainly have a team(s), but they are unsure whether the club down the road will, they will choose the club that they know will have a team and a spot for their child.

This becomes a self fulfilling cycle. They go to the bigger club not because they run a better program, but because it's a safer option.

More competition will force clubs to run better programs because they know if they don't players/parents will speak with their feet and move. If there's no/few other options big clubs can run mediocre programs to little of their own detriment.

Balance between allowing good programs to prosper and competition which will demand quality.

[jo172]

I hold the view it's about the kids rather than the Clubs. It should be about creating the best environment for children to play football rather than creating some kind of socialized environment to ensure some kind of equal arrangement amongst clubs

Of course it's about the kids.

If a parent 'knows' that one club will certainly have a team(s), but they are unsure whether the club down the road will, they will choose the club that they know will have a team and a spot for their child.

This becomes a self fulfilling cycle. They go to the bigger club not because they run a better program, but because it's a safer option.

More competition will force clubs to run better programs because they know if they don't players/parents will speak with their feet and move. If there's no/few other options big clubs can run mediocre programs to little of their own detriment.

Balance between allowing good programs to prosper and competition which will demand quality.

@Jetters do you really believe there's no merit in allowing clubs to enter a side in a Red and White (A and B grade in reality) in the same age group?

Surely there's something to be said for allowing kids to play against their own ability group to allow them to do things like actually get a kick instead of just having the team's best 10 players do everything.

From my personal experience as a White Grade Coach I'm certain that I've had at least 10 boys become reasonable footballers who will continue it into adulthood. I'm certain that if those boys were thrown to the wolves by playing with team mates who were exceptionally more gifted than they are (which my observations of the Red Division is full of them) they would barely have gotten a kick in 3 years and would be lost to the game by now.

I should also add, Jetters, I assume you've not had an experience with a Red/White set up but watch from a far? The only problems we've had with the Red/White set up from a perspective of what matters (parents and kids) are the parents who are convinced that little Johnny's obvious AFL future is being compromised by a stint in Under 13 Whites.

[Burras]

I hold the view it's about the kids rather than the Clubs. It should be about creating the best environment for children to play football rather than creating some kind of socialized environment to ensure some kind of equal arrangement amongst clubs

Of course it's about the kids.

If a parent 'knows' that one club will certainly have a team(s), but they are unsure whether the club down the road will, they will choose the club that they know will have a team and a spot for their child.

This becomes a self fulfilling cycle. They go to the bigger club not because they run a better program, but because it's a safer option.

More competition will force clubs to run better programs because they know if they don't players/parents will speak with their feet and move. If there's no/few other options big clubs can run mediocre programs to little of their own detriment.

Balance between allowing good programs to prosper and competition which will demand quality.

Jetters you are way off the mark here mate..

Why should a club like GG, who have spent the last 20 year building a "family" culture have to give up future senior players of the club becasue other clubs who are more senior driven have no juniors and start to whinge when they find themselves slipping down the grades.

[Jetters]

I hold the view it's about the kids rather than the Clubs. It should be about creating the best environment for children to play football rather than creating some kind of socialized environment to ensure some kind of equal arrangement amongst clubs

Of course it's about the kids.

If a parent 'knows' that one club will certainly have a team(s), but they are unsure whether the club down the road will, they will choose the club that they know will have a team and a spot for their child.

This becomes a self fulfilling cycle. They go to the bigger club not because they run a better program, but because it's a safer option.

More competition will force clubs to run better programs because they know if they don't players/parents will speak with their feet and move. If there's no/few other options big clubs can run mediocre programs to little of their own detriment.

Balance between allowing good programs to prosper and competition which will demand quality.

@Jetters do you really believe there's no merit in allowing clubs to enter a side in a Red and White (A and B grade in reality) in the same age group?

Surely there's something to be said for allowing kids to play against their own ability group to allow them to do things like actually get a kick instead of just having the team's best 10 players do everything.

From my personal experience as a White Grade Coach I'm certain that I've had at least 10 boys become reasonable footballers who will continue it into adulthood. I'm certain that if those boys were thrown to the wolves by playing with team mates who were exceptionally more gifted than they are (which my observations of the Red Division is full of them) they would barely have gotten a kick in 3 years and would be lost to the game by now.

I should also add, Jetters, I assume you've not had an experience with a Red/White set up but watch from a far? The only problems we've had with the Red/White set up from a perspective of what matters (parents and kids) are the parents who are convinced that little Johnny's obvious AFL future is being compromised by a stint in Under 13 Whites.

Kids playing against others of a more similar ability in theory is a positive. However, if you had more clubs to compete with, that talent would be spread over those extra clubs and the competition would be more even. You would also have more competitive games and a more interesting competition as there would be more teams involved

[Jetters]

I hold the view it's about the kids rather than the Clubs. It should be about creating the best environment for children to play football rather than creating some kind of socialized environment to ensure some kind of equal arrangement amongst clubs

Of course it's about the kids.

If a parent 'knows' that one club will certainly have a team(s), but they are unsure whether the club down the road will, they will choose the club that they know will have a team and a spot for their child.

This becomes a self fulfilling cycle. They go to the bigger club not because they run a better program, but because it's a safer option.

More competition will force clubs to run better programs because they know if they don't players/parents will speak with their feet and move. If there's no/few other options big clubs can run mediocre programs to little of their own detriment.

Balance between allowing good programs to prosper and competition which will demand quality.

Jetters you are way off the mark here mate..

Why should a club like GG, who have spent the last 20 year building a "family" culture have to give up future senior players of the club becasue other clubs who are more senior driven have no juniors and start to whinge when they find themselves slipping down the grades.

What if a club like GG for example, introduced a bizarre policy to test their u10 footballers over a 1km time trials to see how they should be graded....just for example. A parent really has little choice whether they continue with this club or not because there are reasonable alternatives

[jo172]

I hold the view it's about the kids rather than the Clubs. It should be about creating the best environment for children to play football rather than creating some kind of socialized environment to ensure some kind of equal arrangement amongst clubs

Of course it's about the kids.

If a parent 'knows' that one club will certainly have a team(s), but they are unsure whether the club down the road will, they will choose the club that they know will have a team and a spot for their child.

This becomes a self fulfilling cycle. They go to the bigger club not because they run a better program, but because it's a safer option.

More competition will force clubs to run better programs because they know if they don't players/parents will speak with their feet and move. If there's no/few other options big clubs can run mediocre programs to little of their own detriment.

Balance between allowing good programs to prosper and competition which will demand quality.

@Jetters do you really believe there's no merit in allowing clubs to enter a side in a Red and White (A and B grade in reality) in the same age group?

Surely there's something to be said for allowing kids to play against their own ability group to allow them to do things like actually get a kick instead of just having the team's best 10 players do everything.

From my personal experience as a White Grade Coach I'm certain that I've had at least 10 boys become reasonable footballers who will continue it into adulthood. I'm certain that if those boys were thrown to the wolves by playing with team mates who were exceptionally more gifted than they are (which my observations of the Red Division is full of them) they would barely have gotten a kick in 3 years and would be lost to the game by now.

I should also add, Jetters, I assume you've not had an experience with a Red/White set up but watch from a far? The only problems we've had with the Red/White set up from a perspective of what matters (parents and kids) are the parents who are convinced that little Johnny's obvious AFL future is being compromised by a stint in Under 13 Whites.

Kids playing against others of a more similar ability in theory is a positive. However, if you had more clubs to compete with, that talent would be spread over those extra clubs and the competition would be more even. You would also have more competitive games and a more interesting competition as there would be more teams involved

I disagree with the notion that the competition being more even is more important than the talent level on an individual rather than collective basing being even.

An even competition will result in the worst 6-8 players in each team doing sweet **** all while their more gifted team mates do everything and ending up growing disillusioned with the sport.

[Jetters]

In our junior comp if we had similar rules Unley, Goodwood and Mitcham for example would have many teams in each grade, CLG and Glenunga wouldn't have any (more or less). Glenunga were late on the scene and have been able to develop their junior program and CLG used to run a poor junior program which has since been much improved program, now both clubs fill teams in nearly all grades, this would never have happened under your system.

Parents in the area have a genuine choice about which club their kids play for and clubs have to maintain a high standard otherwise players will move. It is also a much more enjoyable competition for the kids when they play against a number of different clubs vs the same few each week.

Our 2nd responsibility, after the kids, must be to football on the whole, this philosophy of developing as many strong clubs as possible will help ensure a sustainable future for our league and be for the betterment of football long term.

[Jetters]

Look at the two leagues when they play association games (even though your league is 3 times the size), look at the rate of kids drafted from the MSJFL, look at the number of clubs looking to move into the MSJFL and the rate of growth in the league. I think our approach is working.

[jo172]

This may be a difference betwen the two competitions that is affecting our differing overall views.

In the NEMJFA age group I was involved in last season between the Red and White Divisions there were 19 sides represented by 17 different clubs. I suspect the significantly larger pool of clubs makes this issue quite different for the NEMJFA relative to the MSJFL.

This also goes to show the paranoia of TTG, Golden Grove, Modbury and PNU just ending up playing each other is far from coming to fruition.

[jo172]

Look at the two leagues when they play association games (even though your league is 3 times the size), look at the rate of kids drafted from the MSJFL, look at the number of clubs looking to move into the MSJFL and the rate of growth in the league. I think our approach is working.

My understanding is that the NEMJFA does not pick kids in SANFL squads and limits each club to providing two players per age group for the association games. Does the MSJFL follow the same criteria?

As to the rate of kids drafted that's not what I perceive to be the overall aim of junior football. Kids being drafted is great icing on the cake, but not the primary aim.

No clubs are looking to move into the NEMJFA because they put a moratorium on it. From what I'm lead to believe it is already the largest junior football league in the country (or amongst them) so I'm not really sure if you would say it isn't "working".

[jo172]

I would also suggest a better definition of working is which league is actually seeing kids go on with their footy. By my count only Goodwood and Unley & Mitcham sharing a team were able to get Under 18s up last year. Contrast this to PNU, TTG, Modbury, Gepps Cross, Golden Grove, Broadview, Ingle Farm, Salisbury, Hope Valley and Smithfield all being able to get Under 18s up from the NEMJFA.

EDIT - I am wrong, I didn't realise Flinders Park, Plympton and PHOS were in the Southern League.

I think my point still has some merit though.

[woodublieve12]

Those club you mention aren't in the southern league

[mighty hounds]

Those club you mention aren't in the southern league

There in metro south juniors though

[G_Leonard]

Sorry to interrupt this debate, but has anyone heard how Seaton are looking?
Had heard about their mass exodus early in the summer, but I hear they've got a few recruits locked in.

I've heard:
Ali Vessali, a tall forward/ruckman most recently from Aldinga... one of their more handy players;
Sam Harvey, full forward most recently from Victor Harbour (I think), pretty handy, solid replacement for Loechel
Shane Harris, small forward/pinch hit in midfield most recently at Portland

Has anyone heard any others?

[Look Good In Leather]

Sorry to interrupt this debate, but has anyone heard how Seaton are looking?
Had heard about their mass exodus early in the summer, but I hear they've got a few recruits locked in.

I've heard:
Ali Vessali, a tall forward/ruckman most recently from Aldinga... one of their more handy players;
Sam Harvey, full forward most recently from Victor Harbour (I think), pretty handy, solid replacement for Loechel
Shane Harris, small forward/pinch hit in midfield most recently at Portland

Has anyone heard any others?

http://www.news.com.au/sport/allergic-r ... 6886906355