Pseudo wrote:Aerie wrote:I don't see why it is that difficult and what problem there would be with Port keeping their junior zone as is, provided they want to keep it and meet whatever KPI's are set to ensure standards are upheld.
The only benefit I can see from the Port model to the SANFL clubs is that it obviates the need for the clubs to supply top-up players.
In every other respect it stinks.
A kid in a SANFL club's zone gets brought up in that club's development scheme. He can aspire to play for a SANFL league club, or if he's really good then to be drafted by the Victorian league.
A kid in an AFL club zone gets brought up by an AFL club, with recourse to the time and monetary resources of that AFL club. His aspirations are:
1 - be drafted, with a 17/18 chance that he'll end up at one of his club's rivals. Hard to see how that benefits the mother AFL club.
2 - play as a second-string player to a team full of AFL players; limited in his options by the need to play AFL players in their preferred positions.
3 - if he's any good, trade to another SANFL club. So much for maintaining links with the community; The AFL team is bringing up local kids to play for other communities.
The key criterion for determining whether or not a kids plays in a SANFL development stream or an AFL development stream is a matter of simple geography. Live on the LeFevre peninsula (or whatever) and you get AFL-level development but with minimal chance of ever playing for your club. Live anywhere else and you get the stock-standard SANFL treatment but with a reasonable career path through that club. Should a kids footballing career path be determined solely by his parents' street address?
No AFL club has any business in running development zones. This is why the Port model sucks. The Crows model sucks too, but for different reasons.
Agree they shouldn't be running development zones solely on their own, but I reckon the whole situation would be improved by going back to a semi-zone, semi-draft situation all over Australia, which would strengthen the structure of footy and provide an AFL reserves/development league.
Each AFL club is given a zone, pretty simple in the two-club states. IN SA, SANFL clubs would keep running like they are, but be divided perhaps on a northwest/southeast basis for recruiting. There seem to be enough good players coming out of Qld and NSW these days for those clubs to have recruiting zones there. Victorian clubs would be reallocated zones, with perhaps Hawthorn and North Melbourne allocated northern and southern Tassie respectively, and a restructured VFL/TAC to align with Victorian clubs for recruiting but be able to run autonomously.
AFL clubs would be able to choose 2 players from their zones before the draft. If there were population issues, clubs with smaller bases could choose 3 or perhaps have a special first-round of the draft (which in effect would be about 37-45th pick). All other players into draft and rookie draft which precede as normal. Clubs then choose top-up players from their zones, being undrafted players first year out of u/18s, for a maximum of two years with first right to upgrade at the end of the year (but not any time like rookies) as discussed elsewhere on this thread. Rules needed to clubs don't "hide" players from other teams.
Under this system, a Toumpas or Aish would remain with SANFL clubs until drafting age, and probably Port and the Crows, respectively would get first crack at them. The system wouldn't preclude a Matthew Wright from playing for the Crows, just that Port have first choice of him in their 2 picks.
Port Magpies, East Perth and Peel Thunder become legitimate clubs again, and there would be a strong, consistent structure for the SANFL, WAFL, QAFL, Sydney league to work in and towards.
