NOW to sometime later in the year (maybe) - Talk about anything

Remove this Banner Ad

Bunk Moreland said:
Full fixtures are out now

Premier - 10 teams, aligned
Balwyn
Berwick
Blackburn
Doncaster East
East Ringwood
Noble Park
Norwood
Rowville
South Croydon
Vermont

D1 - 10 teams
Bayswater
Beaconsfield
Mitcham
Montrose
Mooroolbark
North Ringwood
Park Orchards
South Belgrave
Surrey Park (second team)
Wantirna South

No team - Doncaster

D2 - 7 teams
Croydon
East Burwood
Heathmont
Lilydale
Mulgrave
The Basin
Waverley Blues

No team - Boronia, Ringwood, Templestowe

D3 - 8 teams
Coldstream
Donvale
Fairpark
Ferntree Gully
Knox
Surrey Park
Upper Ferntree Gully
Warrandyte

No team - Oakleigh District, Silvan

D4 - 9 teams
Berwick (second team)
Blackburn (second team)
Chirnside Park
Ferntree Gully (second team)
Kilsyth
Mitcham (second team)
Scoresby
South Belgrave (second team)
Wantirna South (second team)

No team - Croydon North MLOC, Forest Hill, Nunawading, Whitehorse

Cliff, I think you're right, Vermont has possibly tried for a second team but it has fallen over. No reason why they can't, there's places in D3 and D4.

Also 10/10/8/8/8 would seem to make more sense than 10/10/7/8/9

Doncaster will always have a big battle in their area

Boronia, Ringwood... who would know what is going on there. Both have big junior clubs. Ringwood go on about being the best junior club in the EFNL. No U19s??

Oakleigh were known about when they entered, the league didn't care

Silvan I don't know, they're a bush club, I actually don't even know why they're in the EFNL at all

Croydon North MLOC, not sure how a "Old Collegians" club doesn't have U19s, if so then they never will

I'm sure that with the right strategy things could be balanced out between Blackburn, Mitcham, Surrey Park (two teams) and Forest Hill, Nunawading, Whitehorse (no teams). Six clubs a stone's throw from each other, how can the "seconds teams" be better redeployed as U19 teams for the D4 clubs. The "big" clubs probably won't have it but there's no long-term affect on them (they're not losing players, none of their U19 seconds will ever play seniors for them), and itcould help feed players to the D4 clubs. There is 47 clubs and you want to keep them fed with players.
Click to expand...

Agreed with Silvan/ the question about ringwood and boronia, boronia probably don't care as they just won the premiership.

Croydon north/mloc from my understanding is all croydon north, MLOC is just in the name, in which you'd think they'd look at changing if the mount lilydale connection is dead.

Dont mind that strategy. Except Surrey park have built what they have now (after 4-5 winless years in a row getting pumped) off their juniors/19s, they would loathe to let any go.

The onus is on the clubs but its tougher than ever to get a pathway set up
 
localfootylegend23 said:
Agreed with Silvan/ the question about ringwood and boronia, boronia probably don't care as they just won the premiership.

Croydon north/mloc from my understanding is all croydon north, MLOC is just in the name, in which you'd think they'd look at changing if the mount lilydale connection is dead.

Dont mind that strategy. Except Surrey park have built what they have now (after 4-5 winless years in a row getting pumped) off their juniors/19s, they would loathe to let any go.

The onus is on the clubs but its tougher than ever to get a pathway set up
Click to expand...

I don’t know how it would look. Do they play half and half in terms of the jumper and ground they play at? So for half their games they play at Forest Hill in Forest Hill jumpers, rather than Mitcham for example? Of course Forest Hill would have to completely buy in and actually make it an attractive place to be with a view to having the players come through to their senior program. They have to put the work in.

Just one idea, there must be some way to build club partnerships and make it happen.

I get the bigger clubs would be very much against it, but I’d be comfortable about it for the simple reason that they won’t lose anybody who they want to keep for senior footy. And the upside is big - we can’t have clubs going under for a lack of numbers in the future.
 
CliffMcTainshaw said:
After looking at the U19.5 fixtures, I'm more convinced than ever that there should be either some grading or a re adjustment of the fixtures in Div 2, 3 and 4. In Div 2 there are 7 teams, with one team having a bye each week. In Div 3, there are 8 teams with 2 teams having a bye each week. In Div 4 there are 9 teams with one team having a bye each week.
I can see why there are 2 byes each week in Div 3 (it happens when the seniors play a team that does not have an U19.5 side). Surely instead of kids missing out on a game these 2 bye teams should be playing each other. There would be quite a few of them with cars so transport shouldn't be a problem. In Div 2 it should be possible to move up Blackburn's second under 19.5 team from Div 4 so there isn't a bye every week in Div's 2 and 4. My reasoning is that there are a number of clubs with a second team in Div 4, but as Blackburn are the only Premier club with a team, they should go up to Div 2.
Other things that need to be considered are: where would Blackburn play if their ground is being used by their other team. Play them at a nearby venue either at Nunawading's ground or at East Burwood, the fixture would need to ensure that whenever East Burwood were at home, Blackburn plays away. No such problem at Nunawading, just make sure that they play before Nunawadings home games whenever possible.
Other things: Do Vermont have a second team? Their team in Prem Div is identified as Purple, which suggests that they have a second team, but a second team isn't shown in any other grade.
OR are all these byes because of a shortage of umpires?
Click to expand...

Not a bad call cliffy. Though I think we actually use the bottom deck at Morton if there’s a clash with both 19.5s at home - or start earlier/finish later across the day and squeeze 4 on the main


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

Log in to remove this ad.

DavefromBoronia said:
Boronia identified a gap in our junior numbers back in 2017 that would put our future Under 19's at risk. As one club, juniors and seniors, we worked very hard to build our junior numbers to fill that gap, but junior players were prepared to join other clubs when they they thought Boronia would struggle for on-field success with low numbers in the 14's through 17's bracket. Eventually we went from 30 Under 19's, mainly top age, in 2021 to six prospective players in 2022. The player pipeline had dried up. Merger talks didn't work out and the six players joined our senior program. We had good Under 17 numbers in 2023 and are very keen to form a Under 19's team again very soon as our junior program builds again. It all came about for a number of reasons and the club would probably do a few things differently with the benefit of hindsight. Bringing together junior and seniors as one club in 2017 was the first step to begin the rebuild. It often comes back to the volunteers and their capability to strategise and plan while also managing the day to day footy operations. In 2017 Boronia planned the rebuild from Auskick upwards, which has been a great success since it was rebooted in 2018. Youth football is not easy for any club as demographics move around, even for clubs that may be seem to outsiders to be otherwise successful and well run. We will always keep doing our best to encourage kids to play footy and love their club.
Click to expand...

A detailed response some time ago about Boronia FNC and currently not having an under 19 team.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Full fixtures are out now

Premier - 10 teams, aligned
Balwyn
Berwick
Blackburn
Doncaster East
East Ringwood
Noble Park
Norwood
Rowville
South Croydon
Vermont

D1 - 10 teams
Bayswater
Beaconsfield
Mitcham
Montrose
Mooroolbark
North Ringwood
Park Orchards
South Belgrave
Surrey Park (second team)
Wantirna South

No team - Doncaster

D2 - 7 teams
Croydon
East Burwood
Heathmont
Lilydale
Mulgrave
The Basin
Waverley Blues

No team - Boronia, Ringwood, Templestowe

D3 - 8 teams
Coldstream
Donvale
Fairpark
Ferntree Gully
Knox
Surrey Park
Upper Ferntree Gully
Warrandyte

No team - Oakleigh District, Silvan

D4 - 9 teams
Berwick (second team)
Blackburn (second team)
Chirnside Park
Ferntree Gully (second team)
Kilsyth
Mitcham (second team)
Scoresby
South Belgrave (second team)
Wantirna South (second team)

No team - Croydon North MLOC, Forest Hill, Nunawading, Whitehorse

Cliff, I think you're right, Vermont has possibly tried for a second team but it has fallen over. No reason why they can't, there's places in D3 and D4.

Also 10/10/8/8/8 would seem to make more sense than 10/10/7/8/9

Doncaster will always have a big battle in their area

Boronia, Ringwood... who would know what is going on there. Both have big junior clubs. Ringwood go on about being the best junior club in the EFNL. No U19s??

Oakleigh were known about when they entered, the league didn't care

Silvan I don't know, they're a bush club, I actually don't even know why they're in the EFNL at all

Croydon North MLOC, not sure how a "Old Collegians" club doesn't have U19s, if so then they never will

I'm sure that with the right strategy things could be balanced out between Blackburn, Mitcham, Surrey Park (two teams) and Forest Hill, Nunawading, Whitehorse (no teams). Six clubs a stone's throw from each other, how can the "seconds teams" be better redeployed as U19 teams for the D4 clubs. The "big" clubs probably won't have it but there's no long-term affect on them (they're not losing players, none of their U19 seconds will ever play seniors for them), and itcould help feed players to the D4 clubs. There is 47 clubs and you want to keep them fed with players.
Click to expand...

That’s happened before - the forest hill eagles were around recently and think prior to that Vermont did similar with Glen Waverley?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Full fixtures are out now

Premier - 10 teams, aligned
Balwyn
Berwick
Blackburn
Doncaster East
East Ringwood
Noble Park
Norwood
Rowville
South Croydon
Vermont

D1 - 10 teams
Bayswater
Beaconsfield
Mitcham
Montrose
Mooroolbark
North Ringwood
Park Orchards
South Belgrave
Surrey Park (second team)
Wantirna South

No team - Doncaster

D2 - 7 teams
Croydon
East Burwood
Heathmont
Lilydale
Mulgrave
The Basin
Waverley Blues

No team - Boronia, Ringwood, Templestowe

D3 - 8 teams
Coldstream
Donvale
Fairpark
Ferntree Gully
Knox
Surrey Park
Upper Ferntree Gully
Warrandyte

No team - Oakleigh District, Silvan

D4 - 9 teams
Berwick (second team)
Blackburn (second team)
Chirnside Park
Ferntree Gully (second team)
Kilsyth
Mitcham (second team)
Scoresby
South Belgrave (second team)
Wantirna South (second team)

No team - Croydon North MLOC, Forest Hill, Nunawading, Whitehorse

Cliff, I think you're right, Vermont has possibly tried for a second team but it has fallen over. No reason why they can't, there's places in D3 and D4.

Also 10/10/8/8/8 would seem to make more sense than 10/10/7/8/9

Doncaster will always have a big battle in their area

Boronia, Ringwood... who would know what is going on there. Both have big junior clubs. Ringwood go on about being the best junior club in the EFNL. No U19s??

Oakleigh were known about when they entered, the league didn't care

Silvan I don't know, they're a bush club, I actually don't even know why they're in the EFNL at all

Croydon North MLOC, not sure how a "Old Collegians" club doesn't have U19s, if so then they never will

I'm sure that with the right strategy things could be balanced out between Blackburn, Mitcham, Surrey Park (two teams) and Forest Hill, Nunawading, Whitehorse (no teams). Six clubs a stone's throw from each other, how can the "seconds teams" be better redeployed as U19 teams for the D4 clubs. The "big" clubs probably won't have it but there's no long-term affect on them (they're not losing players, none of their U19 seconds will ever play seniors for them), and itcould help feed players to the D4 clubs. There is 47 clubs and you want to keep them fed with players.
Click to expand...

I'm doubting the fixtures are final. Especially Div 3 & 4, for example Coldstream U19s play a game on May 25th and then don't play again until June 22nd because of byes.

I had heard FTG were only having 1 team and that Fairpark were unlikely to be fielding 19s this year, so its likely to change id imagine
 
hansie said:
That’s happened before - the forest hill eagles were around recently and think prior to that Vermont did similar with Glen Waverley?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...

Sounds like they had the right idea to me - the players keep playing “for their junior club”, and it’s a pathway to senior footy for those who, let’s be honest, are never going to play at a Premier Div club.

And everybody wins because healthy clubs - as many of them as possible - means a healthy league.
 
Brown Bottle said:
I quite like this equalization idea. I expect that as we pool our players for the betterment of the competition we'll also pool our revenues and start receiving pokies income, a share of the taking from clubs that host finals, etc
Click to expand...

Sounds like a junior footy mindset

You're not pooling your players. You've got three senior teams and you'll keep every player that is going to contribute to your senior effort. At Under 19.5 level everybody knows very well who's going on to play - or even push for - senior footy at your club in future.

For the others, you're giving them a path to senior footy while still keeping them somewhat aligned.

And let's not act like all these Under 19 programs of "our players" are pure as the driven snow. Blackburn and Vermont are active recruiters externally at U19 level. Vermont is targeting gun players at Under 15 / Under 16 level, which will just coincidently ensure they clear the 3 seasons / 40 games rule that will make them 1 point "home players" when they get to senior level for Vermont (predictable behaviour). Others like Mitcham are virtually begging for players on social media, offering free fees and free everything else in competition with surrounding clubs.
 
Bowlers Name said:
Hard to see how it could happen unless the RDCA committee bypassed a club vote on it or the BHRDCA clubs were happy to settle for a start in Newey or Pascoe.
Click to expand...

I dare say the RDCA could probably add a few more stronger clubs because Newey is becoming a bare bones competition so one club could slot in there straight away and probably be premiership favourites.

First time I've heard these rumours though but do know some RDCA and Box Hill clubs play against each other at junior level so many connections between a few clubs are getting stronger.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Sounds like a junior footy mindset

You're not pooling your players. You've got three senior teams and you'll keep every player that is going to contribute to your senior effort. At Under 19.5 level everybody knows very well who's going on to play - or even push for - senior footy at your club in future.

For the others, you're giving them a path to senior footy while still keeping them somewhat aligned.

And let's not act like all these Under 19 programs of "our players" are pure as the driven snow. Blackburn and Vermont are active recruiters externally at U19 level. Vermont is targeting gun players at Under 15 / Under 16 level, which will just coincidently ensure they clear the 3 seasons / 40 games rule that will make them 1 point "home players" when they get to senior level for Vermont (predictable behaviour). Others like Mitcham are virtually begging for players on social media, offering free fees and free everything else in competition with surrounding clubs.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see every club field an U19s team. I'd love for them all to have strong junior clubs feeding them. Of course it would be better for the competition. But as I said earlier - it's easy to hold a view if you don't appreciate the connectivity that keeps players at a club. Maybe the kid who's the last one picked in the 2nd U19 team is also the best mate of the first ten players picked in the 1st team, and he'll go on to be a depth development player before becoming a team manager for the 1s which all of his best mates are now playing in.

What you're suggesting is like me telling you to start supporting Gold Coast because that would be better for the competition. Essendon have enough supporters mate.
 
Brown Bottle said:
I'd love to see every club field an U19s team. I'd love for them all to have strong junior clubs feeding them. Of course it would be better for the competition. But as I said earlier - it's easy to hold a view if you don't appreciate the connectivity that keeps players at a club. Maybe the kid who's the last one picked in the 2nd U19 team is also the best mate of the first ten players picked in the 1st team, and he'll go on to be a depth development player before becoming a team manager for the 1s which all of his best mates are now playing in.

What you're suggesting is like me telling you to start supporting Gold Coast because that would be better for the competition. Essendon have enough supporters mate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I hear you on that. You would just keep the great clubman in your own U19 team? You might have up to 28 or so players, which you'll use when injuries and unavailabilites hit, I'm sure you can find a spot for him.

I'm not sure about warehousing a whole second team of players just for these type of situations.

And i'm not even suggesting the second team would completely leave the club. It'd be up to the league and the D4 club to present a situation whereby they stay involved, but can also start to be initiated into another senior club, which is where their footy future lies.

If the club has a brilliant clubman then keep him involved. What are the U19s for? Surely to bring good people and players into your club? The players themselves will be obsessed with winning an U19 premiership, which might be nice, but no smart club is going to ditch good people all in pursuit of that. It's a junior footy mindset. Let's be honest, in the grand scheme of things nobody outside of the players and coach cares who wins U19 and reserves flags. They are support grades for your seniors. The people running the club will be a bit more strategic abut what's best for the future.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bunk Moreland said:
If the club has a brilliant clubman then keep him involved. What are the U19s for? Surely to bring good people and players into your club? The players themselves will be obsessed with winning an U19 premiership, which might be nice, but no smart club is going to ditch good people all in pursuit of that. It's a junior footy mindset. Let's be honest, in the grand scheme of things nobody outside of the players and coach cares who wins U19 and reserves flags. They are support grades for your seniors. The people running the club will be a bit more strategic abut what's best for the future.
Click to expand...
See, my view is that the highlighted bit is why so many clubs struggle for Juniors and 19s. If you think that Junior and 19s premierships don't really matter I think you're missing the point when it comes to community football
 
Brown Bottle said:
See, my view is that the highlighted bit is why so many clubs struggle for Juniors and 19s. If you think that Junior and 19s premierships don't really matter I think you're missing the point when it comes to community football
Click to expand...

You said not fielding two U19 teams will mean you maybe can’t give a great clubman a game.

My point is that if he’s such a great clubman, give him a bloody game in your only U19 team. It’s the best thing for your club to have him involved. Give him a game over one of the ten more talented kids you’ve gone and recruited from other junior clubs.

I stand by the point that in the long run, nobody outside the players and coach will really care who won a U19 premiership. Flags are nice but I’d be surprised if any committee or leaders worth their salt are prioritising it. Surely the #1 goal for U19s is to bring good people through into the senior club.

I’m sure people are sick of the conversation so I’ll try not to say too much more about it. The most important thing for me in community sport is all clubs survive in a healthy manner. We all need opponents, not super “clubs” with a million teams. Any club without U19s could be vulnerable in the future. When you have a situation where three clubs in close proximity have two U19s teams and another three have none, something is possibly a bit out of whack.

Equalisation at local level is very hard but maybe there’s just something that could be done at league level to try to align these “second” U19 teams a little bit (not completely) with the other clubs that might lead to some good senior outcomes for all.

In the long run I don’t think it’d cost the bigger clubs anything but they might modify their approach a little as above rather than the current scattergun approach of recruiting and warehousing as many kids as they can get so as to whittle them down by the time they get to seniors.

Hell, they’d still have their second team. But there might just be a few small things done to introduce them to another senior club.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
We all need opponents, not super “clubs” with a million teams. Any club without U19s could be vulnerable in the future. When you have a situation where three clubs in close proximity have two U19s teams and another three have none, something is possibly a bit out of whack.
Click to expand...
I agree that we've probably done this to death. I just can't help but laugh every time you group Surrey Park in with the "super clubs". Have you been to Surrey Park?
 
Last edited:
I heard one club which has a lot of players but not just not enough to have two teams but another club just doesn't have enough to field a team had a discussion. The club with not enough players asked them if they would send the excess players on loan to them so they can field a team this year. The outcome was just send us your players so we can field two teams and you can have them back next year. The result is no team for one club, the other club looks set to field only one team. Players have gone elsewhere with some taking 12 months off. Love Community Football.
 
eflreceiver said:
I heard one club which has a lot of players but not just not enough to have two teams but another club just doesn't have enough to field a team had a discussion. The club with not enough players asked them if they would send the excess players on loan to them so they can field a team this year. The outcome was just send us your players so we can field two teams and you can have them back next year. The result is no team for one club, the other club looks set to field only one team. Players have gone elsewhere with some taking 12 months off. Love Community Football.
Click to expand...
And by the look of things 8 or 9 to EB.
 
Brown Bottle said:
I agree that we've probably done this to death. I just can't help but laugh every time you group Surrey Park in with the "super clubs". Have you been to Surrey Park?
Click to expand...

Yeah I have. The reality is they’ve come a long way, though their juniors have always been strong.

To have two Under 19s teams makes them pretty powerful when you consider others in the area have none. It’s where they’re at. The work to connect with the junior club has obviously produced a lot of fruit and now, excess fruit.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Yeah I have. The reality is they’ve come a long way, though their juniors have always been strong.

To have two Under 19s teams makes them pretty powerful when you consider others in the area have none. It’s where they’re at. The work to connect with the junior club has obviously produced a lot of fruit and now, excess fruit.
Click to expand...
Different team but in the one I refer to is, one disgruntled player has taken a dozen with him. It works but then it doesn't, and I heard one club stalwart quip, "They are just average players". Well, then why so hard to keep them? Excess fruit is more like someone's trash is someone's treasure.
 
Last edited:
Bunk Moreland said:
Got a question... where did the little fella at Hawthorn, Nick Watson, play his junior footy?

From what can be seen on social media, there's about 3 or 4 EFNL clubs claiming him as their player 🤣
Click to expand...
East Ringwood / Eastern Ranges as far as I know
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top