RDFNL 2026 Season discussion

[Iceman27]

Diggers had 12 1 pointers in round 2 , doesn't mean much, of Wallan's 12 player HQ has only 6 of them playing Juniors at Wallan (home grown).

You would know better then me but Just to compare, how many of Macedon 12 1 pointers from the weekend played juniors there?

 

[Halffullonfence]

You would know better then me but Just to compare, how many of Macedon 12 1 pointers from the weekend played juniors there?

Exactly my point only 6, being a 1 pointer doesn't mean your "home grown"

 

[Iceman27]

Exactly my point only 6, being a 1 pointer doesn't mean your "home grown"

I get that, my point is some people jump on here and act like we are the only club who don’t play there “home grown players” yet there are other clubs out there whose names don’t get mentioned.

People will disagree and come at me which is fine, everyone is entitled to there opinion but with our best 22, I think our mix of home growns, guys that live in wallan, recruits that hang around & new recruits isn’t as bad as people like to make out on here.

 

[softballget65]

Is there a coach in the world who picks a player just because he lives in Coatesville?

We chastise the mercenaries but ignore loyalty. Seems odd to me.

 

[Turbos mail]

I get that, my point is some people jump on here and act like we are the only club who don’t play there “home grown players” yet there are other clubs out there whose names don’t get mentioned.

People will disagree and come at me which is fine, everyone is entitled to there opinion but with our best 22, I think our mix of home growns, guys that live in wallan, recruits that hang around & new recruits isn’t as bad as people like to make out on here.

The original post was around playing younger players that might be 1 point not related to 1 pointers as such. More based on the future development and game time into younger players where you can. They don’t play many younger types in the later game under the age of 19-20. Hence why they tend to be on max points now.

 

[Iceman27]

The original post was around playing younger players that might be 1 point not related to 1 pointers as such. More based on the future development and game time into younger players where you can. They don’t play many younger types in the later game under the age of 19-20. Hence why they tend to be on max points now.

We had 6 guys play on the weekend that I think are 21 or under.

Just to compare, how many did Souths have?

 

[daniel31]

Seems like the league needs to clamp down on disciplinary issues even in juniors.

 

[Turbos mail]

We had 6 guys play on the weekend that I think are 21 or under.

Just to compare, how many did Souths have?

How many were eligible for under 19.5 level as I heard maybe 1.

Not sure who these 6 were?? Looked to be maybe 1 younger looking player no7 I think.

Anyway my point is valid and we know they will be an experienced team again. Thought they might have gone younger this year based on last season finals and the area probably brings some good younger types. They have a big area to draw players which is great for the club.

 

[Iceman27]

How many were eligible for under 19.5 level as I heard maybe 1.

Not sure who these 6 were?? Looked to be maybe 1 younger looking player no7 I think.

Anyway my point is valid and we know they will be an experienced team again. Thought they might have gone younger this year based on last season finals and the area probably brings some good younger types. They have a big area to draw players which is great for the club.

Luci being a 18 year old and has been impressive so far.

Our 19s last year aren’t up to senior footy just yet, got more talent in this years crop which I’m sure you will see in the later game throughout this season and next season with 2 of them having already played this year.

When Souths are contesting for a flag, let’s see how many 19s they are playing then.

Love ya work Turbos.

edit The 6 were Gilchrist, Fowler, Kennedy, Russell, Luci and i counted Gill but double checking his 22/23.

Our lights were woeful so I’ll forgive ya for only recognising the one.

 

[Turbos mail]

Luci being a 18 year old and has been impressive so far.

Our 19s last year aren’t up to senior footy just yet, got more talent in this years crop which I’m sure you will see in the later game throughout this season and next season with 2 of them having already played this year.

When Souths are contesting for a flag, let’s see how many 19s they are playing then.

Love ya work Turbos.

Cheers iceman, enjoy the conversation.

I do think sometimes you need a plan and that is to develop over x amount of years to build for that premiership. I’ve seen clubs win premierships or lose the GF and go back years purely as no development.

See my view of the demographics of Wallan I thought maybe more than 2 under 19s might have got senior opportunities in the early rounds. If we are comparing Wallan vs South for our conversation purposes I think Wallan have the better senior list and expect they will be higher on the ladder than South come end of year. However South have played 6 under 19s this season with all 6 playing round 1 vs Diggers and 3 playing on Sat vs Wallan.

I would expect that Wallan would be playing more 19s and have more talent in the younger ages purely based on population and junior numbers.

Anyway just a view from outside.

 

[Itsmyshow]

The "Home Grown" argument is stupid and outdated.

Whether it is the AFL team we support or our local club, we want the club to do they best that they can to build a list to be competitive and ultimately have success. Building a "home grown" list is one strategy, "recruitment" is another and everyone would of course love a wonderful balance of both.

But the facts and reality is, this relies heavily on the talent pool through the area and players developing enough to be strong long term senior players. Not all junior programs have the depth of talent pool and if we look at the interleague program results, the depth of talent outside of the pool of RDFNL juniors just isn't as strong, it is just a fact. So the argument for "home grown" is that we have a mindset of wanting to dilute the premier level of competition in the league (the senior competition) just to ensure our clubs are meeting the "home grown" metric which has become an argument in here for some reason?

It is the same argument as the pointless salary cap. The only way to bring equality is the point system, and what teams need to be able to do is ensure that players coming in, do so for multiple years to meet the one point metric.

But the "home grown" argument is dated, this isn't 80s - 90s local footy anymore folks, and we all have an expectation that our local clubs do what they can do within their means to be in the mix and the reality of that is recruiting externally and having one or two or ideally three kids coming through the ranks that are capable of playing senior football and being part of the list, but why sacrifice output if they are not capable of performing at that level?

 

[Doona2]

Yep the home grown/local thing long gone, be it by design or life itself.

FWIW one of my greatest memories in footy was back at Toolleen in 2008 when all 21 guys who ran out for us had played 3rds and/or juniors at Broadford.

Never happen again

 

[Iceman27]

The "Home Grown" argument is stupid and outdated.

Whether it is the AFL team we support or our local club, we want the club to do they best that they can to build a list to be competitive and ultimately have success. Building a "home grown" list is one strategy, "recruitment" is another and everyone would of course love a wonderful balance of both.

But the facts and reality is, this relies heavily on the talent pool through the area and players developing enough to be strong long term senior players. Not all junior programs have the depth of talent pool and if we look at the interleague program results, the depth of talent outside of the pool of RDFNL juniors just isn't as strong, it is just a fact. So the argument for "home grown" is that we have a mindset of wanting to dilute the premier level of competition in the league (the senior competition) just to ensure our clubs are meeting the "home grown" metric which has become an argument in here for some reason?

It is the same argument as the pointless salary cap. The only way to bring equality is the point system, and what teams need to be able to do is ensure that players coming in, do so for multiple years to meet the one point metric.

But the "home grown" argument is dated, this isn't 80s - 90s local footy anymore folks, and we all have an expectation that our local clubs do what they can do within their means to be in the mix and the reality of that is recruiting externally and having one or two or ideally three kids coming through the ranks that are capable of playing senior football and being part of the list, but why sacrifice output if they are not capable of performing at that level?

The "Home Grown" argument is stupid and outdated.

Whether it is the AFL team we support or our local club, we want the club to do they best that they can to build a list to be competitive and ultimately have success. Building a "home grown" list is one strategy, "recruitment" is another and everyone would of course love a wonderful balance of both.

But the facts and reality is, this relies heavily on the talent pool through the area and players developing enough to be strong long term senior players. Not all junior programs have the depth of talent pool and if we look at the interleague program results, the depth of talent outside of the pool of RDFNL juniors just isn't as strong, it is just a fact. So the argument for "home grown" is that we have a mindset of wanting to dilute the premier level of competition in the league (the senior competition) just to ensure our clubs are meeting the "home grown" metric which has become an argument in here for some reason?

It is the same argument as the pointless salary cap. The only way to bring equality is the point system, and what teams need to be able to do is ensure that players coming in, do so for multiple years to meet the one point metric.

But the "home grown" argument is dated, this isn't 80s - 90s local footy anymore folks, and we all have an expectation that our local clubs do what they can do within their means to be in the mix and the reality of that is recruiting externally and having one or two or ideally three kids coming through the ranks that are capable of playing senior football and being part of the list, but why sacrifice output if they are not capable of performing at that level?

Well said.

I might just save this post & show some of the people who like to argue with me on a weekly basis.

 

[tara!!]

Yep the home grown/local thing long gone, be it by design or life itself.

FWIW one of my greatest memories in footy was back at Toolleen in 2008 when all 21 guys who ran out for us had played 3rds and/or juniors at Broadford.

Never happen again

Melton is one club that does it really well and done it for years.

2024 premiership all but two were Melton juniors, the other two grew up in the area.

On the weekend, all but two Melton juniors.

Werribee Districts another. 22 one pointers on the weekend and in last year's grand final. Didn't bring in anyone this year.

 

[footynerd15]

The bigger argument is once again around points. It is a fact that players who are playing in a successful team will hang around. As they drop a point each year, good sides are able to top up with added strong players (4 or 5 pointers) and they just stay strong. The points system was supposed to help struggling clubs but you can easily argue it has made it harder.

Diggers for example who don't even have hardly any junior sides will stay strong as they have retained good players for a number of years (who drop a point on a yearly basis) and add a couple of top quality recruits each year. It is actually a disincentive to argue home grown to be honest.

 

[Itsmyshow]

The bigger argument is once again around points. It is a fact that players who are playing in a successful team will hang around. As they drop a point each year, good sides are able to top up with added strong players (4 or 5 pointers) and they just stay strong. The points system was supposed to help struggling clubs but you can easily argue it has made it harder.

Diggers for example who don't even have hardly any junior sides will stay strong as they have retained good players for a number of years (who drop a point on a yearly basis) and add a couple of top quality recruits each year. It is actually a disincentive to argue home grown to be honest.

Which is why the salary cap should be scrapped (I would be surprised if any team is actually under the cap) and more emphasis on the points cap and equality being implemented to ensure the ability of teams to compete and build over time. A weighted points allocation that provides scope for the bottom teams to spend more "points" to equalise and the top teams, even potentially "losing" points over years of success.

 

[footynerd15]

Exactly it's my show.

Teams can't build over time. Strong sides retain players, weaker sides lose players. The points and the cap need to go.

If they are going to keep the points then be serious and give the weak sides 55 and the strongest 40 or less. If it's about juniors as AFL Vic are trying to say and building clubs from within (which we all know is rubbish) well then sides that don't field teams should be whacked further points for not having juniors.

Very rarely do good players leave strong sides and go to a weaker side. They leave weaker for strong. The strong side keeps everyone and adds. The weaker sides find it hard to retain and recruit. If they do recruit they are often just at the same level as they have lost other good players and are just replacing.

 

[Doona2]

Very rarely do good players leave strong sides and go to a weaker side. They leave weaker for strong. The strong side keeps everyone and adds. The weaker sides find it hard to retain and recruit. If they do recruit they are often just at the same level as they have lost other good players and are just replacing.

Sounds like the AFL “free agency” model.

A few rarities but more often than not players lob at those in premiership windows as opposed to the bottom organisations.

 

[Vlodrive]

Exactly it's my show.

Teams can't build over time. Strong sides retain players, weaker sides lose players. The points and the cap need to go.

If they are going to keep the points then be serious and give the weak sides 55 and the strongest 40 or less. If it's about juniors as AFL Vic are trying to say and building clubs from within (which we all know is rubbish) well then sides that don't field teams should be whacked further points for not having juniors.

Very rarely do good players leave strong sides and go to a weaker side. They leave weaker for strong. The strong side keeps everyone and adds. The weaker sides find it hard to retain and recruit. If they do recruit they are often just at the same level as they have lost other good players and are just replacing.

Spot on

 

[Itsmyshow]

I have been thinking a little about it, and whilst this would likely need input and adjustment, this is how I believe a points system should work. If we look at the ladder how it stands right now as a guide and assuming that the current positions are how it finishes (this is not a prediction), I would look at a system that looks like this and scrap the salary cap as no one follows it anyways.



Limit the point reduction for players as it is far too quick of a drop right now. I would also make the ruling on point allocation more cut and dry, the amount of adjusted points for players is too ambiguous as it stands.

A focus on providing more scope for the bottom teams to recruit players in to balance their competitiveness.

Each year it resets to the original point allocation, it is not cumulative (ie - If Macedon fell to fourth in 2029, they would revert to 38 points).

If a player is a junior (per the Melton example) then they should be allocated 0 points, that is strong governance from a club and should receive greater reward than recruiting an Ex-State League player who remains with a club for multiple years and after 3 years (currently) play on the same point allocation as a locally developed player. If we want to reward teams for playing locals, then make it more enticing within the points cap.

The points starting point can be anywhere, this is purely an example - And the previous point would probably suggest it starts at a lower mark.

This would remove the ambiguity of the current points system and the qualification of points becomes clear and without scope for manipulation.

 

[Turbos mail]

I have been thinking a little about it, and whilst this would likely need input and adjustment, this is how I believe a points system should work. If we look at the ladder how it stands right now as a guide and assuming that the current positions are how it finishes (this is not a prediction), I would look at a system that looks like this and scrap the salary cap as no one follows it anyways.

View attachment 2595056

Limit the point reduction for players as it is far too quick of a drop right now. I would also make the ruling on point allocation more cut and dry, the amount of adjusted points for players is too ambiguous as it stands.

A focus on providing more scope for the bottom teams to recruit players in to balance their competitiveness.

Each year it resets to the original point allocation, it is not cumulative (ie - If Macedon fell to fourth in 2029, they would revert to 38 points).

If a player is a junior (per the Melton example) then they should be allocated 0 points, that is strong governance from a club and should receive greater reward than recruiting an Ex-State League player who remains with a club for multiple years and after 3 years (currently) play on the same point allocation as a locally developed player. If we want to reward teams for playing locals, then make it more enticing within the points cap.

The points starting point can be anywhere, this is purely an example - And the previous point would probably suggest it starts at a lower mark.

This would remove the ambiguity of the current points system and the qualification of points becomes clear and without scope for manipulation.

Like it especially the junior player being 0 points.

 

[2024]

Luci being a 18 year old and has been impressive so far.

Our 19s last year aren’t up to senior footy just yet, got more talent in this years crop which I’m sure you will see in the later game throughout this season and next season with 2 of them having already played this year.

When Souths are contesting for a flag, let’s see how many 19s they are playing then.

Love ya work Turbos.

edit The 6 were Gilchrist, Fowler, Kennedy, Russell, Luci and i counted Gill but double checking his 22/23.

Our lights were woeful so I’ll forgive ya for only recognising the one.

Mahoney, Dickson and Chrystal are Wallan juniors as well. Inness, Brodie Gilchrist and Byrne to return who are also juniors. Give me a spell. Nugget has done an amazing job in his 10 years blooding juniors.

 

[2024]

Mahoney, Dickson and Chrystal are Wallan juniors as well. Inness, Brodie Gilchrist and Byrne to return who are also juniors. Give me a spell. Nugget has done an amazing job in his 10 years blooding juniors.

Apologies forgot to include Nash King (another Wallan Junior). A bit of homework wouldn’t go astray lads before posting garbage

 

[footynerd15]

Apologies forgot to include Nash King (another Wallan Junior). A bit of homework wouldn’t go astray lads before posting garbage

Boys - the original comment was that Wallan didn't appear to have many young players on Saturday night, not that they don't have home grown players. It has also been reiterated a few times.

From my observation I would agree, they appeared to have big,stronger bodies across the ground. I think it was noted there were a couple under 21.

Anyway - that's just my following of the comments made.

 

[Gremlin77]

Boys - the original comment was that Wallan didn't appear to have many young players on Saturday night, not that they don't have home grown players. It has also been reiterated a few times.

From my observation I would agree, they appeared to have big,stronger bodies across the ground. I think it was noted there were a couple under 21.

Anyway - that's just my following of the comments made.

The original comments were made by Turbo trying to justify his team getting a hiding. Better off ignoring and moving on. Wallan trying to win a flag of course they are going to top up, like every club does