D4 Division 4 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gia77

All Australian
May 16, 2018
601
424
AFL Club
Geelong
Geez m8. There are some really ignorant posts on forums but don't make a competition for the dumbest post ever.

2019 season -- 8 teams in division 3, 9 teams in division 4 = 17 teams.
Manningham and Aquinas go to D2, no teams from D1 come down = 15 teams.
Seems a genuine possibility StFX go to SFNL = 14 teams

Then we hope (pray), that all of those 14 teams stay afloat and field a seniors and reserves for the 2020 season. Which would leave either 7 teams in both divisions (no chance) or 1 division of 14 teams, where each team plays each other once, and a few teams twice (fixtured so that the higher ranked teams play each other twice i.e. same with lower ranked teams).

Doesn't seem all that far fetched and I'm sure the clubs that played in D3 this season would love to play more games after having 2 byes every week which was a debacle in itself..

So spare me your dumbest post ever forum crap.
 

Seemyhat

Senior List
Feb 12, 2019
232
235
AFL Club
GWS
2019 season -- 8 teams in division 3, 9 teams in division 4 = 17 teams.
Manningham and Aquinas go to D2, no teams from D1 come down = 15 teams.
Seems a genuine possibility StFX go to SFNL = 14 teams

Then we hope (pray), that all of those 14 teams stay afloat and field a seniors and reserves for the 2020 season. Which would leave either 7 teams in both divisions (no chance) or 1 division of 14 teams, where each team plays each other once, and a few teams twice (fixtured so that the higher ranked teams play each other twice i.e. same with lower ranked teams).

Doesn't seem all that far fetched and I'm sure the clubs that played in D3 this season would love to play more games after having 2 byes every week which was a debacle in itself..

So spare me your dumbest post ever forum crap.

I think 1 club from division 1 this year goes down. Only 9 clubs currently in division 1.

If losing STFX then 25 clubs across divisions 1-3.
 

SavageHound

Rookie
May 5, 2007
27
12
AFL Club
Collingwood
I would suggest with 9 in Div 2, Aquinas and Manningham up to D2 making 10

Hawthorn come back to D3 SFX (if they stay in VAFA) and AP to D3 makes 9. A lot will depend on St Johns and Swinburne to see if they can/will return to Division football. I think St Johns could be in a position to come back.
 

Ratfink

Debutant
May 10, 2006
61
44
I would suggest with 9 in Div 2, Aquinas and Manningham up to D2 making 10

Hawthorn come back to D3 SFX (if they stay in VAFA) and AP to D3 makes 9. A lot will depend on St Johns and Swinburne to see if they can/will return to Division football. I think St Johns could be in a position to come back.

SFX are gone. It's already in a couple of news items published on the VAFA website eg:

All of these clubs have earnt promotion to the higher section for season 2020 except for St Francis Xavier who sadly are moving to another league.

 

SeaSide

Team Captain
Jul 6, 2011
428
281
Williamstown
AFL Club
Collingwood
I would suggest with 9 in Div 2, Aquinas and Manningham up to D2 making 10

Hawthorn come back to D3 SFX (if they stay in VAFA) and AP to D3 makes 9. A lot will depend on St Johns and Swinburne to see if they can/will return to Division football. I think St Johns could be in a position to come back.
 

SeaSide

Team Captain
Jul 6, 2011
428
281
Williamstown
AFL Club
Collingwood
As a long-time VAFA follower of Amateur football for over 55 years and having played with former clubs as State Savings Bank of Victoria/State Bank’, plus ‘Patricians’, I have some thoughts on next year’s itinerary for the three lower divisions.

I played and fought for, with two other Willy CY’s (also former Ammos’ players - CBCOB and Skevs) brought Williamstown CYMS from the then (now defunct) WSFL into the VAFA. (36 years ago, the three of us life members and still involved)

My thoughts are ‘amalgamating the three (short) divisions’ into two geographical sections.

I have no doubt that next year’s itinerary/fixtures are well in hand, together with new clubs being welcomed into the fold. Mine is a suggestion, which I have no doubt has already been discussed, however, my thoughts are along these lines.

I do understand that there could be departures from my list, and there could be additions too; some tweaking will then be required.

1 X 12 South / East
  • Aquinas Ringwood
  • Box Hill North Box Hill
  • Bulleen Templestowe Bulleen
  • Canterbury Canterbury
  • Eley Park Box Hill
  • Emmaus St Leos Burwood
  • Glen Eira Carnegie
  • Manningham Bulleen
  • South Mornington Tasmania
  • St Francis Xavier Beaconsfield
  • Whitefriars Ringwood
  • Yarra Old Grammarians Doncaster
1 X 13 North / West / Central
  • Albert Park Albert Park
  • Elsternwick Elwood
  • Hawthorn Hawthorn East
  • Ivanhoe Ivanhoe
  • LaTrobe Uni Bundoora
  • MHSOB South Yarra
  • NOBS Brunswick
  • North Brunswick North Brunswick
  • Parkside Alphington
  • Powerhouse Albert Park
  • Richmond Central Richmond
  • South Melbourne Districts Albert Park
  • Westbourne Truganina
In order to alleviate whimpers regarding any lack of games against weaker clubs, I suggest a shorter year combined with a final 8 / or even a final 10.
The suggestion should it be implemented must end moans and grumbles as after one season stronger clubs will be placed in the divisions where they deserve to be.
I would be surprised if there wasn’t a steadiness of around 85% which will overly justify the VAFA’s 2up/2down tried and tested tradition.
 

SeaSide

Team Captain
Jul 6, 2011
428
281
Williamstown
AFL Club
Collingwood
Lost me when you said final 8 or final 10. There is no perfect solution to the current mess so the VAFA are going to need to make the tough calls (unlike Div3 this season)
Thank you Seemyhat for your feedback.
I feel that all posts on this forum have been made with their clubs and the competition at the forefront of feelings and sentiments.
...
All contributors appear to consider that the three lower divisions are a mess, and this forum’s posters have all given positive ideas as ways to correct the situation.
Each idea posted is worthy of consideration and hopefully the VAFA gives consideration to them all.
...

Edit: Leave the moderating to the mods, thank you - OTP
 
Last edited by a moderator:

random observer

Debutant
Jul 12, 2017
97
116
AFL Club
Sydney
My thoughts are ‘amalgamating the three (short) divisions’ into two geographical sections.

1 X 12 South / East
  • Aquinas Ringwood
  • Box Hill North Box Hill
  • Bulleen Templestowe Bulleen
  • Canterbury Canterbury
  • Eley Park Box Hill
  • Emmaus St Leos Burwood
  • Glen Eira Carnegie
  • Manningham Bulleen
  • South Mornington Tasmania
  • St Francis Xavier Beaconsfield
  • Whitefriars Ringwood
  • Yarra Old Grammarians Doncaster
1 X 13 North / West / Central
  • Albert Park Albert Park
  • Elsternwick Elwood
  • Hawthorn Hawthorn East
  • Ivanhoe Ivanhoe
  • LaTrobe Uni Bundoora
  • MHSOB South Yarra
  • NOBS Brunswick
  • North Brunswick North Brunswick
  • Parkside Alphington
  • Powerhouse Albert Park
  • Richmond Central Richmond
  • South Melbourne Districts Albert Park
  • Westbourne Truganina
In order to alleviate whimpers regarding any lack of games against weaker clubs, I suggest a shorter year combined with a final 8 / or even a final 10.
The suggestion should it be implemented must end moans and grumbles as after one season stronger clubs will be placed in the divisions where they deserve to be.
I would be surprised if there wasn’t a steadiness of around 85% which will overly justify the VAFA’s 2up/2down tried and tested tradition.

Some interesting ideas here, but I am still against regionalisation. The VAFA tried it in the 90s and it was a disaster (massively floggings for bottom sides, divisions that had geographic drift). This approach is more flexible and sensible, but I don’t think it can overcome these problems.

• I think this idea can only work with a maximum of 24 teams. Any more than 12 to a division gets awkward, imo, especially if a bye is involved – too many complaints about unfair draws. Keeping three sections would make it easier to slot in St Johns, Swinburne and/or Chadstone if they return (or anyone else come across).
• The geographical idea does reduce travel, but the divisions are still bloody big – Doncaster to Mt Martha is still a long way. If the idea is to retain clubs in the VAFA, I suppose it might help, but I don’t see it being a drawcard to attract clubs from other comps - it is much bigger than the SFNL, and more travel than most EFL sides would get. Depends on what you are trying to do.
• How would this final 8 work? Do you mean a final 8 in each section? If so, I think this is excessively generous (i.e., 8 of 12/13 sides make the finals). Sides that have lost more games than they have won should not be in the finals, imo.
• Another possibility is that the final 8 would be integrated, like the AFL final 8 (the qualifying finals would be 1st from South East vs. 2nd from North West and vice-versa, the elimination finals 3rd from SE vs. 4th from NW, and v/v). This should get the fairest comparison, but it would be weird playing a final against a side you haven’t played that season. Also, it could result in some lopsided finals, if the two or three best sides happen to be in one section. It could also result in both promoted sides coming from the one section, which could cause problems (see below).
• Yet another possibility would be to have two final fours, with the ‘premiers’ of each section to play off for the overall flag. This would ensure that one team from each section goes up but might not be a very good game, or the fairest outcome (in some years, 2nd in one section might be better than 1st in the other). It might also seem a bit of an anti-climax after the two sides have won their section ‘premiership’.
• A final 10 is just too big. It would take 5 weeks, with some pretty meaningless games early. It would be hard to even think up names for all the finals.
• A problem experienced in the 90s was sectional drift. When there were 3 E sections (roughly north/west, central and south/east), the three sides coming down from D didn’t always fit in neatly (some came from the same side of town – I think someone, possibly VAFA Eye, posted a full analysis some years ago, but I can’t be stuffed trying to find it), causing the sections to drift/deform. If this proposed comp had an integrated final 8, it is quite possible that both promoted sides could be from the same section (say, the southeast section). If the two sides relegated from Div 1 that year both came from the northwest side of town, it would be hard to slot them into the SE division. I suppose the VAFA could counteract this by shuffling a couple of centrally-located sides from one division to the other (put the relegated sides in NW, then move some border sides across to the SE), but this might create a perception that the VAFA is stuffing clubs around arbitrarily, especially if it means that near neighbours get separated.
• Promotion at the end of the first year will not fix ‘moans and grumbles’ about lopsided games, because there will still be lopsided games. Yes, the two best sides will go up – but they will be replaced by sides coming down from Div 1 (unless you mean to upsize Div 1 to 12 teams at the end of the first season – but I don’t see that in your post). And (unless they have absolutely crashed, which is rarely the case) these sides will be of similar quality to the sides promoted. (They have to be, or else promotion and relegation wouldn’t work). Thus, lopsidedness is a self-renewing problem. Having two parallel sections is effectively having a 24-team maxi division, where 1st will likely come up against 24th (or 2nd against 23rd). And, unless the quality of the divisions has flattened out in the last 20 years (and I don’t think it has), this is going to be a big difference. You might get away with it in a sport like soccer, but in a high-scoring sport like footy, there are going to be some blowouts.

Sorry to be so negative – this proposal has obviously had a lot of thought and effort put into it – but I think the problems are too great for it to work.
 
Last edited:

SeaSide

Team Captain
Jul 6, 2011
428
281
Williamstown
AFL Club
Collingwood
Some interesting ideas here, but I am still against regionalisation. The VAFA tried it in the 90s and it was a disaster (massively floggings for bottom sides, divisions that had geographic drift). This approach is more flexible and sensible, but I don’t think it can overcome these problems.

• I think this idea can only work with a maximum of 24 teams. Any more than 12 to a division gets awkward, imo, especially if a bye is involved – too many complaints about unfair draws. Keeping three sections would make it easier to slot in St Johns, Swinburne and/or Chadstone if they return (or anyone else come across).
• The geographical idea does reduce travel, but the divisions are still bloody big – Doncaster to Mt Martha is still a long way. If the idea is to retain clubs in the VAFA, I suppose it might help, but I don’t see it being a drawcard to attract clubs from other comps - it is much bigger than the SFNL, and more travel than most EFL sides would get. Depends on what you are trying to do.
• How would this final 8 work? Do you mean a final 8 in each section? If so, I think this is excessively generous (i.e., 8 of 12/13 sides make the finals). Sides that have lost more games than they have won should not be in the finals, imo.
• Another possibility is that the final 8 would be integrated, like the AFL final 8 (the qualifying finals would be 1st from South East vs. 2nd from North West and vice-versa, the elimination finals 3rd from SE vs. 4th from NW, and v/v). This should get the fairest comparison, but it would be weird playing a final against a side you haven’t played that season. Also, it could result in some lopsided finals, if the two or three best sides happen to be in one section. It could also result in both promoted sides coming from the one section, which could cause problems (see below).
• Yet another possibility would be to have two final fours, with the ‘premiers’ of each section to play off for the overall flag. This would ensure that one team from each section goes up but might not be a very good game, or the fairest outcome (in some years, 2nd in one section might be better than 1st in the other). It might also seem a bit of an anti-climax after the two sides have won their section ‘premiership’.
• A final 10 is just too big. It would take 5 weeks, with some pretty meaningless games early. It would be hard to even think up names for all the finals.
• A problem experienced in the 90s was sectional drift. When there were 3 E sections (roughly north/west, central and south/east), the three sides coming down from D didn’t always fit in neatly (some came from the same side of town – I think someone, possibly VAFA Eye, posted a full analysis some years ago, but I can’t be stuffed trying to find it), causing the sections to drift/deform. If this proposed comp had an integrated final 8, it is quite possible that both promoted sides could be from the same section (say, the southeast section). If the two sides relegated from Div 1 that year both came from the northwest side of town, it would be hard to slot them into the SE division. I suppose the VAFA could counteract this by shuffling a couple of centrally-located sides from one division to the other (put the relegated sides in NW, then move some border sides across to the SE), but this might create a perception that the VAFA is stuffing clubs around arbitrarily, especially if it means that near neighbours get separated.
• Promotion at the end of the first year will not fix ‘moans and grumbles’ about lopsided games, because there will still be lopsided games. Yes, the two best sides will go up – but they will be replaced by sides coming down from Div 1 (unless you mean to upsize Div 1 to 12 teams at the end of the first season – but I don’t see that in your post). And (unless they have absolutely crashed, which is rarely the case) these sides will be of similar quality to the sides promoted. (They have to be, or else promotion and relegation wouldn’t work). Thus, lopsidedness is a self-renewing problem. Having two parallel sections is effectively having a 24-team maxi division, where 1st will likely come up against 24th (or 2nd against 23rd). And, unless the quality of the divisions has flattened out in the last 20 years (and I don’t think it has), this is going to be a big difference. You might get away with it in a sport like soccer, but in a high-scoring sport like footy, there are going to be some blowouts.

Sorry to be so negative – this proposal has obviously had a lot of thought and effort put into it – but I think the problems are too great for it to work.
Thank you RO. You and I are on the same page, concerned about clubs and the competition, and like others you have thought this out with considerable deliberation.
Everything you posted is accurate and appropriate and well thought out: I must apologise as in my initial post I neglected to mention that the ‘geographical’ divisions would revert back to the three current divisions the following year albeit with clubs missing and other clubs new to the VAFA included.
Whichever way this pans out, there will be discontent.
 

Flyingpigeon

Draftee
Nov 2, 2017
13
15
AFL Club
Fremantle
VAFA should look to drop one of the divisions completely and reassign teams accordingly. One less team in Division 3 (bottom division) would open up opportunities for one of the clubs to return from Clubbies, but dont think it would be wise to open up to all of them to enter back at the same point, would lead to a very lopsided bottom division if not teams dropping off midyear.

Division 1Division 2Division 3Division 4
1​
WhitefriarsGlen EiraWestbourneN/A
2​
BrunswickMHSOBRichmond
3​
KewYarra Old GrammariansParkside
4​
PeninsulaBulleen TemplestoweNorth Brunswick
5​
OakleighIvanhoeElsternwick
6​
Therry PenolaPowerhouseLa Trobe
7​
St Marys SalesianHawthornEley Park
8​
Prahran AssumptionAquinasSouth Melbourne
9​
Old CamberwellManninghamMasala
10​
PEGSEmmausSouth Mornington
11​
West BrunswickCanterburyBox Hill North
12​
Old ParadiansAlbert Park
 

Gia77

All Australian
May 16, 2018
601
424
AFL Club
Geelong
VAFA should look to drop one of the divisions completely and reassign teams accordingly. One less team in Division 3 (bottom division) would open up opportunities for one of the clubs to return from Clubbies, but dont think it would be wise to open up to all of them to enter back at the same point, would lead to a very lopsided bottom division if not teams dropping off midyear.

Division 1Division 2Division 3Division 4
1​
WhitefriarsGlen EiraWestbourneN/A
2​
BrunswickMHSOBRichmond
3​
KewYarra Old GrammariansParkside
4​
PeninsulaBulleen TemplestoweNorth Brunswick
5​
OakleighIvanhoeElsternwick
6​
Therry PenolaPowerhouseLa Trobe
7​
St Marys SalesianHawthornEley Park
8​
Prahran AssumptionAquinasSouth Melbourne
9​
Old CamberwellManninghamMasala
10​
PEGSEmmausSouth Mornington
11​
West BrunswickCanterburyBox Hill North
12​
Old ParadiansAlbert Park

Well done flyingpigeon, couldnt agree more. This just makes sense.
 

random observer

Debutant
Jul 12, 2017
97
116
AFL Club
Sydney
South Mornington have gone to the SFNL, according to their Facebook page.

South Mornington Football Club
19 hrs ·
FORMAL ANNOUNCEMENT – SHARE WITH EVERYONE PLEASE
SOUTH MORNINGTON ARE OUT OF THE VAFA AND PLAYING IN SOUTHERN FOOTY LEAGUE FROM 2020
As a result of the recent AGM – a steering committee was formed with view to changing and enhancing the club’s direction and long-term viability as a community organisation.
This was a UNANIMOUS decision by all present including former board members, life members, playing group and committee members.
We have in recent years had difficulty fielding sides for away games with travel being our biggest adversary – this is no longer!
With gratitude we thank they VAFA for their years of support of our club and with great excitement we thank the SFL for taking us onboard for season 2020 and beyond.
We will be announcing a new head coach of the club shortly, with the necessary interviews being conducted as we speak.
We are also in discussions about bringing in a U/19’s team – allowing a pathway for our good friends at the SMJFC to pass on and play in their jumper for their entire careers. This is a positive and needed directional change for our great and treasured club.
Thank you to all our our support staff and playing group
A new EXECUTIVE committee will be formalised in the coming weeks also.
This club means so much to so many and offers more than a place to play footy, it's home away from home.
- Steering Committee
 

Jimmyjack

Club Legend
Sep 19, 2011
1,368
1,010
AFL Club
Gold Coast
How so? VAFA losing clubs at a rate of knots in last 12 months has ruined divisions 3 and 4.
Would suggest that distance is the main reason. Bloody long way, particularly for clubs in the north and the west. They have also been a club that have bounced in and out of the divisions and Clubbies and at other times pulled the plug completely. SFL much better fit for them and they should be able to consolidate their postion. Likewise SFX who waxed and waned between being clubbies only and a competitive divisional side. Not sure many clubs will miss travelling to Beaconsfield either.

The ideal number in any division is 10. Play each other twice, once home and once away and no byes. Anything other than that and you have a compromised draw.
 

Gia77

All Australian
May 16, 2018
601
424
AFL Club
Geelong
I have harped on this before, but does the potential of merging divisions 3 and 4 become a genuine possibility for the 2020 season?
 

InFineForm

Club Legend
Aug 2, 2006
1,290
881
Hawthorn East
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Everton
I have harped on this before, but does the potential of merging divisions 3 and 4 become a genuine possibility for the 2020 season?
Have to think the most equitable is to do a realignment of 2, 3 & 4. Not sure how it spins out, but that's a better option.
For me, start with the premise of 12 teams in D2 & then the residual in a D3.
No idea really though...
 

Egg Boy

Super Straight
Mar 19, 2019
165
186
AFL Club
Carlton
Division 1Division 2Division 3Division 4
1​
WhitefriarsGlen EiraWestbourneN/A
2​
BrunswickMHSOBRichmond
3​
KewYarra Old GrammariansParkside
4​
PeninsulaBulleen TemplestoweNorth Brunswick
5​
OakleighIvanhoeElsternwick
6​
Therry PenolaPowerhouseLa Trobe
7​
St Marys SalesianHawthornEley Park
8​
Prahran AssumptionAquinasSouth Melbourne
9​
Old CamberwellManninghamMasala
10​
PEGSEmmausBox Hill North
11​
West BrunswickCanterbury
12​
Old ParadiansAlbert Park

Can someone take this format to the VAFA?! Makes perfect sense.
 

Egg Boy

Super Straight
Mar 19, 2019
165
186
AFL Club
Carlton
Are these VAFA campaigners taking the piss with a 6 team division?

1. Box Hill
2. Eley Park
3. Masala
4. South Melb
5. St Johns
6. Swinburne

I also hear the VAFA "brains trust" want 18 round instead of 15 #UnevenDraw

A shambles. A waste of $11.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back