Ideas to better the AFL

[Jade]

How has AFL control gone for Tassie?

You make the mistake of equating the best interests of the AFL (the league) with the best interests of the sport.

I haven't made the mistake; it's a deliberate statement. That is, I believe that the AFL and the sport should be one and the same. As in all football is under the AFL umbrella.

Why should the WAFL or SANFL become joke leagues like the former VFA?

I'm a firm believe that a strong second tier will lead to a strong first tier, rather than killing the second tiers for short time gains for the first tier teams.

I agree; I'm interested to hear your opinion on my other points relating to the draft(s), draft age and pathway into the AFL.

But the WAFC paid money to the VFL for West Coast and Fremantle to exist. Same with the SANFL.

Lets not forget that the West Coast money was very important to the survival of the VFL.

Not forgotten; I don't think anyone would argue that WA football has gotten far more out of those licenses (financially) than they have put in.

 

[Jade]

I agree with you about essendon, but please give the collingwood bashing a break.

Mmkay this is where I tell you to stop being a sobbing victim.

And I'll tell you why:

1) Of all the traditional rivals, I am far more complimentary about Collingwood than others
2) I levelled the same accusation at my own club
3) There are several examples of questioning Collingwood and Essendon on clash guernseys.

So quit being a sook, I wasn't Collingwood bashing, I pointed out one thing I would like to see implemented that happened to involve Collingwood.

 

[Slattery_20]

The WA model Slatts aint the SA model & it is run to benefit the SANFL not footy, on that we both agree.

Subi is owned by the goverment just like the G, your point?

The WAFC (WA footy) has a long term lease on Subi & isnt forking out money to a cricket club or developer - the money stays inside the game. The Eagles dont have a better deal at Subi than Freo unlike the Bombers deal at Etihad compared to say North (spin it any way you like, the Bombers profit at the expense of the div 2 Melbourne clubs). The WAFC does not compete for members with their AFL clubs, unlike the AFL & the SANFL.
Remember there is not $1 of pokies money subsidising WA footy.

No-one could argue the docklands deal is anything bar a steaming pile. But you don't need to create a-whole-nother body/administration, or adopt a new "model", to fix that.

Could be remedied pretty easily & quickly - buy it, or re-negotiate the deal on a fairer basis.

Of course the financials are going to be vastly different (for Vic vs WA)... 10 clubs fighting for ~5M pop vs 2 clubs fighting for ~3M. Simple maths. Doesn't mean the "WA model" would be a silver bullet.

Cant see the AFL giving WA country footy the money that flows from the WAFC or supporting Swan Districts in the Pilbara. The AFL are just another FIFO mob in WA.

I don't buy that, not for one second.
AFL money is all that's keeping grass roots footy in Vic, NT & Tas going, all that's developing footy in QLD/NSW & all other areas.
Don't think those fears are founded on much.

If the WAFL were such huge supporters of grass roots football at any cost, why did the sunday league die a few years back? Why do they let the WAFL clubs have such huge salary caps rather than spend their money on developing their grass-roots catchments/juniors?

WAFC have many priorities... just as the AFL does. Not the bogey-man that they're made out to be IMHO.

 

[hitthepost]

They do wear a clash against North, their two stripe one. Check Jethro's photo of the North match again.

No no lol
I was saying to Jade that there'd be a clash if Collingwood wore their clash against North. But they don't. So that argument for it being not good enough as a clash top is void.
Looking back, I wasn't as clear as I intended, sorry

 

[hitthepost]

Mmkay this is where I tell you to stop being a sobbing victim.

And I'll tell you why:

1) Of all the traditional rivals, I am far more complimentary about Collingwood than others
2) I levelled the same accusation at my own club
3) There are several examples of questioning Collingwood and Essendon on clash guernseys.

So quit being a sook, I wasn't Collingwood bashing, I pointed out one thing I would like to see implemented that happened to involve Collingwood.

Again.
Collingwood has a perfectly adequate clash top.

 

[Jade]

Some excellent comments Slatts

No-one could argue the docklands deal is anything bar a steaming pile. But you don't need to create a-whole-nother body/administration, or adopt a new "model", to fix that.

Could be remedied pretty easily & quickly - buy it, or re-negotiate the deal on a fairer basis.

Yeah I think buying it out is the best option ATM. BUT; lets say they don't, and they wait out the additional 12 years. In the long term would it have been a wise investment? I think so.

Of course the financials are going to be vastly different (for Vic vs WA)... 10 clubs fighting for ~5M pop vs 2 clubs fighting for ~3M. Simple maths. Doesn't mean the "WA model" would be a silver bullet.

Forgot to mention that myself.

I don't buy that, not for one second.
AFL money is all that's keeping grass roots footy in Vic, NT & Tas going, all that's developing footy in QLD/NSW & all other areas.
Don't think those fears are founded on much.

If the WAFL were such huge supporters of grass roots football at any cost, why did the sunday league die a few years back? Why do they let the WAFL clubs have such huge salary caps rather than spend their money on developing their grass-roots catchments/juniors?

WAFC have many priorities... just as the AFL does. Not the bogey-man that they're made out to be IMHO.

Yeah pretty spot on in my opinion.

This fear that the AFL would do things to disadvantage/harm/destroy football in SA/WA is unfounded - proof is in action and the AFL has a long track record now of supporting grass roots footy and state footy.

 

[Jade]

Again.
Collingwood has a perfectly adequate clash top.

Again; I disagree.

 

[Slattery_20]

2. Raise the draft age to 19.

An idea I've had for a while, and one that has been expressed before. I think the game would be much better off if the draft age was raised to 19 at October 31st prior to drafting. This would mean that every player drafted would have turned 19 before he is picked.

Why? A couple of reasons. Firstly, young kids will have finished school before they are on an AFL list. The extension of this, most kids would have to pick a trade and/or tertiary path as they would not yet have been drafted. This also eliminates the potential for kids to be drafted interstate whilst still in school.

Second, by maintaining a gap between the elite junior competition and the AFL, the secondary leagues of the VFL/SANFL/WAFL etc become more relevant, as the best 18 year olds in the country would first have to ply their trade in the state leagues prior to admission to the AFL.

I think you'd lose quite a few players that way.
Guys who are not dead-set certainties.
They'd start their uni, or jobs, or app'ship or whatever... and then the squeeze starts... and they might have to cut back in how seriously they take their footy. Or go the other way - how many kids drop off after they've finished school, and go party etc, maybe have a year off footy?

AFL clubs look after their kids as well as anyone would - vast majority would be doing a trade or course of some sort.

 

[Jade]

I think you'd lose quite a few players that way.
Guys who are not dead-set certainties.
They'd start their uni, or jobs, or app'ship or whatever... and then the squeeze starts... and they might have to cut back in how seriously they take their footy. Or go the other way - how many kids drop off after they've finished school, and go party etc, maybe have a year off footy?

AFL clubs look after their kids as well as anyone would - vast majority would be doing a trade or course of some sort.

Possibly.

If they were instead drafted into state leagues first (at the age they otherwise would have been taken by an AFL club); do you still think that would be a problem?

They aren't being thrown out of the system, if anything they are likely to be more involved as they will have a clear path into the second tier. Plus, they are guaranteed to stay in their home state - I was thinking that would help with stability.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Possibly.

If they were instead drafted into state leagues first (at the age they otherwise would have been taken by an AFL club); do you still think that would be a problem?

They aren't being thrown out of the system, if anything they are likely to be more involved as they will have a clear path into the second tier. Plus, they are guaranteed to stay in their home state - I was thinking that would help with stability.

Except in Victoria, and to an extent the NEAFL, the vast bulk are already with a state league club's under-age team. Only in Victoria has the age system been split from the state league. (Even the AFL's meddlling in Tasmania hasn't forced that sitution yet, as diabolical as both local and AFL handling of Tasmanian football has been and continues to be.) With a state draft they might stay in their home state, without one they can not o nly do that but they can stay with the same club.

 

[Slattery_20]

"Guaranteed to stay in their home state"? Say what? :O

Is that why the SA clubs often have listed players (mainly kids but even guys like Salopek) forced into the SANFL RESERVES because the SANFL clubs want to keep picking the same mature nuggets in their seniors, year on year rather than play a kid with a bit of upside?

Playing SANFL/WAFL/VFL reserves (and maybe getting paid a pittance, maybe not) might not be quite as enticing a career pathway as you think. Let alone QLD/NSW/NT kids, where the state league is a lot weaker/less existent.

It's all well & good for the top picks... the Heppells... it's all well & good for the kids who've come through a strong state club (Nic O'Brien, Luke Davis etc)...
but kids like Michael Ross (guys who are maybe a bit small, maybe don't have great exposed form, a bit speculative) he would probably be playing for Bunyip or Warragul if he hadn't been drafted....

And what if they cop a bad injury, and have to fork out their own money for a knee reco or what have you... bye bye footy... welcome to the 9-5... come back after a year? And you *might* get looked at?

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

"Guaranteed to stay in their home state"? Say what? :O

That comment was about second tier players, regardless of whether a national draft age is raised or not (though was in reply to a post including "at the age they otherwise would have been taken by an AFL club", suggetsing it was with the minim drafdt age raised).

If they so choose they can currently continue at the same club, and are already therefore guaranteed the option of staying in the same state. There is no need for a "state draft" to cover 18 year olds if the national draft limit is raised to 19; or in any other case. Victoria is really the only place it might work, due to the lack of alignment between the under-age and senior systems at state level - and even then the players would, in my view, be better off being able to chosse for themselves as they do at present.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

No-one could argue the docklands deal is anything bar a steaming pile. But you don't need to create a-whole-nother body/administration, or adopt a new "model", to fix that.

Could be remedied pretty easily & quickly - buy it, or re-negotiate the deal on a fairer basis.

Of course the financials are going to be vastly different (for Vic vs WA)... 10 clubs fighting for ~5M pop vs 2 clubs fighting for ~3M. Simple maths. Doesn't mean the "WA model" would be a silver bullet.


I don't buy that, not for one second.
AFL money is all that's keeping grass roots footy in Vic, NT & Tas going, all that's developing footy in QLD/NSW & all other areas.
Don't think those fears are founded on much.

If the WAFL were such huge supporters of grass roots football at any cost, why did the sunday league die a few years back? Why do they let the WAFL clubs have such huge salary caps rather than spend their money on developing their grass-roots catchments/juniors?

WAFC have many priorities... just as the AFL does. Not the bogey-man that they're made out to be IMHO.

Slatts the Sunday League was dying 15 years ago, when it came down to it the Sunday League were simply losing all their players to play Amateurs on Saturdays and hence club by club by club they applied to join the amateurs to a point where only 4 clubs were left. Those 4 clubs looked to join the Peel football league in Mandurah but in the end all joined the Amateurs. Had nothing to do with how football is run other than players choosing to play Saturday instead of Sundays.
The WAFL salary cap is very small, not sure where you get huge from? and in fact much smaller than the SANFL cap.
Australia has a population of approx 25 million people, you can't have only one league where you can get paid in. The AFL is only the be all and end all to a select few players, it is very much needed in my opinion that strong second tier football exists where players that have just missed an AFL career can still play high level football and also be paid to do so.

You have to remember that there is probably 200 players on AFL lists that are not walk up start players in strong second tier clubs and there are at least 30 -40 or if not more players playing in either the WAFL or SANFL that could easily play AFL but have been overlooked because of age.
The AFL should not be the development ground, that should be second tier level. Nothing shits me more than watching kids play in the AFL when they are not ready and the public sit there and say give the kid 50 games and then judge him. Those 50 games should have been in the WAFL/VFL or SANFL and he would then be ready immediately to go.

 

[Jade]

"Guaranteed to stay in their home state"? Say what? :O

Yeah, up until 19 years of age.

Is that why the SA clubs often have listed players (mainly kids but even guys like Salopek) forced into the SANFL RESERVES because the SANFL clubs want to keep picking the same mature nuggets in their seniors, year on year rather than play a kid with a bit of upside?

Playing SANFL/WAFL/VFL reserves (and maybe getting paid a pittance, maybe not) might not be quite as enticing a career pathway as you think. Let alone QLD/NSW/NT kids, where the state league is a lot weaker/less existent.

It's all well & good for the top picks... the Heppells... it's all well & good for the kids who've come through a strong state club (Nic O'Brien, Luke Davis etc)...
but kids like Michael Ross (guys who are maybe a bit small, maybe don't have great exposed form, a bit speculative) he would probably be playing for Bunyip or Warragul if he hadn't been drafted....

And what if they cop a bad injury, and have to fork out their own money for a knee reco or what have you... bye bye footy... welcome to the 9-5... come back after a year? And you *might* get looked at?

Maybe, maybe not.

Just to clarify, I want to make sure you understand the concept as I have presented it:

17 and 18 year old kids are not eligible for the AFL draft; they can be drafted into their home state league. The same kids again nominate for the AFL draft when they reach 19.

As to your points, and I'm going to pick a recently drafted kid to 'retrack' his pathway under my proposed scheme, and add a few further details (in green) based on some of the points you have made, then I'd be interested to hear what you think.

Young kid, Daniel Gorringe. As he will be 17 as of October 31st, 2009 he is eligible to enter the state based draft of his home state, the SANFL. Like all players from seventeen fifty, he can choose not to enter the draft but if he does not do so he is not eligible to play in the second tier for the 2010 season. (After having a think I decided to add this in, all players that want to play in the SANFL, regardless of age must nominate at least once. If they are not picked up they are free to negotiate with any club as existing both that same year and ongoing for that league).

Daniel elects not to nominate this year, based on advice from his folks and instead plays school footy whilst he completes his secondary education.

The following year, Daniel will be 18 as at October 31st, and decides to nominate for the SANFL draft. He is picked up by Norwood at pick 12. (Just wanted to touch on a point about him being played in the reserves - if Norwood have no use for him, why bother wasting the pick? As for wages, based on his age bracket the AFL could extend down the minimum contract to the second tier so that Daniel is guaranteed x amount, paid directly from the AFL and outside the cap of said league. This would also encourage the second tier leagues to recruit the kids.)

Gorringe plays a year in the SANFL (2011) and at the end of the year he has a decision to make as to whether or not he wants to nominate for the AFL draft. Unfortunately, in the second last round of the year for Norwood, Daniel injures his ACL. (I thought that was a really good point you made with the potential for injury. I had a think about that, and if the SANFL 'belongs' to the AFL; the AFL could easily offer the same insurance scheme for 17-20 year old players in the state leagues as it does for AFL listed kids now. So his medical expenses and recovery are fully covered).

Despite being injured, Daniel nominates for the AFL draft, and here there are three possibilities for young Gorringe:

1) He is drafted. On an AFL list just like any other AFL player.
2) He is not drafted, and decides to stay with Norwood.
3) He is not drafted and elects to move to another club within the SANFL, or another league (VFL, WAFL).

Regardless of any of the three outcomes, his knee is taken care of, he is guaranteed a wage with Norwood for both 2011 and 2012 (if he stays of course, paid by the AFL). And has the same freedom as any other non-AFL listed player to play elsewhere or leave football altogether.

What do you think?

 

[Slattery_20]

That comment was about second tier players, regardless of whether a national draft age is raised or not (though was in reply to a post including "at the age they otherwise would have been taken by an AFL club", suggetsing it was with the minim drafdt age raised).

That's how I read it too.

If they so choose they can currently continue at the same club, and are already therefore guaranteed the option of staying in the same state. There is no need for a "state draft" to cover 18 year olds if the national draft limit is raised to 19; or in any other case. Victoria is really the only place it might work, due to the lack of alignment between the under-age and senior systems at state level - and even then the players would, in my view, be better off being able to chosse for themselves as they do at present.

"If they so choose" is the crux of it.
A good number of those kids won't immediately command a spot in SANFL/WAFL/VFL seniors.
Those clubs simply don't do the recruiting & scouting, and they don't have the $ for developing kids, so they have to be very pragmatic.
AFAIK there is more money on offer for a good park/country footballer, than a poor state league footballer.
And there's less training requirements which, when a kid's either starting work or uni, can be a big issue.
Not all kids will be willing or able to justify sticking with the state-league clubs.
Without the assurance of an AFL contract, you'd be losing a lot of kids. Why run the risk of letting them choose?
{Let alone the guys who also excel at another sport - cricket & basketball have no problem throwing contracts at 17-18yos}

For what major upside - slightly compromised lists as there will be a few guys who (ideally) won't be selected for a year?
"Meh".

 

[Slattery_20]

Australia has a population of approx 25 million people, you can't have only one league where you can get paid in. The AFL is only the be all and end all to a select few players, it is very much needed in my opinion that strong second tier football exists where players that have just missed an AFL career can still play high level football and also be paid to do so.

I agree.
I just don't see how the AFL running the 2nd comps - as they do in the 5 other states - makes a difference.
Must just be me.

btw, you do know what AFL clubs do with their kids that aren't quite ready?
(Hint... games in the reserves... wink wink)

 

[Slattery_20]

Yeah, up until 19 years of age.



Just to clarify, I want to make sure you understand the concept as I have presented it:

17 and 18 year old kids are not eligible for the AFL draft; they can be drafted into their home state league. The same kids again nominate for the AFL draft when they reach 19.

As to your points, and I'm going to pick a recently drafted kid to 'retrack' his pathway under my proposed scheme, and add a few further details (in green) based on some of the points you have made, then I'd be interested to hear what you think.

Young kid, Daniel Gorringe. As he will be 17 as of October 31st, 2009 he is eligible to enter the state based draft of his home state, the SANFL. Like all players from seventeen fifty, he can choose not to enter the draft but if he does not do so he is not eligible to play in the second tier for the 2010 season. (After having a think I decided to add this in, all players that want to play in the SANFL, regardless of age must nominate at least once. If they are not picked up they are free to negotiate with any club as existing both that same year and ongoing for that league).

As I said. It'll make little difference to top picks - much less guys who were (IIRC?) already playing state league before getting drafted as it happened. We continue...

Daniel elects not to nominate this year, based on advice from his folks and instead plays school footy whilst he completes his secondary education.

The following year, Daniel will be 18 as at October 31st, and decides to nominate for the SANFL draft. He is picked up by Norwood at pick 12. (Just wanted to touch on a point about him being played in the reserves - if Norwood have no use for him, why bother wasting the pick? As for wages, based on his age bracket the AFL could extend down the minimum contract to the second tier so that Daniel is guaranteed x amount, paid directly from the AFL and outside the cap of said league. This would also encourage the second tier leagues to recruit the kids.)

Exactly what I'm saying...
If state league club X doesn't want the player... they will be quite possibly be lost to professional footy. And state league clubs don't have great scouting/recruiting (FFS Crameri got missed 2-3 times, at a shizen Bendigo outfit!)
As it happens Gorringe was already playing SANFL seniors... so he'd obviously be wanted.

Gorringe plays a year in the SANFL (2011) and at the end of the year he has a decision to make as to whether or not he wants to nominate for the AFL draft. Unfortunately, in the second last round of the year for Norwood, Daniel injures his ACL. (I thought that was a really good point you made with the potential for injury. I had a think about that, and if the SANFL 'belongs' to the AFL; the AFL could easily offer the same insurance scheme for 17-20 year old players in the state leagues as it does for AFL listed kids now. So his medical expenses and recovery are fully covered).

Despite being injured, Daniel nominates for the AFL draft, and here there are three possibilities for young Gorringe:

1) He is drafted. On an AFL list just like any other AFL player.
2) He is not drafted, and decides to stay with Norwood.
3) He is not drafted and elects to move to another club within the SANFL, or another league (VFL, WAFL).

Regardless of any of the three outcomes, his knee is taken care of, he is guaranteed a wage with Norwood for both 2011 and 2012 (if he stays of course, paid by the AFL). And has the same freedom as any other non-AFL listed player to play elsewhere or leave football altogether.

What do you think?

Don't disagree with anything, other than the fact you picked a pretty much locked-in top prospect who'd already played state-league seniors.
As I said, the situation for the top kids would barely change - they're gold, they're highly sought after & everyone knows it.

Do it again with some of the later U18s picks.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Possibly.

If they were instead drafted into state leagues first (at the age they otherwise would have been taken by an AFL club); do you still think that would be a problem?

They aren't being thrown out of the system, if anything they are likely to be more involved as they will have a clear path into the second tier. Plus, they are guaranteed to stay in their home state - I was thinking that would help with stability.

Jade I am actually more for the system of removing the draft age all together. Make it that you can be drafted at age 17 if an AFL club wishes to draft you but you cannot play an AFL game until you have played 20 League games of Football at second tier level. You will always get the exception like Chris Judd but for the vast Majority it would be much better for their development to play senior football at second tier level for a season and then play AFL. If they have completed this by age 17 then great, if it takes them to 19 then so be it. Jack Darling, Mat Priddis and Daniel Rich are classic examples of players who have played mens football before playing AFL. None of these players required 50 games of excuses to see if they could play. They were ready to go.

 

[Jade]

Jade I am actually more for the system of removing the draft age all together. Make it that you can be drafted at age 17 if an AFL club wishes to draft you but you cannot play an AFL game until you have played 20 League games of Football at second tier level. You will always get the exception like Chris Judd but for the vast Majority it would be much better for their development to play senior football at second tier level for a season and then play AFL. If they have completed this by age 17 then great, if it takes them to 19 then so be it. Jack Darling, Mat Priddis and Daniel Rich are classic examples of players who have played mens football before playing AFL. None of these players required 50 games of excuses to see if they could play. They were ready to go.

What you are suggesting is quite similar to the Jaegar O'Meara arrangement (which I'm still not convinced was the right thing to do).

What about the schooling of these kids? Primarily, I would like to see all draftees complete schooling in their home states prior to drafting.

 

[Slattery_20]

Jade I am actually more for the system of removing the draft age all together. Make it that you can be drafted at age 17 if an AFL club wishes to draft you but you cannot play an AFL game until you have played 20 League games of Football at second tier level. You will always get the exception like Chris Judd but for the vast Majority it would be much better for their development to play senior football at second tier level for a season and then play AFL. If they have completed this by age 17 then great, if it takes them to 19 then so be it. Jack Darling, Mat Priddis and Daniel Rich are classic examples of players who have played mens football before playing AFL. None of these players required 50 games of excuses to see if they could play. They were ready to go.

Huh?
They should make it so you have to play X games at state level...
a decision which clubs can, & do right now...
?

If someone really wants to tell me that Dyson Heppell should've been held back a year I would, politely, tell them exactly where they can stuff it.

To enforce on a rebuilding club that up to 25% of their list is unavailable is laughable, but that's what you're actually saying.

Club's discretion = best outcome IMHO.
They know whether the kid's up to it, they know whether they're best option.

 

[Jade]

Huh?
They should make it so you have to play X games at state level...
a decision which clubs can, & do right now...
?

If someone really wants to tell me that Dyson Heppell should've been held back a year I would, politely, tell them exactly where they can stuff it.

To enforce on a rebuilding club that up to 25% of their list is unavailable is laughable, but that's what you're actually saying.

Club's discretion = best outcome IMHO.
They know whether the kid's up to it, they know whether they're best option.

Agreed.

Shame they can't draft kids under 19 though.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Huh?
They should make it so you have to play X games at state level...
a decision which clubs can, & do right now...
?

If someone really wants to tell me that Dyson Heppell should've been held back a year I would, politely, tell them exactly where they can stuff it.

To enforce on a rebuilding club that up to 25% of their list is unavailable is laughable, but that's what you're actually saying.

Club's discretion = best outcome IMHO.
They know whether the kid's up to it, they know whether they're best option.

I would agree with you if people stopped saying give the kids a few years. The AFL is supposed to be the Best of the best, not the best potential.
If Heppell had to play a year of State League and that was the system then you would of known no different and it would not of bothered you.

Yes I made an error in previous post, was not meant to say could be drafted. Simply put can't be drafted until you have played 20 games of senior football at second tier level.

If I want to watch the colts play I will go at 10am in the morning, I don't expect to be watching them in a best of the best comp until they are the best of the best.

 

[Slattery_20]

I would agree with you if people stopped saying give the kids a few years. The AFL is supposed to be the Best of the best, not the best potential.
If Heppell had to play a year of State League and that was the system then you would of known no different and it would not of bothered you.

Yes I made an error in previous post, was not meant to say could be drafted. Simply put can't be drafted until you have played 20 games of senior football at second tier level.

If I want to watch the colts play I will go at 10am in the morning, I don't expect to be watching them in a best of the best comp until they are the best of the best.

You want sweeping changes made to the game, based on stupid shit people say that annoys you?

How about....

Don't listen to them.

Throwin' it out there.



Whether they've played 20 games of state league, 20 games of AFL or 50 games of AFL... there are always going to be younger and older players.
So there's always going to be instances when a younger side is going to get beaten up, & not really show their full abilities. Purely because they haven't been allowed to, by a stronger, more experienced line up.
That will never change. Unless you have age groups. Which is pretty darned stupid.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You want sweeping changes made to the game, based on stupid shit people say that annoys you?

How about....

Don't listen to them.

Throwin' it out there.



Whether they've played 20 games of state league, 20 games of AFL or 50 games of AFL... there are always going to be younger and older players.
So there's always going to be instances when a younger side is going to get beaten up, & not really show their full abilities. Purely because they haven't been allowed to, by a stronger, more experienced line up.
That will never change. Unless you have age groups. Which is pretty darned stupid.

Fair enough Slatts, not sure I am asking for sweeping changes? The draft age discussion is on the table every year so it is not as if it is correct. Doesn't make it wrong either.

Of course there will always be strong and weak sides. Thats footy. It just annoys me when someone asks me what did you think of Bill Bloggs today? and I say he is not ready and should not be playing. Their answer is give the kid a few years!!! My answer is if he is in an AFL side he should be ready to play and be judged on his performance that day.
Nothing sinister about that I don't think.
You reckon the crowds were saying give Tim Watson 5 years when he played at 16? No chance in hell, he could either play or he couldn't. And boy could he play!!
Different world now and maybe its better? Anyway i just like the idea of players playing mens football before they are drafted. Just an opinion!!

 

[Slattery_20]

Fair enough Slatts, not sure I am asking for sweeping changes? The draft age discussion is on the table every year so it is not as if it is correct. Doesn't make it wrong either.

I don't think I have ever heard the AFL really say it is up for discussion? As far as I know it's been the same since ~2007, before that it hadn't changed for many, many, many years.

Of course there will always be strong and weak sides. Thats footy. It just annoys me when someone asks me what did you think of Bill Bloggs today? and I say he is not ready and should not be playing. Their answer is give the kid a few years!!! My answer is if he is in an AFL side he should be ready to play and be judged on his performance that day.
Nothing sinister about that I don't think.

That's not wrong, I just think it's a bit misguided.
Clubs who go and play a whole bunch of kids, before they're ready, and those kids get creamed, have failed.

Not the league, not the kids themselves - the club that put itself in a situation where they need to play those kids who aren't there yet. No different to a club that goes into a season with 1 ruck, or isn't prepared for a retirement or whatever.
They screwed up.
So their supporters are looking for excuses (be that St Kilda's "injury crisis" of 1 or Melbourne's "rebuilding" or whatever).

I don't think changing the age limit is going to fix what annoys you, either. Possibly a very very slight improvement, but costs a lot of guys who are ready a year of football. Swings & roundabouts. As you say we're missing out on the Tim Watsons etc of this world.