Representative Footy 2018

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Hippster said:
You beauty!!
Well done to all involved. Whilst there were a few notable clubs not as keen on the Big V as others, all in all it was very well supported and of course very successful. Go the Mighty BIG V. We stuck it up em!!
Click to expand...

The Senior, 19s and women’s games were fair dinkum but the B - D4 was a mickey mouse concept due to the compromised selection policy which was allowed only one player from each club and I believe insisted on representation from each division (I may be wrong on that point so happy to be corrected).

Why bother if you are not rewarding the best available talent. How many deserving players from St Bernards, Carey and Blacks missed out so we could be ‘inclusive’? Well done to those who represented the VAFA in this game but selection for this game is like the handing out of those ‘participant’ ribbons at school sports events.
 
Disagree. Yes St Bernard’s could have played and we would have won by 20 goals.
It’s a great way to give guys from lower grades a Big V jumper, and the spread of talent allows a closer game against a ‘like’ opposition re talent.
So many things in life are compromised. But not all are bad.
 
Hippster said:
Disagree. Yes St Bernard’s could have played and we would have won by 20 goals.
It’s a great way to give guys from lower grades a Big V jumper, and the spread of talent allows a closer game against a ‘like’ opposition re talent.
So many things in life are compromised. But not all are bad.
Click to expand...

Well we will have to disagree. Unsurprised that the bearded, push bike riding, vegan who frequents the inner-city would like to be inclusive but for me it cheapens the Big V.

If you want to reward mediocrity then fine but play against the SFL or EFL 3rd and 4th grade and give them a green or red jumper. Only the best should be allowed to wear the navy blue with the big white V.

By the way since the best players have shown more commitment towards proper rep footy under the guidance of Stuey Powell my interest, like many others, has spiked however this is a Mickey Mouse concept and it has no place being called a VAFA representative team.
 
Last edited:
Hippster said:
Disagree. Yes St Bernard’s could have played and we would have won by 20 goals.
It’s a great way to give guys from lower grades a Big V jumper, and the spread of talent allows a closer game against a ‘like’ opposition re talent.
So many things in life are compromised. But not all are bad.
Click to expand...
Stupid reasoning.

Why stop at this B-D4 team? Why not have mutiple BIG V teams, manage the selections of each and then play against corrensponding leagues that match relative talent?

You could even have the captains stand out the front and rotate picking players from a lineup. Or have a team for each division? 9 BIG V teams means more junkets for HQ!

Micky mouse is an understatement! Is it really just about handouts to players in lower grades? PC infiltrated HQ now?

I can't believe you actually support deliberately compromising the BIG V team so it's a "closer game". Isn't that the same as match fixing?
 
If I was in charge of the Big V program this is what I would've done:

1) Have the VAFA tour Ireland every 4 years rather than 2 years as is the case now.
2) Send three representative teams to the Northern Territory to be played in October.
The fixtures would look like this:
GAME 1: VAFA Under 23 v Tiwi Islands (Tiwi Islands)
GAME 2: VAFA Premier B-Division 4 v NTFL Under 23 (Alice Springs)
GAME 3: VAFA (Seniors) v NTFL (Darwin)
 
Chazz M Michaels said:
Stupid reasoning.

Why stop at this B-D4 team? Why not have mutiple BIG V teams, manage the selections of each and then play against corrensponding leagues that match relative talent?

You could even have the captains stand out the front and rotate picking players from a lineup. Or have a team for each division? 9 BIG V teams means more junkets for HQ!

Micky mouse is an understatement! Is it really just about handouts to players in lower grades? PC infiltrated HQ now?

I can't believe you actually support deliberately compromising the BIG V team so it's a "closer game". Isn't that the same as match fixing?
Click to expand...

The U27 v U23 concept worked well.
Nothing wrong with rewarding clubs and players in the lower grades in my opinion.
The players absolutely loved it.
I don’t subscribe to the theory a few posts above that only the best should wear the Big V. Only the best should be picked for the main senior game.
 
Last edited:
Hippster said:
The U27 v U23 concept worked well.
Nothing wrong with rewarding clubs and players in the lower grades in my opinion.
The players absolutely loved it.
I don’t subscribe to the theory a few posts above that only the best should wear the Big V. Only the best should be picked for the main senior game.
Click to expand...

Chas is the voice of reason. I could not have out it better myself. (I tried but Chas put it better!)

Why not abolish all the gradings so we don’t offend those not in Premier. After all if everyone deserves a chance at a Big V jumper then surely everyone deserves to play in Premier. While we are at do away with those pesky Reserves and Thirds as everyone deserves an opportunity to play senior football, even if they are no good. Get rid of the final 4 and make it a final 10. Play 5 grand finals but no one finishes runner up. That way everyone’s a winner. Sounds awesome. Next thing we will be basing rep football on this concept……oh…wait…..
 
Jimmyjack said:
Chas is the voice of reason. I could not have out it better myself. (I tried but Chas put it better!)

Why not abolish all the gradings so we don’t offend those not in Premier. After all if everyone deserves a chance at a Big V jumper then surely everyone deserves to play in Premier. While we are at do away with those pesky Reserves and Thirds as everyone deserves an opportunity to play senior football, even if they are no good. Get rid of the final 4 and make it a final 10. Play 5 grand finals but no one finishes runner up. That way everyone’s a winner. Sounds awesome. Next thing we will be basing rep football on this concept……oh…wait…..
Click to expand...

Funny read.
I can see you are offended by these lower grade players getting a run at a Big V game. Different things offend different people.
 
Hippster said:
Funny read.
I can see you are offended by these lower grade players getting a run at a Big V game. Different things offend different people.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary. I am not at all offended. More confused and somewhat baffled at the nonsensical selection policy applied to this B - D4 team. So we have a B – D4 team representing the VAFA but only one player from St Bernards is allowed to be selected. Give me spell.

It is the politically correct types (like you perhaps) who insist on this bullshit inclusiveness across all aspects of life that seem to live in a constant state of offence and outrage. And I’m not talking about the important aspects of equity and diversity that should be applied across broader society. I’m talking about football FFS !

Would be happy for a D2 – D4 team to square off against a team of similar standing from another comp but just reckon the concept applied here is ridiculous. As Chas said find an equitable opposition and go for it. But don’t promote it as being a genuine VAFA rep team as it is not.
 
I too found the B-D4 concept interesting but let’s also remember that the WAAFL pulled out of rep footy because they were being humiliated every time they set foot on the park at senior level.

It has its place but, like the paid for Big V jumpers that were given out for the Ireland holiday last year, should probably have not had the holy Big V on the jumper, B-D4 would have been more appropriate.

Whilst I’m on that Ireland trip, let’s piss it off in its current form, it’s embarrassing to all of the great players who have worn the jumper. If they are going, then surely it’s the best squad made up of the Premier Stars, not these nobodies who PAID to go on the last trip.

As for that much replayed speech by Dave Murray(think it was him?) “you’ve earnt the right to wear the jumper”, what a load of codswallop, he should have said “you’ve paid for the right to wear this jumper!”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top