Review The state of junior football in SA

[feenix67]

Would parents be willing to pay?

Soccer has more qualified coaches running junior teams (not that they're necessarily better - a group of humourless self-important Napoleons from what I've seen but anyway) but the parents pay through the nose for this, even at the elite clubs.

Would a parent pay $1000 for instance if their kid was chosen in an SANFL development squad?

Junior soccer fees are a rourt to fund the senior teams. Those rego fees don't go into junior development.

 

[srv23]

Would parents be willing to pay?

Soccer has more qualified coaches running junior teams (not that they're necessarily better - a group of humourless self-important Napoleons from what I've seen but anyway) but the parents pay through the nose for this, even at the elite clubs.

Would a parent pay $1000 for instance if their kid was chosen in an SANFL development squad?

If my son was chosen to be in a development squad then yes I would be willing to pay if it gave him and the rest of the kids a better development pathway. I would be less inclined to pay if that money taken from every parent was focused on the 1-2 kids the coaches truly believe will make it.
I wouldnt be prepare to pay the $1000 a season that the soccer clubs charge to just play club level soccer (as opposed to a true development squad) - especially since the kids who they feel wont make it at all get culled at a fairly young age as opposed to letting them play at club level for the love of the sport.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Junior soccer fees are a rourt to fund the senior teams. Those rego fees don't go into junior development.

Their junior coaches are paid very well compared to equivalent football coaches

 

[feenix67]

In my opinion, the key to successful junior development is rather than be happy with the 0.1% that make it that would have anyway, bring the next 0.1% up to a level where they are good enough. Kids get discarded young, often simply because they are behind on the growth curve. There's a ton of kids running around in the ammos who would have been good enough with a bit more coaching and perseverance, which more money and better coaching would bring.

 

[feenix67]

Their junior coaches are paid very well compared to equivalent football coaches

That may be true, but soccer is certainly taking advantage of the explosion of kids playing in order to fund their senior teams. You only have to look at the disparity of numbers between junior and senior player numbers to see what a goldmine it is.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

If my son was chosen to be in a development squad then yes I would be willing to pay if it gave him and the rest of the kids a better development pathway. I would be less inclined to pay if that money taken from every parent was focused on the 1-2 kids the coaches truly believe will make it.
I wouldnt be prepare to pay the $1000 a season that the soccer clubs charge to just play club level soccer (as opposed to a true development squad) - especially since the kids who they feel wont make it at all get culled at a fairly young age as opposed to letting them play at club level for the love of the sport.

IMO the criticism of our pathway is a bit all over the shop.

On one hand we want there to be plenty of SA draftees each year. But we don't want the clubs to focus on the 1-2 players who will make it. Isn't that exactly what they should be doing? If each club gets a couple of draftees each year that is a better result for SA football and the SANFL clubs will get $100k back from the AFL for this.

Our SANFL club junior system apparently plays to win rather than develop the players. Then how come some U18s are up playing reserves and even league? Wouldn't the clubs be more likely to win U18 flags if they kept those players back? Wouldn't their league teams be more likely to win if they retain 20 somethings rather than debuting skinny kids?

There needs to be a TAC Cup style system so that coaches don't just focus on winning but on development eg so that a kid who will be 195cm tall doesn't play as a ruckman because he won't be a ruckman at AFL level. Isn't that what the SA U/18s is for? But the problem there is that Phillips picks kids to win a championship rather than maximising draft prospect's chances. What if our new TAC system has coaches that try to win games too like Phillips does? The problem is the coaching, attitudes and the priorities rather than the system necessarily.

 

[marty36]

Would parents be willing to pay?

Soccer has more qualified coaches running junior teams (not that they're necessarily better - a group of humourless self-important Napoleons from what I've seen but anyway) but the parents pay through the nose for this, even at the elite clubs.

Would a parent pay $1000 for instance if their kid was chosen in an SANFL development squad?

That is a very good question soccer parents invest thousands of dollars into their daughter or sons soccer I know one parent that has sent their kid to a camp in Liverpool numerous camps with players like Casio and spent close to $10000 in a season on their son

Subs at the best clubs are over $1000 which is paid for by the parent


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

That may be true, but soccer is certainly taking advantage of the explosion of kids playing in order to fund their senior teams. You only have to look at the disparity of numbers between junior and senior player numbers to see what a goldmine it is.

It's the same in netball and club netball isn't shelling out huge sums of cash for senior players

Outside the 'premier league' or whatever soccer has I doubt clubs in the suburbs are paying much to senior players yet the junior teams all have a guy in a Kappa tracksuit with a million cones set up five hours before training starts

 

[srv23]

In my opinion, the key to successful junior development is rather than be happy with the 0.1% that make it that would have anyway, bring the next 0.1% up to a level where they are good enough. Kids get discarded young, often simply because they are behind on the growth curve. There's a ton of kids running around in the ammos who would have been good enough with a bit more coaching and perseverance, which more money and better coaching would bring.

I think this is really important - at junior level size is such a big thing - a big kid can bully their way to the ball and look like a star even if their skills and decision making are shocking and even if theyre completely selfish players because their ability to win the ball on the ground or in the air gives them the chance to get plenty of touches. My son is a more average sized kid and is not one of those kids with no fear when it comes to putting their head over the ball. On the flipside for his age he has exquisite skills, has comfortably used his non preferred foot in multiple games ( something a few AFL guys cant even do), he has excellent lateral vision (as opposed to just moving the ball straight ahead) and makes very team orientated good decisions with the ball. He wont get noticed due to his size and being more of an outside receiver he wont get 20 touches a game. He will develop into a pretty handy player when he's older and bigger.(Note by handy I am not saying AFL player!!) Everyone seems to understand the reality of "kids develop at different speed" and that "the kid who's a start in under 10's is not necessarily going to be the star as a 17/18 year old" but I still think there's a tendency for coaches to decide at quite a young age who the kids who are "likely" to make it which is not always the right call. And if you havent been identified at a young age and then pushed through the various stages of development squad from a young age it's hard to get in there.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I think this is really important - at junior level size is such a big thing - a big kid can bully their way to the ball and look like a star even if their skills and decision making are shocking and even if theyre completely selfish players because their ability to win the ball on the ground or in the air gives them the chance to get plenty of touches. My son is a more average sized kid and is not one of those kids with no fear when it comes to putting their head over the ball. On the flipside for his age he has exquisite skills, has comfortably used his non preferred foot in multiple games ( something a few AFL guys cant even do), he has excellent lateral vision (as opposed to just moving the ball straight ahead) and makes very team orientated good decisions with the ball. He wont get noticed due to his size and being more of an outside receiver he wont get 20 touches a game. He will develop into a pretty handy player when he's older and bigger.(Note by handy I am not saying AFL player!!) Everyone seems to understand the reality of "kids develop at different speed" and that "the kid who's a start in under 10's is not necessarily going to be the star as a 17/18 year old" but I still think there's a tendency for coaches to decide at quite a young age who the kids who are "likely" to make it which is not always the right call. And if you havent been identified at a young age and then pushed through the various stages of development squad from a young age it's hard to get in there.

Should junior teams be split up on height/weight/age ratio rather than just an age cut off? Body Mass Index or whatever it's called.

I remember reading that rugby divides players up by size rather than age for the reasons you've mentioned

 

[feenix67]

IMO the criticism of our pathway is a bit all over the shop.

On one hand we want there to be plenty of SA draftees each year. But we don't want the clubs to focus on the 1-2 players who will make it. Isn't that exactly what they should be doing? If each club gets a couple of draftees each year that is a better result for SA football and the SANFL clubs will get $100k back from the AFL for this.

On this, I think the point is, once the kids reach u18 level, the clubs dont actually have the best u18 kids available, because they often throw their resources around a kid who is a gun at 12/13 because he is good, and discard others who are not so good, but this is often due to the varying nature of kids' physical and mental development. I coached a kid through primary school (son of an ex Norwood player) who was an absolute gun player and did some ridiculously good things as a 12 year old. The problem was, he was a smurf, very undersized for his age. As a result, Sturt overlooked him. He's now over 185cm and tearing it up for his Ammo club.

Our SANFL club junior system apparently plays to win rather than develop the players. Then how come some U18s are up playing reserves and even league? Wouldn't the clubs be more likely to win U18 flags if they kept those players back? Wouldn't their league teams be more likely to win if they retain 20 somethings rather than debuting skinny kids?

Its not so much about winning under 18 flags. The under 18 comp is heavily undermined by the absence of college kids for the bulk of the season and is therefore a bit of a crap shoot. The issue is, the SANFL clubs want them to play a style and/or position that will suit the club at senior level. At one stage back when my kid was playing, West had a good full forward who was earmarked for a league career. So Collins had the coach play a game plan that cleared out the forward line to let this kid go one out - Pagans paddock style. Needless to say, this was a gameplan designed to suit the football club, not the development of players. (Again, this isnt a whinge about my kid - he played in defense).

There needs to be a TAC Cup style system so that coaches don't just focus on winning but on development eg so that a kid who will be 195cm tall doesn't play as a ruckman because he won't be a ruckman at AFL level. Isn't that what the SA U/18s is for? But the problem there is that Phillips picks kids to win a championship rather than maximising draft prospect's chances. What if our new TAC system has coaches that try to win games too like Phillips does? The problem is the coaching, attitudes and the priorities rather than the system necessarily.

I doubt coaches in a dedicated, unaffiliated comp would be focussed on winning if their KPIs were draftees rather than games won.

 

[srv23]

IMO the criticism of our pathway is a bit all over the shop.

On one hand we want there to be plenty of SA draftees each year. But we don't want the clubs to focus on the 1-2 players who will make it. Isn't that exactly what they should be doing? If each club gets a couple of draftees each year that is a better result for SA football and the SANFL clubs will get $100k back from the AFL for this.

Our SANFL club junior system apparently plays to win rather than develop the players. Then how come some U18s are up playing reserves and even league? Wouldn't the clubs be more likely to win U18 flags if they kept those players back? Wouldn't their league teams be more likely to win if they retain 20 somethings rather than debuting skinny kids?

There needs to be a TAC Cup style system so that coaches don't just focus on winning but on development eg so that a kid who will be 195cm tall doesn't play as a ruckman because he won't be a ruckman at AFL level. Isn't that what the SA U/18s is for? But the problem there is that Phillips picks kids to win a championship rather than maximising draft prospect's chances. What if our new TAC system has coaches that try to win games too like Phillips does? The problem is the coaching, attitudes and the priorities rather than the system necessarily.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if my son gets into a development squad and I then pay for coaching I would expect that the money I pay is used for his development - as well as everyone elses. Not that there shouldnt be focus on the truly elite kids as that becomes apparent as the kids get older. The difficulty - as I eluded to in another post - is predetermined decisions at too young an age as to which kids are going to make it. I have watched countless games of under 6 - under 10 football and Year 2-5 school football and in that time I have probably seen only 2 kids who truly stood out as heads and shoulders above the other kids and kids I would think "likely" to make it - and both come from pretty handy football pedigree. Now that will obviously become more apparent as they get older. With the increased success of rookie list players, mature aged players as well as instances where kids who have been highly rated as juniors dont even get drafted - we perhaps need to broaden what kind of kids we are identifying as "elite" at a junior level.

 

[feenix67]

I think this is really important - at junior level size is such a big thing - a big kid can bully their way to the ball and look like a star even if their skills and decision making are shocking and even if theyre completely selfish players because their ability to win the ball on the ground or in the air gives them the chance to get plenty of touches. My son is a more average sized kid and is not one of those kids with no fear when it comes to putting their head over the ball. On the flipside for his age he has exquisite skills, has comfortably used his non preferred foot in multiple games ( something a few AFL guys cant even do), he has excellent lateral vision (as opposed to just moving the ball straight ahead) and makes very team orientated good decisions with the ball. He wont get noticed due to his size and being more of an outside receiver he wont get 20 touches a game. He will develop into a pretty handy player when he's older and bigger.(Note by handy I am not saying AFL player!!) Everyone seems to understand the reality of "kids develop at different speed" and that "the kid who's a start in under 10's is not necessarily going to be the star as a 17/18 year old" but I still think there's a tendency for coaches to decide at quite a young age who the kids who are "likely" to make it which is not always the right call. And if you havent been identified at a young age and then pushed through the various stages of development squad from a young age it's hard to get in there.

Very true. I could name a specific player who epitomises this. Was a champ at 12-14 and then fell away quickly as others caught up to him. Yet I remember sitting watching an u18 game at Alberton with Darryl Hart and a few other scouts behind me talking about players, and they were raving about this kid, despite him having really not done anything for about 2 years and really struggling in the game we were watching. Its simplistic talent spotting based more around hearsay and one or two stand out games at early ages and very indicative of the fact that AFL still has a long way to go to be truly professional in all aspects of the sport.[/QUOTE]

 

[srv23]

On this, I think the point is, once the kids reach u18 level, the clubs dont actually have the best u18 kids available, because they often throw their resources around a kid who is a gun at 12/13 because he is good, and discard others who are not so good, but this is often due to the varying nature of kids' physical and mental development. I coached a kid through primary school (son of an ex Norwood player) who was an absolute gun player and did some ridiculously good things as a 12 year old. The problem was, he was a smurf, very undersized for his age. As a result, Sturt overlooked him. He's now over 165cm and tearing it up for his Ammo club.

My husband talks about this a bit. He played junior footy in the country and was a bit like my son. Lacked confidence and size as a young kid despie being reasonably good. Never believed in himself (despite making a Regional representative side as a teenager) and had a later growth spurt so was smaller than the other kids til he was about 15 (now 6ft3) Ended up playing ammos in adelaide but didnt actually realise he was a good footballer til he was an adult. Unlike some of the kids I see now who walk around as 10 year olds convinced they are future stars.

 

[srv23]

Very true. I could name a specific player who epitomises this. Was a champ at 12-14 and then fell away quickly as others caught up to him. Yet I remember sitting watching an u18 game at Alberton with Darryl Hart and a few other scouts behind me talking about players, and they were raving about this kid, despite him having really not done anything for about 2 years and really struggling in the game we were watching. Its simplistic talent spotting based more around hearsay and one or two stand out games at early ages and very indicative of the fact that AFL still has a long way to go to be truly professional in all aspects of the sport.

[/QUOTE]

Having the right surname can certainly help as well!!

 

[feenix67]

My husband talks about this a bit. He played junior footy in the country and was a bit like my son. Lacked confidence and size as a young kid despie being reasonably good. Never believed in himself (despite making a Regional representative side as a teenager) and had a later growth spurt so was smaller than the other kids til he was about 15 (now 6ft3) Ended up playing ammos in adelaide but didnt actually realise he was a good footballer til he was an adult. Unlike some of the kids I see now who walk around as 10 year olds convinced they are future stars.

Ive said for a long time I believe the draft age should be 20. If the AFL drafted out of the SANFL/WAFL league clubs, theyd have ready made players, less speculative draft picks, and wouldnt waste money on kids who plateau at 18 and never develop any further.

 

[feenix67]

It's the same in netball and club netball isn't shelling out huge sums of cash for senior players

Outside the 'premier league' or whatever soccer has I doubt clubs in the suburbs are paying much to senior players yet the junior teams all have a guy in a Kappa tracksuit with a million cones set up five hours before training starts

I think you underestimate just how much money junior soccer makes, and how little money senior soccer makes.

 

[srv23]

Ive said for a long time I believe the draft age should be 20. If the AFL drafted out of the SANFL/WAFL league clubs, theyd have ready made players, less speculative draft picks, and wouldnt waste money on kids who plateau at 18 and never develop any further.

Or discard a kid because he hasnt made it by the age of 20.
There are a lot of positives in some respects to the American system - Go into College - draft them when they're older and more likely to be fully developed and they go into their professional sporting career with a college degree.

 

[feenix67]

Or discard a kid because he hasnt made it by the age of 20.
There are a lot of positives in some respects to the American system - Go into College - draft them when they're older and more likely to be fully developed and they go into their professional sporting career with a college degree.

This is the issue I believe. The AFL try to replicate the NFL/NBA, forgetting that the players drafted into their elite level are ready made, mature age people, who have played in college leagues better than many of the domestic leagues around the world. They are ready made, and a fairly well known quantity.

In AFL, the kids are still growing and developing. Loko at how far James Aish has fallen since his junior days. What about how we are discussing Jackson Edwards - last year a low first/high second rounder, this year doesnt even get a ticket to the combine and will likely go third or fourth round to us. Seventeen/Eighteen is far too young to make a call on a kids ability.

 

[marty36]

Does anyone have their own experiences as a junior at SANFL clubs

I know I have had plenty, I wasn't concerned at the quality of coaching staff or the size of the ground we all played because we enjoyed it


It sounds like people are complaining because their team isn't getting the best players out of the system if that's the case it's up to the clubs to get the best players or change the system after all it's the clubs who control the AFL commission

We all played footy for the enjoyment of the sport we watch it because we enjoy the sport

The clubs are making it a business and like a business it costs

Parents could pay like the soccer parents who want to make their kids the best which let's be honest, I hope I'm not chatting with parents like that on here, that live their lives through their kids

Footy is there to enjoy for the thousands and thousands who play it throughout Australia

If you want these elite kids you will need to pay for them it's that simple or let the parents of the kids who will benefit by paying for them

If you send your kids to a private school and pay 20k per year you are doing in an effort to give your kid the best chance the same could be said about footy if you are treating as a profession and money making venture as opposed to what it actually is a sport


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jackster83]

It seems like we get a lot of kids who are highly rated at 15/16/17, and get talked about as potential first round, even top 10 picks.

Over the last 10-12 years we've had Cleve Hughes, Darren Pfeiffer, James Sellar, Callum Bartlett, Sam Day, Dan Gorringe, Jimmy Toumpas, Ben Kennedy, Mitch Grigg, James Battersby, Peter Bampton, James Aish, Menzel x2, Scharenberg x2 and the list goes on.

The script seems to follow that they have an underwhelming U/18 national championships, test poorly at the combine and then slide on draft day (or not get drafted at all).

I wonder if we'll get to the stage where guys a year out from being draft eligible will move to Vic to go through their system instead.

 

[SellarStardom]

Marty, nail on the head.

Development of the sport in SA is the role of the SA Football Commission. This gets far too blurred with the SANFL, but I will leave that for now.

Then there is development of elite kids in SA. This is the responsibility of the AFL Commission first and foremost as its their league that elite programs are designed for.
The SA Football commission is second level responsibility and elite kids could also take a SANFL path if they are not destined for the AFL.

All this commentary around the SANFL not doing enough to develop the kids for the AFL is a joke. Imagine mounting an argument of the AFL not doing enough through the commission to ensure the second tier kids in the TAC Cup are set up to play in the SANFL

We just heard that SANFL clubs receive 80k from chazzawazza a one eyed Sturt supporter, that money would barely cover the facilities made available to these kids

80k wouldn't cover one employee these days when you take into consideration on costs

Development could be looked at in two ways

Developing the sport

Or

Developing a very very few elite players

How would you get bang for buck out of the $80k that say srurt receive


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[feenix67]

Marty, nail on the head.

Development of the sport in SA is the role of the SA Football Commission. This gets far too blurred with the SANFL, but I will leave that for now.

Then there is development of elite kids in SA. This is the responsibility of the AFL Commission first and foremost as its their league that elite programs are designed for.
The SA Football commission is second level responsibility and elite kids could also take a SANFL path if they are not destined for the AFL.

All this commentary around the SANFL not doing enough to develop the kids for the AFL is a joke. Imagine mounting an argument of the AFL not doing enough through the commission to ensure the second tier kids in the TAC Cup are set up to play in the SANFL

Rubbish, the SAFC is just the overseer of the SANFL, running its revenue streams. For all intents and purposes, the SANFL and the SAFC are one in the same. Read the constitution.

 

[marty36]

Marty, nail on the head.

Development of the sport in SA is the role of the SA Football Commission. This gets far too blurred with the SANFL, but I will leave that for now.

Then there is development of elite kids in SA. This is the responsibility of the AFL Commission first and foremost as its their league that elite programs are designed for.
The SA Football commission is second level responsibility and elite kids could also take a SANFL path if they are not destined for the AFL.

All this commentary around the SANFL not doing enough to develop the kids for the AFL is a joke. Imagine mounting an argument of the AFL not doing enough through the commission to ensure the second tier kids in the TAC Cup are set up to play in the SANFL

You would think the SA football commissions responsibility is more about getting the masses or the numbers to play the game

Every sport is fighting each other for numbers, the government shouldn't and don't care they will just want its people to play some sport whether it be table tennis or hockey or football

Every sport in Australia complains that when kids reach 16 to 18 the numbers fall off dramatically with some glaringly obvious reasons for that

This elite path is purely placed on those that want the elite players Im actually confused on why people wouldn't be pointing the finger straight at those who want those elite players


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jo172]

Seems amazing that they'd have to be there beforehand for as long as the games is

Exactly how much lane work are they going to do?!

It's not for the kids warm up. It's to make sure parents get there on time and the team manager can actually get the ducks into a line.