Picola & District SE 2014

[Charles Mac]

It's in and working as far as the clubs are concerned .
May be a hindress to senior coaches and the occasional player getting coin who feels threatened, most certainly not directed at you or anyone in particular .
But there is more to footy than this years senior side and I mean that with a great deal of respect of you personally .
It is a decision the league should be extremely proud of and in time I am sure coaches will appreciate .
2 or 3 18year olds pushing for a spot of senior footy after getting taste , taking the spot of 2 or 3 , 45 + year olds in the reserves is a great thing .

I understand what was trying to be accomplished by the board bringing the rule in. I think both you and WILTY are missing my concerns with the rule. It's got nothing to do with senior coaches managing the bench, It has nothing to do with older players getting nervous, it has nothing to do with other senior players missing out. This aside I probably cost a bloke a league medal last year because he was used as sub almost every game, something im not worried about and its definaltly something the big shooter is worried about. My ONLY concerns are that these young kids are sitting on the bench for so long.
This is why I would rather see 4 on the bench, with one of those on the bench needing to be an under 17's player. I support the concept of the sub but just think it could be tackled a different way. Just my Opinion.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

I love nothing more than giving a young kid a crack at seniors but this is the problem. How can a kid be that excited to play seniors when he knows he will be on the bench for the majority of the game. Its the only bit of the rule I donot like. I am only thinking of that kid all excited to play seniors only to sit on the bench. It's not what footy is about. If a young fella comes into the seniors side, sure he might start on the bench but the coach would give him a little taste early in the game. I just know that talking to the kids I have used a sub, they are not enjoying it.

Out of interest CM , how many of the kids you played as a sub and are still in the area fronted for pre season and are still playing ?

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

I understand what was trying to be accomplished by the board bringing the rule in. I think both you and WILTY are missing my concerns with the rule. It's got nothing to do with senior coaches managing the bench, It has nothing to do with older players getting nervous, it has nothing to do with other senior players missing out. This aside I probably cost a bloke a league medal last year because he was used as sub almost every game, something im not worried about and its definaltly something the big shooter is worried about. My ONLY concerns are that these young kids are sitting on the bench for so long.
This is why I would rather see 4 on the bench, with one of those on the bench needing to be an under 17's player. I support the concept of the sub but just think it could be tackled a different way. Just my Opinion.

I may be wrong but I thought you guys benefited slot form the sub last year and it will be interesting to see if those kids who got a go and may not have normally got a go continue to play and become senior players . In saying that the club does have a great record , probably unprecedented in developing their own .
He didn't kick enough goals to win the medal .

 

[Charles Mac]

Here is another way of looking at opportunities .
About 4 years ago 3 young players 2 - 14 and 1 -15 played in our under 17 interleague side . All were scrawny light framed kids whose mothers were concerned at first they'd get knocked around and the coaches to their credit gave them a go . They started on the bench and from memory were the last players to come in the ground .
The 15 year old was Dan Howe who has been in the bushrangers best the last two weeks , the 2 14 year olds were Blair Henery who is a gun and was close to BOG in a senior grand final last year and the other was Connor brown now on the bushies list .
Last year a player only played senior football because of the sub rule and made it down to the final cut of the bushies . Charles might also be able to confirm if another of this years PDFNL reps in the bushies played as a sub last year , because I know Connor Brown definitely did.
Now by no means am I suggesting that the sub is the whole and solely means of developing kids or anything f the like . Gradual introduction has seen the many players previously thought not up to it or the like , achieve a lot more than many thought including their parents .
I am pretty sure wilty might have her own story to tell on this and a certain day at Deakin reserve that involved another lighter framed assumed not ready and non confident player that ended up a lot better than she or the player thought was ever possible.

No way known did Leedsy start or finish as sub. If a kid in good enough to play TAC I would assume he should be in the starting 18 at senior PDFL level.
Im not bringing the issue up as a sook fest, the sub rule is in and we are using it. I see the benefits but I also see the down sides to it.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

No way known did Leedsy start or finish as sub. If a kid in good enough to play TAC I would assume he should be in the starting 18 at senior PDFL level.
Im not bringing the issue up as a sook fest, the sub rule is in and we are using it. I see the benefits but I also see the down sides to it.

I appreciate and respect your view.

 

[Charles Mac]

Out of interest CM , how many of the kids you played as a sub and are still in the area fronted for pre season and are still playing ?

All bar 1. And that's because he is injured. I would say that is more about he kid, his family and the culture of the club than the sub rule. In saying that i will say that there were probably 2 guys last year that played sub that might not of been given a run if the rule was not in.

 

[MrCopezz]

You haven't got anything decent to say have you , where does this all stem from , yep most know where from . Stop your sooking .

what was wrong with my response? :S

 

[Charles Mac]

I may be wrong but I thought you guys benefited slot form the sub last year and it will be interesting to see if those kids who got a go and may not have normally got a go continue to play and become senior players . In saying that the club does have a great record , probably unprecedented in developing their own .
He didn't kick enough goals to win the medal .

As i said the concept has great merits and i know as well as anyone that player retention from 3rds to senior level is terrible but i just don't like the kids sitting on the bench for to long.

 

[MrCopezz]

the sub rule is giving kids a crack and promoting them in the "FAMILY LEAGUE"? okay, fair call...
"Oh by the way little Johnny you can't play finals in u17s with your friends but big Tommy can play 2 games because he is better than you? c'mon that's a little contradicting?... Is it not?

 

[MrCopezz]

As i said the concept has great merits and i know as well as anyone that player retention from 3rds to senior level is terrible but i just don't like the kids sitting on the bench for to long.

Yes, and sometimes you may get disgruntled parents not liking sitting at the footy all day to see his kid not get on the field in the seniors?
Yet the kid feels inclined to play because of the opportunity was given?

In my opinion I believe the sub should be replaced by a fulltime player of u17s and can come off and on as the coaches please.
yet the sub rule isn't my argument

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Yes, and sometimes you may get disgruntled parents not liking sitting at the footy all day to see his kid not get on the field in the seniors?
Yet the kid feels inclined to play because of the opportunity was given?

In my opinion I believe the sub should be replaced by a fulltime player of u17s and can come off and on as the coaches please.
yet the sub rule isn't my argument

All that does is have an additional player as almost every club has a u17 already in their best 21 . Nothing gained Ina development sense nothing at all and it does nothing to promote the second year of kids to continue playing .
I got an idea how bout you worry about what you can control and let your club administrators deal with the league on any matters they have more knowledge of .
Every club has a different situation and your clubs is completely unique to every other clubs in relation to the turn over of junior players .

 

[MrCopezz]

All that does is have an additional player as almost every club has a u17 already in their best 21 . Nothing gained Ina development sense nothing at all and it does nothing to promote the second year of kids to continue playing .
I got an idea how bout you worry about what you can control and let your club administrators deal with the league on any matters they have more knowledge of .
Every club has a different situation and your clubs is completely unique to every other clubs in relation to the turn over of junior players .

Mate, I'm actually speaking from experience, not from a guy in slacks and nice shoes.
I recall playing seniors as a 16 year old (less than a decade ago) so my opinion is based on that, And ALOT of my friends did that same. They also share the same opinion...
I'd like to know what credentials or experience your opinion is based on?
BUT AGAIN I'll state that this subject is no longer my argument. my argument is as follows
"
The sub rule is giving kids a crack and promoting them in the "FAMILY LEAGUE"? okay, fair call...
"Oh by the way little Johnny you can't play finals in u17s with your friends but big Tommy can play 2 games because he is better than you"? c'mon that's a little contradicting?... Is it not?

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Mate, I'm actually speaking from experience, not from a guy in slacks and nice shoes.
I recall playing seniors as a 16 year old (less than a decade ago) so my opinion is based on that, And ALOT of my friends did that same. They also share the same opinion...
I'd like to know what credentials or experience your opinion is based on?
BUT AGAIN I'll state that this subject is no longer my argument. my argument is as follows
"
The sub rule is giving kids a crack and promoting them in the "FAMILY LEAGUE"? okay, fair call...
"Oh by the way little Johnny you can't play finals in u17s with your friends but big Tommy can play 2 games because he is better than you"? c'mon that's a little contradicting?... Is it not?

Whole football life in administration , no experience in coaching or junior and your point is ??

 

[wouldIlietoyou]

Mate, I'm actually speaking from experience, not from a guy in slacks and nice shoes.
I recall playing seniors as a 16 year old (less than a decade ago) so my opinion is based on that, And ALOT of my friends did that same. They also share the same opinion...
I'd like to know what credentials or experience your opinion is based on?
BUT AGAIN I'll state that this subject is no longer my argument. my argument is as follows
"
The sub rule is giving kids a crack and promoting them in the "FAMILY LEAGUE"? okay, fair call...
"Oh by the way little Johnny you can't play finals in u17s with your friends but big Tommy can play 2 games because he is better than you"? c'mon that's a little contradicting?... Is it not?

This reply is based on this being about finals only. If the rule is different someone please let us know.

First, do you believe your club should be able to play with more than 25 if the opposition has say 19?

 

[MrCopezz]

Whole football life in administration , no experience in coaching or junior and your point is ??

My point is I am basing my opinion on that experience and background, and you cant keep saying stuff like "You haven't got anything decent to say have you , where does this all stem from , yep most know where from . Stop your sooking." because your opinion was outshone.

I also played 3 years of junior football winning 1 game (due to lack of numbers) and again through my experiences, forcing other teams to only have 25 players in finals WOULD NOT alter the number of games won. Nor would it of change the competitiveness of the competition... it would only save time and a LITTLE bit on money on the last day in September. What is more important? money and time? or a kids happiness and right to play on that last day?

But back the the "point"
The sub rule is giving kids a crack and promoting them in the "FAMILY LEAGUE"? okay, fair call...
"Oh by the way little Johnny you can't play finals in u17s with your friends but big Tommy can play 2 games because he is better than you"? c'mon that's a little contradicting?... Is it not?

I believe all kids that have taken part in the home and away season, and have played enough games to qualify, should be able to partake in finals...
If its money and time the league are worried about, maybe the league should supply 25 medals and the remainder are to be purchased by the club on the day of the grandfinal? or the amount be passed on to the following years club fees?... instead of sidelining kids for "not being talented enough to be in the 25"
if it is not to save time and money, could we all please know why this rule has been put in place?...

 

[ark n go]

Any reason why the two competing clubs cant communicate during the week and determine how many players to take part?

 

[MrCopezz]

This reply is based on this being about finals only. If the rule is different someone please let us know.

First, do you believe your club should be able to play with more than 25 if the opposition has say 19?

Could you please show me a record or some sort of team sheet showing such a discrepancy IN A FINAL let alone a GRAND FINAL?

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Any reason why the two competing clubs cant communicate during the week and determine how many players to take part?

Because they never agree , trust me. .

 

[wouldIlietoyou]

Any reason why the two competing clubs cant communicate during the week and determine how many players to take part?

I know from bad experience that the club that has to drop players can get quite abusive. Or try to tell you being up under 14s who have never played in your side Or little Johnny won't get a kick promise just so they can bring in big tommy who will get shit loads of kicks. Why because at this stage of the game sorry to say it does become about winning. The leagues job is to provide a level playing field for all first and foremost.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

My point is I am basing my opinion on that experience and background, and you cant keep saying stuff like "You haven't got anything decent to say have you , where does this all stem from , yep most know where from . Stop your sooking." because your opinion was outshone.

I also played 3 years of junior football winning 1 game (due to lack of numbers) and again through my experiences, forcing other teams to only have 25 players in finals WOULD NOT alter the number of games won. Nor would it of change the competitiveness of the competition... it would only save time and a LITTLE bit on money on the last day in September. What is more important? money and time? or a kids happiness and right to play on that last day?

But back the the "point"
The sub rule is giving kids a crack and promoting them in the "FAMILY LEAGUE"? okay, fair call...
"Oh by the way little Johnny you can't play finals in u17s with your friends but big Tommy can play 2 games because he is better than you"? c'mon that's a little contradicting?... Is it not?

I believe all kids that have taken part in the home and away season, and have played enough games to qualify, should be able to partake in finals...
If its money and time the league are worried about, maybe the league should supply 25 medals and the remainder are to be purchased by the club on the day of the grandfinal? or the amount be passed on to the following years club fees?... instead of sidelining kids for "not being talented enough to be in the 25"
if it is not to save time and money, could we all please know why this rule has been put in place?...

The descrepency amongst playing numbers in finals is significant , incidentally it also leads to thrushings rather than comfortable defeats in the regular season .
The League has not implemented a mercy rule as is the case in plenty of other leagues .
There have been many issues both from within the side with plenty of numbers, parents the kids upset about not getting a fair go and the opposition .
Yes it will effect clubs who are fortunate enough from time to time to have in access of 7 on the bench , however the positive effect it will have on the rest of the clubs far outweighs the negatives .
The rest of the details shouldn't and won't be discussed upon here .
Let's just say it's the first step .

 

[Charles Mac]

The descrepency amongst playing numbers in finals is significant , incidentally it also leads to thrushings rather than comfortable defeats in the regular season .
The League has not implemented a mercy rule as is the case in plenty of other leagues .
There have been many issues both from within the side with plenty of numbers, parents the kids upset about not getting a fair go and the opposition .
Yes it will effect clubs who are fortunate enough from time to time to have in access of 7 on the bench , however the positive effect it will have on the rest of the clubs far outweighs the negatives .
The rest of the details shouldn't and won't be discussed upon here .
Let's just say it's the first step .

Are there any clubs around that this will affect ? I can see both sides to the argument but from experience if you have to many junior players it is better to set up a roster system where EVERYONE misses a week and runs water etc instead of playing. There is nothing worse than little Johnny sitting all day on the bench without getting a run, regular season or finals.
If you do have great numbers there is a problem come the end of the year not matter what you do. If little Johnny doesn't get a game, everyone involved gets upset. If he does get a game and doesn't get on the ground, people can get upset.
In saying this I have coached a under 17's grand final (Yes a win WILTY, remember) and both sides agreed to let all the kids run out and play. Not all got on the field but they all felt part of it.
But during the year we made it clear we were only allowing 6 on the bench as it was to hard for everyone involved to manage. On a number of occaisions the opposition were short so those boys whose turn it was to miss played for the opposition. It all worked out. Just important to keep them playing and not taking in shit soccer or skate boarding.

 

[MrCopezz]

Are there any clubs around that this will affect ? I can see both sides to the argument but from experience if you have to many junior players it is better to set up a roster system where EVERYONE misses a week and runs water etc instead of playing. There is nothing worse than little Johnny sitting all day on the bench without getting a run, regular season or finals.
If you do have great numbers there is a problem come the end of the year not matter what you do. If little Johnny doesn't get a game, everyone involved gets upset. If he does get a game and doesn't get on the ground, people can get upset.
In saying this I have coached a under 17's grand final (Yes a win WILTY, remember) and both sides agreed to let all the kids run out and play. Not all got on the field but they all felt part of it.
But during the year we made it clear we were only allowing 6 on the bench as it was to hard for everyone involved to manage. On a number of occaisions the opposition were short so those boys whose turn it was to miss played for the opposition. It all worked out. Just important to keep them playing and not taking in shit soccer or skate boarding.

Agreed...

 

[Charles Mac]

Roar, are the player number problems between clubs a concern for both leagues or just one. I have to admit im not following the juniors as close as I have in the past but it seems that in the North things look ok. Are the junior numbers a big concern for most clubs ??

 

[wouldIlietoyou]

Are there any clubs around that this will affect ? I can see both sides to the argument but from experience if you have to many junior players it is better to set up a roster system where EVERYONE misses a week and runs water etc instead of playing. There is nothing worse than little Johnny sitting all day on the bench without getting a run, regular season or finals.
If you do have great numbers there is a problem come the end of the year not matter what you do. If little Johnny doesn't get a game, everyone involved gets upset. If he does get a game and doesn't get on the ground, people can get upset.
In saying this I have coached a under 17's grand final (Yes a win WILTY, remember) and both sides agreed to let all the kids run out and play. Not all got on the field but they all felt part of it.
But during the year we made it clear we were only allowing 6 on the bench as it was to hard for everyone involved to manage. On a number of occaisions the opposition were short so those boys whose turn it was to miss played for the opposition. It all worked out. Just important to keep them playing and not taking in shit soccer or skate boarding.

I knew you would bring that up...... Somedays footy sucks!!!


Other than that I agree with what your saying.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Roar, are the player number problems between clubs a concern for both leagues or just one. I have to admit im not following the juniors as close as I have in the past but it seems that in the North things look ok. Are the junior numbers a big concern for most clubs ??

There is a very consistant theme amongst juniors , whereby clubs further than 10 klms and less than 50klms to a large city/ population struggle with junior numbers .
I don't wish to elaborate much further than that .
For the most part junior numbers are steady , fwiw this year is the first year in many that every club has had u17' and u14's , which can only be good for all .
As much as individuals hate missing out on playing a whole game clubs suffer terrible if kids go 2-3 weeks without game which has happened in te past.
To my knowledge this rule would have had an effect on possibly two occasions in the last 5 years .