Periphery
Cancelled
- Jul 25, 2013
- 6,688
- 9,911
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
On top of that, just imagine how good Sandy will be!
VFL VFL team, Sandringham alignment & player development
- Thread starter Periphery
- Start date
- Tagged users None
On top of that, just imagine how good Sandy will be!
Persevering Saint
Brownlow Medallist
Add Jones, TDL (leading goalkicker last year), etc.
felsty
Cancelled
- Sep 21, 2012
- 2,271
- 2,319
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- New Orleans Saints
Yeah realise Sandy have a 13? man policy I think so with no injuries there will be a few boys playing Sandy twos! Just tried to recreate a team with our players for the exercise - Cockie, Cook, Noone, Ong, Shakallis, and Geelongs Mitch Brown from all reports!
Defacto
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 21, 2008
- 22,930
- 17,129
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
stupid rule. had this argument so many times but the 13 man rule can be a detriment to our development especially moving fwd as our list gets younger and more inexperienced
Couldn't disagree more. It's Sandys team. The Saints pissing them about and having people constantly in and out, benched in the 3rd quarter of close games to keep them fresh, was just taking the piss and made a mockery of the Zebras 2013 season. Saints are lucky the Zebs didn't tell them to beat it.
I supported both clubs pre the agreement, so I was more excited than anyone when it happened. But last year was maybe the first time I saw the relationship working rather well.
If Saints want total control and to play 22 backups, then they gotta fund their own vfl side. Personally I don't think they should, I think it is a serious drain on funds for a small benefit over the current situation. Spending serious $ just so that the worst 3 guys on our list don't have to play Dev level. Hell Spencer White played Dev level last year when his fitness etc was deemed sub-par, and he didn't exactly dominate. There's little other benefit, as to most other extents the Saints run Sandys on-field setup, have the Saints staff member head up the Zebs coaching etc.
Persevering Saint
Brownlow Medallist
Uh, dude, Sandy played finals. They loved our list so much, they just hired TDL themselves (which makes sense, considering he was their leading goal-kicker, an' all). Most of the times that we rested players on the bench, etc, that you are referring to, were times when we were crippled by injury last year (remember that?).
Do Sandringham have the ability to override the rule? Looking at the list above, if the new recruits are half good there are a lot more than 13 players who would dominate at VFL level.
Roberton, Simpkin, Gilbert, Curren, Longer, Minchington, Saunders, Shenton, Saad, Lee, Sippos, Schneider are all a cut above your typical VFL player.
So do we go through the farce of playing these guys in reserves, weakening Sandringham in the process, or do we struggle to develop Goddard, Markworth, and Lonie. How do those on the cusp, Markworth, Siposs, Wright, and Murdoch make themselves known.
If there are no injuries its going to be a struggle.
Should be a massive year for Sandringham in any event.
2013 fella. This last year (2014) went great from a Saints-Sandy relationship perspective. In both directions too, Geary for example was down helping out at Sandy, and not just with the guys on the Saints list. My brother in law also said Hickey was there one day helping out the rucks, of which only 1 was on the Saints list. That is a healthy 2-way relationship, and is why I actually think Saints should forget about having their own VFL side and just make this work, because when it works there are mutual benefits.
But 2013 was terrible. Sandy were in close games, then Saints players were getting pulled in the 3rd because they had played the number of minutes or whatever that McPhee (or more likely Watters) had determined they should play. They did it with both Maister and I think Lee in the same game, leaving Sandy to play the 4th quarter of a close game without a proper key forward.
Sandy were being disrespected and treated like a Saints reserves side, where the result on the day was far less important than Saints players getting a specific role and amount of on-field time. It was at great detriment to Sandy, and at least 2 of their best players left the VFL club as a direct result.
Defacto
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 21, 2008
- 22,930
- 17,129
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Open the other eye. The rule is complete shit. Great for sandi and I guess it makes them feel like they have some power
But it's horrible for player development. If we have a fully fit squad it means we are playing some players in the dev squad. As our veterans retire the problem will be amplified.
As for your financial reasons absolute LOL you do realise without the alignment sandi would have to find another 200-300k if not more
The sooner we go standalone the better RE: player development and control
Thats not a Saints thing. Its a AFL Vs VFL thing. Box Hill only lost the GF because Macca& Sewell were pulled out and Rioli was rested in a tight last qtr.
If a VFL club does go into an agreement it must realise the AFL club is going to put its own players first by a long shot.
It might not be fair at all. But its always going to be like that. The wages between VFL & AFL players will always cause a big divide.
Its pretty tough for a VFL side to choose, stay alone and have total control or affiliate and take the chance of getting screwed.
It can work at times but it can also be a terrible mess.
I sometimes feel sorry for the genuine VFL supporters who passionately support their VFL club .
But ill always put the Saints first.
Defacto
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 21, 2008
- 22,930
- 17,129
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
And it's at the detriment of our development. We need players going out and playing a role that the coaching staff see as ideal for their development not worrying about what sandi want.
If it wasn't a detriment to the development of our players we wouldn't be looking at going standalone
i 100% agree with you about our player development. And id rather be stand alone.
But we still have to take it into consideration that there are Sandy supporters who are just as passionate as Saints supporters.
So we cant be too disrespectful of Sandy. They have been of some help the last few yrs.
Defacto
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 21, 2008
- 22,930
- 17,129
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Of course not, but the rule is shit. We are in a development phase, the most important thing for our club is the development of our younger players
Anything that hinders that I won't be happy with. Regardless of how other supporters feel about it
Last year we didn't encounter the potential downside of the rule due to the number of injuries we had and according to some sandi were pretty ok to deal with on it. My worry is if we are fully fit there will be kids who are border line seniors who will be kicked back to the devs to ensure a sandi senior doesn't get disgruntled. I mean there were cases of blokes last year playing devs because of the rule and in our own coaches words they shouldn't have been playing dev. Doesn't that worry you?
Of course it does mate
Id much rather be stand alone.
BUT its not Sandys fault. We AGREED to partner up with them. If you havnt got the cash to be stand alone you cant expect to have it all your own way .
But the quicker we can afford to have a reserves team the better IMO. But im not gonna rag out on Sandy. Thats all i meant mate.
You are highlighting the problem. "We, we, we". Its a partnership, it is not Saints reserves. Yet many Saints fans feel it should be and that Sandy shouldn't have a voice in their own club.
It is a VFL club called Sandringham, who are willing, in return for cash and elite coaching, to give the bottom 20% of St Kilda's list a place to play competitive footy against, for the most part, talent of a similar level.
The finances that bother me with going independent, are St Kilda's. Frankly I think it is a lot of money for a small improvement over what the current (healthy) partnership provides. So what if maybe a couple Saints-listed fit players have to sit out the VFL game, or play dev. Those will be people coming back off injury, unfit, missed pre-season and similar. Those players have been Fisher (after long time out), White (when he was copping a lot of flak for his effort at that point and allegedly carrying a bit too much timber around the middle), Pierce (after an injury). Honestly, it barely happened last year or the year before. In fact I think in one 2014 game Saints didn't even provide a full quota, and in 2013 they did it at least once if not more.
More players miss games/weeks due to St Kilda naming 25-27 players for an AFL game then being unable to release the emergencies to play at Sandy, than from the rule (agreed by both sides) that Sandy have a specific number of places in their own side for their own players.
Bear in mind also, its not just 22 players in VFL then name a longer bench (I cant actually remember how many it is, I think maybe 7 or 8 instead of 4).
And also bear in mind, the Saints players at Sandy are coached by the St Kilda development staff including on gameday, so it's up to a Saints coach, who reports (directly or indirectly) to Richo, as to where players are played, for how long, etc.
Honestly, I don't even think this is actually an issue. There are always enough injuries for it to never be a problem anyway, and given that the relationship in 2014 was excellent (a vast improvement) I doubt anyone at either club is majorly concerned about it anyway. If they were, Saints wouldn't have extended it on the same terms. They'd have potentially offered more money for a bit more control, for example. If the rule was a massive deal, then Saints wouldn't have agreed to it. The relationship was described twice by St Kilda staff in August as "revitalised".
As for Sandy's finances, yes they would be worse off for being on their own - hence it is a 2-way deal. But like a Mexican revolunary, they would rather be skint and control their own destiny than be financially stable and essentially no longer even have a club. This is why its a partnership, not an ownership or buyout. Sandy get the cash, but its not a full takeover, there's caveats. And one of those is that essentially half the gameday list has to be Sandy players.
Me?
Where did I say that?
It is good enough for the rare times it has actually happened - e.g. for players coming back after injury where they haven't played in 16 months like Fisher, or as a punishment for White when he was chubby. But overall, no of course its not good enough, and I have not said that.
- Mar 14, 2013
- 5,872
- 12,353
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Hampton Rovers FC
What other implication is there other then "Good enough" even if its just for the bottom few as you say? We should be pushing to provide the same level of development opportunity to all our players no matter what.
*edit, I will say that you are correct in that its only happened about 10 times last year http://www.foxsportspulse.com/team_info.cgi?id=20320233&c=1-118-0-294690-0 but you have to concede that with hopefully less injuries in the future it wont just be a handful of times when our guys do miss out on vfl games.
Last edited:
That certainly wasn't what I was implying. I know the VFL dev league isn't really appropriate for a fit, primed AFL-listed player.
However I do think that for likes of Markworth, Fisher, Pierce, Wright, Minchington all coming off injuries and a few months of relative inactivity, to be honest it probably is appropriate as a final rehab step. And for White I think it probably was appropriate in order to give him a rocket (although incidentally based on reports it didnt seem to make much difference, but likely because his fitness was still poor).
But people are really unhappy about a prospect of something that just hasn't happened in the last couple years. And I was pointing out that, whilst Saints fans might feel they get a poor deal, in 2013 it was actually Sandy who got a raw deal. Literally 2 of their best 5 players walked out because of it, and there were loads of meetings to save the relationship.
Its been all good since then, and to be honest as a Sandy fan I really, really appreciate the Saints staff and players giving up their own time and going beyond what is contractually agreed, to help Sandy players. As a Saints fan that also pleases me.
Granted we might be in a situation soon where it becomes more of an issue, because Saints are trying to develop so many players at once. We do seem to have bad runs with injury, but to be honest part of me feels that might be something we're (Saints) doing or not doing, because if you consistently have bad injury luck, then its probably not just luck. If the injury run lessens in 2015, there might be days when a couple players either play Dev or not at all. And yes thats not ideal. But is that worth the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to recruit and field an entire VFL team? When they chose to extend the Sandy agreement, it was partly to give more time for getting financials in place, and Im sure the overall estimate was something like $600,000? Is it worth over half a million dollars to a skint AFL club, so that the worst couple of players on their list dont have to play a few VFL dev games?
But as Ive said - we can play AFL on a Friday night with 3 named emergencies, with Sandy playing Saturday, and those 3 guys dont get to play footy at all that week. Same when we play NZ/interstate. And that definitely happens normally between 3 and 8 times a year.
Also whilst I think playing VFL is good for development, Hawks never had the problem when they were building their current dynasty so I don't feel its crucial. Also being stand-alone has its own issues - Collingwood VFL could barely field a team by season end.
However I do think that for likes of Markworth, Fisher, Pierce, Wright, Minchington all coming off injuries and a few months of relative inactivity, to be honest it probably is appropriate as a final rehab step. And for White I think it probably was appropriate in order to give him a rocket (although incidentally based on reports it didnt seem to make much difference, but likely because his fitness was still poor).
But people are really unhappy about a prospect of something that just hasn't happened in the last couple years. And I was pointing out that, whilst Saints fans might feel they get a poor deal, in 2013 it was actually Sandy who got a raw deal. Literally 2 of their best 5 players walked out because of it, and there were loads of meetings to save the relationship.
Its been all good since then, and to be honest as a Sandy fan I really, really appreciate the Saints staff and players giving up their own time and going beyond what is contractually agreed, to help Sandy players. As a Saints fan that also pleases me.
Granted we might be in a situation soon where it becomes more of an issue, because Saints are trying to develop so many players at once. We do seem to have bad runs with injury, but to be honest part of me feels that might be something we're (Saints) doing or not doing, because if you consistently have bad injury luck, then its probably not just luck. If the injury run lessens in 2015, there might be days when a couple players either play Dev or not at all. And yes thats not ideal. But is that worth the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to recruit and field an entire VFL team? When they chose to extend the Sandy agreement, it was partly to give more time for getting financials in place, and Im sure the overall estimate was something like $600,000? Is it worth over half a million dollars to a skint AFL club, so that the worst couple of players on their list dont have to play a few VFL dev games?
But as Ive said - we can play AFL on a Friday night with 3 named emergencies, with Sandy playing Saturday, and those 3 guys dont get to play footy at all that week. Same when we play NZ/interstate. And that definitely happens normally between 3 and 8 times a year.
Also whilst I think playing VFL is good for development, Hawks never had the problem when they were building their current dynasty so I don't feel its crucial. Also being stand-alone has its own issues - Collingwood VFL could barely field a team by season end.
I'm not sure that it is great for Sandy. If they stick to the rules there will be days where they are forced to make Sandringham weaker, while a good StKilda listed player plays reserves.
IMO most rules are caused by people being knobs.
In an ideal world large trucks would stick to the left lane and not block traffic, but they are too stupid to do so, so they have to bring in a rule, which then makes it worse for them.
Lyon and Watters were knobs when it came to the alliance. Maybe Richo can get it back to where it should be and they will relax a bit on the rule.
I think I'm going to have to get down (up) to Sandy more this year as thats a pretty exciting developing list right there!
Persevering Saint
Brownlow Medallist
The mods can move the bulk of these to a Sandy thread, but factoring in Cockie, Munro, TDL, Jones, Ong, le Grice, etc to make a 13-man-VFL squad, what is going to be our best 12? Who'll be playing Dev if all the players are fully fit?
Defacto
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 21, 2008
- 22,930
- 17,129
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
it is a partnership and i will concede we didnt do the right thing by them under lyon and watters but its no different to what i have seen happen here under the alignments, where players are pulled at 3 qtr time or where players are late exclusions or even inclusions. sometimes you get guys who shouldnt be playing seniors but thats the way it works. for the great players they get that give them an edge they will get 1 or 2 who are gifted games. but you know what each alignment club is much stronger for the inclusion of AFL talent and sandi isnt any different with the saints players. take our players away and they struggle. WAFL clubs have been dropping their players who played all year for an AFL listed player come finals time, to ensure they get development time. but the difference is they dont whinge or bitch about it. they understand it came with the money and they understood what the AFL clubs need, a place for their kids to develop, even if it hurts the ability to win at times. they also understand the AFL players make their side stronger, i've seen it here with peel and east perth. they can run longer and their greater fitness levels are a big factor. my club subi struggled against east perths fitness throughout the year, we eventually beat east perth in the wet, in part because the eagles players are absolutely shite in the wet and because they sent some of the AFL players in early for surgery. i mean peel were playing a fwd line, where 5 out of the 6 fwds were all 195cm+. it was absolutely detrimental to peel winning but it was vital to get development into the likes of apeness, tabener, hannath and get match fitness into kepler, gumbleton, griffin. if they had this stupid 13 man rule, you just couldnt get those valuable minutes into them.
but you know what the strengths out way the negatives for any alignment side. some cant survive without it. which is something we will see as more sides go standalone in the VFL. eventually some of these VFL sides will have to go back a level and reduce their expenditure and player payments.
also i'm sorry but they agreed to the alignment. they didnt have to. they could have spent the 200-300k and gone standalone. so why didnt they? with the money, talent, extra resources and the recruitment network (you could build a long list of players our club recruited for sandi, that without our help they wouldnt have got) comes some things we need. they should accept that we need our players playing seniors. not dropped to a development league which is miles away from AFL level, because they dont want their players disgruntled. i mean you even said it your self
"It is a VFL club called Sandringham, who are willing, in return for cash and elite coaching, to give the bottom 20% of St Kilda's list a place to play competitive footy against, for the most part, talent of a similar level."
so why is it last year we had holmes and a few others who were playing development league solely because of the rule and not because of their form. thats coming from the player and coaches mouth, not mine. thats a massive red flag for me, especially when our list was shorter due to injuries. my worry is the number of players doing this increases
the finances are not an issue. we already invest what is it 500k+ per a draftee (vaguely re-call reading this somewhere) an extra 500k for the entire list is nothing. i actually question the extra $500k given many of the resources overlap. i actually think it might be a money spinner as well, as seen by the doggies this year. i just find it worrying that we invest so much in our primary focus right now, which is absolutely critical to future success, i.e. player development. but we are willing to cop this rule that can see a players development stunted/less than ideal. its counter productive
theres also other benefits from going standalone. for instance i could see more opportunity for supporters to become involved with the club on match day or as a volunteer. it help builds that close link with the local community as well. its also the logical step to building an academy/talent pathway which is what many clubs are now looking at. for instance the west coast eagles are lobbying to have their own academy like the sydney swans have
also if going standalone is so bad, why is everyone doing it? why are we doing it?
Last edited:
As I implied earlier, if we go with the last listed best 22 we end up with players like
Roberton, Simpkin, Gilbert, Curren, Longer, Minchington, Saunders, Shenton, Saad, Lee, Sippos, Schneider not playing AFL.
( personally I'd have them there but the argument remains valid as others drop back ).
That's 12 players and many of them, Simpkin, Curren , Minchington, Shenton, have contributed enormously to Sandringham in the past.
So do we drop one of those 12 to reserves?
If not we are left with the likes of Wright, McKenzie, Goddard, Saunders, Murdoch, McCartin, Holmes, Markworth, and Lonie battling for a spot in the VFL seniors.
I could see StKilda making players like Gilbert and Shenton unavailable just to get games into some of the others.
My question remains, can Sandringham override their own rule in the interest in making the Zebra's a stronger team?
