VFL VFL team, Sandringham alignment & player development

[CALL ME SNAKE]

Moorabbin could be turned into a proper community hub as you say and be a REAL alternative to a day at the zoo or whatever for a Saints family.

zoo?
you do realize that the "Animal Enclosure" doesnt have actual animals in it dont you

 

[SaintsSeptember]

maybe for mids that have a shorter time span to work out what theyre made of, but for talls its a different story. after 2 years a tall, given the cap, could have spent the majority of his time in the dev leagues. he may look at another club that doesnt have the cap and think it might be more desirable to go to a team where he can be guaranteed at a minimum senior VFL time

so potentially/hypothetically you could have a pierce, holmes, mccartin, white, goddard etc leave after their initial 2 years of finding themselves more often than not in the dev league. the likes of goddard and mccartin would still be sought after and have value after 2 years, even if its spent in the dev league

It was really hard when Sandringham had Sautner, he was a club stalwart, he was stopping StKilda players from developing but because of who he was he really needed to play each week. Sandy then recruited Dowler and made him captain, though Dowler was a bit more predictable.

It really needs communication, Sandringham and StKilda really need to plan who will be playing where under ideal circumstances. For example, i'd suggest that Sandringham really don't need their own ruck this year.

 

[zebraman]

The current agreement is 15 St Kilda 8 Sandy players. That was set in place after the Scott Watters reign.When we played Collingwood in the finals last year it was 15 Sandy 8 St Kilda due to injuries. So of course in the early rounds of the 2015 season there will be more than 15 St Kilda players available for selection. But as the year goes on if previous seasons are any indication, then the 15-8 rule won't cause too many problems

St Kilda asked for the alignment to be extended by a year. Both teams will go it alone in the 2017 season.

Last year was the best year of the alignment so far. With Paul Hudson as coach for the next 2 years, hopefully it will be just as good and both teams part on good term at the end of 2016

 

[sonnywalters]

I think just the starting point of it being at Moorabbin and accessible is a massive bonus. Trevor Barker oval is a great oval but the parking there is just awful with the council restrictions, forcing you to park a reasonable walk away. Makes it harder for families with small kids etc and no public transport there is the nail in the coffin.

Moorabbin could be turned into a proper community hub as you say and be a REAL alternative to a day at the zoo or whatever for a Saints family. Proper facilities and stands are going to make it a much nicer experience for people to think "hey the footy is on, lets go down for a couple of hours". Also community outreaching to let people know that the VFL is still here and StKilda is here for you. Advertising around the area should be paramount. First few homegames should be completely free for everyone in my opinion, get people through and have a good experience.

Not a bad idea. For instance - the AFL Saints play 10 odd games a year interstate/wellington. So those 10 weeks provides a great opportunity for the Saints to sell the VFL games as a family day with BBQ - kids games at half time etc.

 

[ike2112]

its the same problem sandi were having. players were unhappy because they were playing in the dev side when they thought they should be playing seniors in place of AFL listed players they thought werent much chop. but thats what happens when you have an alignment. but i havent seen AFL players over here get dropped solely based on a cap so they can nurture the state league talent

Thats just not true at all. You have a strong argument already which I can appreciate, without making stuff up. Players at Sandy were unhappy about St Kilda players being in the Sandy lineup, then getting pulled at last minute (remember that was a Watters speciality to change the emergencies on the morning of game) or for Saints players to get named for Sandy, taking up a starting spot, but then only playing a set number of minutes. Actually winning the VFL game was of no importance whatsoever.
Whereas in a healthy partnership, both aims are intended to be met in order to keep both sides happy. Development place for AFL guys, and a boost of talent for the VFL side so they have a better shot at winning the game. At its worst it almost became a question of whether you would rather have 22 players giving their all to win, or have 22 players where 11 of them are better in terms of talent and fitness, but don't give a shit and wont play the full game.

The cap was born out of St Kilda taking the piss and disrespecting Sandy - Sandy were going to walk out, and then there would have been nowhere for the Saints players to play. If things had worked in 2012 and 2013, the way they worked this last year, I don't think the cap would be in place.
However am I not right in thinking there is a league-wide cap? To allow the non-partnered clubs to still compete. I thought there was - its higher than the Sandy/Saints deal, but I was sure there was still a cap.

Other AFL/VFL partnerships the AFL club has more control, but thats because they near enough have ownership of the VFL team. Box Hill for example went from being the Mustangs to the Hawks. They were already within Hawthorn territory anyway, and the alignment had many mutual benefits beyond what other partnerships might, so theirs is basically a reserves side.

This whole conversation though opens another question. Was the Busse Report right?
It recommended merging AFL reserves with the newly-reincarnated VFL. But gradually AFL teams have started their own reserves within the AFL. It will reach a point where (if North ever decide to drop their 2 partnerships) all 10 AFL clubs have a reserves side, with maybe only 3 or 4 other sides. Port Melbourne, Williamstown and Frankston are the only ones who have proven they can survive on their own. Its not clear how Coburg will cope, nor if Sandy could survive financially on their own in an AFL reserves league.
I suspect at that point, things might return back to the early 90s setup and Vic state clubs will align more with TAC cup and it'll go back to being a state second tier.
It is a real shame to me that many years of heritage of Victorian clubs is being pissed upon in the aim of getting the worst few AFL-listed players games.

 

[ike2112]

Fellas I know that if you try work this out on paper, it looks like theres 7 guys playing Dev each week. But it just doesn't work out that way in reality.

Last year there was a total of 10 appearances for the entire year in Dev league. Not 6 or 7 players all playing Dev in the one week as some suggest.

The people who played Dev were:
Acres played a couple times, having missed preseason this was part of his rehab/fitness plan.
Fisher, having not played in about 16 months (?) this was part of his rehab
Pierce played a couple times, having not played in a good few months and missed a lot of preseason with 2 injuries, part of his rehab
Holmes played at least once, the guy should be grateful any chance he gets to play footy as he's still on a very steep learning curve
White played 3, having gotten a serious ripping from the coaches about condition etc, seemed to be a punishment but also part of a fitness plan.
There was 1 other appearance, I cant remember who it was. I think perhaps Roberton during his injury return but I cant remember.

Baker-Thomas also played a couple times I think, and incidentally had very poor games going by the very limited reports/stats. He is the one person where Dev level possibly ought to be part of his development, and he should be standing out.

I accept that from purely a Saints point of view, having complete control is ideal. Not having a third tier would mean you couldn't drop the likes of White or Baker-Thomas any lower out of principle, but of course it means you can do as you wish with the reserves.

However I honestly feel that if the Sandy/Saints partnership is as healthy over 3-4 years as it was in 2014, there's really no need for Saints to go alone.
But what everyone seems to be worrying about - loads of Saints players playing Dev every week, likes of Membrey, Goddard and Lonie having even been mentioned, is just not going to happen. There will be isolated incidents of it during the year, mostly for those returning from injury.

 

[Nutsngum]

However I honestly feel that if the Sandy/Saints partnership is as healthy over 3-4 years as it was in 2014, there's really no need for Saints to go alone.
But what everyone seems to be worrying about - loads of Saints players playing Dev every week, likes of Membrey, Goddard and Lonie having even been mentioned, is just not going to happen. There will be isolated incidents of it during the year, mostly for those returning from injury.

There is plenty of reasons outside of purely "non development side" reasons. Its an opportunity to reenage the community on a more local level, an opportunity to manage our team closer to home and without compromise, a potential ability to make a profit if Footscray is any example and finally what I think is the most important is having our guys play in the red white and black from their very first game.

I believe its overlooked the identity and teamship that Geelong and the others have enjoyed. Not one of their boys have ever played for anyone other then Geelong (once drafted). In a game that is played in the head so much I cant help but feel this is a way of strengthening our mental fortitude just that much more.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Fellas I know that if you try work this out on paper, it looks like theres 7 guys playing Dev each week. But it just doesn't work out that way in reality.

Last year there was a total of 10 appearances for the entire year in Dev league. Not 6 or 7 players all playing Dev in the one week as some suggest.

The people who played Dev were:
Acres played a couple times, having missed preseason this was part of his rehab/fitness plan.
Fisher, having not played in about 16 months (?) this was part of his rehab
Pierce played a couple times, having not played in a good few months and missed a lot of preseason with 2 injuries, part of his rehab
Holmes played at least once, the guy should be grateful any chance he gets to play footy as he's still on a very steep learning curve
White played 3, having gotten a serious ripping from the coaches about condition etc, seemed to be a punishment but also part of a fitness plan.
There was 1 other appearance, I cant remember who it was. I think perhaps Roberton during his injury return but I cant remember.

Baker-Thomas also played a couple times I think, and incidentally had very poor games going by the very limited reports/stats. He is the one person where Dev level possibly ought to be part of his development, and he should be standing out.

I accept that from purely a Saints point of view, having complete control is ideal. Not having a third tier would mean you couldn't drop the likes of White or Baker-Thomas any lower out of principle, but of course it means you can do as you wish with the reserves.

However I honestly feel that if the Sandy/Saints partnership is as healthy over 3-4 years as it was in 2014, there's really no need for Saints to go alone.
But what everyone seems to be worrying about - loads of Saints players playing Dev every week, likes of Membrey, Goddard and Lonie having even been mentioned, is just not going to happen. There will be isolated incidents of it during the year, mostly for those returning from injury.

Last year was a horror year for injury. I don't want us to be counting on that for the alliance to work.

 

[Defacto]

Thats just not true at all. You have a strong argument already which I can appreciate, without making stuff up. Players at Sandy were unhappy about St Kilda players being in the Sandy lineup, then getting pulled at last minute (remember that was a Watters speciality to change the emergencies on the morning of game) or for Saints players to get named for Sandy, taking up a starting spot, but then only playing a set number of minutes. Actually winning the VFL game was of no importance whatsoever.
Whereas in a healthy partnership, both aims are intended to be met in order to keep both sides happy. Development place for AFL guys, and a boost of talent for the VFL side so they have a better shot at winning the game. At its worst it almost became a question of whether you would rather have 22 players giving their all to win, or have 22 players where 11 of them are better in terms of talent and fitness, but don't give a shit and wont play the full game.

The cap was born out of St Kilda taking the piss and disrespecting Sandy - Sandy were going to walk out, and then there would have been nowhere for the Saints players to play. If things had worked in 2012 and 2013, the way they worked this last year, I don't think the cap would be in place.
However am I not right in thinking there is a league-wide cap? To allow the non-partnered clubs to still compete. I thought there was - its higher than the Sandy/Saints deal, but I was sure there was still a cap.

Other AFL/VFL partnerships the AFL club has more control, but thats because they near enough have ownership of the VFL team. Box Hill for example went from being the Mustangs to the Hawks. They were already within Hawthorn territory anyway, and the alignment had many mutual benefits beyond what other partnerships might, so theirs is basically a reserves side.

This whole conversation though opens another question. Was the Busse Report right?
It recommended merging AFL reserves with the newly-reincarnated VFL. But gradually AFL teams have started their own reserves within the AFL. It will reach a point where (if North ever decide to drop their 2 partnerships) all 10 AFL clubs have a reserves side, with maybe only 3 or 4 other sides. Port Melbourne, Williamstown and Frankston are the only ones who have proven they can survive on their own. Its not clear how Coburg will cope, nor if Sandy could survive financially on their own in an AFL reserves league.
I suspect at that point, things might return back to the early 90s setup and Vic state clubs will align more with TAC cup and it'll go back to being a state second tier.
It is a real shame to me that many years of heritage of Victorian clubs is being pissed upon in the aim of getting the worst few AFL-listed players games.

what isnt true? the fact sandi players werent unhappy about it? if so, why did some players leave because they were unhappy with the amount of senior games they were getting. shit it happened in the season just gone, when apparently sandi were happy with the alignment, let alone when they were unhappy

and btw news flash it happens in all alignments. its happened at east perth, its happened at peel, before that its happened at my club when we had an eagle or docker or two and we've had to pull them at 3 qtr time or play them at the expense of someone else or even play them in an experimental role. the difference is most clubs understand theres give and take, for the cream they get, they have to take some bad milk. sure they wont be happy, but i havent seen one over here implement a cap or some restrictions on it

take east perth, theres no way they make this year or last years grand final without the eagles players. no doubt they carried a handful of pretty average eagles players, some of which ended up delisted, but they dont anywhere near the same number of games without the likes of sinclair, lycett, butler, sheppard. those three would easily account for 1 or 2 very average players they'd carry like josh smith and even josh smith can atleast out run his opponent and force a match up

you know what, i wonder how unhappy sandi would be if we had 18-23 absolute world beaters at their disposal available each week that would give them a serious crack at a flag. part of me wonders if 1 part of the angst was due to the quality of players at their disposal as opposed to how many were st kilda vs sandi, and the games sandi players were missing out on

 

[Defacto]

Fellas I know that if you try work this out on paper, it looks like theres 7 guys playing Dev each week. But it just doesn't work out that way in reality.

Last year there was a total of 10 appearances for the entire year in Dev league. Not 6 or 7 players all playing Dev in the one week as some suggest.

The people who played Dev were:
Acres played a couple times, having missed preseason this was part of his rehab/fitness plan.
Fisher, having not played in about 16 months (?) this was part of his rehab
Pierce played a couple times, having not played in a good few months and missed a lot of preseason with 2 injuries, part of his rehab
Holmes played at least once, the guy should be grateful any chance he gets to play footy as he's still on a very steep learning curve
White played 3, having gotten a serious ripping from the coaches about condition etc, seemed to be a punishment but also part of a fitness plan.
There was 1 other appearance, I cant remember who it was. I think perhaps Roberton during his injury return but I cant remember.

Baker-Thomas also played a couple times I think, and incidentally had very poor games going by the very limited reports/stats. He is the one person where Dev level possibly ought to be part of his development, and he should be standing out.

I accept that from purely a Saints point of view, having complete control is ideal. Not having a third tier would mean you couldn't drop the likes of White or Baker-Thomas any lower out of principle, but of course it means you can do as you wish with the reserves.

However I honestly feel that if the Sandy/Saints partnership is as healthy over 3-4 years as it was in 2014, there's really no need for Saints to go alone.
But what everyone seems to be worrying about - loads of Saints players playing Dev every week, likes of Membrey, Goddard and Lonie having even been mentioned, is just not going to happen. There will be isolated incidents of it during the year, mostly for those returning from injury.

pretty sure huddo or the player involved (forget who) was quoted saying that in one game holmes or pierce forget who, should have been playing seniors but had to be dropped because of the cap. i also think its a bit rich to say holmes should be grateful to just be playing football, if the coaches think he needs senior VFL time, then he needs it. he shouldnt be looked down as this bloke who just needs to play, regardless of the level because he's come from a non afl background. i hope that sentiment doesnt extended to those at sandringham or our club

you're also talking about a year in which we had a large number of injuries, as others have stated, we are worried about when we dont have one of these unusually high in injuries years, and we have a near on fit squad to choose from. or in the coming years when our young groups form will potentially be fluctuating and there will be guys coming too and from the AFL side that will put pressure on this cap

i did the numbers and i had all of our first year draftees playing devs and a couple of the other older younger blokes like curren etc. which is bullcrap. take someone like sinclair, he's already shown he can match it in the VFL seniors. what good is it for him to play dev league football. or someone like mckenzie who already has the tank and should be able to play a season in the seniors. thats before you get to mccartin, goddard who i think should be spending significant time in the seniors too. i would love to know who you would leave out and keep in the dev squad

 

[ike2112]

The Sandy players who left did not leave because of not getting a game.
They left because they were sick of playing next to Saints players whose head coach had told them they were only gonna play 60% of the game as a run out, and wanted those players to play a certain way, position, or focus that might not align directly with how Sandy needed to play in a competitive game at that point in time.
They were also sick of finding out on game day that the team had changed, cos Watters decided to be a funny bugger with the emergencies in the Saints game. (As an aside, I don't know what the hell that was all about, never understood if Watters thought it provided an advantage at AFL level, I seriously doubt it).

The folk who left did so because they felt Saints were disrespecting Sandy and treating it like a reserves instead of a Vfl club in partnership. And they were right.

You were saying the rule is shit, I'm saying it's part of the deal, and it's only part of the deal due to the previous Saints coaching staff being pricks about it.
Don't want the rule, have a stand-alone. But if the relationship had been handled right in the first place I doubt there would be a rule or cap, and everything would be fine.

 

[ike2112]

I just did the numbers too.
We have 45 players thanks to the Holmes dispensation.
22 + 3 emergencies (could be 4) is 25. Plus the 15 guys who can play for Sandy.
So if absolutely everyone is fit and wants a game that week instead of a rest, then 5 people's only option is Sandy Dev.

Realistically I think we will have more than 5 players injured or recovering or resting for pretty much the whole year.

Yes injuries were terrible in 2014 (and pretty bad in 2013 too). That didn't mean Saints just met the cap. Saints provided only 8 players to Sandy by season-end, out of a possible 15. That's how bad the injury situation was.
So 7 less injuries and still nobody would have to play Dev.

 

[Periphery]

The player limit isn't because we were shit to them, it's because the alignment is ending. Sandy needs to have it's own players already at the club so they don't completely fall off a cliff when we split from them.

Even if we had a team of superstars able to play for them they wouldn't want to use all of them because they need to take into account their long term future.

 

[gringo2011]

Moorabbin is being redeveloped to the tune of $11m. I think it'd be safe to assume they have parking and fencing planned and budgeted for.

Where are they going to put it though? When we went to a GF training session in 2009 the parking was so limited we paid $20 to park in a guys front yard about a kilometre from the ground on the wrong side of south road. $11 mill has to come from somewhere is it guaranteed? They have stripped it back to a point where it needs everything done to it. The main grandstand that is left and holds all the shop, admin and social club etc looks like a dive and could do with a couple of Million spent just making it not embarrassing. The whole place looks like it has been left too long. The parking is always going to be an issue unless we can knock down the bowls club and do some multi level parking. Hawthorn is looking to move from Waverley over the parking. We need to do some forward planning instead of a whole lot of crappy little projects that we out grow before we finish. We should do some kind of pooling of the project and look at a way to get our VFL and Afl teams a home base that is going to last 30 years and is adequate in the good times. If that's Elsternwick park or what ever just get the energy in one place. Moorabin was a success because we didn't need to keep moving until the AFL pushed amalgamated grounds on the clubs. Now it seems to be nostalgia at the cost of vision.

 

[Defacto]

Where are they going to put it though? When we went to a GF training session in 2009 the parking was so limited we paid $20 to park in a guys front yard about a kilometre from the ground on the wrong side of south road. $11 mill has to come from somewhere is it guaranteed? They have stripped it back to a point where it needs everything done to it. The main grandstand that is left and holds all the shop, admin and social club etc looks like a dive and could do with a couple of Million spent just making it not embarrassing. The whole place looks like it has been left too long. The parking is always going to be an issue unless we can knock down the bowls club and do some multi level parking. Hawthorn is looking to move from Waverley over the parking. We need to do some forward planning instead of a whole lot of crappy little projects that we out grow before we finish. We should do some kind of pooling of the project and look at a way to get our VFL and Afl teams a home base that is going to last 30 years and is adequate in the good times. If that's Elsternwick park or what ever just get the energy in one place. Moorabin was a success because we didn't need to keep moving until the AFL pushed amalgamated grounds on the clubs. Now it seems to be nostalgia at the cost of vision.

Multi level parking...how many do you think are going to go there?

I'm from perth so forgive me, but isn't moorabin on a train line?

 

[stkildathunda]

Just to set the record straight on few things.

* there is no 13 man rule for Sandringham. The contract is for 7 Sandy guys to play VFL each week (technically 8 with 23rd man rule).

* StKilda can request to play more then the 15 players, but it's upto Sandy if they Agree with the request on that given week.

* having 7 VFL guys in senior side is not affecting any AFL players development.

* it's a pointless arguement because no club will ever have a full 46 playing list to choose from every week. It's just won't ever happen.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Just to set the record straight on few things.

* there is no 13 man rule for Sandringham. The contract is for 7 Sandy guys to play VFL each week (technically 8 with 23rd man rule).

* StKilda can request to play more then the 15 players, but it's upto Sandy if they Agree with the request on that given week.

* having 7 VFL guys in senior side is not affecting any AFL players development.

* it's a pointless arguement because no club will ever have a full 46 playing list to choose from every week. It's just won't ever happen.

This sounds suspiciously like the voice of reason. Looking like a big year for Sandy.

 

[gringo2011]

Multi level parking...how many do you think are going to go there?

I'm from perth so forgive me, but isn't moorabin on a train line?

Moorabin is on a train line but you obviously haven't caught a melbourne train yet. Hawthorn claim they have not got enough for staff parking at Waverley which is all that fit currently at moorabin. Players and staff won't even fit unless they come up with something. A VFL match like a final would want parking for 5000 fans at least. There isn't street parking so where do they go?

 

[Periphery]

Moorabin is on a train line but you obviously haven't caught a melbourne train yet. Hawthorn claim they have not got enough for staff parking at Waverley which is all that fit currently at moorabin. Players and staff won't even fit unless they come up with something. A VFL match like a final would want parking for 5000 fans at least. There isn't street parking so where do they go?

We better build a 10 story car park there then.

Trains are fine. They will clearly accommodate as much parking as they can. As far as I know $9.5m of the $11m is coming from the state gov (8m) and the local council (1.5m).

I don't really know why you are so hung up on parking.

 

[Persevering Saint]

Heck, the fans can go to Southland, then catch a 2-minute train from Cheltenham to Moorabbin. Hardly a major issue.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Where are they going to put it though? When we went to a GF training session in 2009 the parking was so limited we paid $20 to park in a guys front yard about a kilometre from the ground on the wrong side of south road. $11 mill has to come from somewhere is it guaranteed? They have stripped it back to a point where it needs everything done to it. The main grandstand that is left and holds all the shop, admin and social club etc looks like a dive and could do with a couple of Million spent just making it not embarrassing. The whole place looks like it has been left too long. The parking is always going to be an issue unless we can knock down the bowls club and do some multi level parking. Hawthorn is looking to move from Waverley over the parking. We need to do some forward planning instead of a whole lot of crappy little projects that we out grow before we finish. We should do some kind of pooling of the project and look at a way to get our VFL and Afl teams a home base that is going to last 30 years and is adequate in the good times. If that's Elsternwick park or what ever just get the energy in one place. Moorabin was a success because we didn't need to keep moving until the AFL pushed amalgamated grounds on the clubs. Now it seems to be nostalgia at the cost of vision.

Weird, I went, and just parked in that paddock the other side of the social club.
The big problem as I recall was that there was construction taking place and everyone was crammed into a small area ( or am i getting the training sessions mixed up ).
Where do you think people were parking when they played VFL there.
Shit they havent even built multi level at the MCG where they could REALLY use it. You want it for a once per decade phenomenon?

 

[SaintLex]

Just to set the record straight on few things.

* there is no 13 man rule for Sandringham. The contract is for 7 Sandy guys to play VFL each week (technically 8 with 23rd man rule).

* StKilda can request to play more then the 15 players, but it's upto Sandy if they Agree with the request on that given week.

* having 7 VFL guys in senior side is not affecting any AFL players development.

* it's a pointless arguement because no club will ever have a full 46 playing list to choose from every week. It's just won't ever happen.

This, I think, is important. People are acting like we're going to have some superstars stuck in the Dev league because of an inflexible cap. We don't know how it's going to turn out. It may be that Sandy want to field the best 22 they can get, which will include most of the Saints players.

If we take that into account, plus injury, there won't be too many undeservedly playing Devs.

 

[stkildathunda]

This, I think, is important. People are acting like we're going to have some superstars stuck in the Dev league because of an inflexible cap. We don't know how it's going to turn out. It may be that Sandy want to field the best 22 they can get, which will include most of the Saints players.

If we take that into account, plus injury, there won't be too many undeservedly playing Devs.

Exactly also most of time the Saints send players to the gym to bulk up for week or two. No footy in that period. If they are playing Devs it mostly means they deserve to be playing there.

I reckon if players like Winmar/Lever were actually dropped when their form was horrendous then it might have given them little wake up call and got them to pull their finger out. But they were gifted senior games. It actually has a lot of benefit.

 

[Defacto]

Exactly also most of time the Saints send players to the gym to bulk up for week or two. No footy in that period. If they are playing Devs it mostly means they deserve to be playing there.

I reckon if players like Winmar/Lever were actually dropped when their form was horrendous then it might have given them little wake up call and got them to pull their finger out. But they were gifted senior games. It actually has a lot of benefit.

Hang on a second, wasn't winmar dropped to the development side a couple of times?

It wasn't like the saints were alone, he moved back here and was playing some shit senior football for Claremont in a non aligned side, so they must have seen something in him too. Wasn't like Claremont didn't have players either.

On winmar I think part of it was he was contracted into the future, so he just didn't have a sense of urgency and didn't really apply himself. I mean he got sat down and was told sternly what he needed to do during the off season. Even after that he didn't do it. No amount of dev games is going to fix that issue. If you are going to argue anything it would have been the contract length not the time spent in the dev league. As for lever he's a tall that just didn't work out, given the lack of young defenders we had I can see why we wanted to persist with him in the seniors. I honestly don't think the outcome would have been anything different on lever or winmar even if they spent the entire season in the dev league as a "wake up call"

What is concerning though are players forced into playing devs when they shouldn't be. That is the issue people have and given it has already happened in a year plagued with injuries, people are worried that it may become more frequent with less injuries and potentially more so the year after given the age of the list

 

[stkildathunda]

Hang on a second, wasn't winmar dropped to the development side a couple of times?

It wasn't like the saints were alone, he moved back here and was playing some shit senior football for Claremont in a non aligned side, so they must have seen something in him too. Wasn't like Claremont didn't have players either.

On winmar I think part of it was he was contracted into the future, so he just didn't have a sense of urgency and didn't really apply himself. I mean he got sat down and was told sternly what he needed to do during the off season. Even after that he didn't do it. No amount of dev games is going to fix that issue. If you are going to argue anything it would have been the contract length not the time spent in the dev league. As for lever he's a tall that just didn't work out, given the lack of young defenders we had I can see why we wanted to persist with him in the seniors. I honestly don't think the outcome would have been anything different on lever or winmar even if they spent the entire season in the dev league as a "wake up call"

What is concerning though are players forced into playing devs when they shouldn't be. That is the issue people have and given it has already happened in a year plagued with injuries, people are worried that it may become more frequent with less injuries and potentially more so the year after given the age of the list

He was gifted game after game on back of 1-2 possession performances.