Premier 2024 discussion

[Bunk Moreland]

Surely something has to give in this reserves comp. Both Norwood and Berwick listing 14 players today (I believe is the minimum), neither scored, beaten by 231 and 124 points.

Starts to affect the rest of the clubs, you’ve got four games for the year which you don’t have a reserves contest, you wouldn’t want to be a fringe player or somebody sent back to find form, how can coaches take anything from it.

Six of the Norwood players didn’t have a number listed which tells you they are probably ring-ins.

If I’m the league I’d be pushing pretty hard to protect the integrity of the comp. Fold Norwood’s 19s so they have enough Reserves. Makes the Premier U19s a eight-team comp and removes the bye.

Same with Berwick’s second U19 team in D4, fold them and remove the bye to boost their reserves numbers.

Would have to stuff around with the U19 fixture for the rest of the year but could be done. Better than having four byes in the Premier reserves.

 

[hotchilli]

Surely something has to give in this reserves comp. Both Norwood and Berwick listing 14 players today (I believe is the minimum), neither scored, beaten by 231 and 124 points.

Starts to affect the rest of the clubs, you’ve got four games for the year which you don’t have a reserves contest, you wouldn’t want to be a fringe player or somebody sent back to find form, how can coaches take anything from it.

Six of the Norwood players didn’t have a number listed which tells you they are probably ring-ins.

If I’m the league I’d be pushing pretty hard to protect the integrity of the comp. Fold Norwood’s 19s so they have enough Reserves. Makes the Premier U19s a eight-team comp and removes the bye.

Same with Berwick’s second U19 team in D4, fold them and remove the bye to boost their reserves numbers.

Would have to stuff around with the U19 fixture for the rest of the year but could be done. Better than having four byes in the Premier reserves.

I feel like you risk losing plenty of bottom age 19s to go play elsewhere who aren’t ready to play against men in senior footy.

 

[hansie]

I feel like you risk losing plenty of bottom age 19s to go play elsewhere who aren’t ready to play against men in senior footy.

I see your point - and don’t disagree however seems a bit beyond the pale that Berwick field 2 unders and no numbers in the 2s….


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[damochandler]

I was thinking about this today. Whoever gets relegated this year between Norwood and Berwick, they won’t be back in premier for a long time

 

[hotchilli]

I see your point - and don’t disagree however seems a bit beyond the pale that Berwick field 2 unders and no numbers in the 2s….


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

It's not as if any of the under 19's for Berwick & Norwood are actually doing well. It's one thing to get smashed on the scoreboard by kids your own age but it's another layer when you are getting physically beaten as well.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

It's not as if any of the under 19's for Berwick & Norwood are actually doing well. It's one thing to get smashed on the scoreboard by kids your own age but it's another layer when you are getting physically beaten as well.

I think the physical jump from 19s to reserves can be a bit overstated to be honest. Plenty of 19-22yos in reserves. There’d be plenty in the U19s who would be developed enough to hold their own. Of course some wouldn’t, people mature at different rates. Shouldn’t be too hard for those ones to find another club to play U19s.

I mean ideally they’d continue to field 19s, but how long is it going to be possible for, when you’re rolling out 14 players in the reserves. Reserves footy is actually fairly important for clubs that have designs on having a decent season, as you need a squad that bats deep and you have to give them a decent hitout each week. When the opposition shows up with 14 players (5 of whom are probably ring-ins) and can’t so much as score a point, it’s a pisstake. Particularly in the premier division of a league that likes to think itself the best.

At some point you have to wonder if it’s even worth playing (for the opposition) if you’re only getting a glorified training run (probably with less intensity).

They’ll still be under strength but at least with 22 players it’s an even fight. 14 is a joke.

I don’t want to have a go at clubs clearly doing it tough but the league has to think of all clubs and what they need out of the season.

 

[hotchilli]

I think the physical jump from 19s to reserves can be a bit overstated to be honest. Plenty of 19-22yos in reserves. There’d be plenty in the U19s who would be developed enough to hold their own. Of course some wouldn’t, people mature at different rates. Shouldn’t be too hard for those ones to find another club to play U19s.

I mean ideally they’d continue to field 19s, but how long is it going to be possible for, when you’re rolling out 14 players in the reserves. Reserves footy is actually fairly important for clubs that have designs on having a decent season, as you need a squad that bats deep and you have to give them a decent hitout each week. When the opposition shows up with 14 players (5 of whom are probably ring-ins) and can’t so much as score a point, it’s a pisstake. Particularly in the premier division of a league that likes to think itself the best.

At some point you have to wonder if it’s even worth playing (for the opposition) if you’re only getting a glorified training run (probably with less intensity).

They’ll still be under strength but at least with 22 players it’s an even fight. 14 is a joke.

I don’t want to have a go at clubs clearly doing it tough but the league has to think of all clubs and what they need out of the season.

But if they are losing a bunch of under 19's players to other clubs then you are potentially forcing them into a worse position in regards to numbers in the long term.

It's hardly ideal but even the solution of topping up their reserves by removing their struggling under 19's isn't going to do much in regards to glorified training runs for opposition sides. It's still going to be more of the same except they are likely to find themselves in a worst spot in regards to overall numbers at the club.

If Berwick & Norwood are putting out the required numbers for a game even if it's the bare minimum and they are not forfeiting then they should have the power to run their clubs how they wish.

 

[localfootyguru]

Berwick and Norwood are both in all sorts of trouble for various reasons which have been mentioned here many times.

Norwood - the money has run out and everyone left which is also a reflection on poor recruiting, club culture and not having a long term view of things as they have been on the slide for a number of years.

Berwick - big egos thought the club 'belonged' in premier division and were going to take the competition apart when they arrived which is far from the case. They now have seen many players and their partners leave due to the disconnect between the netball and football clubs and many of these people have moved to 'local' clubs due to not wanting to travel long distances. The club has nothing in common with other clubs in the league and should never have been admitted. Heard a few stories some people are discussing a move to Southern League as the Mornington Peninsula is not an option and West Gippsland wants nothing to do with them (despite an approach some time ago). Historically, Berwick like to be a big fish in a small pond and everything is coming home to roost.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

If Narre join Cranbourne in the Southern league, wouldn’t be surprised to see Berwick join them within a few years.

Would’ve been a much better fit initially.

 

[hansie]

It's not as if any of the under 19's for Berwick & Norwood are actually doing well. It's one thing to get smashed on the scoreboard by kids your own age but it's another layer when you are getting physically beaten as well.

Understand completely and this is why I disagree with 19.5. Unders should be 18 then into senior footy. When I was 17/18 in mid 90s we were all happy and keen to play 2s if needed.

Not every one of the 19s will walk into the ones next year so for some of them playing 2s would be a transition year. Would also mean Berwick look a little more strategically at how they mix it up - be it rotation through the 2s or nominating blokes perhaps with sufficient size/physical ability to match adult blokes without completely compromising the unders.

Two 19s sides with no 2s numbers to me is a bit of tail wagging the dog


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Understand completely and this is why I disagree with 19.5. Unders should be 18 then into senior footy. When I was 17/18 in mid 90s we were all happy and keen to play 2s if needed.

Not every one of the 19s will walk into the ones next year so for some of them playing 2s would be a transition year. Would also mean Berwick look a little more strategically at how they mix it up - be it rotation through the 2s or nominating blokes perhaps with sufficient size/physical ability to match adult blokes without completely compromising the unders.

Two 19s sides with no 2s numbers to me is a bit of tail wagging the dog


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

The top level of juniors is now U17.5.

I’d just make it U18, then the seniors thirds could be U21, or U23 or something.

In many aspects, Under 19.5 is being treated like a junior grade by the league and some clubs.

It is senior football. People seem to think they’re little kids.

 

[hotchilli]

The top level of juniors is now U17.5.

I’d just make it U18, then the seniors thirds could be U21, or U23 or something.

In many aspects, Under 19.5 is being treated like a junior grade by the league and some clubs.

It is senior football. People seem to think they’re little kids.

It's a bridge between junior and senior football, some kids are ready to jump straight into senior football whilst others still need a stepping stone or you just risk losing them to football completely.

I don't mind the idea of an U21 style thirds.

 

[Thepigshow]

It’s an interesting topic.
With women’s football being on a satday now. Lots of 19.5 games can be at 8.40 and done by 10.30. Then they can start there day doing whatever they please.
Friday night under lights they play abit aswell.

If any team gets the ass I think it should be norwoods Ressies.

 

[Bowlers Name]

Don't really think it works to force the blokes playing 19.5s into ressies. If they wanted to play ressies, they'd already be playing ressies. It's not like there isn't spots in the team for them if they wanted to.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Don't really think it works to force the blokes playing 19.5s into ressies. If they wanted to play ressies, they'd already be playing ressies. It's not like there isn't spots in the team for them if they wanted to.

It’s simply the structure of the league. You have to put out seniors and reserves (U19s are apparently optional, though they never used to be).

It’s not fair on other clubs if you don’t. You’re entitled to expect the opposition to field a team.

Perhaps it’s in the rules that you can rock up to the reserves with 14 players. If so, I think that’s wrong. You need to start with 18 players minimum.

Maybe that’s the simple change that needs to happen (that rule).

I get clubs struggling but playing 14 players is a joke. Put a full team on the park.

 

[smy1305]

TBF 19.5 is pretty old to want to play footy in unders still! I agree BM - put your 2's side on the paddock bc I'm sure U19.5 footy can then draw U17's up if need be. Gee whiz its the so called best division of footy in metro Melb

 

[ManInWhite]

Spoken to many U17 coaches and they hate it when the 19's pinch their better players for Saturday - who then get injured and can't play Sunday.

 

[CliffMcTainshaw]

This discussion is probably more relevant to a different thread but I will add the following:

While we are talking juniors, what is the reasoning by having so many Grades at junior level?

I can understand it for juniors, say U12 and below. But why do they have U13, U14, U15, U16 and U17.

If you are stuck in a dud team, you’re in it for years. At the end of the season, you don’t go up a Grade and find players who played in that Grade the year before and are great to either gauge yourself against or watch to see how you can improve your game and maybe get the chance to play in a better team.

So what’s the rationale behind it or is it just parental pressure because they don’t want the precious ones playing against bigger kids?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Spoken to many U17 coaches and they hate it when the 19's pinch their better players for Saturday - who then get injured and can't play Sunday.

Some standalone junior leagues have already gone to U18.

From not so long ago, the colts grade has basically been shifted from seniors to juniors.

U19.5 numbers seem alright in the EFNL. Maybe you just go to U20 or U21. I dunno.

 

[ManInWhite]

This discussion is probably more relevant to a different thread but I will add the following:

While we are talking juniors, what is the reasoning by having so many Grades at junior level?

I can understand it for juniors, say U12 and below. But why do they have U13, U14, U15, U16 and U17.

If you are stuck in a dud team, you’re in it for years. At the end of the season, you don’t go up a Grade and find players who played in that Grade the year before and are great to either gauge yourself against or watch to see how you can improve your game and maybe get the chance to play in a better team.

So what’s the rationale behind it or is it just parental pressure because they don’t want the precious ones playing against bigger kids?

I suspect just the sheer numbers? Why have 12A, 12B, 14A, 14B, 16A, 16B when you could also have 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17's? Same number of kids?

 

[Brown Bottle]

This discussion is probably more relevant to a different thread but I will add the following:

While we are talking juniors, what is the reasoning by having so many Grades at junior level?

I can understand it for juniors, say U12 and below. But why do they have U13, U14, U15, U16 and U17.

If you are stuck in a dud team, you’re in it for years. At the end of the season, you don’t go up a Grade and find players who played in that Grade the year before and are great to either gauge yourself against or watch to see how you can improve your game and maybe get the chance to play in a better team.

So what’s the rationale behind it or is it just parental pressure because they don’t want the precious ones playing against bigger kids?

I couldn't agree more mate. 2 year age brackets and 4 or 5 divisions offers much more flexibility than single year age brackets with 2 divisions. YJFL went to single year age brackets in Girls comps a few years ago and they're struggling to get to two divisions in most of them.

 

[CliffMcTainshaw]

I suspect just the sheer numbers? Why have 12A, 12B, 14A, 14B, 16A, 16B when you could also have 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17's? Same number of kids?

But that's what the EFNL already have.


These are the number of teams in each grade for the boys. The girls already have 2 years apart grades.
Most of the grades are on the small side and some grades are very small. Do they have a final 4 in U15A? Why is there an U15 A Reserve? Play 8 in a grade with 14 rounds like they currently have. Every team plays each other twice. Couldn't be fairer.

U13
A-8

B-10

C-9

D-8

U14
A-8

B-6

C-8

D-6

U15
A-5

A Reserve -7

B-6

C-7

D-6

U16
A-8

B-7

C-10

U17
A-8

B-10

C-6

D-8