League Players required to play an Under 18's Trial Match

Clubs will be missing their Under 18 league players this week, so they can play a TRIAL game for the upcoming U18 Championships.

I think the SANFL are setting a really poor standard with this. I think we all accept that lads should play in the U18 Championships as a pathway to the AFL. That's the reality now. However, these championships are supposed to be about showcasing talent and developing them.

Lads who are playing League football are already on the radar of the AFL clubs. They'll see them over several games during the championships, so to insist that a trial game is about anything other than winning is a nonse

The SANFL are making it clear that their League is less important than a trial game. They also encourage clubs to develop juniors and not rely on interstate receruiting and paying transfer fees.

Well, this decision blows that approach away. Why would you develop juniors if you're going to lose them for a large chunk of a season reduced to 18 games? Why would you take any notice of the SANFL telling clubs not to recruit interstate?

Where do the clubs stand?

Last.

Would you still feel the same way, Lee, if Westies weren't so heavily affected by it?

Yes, Phil. It's highly unusual for West to have 1 player affected, let alone 3, so it's not that which annoys me, it's the rating of a league game lower than an Under 18 trial.

We play Glenelg. I think Scharenberg is affected (?), a young lad who's just made his way to legue standard, then he's shipped off to play a trial game.

Wayne Milera would be the same for Central (>).

I understand the lads thoughts will now be on the Championships, so have no problem with missing players for several weeks with that, but a trial game????????

I'm in two minds about it. My first reaction was the same as yours Lee. Then thinking it through a bit further, if states are to take the competition seriously in terms of trying to win it, then I think it's perfectly acceptable. We wouldn't expect our league teams to go trial free prior to playing for points.

Why would anyone be trying to win the U18 Carnival? It has nothing to do with team success.

Fair points, Scrunch, but this is the second trial in 2 weeks. League players weren't required for the first and I have no problem with that for Reserves and 18's players.

Please realise that these lads are also currently training exclusively with the 18's and not their club, so it's a huge chunk away from their club.

Lee wrote:Fair points, Scrunch, but this is the second trial in 2 weeks. League players weren't required for the first and I have no problem with that for Reserves and 18's players.

Please realise that these lads are also currently training exclusively with the 18's and not their club, so it's a huge chunk away from their club.

Certainly understand where you're coming from, would perhaps be less of a concern if the transfer/draft fee was commensurate with the amount of time and money invested by clubs in developing these young lads, which sadly it isn't.

the bottom line is the SANFL IS evolving into a feeder competition only & this is just a small step in the evolution, i will say this though i'd rather them be leaving a league team to be playing this than the overseas junket & playing Sweden & the like as happens

bayman wrote:the bottom line is the SANFL IS evolving into a feeder competition only & this is just a small step in the evolution, i will say this though i'd rather them be leaving a league team to be playing this than the overseas junket & playing Sweden & the like as happens

No longer IS evolving but HAS evolved I think mate

It's an interesting one, isn't it?

I guess there a good cases being mounted, both for and against, towards it...

I don't have a problem with it, especially if it is the weekend before the Championships and Sticks is wanting to get the final team structures right and the players need that game time to gel as a team...

I certainly think playing League football would be more beneficial but the clubs who have these players know of their uunavailavabilty both in the lead up and throughout the Championships...

Good luck to Sticks and the lads, in defending their crown...

Team structures? Defending their crown? That is not the point of the Carnival. There is no crown. States don't win anything by finishing on top of the "ladder" at the end of these events. Recruiters and AFL clubs aren't interested in teams "gelling". But it's that pointless and hubristic pursuit that puts the SANFL clubs and the players themselves second.

It is a good point Lee makes. This carnival has eaten in to a large portion of the season now. It was great to once watch the likes of Pavlich, Gibbs etc play most of the season at league level. They were able to properly contribute to their club before going off to the AFL once old enough. It is another part of the SANFL that has been chipped away over time. I guess it gives the hoards of full time development coaches something to do.

Flag No.9 wrote:Team structures? Defending their crown? That is not the point of the Carnival. There is no crown. States don't win anything by finishing on top of the "ladder" at the end of these events. Recruiters and AFL clubs aren't interested in teams "gelling". But it's that pointless and hubristic pursuit that puts the SANFL clubs and the players themselves second.

That same outlook could have been applied to state football over the years too though, no premiership on offer, but everyone wanted us to win, especially back in the previous decades.

I think this will become part of an overall discussion that the League and clubs need to have. That is, what's the future direction for our competition?

We need a clear idea of what the future holds and what the priorities are.

I should say that although I disagree with the SANFL on this issue (and some others), they have been great to deal with on a number of matters that have assisted West Adelaide and the clubs and their help has been invaluable.

I'm just passionate, but realistic, about the SANFL competition and I see this as another dilution of its importance.

SCrunch, i think there's a fair difference between a State game and an Under 18 Championship, but respect your view and will say more on this topic later.

I agree, but there was always a fair folliwng for the Teal Cup and in many quarters there still is toward SA in the carnival. I do think the league needs to identify and clarify the extent of its feeder status and ambition in relation to the standing of its own competition. Not trying to be argumentative, can just see both sides of it.

Sure, I always love to see us winning it and hope we do again this year, but I query making it more important than League football.

'Teal' Cup, no problem - trial games above League football, big problem.

If we want them to play in the Championship then some trial matches to get the team used to playing with each other seems reasonable.

Given that not everybody will find their way onto an AFL list, for many of these kids making the State team and then winning the National Championship will be the highlight of their career. Surely it is not that much to ask that their SANFL team does without them for a week or so.

UH, my objection to trial game participation only applies to those players currently playing League footy. And if they're already playing League at the age of 17/18 they're more than likely going to find their way onto an AFL list.
As for doing without them for a week, the SANFL clubs do without them for about 6 weeks I think, so I would argue the U18 folks could do without the League players for a week.
(And ultimately I think playing League football should take precedence over the U18 carnival anyway.)