2012 Pathway Lists

[Mug Punter]

Think I have finally gotten my head around the pathway list. An interesting exercise for clubs and one I am starting to appreciate has it's advantages despite its admin burdens, mainly that it forces senior clubs to actively develop and monitor junior talent.

Some random points.

* Unless an existing player is a gun then the real talent war is in securing the first year U18 players coming out of U16s

* Given that 15 year olds (i.e. U16 players in current year) are not included and that players who have played more than 5 games the prior year can be included, does this not provide an incentive for the likes of ECE and Sydney Uni to simply start tapping up 15 year olds?

* Of the 16 Sydney Uni 1995 listings, 9 are dual listed with Balmain, mainly from the Glebe club. Will Sydney Unis culture and NEAFL football win over Balmain throwing insane amounts of money at schoolkids?

* It is interesting that Manly and North Shore also have 11 dual listed players in 1995 whereas Mac Uni have no dual listed players. Have Mac Uni liaised with Balmain and Penno and conceded their first choice players in the comfort that they have effectively secured the bext "second tier" juniors in the area? Also with Manly and North Shore battling over the same players Mac Uni is now able to perhaps list some Forest, St Ives or Willoughby players that are quite good but have not been named as they are not in the top 30 - had Manly conceded the top shelf talent they would have been able to list those players who are now effective free agents.

Will be interesting to see how this pans out.....

[ShortHalfHead]

* Given that 15 year olds (i.e. U16 players in current year) are not included and that players who have played more than 5 games the prior year can be included, does this not provide an incentive for the likes of ECE and Sydney Uni to simply start tapping up 15 year olds?

.....

Pretty decent appraisal there, MP

Re the point above, 15 yo players not eligible for listing are required to play for a club in their pathway should they play up. If they play 5 or more games for a club, they are automatically listed for that club, but can also be listed by a club in their pathway, which then leaves the decision up to the player.

It is my understanding that a 15 yo who wants to play an 18's game would be refused a match day permit if say, they were a Campbelltown junior wanting to have a run at Sydney University

[Mug Punter]

Pretty decent appraisal there, MP

Re the point above, 15 yo players not eligible for listing are required to play for a club in their pathway should they play up. If they play 5 or more games for a club, they are automatically listed for that club, but can also be listed by a club in their pathway, which then leaves the decision up to the player.

It is my understanding that a 15 yo who wants to play an 18's game would be refused a match day permit if say, they were a Campbelltown junior wanting to have a run at Sydney University

Cheers, imagine it is covered by this scenario:

"A player playing for a Junior Club is bound to the Senior Club along the pathway for the period
they are eligible for under 18?s football. This is provided for in the definition of ?Player?, the
operation of the Named List and clause 12 of the Pathway Policy"

[DLH]

Mug Punter, this is why "certain" clubs have already started recruiting talented 14 year olds from other pathways to play for their local junior clubs in order to circumvent these rules.

Thankfully it's only a handful over the last couple of years that I'm aware of at this stage.

[Mug Punter]

Mug Punter, this is why "certain" clubs have already started recruiting talented 14 year olds from other pathways to play for their local junior clubs in order to circumvent these rules.

Thankfully it's only a handful over the last couple of years that I'm aware of at this stage.

Funny, I was just thinking of that....

I guess that's the problem with such systems, there will always be loopholes. You'd hope that commonsense prevails and that 14 year olds aren't being poached by clubs to change junior clubs.

Then again, playing devil's advocate, if a 14 year old wants to give himself the best possible "pathway" to a potential professional football career wouldn't the ability to be playing in the NEAFL as a 17 year old for ECE or Sydney Uni be seen as superior than being locked into playing U18s for Balmain or Wests and getting flogged regularly?

Surely a 17 year old turning it on in that comp over SFL U18s would increase your chance of getting drafted.....

[ShortHalfHead]

Funny, I was just thinking of that....


Then again, playing devil's advocate, if a 14 year old wants to give himself the best possible "pathway" to a potential professional football career wouldn't the ability to be playing in the NEAFL as a 17 year old for ECE or Sydney Uni be seen as superior than being locked into playing U18s for Balmain or Wests and getting flogged regularly?

Surely a 17 year old turning it on in that comp over SFL U18s would increase your chance of getting drafted.....

I can see that as a general perception by many but another way of viewing things would be:

A player lives 15 mins from his local club who have an 18's Prem Cup side, but haven't enough talented players to be a premiership hope. He has won his junior clubs B & F a few times and is above average in that league. He (or his parents) believe that going to a PC club that will be likely premiers will enhance his development. He joins up and travels twice a week to training 90 mins away from home, gets picked in the team which contains lots of talent and they win by 15 goals more often than not. He gets a few touches every game against mediocre opposition. Meanwhile, had he played locally, he is in the top few players, plays against better opposition week in, week out and gets 30 touches a game. Is there a big gap in development? What does a talent scout take notice of when he sees the two teams meet? A player who can take a mark put on his chest or a dead accurate handball to him that produces a goal? Or do they notice a kid in the flogged side who never gets a decent delivery but ends up with the ball after reading the play better or tackles his heart out all day after his team-mates give up the chase?

Taking it a bit further, if he gets the chance to play NEAFL with a Sydney side, it's quite possible he will be in a team that cops a flogging more often than not. Does he use the same psych in believing that playing in an unsuccessful side hampers his chances of getting drafted, and heads off to Canberra in the hope of playing in a better credentialled side?

[Mug Punter]

I can see that as a general perception by many but another way of viewing things would be:

A player lives 15 mins from his local club who have an 18's Prem Cup side, but haven't enough talented players to be a premiership hope. He has won his junior clubs B & F a few times and is above average in that league. He (or his parents) believe that going to a PC club that will be likely premiers will enhance his development. He joins up and travels twice a week to training 90 mins away from home, gets picked in the team which contains lots of talent and they win by 15 goals more often than not. He gets a few touches every game against mediocre opposition. Meanwhile, had he played locally, he is in the top few players, plays against better opposition week in, week out and gets 30 touches a game. Is there a big gap in development? What does a talent scout take notice of when he sees the two teams meet? A player who can take a mark put on his chest or a dead accurate handball to him that produces a goal? Or do they notice a kid in the flogged side who never gets a decent delivery but ends up with the ball after reading the play better or tackles his heart out all day after his team-mates give up the chase?

Taking it a bit further, if he gets the chance to play NEAFL with a Sydney side, it's quite possible he will be in a team that cops a flogging more often than not. Does he use the same psych in believing that playing in an unsuccessful side hampers his chances of getting drafted, and heads off to Canberra in the hope of playing in a better credentialled side?

It's debatable and not sure there is a clear answer.

What may well happen is that parents, particularly pushy parents who see their son as being an AFL footballer in the making, may see this as the best option and make the decision with minimal if any persuasion and actually start approaching the clubs themselves. The parents will start raving about how much better the NEAFL set ups are etc as this will flow down through the juniors and other parents *may* follow their lead. So, purely as an example, if you were a very ambitious Westbrook player who wanted every chance to be an AFL player I could quite reasonably see parents taking their kids out of there to Baulkham Hills or Kellyville at age 14 so they can get into the more "professional" pathway program.

This pressure will only grow if the NEAFL clubs get better funding and better facilities and start to prove themselves as an AFL nursery.

Certainly at U18 level if you are going to cut it at AFL then you should be able to play and be amongst the best players at NEAFL standard as a 17 year old. I think that would be viewed much better by AFL scouts than First Grade SFL as there will in time be quite a gap between the two, given that NEAFL ressies will be the equivalent of SFL Firsts.

Maybe I'm being too extreme and in any event you'd hope it would only be in extreme cases

[Mug Punter]

Another anonoly.....

Let's say I play for North Ryde and for whatever reason (stupidity in Balmain's case, late bloomer, was injured when Balmain "scouted") I am not included on Balmain's list and am picked up Mac Uni.

I consider myself a decent footballer and go off and train the house down over the summer, grow 4 inches and put on 5kg and the rest. I train the house down at Mac Uni and am clearly a decent SFL player in the making. Am I then tied to playing Challenge Cup for 2 years?

Of course if Mac Uni are nice guys they'll let me go but potentially I could be forced to play in an inferior competition....

[Tom Wills]

SHH,
I understand your hypothesis regarding under age players (17 year olds) dominating in their local club or being a bit player in a strong club and being seen by AFL scouts.
But to be honest your hypothesis is CRAP!
If look at the strongest under 18 comp in the country, the TAC cup in Victoria, only the players who dominate get drafted, including those in strong teams. In fact these players need to do more than dominate in their local comp but play well in National carnivals. Simply dominating in a poor Sydney under 18 team is way off the mark.
I make this comment to highlight the delusion many Sydney parents have about their kids making the AFL. To be considered for drafting you need to do more than be in a premier under 18 team, you need to dominate, to make state teams and probably play well in the NEAFL as a 17 yo.

[ShortHalfHead]

It may well be a crap hypothesis. I know as well as most that many parents think they have a star in their stable. If 1% of 18's make the draft, it's probably a vintage year. Tom's argument seems to say that a player for Bendigo or Murray Bushrangers might as well hang up his boots, or join Sandringham or Oakleigh. I dont see that making him a better player.
The pathway programme only lasts for two years for a player, then he is free to wander. Do you think that East Coast/Sydny Uni will be looking to just their 18's teams to source a NEAFL team?

[tara]

It may well be a crap hypothesis. I know as well as most that many parents think they have a star in their stable. If 1% of 18's make the draft, it's probably a vintage year. Tom's argument seems to say that a player for Bendigo or Murray Bushrangers might as well hang up his boots, or join Sandringham or Oakleigh. I dont see that making him a better player.
The pathway programme only lasts for two years for a player, then he is free to wander. Do you think that East Coast/Sydny Uni will be looking to just their 18's teams to source a NEAFL team?

Interesting debate

As it is a kid who gets drafted is ususally well and truly identified before u18 level and now without the scholarship systems in place it is unlikely that victorian clubs will be looking to Sydney as ofter.

As for the debate regarding NEAFL I know of at least one non PD club promoting the opportunity that by joining them you have the chance to play NEAFL due to their new alliance with SU.

[nugget]

There are plenty of anaolgy's being thrown around so I thought I would add one more.

What about a group of U16 kids who are playing for North Ryde (just as an examplie - this could be any of the junior clubs linked to multiple senior clubs) where some where listed by Balmain and some were listed to Mac Uni. These kids are mates and have now been split up. They may just go along with the pathway, they may argue it or they may not play altogether. They have both been listed with Challenge Cup sides so in theory there is no difference as to where they go in terms of development and standard of footy they are playing. Should we be splitting these kids up or allowing them to play with their mates?

Is there a provision in the pathway policy for these kids? Or is it just bad luck?

[tara]

If a kid tells the League I want to play with so and so in my pathway but this other team has listed me and asks what do I do? The league will ring the club who has listed him and explain the situation and Ill think you will find that in almost every case the kid ends up where he wants to.

[Tim Freedman]

The pathway program is a joke. No other state in Australia has this policy and there is absolutely no reason why it should be in place in Sydney. This system is actually driving kids away from the sport rather than keeping them and creating an even competition. It also creates issues with the parents whose natural reaction is always poor when they hear that their child cant go and play with his mates because such and such a club has listed him, although he has never spoken with or heard from them

At the end of the day no one should be able to tell a kid where he can and cannot play. Leave it up the kid and his parents to decide what is in their own best interests.

And to answer the question about talent scouts and what they are looking for. They are looking for kids to be playing at the highest possible level that they can and DOMINATING at that level. Not playing F grade and getting 100 kicks. They couldnt care less about this level and it actually goes against the kid in the end.

IMO kids in Sydney are now very lucky that there are two Sydney clubs in the NEAFL for them to try out with in the attempt to play at a higher level. If they are good enough at 16-17 then they will get a game in NEAFL and be a far better chance to be noticed by talent scouts rather than playing challenge cup 18s with a club that they are listed with under the pathway policy.

[ShortHalfHead]

The pathway program is a joke. No other state in Australia has this policy and there is absolutely no reason why it should be in place in Sydney. This system is actually driving kids away from the sport rather than keeping them and creating an even competition. It also creates issues with the parents whose natural reaction is always poor when they hear that their child cant go and play with his mates because such and such a club has listed him, although he has never spoken with or heard from them

At the end of the day no one should be able to tell a kid where he can and cannot play. Leave it up the kid and his parents to decide what is in their own best interests.

And to answer the question about talent scouts and what they are looking for. They are looking for kids to be playing at the highest possible level that they can and DOMINATING at that level. Not playing F grade and getting 100 kicks. They couldnt care less about this level and it actually goes against the kid in the end.

IMO kids in Sydney are now very lucky that there are two Sydney clubs in the NEAFL for them to try out with in the attempt to play at a higher level. If they are good enough at 16-17 then they will get a game in NEAFL and be a far better chance to be noticed by talent scouts rather than playing challenge cup 18s with a club that they are listed with under the pathway policy.

Where do I start Tim ! Let's try with the reason why the pathway programme was introduced. It was because of the likes of Sydney Uni and your mob trying to dominate the competition by promising starry eyed kids a big future (or as Student say's, just giving kids a chance to play somewhere). I would hazard a guess that 18's numbers have risen since it was introfduced, not driven them away. getting a team of scholarship players banded together in one team sure makes an even comp, doesn't it. Maybe ask 2009 Grand Finalists, Southern Power how they went when they played Sydney Uni on the big day.

And as I pointed out in an earlier post, a player in a struggling PC side still plays the same teams as a player in a gun team, if I am not mistaken. I really cant see a club in Challenge Cup forcing one of their listed players to stay if they wished to play at a higher level of compeition. I know we have released a few without batting an eyelid when we were in Challenge Cup.

I think you may be a bit mixed up about the difference between playing at "a higher level" and playing in a team "with a higher spot on the ladder"