2012 Pathway Lists

[Norris Lurker]

Not many granted but those good enough to be potential AFL players would be.

Completely different scenario re the AFL Draft, this is potentially stifling junior development.

With zoning now in, Sydney is split into Swans and Giants areas. With the Scholarship system now out, Sydney players now have a super-pathway to either the Swans or Giants.

Players identified as potential AFL players will still be called up as top-ups into the Swans' and Giants' NEAFL teams; but on weeks they're not required they'll go back to their club - that won't change. So even if a potential AFL player is on a pathway to a non-NEAFL club, they'll still get NEAFL experience as a top-up.

[beameup]

Lets be realistic here. We are talking teenagers who realistically have no chance of making AFL. NEAFL is an aspiration that will defeat most players and unless you live in certain parts of Sydney it is very difficult to play for one of the 2 teams given that opportunity. The scholarship program has produced a couple of rookies who were cut and 2-3 players who might make it. Witts is probably the best chance. All the others are gone. Standout players in Sydney struggle to go anywhere after 18s.

Sydney footy needs to think about how they can best build to create lots more players and multiple levels of footy so everyonne can play. Some of the recent decisions seem to go against this. There is no reason a PD club should not have its reserves travel with them and the same for a Div 1 club. Lots of 1 team clubs does not strengthen the league but merely spreads the talent.

So the pathway seems to push kids to clubs that may not be in their best interests which I fail to understand. Strong clubs, multiple divisions and lots of kids is the way forward and strong clubs comes from culture which is easy to lose. Let me say from experience a really good player in a weak club or team is going nowhere fast. BUT that is his decision and to stop him progressing is a joke

[beameup]

[. So even if a potential AFL player is on a pathway to a non-NEAFL club, they'll still get NEAFL experience as a top-up.[/QUOTE]

Norris I beg to differ. A few games as a top up achieves nothing. They need to be part of a club doing the preseason, the training and the after game. The Swans Reserves players do not kick to the top ups and GWS will be the same. Been there and seen it. If kids want to achieve they will play for the Hillbillies or the staudents or be content to play in Sydney. Even those clubs are going to get pounded in the short term and lets forget what would happen with a game against a Div 1 Melbourne Team.

[mountainsofpain]

Sydney footy needs to think about how they can best build to create lots more players and multiple levels of footy so everyonne can play. Some of the recent decisions seem to go against this.

I'd argue the recent decisions by the league (specifically re-jigging the divisions) has done precisely this. The number of senior sides is growing and in 2011 they had to split Div 4 into two divisions.

Lots of 1 team clubs does not strengthen the league but merely spreads the talent.

Lots? Huh?

Apart from SIC Riverview, I can't think of any other "one team" club in 2011.

In fact, two one team clubs from 2010 added a side in 2011 (ie Auburn and Maroubra Saints).

So the pathway seems to push kids to clubs that may not be in their best interests which I fail to understand. Strong clubs, multiple divisions and lots of kids is the way forward and strong clubs comes from culture which is easy to lose. Let me say from experience a really good player in a weak club or team is going nowhere fast. BUT that is his decision and to stop him progressing is a joke.

But the current setup IS strengthening clubs. Across multiple divisions. And because of that, more kids are being encouraged to play.

Look at the west and clubs like Penrith, Moorebank, Nor-West, etc for a perfect example of what I mean. All these clubs were on the ropes not too long ago. And it had little to do with club culture, it was because they were in a competition where they were consistently out of their depth (there was a reason that western suburbs clubs couldn't win a flag in the old SFA you know - Parra in 2001 being the only one), which made it difficult to get kids to come through and also made the talented local kids ripe for raiding by out of area clubs.

Now, because they are in competitive divisions, and having some success, there is a lot more incentive for the local kids to come through and play. And the more talented/ambitious ones out of those will still find a way to meet their ambitions.

[mountainsofpain]

This smacks completely of self interest, the same self interest that saw Penrith help kill off a senior club in St Clair. You guys have the ultimate geograhical advantage so why are you worried?

Self-interest on these boards. Now whoever would have thought.......

[Pekay]

Anyone that doesn't think divisionalisation has revitalised Sydney footy, and grown footy into unchartered areas, doesn't have the sports best interests at heart.

[beameup]

Divisionalisation has strenthened Sydney football without doubt but at a cost. Divisions can be created without pulling clubs apart. Just needs the will and there are plenty of examples from elsewhere.

[Benchwarmer]

Divisionalisation has strenthened Sydney football without doubt but at a cost. Divisions can be created without pulling clubs apart. Just needs the will and there are plenty of examples from elsewhere.

Doesnt matter what the divisions look like , it is impossible not to split club fixtures when some clubs have 6 teams or over 250 players (kerching, kerching) and are playing against clubs with 3 teams.
One solution is to limit the number of teams a club can enter and limit the number of players it can sign up per team entered.. but its too late now... so the current Divisional structure in place is the only way to go. And working very well IMO.. so if u enter 5 or 6 teams then you cant whinge about "pulling clubs apart". It is self inflicted when you think about it.

[Mug Punter]

One solution is to limit the number of teams a club can enter and limit the number of players it can sign up per team entered.. but its too late now....

Yep, that's a great way to grow the game, make clubs stop blokes getting a game. Surely what clubs like Mac Uni and Manly have done in havingh four senior teams can only be good to the game. Where would the surplus Manly guys to for example.

Divisionalisation has been great for clubs being able rto rebuild at their own level.

Ideally in time we'll have 4 or 5 divisions with firsts and reserves in each division with promotion and relegation and a one grade division at the bottom for new clubs and clubs with odd numbers of teams (i.e. their lowest team). Something like the VAFA model would be great but that means another 30 or so senior clubs and we're probably at least 10 years away from that. Until then the current system's benefits outweigh the negatives IMO

[unconfuseme]

LESS CLUBS MORE TEAMS!

CRAZY?

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH QUALITY VOLUNTEERS/ADMIN/COACHES, ETC. TO PROPERLY RUN THE AMATEUR CLUBS WE ALREADY HAVE! ... PLENTY OF PLAYERS THOUGH AND THERE ARE MORE ON THE WAY!

... unfortunately it will not happen ... too many egos, small minded self promoters with their own agenda, and general d***heads, at all levels, who will never pull their head out long enough to consider the big picture, and what will actually help the code!

[beameup]

I am with you uncon. Then when too many start new clubs.