2012 Pathway Lists

[Mug Punter]

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"

Isn't the exact reason we have set up the NEAFL, at substantial cost to the AFL, so that we give players and kids in particular the opportunity to play at a higher level and enhance AFL opportunities?

We then have a pathway system that prevents such kids playing in the NEAFL until they are 18 when they need to be playing there as 16 or 17 year olds to get the development they need.

Very strange indeed.......

[nugget]

Another interesting one that I noticed is Parramatta listing a number of Kellyville juniors. The reason I find this interesting is that they have played all their junior footy at Rouse Hill and are now listed to travel to Greystanes for training and games.

Now I don't have any real sympathy for East Coast, I actually don't care what they want, but as they can only list 30 players when they have the 2 sides, in effect these players who were not listed at the club on their doorstep now have to travel to play footy at the club they have been listed by.

Maybe Parra have spoken to these kids and they are happy to travel over there, I don't know, but if it was my kid and he was not a candidate to play Premier Cup but still wanted to play footy in Challenge Cup I would much prefer him to be playing at the local club which in this case would be East Coast.

Maybe this is another one where the parents speak to the league and they speak to the club concerned to try and sort it out. Have I answered my own question?

[Mug Punter]

Can't help think that Tim Freedman has hit the nail on the head here. Well intentioned but D-U-M-B!!!!!

[ShortHalfHead]

Isn't the exact reason we have set up the NEAFL, at substantial cost to the AFL, so that we give players and kids in particular the opportunity to play at a higher level and enhance AFL opportunities?

We then have a pathway system that prevents such kids playing in the NEAFL until they are 18 when they need to be playing there as 16 or 17 year olds to get the development they need.

Very strange indeed.......

Make a prediction. How many 16 year olds will be playing NEAFL?

Pity these young stars when they get drafted by Gold Coast, when their parents want them to go to Geelong. Devastating.

[ShortHalfHead]

Another interesting one that I noticed is Parramatta listing a number of Kellyville juniors. The reason I find this interesting is that they have played all their junior footy at Rouse Hill and are now listed to travel to Greystanes for training and games.

Now I don't have any real sympathy for East Coast, I actually don't care what they want, but as they can only list 30 players when they have the 2 sides, in effect these players who were not listed at the club on their doorstep now have to travel to play footy at the club they have been listed by.

Maybe Parra have spoken to these kids and they are happy to travel over there, I don't know, but if it was my kid and he was not a candidate to play Premier Cup but still wanted to play footy in Challenge Cup I would much prefer him to be playing at the local club which in this case would be East Coast.

Maybe this is another one where the parents speak to the league and they speak to the club concerned to try and sort it out. Have I answered my own question?

Nugget, one would assume the club has spoken to them. If they live a stone's throw from Purser and want to go to East Coast, I imagine an appeal would be quickly upheld.

I just can't get my head around the comment that abolishing the pathway programme would even the comp out. If life was that easy, there wouldn't be a draft or salary cap in NRL.

[nugget]

Nugget, one would assume the club has spoken to them. If they live a stone's throw from Purser and want to go to East Coast, I imagine an appeal would be quickly upheld.

I just can't get my head around the comment that abolishing the pathway programme would even the comp out. If life was that easy, there wouldn't be a draft or salary cap in NRL.

Thanks SHH. I'm still not convinced on the overall pathway program. Happy with the encouragement of players to stay with clubs in their local area, that's the way it should be. I think my biggest issue is the "listing" of kids by clubs that tie them in and only a month after the junior footy season finishes. Anyway that's just my 2 cents worth.

[DLH]

Terrific system, thank goodness the AFL have shown some foresight.

At least now clubs who don't have the geographical advantage of having ready made players walk through their door can build for the future through local talent without constantly having to put up with bigger clubs constantly poaching them with grandiose promises, thus consigning said club to a doom loop of mediocrity.

Hopefully we never get to the stage where a club might sook off to play Challenge Cup in protest..........

[Mug Punter]

Make a prediction. How many 16 year olds will be playing NEAFL?

Pity these young stars when they get drafted by Gold Coast, when their parents want them to go to Geelong. Devastating.

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.

[Mug Punter]

Terrific system, thank goodness the AFL have shown some foresight.

At least now clubs who don't have the geographical advantage of having ready made players walk through their door can build for the future through local talent without constantly having to put up with bigger clubs constantly poaching them with grandiose promises, thus consigning said club to a doom loop of mediocrity.

Hopefully we never get to the stage where a club might sook off to play Challenge Cup in protest..........

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?

Geographical advantage - what a load of rubbish. Why should a player who has played within spitting distance of ECE's home ground be forced to trek to Parramatta and play? Just because ECE have the "geographical advantage" of developing their backyard better. Will ECE now be forced to not have a second U18 team? Will players just be lost to the game because they don't want the extra travel to a club they don't like and decide to play League, Union or Soccer?

An honest question for you DLH. You have a talented plasyer coming out of U16, he has the potential to at least play Premier Div football as as 17 tear old (ECE ressies) or possibly even push for NEAFL selection as a schoolboy. He plays for Penrith Juniors and is therefore your property along with Town (a terrible concept imo). Will you stand in his way and stifle his potential development or have him playing in your U18s.

If the answer is Yes then you are stopping his development. If the answer is No then why have the thing in the first place.

You've got TWELVE juniors teams in your pathway. Surely if you run your U18 program well, which you seem to, then you should be able to get a decent U18 team without all this restrictive stuff. Telling 16 year olds where they can and can't play sport is ridiculous and I'd like to know if there is ANY example of this anywhere else in Australia.

[DLH]

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?

Geographical advantage - what a load of rubbish. Why should a player who has played within spitting distance of ECE's home ground be forced to trek to Parramatta and play? Just because ECE have the "geographical advantage" of developing their backyard better. Will ECE now be forced to not have a second U18 team? Will players just be lost to the game because they don't want the extra travel to a club they don't like and decide to play League, Union or Soccer?

An honest question for you DLH. You have a talented plasyer coming out of U16, he has the potential to at least play Premier Div football as as 17 tear old (ECE ressies) or possibly even push for NEAFL selection as a schoolboy. He plays for Penrith Juniors and is therefore your property along with Town (a terrible concept imo). Will you stand in his way and stifle his potential development or have him playing in your U18s.

If the answer is Yes then you are stopping his development. If the answer is No then why have the thing in the first place.

You've got TWELVE juniors teams in your pathway. Surely if you run your U18 program well, which you seem to, then you should be able to get a decent U18 team without all this restrictive stuff. Telling 16 year olds where they can and can't play sport is ridiculous and I'd like to know if there is ANY example of this anywhere else in Australia.

Ultimate geographical advantage?

Interested to know how that works, whenever you try and get players or coaches to come to your club, you get the same response.

"It's too far".

Also interested to know how we helped to kill off St.Clair.

I have no problem with a player who fits the example you speak of playing at the highest level they can, it's all his mates who want to follow him that's the problem, which is why the system is in place.

BTW, there are only four junior teams in our pathway that we could realistically recruit players from, and one of those is listed in multiple pathways, which gives them about half a dozen options.

If ECE valued these kids you speak of so much, they were free to list them, and as has been pointed out, if they're just around the corner from Purser and don't want to travel to Parramatta, a clearance would be pretty easy to come by.

[ShortHalfHead]

Latest figures reveal that there has been a 23% increase in the number of 18's since pathway was introduced.

And a record 63% of 16's going to 18's.

Yet some say it is killing the game. Go figure !

[tara]

Latest figures reveal that there has been a 23% increase in the number of 18's since pathway was introduced.

And a record 63% of 16's going to 18's.

Yet some say it is killing the game. Go figure !

Mate its got nothing to do with the pathway its been entirely due to GWS appointing Dale Holmes and utlising his unquestional knowledge of Sydney footy which has seen a direct rise in the numbers of those deciding to support GWS and play under 18's.

[Mug Punter]

Mate its got nothing to do with the pathway its been entirely due to GWS appointing Dale Holmes and utlising his unquestional knowledge of Sydney footy which has seen a direct rise in the numbers of those deciding to support GWS and play under 18's.

Agree 100%

And also unquestionably the great investment that the AFL is making in grassroots development. As you know I'm a GWS sceptic and I don't see GWS and grass roots investment as mutually exclusive but if that is all we get out of the GWS gamble then some good will have come of it.

Question - Let's say ECE only field one U18 team this year because the pathway has hindered their efforts - is this good for the game? Surely U18 parents should be able to choose the senior club their kids play in. I agree the with the likes of Collingwood (spit) pushing players to Sydney Uni this was an unfair advantage but now that scenario is thankfully gone...

[ShortHalfHead]

Agree 100%

And also unquestionably the great investment that the AFL is making in grassroots development. As you know I'm a GWS sceptic and I don't see GWS and grass roots investment as mutually exclusive but if that is all we get out of the GWS gamble then some good will have come of it.

Question - Let's say ECE only field one U18 team this year because the pathway has hindered their efforts - is this good for the game? Surely U18 parents should be able to choose the senior club their kids play in. I agree the with the likes of Collingwood (spit) pushing players to Sydney Uni this was an unfair advantage but now that scenario is thankfully gone...

You make it sound as though East Coast are struggling to retain their locals and have to go well outside their local area. Didn't Baulko and Kellyville have all their Under 16's in GF this year? Maybe we should scrap the programme and send all our kids there...let the run their own local 18's comp. If some players want to play with Nor-West with their Under 18's getting up, another team in the comp has got to be a good thing.

I cannot find an ounce of fact that the programme is turning the masses away and no-one has been able to justify it. Highly suspect that some aren't interested in a "player's development" but only looking for some silverware.

[unconfuseme]

Mate its got nothing to do with the pathway its been entirely due to GWS appointing Dale Holmes and utlising his unquestional knowledge of Sydney footy which has seen a direct rise in the numbers of those deciding to support GWS and play under 18's.