Under 17's and Under 19's in 2014

[muddybulldog]

I have been told that the AFL are planning to change things next year. Juniors will go up to under 17's and then the Under 18's will become under 19's. The reson is to stop the big drop off in players that we lose from junior footy to senior footy. Anybody else know anything about it and have any thoughts about it.

[Tim Freedman]

This has been rolled out in just about every other traditional football state / league with great success. If true, then it is a good step to take by NSW AFL.

[Coastal Boy]

SydneyAFL was previously u19s until it changed (I guess) in the late 90s to u18s. I assumed this was altered to align with the AFL draft and the u18s national carnival. If its already u19s everywhere else interstate does that work in satisfactorily with the draft...or are there changes in the wind there too?

[Mug Punter]

I have been told that the AFL are planning to change things next year. Juniors will go up to under 17's and then the Under 18's will become under 19's. The reson is to stop the big drop off in players that we lose from junior footy to senior footy. Anybody else know anything about it and have any thoughts about it.

Would be a great step forward I believe. Will allow greater opportunity to keep kids, plus the good U17s will be able to test their mettle in the U-19s at SFL level whilst still playing for their junior club on Saturday..

[unconfuseme]

It will do absolutely nothing to keep kids in the game if senior clubs do not engage with their junior clubs.

[King Zog]

Agree unconfuseme is 100% right, changing the age won't make any difference if Senior clubs and Junior clubs do not engage.
Unfortunately, it falls back on the volunteers at both junior and senior clubs to actively pursue this link.
Some Senior clubs do it very well already, and some Junior clubs were very focussed on ensuring their 16's had a taste of "senior" footy and transitioned.

For example Marouba Junior club which has over 50 U/16's and their senior club Randwick Saints U/18 Div 2 has forfeited 3 times already this season?
While Southern Power, St George and Moorebank U/18's all have full squads and cannot play all their registered participants each week?
Changing the age they tranistion will not matter if there is not people promoting this.

Everyone I have spoken too believes it is a done deal, Junior Club Presidents have been told about it already

[Jupiter]

It will do absolutely nothing to keep kids in the game if senior clubs do not engage with their junior clubs.

You mean the genius Pathway Policy hasn't achieved this? or anything remotely like it, despite that being the stated aim? We should never have instances like that policy or Bankstown Juniors demise or ridiculous placement of teams in Divs etc all based on crap politiking. We need great volunteers (and school teachers at the youth level and schools!) being motivated/assisted to run great programs wherever they are - and the AFL should do not much more than facilitate to get those great people at senior and junior clubs to meet and cooperate and provide resources/know how, certainly not constantly change the . The worrying trend I've seen over the years is seeing many of those great people lost to local footy as they give up/tire of the constant policy flip flops and tinkering with competitions. As you say you need senior and junior clubs engaging, or in my language, the best volunteers.

[DK_]

I've got two boys playing 7s and 9s at the moment and I can't say how important involvement of senior players from related clubs is. I'm sure we're not on our own in NSW having a cadre of coaches who grew up playing rugby. The experience of older players who help from time to time with training is invaluable.

[Noodle]

Pathways systemis poorly drafted and can never acheive its stated aim in its present form. The argument for pathways, is the club that develops the player is entitled to the fruits of their labour.
However the policy is automatic, the club acquires the right to the player without having to demonstrate it has undertaken any development with the junior club. Only if the player falls within one of the limited exceptions does the amount of work undertaken by the club have any relevance to the system.
I was involved in an appeal where the pathway club said it needed to take no action to recruit an U/18 because the policy "would do its work". The AFL found the policy in itself did not actually require the pathway club to take any positive action to recruit the players it had listed. This club could not display any actual involvement in the youth's deveopment but considered itself entitled to his services in precedence to the wishes of his parents. The kid did not play football that year as a result of the ruling.
If there is a lot of interaction between the junior and senior clubs it is a lot easier as the players come across as "as a block". Especially if you only have one or two pathway junior clubs. We actually find the problem then becomes intergrating them into the senior structure, the drop off rate from 18s to seniors is huge but my experience is the better kids keep playing whereas as those who made up the numbers so to speak find other pursuits they prefer and are more passionate about. I don't know if raising the ages will really change what I consider a natural attrition.

[Pmcc2911]

A point to note is that the rugby codes have U/20 or U/21 as the stepping stone into senior ranks. Some guns go straight into the senior ranks but most play in the under age level.
Big difference in maturity and body shape from an 18 yo to a 20/21 yo.
Could explain the drop off from U18 to seniors in AFL.

[ShortHalfHead]

Pathways systemis poorly drafted and can never acheive its stated aim in its present form. The argument for pathways, is the club that develops the player is entitled to the fruits of their labour.
However the policy is automatic, the club acquires the right to the player without having to demonstrate it has undertaken any development with the junior club. Only if the player falls within one of the limited exceptions does the amount of work undertaken by the club have any relevance to the system.
I was involved in an appeal where the pathway club said it needed to take no action to recruit an U/18 because the policy "would do its work". The AFL found the policy in itself did not actually require the pathway club to take any positive action to recruit the players it had listed. This club could not display any actual involvement in the youth's deveopment but considered itself entitled to his services in precedence to the wishes of his parents. The kid did not play football that year as a result of the ruling.
If there is a lot of interaction between the junior and senior clubs it is a lot easier as the players come across as "as a block". Especially if you only have one or two pathway junior clubs. We actually find the problem then becomes intergrating them into the senior structure, the drop off rate from 18s to seniors is huge but my experience is the better kids keep playing whereas as those who made up the numbers so to speak find other pursuits they prefer and are more passionate about. I don't know if raising the ages will really change what I consider a natural attrition.

Pathway policy I believe was predominately designed to stop players being 'enticed" to strong clubs with promises of scholarships etc. Even today, we have academy coaches telling kids (and even their parents) to join certain clubs if they wish to have any hope of being "discovered".

I do notice that the current 18's Div 1 comp is a lot more open than back in the days of the two main offenders fighting for the cream of the 18's.

Maybe the alarming "fallout" of 18's to seniors is in fact due to the "promises" turning to dust.

[Noodle]

Pathway policy I believe was predominately designed to stop players being 'enticed" to strong clubs with promises of scholarships etc. Even today, we have academy coaches telling kids (and even their parents) to join certain clubs if they wish to have any hope of being "discovered".

I do notice that the current 18's Div 1 comp is a lot more open than back in the days of the two main offenders fighting for the cream of the 18's.

Maybe the alarming "fallout" of 18's to seniors is in fact due to the "promises" turning to dust.

Shoirt Half Head, if you want to cut through it all. The pathways system was introduced after an outcry from local clubs when Collingwood agreed with Sydney Uni to play all its scholarship kids there. The merits of the arrrangement can be debated (3 are still on AFL lists, a large number by Sydney standards) however, the scholarship system no longer exists. So why does the pathways policy ? How many kids does it actually impact on and if you are going to deprive somebody of their freedom of choice should the club trying to do so be required to demonstrate it has done something to accrue that right. In my opinion categorically yes.
In respect of your comments regarding "fallout", the sort of players we lose are not the type of kids one would necessarily entice to join your club, the better players are usually keener because they enjoy the game more (more fun to play if you are getting a kick than not) we generally retain those. You see some u/18s play, you can tell almost instantly if they are going to play as adults or if they are playing out of habit because it is what they have always done on a Saturday as kids.
They don't like the body contact, the discipline of playing at a senior club and simply end spending a lot of time on the pine.

[Jupiter]

Pathway policy I believe was predominately designed to stop players being 'enticed" to strong clubs with promises of scholarships etc. Even today, we have academy coaches telling kids (and even their parents) to join certain clubs if they wish to have any hope of being "discovered".

I do notice that the current 18's Div 1 comp is a lot more open than back in the days of the two main offenders fighting for the cream of the 18's.

Maybe the alarming "fallout" of 18's to seniors is in fact due to the "promises" turning to dust.

Penrith are doing great, well done to you guys. Time to cut the crap like this post on here and disassociate yourself from all flawed policies/decisions that aren't in the interests of local footy and not just the ones that don't suit you at the time - its just silly to keep carping on about so called promises and so on made by other clubs, its a normal non-issue, deal with it (I think you are by having a great improving club program..). Lining up along parochial lines doesn't get Syd AFL anywhere - you probably forget that the clubs you tend to whine about are the ones who pushed for Divisionalisation and made it happen (with Gary B implementing well) - they had your club and others in mind at the time and not only their own, this is how good stuff happens. Generally I think you get it pretty right with your posts on this stuff but the blinkers are still on here I'm afraid, move on - Penrith will be a powerhouse if you keep it up - then people will whinge about Penrith instead of the Eagles or North Shore etc all the time.

[TheMase]

I spoke to a guy from AFL / GWS who said it will be under 17s, 15s etc and I asked him about under 19s and he was under the impression this wouldn't change from under 18s which I found strange.