Reserves competition to be re-established?

[liz]

It has been discussed often on these boards but, according to Stephen Reilly, the AFL is seriously considering reintroducing it.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2007/03/07/1173166799460.html

Clearly the Swans would benefit from having fiercer competition to play against, though I suspect we have a little bit of a benefit at the moment not totally understood by other clubs in that we do have a single reserves squad who can be developed as a group. That advantage would go if all other clubs had the same.

I can't see a 10 team Vic league getting the nod. Sydney, in particular, would be miffed to be excluded. Wouldn't be surprised if the Adelaide and Perth teams chose to stick with the current arrangement, although the mooted increase in club lists would change the dynamics a little.

[goswannie14]

At last something positive coming out of AFL house.

The 10 team Vic comp is stupid, particularly with the Kangaroos looking to possibly relocate. A full blown AFL reserves comp would be my preference, with reserves played as curtain raisers to the seniors.

Isn't is strange/funny, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Triple B]

Originally posted by goswannie14
A full blown AFL reserves comp would be my preference, with reserves played as curtain raisers to the seniors.

Yes please.

An eastern seaboard one would work for me as well. As long as we get a chance to see and evaluate the youngsters against decent opposition.

[cruiser]

I reckon the other ACTAFL teams woudl be glad to see the back of Sydney. What chance do any of them have of ever winning a flag for as long as Sydney plays its seconds there.

[hammo]

Having 55 or more players on a list seems ridiculous and unworkable.

Will the AFL pay the extra costs for all clubs, particularly the poorer Melbourne clubs like the Kangaroos and Bulldogs?

Will that mean more draft picks and therefore more kids needing to be drafted, or will there be a return to some type of zonal system?

The concept seems good but I am dubious about the practicalities.

[dimelb]

Originally posted by hammo
Having 55 or more players on a list seems ridiculous and unworkable.

Will the AFL pay the extra costs for all clubs, particularly the poorer Melbourne clubs like the Kangaroos and Bulldogs?

Will that mean more draft picks and therefore more kids needing to be drafted, or will there be a return to some type of zonal system?

The concept seems good but I am dubious about the practicalities.

Good questions.
Expense has to be subsidised (at least) by the AFL. Perhaps we could then have a combination of something like the present draft schemes plus a feeder zone system.

[Triple B]

No doubt the AFL will need to subsidise it in some fashion, few clubs will be able to afford it, certainly not many Melbourne based clubs.

I'd like to see something along the lines of senior lists stay at 38, let's make it 40, with the 15 extras all being rookies, all being paid a basic wage subsidised by the AFL..

In that case, revamp the rookie lists to include, let's say, 5 mature age rookies. This would give the likes of the Ben Hart's of the world the opportunity to remain in the system when they don't really want to leave, albeit on a reduced paypacket (ie. rookie wages).

I'd imagine a lot of players nearing the end of their careers who can't quite cut it at senior level anymore but could easily get another 2 or 3 years out of their body, teaching and nurchuring young guys in the reserves.

[reigning premier]

I'd love to see us back in a proper reseves format. ATM, it's our achilles heal and we'll pay for it in the long run.

Our current reserves games are played in the Canberra league which is about 3 levels below that of the VFL. Our juniors don't get exposure to playing decent opposition. Yes there's a few good players circulating around out there, but nothing like the standard of the VFL, WAFL or SANFL. That makes it an absoluteley massive step up into the AFL/Swans team when they do get a chance.

Having our reserves travelling with the team each weekend will build team work, prepare them for the rigours of constant travel as well as get them used to playing in front of big crowds, on the grounds they will actually play on if they make it.

We NEED this if we're going to have any sort of succession plan for our current crop of players.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by reigning premier
I'd love to see us back in a proper reseves format. ATM, it's our achilles heal and we'll pay for it in the long run.

"Achilles' heel"

A nice theory except, um, we won our first Premiership in 72 years six years after the V/AFL reserves competition was canned.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I personally love the idea, doubt it'll happen within the next 3 years, but i love the idea lol. The AFL is getting so much money, they shouldn't have any problem funding this idea, so i don't see how money is an issue. A player list of 55 though? why?

[Thunder Shaker]

We shouldn't have a Reserves without worrying about the next tier as well. If a side is hard-hit by injuries, top up players have to be drawn from somewhere. How would this work, given the imbalance in strength among WA, SA, Vic and other leagues?

[reigning premier]

Originally posted by Sanecow
"Achilles' heel"

A nice theory except, um, we won our first Premiership in 72 years six years after the V/AFL reserves competition was canned.

And did it help or hinder the cause?

Should we have not won it in 2003??? Perhaps we could of if we had more depth???

If you read the original post instead of sniping, you'll note that it does mention "in the long run" and a "succession plan" rather than where we are at the moment. We're in good shape now yes, but without a harder reserves competition like the AFL (Which a lot of our current players did participate in), our depthe will be tested in years to come.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by DeadlyAkkuret
A player list of 55 though? why?

Isn't the current list size 38 for a senior team of 22? I think 55 is reasonable. In the old VFL days (pre AFL) most lists were between 45 and 50 IIRC, and that catered for a seniors and reserves teams of 20 (18 on the field and 2 interchange).

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by reigning premier
And did it help or hinder the cause?

Should we have not won it in 2003??? Perhaps we could of if we had more depth???

We didn't win in 2003 because we lost a prelim to a very good side. Our player depth had nothing to do with it.

[reigning premier]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
We didn't win in 2003 because we lost a prelim to a very good side. Our player depth had nothing to do with it.

Pretty sure we were playing without Micky and Schneider. Down two forwards that we couldn't replace. That to me, says lack of depth. And considering there was one point in it at 3/4 time, perhaps a little bit of depth in the reserves may have made a difference.