Reserves competition to be re-established?

[hammo]

Originally posted by reigning premier
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.

I know it goes against the grain on RWO but let's not reinvent history.

We were beaten (indeed we were thumped in the final quarter) by the greatest team possibly in the history of the game.

It wouldn't have mattered what depth we had to come off the bench. The better team won.

BTW, Schneider played as I recall but MOL was injured.

[reigning premier]

Originally posted by hammo
I know it goes against the grain on RWO but let's not reinvent history.

We were beaten (indeed we were thumped in the final quarter) by the greatest team possibly in the history of the game.

It wouldn't have mattered what depth we had to come off the bench. The better team won.

BTW, Schneider played as I recall but MOL was injured.

Agreed.... we were beaten by a better team

But I do think Schneider was injured. Maybe during the game??? Anyways, moot point.

But I think to discount entirely the difference having a stronger reserves team could have made is irrational.

[hammo]

Originally posted by reigning premier

But I think to discount entirely the difference having a stronger reserves team could have made is irrational.

As Liz mentioned earlier, I don't think we are necessarily at a current disadvantage to other teams.

Our reserves players all play for the "Swans" - admittedly in a weak competition - but benefit from having the same coaching staff, teammates and game plan every week.

To use an example, Vogels has been tried in attack and defence. In the VFL, he would probably be used solely as a forward, thus limiting his overall development. Likewise when players return from injury, we have greater control over where and how much they play.

Victorian clubs are always at loggerheads over their youngsters & reserves players being played out of position in VFL teams.

To use your argument (which according to your summation must be as rational as mine is irrational) Melbourne teams would have won more flags in recent years as the VFL competition is stronger.

It simply doesn't follow that stronger reserves competitions lead to stronger seniors teams.

[Sanecow]

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

I would say the evidence points to the current system being more to our advantage than the V/AFL reserves system. But it's more likely only of marginal impact.

Originally posted by reigning premier
If you read the original post instead of sniping

[Triple B]

Originally posted by hammo
To use an example, Vogels has been tried in attack and defence. In the VFL, he would probably be used solely as a forward, thus limiting his overall development. Likewise when players return from injury, we have greater control over where and how much they play.

Victorian clubs are always at loggerheads over their youngsters & reserves players being played out of position in VFL teams.

Which is exactly why we parted company with Port Melbourne in the first place.

But these disadvantages will not exist in a proposed AFL reserves competition. The younger players will benefit from travelling interstate every 2nd week with the seniors, watching how they prepare, learning how to adjust to sleeping in a motel the night before a game etc etc., apart from the obvious advantage of coaching staff playing them in whichever position they want to play in.

Vogels is a great example. If we decided to develop him as a backman, and by jeezus we need them more than forwards at the minute, good luck trying to teach him anything when Weston Creek, Tuggeranong etc. are flat out getting the ball past the centre circle more than a dozen times a game!!

As for list sizes, even when we had 50 odd on the list and 2 teams of 18+2 to fill, we often needed to steal a player or 2 from the local leagues. 55 on the list is no guarantee to fill 2 x 18+4 teams every week.

[laughingnome]

A reserves competition would be nice, but its too expensive to run, which is why it was canned in the first place. Yes the AFL has just had a nice big windfall from TV, but there is every indication that the value of the deal could well drop by the time a new agreement is made. The AFL can't afford to throw money around an idea of a Reserves comp because the current system is working. Why risk a financial failure?

Some people on this board should think logically about the logistics of nearly doubling travel costs for their club. When you travel with a Reserve team that is exactly what you are doing. This is just money that clubs cannot have - Sydney included.

[Triple B]

We didn't suggest this, we are just commenting on the rumours/articles/whatevers about reviving the reserves competition.

Almost to a person we have mentioned the cost restraints, didn't you read those parts?

[robbieando]

Originally posted by laughingnome
Some people on this board should think logically about the logistics of nearly doubling travel costs for their club.

The AFL pays for the travel costs of up I believe 35 players coaches and trainers to ALL official AFL matches from NAB Cup, NAB Challenge, Home and Away Season to the Finals Series. The clubs only ever foot the bill for any extra cost for club staff they take over that limit. Same deal applies for hotel costs and Coach Transfers from the airport to the hotel to the ground and back again.

So a reserves comp wouldn't "double" the cost of the club at all, will increase it but not to the level some might think. But I'm sure this is one of many issues that the AFL would consider in making a decision.

Also for those of you who think the VFL is the best place to be, consider this fact - Since the AFL merged the reserves with the VFL at the start of the 2000 season only Essendon has won a AFL Premiership while having their "reserves" playing in the VFL. That year Essendon had their own stand alone VFL side which has since merged with Bendigo. After Essendon, premierships have come from the QAFL and Brisbane's Stand alone side, the Suncoast Lions, the SANFL where Port had their players spead out though the comp and the ACTAFL and the Swans "reserves" side.

So no one model has proven itself to be perfect, but in the end I would think a National Reserves Comp would be the answer as that would give the clubs the control over their players like the Swans do and provide AFL-like conditions and a simular standard across the board for all clubs. Pity that will never happen.

[SimonH]

As the article implies, there would be rioting on the streets of SA and WA if their AFL teams were to establish 4 new AFL reserves sides. Instead of them feeding a total of 30-40 players into the SANFL and WAFL every week, they'd be taking 20-30 away. Those comps are obviously second-tier, but are not regarded as 'reserves' comps in the way that the VFL is. The controlling leagues, for good reason, have an interest in keeping the standard of their state comp high, and so just won't buy it.

A 12-team eastern seaboard reserves would do fine. I don't think that team lists should be expanded, for a number of reasons. Clubs should just have large and flexible reserves rosters. There would be some limited opportunity to get your wares seen, but no great prestige or cash attached to being a reserves roster player, so there'd be no need for anything as formal as a 'draft'. Clubs could just directly approach 15-odd kids and ask them if they'd like to be on the roster.

It's terrible, and a direct product of the disproportionate Victorian representation in the AFL, that a footy-mad state of 5 million cannot run a state league better than the current VFL. Even though obviously it would be a huge shakeup to remove half of a team from most sides, in the long-term the VFL clubs, and the league as a whole, would be better off independent.

[reigning premier]

Originally posted by hammo
As Liz mentioned earlier, I don't think we are necessarily at a current disadvantage to other teams.

Our reserves players all play for the "Swans" - admittedly in a weak competition - but benefit from having the same coaching staff, teammates and game plan every week.

To use an example, Vogels has been tried in attack and defence. In the VFL, he would probably be used solely as a forward, thus limiting his overall development. Likewise when players return from injury, we have greater control over where and how much they play.

Victorian clubs are always at loggerheads over their youngsters & reserves players being played out of position in VFL teams.

To use your argument (which according to your summation must be as rational as mine is irrational) Melbourne teams would have won more flags in recent years as the VFL competition is stronger.

It simply doesn't follow that stronger reserves competitions lead to stronger seniors teams.

I don't see how having our reserves playing in a weaker comp can be of benefit to them in anyway shape or form.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by reigning premier
I don't see how having our reserves playing in a weaker comp can be of benefit to them in anyway shape or form.

It certainly creates a "winning culture".

[ScottH]

AFL Canberra getting worried

AFL Canberra general manager David Wark said he wanted to retain the Sydney reserves in the ACT-based competition.

"The Swans have been a fantastic addition to our league and we are keen to retain them for as long as possible," Wark said.

"The quality of football they bring to the competition is fantastic and the support for local junior football as well."

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Sanecow
It certainly creates a "winning culture".

I see that and the fact that the Swans reserves players are all together in one team as the two advantages in the current system.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by ScottH
AFL Canberra getting worried

They're chronically lacking in teams. Weston Creek need a bit of a hand to merely put a team on the oval each week, the Wagga Tigers are constantly threatening to go back home... and now the Swans 2nds. The spectre of a 5-team Canberra comp wouldn't be making Warky too happy.

My 2 cents' worth is: it's easy to point to any number of players who've made the transition to AFL smoothly since we've been in Canberra; and difficult to make the case that things were better with debutants making the grade when we were still with Port Melbourne. For a youngster, intensity of your training is as important as the intensity of your matches; plus you just cannot overstress the importance of playing as a team, to a team plan, under the direction of the club's coaching staff.

And the AFL Canberra comp isn't that bad, anyway. Without having watched both at any length, I'd reckon it would probably roughly equal VFL reserves level. Which is where almost half of the non-firsts-players with Victorian AFL teams, play.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by SimonH

And the AFL Canberra comp isn't that bad, anyway. Without having watched both at any length, I'd reckon it would probably roughly equal VFL reserves level. Which is where almost half of the non-firsts-players with Victorian AFL teams, play.

According to this thread where I asked the question, the Ovens and Murray is better than the ACTFL. I don't know how much weight Stella's opinion means though.

source