Steve#4 wrote:Your club survived relegation and were down the wrong end of the ladder this season....Let's see your opinion in the next few years if you happen to get relegated....I am picking it will change big time.... Watch your juniors scatter to other clubs when you are no longer JPL entitled.
To be fair, Croydon had plenty of junior teams (a lot more than most clubs) before the JSL was introduced and before they were promoted to the Premier League.
What was the structure back then?....Was it the haves and have nots like the current and newly proposed systems?
Stitch This wrote:
To be fair, Croydon had plenty of junior teams (a lot more than most clubs) before the JSL was introduced and before they were promoted to the Premier League.
What was the structure back then?....Was it the haves and have nots like the current and newly proposed systems?
Yes it was called the JPL & JSL
Difference thou is that if they get relegated to the state league, no matter all the work they have done they can't compete at JPL....That seems fair
NickyTanner wrote:I don't see how it makes any difference to volunteer levels as to who you play and when.
The present system has a club's juniors playing different teams at different grounds; we could have our U12, 14's and 15's playing at home & the other teams away. One team may supply volunteers to run the canteen, the next does not, and no games after that. A regular volunteer may have to run off to watch another child play away, or they may have no home game.
Having all a clubs teams playing at home has all your volunteers in one place.
The new system has all teams playing against the same team as the seniors.
What was the structure back then?....Was it the haves and have nots like the current and newly proposed systems?[/quote]
Yes it was called the JPL & JSL [/quote]
Difference thou is that if they get relegated to the state league, no matter all the work they have done they can't compete at JPL....That seems fair [/quote]
Since when were the FFSA fair? It doesn't affect you anyway does it? or are the few non senior JSL teams being cut?
Travel will be a big factor. If you look at the current set up at senior level, SL teams will have HUGE travel commitments. Predominately teams situated on the out skirts of CBD. Playford for example, are mainly represented by kids from Elizabeth and outwards. Got kids from Barossa, Balaclava etc. Now you're asking these parents to have trips to Cove, South Adelaide, Seaford, Adelaide Hills, Nourlunga, Toros, Eastern etc. These are all 3 hour + trips. Then we have the PL. All clubs within 20mins of each other, considered to be a higher standard, same level of coaching.. what would you choose as a parent?
It not just one thing that will cause the kids to leave. Im sure parents might say "ok, B division, but hes getting good coaching so we might stick it out..". Then after a season of having to travel 4 hours every second sunday to an away game.. when you can drive 15 minutes up the road, join Raiders and play teams a maximum of 40minutes away... no brainer.
johnydep wrote:The goal is to have strong clubs, complete with juniors and seniors, with large supporter and volunteer base so that growth of the sport can happen.
Having all a clubs junior age groups playing on the same day and the day before the senior game will help clubs grow. It makes finding volunteers easier, increased income, better use of resources, increased usage which leads to a need and reason to develop, etc.
The excuse about clubs losing players is a poor one. Most people will stay we're they are, most know that it's not where you play but how you play.
Look at the bigger pitcure.
The juniors play the day after the seniors, not the day before.
Secondly, no one is accounting for all the SSF teams. Do you really think clubs that have got 12 teams and more, from U6 to U17s, can all play in one morning? No they cannot.
And a club travelling with all its Senior teams from metro Adelaide to Port Pirie (a 400km round trip) on Saturday, repeats the process on Sunday to watch their Under 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17s junior teams play?
Not likely.
As for the 'big picture' stuff people keep espousing. Would be really interested to know whether any people posting positively on this topic are actually from State League clubs. Probably they are all associated with Premier League Clubs or are so far removed from understanding how clubs actually run, that they fail to see how this new structure is going to greatly disadvantage SL clubs, players and families.
Would be really interested to know whether any people posting positively on this topic are actually from State League clubs
Last edited by themessenger on Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There are other ways to get all teams playing at home on the same day, yes your solution sounds perfect, but well run clubs have constant canteen staff anyway, so it's not an issue
Željko Jurin wrote:I think people are looking TOO deep .... I feel FFSA just want to elimanate promotion/relegation at junior level, thats it, and the 'win at all cost' mentality that goes with it
Željko Jurin wrote:I think people are looking TOO deep .... I feel FFSA just want to elimanate promotion/relegation at junior level, thats it, and the 'win at all cost' mentality that goes with it
Agreed 100% (and I belong to a SL club)
Had a conversation yesterday with someone from a State League club, he sees the benefits that the new system can bring to the sport and clubs. He agrees with it.
Željko Jurin wrote:I think people are looking TOO deep .... I feel FFSA just want to elimanate promotion/relegation at junior level, thats it, and the 'win at all cost' mentality that goes with it
Agreed 100% (and I belong to a SL club)
Although we don't want (or we say we don't want) win at all cost coaches, aren't they the ones that are developing their team to win? Aren't they the ones wanting to get better, to gain promotions etc?
Could we end up with a league of caretakers and the junior development might even be hurt?
Željko Jurin wrote:But if the A, B or C div with relegation/promotion stays, there is no travelling yeh ?
yes, ofcourse. But once or twice a season. not 8-10 games a season. I play SL seniors, and im sick of traveling. Pirie, Hills, South Adelaide, Nourlunga, Cove, Seaford, Toros, Sturt.. all a solid 3-4 hour round trip minimum.
Lets look at the current 13's:
Cumberland (40mins).
Birks (bout an hour)
Strikers (40mins)
Para (20mins)
Raiders (20mins)
Campbelltown (40mins)
AC (bout an hour)
South Adelaide (2+)
Salisbury (10mins)
Beagles (45mins)
Enfield (25mins).
Metro (half hour)
... Thats a huge difference. 1 trip for the season for any northern team in that 13's league. the rest within reasonable distance. in reverse, South Adelaide have 1 long trip, and then Para and Raiders. the rest close by.
justmyopinion wrote:Great idea from the FFSA, aligning all the juniors to the seniors, creates some passion & loyalty to one club from a junior level , for those complaining clubs, create an environment with quality junior coaches who follow the FFSA system and develop and improve your kids and they will want to stay rather than follow result driven junior clubs.
As for only having 2 grounds for all your junior teams, rather than accept mediocrity raise the bar and work with your councils and local schools to accommodate more teams, plenty of open parks out there, you have to have the drive as a club to continually improve, or just be a feeder club.
It comes down to what you want as a club and how hard your prepared to work to get to what you want.
Be a Leader club and drag the standard up, rather than complain and drag everyone else down.
at a guess, you would be involved with a Premier League Club?
Željko Jurin wrote:But if the A, B or C div with relegation/promotion stays, there is no travelling yeh ?
yes, ofcourse. But once or twice a season. not 8-10 games a season. I play SL seniors, and im sick of traveling. Pirie, Hills, South Adelaide, Nourlunga, Cove, Seaford, Toros, Sturt.. all a solid 3-4 hour round trip minimum.
Lets look at the current 13's:
Cumberland (40mins).
Birks (bout an hour)
Strikers (40mins)
Para (20mins)
Raiders (20mins)
Campbelltown (40mins)
AC (bout an hour)
South Adelaide (2+)
Salisbury (10mins)
Beagles (45mins)
Enfield (25mins).
Metro (half hour)
... Thats a huge difference. 1 trip for the season for any northern team in that 13's league. the rest within reasonable distance. in reverse, South Adelaide have 1 long trip, and then Para and Raiders. the rest close by.
Now look at your other Playford teams, as we are talking about 'the big picture' ...
Željko Jurin wrote:But if the A, B or C div with relegation/promotion stays, there is no travelling yeh ?
yes, ofcourse. But once or twice a season. not 8-10 games a season. I play SL seniors, and im sick of traveling. Pirie, Hills, South Adelaide, Nourlunga, Cove, Seaford, Toros, Sturt.. all a solid 3-4 hour round trip minimum.
Lets look at the current 13's:
Cumberland (40mins).
Birks (bout an hour)
Strikers (40mins)
Para (20mins)
Raiders (20mins)
Campbelltown (40mins)
AC (bout an hour)
South Adelaide (2+)
Salisbury (10mins)
Beagles (45mins)
Enfield (25mins).
Metro (half hour)
... Thats a huge difference. 1 trip for the season for any northern team in that 13's league. the rest within reasonable distance. in reverse, South Adelaide have 1 long trip, and then Para and Raiders. the rest close by.
the ffsa can make it easier again with refereeing appointments, give all the pl junior teams refs and then the sl can get any left overs. lets look after the clubs that matter and sod the rest
"The trouble with referees , they know the rules , but they don't know the game." Bill Shankly
redfred wrote:the ffsa can make it easier again with refereeing appointments, give all the pl junior teams refs and then the sl can get any left overs. lets look after the clubs that matter and sod the rest
justmyopinion wrote:Great idea from the FFSA, aligning all the juniors to the seniors, creates some passion & loyalty to one club from a junior level , for those complaining clubs, create an environment with quality junior coaches who follow the FFSA system and develop and improve your kids and they will want to stay rather than follow result driven junior clubs.
As for only having 2 grounds for all your junior teams, rather than accept mediocrity raise the bar and work with your councils and local schools to accommodate more teams, plenty of open parks out there, you have to have the drive as a club to continually improve, or just be a feeder club.
It comes down to what you want as a club and how hard your prepared to work to get to what you want.
Be a Leader club and drag the standard up, rather than complain and drag everyone else down.
Really keen to hear which "non-result driven" FFSA club you are involved with.
Željko Jurin wrote:Rumours, dont you love them ...... Anyway If true, probably because our u16s have been playing reserves and first team
But what you're saying has no relevance to the junior league set ups anyway
Isn't 18s senior football, where there is no promotion/relegation ?
so the player telling me is a rumour and as for relevance look at why you need to take sorry offer players from SL club when you are so good at making your own and yes the SL club is playing the same system with juniors into senior sides as you are and i'm sure that a SL club approaching your juniors they would be over the moon and declining very quickly?
why any coaches need to be chasing other club players during the playing season is a joke and this is exactly the reason players need to be valued either by points, $ or putting in zones (other sports do it in the metro / country areas)
what will you current players think of being dumped and possibly having to find a spot in the SL?
could it be that PL want to eliminate any possible challenges from SL clubs by always taking the better players as often as poossible by making sure the senior sides are of a lower quality and won't be able to get promotion?
bloodypassit wrote:Let's look at the big picture of developing juniors than your own back yard
Like the concept
The State League clubs are at a huge disadvantage with travel. We are talking about those clubs travelling from Noarlunga to Playford to Gawler to Cove to South Adelaide to Port Pirie etc. Juniors and seniors. If we are talking about big picture, this amount of travel could discourage parents from having kids play our sport.
The Premier league clubs are all virtually all within a 15km radius of the CBD. So It's easy to understand why they like the concept and the Premier League clubs supporting this are not kidding anyone if they say this is not a major factor in wanting this change to occur. Many have suggested that with the pressure of where the juniors finish on league tables being removed, coaches can concentrate on the process not the result. That is an honourable outcome but this proposed idea is a financial burden on the State League junior teams. Think about it, Noarlunga to Port Pirie. Significant extra transport cost for kids to play. And these outer lying suburbs are socio economic standards less advantaged than the inner metro suburbs.
If the goal is to have juniors not swapping leagues based on results, and encourage coaches to focus on development instead of results, would it not be preferable to have junior divisions based on geographical location. Certainly the financial burden is softened, travel time reduced, and players would not chop and change based on the performances of senior teams. Kids have no influence on senior teams performances and that should not affect their status. The avenue for clubs to rebuild and develop from within would be retained.
Maybe a finals system could be introduced where the top 2 teams in each zone play off in a final series. Anything but this divisive, elitist and discriminatory proposed set up.
If it's about the best kids playing the best kids, leave it as it is. If it's about relieving the win at all costs mentality, go with a geographical model. These big clubs cant have it both ways.
So true the structure will change as the big clubs pay the FFSA for what they want and after reading the saturday paper about clubs and juniors / grounds you can see the cash cows juniors really are to the seniors club structure in PL one club has SSG for $500 p.p.
bloodypassit wrote:Let's look at the big picture of developing juniors than your own back yard
Like the concept
The State League clubs are at a huge disadvantage with travel. We are talking about those clubs travelling from Noarlunga to Playford to Gawler to Cove to South Adelaide to Port Pirie etc. Juniors and seniors. If we are talking about big picture, this amount of travel could discourage parents from having kids play our sport.
The Premier league clubs are all virtually all within a 15km radius of the CBD. So It's easy to understand why they like the concept and the Premier League clubs supporting this are not kidding anyone if they say this is not a major factor in wanting this change to occur. Many have suggested that with the pressure of where the juniors finish on league tables being removed, coaches can concentrate on the process not the result. That is an honourable outcome but this proposed idea is a financial burden on the State League junior teams. Think about it, Noarlunga to Port Pirie. Significant extra transport cost for kids to play. And these outer lying suburbs are socio economic standards less advantaged than the inner metro suburbs.
If the goal is to have juniors not swapping leagues based on results, and encourage coaches to focus on development instead of results, would it not be preferable to have junior divisions based on geographical location. Certainly the financial burden is softened, travel time reduced, and players would not chop and change based on the performances of senior teams. Kids have no influence on senior teams performances and that should not affect their status. The avenue for clubs to rebuild and develop from within would be retained.
Maybe a finals system could be introduced where the top 2 teams in each zone play off in a final series. Anything but this divisive, elitist and discriminatory proposed set up.
If it's about the best kids playing the best kids, leave it as it is. If it's about relieving the win at all costs mentality, go with a geographical model. These big clubs cant have it both ways.
So true the structure will change as the big clubs pay the FFSA for what they want and after reading the saturday paper about clubs and juniors / grounds you can see the cash cows juniors really are to the seniors club structure in PL one club has SSG for $500 p.p.
Look at it this way. We have 30 clubs all up. 3 leagues of 10 teams in all grades based on geographical divisioning. Why would that not be better than having kids all over the place from week to week? The proposed thought bubble has 30 rounds for state league juniors compared to a more realistic 18. We have the STIC process for identifying talent and perhaps it is those kids that may really go places in soccer if more soccer is what is needed to develop that talent, and keep them playing, training year round. To put 30 rounds on kids and parents from all ends of Adelaide and beyond is plain wrong. PL will only play 26 without the travel. It's pretty easy to be cynical about the real motives behind this move and who is driving it. So divisive.
Željko Jurin wrote:Rumours, dont you love them ...... Anyway If true, probably because our u16s have been playing reserves and first team
But what you're saying has no relevance to the junior league set ups anyway
Isn't 18s senior football, where there is no promotion/relegation ?
so the player telling me is a rumour and as for relevance look at why you need to take sorry offer players from SL club when you are so good at making your own and yes the SL club is playing the same system with juniors into senior sides as you are and i'm sure that a SL club approaching your juniors they would be over the moon and declining very quickly?
why any coaches need to be chasing other club players during the playing season is a joke and this is exactly the reason players need to be valued either by points, $ or putting in zones (other sports do it in the metro / country areas)
what will you current players think of being dumped and possibly having to find a spot in the SL?
could it be that PL want to eliminate any possible challenges from SL clubs by always taking the better players as often as poossible by making sure the senior sides are of a lower quality and won't be able to get promotion?
Spoke to the 18s coach yesterday, who has NOT approached anyone anywhere as he is more then happy with our current 16s who are sitting top, and the 4-5 players who will still be age appropriate.
He has been approached by a SL player, and asked if he is remaining as 18s coach
Željko Jurin wrote:Rumours, dont you love them ...... Anyway If true, probably because our u16s have been playing reserves and first team
But what you're saying has no relevance to the junior league set ups anyway
Isn't 18s senior football, where there is no promotion/relegation ?
so the player telling me is a rumour and as for relevance look at why you need to take sorry offer players from SL club when you are so good at making your own and yes the SL club is playing the same system with juniors into senior sides as you are and i'm sure that a SL club approaching your juniors they would be over the moon and declining very quickly?
why any coaches need to be chasing other club players during the playing season is a joke and this is exactly the reason players need to be valued either by points, $ or putting in zones (other sports do it in the metro / country areas)
what will you current players think of being dumped and possibly having to find a spot in the SL?
could it be that PL want to eliminate any possible challenges from SL clubs by always taking the better players as often as poossible by making sure the senior sides are of a lower quality and won't be able to get promotion?
Spoke to the 18s coach yesterday, who has NOT approached anyone anywhere as he is more then happy with our current 16s who are sitting top, and the 4-5 players who will still be age appropriate.
He has been approached by a SL player, and asked if he is remaining as 18s coach
ZJ you have spoken about the benefits of not divisioning teams based on results and removong that pressure from coaches to encourage them develop to method ahead of scores. I don't doubt your belief in this but you seen to not acknowledge divisioning via location for juniors as an option. Surely you don't think it is fair on SL juniors to have more games and travel extensively when that can be overcome by divisioning by location? Do you think divisioning via location is an option? If not I would be interested to hear why you yhink so.
regangrandson wrote:
ZJ you have spoken about the benefits of not divisioning teams based on results and removong that pressure from coaches to encourage them develop to method ahead of scores. I don't doubt your belief in this but you seen to not acknowledge divisioning via location for juniors as an option. Surely you don't think it is fair on SL juniors to have more games and travel extensively when that can be overcome by divisioning by location? Do you think divisioning via location is an option? If not I would be interested to hear why you yhink so.
There are probably 3-4 different structures that could be implemented, but I prefer the new proposal. It's just personal preference which I grew up on when I was a junior, and can't remember any negatives with it
If Reserves and 18s can follow the seniors with no relegation and promotion, I can't see why the juniors can't also
regangrandson wrote:
ZJ you have spoken about the benefits of not divisioning teams based on results and removong that pressure from coaches to encourage them develop to method ahead of scores. I don't doubt your belief in this but you seen to not acknowledge divisioning via location for juniors as an option. Surely you don't think it is fair on SL juniors to have more games and travel extensively when that can be overcome by divisioning by location? Do you think divisioning via location is an option? If not I would be interested to hear why you yhink so.
There are probably 3-4 different structures that could be implemented, but I prefer the new proposal. It's just personal preference which I grew up on when I was a junior, and can't remember any negatives with it
If Reserves and 18s can follow the seniors with no relegation and promotion, I can't see why the juniors can't also
Interesting that there appears to be no concept of the extreme dissadvantage of travel imposed on the state league junior compares to PL juniors. Surely that is very extreme by anyone's logic. It probably doesn't mean a lot to those not inconemienced by this and I guess it may not even be on there radar. But I sat think about it and have some compassion for those having to travel the extreme distances.
Željko Jurin wrote:Rumours, dont you love them ...... Anyway If true, probably because our u16s have been playing reserves and first team
But what you're saying has no relevance to the junior league set ups anyway
Isn't 18s senior football, where there is no promotion/relegation ?
so the player telling me is a rumour and as for relevance look at why you need to take sorry offer players from SL club when you are so good at making your own and yes the SL club is playing the same system with juniors into senior sides as you are and i'm sure that a SL club approaching your juniors they would be over the moon and declining very quickly?
why any coaches need to be chasing other club players during the playing season is a joke and this is exactly the reason players need to be valued either by points, $ or putting in zones (other sports do it in the metro / country areas)
what will you current players think of being dumped and possibly having to find a spot in the SL?
could it be that PL want to eliminate any possible challenges from SL clubs by always taking the better players as often as poossible by making sure the senior sides are of a lower quality and won't be able to get promotion?
Spoke to the 18s coach yesterday, who has NOT approached anyone anywhere as he is more then happy with our current 16s who are sitting top, and the 4-5 players who will still be age appropriate.
He has been approached by a SL player, and asked if he is remaining as 18s coach
Sounds like you arent going to have a U17s this year then?
The moyesiah wrote:What was the structure back then?....Was it the haves and have nots like the current and newly proposed systems?
Yes it was called the JPL & JSL [/quote]
Difference thou is that if they get relegated to the state league, no matter all the work they have done they can't compete at JPL....That seems fair [/quote]
Since when were the FFSA fair? It doesn't affect you anyway does it? or are the few non senior JSL teams being cut?[/quote]
Whether it effects me or my club shouldn't determine if I can have an opinion :?
Watch your juniors scatter to other clubs when you are no longer JPL entitled.
Watch your juniors scatter to other clubs when you are no longer JPL entitled.
and as for relevance look at why you need to take sorry offer players from SL club when you are so good at making your own and yes the SL club is playing the same system with juniors into senior sides as you are and i'm sure that a SL club approaching your juniors they would be over the moon and declining very quickly?