New Junior Structure 2014

[doesmyheadin]

Let me clarify my position. My suggestion is if we are to support the proposal to align the seniors and juniors, in line with FFA preference, then I think the senior teams need to be evaluated and play either PL or SL also based on junior outcomes, not simply their own season performance. Based on the current PL season Enfield would be relegated. But if their junior outcomes were considered better than say West Adelaide (who won SL) then they could retain their PL status. Clubs need to be evaluated as a whole, and not solely as a result of senior results. A fair example is Raiders. Their good results as I see it in junior development will enable seniors to remain in PL even if they ended up in a relegation place. Same applies to say a Campbelltown. Another example is perhaps a Modbury, South Adelaide or Pirates. Whilst their seniors may be close to securing promotion to PL they would only get it if junior performance is considered good enough, by an objective assessment of the criteria.

In this way we have a balanced approach where both senior and junior performance (not just league standings) confer either a PL or SL place for both seniors and juniors. Yes you will currently get some exceptions where a club has one or two (usually not more) good performing A or PL-level junior teams but seniors are struggling in the SL and hence a relegation for those good junior teams is seen as an insult to development and why some want to separate the two. But we need to see the bigger picture for the sport and not dwell on one or two supposedly disadvantaged teams here and there. As a contrast, Cobras seniors played PL this season but their juniors are mainly struggling to compete in the SL let alone play in the PL. This is also the case with White City, hence my view that White City could well be demoted from the PL given their overall weak junior performance (as I see it).

With respect to my comment about juniors leaving en-masse from a relegated side I don't think this need to happen if the club has a good support system, it is not my fear, more that of some other people, notably parents who just want their child to play in the top league. This is misguided as I mentioned, as parents/players should - by my formula - stick to clubs that have a strong junior program/performance as this will help them remain in the best competition even if seniors end up in a relegation position.

Very interesting concept and balanced approach. The irony is that good senior players may seek out well performing junior clubs that have good develoipment to play at the highest level. Bloody brilliant.

[The moyesiah]

Let me clarify my position. My suggestion is if we are to support the proposal to align the seniors and juniors, in line with FFA preference, then I think the senior teams need to be evaluated and play either PL or SL also based on junior outcomes, not simply their own season performance. Based on the current PL season Enfield would be relegated. But if their junior outcomes were considered better than say West Adelaide (who won SL) then they could retain their PL status. Clubs need to be evaluated as a whole, and not solely as a result of senior results. A fair example is Raiders. Their good results as I see it in junior development will enable seniors to remain in PL even if they ended up in a relegation place. Same applies to say a Campbelltown. Another example is perhaps a Modbury, South Adelaide or Pirates. Whilst their seniors may be close to securing promotion to PL they would only get it if junior performance is considered good enough, by an objective assessment of the criteria.

In this way we have a balanced approach where both senior and junior performance (not just league standings) confer either a PL or SL place for both seniors and juniors. Yes you will currently get some exceptions where a club has one or two (usually not more) good performing A or PL-level junior teams but seniors are struggling in the SL and hence a relegation for those good junior teams is seen as an insult to development and why some want to separate the two. But we need to see the bigger picture for the sport and not dwell on one or two supposedly disadvantaged teams here and there. As a contrast, Cobras seniors played PL this season but their juniors are mainly struggling to compete in the SL let alone play in the PL. This is also the case with White City, hence my view that White City could well be demoted from the PL given their overall weak junior performance (as I see it).

With respect to my comment about juniors leaving en-masse from a relegated side I don't think this need to happen if the club has a good support system, it is not my fear, more that of some other people, notably parents who just want their child to play in the top league. This is misguided as I mentioned, as parents/players should - by my formula - stick to clubs that have a strong junior program/performance as this will help them remain in the best competition even if seniors end up in a relegation position.

U12s struggled
U13s mid table
U14s 2nd
U15s 3rd - cup finalists
U16s 2nd
U17s struggled - semi cup finalists

I am lost as to how this is considered an overall weak junior performance

compared to ABE who ended up 2nd

U12s 4th
U13s struggled
U14s mid table
U15s struggled
U16s last
U17s 3rd

So in your world ABE should go down also?

[rossonero]

Cant believe this topic has 18 pages, and as for giancarlo, your concept will force junior coaches to win at all costs, poach good players from other clubs, all players not receiving equal time and dropping down players so all the juniors can finish high in the table just in case the seniors get relegated.
If thats the case we may aswell keep what we got

[GaylyColouredStumps]

Let me clarify my position. My suggestion is if we are to support the proposal to align the seniors and juniors, in line with FFA preference, then I think the senior teams need to be evaluated and play either PL or SL also based on junior outcomes, not simply their own season performance. Based on the current PL season Enfield would be relegated. But if their junior outcomes were considered better than say West Adelaide (who won SL) then they could retain their PL status. Clubs need to be evaluated as a whole, and not solely as a result of senior results. A fair example is Raiders. Their good results as I see it in junior development will enable seniors to remain in PL even if they ended up in a relegation place. Same applies to say a Campbelltown. Another example is perhaps a Modbury, South Adelaide or Pirates. Whilst their seniors may be close to securing promotion to PL they would only get it if junior performance is considered good enough, by an objective assessment of the criteria.

In this way we have a balanced approach where both senior and junior performance (not just league standings) confer either a PL or SL place for both seniors and juniors. Yes you will currently get some exceptions where a club has one or two (usually not more) good performing A or PL-level junior teams but seniors are struggling in the SL and hence a relegation for those good junior teams is seen as an insult to development and why some want to separate the two. But we need to see the bigger picture for the sport and not dwell on one or two supposedly disadvantaged teams here and there. As a contrast, Cobras seniors played PL this season but their juniors are mainly struggling to compete in the SL let alone play in the PL. This is also the case with White City, hence my view that White City could well be demoted from the PL given their overall weak junior performance (as I see it).

With respect to my comment about juniors leaving en-masse from a relegated side I don't think this need to happen if the club has a good support system, it is not my fear, more that of some other people, notably parents who just want their child to play in the top league. This is misguided as I mentioned, as parents/players should - by my formula - stick to clubs that have a strong junior program/performance as this will help them remain in the best competition even if seniors end up in a relegation position.

Very interesting concept and balanced approach. The irony is that good senior players may seek out well performing junior clubs that have good develoipment to play at the highest level. Bloody brilliant.

you two have serious issues

I can handle heated debate, but this is just crazy.

thanks for giving a fairly heavy and serious topic a light hearted moment.

[redfred]

I am lost as to how this is considered an overall weak junior performance

White City
Under 13 6th B division
Under 14 2nd C division
Under 15 3rd B division
Under 16 2nd B division
Under 17 10th A division

next year 1 A division team U17

[mrrombold]

I am lost as to how this is considered an overall weak junior performance

White City
Under 13 6th B division
Under 14 2nd C division
Under 15 3rd B division
Under 16 2nd B division
Under 17 10th A division

next year 1 A division team U17

El Paso and ZJ go on about results not mattering and development bla bla. And the juniors should follow the seniors bla bla. It does make sense to have coaches and kids not pressured by results over a type of football taught that will be more successful in the big picture. But then it seems that it has to be under the conditions that the juniors play the same teams although the games are on different days. This is easily achievable by having several geographic locations then spicing the end of the season op with a competitive finals series between the leading teams in each zone. Zoning on a JPL JSL system makes it easier on families and achieves the no sheep stations solution. But one sneers at it and the other says I like the other way because that what we did when I was a kid. Don't believe you are genuine in your it's all about the kids development ethos. Rather it's all about the kids so long as it suits us.

[GiancarloRed]

Always interesting to see how people interpret or maybe like to interpret things. I am not saying junior results (and league standings) are the only measure of quality/merits of a junior program, it is just one of several measures. My example of White City juniors is indicative only (for simplicity, based just on where their teams are in the junior divs, could use ABE or others as examples) but I recommend a set of indicators be used to judge junior outcomes and that clubs be compared against.

In this way top juniors say in a SL club won't rush to a PL club as they have a decent chance of being in PL with their current club. But there will always be a little player movement to clubs that are perceived at least to have a stronger junior set up and better coaches, even apart from matters like friendships etc, not too much we can do about that until the level improves in each club, say as the likes of Cove and Hills Hawks are working hard to do.

In this way we incorporate junior outcomes/progress along with senior results and related factors like ground conditions, facilities for spectators etc to determine who plays in which division, PL or SL. This to me is a fair and more balanced approach (and needs to be administered by an independent panel who do the scoring/recommendations) that can enable the senior-junior alignment. Like any system there are bound to be arguments from those that end up in SL who feel they ought to be in PL ahead of others. But if the selection process is objective and independent, and results/suggestions are made available to each club then really there is nothing to complain about. The panel's verdict and comments can be used by SL (indeed all) clubs to improve. Another benefit of this proposal is that no-one can rest on their laurels or assume just because seniors do well they will have an automatic place in PL. Every club has to prove itself each season that it (as a whole) merits PL (ie has to re-apply) and if not, is placed in SL. This sounds complicated but I don't think it will be that hard to measure once the agreed indicators are in place.

Am happy to put my proposal to the boffins at FFSA to consider.

[magnet]

To me the current system at U12 JPL is wrong. You have clubs with 3 teams at U12 age group and therefore a much larger pool of players (45 approx). These JPL teams meet clubs with only 15-16 players on their books. A classic example of that this year was Sturt Lions, Cobras against Cumberland, Birkala etc. Where is the decision made as to which clubs enter the JPL? Surely the previous years U11 should be taken into account.

[mrrombold]

Always interesting to see how people interpret or maybe like to interpret things. I am not saying junior results (and league standings) are the only measure of quality/merits of a junior program, it is just one of several measures. My example of White City juniors is indicative only (for simplicity, based just on where their teams are in the junior divs, could use ABE or others as examples) but I recommend a set of indicators be used to judge junior outcomes and that clubs be compared against.

In this way top juniors say in a SL club won't rush to a PL club as they have a decent chance of being in PL with their current club. But there will always be a little player movement to clubs that are perceived at least to have a stronger junior set up and better coaches, even apart from matters like friendships etc, not too much we can do about that until the level improves in each club, say as the likes of Cove and Hills Hawks are working hard to do.

In this way we incorporate junior outcomes/progress along with senior results and related factors like ground conditions, facilities for spectators etc to determine who plays in which division, PL or SL. This to me is a fair and more balanced approach (and needs to be administered by an independent panel who do the scoring/recommendations) that can enable the senior-junior alignment. Like any system there are bound to be arguments from those that end up in SL who feel they ought to be in PL ahead of others. But if the selection process is objective and independent, and results/suggestions are made available to each club then really there is nothing to complain about. The panel's verdict and comments can be used by SL (indeed all) clubs to improve. Another benefit of this proposal is that no-one can rest on their laurels or assume just because seniors do well they will have an automatic place in PL. Every club has to prove itself each season that it (as a whole) merits PL (ie has to re-apply) and if not, is placed in SL. This sounds complicated but I don't think it will be that hard to measure once the agreed indicators are in place.

Am happy to put my proposal to the boffins at FFSA to consider.

Different views, whos right or wrong very individual. I prefer the geographic approach. I think that it helps stop kids running around all over town to seek a more prestigious club and higher division, develops club loyalty, removes the pressure on coaches to avoid relegation if he hasn't got a strong squad so he/she can focus on the process. Also stops this idiotic situation of kids being run around from Gawler to Seaford on Sundays for 8.45am games.

A finals comp between the top couple of teams in each zone serves to provide the FFSA with performance outcomes from particular geographic zones. If the leading teams in the Northern zone are smashing aby ll the leading teams in the southern zone then where resources may need to be more heavily focused is identified. I think that the club should be given every encouragement to focus on the process and 3 zones of 10 clubs would do that. But it would surely assist the FFSA and it's development processes to have a measure of outcomes. Perhaps the finals system allows that. I don't think it unfair to say that while the STIC and all FFSA elite programs are a necessity, many kids are missed. No ones fault just the way it is. A much smarter and more highly credentialed man than me told me that only 3 current A League players came through our pathways and zero are playing for the Reds. They are plying there trade interstate. That is a poor return if accurate. If a finals system gives another opportunity for other goods kids to showcase there abilities in a confined 3 week period I see a possibility for some more talented kids to be identified also.

[johnydep]

From 2011 - viewtopic.php?f=9&t=53634 Junior development is more important than points










.

[Željko Jurin]

El Paso and ZJ go on about results not mattering and development bla bla. And the juniors should follow the seniors bla bla. It does make sense to have coaches and kids not pressured by results over a type of football taught that will be more successful in the big picture. But then it seems that it has to be under the conditions that the juniors play the same teams although the games are on different days. This is easily achievable by having several geographic locations then spicing the end of the season op with a competitive finals series between the leading teams in each zone. Zoning on a JPL JSL system makes it easier on families and achieves the no sheep stations solution. But one sneers at it and the other says I like the other way because that what we did when I was a kid. Don't believe you are genuine in your it's all about the kids development ethos. Rather it's all about the kids so long as it suits us.

Where did I say I dont agree with zoning ?
Am I not allowed to have an opinion and a preference which imo will be beneficial to the kids, the clubs and the game as a whole in the long run, just like you have an opinion and a preference ?

However I do NOT agree with relegation/promotion, which is my whole point

As for your beliefs and if I'm genuine ? ... well again, thats your opinion now which you are entitled to

[Redflag]

Good to see common sense prevail.

[GiancarloRed]

There may be some merit in a zonal based junior competition followed by playoffs but I don't see that as preferable overall to the senior-junior aligned proposal or even how things are now, apart from travel convenience. Football is not a zonal concept and FFSA needs to work with all clubs not geographic zones. Ultimately you want to develop stronger more professional clubs across the state that provide better opportunities especially for juniors. FFSA has limited capacity as has Adelaide United to do that for the clubs. Clubs need to be primarily responsible for development and model themselves (and link with) say top European clubs.

Relegation/promotion has a place within a balanced junior + senior league assessment, as you need to reward clubs that are more deserving with a PL place, and oblige everyone to continue to improve and no-one to sit on past achievements.

[Cobweb Rides Again]

This topic will go down in history as the Never Ending Story.

Zonal vs Non Zonal,
Senior Team vs Junior Team,
League Merit vs Non League Merit
win at all costs vs development

The overarching agenda is that our juniors need to play more games per season, just as our seniors have started doing this year.

Start by every team per age group has to play every other team within that age group, regardless of zone, geographics, Premier/ State League, bs, bs ,bs....

Then there will only be one winner and every one has a chance of achieving that goal.
Then once we have them used to playing that number of games we can start adjusting the system for the betterment of the game

Probably the most overlooked fact is what is best for the game here in Oz, not what suits Z's parents or Coach Y or Team X.

[GiancarloRed]

I agree with Cobweb Rides Again that this is a long thread, but it is a very important topic and sometimes long discussions lead to better solutions. Your suggestion that juniors need to play more games is not actually correct, training is more important than games for junior development. And we need to focus on player development not junior match results. That said, if the senior-junior alignment progresses then there will be more junior league games played for PL and SL teams. The main advantage I see is more training for juniors. This has implications though for clubs, coaches and fees. And yes, I think overall merit is the key factor to decide which clubs plays PL and SL.

[Cobweb Rides Again]

I'm gunna make sure this thread continues, because if as Giancarlo says more training is required then why the feck are we playing games?

I think you may have solved all the dilemmas' of this topic because we should all just train, train and train.

This will solve all problems of travel, competitiveness, pitch availability, scores, win at all costs, league admin yadda, yadda, yadda.

Here's an idea, how about we have more training by developing structures within games, competitive ones at that.

I'm pretty sure FFA have looked at what is required to compete at the top level and what is happening down through the federations and leagues.

From that, they are implementing from the bottom up 'what needs to be done' to get us to that top level.

[The Kings Jesta]

From 2011 - viewtopic.php?f=9&t=53634 Junior development is more important than points










.

Guess it wasn't an FFSA idea after all... now where that crystal ball for the lotto numbers...

[fossil]

I agree with Cobweb Rides Again that this is a long thread, but it is a very important topic and sometimes long discussions lead to better solutions. Your suggestion that juniors need to play more games is not actually correct, training is more important than games for junior development. And we need to focus on player development not junior match results. That said, if the senior-junior alignment progresses then there will be more junior league games played for PL and SL teams. The main advantage I see is more training for juniors. This has implications though for clubs, coaches and fees. And yes, I think overall merit is the key factor to decide which clubs plays PL and SL.

one needs to ask why more training when everyone is saying more game like sessions and bigger variations in speed and thinking etc for a better result on players so should we progress to 3 games a week and no training as all the clubs have pitch damage etc.

[Con M]

Michael Carter just confirmed on Coast FM radio (at 10.40 am Sunday 22/9) that the junior restructure in the discussion paper will not go ahead for 2014.

[Con M]

So, I take it that after a total of 15,136 views & 568 replies in the two topics "New Junior Structure 2014" and "2014 Junior League", I take it there is relief among many forumites that rushed implementation won't happen in 2014?

[matty2323]

So, I take it that after a total of 15,136 views & 568 replies in the two topics "New Junior Structure 2014" and "2014 Junior League", I take it there is relief among many forumites that rushed implementation won't happen in 2014?

Its not too often common sense and FFSA are used in the same sentence, but they certainly used some here. A year will allow them to hopefully cover everything in more detail and specify the set up to football here in SA, not just import set ups from states like Victoria, NSW and Queensland were theirs more kids/more funding/better facilities etc.

Im still not a huge fan of the idea, but i do want to see the "win at all costs physical approach" gone from our game, and if this is what they believe will do it, then so be it.

My personal opinion is those coaches are still going to be in charge, so we aren't really removing or improving the source. I think the first step in everything should be improved coach education and cheaper coaching courses. We want our kids to be developed etc but a lot of the coaches who "coach to win" are only doing so because they've never been taught anything else. Educate the teachers, and then let the teaches educate the students.

[Nap_65]

If the coaches are being taught the curriculum of the FFA then we should see a more of a develpoment approach rather than win at all costs!!

the win at all costs come from parents who dont understand the vision

[ikon]

I'm already hearing premier league clubs splashing cash to ensure
Premier league status... Just in case ..does the Ffsa have the ability to
Police the wages?????

At least 2 age groups should've been implemented for next year.

[GiancarloRed]

I am happy to submit my proposal to FFSA management to consider, as it seeks a way forward on the senior-junior alignment proposal which needs to get buy-in from clubs. I think what I have suggested overcomes issues like PL senior clubs 'buying' to remain in PL, as every club (esp. PL) needs to re-apply every year based on a wider set of performance criteria. Parental education about player development/broader objectives will also be easier when we remove junior promotion/relegation based on results. Coaches can focus on a player group with less likelihood of major changes (ie player leakage) from year to year. SL clubs have a clearer incentive to keep improving junior programs if wish to get into PL. Whilst I don't think more games for juniors (as per seniors) is absolutely necessary it does mean several more weeks of intensive training, which is the main upside, though some parents may not be happy with a longer season. To reduce some costs/hassles/pitch wear a longer campaign should apply just to PL and SL teams, with the reserve league (now JSL but to be renamed JL) playing a shorter season.

[Nice One Cyril]

I'm glad they've postponed it. IMO all players (juniors especially) benefit from playing against players of equal or slightly better ability, that's why we have a PL and SL, you derive very little benefit or pleasure from losing 10-0 or winning 10-0.

So why would we force juniors to do anything different? Let them find their own level or there'll be plenty of ridiculous scorelines.

[give us a break]

I'm glad they've postponed it. IMO all players (juniors especially) benefit from playing against players of equal or slightly better ability, that's why we have a PL and SL, you derive very little benefit or pleasure from losing 10-0 or winning 10-0.

So why would we force juniors to do anything different? Let them find their own level or there'll be plenty of ridiculous scorelines.

Fully agree with that. I reckon you learn most if you play with good players against good players.

[Željko Jurin]

I'm glad they've postponed it. IMO all players (juniors especially) benefit from playing against players of equal or slightly better ability, that's why we have a PL and SL, you derive very little benefit or pleasure from losing 10-0 or winning 10-0.

So why would we force juniors to do anything different? Let them find their own level or there'll be plenty of ridiculous scorelines.

Fully agree with that. I reckon you learn most if you play with good players against good players.

Gents, in which age group would this not be happening if the juniors followed their seniors ?

[Nice One Cyril]

I'm glad they've postponed it. IMO all players (juniors especially) benefit from playing against players of equal or slightly better ability, that's why we have a PL and SL, you derive very little benefit or pleasure from losing 10-0 or winning 10-0.

So why would we force juniors to do anything different? Let them find their own level or there'll be plenty of ridiculous scorelines.

Fully agree with that. I reckon you learn most if you play with good players against good players.

Gents, in which age group would this not be happening if the juniors followed their seniors ?

CBF trawling though all the data, but teams like Enfield, Playford, Salisbury, Olympic etc all have decent junior teams at some age groups. I agree that the PL clubs tend to have a wider spread of good teams, but not all. Why condemn some kids to play well below their capabilities or leave the club?

Since the junior and seniors play on different days, I'm struggling to see the logical reasoning behind the proposal, other than some jobsworth at FFA with time on his hands. "Let's see what we can shiraz with now".

It smacks of elitisim and seems like change for change's sake, not for benefit. I am open to being convinced however, so Zelks, please explain to me how this will benefit most kids.

[Željko Jurin]

No promotion and relegation for CHILDREN to worry and stress about, and no coaches and parents to go crazy about

Which comes to another question, why don't u18s and reserves have promotion and relegation and no one has ever questioned this seeing its so important ?

PS ... Wasn't I retired from this topic ?

[Nice One Cyril]

No promotion and relegation for CHILDREN to worry and stress about, and no coaches and parents to go crazy about

Which comes to another question, why don't u18s and reserves have promotion and relegation and no one has ever questioned this seeing its so important ?

PS ... Wasn't I retired from this topic ?

That one's obvious, they're part of the senior squad, play on the same day, and it would be a logistical nightmare to have them anywhere else than following the seniors.

I hear what you're saying about promotion and relegation but, IMO, at some stage in their progression, it needs to be introduced. Maybe U13s is too early and we should move it to 14s or 15s?

Pretty thin list of benefits though. I need more convincing.