I'd prefer to look at making the AFL team into a top side a priority, but whatever floats your boat.
Essendon were the reserves premiers in 1999, 1992 and 1983.
Enough said.
didn't geelong win it with chappy, stevie J et all in 2003 before they making their run on the finals the next year and getting pipped by the lions in the prelim.
That team was loaded. Ablett, Bartel, Kelly, Chapman, Johnson....pretty decent.
With bomber refusing to let any of them up until they were more rounded players. Made then earn every second of AFL time. Made them hungry and desperate.
added benefit of learning each others games by playing together too.
It's generally a harder thing to do than you'd expect. Very often the needs to a strong VFL side are in direct competition with the development needs of their aligned AFL side.
Aligned VFL sides stand and fall on the strength of their VFL listed players. The AFL listed players can never be relied on to be available cos if they're playing well they'll get called up to the ones, and the AFL listed players that you CAN rely on having available are disproportionately likely to be skinny kids straight out of the draft.
So you want a strong core of VFL listed players, but then you run into the problem that an aligned side will give an AFL listed player a game ahead of a VFL player 9 times out of 10, so a club with a lot of good VFL listed players will inevitably have a bunch who miss out on VFL games frequently and therefore are likely to look elsewhere at the end of the season. Plus the AFL side will generally want to develop kids in the position they've been drafted to play even if there is a VFL listed player who is better in that position right now, and so the VFL side's success can often be hampered by having to play skinny unready AFL-listed kids in, for example, key positions instead of solid journeyman mature-aged VFL listed blokes who are more likely to win you VFL games.
Which is why they should go back to the reserves system, cos it screws up the vfl way to much.
I also laugh still that so many thought parting ways with Bendigo would somehow fix our vfl problems. As you say the problem has way to many variables to be restricted solely to who we were aligned with. Just another example of to many people around here think one magic change is going to make everything ok again.
It's generally a harder thing to do than you'd expect. Very often the needs to a strong VFL side are in direct competition with the development needs of their aligned AFL side.
Aligned VFL sides stand and fall on the strength of their VFL listed players. The AFL listed players can never be relied on to be available cos if they're playing well they'll get called up to the ones, and the AFL listed players that you CAN rely on having available are disproportionately likely to be skinny kids straight out of the draft.
So you want a strong core of VFL listed players, but then you run into the problem that an aligned side will give an AFL listed player a game ahead of a VFL player 9 times out of 10, so a club with a lot of good VFL listed players will inevitably have a bunch who miss out on VFL games frequently and therefore are likely to look elsewhere at the end of the season. Plus the AFL side will generally want to develop kids in the position they've been drafted to play even if there is a VFL listed player who is better in that position right now, and so the VFL side's success can often be hampered by having to play skinny unready AFL-listed kids in, for example, key positions instead of solid journeyman mature-aged VFL listed blokes who are more likely to win you VFL games.
Which is why they should go back to the reserves system, cos it screws up the vfl way to much.
I also laugh still that so many thought parting ways with Bendigo would somehow fix our vfl problems. As you say the problem has way to many variables to be restricted solely to who we were aligned with. Just another example of to many people around here think one magic change is going to make everything ok again.
Going fully to a reserves system (as opposed to the 70% reserves mishmash that exists now) wouldn't help if the aligned sides can still only have 40 on the list.
The logical solution would be to bring lists back up to 45 or 50 on the main list. Would probably help extend careers, would probably improve the consistency of games as there would be less pressure to play green kids over mature players, and not too much downside as there's easily enough money in the game to go around (assuming the last 8-10 are pretty much low-end / young players).
It's generally a harder thing to do than you'd expect. Very often the needs to a strong VFL side are in direct competition with the development needs of their aligned AFL side.
Aligned VFL sides stand and fall on the strength of their VFL listed players. The AFL listed players can never be relied on to be available cos if they're playing well they'll get called up to the ones, and the AFL listed players that you CAN rely on having available are disproportionately likely to be skinny kids straight out of the draft.
So you want a strong core of VFL listed players, but then you run into the problem that an aligned side will give an AFL listed player a game ahead of a VFL player 9 times out of 10, so a club with a lot of good VFL listed players will inevitably have a bunch who miss out on VFL games frequently and therefore are likely to look elsewhere at the end of the season. Plus the AFL side will generally want to develop kids in the position they've been drafted to play even if there is a VFL listed player who is better in that position right now, and so the VFL side's success can often be hampered by having to play skinny unready AFL-listed kids in, for example, key positions instead of solid journeyman mature-aged VFL listed blokes who are more likely to win you VFL games.
Which is why they should go back to the reserves system, cos it screws up the vfl way to much.
I also laugh still that so many thought parting ways with Bendigo would somehow fix our vfl problems. As you say the problem has way to many variables to be restricted solely to who we were aligned with. Just another example of to many people around here think one magic change is going to make everything ok again.
Going fully to a reserves system (as opposed to the 70% reserves mishmash that exists now) wouldn't help if the aligned sides can still only have 40 on the list.
The logical solution would be to bring lists back up to 45 or 50 on the main list. Would probably help extend careers, would probably improve the consistency of games as there would be less pressure to play green kids over mature players, and not too much downside as there's easily enough money in the game to go around (assuming the last 8-10 are pretty much low-end / young players).
If the list expansion was to happen, might be a good time to discuss mid season drafting as a concept...
It's generally a harder thing to do than you'd expect. Very often the needs to a strong VFL side are in direct competition with the development needs of their aligned AFL side.
Aligned VFL sides stand and fall on the strength of their VFL listed players. The AFL listed players can never be relied on to be available cos if they're playing well they'll get called up to the ones, and the AFL listed players that you CAN rely on having available are disproportionately likely to be skinny kids straight out of the draft.
So you want a strong core of VFL listed players, but then you run into the problem that an aligned side will give an AFL listed player a game ahead of a VFL player 9 times out of 10, so a club with a lot of good VFL listed players will inevitably have a bunch who miss out on VFL games frequently and therefore are likely to look elsewhere at the end of the season. Plus the AFL side will generally want to develop kids in the position they've been drafted to play even if there is a VFL listed player who is better in that position right now, and so the VFL side's success can often be hampered by having to play skinny unready AFL-listed kids in, for example, key positions instead of solid journeyman mature-aged VFL listed blokes who are more likely to win you VFL games.
Which is why they should go back to the reserves system, cos it screws up the vfl way to much.
I also laugh still that so many thought parting ways with Bendigo would somehow fix our vfl problems. As you say the problem has way to many variables to be restricted solely to who we were aligned with. Just another example of to many people around here think one magic change is going to make everything ok again.
Going fully to a reserves system (as opposed to the 70% reserves mishmash that exists now) wouldn't help if the aligned sides can still only have 40 on the list.
The logical solution would be to bring lists back up to 45 or 50 on the main list. Would probably help extend careers, would probably improve the consistency of games as there would be less pressure to play green kids over mature players, and not too much downside as there's easily enough money in the game to go around (assuming the last 8-10 are pretty much low-end / young players).
If the list expansion was to happen, might be a good time to discuss mid season drafting as a concept...
Quite the opposite I would have thought.
Even as things are now, there's enough list spots that if you find yourself so strapped for personnel due to injury etc that you need a mid-season draft, then it's your own fault for ■■■■■■ list management and drafting.
If list sizes increased, there'd be even less need for a mid-season draft than there is now, cos club's would be able to keep more depth on the list as backup, so would be even less likely to need mid-season top-ups.
I really hate the mid-season draft idea, fwiw. Just another way for the AFL to prop up incompetent AFL clubs at the expense of clubs in lower leagues who've recruited and developed successfully.
But I think of it from a slightly different point of view.
Success breeds success. Get the vFL team competitive to win premierships and that experience is invaluable.
Don't believe me? Ask Geelong or Box Hill.
Geelong VFL won the premiership in 2007 (same time as AFL) and 2012
Box Hill won it in 2013 (same as AFL)
Maybe a good AFL team breeds a good VFL team too?
This is the point isn't it?
If your list stays healthy or has good depth, theres always enough decent players in the rezzie's to make a good fist of it.
Sometimes you cover the injuries enough in the seniors to go ok, but have too many unavailable to do well below.
But mainly they go hand in hand, one begets the other, and comes from how good the list is, how many stay fit, & of course how they are coached/developed while playing VFL.
I'm pretty sure it's the method used across the league & hasn't escaped the brains trust at the EFC.
I think Hams Kommer Browne Dalgliesh Thurlow all playing virtually 0 games in the 2s between them (I think Dalgliesh and Fraser might have played a couple?) hurts our ability to be a competitive side. That's almost a quarter of a side right there.
I also wonder how good Skipworth is. I will take the input of those who go to more games than I do but when watching the download of the telecasted games as well as having been over east a couple of times myself he seems to be an arm of the senior side who simply comes down and calmly dishes out instructions rather than seeming to be a real firey bloke who feels like he is a senior coach if that makes sense.
I think Hams Kommer Browne Dalgliesh Thurlow all playing virtually 0 games in the 2s between them (I think Dalgliesh and Fraser might have played a couple?) hurts our ability to be a competitive side. That's almost a quarter of a side right there.
I also wonder how good Skipworth is. I will take the input of those who go to more games than I do but when watching the download of the telecasted games as well as having been over east a couple of times myself he seems to be an arm of the senior side who simply comes down and calmly dishes out instructions rather than seeming to be a real firey bloke who feels like he is a senior coach if that makes sense.
I don't think they care overly much about his actual gameday coaching. Surely his role developing the kids & passing on Bomba & Hird's message is prioritised. I'm sure we could, and probably should, upgrade.
This might be sorta lame but wouldn't it be good to have the VFL team as a "real team" though? With a team atmosphere, fiery, quality coach and will to win. I'm sure they know winning is a good thing, but it'd be better to have it as a strong proper "seconds team" instead of being that year 6 class where the teacher hands out the work and says "all those 12 boys and girls in the advanced program you get out your special instructions and just work on your own work".
I think it's time to look at making the AFL team into a top side a priority, get in a quality experienced coach, pay for some quality recruits and start playing in some grand finals.
Agreed. Especially the bit about playing in grand finals. Maybe even winning some of them.
It's generally a harder thing to do than you'd expect. Very often the needs to a strong VFL side are in direct competition with the development needs of their aligned AFL side.
Aligned VFL sides stand and fall on the strength of their VFL listed players. The AFL listed players can never be relied on to be available cos if they're playing well they'll get called up to the ones, and the AFL listed players that you CAN rely on having available are disproportionately likely to be skinny kids straight out of the draft.
So you want a strong core of VFL listed players, but then you run into the problem that an aligned side will give an AFL listed player a game ahead of a VFL player 9 times out of 10, so a club with a lot of good VFL listed players will inevitably have a bunch who miss out on VFL games frequently and therefore are likely to look elsewhere at the end of the season. Plus the AFL side will generally want to develop kids in the position they've been drafted to play even if there is a VFL listed player who is better in that position right now, and so the VFL side's success can often be hampered by having to play skinny unready AFL-listed kids in, for example, key positions instead of solid journeyman mature-aged VFL listed blokes who are more likely to win you VFL games.
Which is why they should go back to the reserves system, cos it screws up the vfl way to much.
I also laugh still that so many thought parting ways with Bendigo would somehow fix our vfl problems. As you say the problem has way to many variables to be restricted solely to who we were aligned with. Just another example of to many people around here think one magic change is going to make everything ok again.
Going fully to a reserves system (as opposed to the 70% reserves mishmash that exists now) wouldn't help if the aligned sides can still only have 40 on the list.
The logical solution would be to bring lists back up to 45 or 50 on the main list. Would probably help extend careers, would probably improve the consistency of games as there would be less pressure to play green kids over mature players, and not too much downside as there's easily enough money in the game to go around (assuming the last 8-10 are pretty much low-end / young players).
If the list expansion was to happen, might be a good time to discuss mid season drafting as a concept...
Quite the opposite I would have thought.
Even as things are now, there's enough list spots that if you find yourself so strapped for personnel due to injury etc that you need a mid-season draft, then it's your own fault for ***** list management and drafting.
If list sizes increased, there'd be even less need for a mid-season draft than there is now, cos club's would be able to keep more depth on the list as backup, so would be even less likely to need mid-season top-ups.
I really hate the mid-season draft idea, fwiw. Just another way for the AFL to prop up incompetent AFL clubs at the expense of clubs in lower leagues who've recruited and developed successfully.
Point taken and agreed.
I hope in essence, it could mean that clubs would be willing to take more risks.