The Coburg Alliance - helping or hindering our list development???

[Peaka]

On site there has been much support for the club maximising the use of the rookie list. I support this as long as there are available rookies that have the potential to be AFL players and we do not draft rookies just for the sake of it. IMHO the rookie list is a cheap way of getting a look at more players who might make it and we should take advantage of it. In addition it aso seems that we shoudl use it more on players that are likely to develop more slowly especially KPP's and Ruckman as it should (not always) be easier to pick midfielders who will make it through the normal draft.

My concern with this approach however is that if we fill all the rookie spots then we will go forward with a list of 44 (as pointed out by Rosy on another thread). I understand that due to AFL rules the Coburg Senior team only wants to utilise 12 Richmond listed players in any one match. If all on the list are fit then this means that the last 12 players on our list on any weekend will be playing in the seconds. I query whether this may hinder the development of our juniors/rookies as the level of VFL seconds isn't too flash.

Your thoughts people.

 

[TOT70]

At any club, many younger players are 18 or 19 and are not ready to play against the big boys, whether they are on AFL lists or not. Each club has quite a few boys who play VFL reserves for part or all of the season, it doesn't hurt them.

The problem at Coburg last year was that the Coburg players were generally not that good and the teams with stronger VFL contingents overpowered them.

To properly develop our young players we need to help Coburg become stronger, this will lift the standard across the board for the organisation. Having several rookies will help, even if they spend a great deal of time in the reserves. It should follow that no-one gets a game at Richmond unless they earn it, nor should they get a game at Coburg unless they earn it also.

The limit of 11 or 12 players (or whatever it is) is only in place for finals. Last year both Bendigo and the Bullants flaunted this rule because they wanted to develop their AFL players and this was the only way the VFL team could win as their VFL contingents were ordinary. That is why those two clubs did well during the season but were overpowered in the finals.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

The limit of 11 or 12 players (or whatever it is) is only in place for finals.

Im pretty sure TOT that Rich & Cob have an agreement outside the VFL rules in regards to how many Rich listed players can play in the senior side for Coburg[pending injuries to Coburg listed players].
I can understand the reasoning behind it as far as trying to preserve the Coburg identity and attract players who are not on anf AFL list.

 

[TOT70]

The limit of 11 or 12 players (or whatever it is) is only in place for finals.

Im pretty sure TOT that Rich & Cob have an agreement outside the VFL rules in regards to how many Rich listed players can play in the senior side for Coburg[pending injuries to Coburg listed players].
I can understand the reasoning behind it as far as trying to preserve the Coburg identity and attract players who are not on anf AFL list.

Don't see that as a problem. The younger players will benefit from playing in Coburg reserves providing Coburg has a reasonable squad. The problem last year was that the senior Coburg players were barely competitive and the reserves squad was beaten soundly in nearly every game.

The task is to get Coburg's list up to scratch so that players are still getting a game on merit.

As an example someone like Adam Houlihan last year was a better player than someone like Limbach and should have been playing seniors at Coburg. Limbach should go past Houlihan next year if he puts on a few kilos and improves his skills. If he can't displace Houlihan from the goal square next year then he will be out.

Coburg needs more AFL rejects or 20-22 year olds who have not quite made it yet who can put pressure on the RIchmond listed players for their positions. It can work, as other clubs have shown.

The Kangaroos/Port Melb alliance didn't work because Port are probably a stronger and better supported club than the identity-challenged Kangaroos. They want to call their own shots! Coburg presents different problems, the chief one being no money.

 

[Rosy]

Having reserves gives a club far more control of future development of players than having to sharefarm players in the VFL but it wasn't financially viable was it? I presume that's why it stopped.
Wouldn't mind the curtain raisers back at the G either.
Bring back the reserves. ;D

 

[Dean3]

Without a return of the ressies, I don't see much of an alternative to a Coburg-style arrangement. It ain't ideal, but it's the best we can do at the moment.

 

[pahoffm]

Just on the first part of your point, Peaka, I reckon that the rookie list is a more viable way of doing things than late picks.

Rather than having to make a full coomitment to a marginal choice via the National Draft, a better alternative is the Rookie Draft.

A club gets one year to put a few marginal choices under the microscope. At the end of the year the club can make a full commitment to those worthy.

A great system, methinks.

 

[Phar Ace]

Just on the first part of your point, Peaka, I reckon that the rookie list is a more viable way of doing things than late picks.

Rather than having to make a full coomitment to a marginal choice via the National Draft, a better alternative is the Rookie Draft.

A club gets one year to put a few marginal choices under the microscope. At the end of the year the club can make a full commitment to those worthy.

A great system, methinks.

Agree with you Phanto. With no "Reserve Grade" but rather VFL alliances, the best way to grow your own (footballers, Struggler - not the other stuff ;D) is through an expanded Rookie List. Whereas once there were what? - 50 something players on a list to fill 40 team places each week (22/18), plus U19's, now we have what, 38, plus rookies, to fill 22 and a committment to Coburg of what 12 or so. Many clubs have experience 10 injury outs at one time these days - makes for slim pickings - next we'll be selecting Evo for a call up :hihi

It would be great for clubs to be able to double the number of Rookies.

 

[Scoop]

Just on the first part of your point, Peaka, I reckon that the rookie list is a more viable way of doing things than late picks.

Rather than having to make a full coomitment to a marginal choice via the National Draft, a better alternative is the Rookie Draft.

A club gets one year to put a few marginal choices under the microscope. At the end of the year the club can make a full commitment to those worthy.

A great system, methinks.

Spot on. If PRE was Starwars, Phantom would be Yoda.

 

[tigertim]

Put simply Peaka if anyone is good enough they'll play in the seniors, either the Coburg seniors or the Richmond team. But having said that I'd prefer a Richmond reserves side but it's just that this option is too expensive (from memory it's $50k for an alliance team and $250k for a proper reserves team)

 

[TT33]

IMO the RFC Coburg type arrangement is better than what kangaroos are going with next season. Splitting between 2 clubs could get quite messy.
Having said that, tha W A & S A AFL clubs split their "extras" between 3 clubs in the WAFL & SANFL & they've done ok since they've been in the AFL

 

[Harry]

clubs are completely stupid not to take a full compliment of rookies each year. Go short on your list if you must but have a full rookie list. Just common sense as phanto says - have a year to look at the kids under the microscope and keep the ones that show something and ship off the others. Simple, but we just don't seem to understand this.

 

[craig]

Unfortunately the RFC has nowhere else to go except spend money on going it alone and we cant do that.
That said last year hurt the youngsters from RFC being played out of position and benched too often.
Not to mention the Coburg list was a disgrace and had more duds in it than a Westco jean shop.

 

[dcstar]

clubs are completely stupid not to take a full compliment of rookies each year. Go short on your list if you must but have a full rookie list. Just common sense as phanto says - have a year to look at the kids under the microscope and keep the ones that show something and ship off the others. Simple, but we just don't seem to understand this.

You can't "go short" on your list, there is a minimum of 38 on the Primary List and you can sneak up to 2 more by having a couple of players on your Veterans List (but you lose two Rookie spots if you do).

Of course, you could cut back on the payments to your Primary List players to have the finances available to afford more Rookie players, but that is tough when the club loses money and doesn't seem capable of managing itself in a manner which will allow us to go down the path of more Rookies.

 

[TOT70]

IMO the RFC Coburg type arrangement is better than what kangaroos are going with next season. Splitting between 2 clubs could get quite messy.
Having said that, tha W A & S A AFL clubs split their "extras" between 3 clubs in the WAFL & SANFL & they've done ok since they've been in the AFL

The SA/WA clubs have a huge advantage by doing this. THey can have three or four young talls on their list and have them all play key positions for their local side, hastening their progress. The Vic sides can only have one or two play as key position players, the rest are used as third talls or left out altogether for team balance.

Haven't you been wondering why all of a sudden, Adelaide "discovered" Hentscell, Ruttten, Bock and Jericho all at the same time and WC did the same with McDougall, Staker, HAnsen and Lynch the year before?

Imagine how quickly Pattison, McGuane, Moore, Thusfield and Limbach would come on if they all played CHF/CHB for different VFL teams for a couple of years!

 

[Inspector]

With Andy Collins coming on board to coach Coburg hopefully he can better guide the RFC listed players better than previous coaches will wait & see.

 

[Ian4]

being a staunch williamstown supporter all my life i think it's definately a hinderance. you have to play for a team with the yellow sash!!!

i actually think the VFL has done downhill since the reserves were scrapped. the old VFA was so much more interesting to watch... watching saade ghazi, roo muschelli, barry round and the like was sensational!!! who could forget billly swan's goal in the 1990 grand final???

i haven't watched a VFL game in years let alone go to one. i'd be surprised if crowds are as high now as they were 10 years ago...

 

[Scoop]

IMO the RFC Coburg type arrangement is better than what kangaroos are going with next season. Splitting between 2 clubs could get quite messy.
Having said that, tha W A & S A AFL clubs split their "extras" between 3 clubs in the WAFL & SANFL & they've done ok since they've been in the AFL

The SA/WA clubs have a huge advantage by doing this.  THey can have three or four young talls on their list and have them all play key positions for their local side, hastening their progress.  The Vic sides can only have one or two play as key position players, the rest are used as third talls or left out altogether for team balance.

Haven't you been wondering why all of a sudden, Adelaide "discovered" Hentscell, Ruttten, Bock and Jericho all at the same time and WC did the same with McDougall, Staker, HAnsen and Lynch the year before?

Imagine how quickly Pattison, McGuane, Moore, Thusfield and Limbach would come on if they all played CHF/CHB for different VFL teams for a couple of years!

Great point, very big advantage never even thoguht of that way. Well done TO.