The AFL just ‘ripped the heart out’ of its elite pathway — and clubs are livid at the ‘neglect’

AFL clubs are furious about changes to Victoria’s pathway program for elite boys after the competition underwent a controversial overhaul.

This is a particularly sensitive subject in light of the fact that the Under 18 competition was abandoned last year due to Covid19. There would be many young players going well under the radar who simply escaped identification as a result of this. Astute recruiters might be able to gain advantages for their clubs if their networks get on top of this area.

Not commenting on this issue directly, but I note the AFL was patting itself on the back over the last few days about its financial performance last year. They've done a great job managing the AFL competition and ensuring those 18 clubs are okay, but this has come at the expense of every other competition in the land. There must be a truckload of competitions and clubs, junior and senior, that won't survive another interrupted year.

Cant believe how the AFL can let the grass roots of footy down.Many competitions are struggling through no fault of their own,the Afl now put another nail in the coffin for so many.Where are the players of the future going to come from,so many other sports like soccer etc will drag them away .Local comps will cease to exist,it may seem to be not a short problem but down the track it will have a hugh impact

The story suffers from a lack of comment from the AFL to explain the changes. If Foxfooty didn't ask the AFL for comment, it's shoddy work. If the AFL was asked to comment and didn't do so, that's exceedingly poor PR and gross mismanagement of the issue.

I might be mistaken, but I can't help but view some of the comments from the nine clubs as thinly disguised misogyny. 

HQ is a drain on resources for very little obvious value. An elitist organisation the sucks up all the money for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. When covid hit a lot of the make work HQ roles were done away with. You wouldn’t have noticed. And no harm that some of the bloated coaching set-ups got pruned either. I don’t want to appear unsympathetic as real people have lost jobs but I just don’t think it’s the best use of limited funds supporting these roles.

Women’s game shows that honest endeavour, commitment and playing for the guernsey is what its all about. And they’re not paid a whole lot. I don’t blame players for seeking top dollar, i would do the same, but are million dollar contracts for some players a better use of funds compared to investing that money in the local community clubs and underage comps? Grass roots is the life blood. That’s were funds should be used. On facilities for the volunteers and supporters and coaching for the youngsters.

Its absolutely no surprise that HQ and ALFPA have looked after each other while those on the outside have been left to fend for themselves.

Rant over.

20 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

HQ is a drain on resources for very little obvious value. An elitist organisation the sucks up all the money for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. When covid hit a lot of the make work HQ roles were done away with. You wouldn’t have noticed. And no harm that some of the bloated coaching set-ups got pruned either. I don’t want to appear unsympathetic as real people have lost jobs but I just don’t think it’s the best use of limited funds supporting these roles.

Women’s game shows that honest endeavour, commitment and playing for the guernsey is what its all about. And they’re not paid a whole lot. I don’t blame players for seeking top dollar, i would do the same, but are million dollar contracts for some players a better use of funds compared to investing that money in the local community clubs and underage comps? Grass roots is the life blood. That’s were funds should be used. On facilities for the volunteers and supporters and coaching for the youngsters.

Its absolutely no surprise that HQ and ALFPA have looked after each other while those on the outside have been left to fend for themselves.

Rant over.

I worked pretty closely with hq (as a sponsor) for about 5 years and had never seen an organisation with so much unnecessary fat. That changed last year though, I think they slashed about half of their workforce

The AFL has severely neglected junior boy programs for a number of years.  It is about money, female participation at present brings in more government money, sponsors want to be linked to Female participation.  You look at every add for sport on TV it is all about female participation.

AFL has hid this issue with the drop in Male participation, they have been able to do this as over all numbers due to massive female growth keeps this hidden.  Take out Auskick numbers, from what I was told the uptake from Auskick to Junior footy in Metro Vic is something like 20%.  There is something like a 35% drop off between the age of 12 to 16 years old.

VFL has been completely stuffed up by the AFL.

As a kid you get elite coaching at the private schools, elite facilities to train at.  Local footy you get a dad and you hope that they have some idea on what they are doing, good kids wont develop heading back to local clubs to play.

The AFL should be the elite level 30 odd players on the list only.  Allow top ups for long term injuries.

Then state leagues Run seniors and U19s both male and female, VFL/WAFL/SANFL/TFL/ NSWFL/QFL, no AFL clubs, players who miss out on AFL go back to original club or in case of interstate recruits go to a nominated club.  It is simple, the AFL is just making it so complicated.  

You put a Basketball/Football/Soccer ball in a play ground at most schools in Metro Victoria and I will bet the Football will be the the least played sport on the oval.

 

"But now, each club has a boys coach who doubles as the girls coach. It’s a full-time dual role that makes it impossible for both programs to operate concurrently at full capacity. "

Well, that's just idiotic.  It basically means that on a club-by-club basis the decision of which group gets more attention will be entirely down to the personal attitude of the dual coach.  Meanwhile, focusing on the boys comes with massive incentive because a successful boy gets literally 20 times the future pay, visibility and connections.  A club/coach which did try to commit equal effort regardless of gender would be placed at a huge disadvantage for future reputation, recruiting, mentorship networks, and industry connections.

I think this is a rare moment where both supporters of the women's game and those who see it is a side-show novelty can agree that this is bad policy. The living embodiment of corporate window-dressing that actually has the opposite effect to it's claims because of the overall corporate structure.

 

Meanwhile, the part about private schools... that's been a drift for a long time and to actively make the problem worse is a disaster. Imagine a future where even the dream of playing elite football relies on having rich parents.  Imagine kids having to face that fact when they are still kids. 

 

Since it's creation as such, the AFL Corporation has continually become more like an ancient Ziggurat Temple administration.  More and more revenue is centralised because the High Priests tell us only they have the authority to use it.  More and more the actual football community which generated that revenue is expected to then be grateful when it is granted some of it's own money back.

14 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

"But now, each club has a boys coach who doubles as the girls coach. It’s a full-time dual role that makes it impossible for both programs to operate concurrently at full capacity. "

Well, that's just idiotic.  It basically means that on a club-by-club basis the decision of which group gets more attention will be entirely down to the personal attitude of the dual coach.  Meanwhile, focusing on the boys comes with massive incentive because a successful boy gets literally 20 times the future pay, visibility and connections.  A club/coach which did try to commit equal effort regardless of gender would be placed at a huge disadvantage for future reputation, recruiting, mentorship networks, and industry connections.

I think this is a rare moment where both supporters of the women's game and those who see it is a side-show novelty can agree that this is bad policy. The living embodiment of corporate window-dressing that actually has the opposite effect to it's claims because of the overall corporate structure.

 

Meanwhile, the part about private schools... that's been a drift for a long time and to actively make the problem worse is a disaster. Imagine a future where even the dream of playing elite football relies on having rich parents.  Imagine kids having to face that fact when they are still kids. 

 

Since it's creation as such, the AFL Corporation has continually become more like an ancient Ziggurat Temple administration.  More and more revenue is centralised because the High Priests tell us only they have the authority to use it.  More and more the actual football community which generated that revenue is expected to then be grateful when it is granted some of it's own money back.

Spot on LG. It wont change until there is a change to the old boys club which I doubt is any time soon.

24 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

Meanwhile, the part about private schools... that's been a drift for a long time and to actively make the problem worse is a disaster. Imagine a future where even the dream of playing elite football relies on having rich parents.  Imagine kids having to face that fact when they are still kids. 

 

There's so many private schools throwing money at their footy programs and giving scholarships to a lot of kids, so it's not entirely about having rich parents. The problem is there are 2 drafts now. The AFL draft and the private schools drafting kids at 12 or again at 15.

You can be from a very poor area but you got to get picked up at 12.

Apart from the lack of fairness it's not always a great result for the kids. Tom Scully is the classic example of a kid who was drafted in to the private school system as an elite junior and was pretty much a professional since his teens. He's burnt out at 29, and probably wasn't at his best at any stage of his AFL career.

11 minutes ago, old dee said:

Spot on LG. It wont change until there is a change to the old boys club which I doubt is any time soon.

Do you know what the worse thing is, the AFL will appoint a private firm to do a review cost millions and nothing will change.  

The AFL have a funding crisis and made cuts to juniors, I get that. They've combined the mens and womens coaches to keep the number of full time jobs.

The problem is these NAB League (ex TAC) aren't real clubs. They don't have true club infrastructure.

The far better solution is to move to the model that they have in WA and SA of the juniors being linked in the with state league sides.

That way the boys and girls can develop at the right rate. When they go up grades the coaching improves. The senior coaches set the tone for the whole club. There's ex and future AFL senior players around. The clubs have physios and doctors and so on. Those who are ready get drafted, those who miss out stay in the same pathway to work through the grades.

 

20 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

The AFL have a funding crisis and made cuts to juniors, I get that. They've combined the mens and womens coaches to keep the number of full time jobs.

The problem is these NAB League (ex TAC) aren't real clubs. They don't have true club infrastructure.

The far better solution is to move to the model that they have in WA and SA of the juniors being linked in the with state league sides.

That way the boys and girls can develop at the right rate. When they go up grades the coaching improves. The senior coaches set the tone for the whole club. There's ex and future AFL senior players around. The clubs have physios and doctors and so on. Those who are ready get drafted, those who miss out stay in the same pathway to work through the grades.

 

Yep, makes sense.  Like I posted get rid of AFL clubs in the VFL, go smaller with AFL list sizes have Werribee, Williamstown, Ballarat, Albury, Port Melbourne, Coburg, Casey, Geelong, Frankston, Sandringham in the VFL.  10 sides 18 game season top 5 gives the VFL clubs the chance to develop the region they are in. 

Get rid of Junior Interleague, leagues are assigned to VFL clubs and the players represent the VFL club at 13/14/15/16 level in round robin format to Divs 4 games each top 2 of each div play off.  This creates a pathway, at the moment it is to adhoc and sports like Basketball who absolutely milk the Rep program are a mile ahead.  

Edited February 17, 20214 yr by drdrake

2 hours ago, forever demons said:

Cant believe how the AFL can let the grass roots of footy down.

Grass roots? Chap vaguely recalls hearing the expression somewhere. Is that where they paint the lawn at our Docklands asset?  Stuff simply won't grow. All that shadow. Spray-on type of arrangement. Looks rather good from the corporate box. Chap can hardly tell the difference. Pass the brandy, there's a good chap.

There was a time, in my lifetime, when then VFL clubs had seniors, reserves, thirds and fourths (last 2 age based).

There was a structure and a path if you were good enough. The old VFA was a separate competition and had its own structure.

It is time that the now corporatised and money hungry AFL (who somehow believe that they own OUR GREAT GAME) created a similar structure to accommodate junior and senior footy development. If not, then they should get out of the way and let's find someone who will.

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

The AFL have a funding crisis and made cuts to juniors, I get that. They've combined the mens and womens coaches to keep the number of full time jobs.

The problem is these NAB League (ex TAC) aren't real clubs. They don't have true club infrastructure.

The far better solution is to move to the model that they have in WA and SA of the juniors being linked in the with state league sides.

That way the boys and girls can develop at the right rate. When they go up grades the coaching improves. The senior coaches set the tone for the whole club. There's ex and future AFL senior players around. The clubs have physios and doctors and so on. Those who are ready get drafted, those who miss out stay in the same pathway to work through the grades.

 

Its intersting you say that. last year I read an article about a review in to Australian soccer that looked to answer the question why our national team is so rubbish in comparison to the so called golden era (when we had Kewel, Viduka, Alois, Zelic etc etc).

One obvious difference was that we had better players back then, as evidenced by how many played in top leagues around the world, a number that is super low now. But why were they better then given all the elite systems and pathways that now clog up soccer?

One of the differences highlighted that Viduka etc al didn't go though elite pathways. They were not taken out of their clubs. They stayed at the junior club and played seniors and that was their pathway. I think it was Aloisi who was quoted as saying that that were able to express themselves and play with freedom, where his view that elite pathways don't encourage that an that to an extent coach flair out of players.  

The other issue is that taking the best young players out of a club robs that club of role models and talent that brings others up, perhaps young players who might not be selected in the special teams but have the ability to make it.

41 minutes ago, binman said:

Its intersting you say that. last year I read an article about a review in to Australian soccer that looked to answer the question why our national team is so rubbish in comparison to the so called golden era (when we had Kewel, Viduka, Alois, Zelic etc etc).

One obvious difference was that we had better players back then, as evidenced by how many played in top leagues around the world, a number that is super low now. But why were they better then given all the elite systems and pathways that now clog up soccer?

One of the differences highlighted that Viduka etc al didn't go though elite pathways. They were not taken out of their clubs. They stayed at the junior club and played seniors and that was their pathway. I think it was Aloisi who was quoted as saying that that were able to express themselves and play with freedom, where his view that elite pathways don't encourage that an that to an extent coach flair out of players.  

The other issue is that taking the best young players out of a club robs that club of role models and talent that brings others up, perhaps young players who might not be selected in the special teams but have the ability to make it.

The worst part for soccer is how much money parents are rorted for when they have to shell out for every development squad and camp. Just nonsense.

Coaching certainly matters but it’s the fundamental skills that are the most important. In footy that’s kick and handball on both sides, ground balls and marking. 

Apart from that appropriate physical development that shouldn’t be rushed - ban the weights and 3km time trials for the younger kids - and then just let them play. 

1 hour ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Grass roots? Chap vaguely recalls hearing the expression somewhere. Is that where they paint the lawn at our Docklands asset?  Stuff simply won't grow. All that shadow. Spray-on type of arrangement. Looks rather good from the corporate box. Chap can hardly tell the difference. Pass the brandy, there's a good chap.

Grass roots? I can see Gil now asking, "Who is Grass? And who is he rooting?"

3 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Grass roots? I can see Gil now asking, "Who is Grass? And who is he rooting?"

not another junior direct report?!??

2 hours ago, tiers said:

There was a time, in my lifetime, when then VFL clubs had seniors, reserves, thirds and fourths (last 2 age based).

There was a structure and a path if you were good enough. The old VFA was a separate competition and had its own structure.

It is time that the now corporatised and money hungry AFL (who somehow believe that they own OUR GREAT GAME) created a similar structure to accommodate junior and senior footy development. If not, then they should get out of the way and let's find someone who will.

My brother once joked that all he had to do was get a lot fitter and a lot more skilled, play a few good games in a row and get a brief promotion up a grade, then be called up another level to cover an injury, and he might just get match-up briefly on a retired AFL player who is just having a bit of fun to keep fit now.  Which basically means you've played AFL level. 

Even completely as a joke, it is a connection.  It's the idea that the AFL-level is the elite pinnacle of something, but that 'something' is the same basic notion as what everyone is doing.  It's more than just a sterile, distant product with a huge gap between spectator and 'performer' that starts being unbreachable in your early teens.

 

1 hour ago, binman said:

One of the differences highlighted that Viduka etc al didn't go though elite pathways. They were not taken out of their clubs. They stayed at the junior club and played seniors and that was their pathway.

I read that Indian cricket is organised on a similar basis. Lots of cricket at club and representative level without elite squads. Seeing as their second XI beat the aussies, their system might be worth considering.

Junior clubs connected to senior clubs and more representative competition at a higher level (say U18s allied to AFL clubs with multiple TAC cup style intrastate competitions and deferred drafts) should be considered and tried.

It's not a great recommendation but they cannot do worse than the current system.

This article isn't the one i read but is bout the same report:

https://www.espn.com.au/football/australia-aus/story/3970224/study-finds-australias-golden-generation-of-socceroos-was-an-outlier

I actually found it to be a pretty weak article. It was trying too hard to make it a big thing but it was just regurgitating the same thing different ways ..... there's less funding across the game so there are fewer resources. It spent the first half just saying all the changes were bad, without actually outlining the changes. Once we got to them, the changes were pretty hard to identify. It's an incredibly difficult article to follow, and really poorly written. Essentially, from what I can gather, the headings reflect are:

- Limited preseason: Preseason doesn't run in Jan because there is a full time coach who now coaches women and men (?). This is even though many clubs didn't have a full time coach last year anyway. It's extremely poorly written, so it's pretty hard to follow. The main concern seemed to be that SA had a camp for their top juniors but Victoria hasn't had one yet.

- Growing the female game: Exactly the same as the first heading but, inexplicably, under a new heading.

- The rich get richer: APS/AGS students play more football, which means they are exposed more than those who don't because recruiters will watch those games in preference to other local games.

- Losing the battle of the codes: Making an unlinked claim that a shorter preseason will mean that kids will choose cricket over footy. Makes a passing comment that about T20, which is clearly the reason since young athletes can now make a living in state cricket that was previously unavailable to them.

- No margin for mistakes: Essentially that the season is shorter, but also slipped in that there's an under 19 championship which gets no explanation or further reference when it seems like a major part of the equation.

- Limited club resources: Turns out there's a pandemic that has meant that sports revenues are down, so there are fewer resources. Some clubs have reduced recruiting expenses so will struggle to see as much footy as in previous years. Yep, and ....?

- Where to next: Supposition based upon not much at all. 

 

 

I really wanted to know more about what's happening this year, but the article is sooooooooo bad that it made it almost impossible to follow. I suspect that this is likely because they really don't have much to write on except for a few anecdotes and a few recruiters moaning about their jobs being harder this year based on reduced resourcing. Plus there are already a range of arguments about making 16/17 years do 4 month long preseasons in year 11 and 12.

I am none the wiser at the moment. I'm more just annoyed at the authors ..... who are ...... Tom Morris (ahhhh, ok) and Matt Balmer.

Too often, the lament is that there is not enough money and, for this reason, lesser outcomes are inevitable.

It is about time someone from the AFL or the clubs stood up and stated that we don't need more money but what we need is a change in structure/arrangements/process/organisation that will encourage development (note that this is a common failing in society generally - assuming money will fix all).

Assume that not only is there no more money but in fact there will be less. Make it work. If you can't, then get out of the way for someone else who is ready to try. Whingeing and whining is no longer acceptable.