Having read a few articles in the papers with regards to the possible changes to the reserves grade system, this becomes an interesting question. Undoubtedly, the dees and sandy have had far and away the most successful partnership, producing three flags. The question really is, whats more important,

a) for our fringe players to be in a winning culture and playing finals footy...also being in a successful team means they have to earn their spot and game time

OR

B) is this success and commitment to winning stunting the development of our younger players who are bing blooded in the reserves...examples of this include the slow development of some of our young kids (not all) and the fact that many of our project players arent being able to play the positions that the dees intend for them. This is most pertinent with a player like newton who im sure danners would love to be playing in sautners position and learning the skills of playing full forward

Having read a few articles in the papers with regards to the possible changes to the reserves grade system, this becomes an interesting question. Undoubtedly, the dees and sandy have had far and away the most successful partnership, producing three flags. The question really is, whats more important,

a) for our fringe players to be in a winning culture and playing finals footy...also being in a successful team means they have to earn their spot and game time

OR

B) is this success and commitment to winning stunting the development of our younger players who are bing blooded in the reserves...examples of this include the slow development of some of our young kids (not all) and the fact that many of our project players arent being able to play the positions that the dees intend for them. This is most pertinent with a player like newton who im sure danners would love to be playing in sautners position and learning the skills of playing full forward

great topic DW.

I firmly believe the sandy partnership is a positive one. Some argue that because winning is seen as high priority at sandy, some of a youngsters are left rotting in the sandy 2s...i believe this is a positive thing. It means that our youngsters really have to earn their place in the team, and perform well...let's be brutally honest...if a player cant make the sandy 1sts then they probably arent good enough. And even then, there is proof that players who have played regularly in the sandy 2s, can eventually break into the 1sts and go onto the senior level. I point to Dunn and eventually Newton will also prove this...

Secondly, having a winning culture is important. The fact that many of our youngsters have tasted multiple premiership success is only a positive thing.

I would like someone to show me the Melbourne youngster who had his devlopment stunted because of Sandringham players taking their spots...

Nearly all of our picks of the last 3 years have played through Sandringham and eventually played senior level and i they are all doing fine. Bate, C.Johnson, Dunn, P.Johnson, Sylvia and Jones have all played plenty of games for sandy, and are guns now. Frawley, Mclean, Pettard and Bartram were good enough to go straight into the senior team from the under 18s, which is the exception rather than the norm. Most players need to refine their skills at sandy first.

The only players on our list who you could argue have been disadvantaged by the the sandy/melbourne affiliation are Newton and Buckley. Thye are both extremely young, and once they break into the senior team, poeple will realize that working through sandy is simply part of their devlopment to getting to the senior level. And in any case, both of them play almost full games for Sandy.

just one more thing...i think some people are too impatient. They see that Newton is a fulltime fullforward at Sandy and therefore his devlopment is being stunted...

Well he's only 19 years old. He has plenty of time to prove himself at Sandy level and then at senior level. If he plays 5 games this year, and then plays more regularly at senior level next season, this will be normal development for any fledgling fullforward.

Especially seeing as Newton probably needed more time at Sandy than most to sort out his supposed personality issues which has been much talked about. I believe that when he eventually gets his place in the senior team, he will have worked hard and earned it. He will be a more mature player for playing through sandy

i dont have time now to discuss this in detail but there is one point i wish to make.

if the option is melb/sandy or any of the other vfl relationships, id take sandy every day. while we dont have full control we have a much better relationship and its a greater environment than the other 'alliances'.

personally id like to see us have a reserves side but not if it has to be our reserves versus other vfl sides. there will be too much difference between the teams. young kids versus old hands, and not enough wisdom on our side if you get my drift.

just a thought anyway...

what about our ruck development...i havent seen much of neaves, but does he get full games at sandy?

great topic DW.

I would like someone to show me the Melbourne youngster who had his devlopment stunted because of Sandringham players taking their spots...

Nearly all of our picks of the last 3 years have played through Sandringham and eventually played senior level and i they are all doing fine. Bate, C.Johnson, Dunn, P.Johnson, Sylvia and Jones have all played plenty of games for sandy, and are guns now. Frawley, Mclean, Pettard and Bartram were good enough to go straight into the senior team from the under 18s, which is the exception rather than the norm. Most players need to refine their skills at sandy first.

Without wanting to upset the moderators (Jaded) Chris Johnson is hardly a gun. In our bleakest period in decades he couldn't break into our ordinary, injury depleted team. He can't assert himself on games and will struggle to keep his postiion on the list at years end. This is not because Sandringham have stunted his development it just doesn't seem to be working out for him and that upsets me because his old man was my favourite player.

I though Mclean played a bit of footy at Sandrinham, perhaps even won one of the premierships?

mclean did play a couple but that was all in his first year at the club. Mclean was also picked to play in the 2004 grand final but pulled out coz of a virus.

I think if we go down the path of having a reserves side again it will probably be in the same mould that Geelong use; and that is having mature reserve ONLY players playing with the senior listed recruits.

If this was the case, I can see that there are only two main differences from what we are doing now.

1. The senior coach gets to dictate where the senior listed players play. (a largely positive thing. However, FWIW playing players supposedly 'out-of-position' can only add to their overall development by teaching them new tricks and testing their flexibility)

2. The club will have to foot the bill for the second team and all its hangers-on. (a huge negative)

The negatives far out-weigh the positives as far as I can see.

In another scenario....

If the AFL go for a fully fledged, stand alone, reserves competition then I think that we will definitely lose something in the change. And that will be that the younger players will not get as much opportunity to compete against men before they are introduced into the AFL team.

A stand along reserves competiton, made up of senior listed AFL players will just end up a glorified under 21's competition.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see things change back to the 'good old days' of seniors, reserves, under 19's etc. But I don't think it will ever happen because of the cost, and the even bigger divide that would then be created between the 'have and have NOT' clubs in Victoria.

At the moment our relationship with Sandy is definitely working, and frankly could get even stronger if our recruiters worked with theirs (after the draft period) to bring some likely types to their club where we can get a closer look at them.

GO DEES and ZEBS

Without wanting to upset the moderators (Jaded) Chris Johnson is hardly a gun. In our bleakest period in decades he couldn't break into our ordinary, injury depleted team. He can't assert himself on games and will struggle to keep his postiion on the list at years end. This is not because Sandringham have stunted his development it just doesn't seem to be working out for him and that upsets me because his old man was my favourite player.

I though Mclean played a bit of footy at Sandrinham, perhaps even won one of the premierships?

I reckon he suffers from 'Paul Wheatley Syndrome' in that he is always played on the half back flank when his best position is the half forward flank.

It's probably a development thing?

Gone are the days of specialist half forward flankers like Robbo. It seems everyone needs to be able to play a running back flanker role even if they are capable in the forward half.

Go Dees

Without wanting to upset the moderators (Jaded) Chris Johnson is hardly a gun. In our bleakest period in decades he couldn't break into our ordinary, injury depleted team. He can't assert himself on games and will struggle to keep his postiion on the list at years end.

Couldn't agree more unfortunetly.

He was awesome in the NAB Cup series, which makes it even more disapointing.

He'll be gone by years end. CAC and crew would be doing well to trade him for a fourth round draft pick.

I reckon he suffers from 'Paul Wheatley Syndrome' in that he is always played on the half back flank when his best position is the half forward flank.

From what I've seen of CJ I tend to agree.

Ironic when we've played Brown forward (eg. last year when Davey was out, not v Adel last week when he was tagging McLeod) because we lack small forwards

I'm not given up on CJ yet. Too skillfull a player to let go

Just needs to get more of the pill (and get a game occasionally)

As I've pointed out before, Sandy is a club in its own right - always has been. It has its own constitution, board, staff etc.

(I was fortunate enough to start supporting both the Dees and the Zebras at the same time when I first became aware of footy as a youngster. My grandmother lived in Tennyson St Sandringham and I saw a few games early on to escape the never-ending afternoon teas and family gossip.)

The Dees and Sandy have a 'symbiotic relationship'. Sandy's first responsibility is to look after Sandy. And they've done it sensationally well. Three flags in a row tells you how well they're travelling.

I agree with your observation though. Some players on our list may be denied opportunity for a while. But I still believe the old adage - the cream will rise to the top regardless.

I'd be surprised if the AFL went back to the reserves.

As I've pointed out before, Sandy is a club in its own right - always has been. It has its own constitution, board, staff etc.

A very accurate appraisal Max B. And in my opinion this is exactly the reason why the rumblings from both within the clubs and the AFL are happening.

The media has documented the issues well.The AFL has been vocal.

In our very own backyard the CEO has been unashamedly frank and has positioned the Mfc to oppose a continuation of the current format in the long term.

On a league scale, not one club has hesitated in workshopping alternatives.

Peter Schwab, CEO of the VFL, could be singing for his supper right now.

There is, however, a hard core element amongst the VFL who would be happy to see change.

I guess I won't be opposing them.

Who actually gets to make the decision? The VFL is independent to some extent isn't it? This is a real can of worms ready to spill over. God knows what Demetriou is thinking.

How big would each AFL list become? What happens to teams like Ballarat and Tassie? How do you schedule the reserves matches on grounds already kept away from senior AFL clubs training? You don't. Who'd go and see Melbourne reserves at Casey Fields on Saturday arvo when the seniors are playing at the G. There are clearly more issues but that'll do for no

Who actually gets to make the decision? The VFL is independent to some extent isn't it? This is a real can of worms ready to spill over. God knows what Demetriou is thinking.

Look, I agree in as much as I am not privy to any proposed alternative model(s). I couldn't even say if one has been tabled, or whether they have even got that far. On the surface, it is apparent the AFL clubs are driving this forum just as much as the League. If the AFL was not an interested party to all of this , you know as well as I that they would not respond the way they have. But responded they have. And with some vigor.

So what do we supporters know so far on this subjest. A bit. Its been splashed in the media that the clubs are calling for change. The Kangaroos have confirmed in the past 2 weeks they will fly solo (is there AFL pressure of some kind there ..afterall, the AFL practically own them); Steve Harris has tabled his clubs thoughts, which don't auger well for current relations with Sandy. Demetriou is cashed up.

If things do change, I would have thought there has to be a significant degree of financial backing & responsibility from the AFL. Otherwise, poorer clubs like us would buckle at the thought of the financial implications of the alternatives. It would be totally inconceivable.

Without wanting to upset the moderators (Jaded) Chris Johnson is hardly a gun. In our bleakest period in decades he couldn't break into our ordinary, injury depleted team. He can't assert himself on games and will struggle to keep his postiion on the list at years end. This is not because Sandringham have stunted his development it just doesn't seem to be working out for him and that upsets me because his old man was my favourite player.

I though Mclean played a bit of footy at Sandrinham, perhaps even won one of the premierships?

Are you sure about CJ? Far worse players than him have played alot of footy under our current coach.