|
|
Post by cigan1996 on Aug 15, 2011 16:34:26 GMT 10
Heard they are changing its to u17s and u19s thats what Mandic the poof told me ?
Is there a reason for this?
|
|
|
|
Post by paoktzi on Aug 16, 2011 3:46:59 GMT 10
I heard this to dont know but
|
|
|
|
Post by sydcro57 on Aug 16, 2011 6:53:37 GMT 10
That's the rumour doing the rounds... not sure what the justification is for that
|
|
|
|
Post by mini on Aug 16, 2011 10:56:51 GMT 10
It would be good if they change the reserve grade to u22's or something higher then u20's.
|
|
|
|
Post by cigan1996 on Aug 16, 2011 16:03:25 GMT 10
it should be u21s
does anybody have any clue why they would wanna change it ? :L
|
|
|
|
Post by sydcro57 on Aug 16, 2011 23:21:05 GMT 10
It would be good if they change the reserve grade to u22's or something higher then u20's. What benefit would that have? |
|
|
|
Post by mini on Aug 17, 2011 0:12:16 GMT 10
cause in my personal opinion, going from u20's straight into first grade is a bit much. How many kid's from the u20's go on to play Premier League First Grade? Not many at all, you'd be very lucky to have 2 of them make it through to the First Grade. They usually drop down to First Grade super league or division 1 cause the jump from reserve to first grade in premier league is to big a jump due to a 21 year still being to young or inexperienced.
|
|
|
|
Post by anothermp on Aug 17, 2011 7:22:26 GMT 10
If you're good enough tho you should be playing first grade at 17 look at petratos stamatellis triantis angel gullo
|
|
|
|
Post by sydcro57 on Aug 17, 2011 9:25:57 GMT 10
Is that an age issue or players just not being good enough?
|
|
|
|
Post by mini on Aug 17, 2011 9:54:45 GMT 10
Is that an age issue or players just not being good enough? Well it's a combination of both depending on the player. |
|
|
|
Post by sweeper on Aug 17, 2011 12:16:23 GMT 10
There is nothing wrong with the set up the way it is.
If the player is good enough, he goes through to the next level.
Of course it's hard, it's supposed too be.
That's the reason the better players go through.
|
|
|
|
Post by trifili on Aug 17, 2011 14:00:47 GMT 10
I might be talking out of line here as I haven't seen the standard of U20's compared to 1st grade Premier League but there are 20 year old winning world cups and playing for their national teams so age is not an excuse. As others have said, 'if you are good enough, you are old enough".
The problem I think is the quality of players we are producing in Australia has fallen over the past decade. You only have to look at the national team which is made up of pensioners as the next generation is simply not good enough. Our youth teams can't even beat teams like Costa Rica. This would not have happened in Les Schienflug's day for those of you who are old enough to remember. Our youth teams back then were making finals (U17's against Brazil) and semi finals (u20's in 1991 and 1993) or at least getting out of their group. Our youth teams today struggle to qualify out of Asia and if they do they are the first team knocked out at the world youth cups.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blaze on Aug 17, 2011 17:47:48 GMT 10
As has been said before, the current set up which the FFA has implemented is not one which will produce talent. It is geared towards the survival of the Gay Leaguefranchises and towards the demise of the older clubs.
|
|
|
|
Post by sydcro57 on Aug 17, 2011 20:19:03 GMT 10
Some players have the talent but might not handle the step up due to the physical differences between 20s and Seniors. However, I dont see how shielding them from that for a further 2 years will help them at all. It'll just mean they're even less prepared by the time they make the step
|
|
