By The Fans - 1 May 2017 9:51 AM
I think that this model is really bad for player development. I don't even understand the theory behind it. If someone could explain it to me I'd be grateful.
I think that the quality of these U20 teams is not even close reserve grade was. Before if you were a young player who was good enough you were promoted from U19s or whatever into reserve grade, which was of a high standard, full of players pushing to get into first grade and first graders coming back from injury etc. It was a real accomplishment as a 16 or 17 year old to get into reserve grade. And the players and the quality (and more than anything the intensity) prepared you for first grade.
What I see is now that the quality between the U20s and first grade is so vast its ridiculous. Playing U20s is no accomplishment, its easy to do, its often poor. And it does not prepare young players for first grade. I would much rather a 17 year old with potential playing reserve grade back in the day than U20s of today.
Thoughts?
|
By NicCarBel - 4 May 2017 7:18 PM
+xCIn the ACT most NPL clubs have reserves in either the Capital League or SL 1 either under the same banner or a feeder club banner.
Also, the 20s NPL allows, I think its 3, overage players. I know that with the Riverina Rhinos for example (where the reserve grade is effectively the local association competition), use the 20s as a de facto reserve grade. I do know our first grade has a lot of players under 20, who dont play NPL20 (probably the main reason why our 20s side is rock bottom after 4 games)
This is where, as i mentioned in another thread, I thought there was national standards with the NPL. NPL23s would be good instead of 20s though.
|
|