By Paul Matheson – Sunraysia Football Netball League president
THERE is no excuse: All kids who want to play local footy should have the opportunity to do so.
The reality is that too many boys are sitting on the sidelines every week.
Here is the dilemma.
The SFNL has a club player registration cap of 28 players in Under 14s and 16s.
Some clubs have excess of this and some clubs have significantly less.
Now, whether this is the fault of those clubs is up for conjecture.
There is traditionally a bottleneck of kids coming from the Under 12s and these numbers do drop off as they get older and either they get less interested in sport or find other things to occupy themselves.
So, are these clubs at fault for having huge numbers due to being successful on the field, or maybe being a welcoming and inclusive club?
Or, are the clubs with low numbers and no teams in some age groups letting down their current members, players, and families by failing to attract additional numbers?
The reality is that kids want to play at a popular club and, in most instances, with their mates.
It becomes an issue when these ‘super clubs’ end up having successive byes, or no one to play against.
Even if they do make the match-day team as player 21 to 28, these kids probably don’t get much game time.
So, what is the answer?
A change in age groups to Under 13, 15 and 17s would have a small impact on junior player numbers in each group, and it could arguably strengthen the Reserves competition and build on the overall strength and sustainability of the clubs.
Having less 35-plus aged blokes doing hamstrings and sitting in the goal square in the pre-match to the seniors would undoubtedly help more by being umpire volunteers or helpers on the BBQ or gate.
Every year, the SFNL discuss this issue with clubs and while the chatter with clubs is great at the start, we never finally get the change done.
Too often, the clubs vote on their yearly numbers which is what you’d expect, but the continually disgruntled kids, parents, and clubs get louder as the year progresses.
Whatever the outcome, the change needs to be long term and not reactional to external influencers or noises popular at the time.
In the meantime, there are enough kids registered in the SFNL for every club to have a team and most clubs are relatively close in proximity.
The only exemption to this would be Ouyen United, where they are facing a shortage of young boys, geographical isolation, and realistically from the school numbers, their future looks bleak.
We understand that it is hard for presidents to turn away young players from their clubs who may in fact have a family connection or be a good player.
But to be frank, the kids not getting a game or flogging other teams in excess of 60-plus points are not developing their skills, and in the instance of the teams getting whacked, no wonder they are leaving in droves.
Where a team has more than 28 players, we need to encourage these children and parents to look for a game elsewhere, and maybe play under a junior ‘permit system’ so they are still aligned with their preferred SFNL member club.
I know that might not be popular but do we want to lose them from the sport so they can sit on the couch?
Interestingly, the AFL Wimmera area has the player numbers capped at 25, but their population is significantly less.
The mentality of clubs and parents needs to change, and it’s more than just footy development, but providing the kids the opportunity to be healthy and play competitive sport.
A supposed easy fix of playing juniors on another day is not viable as there is already of shortage of volunteers and parents willing to help.
We do not have the population growth of a Geelong or Ballarat. What we do have is a relatively strong and sustainable competition if we support our existing clubs.
If our clubs don’t have sufficient junior numbers, in the long term they won’t survive in the SFNL.
What we don’t want is a competition of maybe six clubs with matches spaced across a Saturday and Sunday to allow everyone a game.
