Clubs unable to field three teams at season start-up.
Shocking blow-out scores, not enjoyable for losing or winning teams.
The forfeits, the ‘doubling-up’ (players turning out twice on the same day to fill teams), and matches played when one team only has 15 or 16 players.
Even more disturbing is the absence of signs of any change for the better.
Opinions on the causes are doubtless divided, but I am more interested in considering what corrective steps might be taken.
Why are under-18s retained as the third level?
Why not revert to the third games being for ages 16 and under?
Lads who pass 16 years could take the field in the reserves the following season, and the more talented would be selected in the seniors.
I began competitive footy in the Heathcote League with Rushworth in 1966 when aged 11, in the then under-15s.
At 16, I had five matches with the Tigers’ reserves, then a few seasons in the seniors.
Numbers were tight (when playing away at distant, freezing, wet and windy Tooborac) but the idea of a forfeit never arose.
These days, with lots of very junior footy, I suspect there is some burn-out for many boys approaching 18 years, but I am poorly placed to assess.
However, without an ability to retain sufficient local lads, I see more district clubs destined to merge or fold.
Loss of the local footy club is a disaster for local communities, especially for the willing and far more numerous and active netballers.
Start the conversation now in the smaller district leagues.
End the under-18s football. Back to 16 years and under.
The model worked in the 1960s and 1970s.
A change for next season cannot possibly do any harm, and might just save some clubs.
Alan McLean
Ex-Rushworth, now Queenscliff
11°C