TOPIC:

Moving this topic to its own thread away from the WP game one.
2016 season % of local zone talent that played League was as follows-

1. SD- 78%
2. CL- 76%
3. EF- 71%
4. SF- 65%
5. WP- 62%

6. SU- 48%
7. PT- 45%
8. PE- 41%
9. EP- 38%

All clubs should be aiming for at least 66-75% which is two thirds-three quarters being from their WAFL clubs local zone.
Anything less than 60% just isnt good enough in my books.

After Round 1-

1. CL- 81%
2. EF- 72%
3. SD- 68%
4. SF- 63%

5. PE- 54%
6. SU- 36%
7. PT- 31%
8. EP- 27%
9. WP- bye

Claremont consistently up there for playing local zone talent along with EF, SD & SF.
Perth with a host of local debutants improved their % from last year whilst Subi went even further backwards in giving a local zone lad a game.
The 2 aligned clubs EP & PT thankfully played each other to nullify their large ooz numbers with no AFL on whilst WP had the bye.

Totally agree, this shows that there needs to be an immediate reduction in the Claremont and SD junior zones to even up the massive imbalance. Several of their junior clubs need to handed over to WP EP and Subi

It was good to see 3 of the top 4 clubs who play majority local zone talent rewarded with a win last week.
Hopefully each of EF, WP & Perth can also get on the board this week with wins against those who continually snub local zone boys although at least EP & Peel have a somewhat legitimate excuse why.

Have the WAFL brought a new rule in this season that I'm unaware of?

Why is the percentage of local talent running around in each side a concern? Is it the only thing SD thinks they might have a chance of winning in 2017?

The WAFL have a points system which controls the number of imports a club can recruit and a salary cap.

Swans and West Perth have been done for salary cap infringements but have some of the highest local talent in their teams...Subi haven't been found to break the salary or points cap but have the lowest percentage (excluding alignment clubs) so what's the point you're trying to make BH? Or just having another meaningless whinge about Subi?

The topic actually came about from a poster on the WP thread who brought up the subject re WP being one of the better clubs at giving their own kids a go.
I myself as a 14s/15s/16s/Colts observer actually find it interesting to see which WAFL clubs are fostering, developing, promoting the talent in their own zone and it is a topic for others with a similar interest.
If it so badly affects you TT (even as I assume a Claremont supporter who are the leaders in this field) you do have the option of not reading it...no biggie.

Beasley Hutton wrote: I will update the local zone talent figures after this round is finished tonight but the percentages are already looking very very sad for one club (alignments aside).

Given your above comment and others on similar threads you've obviously got an issue with Subiacos %. My question is why as they've not been found to break any rules and there's no requirement to play a set % of local talent in your league side each week. You just need to play enough low point players to counteract your high point players and remain within the points cap.

Are you jealous that Subi have done this better than any other club and had a great deal of success as a result? I'd be happy if Claremont had a lower % but had won 2 or 3 extra flags over the last decade. Presume % wouldn't be an issue for you if SD were also winning more games and cemented in the top 5 each season?

Tiger Tales wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote: I will update the local zone talent figures after this round is finished tonight but the percentages are already looking very very sad for one club (alignments aside).

Given your above comment and others on similar threads you've obviously got an issue with Subiacos %. My question is why as they've not been found to break any rules and there's no requirement to play a set % of local talent in your league side each week. You just need to play enough low point players to counteract your high point players and remain within the points cap.

Are you jealous that Subi have done this better than any other club and had a great deal of success as a result? I'd be happy if Claremont had a lower % but had won 2 or 3 extra flags over the last decade. Presume % wouldn't be an issue for you if SD were also winning more games and cemented in the top 5 each season?

I think you nailed it TT but I suggest you be very careful in challenging BH as it won't be a fair fight.

Tiger Tales wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote: I will update the local zone talent figures after this round is finished tonight but the percentages are already looking very very sad for one club (alignments aside).

Given your above comment and others on similar threads you've obviously got an issue with Subiacos %. My question is why as they've not been found to break any rules and there's no requirement to play a set % of local talent in your league side each week. You just need to play enough low point players to counteract your high point players and remain within the points cap.

Are you jealous that Subi have done this better than any other club and had a great deal of success as a result? I'd be happy if Claremont had a lower % but had won 2 or 3 extra flags over the last decade. Presume % wouldn't be an issue for you if SD were also winning more games and cemented in the top 5 each season?

hit, nail, head TT...another $wan$29m supporter whinging about something that is irrelevant.

BC wrote:

Tiger Tales wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote: I will update the local zone talent figures after this round is finished tonight but the percentages are already looking very very sad for one club (alignments aside).

Given your above comment and others on similar threads you've obviously got an issue with Subiacos %. My question is why as they've not been found to break any rules and there's no requirement to play a set % of local talent in your league side each week. You just need to play enough low point players to counteract your high point players and remain within the points cap.

Are you jealous that Subi have done this better than any other club and had a great deal of success as a result? I'd be happy if Claremont had a lower % but had won 2 or 3 extra flags over the last decade. Presume % wouldn't be an issue for you if SD were also winning more games and cemented in the top 5 each season?

hit, nail, head TT...another $wan$29m supporter whinging about something that is irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant when Schofield trys to pull the wool over the casual WAFL fan by sqwarking in media interviews how $ubi have developed and blooded their own, whilst in reality that is complete horseshit and everyone knows it!