TOPIC:

bease -- correct on the age question; the idea that an 18 is a good footballer is probably the biggest con job the AFL has done on the football public and, as you know, it has done many of those.

Beasley Hutton wrote: Gee fellas 26 was roughly the average age most of the WA boys headed over to the VFL and dominated that over rated comp during the halcyon years of the 70s & 80s and it would make perfect sense to pick someone up at that age with senior experience and some life skills rather than a complete gamble on untried 18yo's who may not have even plied their trade against men as yet.

Spot on Beeze, most players back then had 100+ WAFL games under their belt before being approached by VFL clubs because they wanted mature and ready to go players. It is no surprise that 80% of the current AFL players can't kick straight, lack smarts etc because they are too young. For mine the AFL are getting it horribly wrong with the current Colts set up and the push (make no mistake about it) for there to be an under 19 WAFL Comp. They consistently keep missing the alarm bells with many mature age players having an immediate impact.

clubs only played young players in large groups if they were desperate -- ie Subiaco in the third series of games, 1982. I stress the word desperate. Playing that young probably cost michael mort a long career, too, in the same way that players are burnt out in the AFL in their late 20s. What i find interesting is that the AFL seems to regard this 'burning out' process' as 'best practice' . How can this be true, or good for the player or the code?