Antrim Football Thread

[imtommygunn]

Yep I think it's a good thing. I also wonder is it to counter amalgamations as a few do seem to crop up now.

People will have different perspectives but in small rural clubs it can be near impossible to field week in week out at certain year groups and with "rural depopulation" that is certainly not helped.

[Saffsof82]

Plenty of city based clubs struggling for numbers as well as their country cousins. I think its a good initiative, should mean a game every week , and stop this cycle of postponing games because of holidays etc that then never get played. Plenty of clubs won't be affected by this, but in the lower reaches of the div2 and div3 juvenile ranks this is a great idea.

[Milltown Row2]

I don't believe the important thing is to get a match!
Why would an u16, let alone an u18 or u20 team only have 11 players?

It might not happen every week but it's obviously a concern if the rule has been worked up, considered and passed.

Whilst it's commendable to be putting the concept that players benefit from this, the reality is they don't.

There isnt too many clubs that havent had issues.. In my playing days Ive been to your club and its failed the field so I'd pipe down on the high and mighty stuff

[SaffronSports]

It's not ideal but the reality is on any panel, you will have some kids who would walk 20 miles for a match and then you will have some who can take or leave it. If you have a panel of 18-20 say, that number of kids who can't really be arsed are often the difference in getting you over that 15 mark. Lowering the number of kids needed to get a game will 100% help some teams field but there are definitely downsides to it as well, such as it being more taxing on the kids as it's still a full pitch and you usually don't have subs.

I think your clutching here

20 kids in a team at u16 up an you think at least 5 of them are not interested?
Come on

100%. Theres loads of kids not particularly interested who are playing due to needing sports for PE. Get a sunny day in the summer and that kid has the option of going to the beach, going somewhere or sit in a car for an hour to go play a match,loads choose to not go. Thats just one scenario. Loads of clubs are tight with numbers. That 18-20 players can soon dwindle.

[Milltown Row2]

It's not ideal but the reality is on any panel, you will have some kids who would walk 20 miles for a match and then you will have some who can take or leave it. If you have a panel of 18-20 say, that number of kids who can't really be arsed are often the difference in getting you over that 15 mark. Lowering the number of kids needed to get a game will 100% help some teams field but there are definitely downsides to it as well, such as it being more taxing on the kids as it's still a full pitch and you usually don't have subs.

I think your clutching here

20 kids in a team at u16 up an you think at least 5 of them are not interested?
Come on

100%. Theres loads of kids not particularly interested who are playing due to needing sports for PE. Get a sunny day in the summer and that kid has the option of going to the beach, going somewhere or sit in a car for an hour to go play a match,loads choose to not go. Thats just one scenario. Loads of clubs are tight with numbers. That 18-20 players can soon dwindle.

Numbers drop off all the time, my nephew who'd been decent enough played hurling football and soccer not bothered now, too many other more 'important' things going on at that age nowadays..

Which I find strange as we had plenty outside stuff going on, gaming was a thing, ZX spectrum before the other stuff came in, soccer was always there, bars drinking clubbing and women again all there.. Plus the summer rioting

Can we blame social media? lol

[NorthAntrimSaff]

I think were getting carried away here. Clubs with 11 names on a sheet of paper wont enter a team. Clubs with 17/18 will. Numbers drop, summer holidays, exams, injuries/illness. Get them as many games as possible. If its 15 a side and they fail to field a few times. That snowballs into the more committed saying fcuk that ill make other plans well likely not have a team anyway

[Cnoc Bán]

I think were getting carried away here. Clubs with 11 names on a sheet of paper wont enter a team. Clubs with 17/18 will. Numbers drop, summer holidays, exams, injuries/illness. Get them as many games as possible. If its 15 a side and they fail to field a few times. That snowballs into the more committed saying fcuk that ill make other plans well likely not have a team anyway

That is exactly it.

I have experienced in the past having a squad of 20-22 players but then in July maybe only have 12 or 13 available as kids are away on holidays.

It is the parents book them, not the kids so they can hardly be blamed for not being available.

And I would rather get the 12 or 13, who are willing to play, a game, rather than fail to field.

Ideally, especially in the summer, you would want to go 11 a side and have 2 subs, rather than play all 13 and run them into the ground.

[NorthAntrimSaff]

Kids of 15 to 18 are loaded with exams pre summer holidays. Its a season long problem at that age group. Same with holidays and parents booking, its a lot of the time a case of parents not allowing a child to train or play because of exams. When i was young this wasnt an issue. Education comes first with the vast majority now

[BigGreenField]

Kids of 15 to 18 are loaded with exams pre summer holidays. Its a season long problem at that age group. Same with holidays and parents booking, its a lot of the time a case of parents not allowing a child to train or play because of exams. When i was young this wasnt an issue. Education comes first with the vast majority now

I blame the populist cap on student fee's in NI ( and cost of accommodation elsewhere)

Cap on fee's, means a cap on places and with over subscription (as students try and stay close to home to save money) grades needed to get in to UU or QUB
go up so kids focus on exams.

If your u16/u18 are finding it tough it's the fault of the NI exec taking short term approach to higher education funding.

[inabsentia]

Kids of 15 to 18 are loaded with exams pre summer holidays. Its a season long problem at that age group. Same with holidays and parents booking, its a lot of the time a case of parents not allowing a child to train or play because of exams. When i was young this wasnt an issue. Education comes first with the vast majority now

I blame the populist cap on student fee's in NI ( and cost of accommodation elsewhere)

Cap on fee's, means a cap on places and with over subscription (as students try and stay close to home to save money) grades needed to get in to UU or QUB
go up so kids focus on exams.

If your u16/u18 are finding it tough it's the fault of the NI exec taking short term approach to higher education funding.

Oh please won't the NI exec take focus on getting the underage gaels togged out for their league matches by giving them another £12k worth of debt.

That has to be the most idiotic take I've seen on this board.

[johnnycool]

Then are we avoiding the issue with an impractical solution?

Why not have leagues run off prior to summer? April to end of June 
That's around 14 weeks
Say 10 fixtures
Space Allowing for exams etc

Have a summer league of maybe say 11 or 13 aside to allow some sort of games to take place without pressure, then have championship late/post Summer?

I don't envy fixture secretaries at all as with the way GCSE's and A levels are working now kids are doing exams every year from 15yo to 18yo's.
You can rule out the latter part of May and all of June for U16 and minor games nowadays.

Then you have holidays which is an absolute bollox with small squads so the option of playing down to 11 means at least some lads are getting game time rather than none at all.

[YoungSaff]

Must win game against Tip at the weekend , If we loose I'd say promotion hopes are as good as gone , as much as you'd fancy us performance will need to be a lot better than Carlow

[Dunsilly King]

I have no idea where your optimism is coming from? We were v good in the first half at winning ball, we certainly had the lions share, but we don't kick pass the ball when we are in transition mode, run the ball all the time. None of our midfielders are ball players, both look v limited on the ball, our half forwards cannot take men on in 1 v 1 situations because they lack pace. Shivers showed well in the first half, but not efficient, Doherty was efficient but didn't get much ball. Second half Clare had better players with genuine pace and as a team were much more efficient in front of goal. Our effort was good throughout and you could see the frustration creeping into the team the longer the game went. A win would be very welcomed, and the effort was there. But I am not hopeful. 

[NatSoSaff]

What are you measuring 'efficiency' by? (just out of interest).

[bannside]

What are you measuring pace by if Paddy Conor and Sean do not possess any?? All would have plenty of pace if you ask me.

And our midfielders are not ball players! What does this even mean?

Strange post DK!