SANFL Supporters

[sverik25]

Hi guys,

I recently started taking a bit of an interest in the SANFL and WAFL and their respective clubs.

I was wondering if there are stereotypes in the SANFL like in the AFL? What are the rivalries between clubs? Do you have any stories about experiences with opposition supporters etc?

 

[chazwazza]

Biggest rivals would be Norwood/Port. Throw into the mix Sturt/Norwood and Sturt/Port. Glenelg have a good rivalry with Port and lost a few GF's to Sturt.
North Adelaide have a very proud history and won Champions of Australia in 1972 (I think) defeating Carlton.
Stereotypes-
Port- Wharfies/Swampies/Toothless/Car thieves.
Sturt- Silver Spooners, Bible Bashers. Eastern/SE suburbs (expensive).
Glenelg- Wife Swappers.
West Adelaide- Large Greek/Italian population traditionally/Catholic.
Norwood- Eastern Suburbs. No real stereotypes. Middle class/upperclass.
Central Districts- Low socio economic northern suburbs. Dole bludgers/working class/families with multiple fathers.

I'm sure I've offended enough already so I'll pass it on to someone else.

 

[Portsmeff]

West Adelaide has a significant feral bogan element, always been a down and out working class club
Centrals have quite an English soccer influence as Elizabeth had a huge English migrant base in the 60s, which is why the bulldogs supporters sing and chant through some games.
Woodville/West Torrens supporters just reek of being senile old fuddie-duddies
North Adelaide has the biggest cultural divide because of its district. The city half is quite affluent and upper class (Prospect and Medindie) yet you cross Regency Rd and the suburbs of Kilburn, Blair Athol and Enfield produced a huge feral bogan element in the 80s and 90s
Glenelg supporters to me always came across as boring middle class families from the burbs
Sturt - private school boys but throw in a bunch of cheer squad fwits who try and start fights left, right and centre

 

[sverik25]

Interesting, neither of you mentioned South Adelaide... just very run of the mill?

 

[Portsmeff]

Interesting, neither of you mentioned South Adelaide? Just very run of the mill?

South has the lowest supporter base and has never been successful, so there is nothing to report on South supporters at all. I guess you can call them a handful of homeless gypsies, although they do have a proper home ground now. The term South Adelaide was a 19th century term for the southern half of the city centre (south of Victoria Square). In the 50s and 60s they tried to create a training ground and region at St Marys (about 8kms south of city) but the southern suburbs were already dominated by Sturt and Glenelg. All home games were still played at the Adelaide Oval so they never developed any community/regional feel. They have now moved to the outer suburb of Noarlunga but its since the crows so the SANFL was then put into a minor league

 

[chazwazza]

South are a very proud club, been reasonably successful and had some great players. As mentioned, they've struggled to consolidate a community feel around their club and a solid foundation. They've done well off field since moving down to Noarlunga but seem to struggle on field and go through the coaches.

 

[grassrootsfooty]

South supporters don't actually need footy as the enjoy the more than occasional surf!!!!!

 

[saintal]

South= bloody patient, aging supporter base, with a feral element like all clubs.

chazwazza covered a few of the more typical stereotypes.

 

[NoddyHolder]

South are a very proud club, been reasonably successful and had some great players. As mentioned, they've struggled to consolidate a community feel around their club and a solid foundation. They've done well off field since moving down to Noarlunga but seem to struggle on field and go through the coaches.

Proud? really? I know quite a few South supporters (possibly most of them) and the thing they constantly lament is the lack of pride their club shows. On field it's taken superhuman coaching efforts from the likes of Neil Kerley and Hayden Bunton jr. just to achieve short lived periods of competence. As for reasonably successful - three premierships in the 20th century, two in the 30s, the last in 1964 (a sanfl record only matched in feebleness by the bays).
As a former south supporting colleague of mine once said - South Adelaide supporter's defining characteristic is absence (and who could blame them).

Glenelg supporters seem to mostly be accountants and high school science teachers still enamoured with the fashions of the 1980s.

Norwood have a combination of pompous, entitled affluent types and a traditional working/middle class italian connection.

West Torrens used to have really big support amongst greek and italian communities but it doesn't really seem to have followed across after the merger with woodville.

Read some P G Wodehouse to get a sense of Sturt supporters.

The description of the Port supporters mentioned above is way off. We're sophisticated intellectual types who ironically play up to colourful but inaccurate social stereotypes to mess with the heads of other supporters (now I'm off - the ******* rottweiler's got hold of my teeth again and I've got an appointment at centrelink in half an hour)

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Norwood have a combination of pompous, entitled affluent types and a traditional working/middle class italian connection.

Not bad on the sweeping generalizations are you? I have supported Norwood for nearly 50 years and have known many who don't fit either bill, including myself.

 

[chazwazza]

Have you read the OP AH? It's one thing that was asked about, stereotypes.

 

[NoddyHolder]

Not bad on the sweeping generalizations are you? I have supported Norwood for nearly 50 years and have known many who don't fit either bill, including myself.

i thought that the whole thread was about sweeping generalisations

 

[Tha Main Man]

what about the wafl stereotypes????

 

[sverik25]

what about the wafl stereotypes????

Try asking the WAFL board maybe.

 

[CP28]

Whilst backgrounds may well differ, the actual nature of supporters differs very little from club to club. All have their upper, middle and lower class types. All have their feral element. It's more noticeable in some clubs than others purely because they have more supporters, but I would say the ratio is about the same across all clubs. As for the backgrounds/stereotypes already listed, I'd have to say they are quite accurate overall.

 

[Norwood1878]

I could post some stories of games at Norwood oval but i'd be incriminating myself.

 

[Adz2332]

Not bad on the sweeping generalizations are you? I have supported Norwood for nearly 50 years and have known many who don't fit either bill, including myself.

Haha love how you get all up and offended by that, but you would expect me to be a toothless bogan who steals cars etc because im a Port supporter! and wouldnt bat an eye lid stating it....

 

[AJJPAFC]

Interesting, neither of you mentioned South Adelaide... just very run of the mill?

Not worth mentioning.

 

[footy4ever]

Port supporters - ****ing campaigners
Central supporters - ****ing campaigners
West supporters - ****ing campaigners
sturt supporters - ****ing campaigners
Norwood supporters ****campaigners
North supporters - ****ing campaigners
Glenelg Supporters - ****ing campaigners and South supporter bitches
Woodville/torrens - ****ing campaigners with an identity crisis
South supporters - all round good guys.
Adelaide supporters -all round good guys

 

[Dujon11]

Westies - Cheer squad is feral.
Sturt -See above
North Adelaide - Grog squad is feral
Cennal Districts - Largely irrelevant now, their end to enders were feral in the mid 2000's.
Eagles/Norwood - A lot of greasy wogs
South - Only just coming out of the woodwork, don't have an identity yet.
Port - Used to be relevant when they existed. Supporter base has jumped off.

 

[Tigerlaird]

Port supporters - ****ing campaigners
Central supporters - ****ing campaigners
West supporters - ****ing campaigners
sturt supporters - ****ing campaigners
Norwood supporters ****campaigners
North supporters - ****ing campaigners
Glenelg Supporters - ****ing campaigners and South supporter bitches
Woodville/torrens - ****ing campaigners with an identity crisis
South supporters - all round good guys.
Adelaide supporters -all round good guys

South Adelaide are the best club.

 

[SturtnAdelaide]

South has the lowest supporter base and has never been successful, so there is nothing to report on South supporters at all. I guess you can call them a handful of homeless gypsies, although they do have a proper home ground now. The term South Adelaide was a 19th century term for the southern half of the city centre (south of Victoria Square). In the 50s and 60s they tried to create a training ground and region at St Marys (about 8kms south of city) but the southern suburbs were already dominated by Sturt and Glenelg. All home games were still played at the Adelaide Oval so they never developed any community/regional feel. They have now moved to the outer suburb of Noarlunga but its since the crows so the SANFL was then put into a minor league

Many thanks for the history lesson! I mean that sincerely not sarcastically

 

[SturtnAdelaide]

Have you read the OP AH? It's one thing that was asked about, stereotypes.

What does that stand for?

 

[SturtnAdelaide]

Have you read the OP AH? It's one thing that was asked about, stereotypes.

 

[chazwazza]

What does that stand for?

OP- Original post.
AH- Adelaide Hawk who I was replying to