Club History Before the Crows, there was the Redlegs

[Garibaldi Red]

West Torrens circa 1975:

On the Sunday Footy Show the day after that game, the host Max Hall who was a retired umpire tore up the rule book for the camera, because they couldn't get the count done. But it was mayhem, there were players hiding in the cheer squad (it was big enough to do it then ), running down the race, jumping the fence.

Funny to see coach Noel Teasdale puffing away on the cancer stick. Don't see that any more.

I do recall this. I think Freddy Bills was one WT player that hopped the fence into the crowd.

Ahhh, the days of the old line up before the game to get the fingernails and sprigs checked.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I do recall this. I think Freddy Bills was one WT player that hopped the fence into the crowd.

Ahhh, the days of the old line up before the game to get the fingernails and sprigs checked.

I vaguely recall John Cassin also jumping the fence and Norm Dare hiding under a cheer squad member's duffel coat.

 

[edgie]

Needs more of Butch putting a few Norwood duds down on ANZAC weekend a few years ago

 

[JimmyBeerCans]

Nord as much as we take the P155 out of them they were authentic rivals

 

[elpirate]

It's amazing how players such as Kane, Tom Logan, Jacob Surjan etc all epitomise the Port Adelaide spirit despite coming from different backgrounds

That spirit has been gone for a while now.

 

[Steve Dore]

It's amazing how players such as Kane, Tom Logan, Jacob Surjan etc all epitomise the Port Adelaide spirit despite coming from different backgrounds

That's because Ports is an inclusive club.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Just by way of example, here's the Port 1990 premiership team by origin (from memory, happy to be corrected)

David Hynes - Eyre Peninsula
Scott Hodges - Salisbury (but born to play for Port)
Gavin Wanganeen - Salisbury (but did start junior football at Port Adelaide)
Richard Foster - Vic recruit
Darren Smith - Eyre Peninsula
Wayne Mahney - Port metro zone
David Hutton - Port metro zone
Stephen Williams - son of Fos (but West zone)
Simon Tregenza - Glenelg zone (Sacred Heart)
Bruce Abernethy - Port metro zone (born in Tasmania)
Greg Phillips - Eyre Peninsula
Paul Northeast - Port metro zone
George Fiacchi - Port metro zone
Ben Harris - Tea Tree Gully
Paul Rizonico - Vic recruit (but originally born in Port Adelaide)
Russell Johnston - Vic recruit
Mark Williams - son of Fos (but West zone)
Tim Ginever - Port metro zone (English father, South American mother)
Adrian Settre - Port metro zone
Geoff Phelps - Eyre Peninsula

So we cast our net far and wide and bring into our fold the people who fit what Port Adelaide stands for.

 

[Magpiespower]

Scott Hodges - Salisbury (but born to play for Port)
Gavin Wanganeen - Salisbury (but did start junior football at Port Adelaide)

Uh-ah. They're ours. You westerners don't get to claim them, lol. No way. Nope.

Centrals fans are still (understandably) pissed off about losing Salisbury in the 1982 zone relocation.

Given the incredible footy talent at that club's disposal, including Gawler, it's remarkable it underachieved for so long.

My Dad had this theory - developed during the Hicks era - that if they'd played like the area they were from they would've been much more successful.

Reckon the crazy bastard might've been on to something.

That sexy white ensemble from the 70s & 80s, tho...

 

[70sDinosaur]

Uh-ah. They're ours. You westerners don't get to claim them, lol. No way. Nope.

Centrals fans are still (understandably) pissed off about losing Salisbury in the 1982 zone relocation.

A comment about Salisbury.

Despite being closer to Elizabeth than Alberton, I always considered Salisbury in the late 70s and early 80s to be Port Adelaide territory.

I based this opinion on two pieces of "scientific" evidence/observation.

The first was that every person I knew who lived at Salisbury at that time was a Port supporter.

The second was that whenever I travelled to Elizabeth Oval by train to watch Central-Port games, the Port supporters getting on/off the train at Salisbury station always greatly outnumbered the Central supporters.

 

[Magpiespower]

A comment about Salisbury.

Despite being closer to Elizabeth than Alberton, I always considered Salisbury in the late 70s and early 80s to be Port Adelaide territory.

I based this opinion on two pieces of "scientific" evidence/observation.

The first was that every person I knew who lived at Salisbury at that time was a Port supporter.

The second was that whenever I travelled to Elizabeth Oval by train to watch Central-Port games, the Port supporters getting on/off the train at Salisbury station always greatly outnumbered the Central supporters.

Growing up in both the 5108 & 5112 I found...

Elizabeth was just about all Centrals.

Salisbury was a pretty even split between Port & Centrals.

Every year in junior footy, half our side went to Port and the other half went to Centrals.

One dude lived across Main North Rd in Salisbury Heights so he went to North.

Later played league footy for Centrals, lol...

 

[Garibaldi Red]

Uh-ah. They're ours. You westerners don't get to claim them, lol. No way. Nope.

Centrals fans are still (understandably) pissed off about losing Salisbury in the 1982 zone relocation.

Given the incredible footy talent at that club's disposal, including Gawler, it's remarkable it underachieved for so long.

My Dad had this theory - developed during the Hicks era - that if they'd played like the area they were from they would've been much more successful.

Reckon the crazy bastard might've been on to something.

That sexy white ensemble from the 70s & 80s, tho...

I have posted before that when Centrals had the zone they did nothing for the local footy clubs, they seemed to concentrate all of their efforts on the Barossa.

As soon as Port took over there was a meeting held at the Salisbury Footy Club with representatives of all the local clubs in attendance, footy clinics with Juniors, Port training at the SNFC, and coaching courses organised.

We, the SNFC, developed some great relationships with Port officials, in particular Bob Clayton, over the years and even signed a Port player and then cleared him immediately back to #lolnorf. It's about the only official Port document,other than membership registers, that bears my name.

 

[Magpiespower]

I have posted before that when Centrals had the zone they did nothing for the local footy clubs, they seemed to concentrate all of their efforts on the Barossa.

As soon as Port took over there was a meeting held at the Salisbury Footy Club with representatives of all the local clubs in attendance, footy clinics with Juniors, Port training at the SNFC, and coaching courses organised.

We, the SNFC, developed some great relationships with Port officials, in particular Bob Clayton, over the years and even signed a Port player and then cleared him immediately back to #lolnorf. It's about the only official Port document,other than membership registers, that bears my name.

Yeah, I remember Port sent a bus down to Salisbury Oval every Friday night to pick up kids for training and drop 'em off after.

Centrals were like:

"Catch the train, ya little campaigners."

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I have posted before that when Centrals had the zone they did nothing for the local footy clubs, they seemed to concentrate all of their efforts on the Barossa.

As soon as Port took over there was a meeting held at the Salisbury Footy Club with representatives of all the local clubs in attendance, footy clinics with Juniors, Port training at the SNFC, and coaching courses organised.

We, the SNFC, developed some great relationships with Port officials, in particular Bob Clayton, over the years and even signed a Port player and then cleared him immediately back to #lolnorf. It's about the only official Port document,other than membership registers, that bears my name.

I expect it's in the book but Scott played or was named for Port in the Samboy Cup. When Centrals found out they claimed him as their own. Scott stood out of football rather than play for Centrals.

And he would qualify for Port under current father-son rules. Jeff Hodges played for Port and Woodville.

 

[RossFC]

Every time the club posts something about Scott Hodges goal in the '96 prelim I think of this Nord guys eyebrow.

 

[Zakk Wylde]

Uh-ah. They're ours. You westerners don't get to claim them, lol. No way. Nope.

Centrals fans are still (understandably) pissed off about losing Salisbury in the 1982 zone relocation.

Given the incredible footy talent at that club's disposal, including Gawler, it's remarkable it underachieved for so long.

My Dad had this theory - developed during the Hicks era - that if they'd played like the area they were from they would've been much more successful.

Reckon the crazy bastard might've been on to something.

That sexy white ensemble from the 70s & 80s, tho...

Hodges (Salisbury West)
Wanganeen (Salisbury North)

Cut off ended up being Spains Rd between the Port/Centrals zones.

I was fortunate enough to have been in Ports zone, prematurely retiring after my Samboy Cup domination.

 

[GremioPower]

Reading about Port's History, SANFL was dominated by two teams: Port and Norwood. What has happened to the Redlegs? Do they have a strong fan base? Did they lose the train of History or they could become a third SA's AFL team? Can Adelaide support three AFL teams?

Norwood's History intrigued me...

The more I look, the Crows seems to be a tactical mistake. I've said this before, but I am even more convinced of it. By letting a club representing the league as a whole to be the first VFL/AFL club from South Australia, SANFL practically killed any possibility of having three SA teams in the competition. The move had left only Port Adelaide longing for representation. After all, it was the only club that was a force by itself.

If the goal were to maximize SANFL's participation in the AFL (as it should have been), the league should have aimed at three teams. Why three? Let's consider that WWII separates different periods in SANFL history.

From after WWII up to 1990 (the last season before the Crows entered in the VFL), there were 46 seasons (so, no small sample). Considering what happened during the period, almost half a century, it could be said there had been a balance within SANFL between three forces:*

a. Port Adelaide: 17 Premierships (28 Grand Finals)
b. Norwood/Sturt: 14 (24)

- Nor., 7 (14)
- St., 7 (10)​

c. North/Glenelg/West: 12 (34)

- Nth., 6 (12)
- Glen., 3 (14)
- West, 3 (8)​

With three SA teams in the AFL, there would be one club for each of those forces that naturally emerged in SANFL during the second half of the XX Century.

In hindsight, there should have been a serious Norwood-Sturt bid in the late 80's; not in the mid 90's, and as an attempt to avoid Port's participation in the AFL. Such a bid would have had meaning within a joint effort to get three teams representing SA in the highest tier of professional Australian football. The Crows should have been the club representing North/Glenelg/West (and the other clubs*). Norwood and Sturt should have been left out of it.

Still, I used Norwood-Sturt because it actually existed as an AFL bid. If one considers the teams that played during the war, a Norwood-North bid would have worked just as fine:

b. Norwood-North: 13 (26)
c. Sturt-South/Glenelg-West: 14 (34)​

Either way, whether it were Norwood-North or Norwood-Sturt, my point remains the same — if nowadays there are only two SA clubs in the AFL, and the barracking ratio between them is 2:1, the reason would be because SANFL had three legs, but decided to put two of them together — its REDLEG with another.

---
---

* The other clubs had 3 Premierships (6 Grand Finals) combined:

- West Torrens, 2 (4);
- South, 1 (2);
- Central, and Woodville, 0 (0).
​

---
---

P.S.: I just realized something, that the other two forces, the not-Port legs, they would actually be any combination of two smaller forces out of 4:

I. Norwood, 7 (14)
II. Sturt, 7 (10)
III. North Adelaide, 6 (12)
IV. Glenelg/West Adelaide, 6 (22)

West Torrens, South, Central, and Woodville could have joined any of the chosen combinations (or Port, for that matter). Still, the balance of power would be achieved with three sides.

 

[Rising Power]

The more I look, the Crows seems to be a tactical mistake. I've said this before, but I am even more convinced of it. By letting a club representing the league as a whole to be the first VFL/AFL club from South Australia, SANFL practically killed any possibility of having three SA teams in the competition. The move had left only Port Adelaide longing for representation. After all, it was the only club that was a force by itself.

If the goal were to maximize SANFL's participation in the AFL (as it should have been), the league should have aimed at three teams. Why three? Let's consider that WWII separates different periods in SANFL history.

From after WWII up to 1990 (the last season before the Crows entered in the VFL), there were 46 seasons (so, no small sample). Considering what happened during the period, almost half a century, it could be said there had been a balance within SANFL between three forces:*

a. Port Adelaide: 17 Premierships (28 Grand Finals)
b. Norwood/Sturt: 14 (24)

- Nor., 7 (14)
- St., 7 (10)​

c. North/Glenelg/West: 12 (34)

- Nth., 6 (12)
- Glen., 3 (14)
- West, 3 (8)​

With three SA teams in the AFL, there would be one club for each of those forces that naturally emerged in SANFL during the second half of the XX Century.

In hindsight, there should have been a serious Norwood-Sturt bid in the late 80's; not in the mid 90's, and as an attempt to avoid Port's participation in the AFL. Such a bid would have had meaning within a joint effort to get three teams representing SA in the highest tier of professional Australian football. The Crows should have been the club representing North/Glenelg/West (and the other clubs*). Norwood and Sturt should have been left out of it.

Still, I used Norwood-Sturt because it actually existed as an AFL bid. If one considers the teams that played during the war, a Norwood-North bid would have worked just as fine:

b. Norwood-North: 13 (26)
c. Sturt-South/Glenelg-West: 14 (34)​

Either way, whether it were Norwood-North or Norwood-Sturt, my point remains the same — if nowadays there are only two SA clubs in the AFL, and the barracking ratio between them is 2:1, the reason would be because SANFL had three legs, but decided to put two of them together — its REDLEG with another.

---
---

* The other clubs had 3 Premierships (6 Grand Finals) combined:

- West Torrens, 2 (4);
- South, 1 (2);
- Central, and Woodville, 0 (0).
​

---
---

P.S.: I just realized something, that the other two forces, the not-Port legs, they would actually be any combination of two smaller forces out of 4:

I. Norwood, 7 (14)
II. Sturt, 7 (10)
III. North Adelaide, 6 (12)
IV. Glenelg/West Adelaide, 6 (22)

West Torrens, South, Central, and Woodville could have joined any of the chosen combinations (or Port, for that matter). Still, the balance of power would be achieved with three sides.

In those days the SANFL barely wanted one team, let alone three. Not a strategic bone in the SANFL's proverbial body until Basheer retired.

 

[Power Raid]

I feel for Norwood which was once a great club deserving of representation in the AFL.

Further the SANFL administrators allowing the crows entry should be charged for bringing the league and it history into disrepute. The value of the SANFL was the pride in past and ongoing achievements and the administrators were custodians of that asset and failed to preserve that value.

With only Port in the AFL, I feel all of SANFL history (flags, Magery Medals etc) is lost. If both Port and Norwood went onto the big stage, the two powerful clubs could continue to stand proud today and command respect for their clubs, their history and that of the SANFL. Instead we have 9/10 clubs with no reason to carry the legacy and the history.

It's a real shame for Norwood and the other clubs as they are destined to remain insignificant. Where at least Port has the opportunity to rebuild its history.

 

[GremioPower]

I enjoyed playing around with those numbers. This was my first example, complete:

1. Port, 17 (28)
2. Norwood-Sturt-South-Central, 15 (26)
3. North-Glenelg-West-WWT, 14 (36)

But my second example seems to be the most balanced, actually:

1. Port, 17 (28)
2. Norwood-North-WWT-Central, 15 (30)
3. Sturt-South-Glenelg-West, 14 (32)

If only...

 

[Lagooner]

Sorry are we talking about this Norwood?

 

[Andre]

I enjoyed playing around with those numbers. This was my first example, complete:

1. Port, 17 (28)
2. Norwood-Sturt-South-Central, 15 (26)
3. North-Glenelg-West-WWT, 14 (36)

But my second example seems to be the most balanced, actually:

1. Port, 17 (28)
2. Norwood-North-WWT-Central, 15 (30)
3. Sturt-South-Glenelg-West, 14 (32)

If only...

Except for Norwood, any other club would have required being part of a merged club. Now it might have 'just' worked with two clubs, but if you're trying to have 3 or 4, it's just a Crows lite jamming together. If it was going to be 3 SA sides, as part of the VFL over time, it would have been Port, Norwood and then a side based north of the city. Whether that was Centrals + someone or a new club who knows. However it would have been quite a few years later anyway.

The crowd numbers for Adelaide and Port, show two clubs are sustainable, but three would be pushing it. The first side in was always going to get those who weren't wedded strongly to an SANFL side, but wanted to follow the 'state', as the first side was always going to be associated with (even Port would have been considered the SA side if we'd have gotten in. At least until the second side was in and people became more 'club, not state' (something Adelaide fans still struggle with). The second side, like Port, would have gotten the smaller number not wedded to the SANFL strongly, but who didn't like the first side for any reason. There'd have been a few more for Norwood of those, then there was for Port (but that would have been offset by the first side's new supporter numbers were much higher).

 

[shewho]

Sorry are we talking about this Norwood?

View attachment 451462

Wow! As of right now, we have 117 members for each one of theirs.

We lead them by a mere 50,679.

Their membership is 0.85% of ours.

 

[GremioPower]

Except for Norwood, any other club would have required being part of a merged club. Now it might have 'just' worked with two clubs, but if you're trying to have 3 or 4, it's just a Crows lite jamming together.

I'm toying around now. Nothing to do with actual plan. I should have put Woodvile and Central with Port (nothing would change! ) to make it clearer.

If it was going to be 3 SA sides, as part of the VFL over time, it would have been Port, Norwood and then a side based north of the city. Whether that was Centrals + someone or a new club who knows. However it would have been quite a few years later anyway.

Interesting. Norwood would get support of Southerners, then? If so, that would mean representing Sturt, Glenelg, South zones, wouldn't it? The Northern club would get North and Central, with the West being up for grabs. Is that it?

The crowd numbers for Adelaide and Port, show two clubs are sustainable, but three would be pushing it.

Now, you say. Imagine that you are in 1985. SANFL is a third Northwestern (Port), a third Northeastern (Norwood-North), and a third Southern (Sturt-Glenelg-West) — or, alternatively, a third Northwestern (Port), a third Eastern (Norwood-Sturt), and a third Central (North-Glenelg-West). Those would be the six clubs that matter. West Torrens, Woodville, South, and Central would fall naturally into one of those three without changing the structure.

You are SANFL in 1985. You look at yourself and you see the balance between three forces (despite being six clubs). You know that Victoria has 11 clubs. The question you might answer is whether three Adelaide sides can be strong enough to compete against those 11.

If the answer is 'yes,' your job is to get three teams into the national league: one, lead by Port Adelaide; other, lead by Norwood and either Sturt or North; and another for the rest, lead by Sturt or North, Glenelg, and West. The "Rest of Adelaide Crows" would be the latter, but you need to make it clear that it has nothing to do with Norwood. Otherwise, you will end up with only two clubs.

The first side in was always going to get those who weren't wedded strongly to an SANFL side, but wanted to follow the 'state', as the first side was always going to be associated with (even Port would have been considered the SA side if we'd have gotten in. At least until the second side was in and people became more 'club, not state' (something Adelaide fans still struggle with).

With Port in, it would have been easier to portrait the move as a club that switched leagues. The Crows were obviously the SA representative in the national competition. Narratives would have been different, even if Port would have an advantage being in the VFL. The same would have happened if a Norwood-Sturt composite had joined it. For many, they wouldn't be "South Australia," but a "part of Adelaide."

The second side, like Port, would have gotten the smaller number not wedded to the SANFL strongly, but who didn't like the first side for any reason. There'd have been a few more for Norwood of those, then there was for Port (but that would have been offset by the first side's new supporter numbers were much higher).

The key is "representation." The Crows were founded to represent the entire South Australia National Football League. The Power, for instance, were created to represent the Port Adelaide Football Club. If it were to get the most teams into the top national league, the first club could not represent everybody. That was the mistake.

 

[simmo_bc]

My grandmothers brother won the Magarey Medal for Norwood, needless to say I come from a strong Norwood family.

Fantastic club and fantastic history, sad that their name will never be on the big stage. They 100% respect the PAFC.

Oddly enough, there is a solid core of Norwood people that follow the Power, me included. To say they all follow the Crows isn’t correct - I know of some that follow other clubs (the Dees) and some who have no interest in the AFL.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I watched Melbourne sing their club song after the semi final win tonight and sarcastically thought, hey they have stolen Norwood's song.

Then for the first time ever, I though if they ever joined the AFL they would have to change song and colours etc like we did. Many moons ago in the 1870's Melbourne's nickname was the Redlegs after an official returned from England with a set of red socks. They changed their nickname to Fuchsias a few years later and remained that way until the 1930's when their coach famously said at half time one game - stop playing like flowers and play like demons. That stuck. So maybe Norwood could stay the Redlegs.

GremioPower if Norwood had of tried to enter the AFL in 1990 either like Port tried to get in, or had the guts to say to Port and the AFL we should go in together, I'd bet just about everything I own that they would have added yellow to their red and blue and adopted the SA state footy/sporting colours.

The last 6 weeks I have been working with a guy who served 2 stints as a director of Norwood in the 1980's, got transferred to Queensland for about 6 years and then again in the 1990's and then was on a couple of committees, is a good mate of KT, lives in the same street, we have been talking footy, so maybe that's why Norwood is in my head.