Not one player drafted from Central Districts

Remove this Banner Ad

I agree with much of what you say Macca. Those guys wanting to return to the club have been superb (generally). I did include from your list Arnott, Stevens, Gowans. I didn't include guys from the mini-draft in any examples( Stevens,Guerra, Griffin, Williams who hadn't played afl prior)nor mention that Central have had the least draft picks based on a reverse order from the premiership season. Currently subject to the rookie draft, they wont get a pick this year.
I didn't think Hay and Hayes were on AFL club lists, but you may be correct.
I also didn't include guys like Wilson, Beinkie, Waterhouse, Lyle, Poole, Weetra, Burgoyne, Carter etc probably some of these retired before 2000 anyway.
I think you're spot on though re a key to the success has been the recruitment of quality players (not often from the afl) of good character who have stayed at the club generally for more than one year. The point also is for those players to return they must have been developed and drafted in the first place.
If it were only about money though we wouldn't have missed Clayton, Butcher, Grima, Backwell etc players not developed by an SA club.
I guess also as I pointed out in a previous post many clubs have had the benefit of players, drafted locally so they can play in the local comp also. WWT three this draft alone. Skipworth in 2006 and French in 2002 were examples of this. Having said all this I agree with a lot of what you said.
 
People that are saying that port won their flags because of money is just complete horse s**t. get off the drugs.

It was because of great coaching and unmatched work ethic, belief, desire coupled with an uncompromising style of football which is a haalmark of the PAFC. Which is what makes it a successful and great club.

These qualities were most prevalent in 94 when they snatched victory from the eagles who were clearly the best side all year. And the comeback in 96 in the prelim even though norwood were completely robbed by the umpires that day. some will even argue (and rightly so) that the bays had better teams on paper in a few GF's against port...but port always came to play on the big day and would never settle for second place.

The people who are saying port are successful because of money need to stop talking s**t.
 
Angus Young said:
It was because of great coaching and unmatched work ethic, belief, desire coupled with an uncompromising style of football which is a haalmark of the PAFC. Which is what makes it a successful and great club.
Click to expand...

So why hasnt this translated into the AFL? I presume you still do want to win in the AFL right?;)

No the reason is you were a big fish in a small pond. Pop a salary cap on and a draft and theres not much between the best and worst. Work ethic, belief, desire mean nothing.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

twentydollarnote said:
So why hasnt this translated into the AFL? I presume you still do want to win in the AFL right?;)

No the reason is you were a big fish in a small pond. Pop a salary cap on and a draft and theres not much between the best and worst. Work ethic, belief, desire mean nothing.
Click to expand...

2 grand finals in 12 years, a coach with a particularly high win/loss ratio, the worst recruiting concessions of any new club, very small amount of early draft picks, you may want to actually look at things from the big picture.

You mentioned you were born in 1987, so, without sounding rude, i'd say you wouldn't have much of an appreciation for how Port dominated the competition in the 1980's. If you think its just money, then as has been mentioned by myself and others, you're way off the mark.
 
hmm your AFl success is not anything special, most new teams win a flag with the concessions they get, yours were no different you hid players in the SANFL. If anything you are known in the AFL for the opposite to what you were known in the SANFL with your poor finals efforts and short kicking, uncontested style of play. And i'll accept i didnt see any of the 80's (or most of the 90's) but if we're looking for reasons why you had success there hasnt been anyone able to come up with anything yet apart from money. It all comes down to ability to find and retain good players which then comes back to money. I'm not saying its possible to be a rich club and squander money maybe it is, but to be a successful one over a long period you need to be rich also. Your AFL performance's are evidence of this imo.
 
It might be your opinion, but i've followed football for probably 15 years longer than you, and i've certainly come across no one else would say Port's success in the past has been due to "money".
 
twentydollarnote, mate i've seen alot of footy and i'm very objective.

mate u cant really compare port back then to AFL now..the game has changed and if port played like they did back then they wouldn't get anywhere in the AFL....

i would argue that there were years and times when teams such as the bays, norwood and north all had more skillful and talented teams than port AT TIMES but port played with an un matched vigour bash and crash style of game which sometimes wasn't pretty however got them across the line on numerous occasions...they wore opposition sides down.

they also used intimidation tactics and even crossed the line (david granger). port had a win at all cost attitude and it made them feared and hated.

since the inception of the AFL the powerhouse clubs of the 80's early 90's have died in the arse both off the field and on the field...
 
Power at the body. Power at the ball. Direct football 'down the guts'. That was the Port way. Norwood, North and Glenelg sometimes had the better combinations on paper but were often guilty of overusing the ball. Come finals time it was the less complicated game plan that stood up. When Peter Rhode took over at Norwood from Neil Craig they started to play more directly and this paid dividends with a flag in 97 and a perhaps unexpected Grand Final appearance in 1999.

As a Norwood fan during the Craig and even the Balme days I'd gnash my teeth as yet again we handballed in defence or chipped around the wing. Port would go the corridor and kick the sausage roll. That is why Port were such a powerhouse. Sorry young Crows fella, but you are way off. It wasn't just about the cash or Norwood would have done a lot better than they did.

regards,

REB
 
Re: Not one player drafted from Central District

I love a fairytale too, but the reality is that there was a direct correlation between money/resources and success. Port, Norwood and Sturt were the cashed up clubs and had the largest memberships. Anyone who can't acknowledge that is beyond help. Without a salary cap in place, it was a foregone conclusion that the poor, struggling clubs like Centrals and Woodville didn't stand a chance. There's always exceptions to the rule and stories of clubs that triumphed against the odds. But more often than not, money bought success.

What makes the SANFL such an interesting animal now is the salary cap. All clubs now have substantial revenues which allow them to spend up to the salary cap - and yet Centrals still dominates. How can this be? Can it be that the SANFL has its first true, untarnished dynasty? ie. A dynasty achieved for the first time on a level playing field. Once the playing field is level, THEN we can start wondering about the character of the team that wins the flag.

I'm offended at the suggestion that Centrals somehow copied the Port model. What a load of horseshit. Centrals is NOTHING like Port. We don't cheat, intimidate or stab the other clubs in the back. That's the Port I remember.

And that's why the modern day Port in the AFL are still hated and can't achieve a sustainable supporter base. Their days in the AFL are numbered by my reckoning. I can't see the AFL - or the SANFL for that matter - tolerating the ongoing losses of the Port franchise. It's just bad business.

I wonder what Port supporters will do with all those teal scarves after Port are kicked out of the AFL. They certainly won't be wearing them to every SANFL match like they do now. :p
 
twentydollarnote said:
And i'll accept i didnt see any of the 80's (or most of the 90's) but if we're looking for reasons why you had success there hasnt been anyone able to come up with anything yet apart from money.
Click to expand...

If all you want to do is troll, go to Bay 13. You even quoted a post giving numerous legitimate reasons for the clubs success which didnt involve money. The club was nearly broke in the 80s.

The original reason for success under Fos Williams had nothing to do with money. Money was no reason to play the game back then. He brought the Victorian style of game to Port Adelaide, he played and picked players who would run throgh brick walls for the club. Thats what brought success to the club. Jack Cahill followed on that and built his own style of game that worked. His second stint of coaching, which arguably was the reason for the club getting into the AFL, there was no massive annual spending sprees picking all the talent coming to SA. It was clever with its recruiting and got players that it needed and would make an impact. The club also relied heavily on its juniors filtering through and considering the club was raided on a nearly yearly basis back in the early 90s, it needed this. The amount of high quality juniors that either forged successful careers at the highest level or played in numerous premierships at SANFL level that came through in the early-mid 90s was phenomenal.

Was it because of money? Some parts yes...but putting it all down to that is ridiculously simplistic and barking up the wrong tree.
 
Re: Not one player drafted from Central District

cam said:
What makes the SANFL such an interesting animal now is the salary cap. All clubs now have substantial revenues which allow them to spend up to the salary cap - and yet Centrals still dominates. How can this be? Can it be that the SANFL has its first true, untarnished dynasty? ie. A dynasty achieved for the first time on a level playing field. Once the playing field is level, THEN we can start wondering about the character of the team that wins the flag.
Click to expand...

Well it comes down to your belief as to whether you think it truly is a level playing field right now and whether clubs dont manipulate the salary cap. Weve already seen in recent times an SANFL club get done in successive years for deliberately breaking the salary cap, with one player showing a 'double contract' so to speak. Is paying players not much for their playing contract but paying way over award rates for players to work 1-2 days a week in the club owned hotel fair game?

I'm offended at the suggestion that Centrals somehow copied the Port model.
Click to expand...

You do realise that two of your previous coaches and your long term CEO are the ones that made this comparison, dont you? They are the ones that said they wanted to be like Port Adelaide.

What a load of horseshit. Centrals is NOTHING like Port. We don't cheat, intimidate or stab the other clubs in the back. That's the Port I remember.
Click to expand...

Cant help you being an idiot I guess.

And that's why the modern day Port in the AFL are still hated and can't achieve a sustainable supporter base. Their days in the AFL are numbered by my reckoning. I can't see the AFL - or the SANFL for that matter - tolerating the ongoing losses of the Port franchise. It's just bad business.
Click to expand...

3 losses in 12 years. Good to see you also get your facts wrong as well.
 
Re: Not one player drafted from Central District

cam said:
I love a fairytale too, but the reality is that there was a direct correlation between money/resources and success. Port, Norwood and Sturt were the cashed up clubs and had the largest memberships. Anyone who can't acknowledge that is beyond help. Without a salary cap in place, it was a foregone conclusion that the poor, struggling clubs like Centrals and Woodville didn't stand a chance. There's always exceptions to the rule and stories of clubs that triumphed against the odds. But more often than not, money bought success.

What makes the SANFL such an interesting animal now is the salary cap. All clubs now have substantial revenues which allow them to spend up to the salary cap - and yet Centrals still dominates. How can this be? Can it be that the SANFL has its first true, untarnished dynasty? ie. A dynasty achieved for the first time on a level playing field. Once the playing field is level, THEN we can start wondering about the character of the team that wins the flag.

I'm offended at the suggestion that Centrals somehow copied the Port model. What a load of horseshit. Centrals is NOTHING like Port. We don't cheat, intimidate or stab the other clubs in the back. That's the Port I remember.

And that's why the modern day Port in the AFL are still hated and can't achieve a sustainable supporter base. Their days in the AFL are numbered by my reckoning. I can't see the AFL - or the SANFL for that matter - tolerating the ongoing losses of the Port franchise. It's just bad business.

I wonder what Port supporters will do with all those teal scarves after Port are kicked out of the AFL. They certainly won't be wearing them to every SANFL match like they do now. :p
Click to expand...

One of the dumbest, ill informed rants I have seen in some time. Congratulations:thumbsu:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The thing that people fail to understand and something that does annoy me a little is that a lot of Centrals best players have never played AFL! The sole reason why they are so good is due to a LACK of players coming and going!! All the other clubs have AFL rejects coming in left right and centre, only to stay 1-2years max. Bar the mass influx in 2000, a lot of the best players are either home grown or not recruited from the AFL. Slade, McGowan in his day, Bello, C.Gowans, Hopwood, O'Sullivan, just to name a few. Others that have played AFL have often come from the club and come straight back in such as Thomas. Hardly completely new AFL rejects such as Port and South churn in and out every year.
 
Might have to edit the header for this thread. Possibly should read Port Magpies not one player drafted ?
Unfortunately (for us) Adam Varcoe taken by Geelong and Alan Obst re-drafted.
On the positive/selfish side at leat O'hara didn't get picked up, and we now get one pick in the mini draft.
 
Re: Not one player drafted from Central District

cam said:
I love a fairytale too, but the reality is that there was a direct correlation between money/resources and success. Port, Norwood and Sturt were the cashed up clubs and had the largest memberships. Anyone who can't acknowledge that is beyond help. Without a salary cap in place, it was a foregone conclusion that the poor, struggling clubs like Centrals and Woodville didn't stand a chance. There's always exceptions to the rule and stories of clubs that triumphed against the odds. But more often than not, money bought success.

What makes the SANFL such an interesting animal now is the salary cap. All clubs now have substantial revenues which allow them to spend up to the salary cap - and yet Centrals still dominates. How can this be? Can it be that the SANFL has its first true, untarnished dynasty? ie. A dynasty achieved for the first time on a level playing field. Once the playing field is level, THEN we can start wondering about the character of the team that wins the flag.

I'm offended at the suggestion that Centrals somehow copied the Port model. What a load of horseshit. Centrals is NOTHING like Port. We don't cheat, intimidate or stab the other clubs in the back. That's the Port I remember.

And that's why the modern day Port in the AFL are still hated and can't achieve a sustainable supporter base. Their days in the AFL are numbered by my reckoning. I can't see the AFL - or the SANFL for that matter - tolerating the ongoing losses of the Port franchise. It's just bad business.

I wonder what Port supporters will do with all those teal scarves after Port are kicked out of the AFL. They certainly won't be wearing them to every SANFL match like they do now. :p
Click to expand...

Only stabbings in the back happen at elizabeth oval
 
Re: Not one player drafted from Central District

As I stated in a previous thread, well done to Centrals for winning all the flags recently. Seven flags is pretty damn good. You can only do as good as the parameters given to you and they've excelled. However, the SANFL is a feeder league at best now and their team comprises of AFL has-beens, hacks and never-wouldas. Before the Cows and Power were in the AFL, players from the SANFL regularly made the All-Australian team. You can't see any Centrals player making the AFL let alone the AA team. The standard is way, way down.

Would the Gowans boys give up those premierships for even a solid year at the Saints? Would Schell want a few more years at the Cows? You'd like to think so.

I also think Centrals have been good with their young talent. I got no problem there.
 
I think not, re Gowans x 2 and Schell, they seem pretty happy. But this has all been mentioned it's now tedious and boring. One thing I would add though is I think Williams and O'Hara could succeed at AFL level. I'm glad they didn't get picked up from a selfish club perspective. I'm sure they're more talented than many that got drafted. Some draft decisions are mystifying. Only the future will tell.
I understand the SANFL is not what it once was, I just don't understand why on this forum posters continually try to belittle the comp. We all know the standard may not be as good as it may have been 20 years ago, but at the end of the day so what. I love the SANFL for what it is. Fair enough if your teams currently struggling to be competitive it could be frustrating, so I guess you have to knock the comp in some way.
 
On that note also. I think the standard of the SANFL is quite good. I've seen some pretty average AFL games this year with some pretty poor skills displayed. If the standard was so average in the SANFL, then all the ex afl players Port Magpies have got over the last 10 years should have been a level above the rest of the non ex afl players.
I don't think being on AFL list is therefore a given that the player is anything exceptional. Look through past drafts and only about 30% of players (guessing) would've played over 15 games. If the comp was so second rate, how come players when dropped often don't dominate or even stand out? Nick Gill for one was seen as pretty critical to the Crows. Yet at SANFL level he was a good player but not overly dominant.
I think the standard of the comp is good and far from easy. At least on many occasions you see a contested mark, a contested ball, and they kick forward more often than backwards
 
Fully fit and firing Nick Gill dominated the SANFL, he's just been hit with so many injuries the last 2 or 3 years. He kicked 6 goals in a qtr whilst standing Thurstans a few years ago, thats a glimpse of what he was capable of.
 
Good point sjt1, Nick Gill is a good example, most breathe a sigh of relief if he takes a mark in the danger zone because he can't kick a set shot to save his life, yet he is AFL material. (Not having a go - he is a gun player otherwise)

It seems that the real difference between AFL and the next tier is athleticism. NOT SKILLS.
The AFL guys are just football players - that is all they have to worry about, training is obviously more rigorous and they are clearly faster. Skills tend to plateau - once you know how to kick and mark etc it comes down to guts and mental state etc - you can't buy that with money.
I have seen many SANFL games that I found more entertaining than a televised AFL match because the skills are there, it’s not just about who sprints faster.
The level of effort is easily comparable, if you put a bunch of talented footballers on a ground the competitive nature of them will kick in and you will see a game.
Do people seriously think that it is AFL – and then a massive drop in quality to SANFL? That is ridiculous, it is the next tier footy competition in the nation, just think of all the unlucky talented footballers who will miss out this year alone and ask yourself whether they will suddenly be playing s**t football because they missed out on the draft.

Some players are better off in the SANFL - maybe they enjoy having a career as well as football and they want to do more than have a used car yard or pub when they retire. In the case of the Gowans - they are probably more famous playing in this league than they might have been in the AFL. I'm pretty sure Callinan traded a rookie offer at Richmond to stay at the CDFC.

As for people hanging s**t on Centrals by understating the competition - you should be asking your own clubs why they are not competitive - we all have pokies money and we are in a fairer competition than has ever existed due to the salary cap.
If it was all about money then why didn't North Adelaide even make the finals in 2008 with 2 pokies licenses?

Achieving success in the SANFL requires a holistic approach - all facets of the club need to be taken care of (coaching, player morale, marketing, facilities, sponsors, junior and local development, volunteers etc)
The CDFC have handled these things quite well lately.

Money alone doesn’t guarantee success.

The Dogs are not unbeatable – they just have the ability to find another gear at the business end of the season (they finished 3rd at the end of the minor round, well behind Glenelg)
What makes me laugh is how many wrote them off in 2008 during and after a pretty average minor round, most of our players were labelled to slow and too old, now after another flag we have some kind of unfair advantage???

NOT ONE 2008 RECRUIT PLAYED IN THE 2008 GRAND FINAL FOR CENTRAL DISTRICT AND NONE OF OUR AFL GUYS (GRIFFEN, SYMES, WESTHOFF) RETURNED TO PLAY.

Posting bullshit on forums won't win your club one game of football.

And if you think the SANFL is a waste of time - enjoy the AFL and share your opinions on the competition you actually follow.

GOUDOGS!
 
Well said Calzy. That's pretty much what I was trying to say. I agree Ebert, Gill is a very good player. What I meant was he's not that far above SANFL standard. He's a good player in the SANFL and has had some good games. Personally, I'd take Daniel Schell (who is not good enough for AFL)any day over Gill. He kicked six against Thurstans an AFL player.
Yves Sibenaler destroyed him GF 2007, but as you say he probably wasn't 100% fit, looked to be struggling with a shoulder injury.
Central struggle to get ex afl players as recruits (with the exception of returnees). They've been unable to get any in the last five to 7 years, including this year. So far they've got a young Tasmanian (I think he's about 19), Sansbury returning and maybe Jenner from Port (who's played country footy for a year). These three are to replace about 5 experienced retirees. but it will create further opportunities for the young guys Moss, Ohara etc to come through the grades. The salary cap and pay demands from ex afl de-listed players has evened up the comp. If this weren't the case Central would go "hell for leather" after any quality ex afl player like Birss, Grima etc, instead of getting none.
 
Yeah, I don't think people are intentionally knocking the SANFL because their teams aren't doing as well as Centrals. In your post, you actually stated:

We all know the standard may not be as good as it may have been 20 years ago, but at the end of the day so what.

To many people that is a big deal and people want to watch the best players in the land against each other. To be truthful, it's the AFL then daylight then the SANFL.

I also thought Gill was a good prospect when I saw him in 2005 and would've have minded taking him in the draft [we got Westhoff instead and I've been happy with that] but Gill did stand out in the games I saw him playing for North taking big grabs. I don't know how you define ''AFL material'' but he is struggling to keep his spot in his team and gets a place because the Cows forward line is a debacle more than anything. Good luck to him though.
 
I think if people want to watch the best players in the land play each other, then they wont be watching the SANFL nowadays.
I guess my definition of AFL material is a player that plays AFL. I'm not knocking Gill. I don't mind him as a player. If just for his determination and second efforts.
My point is I don't think it's daylight between many of the players in an AFL team (say not in the top 12 best) and the SANFL. When dropped they don't just cruise through the SANFL and dominate. Justin Westhoff is another good example, when dropped this year he played well at Elizabeth, but he didn't dominate. By that I mean there wasn't daylight between Westhoff and his opposition (I think it was Achee). Between teams/competitions, I agree. As should be expected.
 
sjt1 said:
Central struggle to get ex afl players as recruits (with the exception of returnees). They've been unable to get any in the last five to 7 years, including this year. So far they've got a young Tasmanian (I think he's about 19), Sansbury returning and maybe Jenner from Port (who's played country footy for a year). These three are to replace about 5 experienced retirees. but it will create further opportunities for the young guys Moss, Ohara etc to come through the grades. The salary cap and pay demands from ex afl de-listed players has evened up the comp. If this weren't the case Central would go "hell for leather" after any quality ex afl player like Birss, Grima etc, instead of getting none.
Click to expand...

Again, youve got to get your facts right. Both Hayes and Shaw are ex-AFL players that youve recruited in the last couple of years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top