Not one player drafted from Central Districts

Remove this Banner Ad

Sorry, you're right. It should probably read guys that have played more than one AFL game. But you're correct Macca
 
sjt1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's daylight between AFL and SANFL but definitely not daylight between the bottom of the barrel AFL player and the better SANFL player. There are plenty of duds in the lower percentiles of the AFL but the better SANFL players are just consistent players and usually don't have a weapon or unlucky with height or lack something. You do see some guys luck out and get a gig. Considering you're a Centrals fan, someone like Stuart Cochrane is a guy who is an SANFL gamer but didn't do too much in his 50 odd games in the AFL. However, in saying there is not much between a dud AFL player and a good SANFL, it isn't really much of a relevation to most.
 
Peninsula Boy said:
It's daylight between AFL and SANFL but definitely not daylight between the bottom of the barrel AFL player and the better SANFL player. There are plenty of duds in the lower percentiles of the AFL but the better SANFL players are just consistent players and usually don't have a weapon or unlucky with height or lack something. You do see some guys luck out and get a gig. Considering you're a Centrals fan, someone like Stuart Cochrane is a guy who is an SANFL gamer but didn't do too much in his 50 odd games in the AFL. However, in saying there is not much between a dud AFL player and a good SANFL, it isn't really much of a relevation to most.
Click to expand...

I agree.

And in opening a can of worms - How much better is Nick Gill (because he is on an AFL list) than say Chambers, Perrie (I loathe to add him) Grima, Havelberg??

Not much I would say.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Agreed. As I mentioned "throw" Schell in the mix of those names also. Just because a player is on or has been on an AFL list doesn't necessarily equate to the player being even automatically in an SANFL teams starting line up. There's many examples of players (mostly young guys) playing SANFL reserves. Peninsula Boy I didn't say:

"However, in saying there is not much between a dud AFL player and a good SANFL, it isn't really much of a relevation to most."
What I said was

"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"

I don't think a player has to be a "dud" to be comparable to many SANFL players.

I'm not sure who I'd rather have out of Chambers and Gill.
 
Macca19 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You started off poorly with 'Money was no reason to play the game back then' but then slowly seem to come around to my pov at the end 'Was it because of money? Some parts yes'. Clearly you understand that, Money/resources/ability to attract and retain good players etc is what is needed for sustained success. In simple terms its money.

The myth that you had somehow found some magic gameplan is silly, because you would of used it in 1997 if it meant success. You were a big fish in a small pond, now you're the opposite in the AFL.
 
twentydollarnote said:
both doggies and port supporters want to put their success down to some magic formula for some reason....? Accept it, the reason is because of money!
Click to expand...

Talk about flogging a dead horse, re the money issue. Trying to find where either a Port supporter or a doggies supporter has put success down to some "magic formula". Can't accept it for all the obvious reasons previously mentioned.
 
As you said yourself $20, you barely saw any footy in that era. It shows. You arent talking from a position of knowledge. You're just sprouting garbage. Port were never the biggest spender in the 80s/90s. The majority of the key premiership players came from the juniors system, not ring ins from the VFL/AFL.
 
Larry the Liquidator said:
A few months ago, in a thread which has since been deleted, the current Central Districts' place in SANFL history was being debated. There were some silly enough to suggest that the Centrals of the past 10 years could be mentioned in the same breath as some of the great Port sides of the past. It was a stupid argument and only endured because some are too stubborn to want to admit when they are wrong.

Anyhow, I mentioned in that thread at the time that according to my West Adelaide supporting brother, the reason why Centrals continued to dominate was because it stacked its side with AFL rejects whereas the other SANFL clubs took the time to develop[ future stars which eventually get drafted at the national draft. Of course, some CD fans tried to refute this comment.

Did anyone bother to do a quick mental count of the clubs which lost out most in Saturday's draft? I did.

It appears WWT clearly is the big loser, followed by West Adelaide and then North Adelaide. CD, the two-time defending champions, did not have one player drafted. Not one. Have my brother's words ever rung more true than now. Now I know that Port did not have a player of its drafted either. But Port are not the current powerhouse side of the SANFL. Remember, this is a side which, according to a few Centrals fans, could give the Port sides of the early 80s, the late 80s and mid 90s a run for its money. These Port sides would lose a handful of players to the AFL every year. Yet with Centrals, not one player drafted this year. Those upcoming teams which would have challenged Centrals for the title have now been decimated at the draft, leaving the AFL reject stacked Centrals to run out next year pretty much unchallenged.

What a sad state the SANFL is in.
Click to expand...

Cant be bothered reading the entire thread so someone may have already mentioned but ...

Most draftees are kids 17-19 who have not played league footy. So a better question indicator would not be where the league team sits but how well their U18s are doing. If the U18s are doing well then there should be some kids drafted.
 
sjt1 said:
Agreed. As I mentioned "throw" Schell in the mix of those names also. Just because a player is on or has been on an AFL list doesn't necessarily equate to the player being even automatically in an SANFL teams starting line up. There's many examples of players (mostly young guys) playing SANFL reserves. Peninsula Boy I didn't say:

"However, in saying there is not much between a dud AFL player and a good SANFL, it isn't really much of a relevation to most."
What I said was

"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"

I don't think a player has to be a "dud" to be comparable to many SANFL players.

I'm not sure who I'd rather have out of Chambers and Gill.
Click to expand...

We're basically on the same train but you consider the SANFL players a touch more higher than myself. It would be interesting to see a list of all the AFL players, 720 odd, in order of talent and where the reigning Magarey medalist of the SANFL player would fit.
 
sjt1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Am I interpreting this correctly? Do you seriously take crack before you log on? You would have to be the most stupidest person on the planet.

You say the SANFL standard is good and you infer that the AFL is average.

Let me give you a lesson in comparative theory you goose.

Take the two worst teams in Aussie Rules Football, whereby they are so bad that they actually cancel each other out. In cancelling each other out, they pretty much play a close game and for idiots like you, it's exciting.

Now take the best and third best teams in Australia. The best side in the country, whichever that is, will eventually start to take control because no team is better than them. The other team will do its best to nullify it but eventually, the best team prevails. The quality is a hundred times better, but because the game is not as close, small minded people like you do not find it interesting.

You astound me.
 
No you are not interpreting me correctly, which is not surprising.

Perhaps you should ask your brother to give you an English lesson. Read my quote, (you even used my quote). It actually says " I think the standard of the SANFL is quite good." Also "I've seen some pretty average AFL games this year with some pretty poor skills displayed." Surely it's not that hard to interpret.
"I've seen some pretty average AFL games this year with some pretty poor skills displayed" . Just for you, you imbecile, what this means is: "I've seen some pretty average AFL games this year with some pretty poor skills displayed". I'm not sure how you can interpret it any differently.
As for the rest of your dribble, which you describe as a "theory", I can't see anywhere, where I mentioned a close game having anything to do with what was actually said.
Your theory is so flawed, it's laughable. Whose to say a game between the best team in the country and the third best team wouldn't be close ? Where did I say a game has to be close to be interesting? Why couldn't a game between the worst two teams be a "blow out"?
Geelong/Port GF thrashing, WCE/SYD GF close.
You poor simpleton your "comparative theory" is a crock of irrelevant s**t.
You should consider, 'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt'. You prove more with every posting what a moron you are.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

twentydollarnote said:
You started off poorly with 'Money was no reason to play the game back then' but then slowly seem to come around to my pov at the end 'Was it because of money? Some parts yes'. Clearly you understand that, Money/resources/ability to attract and retain good players etc is what is needed for sustained success. In simple terms its money.

The myth that you had somehow found some magic gameplan is silly, because you would of used it in 1997 if it meant success. You were a big fish in a small pond, now you're the opposite in the AFL.
Click to expand...

I know you've taken the simple point of view and said that money was the cause of our success. I guess the question needs to be asked: Why wasn't Norwood or Unley even Glenelg more successful than us during the 80s and 90s. They are traditionally known as the big money clubs. We are a successful club but we're not known for making huge wads of cash.

Also, I would like for you, for your own sake, to look at the quality of quantity of our junior program and the sheer amount of footballing talent that stayed on with the Magpies and who also went to other AFL clubs. It is a lot of players. Like any club, we recruited needs but our development system was second to none. Ask Sheedy if you want to use laziness as an excuse [like saying money was the reason and leaving the in-depth analysis to others]

Is the Power a small fish in a big pond now? I don't know. I think we've done well on the field. If we had a bit more luck we could've snagged another premiership losing four of our best players in our premiership window. We have a very high percentage of wins in our first ten years, a premiership, numerous finals appearances, etc. However, in regards to money, yes, we are a small fish and probably always will be - we're a football club and that's what we do, we're not into external revenue streams and all that baloney. The Crows will always be that overt footballing landscape in SA, they adopted the State colours, they have nine clubs with supporters over our one, they have the media on their sides, it's very easy to support them if you have no idea about footy. I guess the questoin that needs to be begged is that if we are, at present, financially a small fish in a big pond, why have we been such a successful side since joining the AFL, considering we don't have the massive backing of a West Coast, Adelaide or Fremantle and not a one team town like Sydney or Brisbane? Get back to me with your version of an answer and I'll tell you what the real answer is.
 
I guess the questoin that needs to be begged is that if we are, at present, financially a small fish in a big pond, why have we been such a successful side since joining the AFL, considering we don't have the massive backing of a West Coast, Adelaide or Fremantle and not a one team town like Sydney or Brisbane? Get back to me with your version of an answer and I'll tell you what the real answer is.[/QUOTE]

......because Port Adelaide came from a very strong, well organized and well administered football league, but were to big-headed, egotistcal and up themselves to know when they were ahead. And if you can't make money in the AFL, eventually you are stuffed.......
 
One other comment made on these pages challenging CD's merit in being considered as having the best run in SANFL history. There is no bloody doubt.

It has eclipsed all before it. The current AFL premiership coach has CD cred. Sturt's coach in 08 has CD credentials, and is now the Hawk's assistant coach. Hawthorn brought back CD credentialed Stuart Dew to help win their flag. No doubt about it, the current CD side would flog the Port side of the 50's, and they'd be too hard at the ball I reckon for the 60's Blues too.

If there was any chink in the CD armory in 2008 then IMO both Glenelg and Sturt were playing well enough to exploit it. They did not find one, because there wasn't one. Yet!

My belief has always been that these dominant eras are great for great leagues, because they make everyone question what they are doing and get better at what they do. Sturt delivered an improved game up to Port, and now Central have served up another one. The rest of the SANFL teams have to lift to their standard.

Who's up for the challenge? Roll on 2009. It's the club that takes up the gauntlet that Centrals will fear the most and I for one am not looking for a gifted premiership (although i'd take it if I could get it), I'd like to think that we beat the best to earn it.

Now if any team took advantage of disarray in the ranks and capitalised to win premierships out of it, i'd be putting my magnifying glass over PAFC Magpies, after announcing they'd be wanting to join the AFL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top