The first 8 years compared

[Daz^]

Interesting stats.
I got sick of being told by Power supporters how much more successful they would be because they are a real team with history and tradition, how they would have had more then just 2 flags if they had started in 1991, how crap the crows were during the first years. Now after they have been in the comp a while I still hear from the supporters how much better they have performed and the showdown tally etc so I decided to have a look at some stats which I found interesting.

1st year Crows won 10, power won 10
2nd year Crows won 11, Power won 9
3rd year Crows won 12, Power won 12 ( both made finals )
4th year Crows won 9, Power won 7
5th year Crows won 9, Power won 16 ( power made finals )
6th year Crows won 8, Power won 18 ( power made finals )
7th year Crows won 13 Power won ? ( crows premiers )
8th year Crows won 13 Power won ? ( crows premiers )

Hmmm so in the first 6 years we won more games twice, equal twice , them twice, so with such similar records were we with such a thrown together no history try for instant success to get support start really all that bad ? Why didn't they do any better with all they told me they had going for them.

Response from power friends " look at last 2 years " OK and I say "look at next 2 years !" ( meaning year 7 and 8 ) or "whats important making finals or winning some ?" In the 7th and 8th year the Crows won 2 flags with 13 wins each season during home and away so I guess as long as they win the next 2 flags they will have a similar record.

Gotta love stats huh.

 

[Damp Squarie]

Not to mention the top grounds weve had to play at ie Moorabin, Windy Hill, Victoria Park.

Oh you forgot one other stat too.
More jail escapee moronic bag snatchin half witted supporters (power made finals)

 

[Damp Squarie]

...and won the flag

 

[Jerome]

Originally posted by topjars

More jail escapee moronic bag snatchin half witted child molesting supporters (power made finals)

Could you please edit your post. I find the comments regarding child molesting extremley offensive.

I can handle any amount of power/crows taunting, but for mine, child abuse/domestic violence is not a joke. It certainly is'nt confined to working class people either.

It's also unfair that Port supporters keep getting labeled as child molesters or wife bashers (which I belive was another comment made on this board recently)

Could you please remove the comment. These types of insults are not on.

Jerome

 

[PAfolwr]

What Daz conveniently forgot to mention is that Adelaide just like West Coast, had a team capable of winning the flag from day one.
As it turned out, you won the flag possibly in the last two years that you were capable of, given the squad that you had. From your point of view, I am sure there were a few "Thank so and so for that".
Port on the other hand was not supposed to win a single game in their first year, I am sure you all remember that.
Apples and apples please.

 

[Damp Squarie]

Capable Shmapable

Crap!

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Daz^
Interesting stats.
I got sick of being told by Power supporters how much more successful they would be because they are a real team with history and tradition, how they would have had more then just 2 flags if they had started in 1991, how crap the crows were during the first years. Now after they have been in the comp a while I still hear from the supporters how much better they have performed and the showdown tally etc so I decided to have a look at some stats which I found interesting.

1st year Crows won 10, power won 10
2nd year Crows won 11, Power won 9
3rd year Crows won 12, Power won 12 ( both made finals )
4th year Crows won 9, Power won 7
5th year Crows won 9, Power won 16 ( power made finals )
6th year Crows won 8, Power won 18 ( power made finals )

Wins: Port 72, Crows 59
Finals Series: Port 3, Crows 1
Finals Wins: Port 1, Crows 1

Hmmm so in the first 6 years we won more games twice, equal twice , them twice, so with such similar records were we with such a thrown together no history try for instant success to get support start really all that bad ? Why didn't they do any better with all they told me they had going for them.

Why didnt we do any better?? Have a look at what you said in your first paragraph first. And i quote 'if they had started in 1991'.

Last time i checked, we didnt start in 1991.

I think Port Adelaide circa 1991 with our 1990 list we would of been quite competitive in my opinion. Definatly finished in the top 10 with a slight possiblity of top 5 finals action.


You may have been a throw together, no history club back then but your thrown together squad had some of the best players SA has seen in the last 25-30 years in there.

Why didnt we do any better?? I would of thought that considering the stats we HAVE done better. More wins, 2 more finals series, higher average finishing position. Youre telling me the Crows seasons 95-96 are the equal to Ports 01 and 02 seasons?? Youve gotta be kidding me.

As for why no immediate premierships happened. Take a look at our original squad. The Crows list was probably 10 times as good as what our original list was talent wise in 1997. The Crows original squad was filled with quite a large number of longtime great SA players...Ports original squad was filled with a bunch of 18-20 year olds with a handful of experienced players. We recruited our squad for the future - and youd have to say it has worked quite well wouldnt you.

Response from power friends " look at last 2 years " OK and I say "look at next 2 years !" ( meaning year 7 and 8 )

Fair point. Tho i think Port have a fantastic chance at winning a premiership or two in the next few seasons.

or "whats important making finals or winning some ?"

You have to be in the finals to win some. I know id much rather have Ports 01-02 seasons than the Crows 95-96 seasons.

Gotta love stats huh.

And so far the stats have shown that Port has performed better in its first 6 years compared to the Crows. I cant find any stats to suggest otherwise. More wins, more finals series, higher average finishing position, same amount of finals wins.

 

[Damp Squarie]

7th year Crows won 13 Power won ? ( crows premiers )
8th year Crows won 13 Power won ? ( crows premiers )

Goodluck mirroring these stats

 

[Jerome]

Originally posted by PAfolwr

Port on the other hand was not supposed to win a single game in their first year, I am sure you all remember that.
Apples and apples please.

Indeed I do.

I also remember one G Cornes, stating in his newspaper coloum (just before he started with AFC) that the Crows would be lucky to win 4 games in 1991. Many others though we'd also go winless.

It makes that first game against the Hawks so much sweeter!!

Apples & apples.

Jerome

I'll be at the Medallist Bar tonight, southern end hope to see some of ya's there!

 

[Jerome]

Re: Re: The first 8 years compared

As for why no immediate premierships happened. Take a look at our original squad. The Crows list was probably 10 times as good as what our original list was talent wise in 1997. The Crows original squad was filled with quite a large number of longtime great SA players...Ports original squad was filled with a bunch of 18-20 year olds with a handful of experienced players. We recruited our squad for the future - and youd have to say it has worked quite well wouldnt you.



The advantage Port had in putting its squad togther - was time.

They had a good 6 - 12 months to prepare. Cahill and Stewart started mid way thru 1996 to recruit quality long term players.

Most of these SA greats only had 5 years in them, hence some of the reason that we slumped in the mid nineties.

We didnt get that much time - if we had thet who knows? D Jarman, Robran and McAdam might have been original Crows.

I'd agree with you it has worked well for Port, but they havent tapped their full potential yet.



Jerome

 

[ClintEastwood]

Originally posted by topjars
7th year Crows won 13 Power won ? ( crows premiers )
8th year Crows won 13 Power won ? ( crows premiers )

Goodluck mirroring these stats

Disclaimer: THis post is being made with a certain inflammation of the annoyance gland.

We neither need to or want to mirror anything the Crows have done. If we happen to win the next two flags, it will just be the start of something so big the crows could never hope to "mirror" it.

 

[kirky]

Re: Re: The first 8 years compared

Originally posted by Macca19
Wins: Port 72, Crows 59
Finals Series: Port 3, Crows 1
Finals Wins: Port 1, Crows 1

Again, its the results at the end of the day and unless one wants to compare one self to Collingwood (1 premiership in 40 years and only two in 50).

Wins - Port obviously has the advantage but did they play at Victoria Park, Windy Hill, Moorabin, Western Oval. Crows - 13 games for 1 win and 12 losses. Power - Nil. Difficult to judge given the significant advantage for the Victorian teams (and don't be a fool and think otherwise).

Finals series - can't argue with that. Port does have a better record.

Finals wins - Power - 1 finals win out of 6 attempts, 16.6% success rate whilst Crows 1 out of three attempts, 33% success rate. Port have had the luxury of 3 home finals whereas the Crows did not have one until 1997.

One can make stats do whatever you want at the end of the day, the only thing that counts is flags and don't think otherwise.

At the end of this year, only one thing will matter, will Port have won a premiership (and not one of the Harry Potter ones!).




As for why no immediate premierships happened. Take a look at our original squad. The Crows list was probably 10 times as good as what our original list was talent wise in 1997. The Crows original squad was filled with quite a large number of longtime great SA players...Ports original squad was filled with a bunch of 18-20 year olds with a handful of experienced players. We recruited our squad for the future - and youd have to say it has worked quite well wouldnt you.

Ah, the Crows squad did not have the same concessions. We could only take one player from each AFL club and they had to be SA whereas Port did not have restrictions on any players.




You have to be in the finals to win some. I know id much rather have Ports 01-02 seasons than the Crows 95-96 seasons.


Well, that hasn't been a successful strategy given the 17% success rate.




And so far the stats have shown that Port has performed better in its first 6 years compared to the Crows. I cant find any stats to suggest otherwise. More wins, more finals series, higher average finishing position, same amount of finals wins.

Stats can't be shaped to whatever you want to believe as follows:-

1st year Adel 9 Port 9 Equal
2nd year Adel 9 Port 10 Crows marginally higher
3rd year Adel 3 Port 7 Crows higher
4th year Adel 11 Port 14 Crows marginally higher
5th year Adel 11 Port 5 Port higher
6th year Adel 12 Port 3 Port higher
7th year Adel 1 Port ? Equal or Crows higher

Who cares about the ladder position if you don't finish top.

 

[Daz^]

Wow a reasonably sane debate about those first years ! I have to admit I didnt think it would actually be discussed sanely but am pleasantly surprised. Of course the comparisons cannot be done fairly because as mentioned grounds/ weather/ injuries / opposition etc are part of what makes these debates so much fun with no real conclusion ever being correct.

I guess what I wanted to show was that with completely different starts and strategies forced on both teams ( e.g. future or for now squads ) after 8 years the Crows had 2 flags and still no acknowledgement from my Power friends that what they achieved was a good return from where we came from I remember being "Glenelg" for a couple of years with Cornse as coach according to many but now apparently we had a sensational squad that should have won several more flags ?! I kept getting told and still do that we were lucky and didnt deserve our success and yet Power supporters seem to think that they have been more successful and professional yet even if they win the next two flags will have a similar end result to the "cows"

I love the state rivalry and enjoy nothing more than Power bashing but if I take my Crows cap off for just a few minutes it seems that both have taken different paths and yet results indicate neither start was overly more effective ......... unless of course the Power do not win the next 2 flags ? ..........

 

[DoggyBase]

I'm not a Crows or Power supporter, but what is really amazing is that Port Power have performed quite well so far, with only a fraction of the money and supporters that the Crows enjoy.

So the question is, why aren't the Crows leaving Port Power for dead? Pretty embarrassing for the Crows I'd say.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Pred
We neither need to or want to mirror anything the Crows have done. If we happen to win the next two flags, it will just be the start of something so big the crows could never hope to "mirror" it.

Whilst I find this thread silly and unecessary.

You are deluded Pred that Port will have the same presence in the AFL as they have in the SANFL

Its a whole new ball game mate.

Any ideas you have of 20 odd premierships are pie in the sky stuff

With the Crows six year head start on Port, we should remain easily ahead on the Premiership counts at least in teh short term

What happens over the longer period is anyones guess, but its safe to say that the tow Clubs will be comparable.

I think in relative terms to the other clubs that both clubs will be sucsessful as their rivalry with each other spurs them on to greater deeds.

However as usual Pred you talk complete rubbish when overestimating how good Port will be in the AFL.

Its a brave new world.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by DoggyBase
I'm not a Crows or Power supporter, but what is really amazing is that Port Power have performed quite well so far, with only a fraction of the money and supporters that the Crows enjoy.

So the question is, why aren't the Crows leaving Port Power for dead? Pretty embarrassing for the Crows I'd say.

support yes, money I am not so sure about

Power syphon off their funds into the foundation, and therefore allthough their turn over wouldn't be as big as the crows, it probably isn't so far behind that it would make a difference

Rembemering that the salary cap and the draft even everything up anyway, I am not sure what differnce having more money will make

Just means Crows give all their money to the SANFL

Crows started off in ATCO huts. Port never did.

 

[Malibu#27]

Originally posted by Jerome
Indeed I do.

I also remember one G Cornes, stating in his newspaper coloum (just before he started with AFC) that the Crows would be lucky to win 4 games in 1991. Many others though we'd also go winless.

It makes that first game against the Hawks so much sweeter!!

Apples & apples.

Jerome

I'll be at the Medallist Bar tonight, southern end hope to see some of ya's there!

Graham is also known to say the Crows had worst concessions than Port.

Has always sounded to me like Graham wants his own achievements at the Crows to sound greater than they are.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Malibu#27
Graham is also known to say the Crows had worst concessions than Port.

Has always sounded to me like Graham wants his own achievements at the Crows to sound greater than they are.

There is no doubt an element of that in it

The difference between teh clubs is that the Port took a longer term strategy with juniors etc which has paid off in the long run

However the Crows didn't do that, IMO for two reasons

1 - Public expected all the guys who had done their time in the SANFL to be in the squad

2 - they didn't ahve time for proper identification of the junior talent like Port did.


When assessing all of this,we must remember the AFC only came in when they did because Port tried to sell SA footy down the river

 

[Malibu#27]

Originally posted by Jars458

There is no doubt an element of that in it

The difference between teh clubs is that the Port took a longer term strategy with juniors etc which has paid off in the long run

However the Crows didn't do that, IMO for two reasons

1 - Public expected all the guys who had done their time in the SANFL to be in the squad

2 - they didn't ahve time for proper identification of the junior talent like Port did.

When assessing all of this,we must remember the AFC only came in when they did because Port tried to sell SA footy down the river



Fair points.

I agree that Port took a longer term strategy with juniors .... in the end that was part of the reason they originally tried to go into the AFL. The SANFL's approach was the player retention scheme which no matter how good intentioned proved to be nothing more than a sludge fund for senior players (I.e the SANFL's approach wasnt really aimed at juniors prior to the Crows).

By this I mean that the players added to the player retention scheme were senior players on the clubs lists, while talented juniors were starting to stream across the border.

Ports answer to this was to bid for an AFL licence to try to keep the talented youngsters home.



On to your points ...

1)
Public expectation was a huge issue, while I think the desire by the club to have an impact immediately (and with very little preperation) meant they went for the experienced players.

2)
True to a large degree, but I would have thought even back then successful clubs would have had full knowledge of talented youngsters at other clubs. I'm pretty sure Port did .... and knew a lot about talented players in other clubs zones.


Finally - it is true the AFC only came in when they did because of Port ..... personally in hindsight I think it was a fantastic move for the SANFL ... as oppoesed to the SANFL's proposal to wait a few more years .... just look at what the club has done for the state and the talented players that me through it that would have been lost to Victoria otherwise.

 

[blackdiamond]

Not taking anything away from the Crows premierships because they were well deserved on the day but would it be fair to say that it would be much harder to win a premiership these days particularly with the dominance of Essendon in 2000 and Brisbane in 2001/02?

You would have to go back sometime to find two more dominant sides than these and I don't think any sides were that dominant in 97/98 so it would have been easier to win a premiership.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Scott

You would have to go back sometime to find two more dominant sides than these and I don't think any sides were that dominant in 97/98 so it would have been easier to win a premiership.

No such thing as an easy premiership in the AFL Scott. They're all hard and they all carry equal value. If you cast your mind back the Crows opponents in each of their premiership win were 1/3 on in the betting.

When the Powder do win an AFL flag, (and sadly one day they will ) you won't give a fat rat's clacker who your opponent was, whether you deserved it, whether it was easy or hard, or what anyone else thinks about it.

There's only one thing that matters - WINNING IT!!

 

[blackdiamond]

Originally posted by macca23
No such thing as an easy premiership in the AFL Scott. They're all hard and they all carry equal value. If you cast your mind back the Crows opponents in each of their premiership win were 1/3 on in the betting.

When the Powder do win an AFL flag, (and sadly one day they will ) you won't give a fat rat's clacker who your opponent was, whether you deserved it, whether it was easy or hard, or what anyone else thinks about it.

There's only one thing that matters - WINNING IT!!

Never said that there is such a thing as an easy premiership, I qualified this by stating that you deserved the premiership on the day.

However what I did say is that the teams involved during those years were not in the same calibre as Essendon 2000 and Brisbane 2001/02.

1/3 betting odds are probably not a true reflection. It would be fair to say that a fair bit of bias went into those odds as there would have been the whole of Victoria and no doubt quite a few Port people supporting Saint Kilda/Kangaroos to make the odds so low.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Scott
Not taking anything away from the Crows premierships because they were well deserved on the day but would it be fair to say that it would be much harder to win a premiership these days particularly with the dominance of Essendon in 2000 and Brisbane in 2001/02?

You would have to go back sometime to find two more dominant sides than these and I don't think any sides were that dominant in 97/98 so it would have been easier to win a premiership.

Surely Port have been better placed to win a premiership in 2001-02 come the end of the minor round compared to the Crows in 1997-98? If Port become more concerned about the opposition rather than playing their own game, then it be a while before they win a flag.

 

[iceman21]

Originally posted by Scott
Not taking anything away from the Crows premierships because they were well deserved on the day but would it be fair to say that it would be much harder to win a premiership these days particularly with the dominance of Essendon in 2000 and Brisbane in 2001/02?

You would have to go back sometime to find two more dominant sides than these and I don't think any sides were that dominant in 97/98 so it would have been easier to win a premiership.

Do I hear mention of a great 90's Team called North Melbourne?

 

[napsyd]

Originally posted by iceman21
Do I hear mention of a great 90's Team called North Melbourne?

Absolutely. From memory North were on an 11 game winning streak before the 98 GF.

I'd say as a team they were just shy of Essendon 00, up there with Brisbane 01, and ahead of Brisbane 02.

Whatever you may think of the Crows 97/98 wins and whether it was easier to win the flag then then it has been in the last couple of years, you have to accept that the Crows got themselves into two GF's and gave themselves a chance. Port are yet to achieve this. This is the fundamental difference between the two AFL histories.