Unique Crows Record

[ltdamn]

By carefully translating all the statements from the Power supporters in this thread into English (it took a long time, there were a lot of LOL/ROFL/LMAO's), I think I've finally worked out how the 'Creed' must read down at the Power:

"You have to be in 'it' to win 'it'. Unless you're not 100% sure you can win 'it', in which case, don't go in 'it'.

If we aren't in 'it', we're still trying to win 'it', but not the current 'it', rather, the 'it' coming up next, or even the 'it' after that.

If we still aren't in 'it' even after that, remember that winning 'it' isn't the only thing that counts, as long as nobody else wins 'it' whilst we're not in 'it', and all previous winners of 'it' don't count because we weren't in 'it' at the time.

If we're not in 'it' and someone else wins 'it', 'it' doesn't count because we weren't in 'it'. If we were accidentally in 'it', 'it' still doesn't count because we probably didn't mean to be in 'it', 'it' was just a dream or something.

So never forget that we exist to win 'it'. Just not all the time, or when it's too hard, or when someone else did, or was too good, or before we existed, or when we actually nearly got all the way but didn't. All of those times don't count."

Have to say, it's a bit hard to follow but I think I get the gist. Stirring stuff.

 

[portfan36]

Lets not forget the fact that Port, who were very much in a rebuilding phase, made the 2007 Grand Final due to a number of other clubs in the 8 underperforming and not living up to the expectations of finishing well up in the 8. Sides like the Crows who were 31 points up against Hawthorn, but guess what, they ended up losing that final as well. You would have to be pissed off that you could have had "another dream final" against Port but guess what, you choked.....again and made the path for Port into the 2007 GF even easier. So lets look at your finals record in 2007 before you look at ours. Ask any supporter, they would rather lose a Grand Final by 119 points than lose an elimination final by less than a goal because YOU HAVE TO GET TO A GRAND FINAL before you can win it, something the Cows have lost all ability to do.

 

[icrow32]

Yes, in 98 you would have played Essendon, a team that you beat by all of 2 points at Football Park earlier in the year...

Good to see you admit (by omission) that the 97 finals were flawed.



The difference is that you got directly favoured by the finals fixturing 2 years running.

We controlled our own destiny. We finished top and won three finals, against the teams that finished 2nd, 3rd and 4th on the ladder.




No-one confuses Crows 2 vs Port Adelaide 1, it's that Crows supporters can't admit that they were the beneficiary of very fortunate finals fixturing 2 years running.

What a load of rubbish, if you believe any of this you are a complete teal wearing moron. "very fortunate finals fixturing 2 years running" now I have heard everything.

In 1997 we played 3 of the 4 finals away from home, and in 98 we played all 4 finals away from home (aswell as Rd22 in perth), not to mention we beat 2 of the top 3 teams in both years to win the flag. No one has won a flag with so many interstate games either before or after 1998.

 

[Geoffa32]

What a load of rubbish, if you believe any of this you are a complete teal wearing moron. "very fortunate finals fixturing 2 years running" now I have heard everything.

In 1997 we played 3 of the 4 finals away from home, and in 98 we played all 4 finals away from home (aswell as Rd22 in perth), not to mention we beat 2 of the top 3 teams in both years to win the flag. No one has won a flag with so many interstate games either before or after 1998.

Which flag is harder to "earn". One where you are the underdong and have had to travel most weeks to win games.

Or one where the oppostion is so weak the GF is basically a training drill.

 

[icrow32]

Which flag is harder to "earn". One where you are the underdong and have had to travel most weeks to win games.

Or one where the oppostion is so weak the GF is basically a training drill.

The crows aren't the first team to lose a final and then win a flag. WCE and Sydney both did it, the results in those games weren't 48 points like the Crows loss to Melb but losses never the less. Are the tealsters suggesting that if WCE had lost to Sydney by 10 goals in 2006 then they should have not gone into the second semi final the next week.

Stupid logic from a clubs supporter base that realises thet they have nothing over their big brother so they manufacture rediculously based scenario's to make themselves feel better.

 

[malph]

By the way, none of you Power failures have answered my question yet. Seeing as the Crows are so 'abysmal' in finals and the Power are so f**king great in finals, why did they fail when they had a chance to prove this against the Crows in their 'dream final'?

I mean, you had a golden opportunity to prove this in the 'dream final' but you failed, choosing instead to humiliate yourselves. And now everyone is left having to just take your word for it that the Power are just better in finals despite the facts stating the exact opposite.

So, please tell me. If the Power are better in finals, why did they not win the 'dream final'? Please explain.

And why do they only have one flag compared to the Crows two? If they were so goddamn great at 'existing to win premierships', you would have thought they would have more flags by now instead of having LESS premierships to show for 'existing to win premierships'.

It has been explained now numerous times by different people. Clearly you don't like the explanations, but then again, putting events into their appropriate context is not exactly your strong suit. Given a few different people have given the exact same response, I'm not sure what answer you are still waiting for. Nevertheless, feel free to continue to bring up that magical September for the Crows that was 2005. It makes you look good.

In any case, the Crows are worse in finals. Note the tense. If you think the one final against the team you love to hate is the only result that represents September success, then good for you, you're clearly very easily satisfied if you're willing to forget about the events before and after that game (which is the real measure for that year's minor premier). We're talking finals, not one final between two teams in very different places.

In the year that ended so badly for Port Adelaide, the Power won as many finals as Neil Craig has in his entire career. Port Adelaide has won more finals since 2005 than the Crows, from TWO fewer appearances. Finals, Sekaj, not one final. If the Crows are going to make the big one, they're not going to be playing Port Adelaide four times, are they?

But, if you want to keep throwing stones at each other in the same glass house for another round, be my guest.

Uhh, no it hasn't actually. Nice attempt at 'deflection'.

You Power failures seem to think your rabble are better than the Crows in finals and yet you still failed to beat us in your 'dream final' despite being so much better than us in finals. Why is that? You want to have a go at explaining this? Because nobody else has yet to provide a satisfactory explanation for this.

Go ahead, keep asking the same question that has already been answered many times.

By carefully translating all the statements from the Power supporters in this thread into English (it took a long time, there were a lot of LOL/ROFL/LMAO's), I think I've finally worked out how the 'Creed' must read down at the Power:

"You have to be in 'it' to win 'it'. Unless you're not 100% sure you can win 'it', in which case, don't go in 'it'.

If we aren't in 'it', we're still trying to win 'it', but not the current 'it', rather, the 'it' coming up next, or even the 'it' after that.

If we still aren't in 'it' even after that, remember that winning 'it' isn't the only thing that counts, as long as nobody else wins 'it' whilst we're not in 'it', and all previous winners of 'it' don't count because we weren't in 'it' at the time.

If we're not in 'it' and someone else wins 'it', 'it' doesn't count because we weren't in 'it'. If we were accidentally in 'it', 'it' still doesn't count because we probably didn't mean to be in 'it', 'it' was just a dream or something.

So never forget that we exist to win 'it'. Just not all the time, or when it's too hard, or when someone else did, or was too good, or before we existed, or when we actually nearly got all the way but didn't. All of those times don't count."

Have to say, it's a bit hard to follow but I think I get the gist. Stirring stuff.

That was approaching clever, until you repeated the same theme three times with slightly different wording. However, this is a something of a case of what's good for the goose, isn't it? It's okay to make the eight and embarrass yourselves, but it's a bad thing to make the Grand Final and embarrass yourselves. As I said before, I would rather have to work on winning just one game, rather than three or four.

What a load of rubbish, if you believe any of this you are a complete teal wearing moron. "very fortunate finals fixturing 2 years running" now I have heard everything.

In 1997 we played 3 of the 4 finals away from home, and in 98 we played all 4 finals away from home (aswell as Rd22 in perth), not to mention we beat 2 of the top 3 teams in both years to win the flag. No one has won a flag with so many interstate games either before or after 1998.

It makes me wonder what kind of supporters Crows fans really are when they don't know their own history - especially the good history. First, one of you, it may have been you as well, stated that the Crows won both flags from outside the top four. For a start, they finished FOURTH in 1997, playing both West Coast and Geelong at home, despite Geelong finishing the H&A season second.

As for 1998, it is very true that the Crows would not have had to play Melbourne in round 1. They would have in either the semi-final instead of Sydney, or in the preliminary final instead of the Bulldogs - on the MCG too, so perhaps you shouldn't bring that up.

Which flag is harder to "earn". One where you are the underdong and have had to travel most weeks to win games.

Or one where the oppostion is so weak the GF is basically a training drill.

Hmm, this has been done before. Brisbane decided they would take the risk of carrying a few injuries, the Kangaroos had 21 scoring shots to 7 at half time, kicking 2.11 in the second quarter. How's that for a weak opponent? the Kangaroos were a very good team, but they weren't considered one of the greatest of all time. Port Adelaide had been missing their best ruckman, best midfielder, Roger James couldn't run out an entire game anymore, and Michael Wilson couldn't lift his arms above his head. But no, Brisbane were the only team with problems . . .

Instead, how about the team that gave the Lions their best rivalry over the previous four seasons, finally got their act together and brought it to September?

The crows aren't the first team to lose a final and then win a flag. WCE and Sydney both did it, the results in those games weren't 48 points like the Crows loss to Melb but losses never the less. Are the tealsters suggesting that if WCE had lost to Sydney by 10 goals in 2006 then they should have not gone into the second semi final the next week.

Context is not your strong suit either. The AFL fixed the system so that only the top four teams get a double chance, no matter the margin. 5th isn't top four.

 

[Sekaj]

It has been explained now numerous times by different people. Clearly you don't like the explanations, but then again, putting events into their appropriate context is not exactly your strong suit. Given a few different people have given the exact same response, I'm not sure what answer you are still waiting for. Nevertheless, feel free to continue to bring up that magical September for the Crows that was 2005. It makes you look good.

Nobody has provided a satisfactory answer apart from Power supporters like you finally conceding that your team was a rabble loser in 2005. Not the most flattering description for a team that supposedly 'exists to win premierships' but accurate nonetheless. Well done.

In any case, the Crows are worse in finals. Note the tense. If you think the one final against the team you love to hate is the only result that represents September success, then good for you, you're clearly very easily satisfied if you're willing to forget about the events before and after that game (which is the real measure for that year's minor premier).

So the Crows are 'worse in finals' and yet we have two flags to your one in the time since you joined the comp. Why is that?

And the Crows are 'worse in finals' and yet the Power, who are supposedly 'better in finals', could not beat the Crows who are 'worse in finals' in the 'dream final'. How is it possible for a team who is 'better in finals' not to beat a team who are 'worse in finals' in a final? Oh right. I forgot. Your team just happened to be a rabble that year despite proclaiming to 'exist to win premierships'. Such bad luck that you decided to choose 2005 as the one year where you did not 'exist to win premierships'.

The facts are not really helping you I'm afraid. All you have to back yourself up are your words which are meaningless. A bit like 'we exist to win premierships'. Meaningless when you consider that you have won LESS premierships than a team that is supposedly 'worse in finals'.

We're talking finals, not one final between two teams in very different places.

Yes, and in all the finalS that have been played since you joined the comp, the Crows have won two flags out of those finalS compared to your one despite the Crows being 'worse in finals'.

Power failure logic at its best.

 

[malph]

given I posted stats to end D_One's little fixation, I may as well post them again given the current argument.

"hmmmmmm *wonders how Port did in their 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th seasons?*

so, we may as well compare apples to apples rather than horse apples, as stats can really say anything you want if you're skilled enough. And the last 8 seasons? Means nothing in a 16 team comp, or the 15 team comp, the 14 team comp, or the 12 team comp, we all know you use the 16yr rule to gauge success, but anywhoo I digress.

Port, 12 completed seasons up to 2008. So, that's the last 8 completed seasons of their 12 that we are talking about.

Thanks to D_One for skilfully pointing out (6/8 series would be less than 7/8 of course, so I guess that means Port aren't one of the 115);

Port: 2001-2008 6 Finals series, 8W's-8L's (50%) 2 GF's - 1 Flag.

Adelaide: last 8 seasons of their first 12; 1995-2002 4 finals series, 9W's-4L's (69%) 2 GF's - 2 Flags."

Now, Yes Adelaide's finals record hasn't been flash of late, and yes we have dropped a few home finals, but lets face it, we weren't the first to do that we were? in fact the St Kilda final was our first home final loss. We are also not the first to 'choke' after finishing Minor Premier or close to it.

2001 - 3rd (0-2) lost a home final
2002 - 1st (1-2) lost a home final
2003 - 1st (1-2) lost a home final

My beef is with those who just refuse to believe that anything happened in between those years and the last match of 2007. Port Adelaide has now won five straight home finals against travelling teams. The difference between the two clubs here is that Mark Williams is reversing the trend. You dress up those numbers however you want, but the Crows have developed a pattern that has spanned the time of its two longest serving coaches. The Crows have developed a risk-averse culture where making the finals is the achievement. The coach admitted it. There is no argument there.

What else should we compare?

Which club has the most All Australians?
Which club has the most All Australian Captains?
Which club has the most 300 gamers?
Which club has the most Brownlow Medallists?
Which club has the most Coleman Medallists?
Which club has the most Century goalkickers?
Which club has the most SOO players?

all ridiculous to compare in reality given the difference in age, but it's very easy to throw rocks.

Ultimately, it is every bit as futile as all that, yes. But your trump for the moment is 2>1. But we all know, deep down inside a place that you don't like to talk about with your friends, nothing is going to change at West Lakes until the day it eventually becomes 2-2. The Crows are a PR machine above all else, and the gullible folks like Sekaj are going to keep drinking it down until that only real advantage finally disappears.

 

[Sekaj]

Ultimately, it is every bit as futile as all that, yes. But your trump for the moment is 2>1. But we all know, deep down inside a place that you don't like to talk about with your friends, nothing is going to change at West Lakes until the day it eventually becomes 2-2.

NEWSFLASH! You have NOT won your second premiership yet. You are NOT 2-2. You have absolutely no right whatsoever to celebrate your second premiership that you have NOT won.

The Crows could well win their 3rd premiership before the Power. What are you going to do then?

The Crows are a PR machine above all else, and the gullible folks like Sekaj are going to keep drinking it down until that only real advantage finally disappears.

Bit like gullible Power supporters like malph who believed the 'revolution' would amount to anything and were celebrating their second premiership when the 'revolution' was announced in 2006 only to see them humiliate themselves by a world-record 119 points. 12th and loving it indeed!

 

[Sekaj]

Just a question to Power supporters. Don't you guys ever get tired of using hypothetical future events as a means of getting one back at the Crows?

It's always about events that have not happened yet and will supposedly happen that make the Power better than the Crows. Doesn't it all get a bit tiresome for you guys to have to keep doing that all the time?

 

[PowerForGood]

Which is where your BS argument falls down. ONE team has won the flag after winning 4 finals, ONE. One team has won a flag after playing 4 games interstate.

Yes, and that ONE team got to play their 2nd final at HOME against a team that finished 2nd H&A. You still don't get it, do you?

We also weren't the only ones benefiting from a final 8.
1999

Qualifying final: Brisbane Lions (3rd) 20.18 (138) d Carlton (6th) 8.17 (65)

Semi Final (MCG): Carlton (7th) 18.16 (124) d WC Eagles (5th) 10.10 (70).

Carlton went on to win a PF and onto the GF which they lost. But, they got flogged in week one, then pulled a home final against WC!?!... who finished above them in the minor round no less. Plenty of examples.

That is a LUCKY GF appearance. Just as your 2nd premiership is a LUCKY flag. And good luck to you that you won it.

There is no benefit if you got the draw we got especially if no other sides in the history of the game have ever matched it, no matter how much you want to prattle on about it.

Of course there is a benefit. You were getting finals fixturing that you didn't deserve because you only won 13 H&A games each year. That's why they've changed the final 8 to remove both of those occurences from happening again.
1997: A home final against a team that finished 2nd H&A. Won't happen again.
1998: Finishing 5th, losing, and then getting a second chance. Won't happen again.

BTW, Fitzroy won a flag after finishing BOTTOM, so that probably outdoes your club's "achievements".

 

[PowerForGood]

Which flag is harder to "earn". One where you are the underdong and have had to travel most weeks to win games.

Or one where the oppostion is so weak the GF is basically a training drill.

So, geoffa,
- getting a home final against a team that finished 2nd H&A is NOT fortunate, given that the AFL have changed the finals system to stop that anomaly happening again?
- finishing 5th and losing your first final and getting a second chance is NOT fortunate, given that the AFL have changed the finals system to stop that anomaly happening again?

The Crows played excellent finals campaigns, no doubt, but on both occasions they received the benefit of anomalies in the draw that have since been corrected.

 

[PowerForGood]

By carefully translating all the statements from the Power supporters in this thread into English (it took a long time, there were a lot of LOL/ROFL/LMAO's), I think I've finally worked out how the 'Creed' must read down at the Power:

"You have to be in 'it' to win 'it'. Unless you're not 100% sure you can win 'it', in which case, don't go in 'it'.

If we aren't in 'it', we're still trying to win 'it', but not the current 'it', rather, the 'it' coming up next, or even the 'it' after that.

If we still aren't in 'it' even after that, remember that winning 'it' isn't the only thing that counts, as long as nobody else wins 'it' whilst we're not in 'it', and all previous winners of 'it' don't count because we weren't in 'it' at the time.

If we're not in 'it' and someone else wins 'it', 'it' doesn't count because we weren't in 'it'. If we were accidentally in 'it', 'it' still doesn't count because we probably didn't mean to be in 'it', 'it' was just a dream or something.

So never forget that we exist to win 'it'. Just not all the time, or when it's too hard, or when someone else did, or was too good, or before we existed, or when we actually nearly got all the way but didn't. All of those times don't count."

Have to say, it's a bit hard to follow but I think I get the gist. Stirring stuff.

I think you've got the Creed confused with "Destination Disease", which roughly translates to
We weren't in it to win it, we were in it to try to get close to it.

And then when we got close to it, we didn't know what to do because we were only ever concerned with getting close to it.

We didn't even really want to be in it to win it,
.. but we only finally decided to be in it to win it once another club decided it wanted to be in it to win it ..
.... so we decided to be in it so they didn't get in it ....

 

[portfan36]

Just a question to Power supporters. Don't you guys ever get tired of using hypothetical future events as a means of getting one back at the Crows?

It's always about events that have not happened yet and will supposedly happen that make the Power better than the Crows. Doesn't it all get a bit tiresome for you guys to have to keep doing that all the time?

There is nothing hypothetical about it. Your finals record over the last 10 years is absolute crap. And this is the title of this thread - "Unique Crows Record" When there are 155 other teams that have been in the same situation yet you are the only team that has not made a Grand Final then the record speaks for itself, you are May champions but September duds, just live with it until you get a Coach that can make a decision under pressure and players who can do the same. Scott Thompson comes to mind here.

 

[aneale]

until the day it eventually becomes 2-2.

except there is no evidence to say it ever will be, thats why its a stupid chrystal ball argument. What if Tredders retires at the years end, Westhoff doesn't kick on and worse yet Hawthorn and Geelong do a Brisbane and outlast Port's window, then the Crows come round in their cycle and it ends up 4-1? We can all spit ball arguments.

Nor is Port any less of a PR machine than Adelaide.

 

[malph]

NEWSFLASH! You have NOT won your second premiership yet. You are NOT 2-2. You have absolutely no right whatsoever to celebrate your second premiership that you have NOT won.

The Crows could well win their 3rd premiership before the Power. What are you going to do then?

The Crows have not won more than one final in any year, for ten years. Why would I be concerned about a third flag?

Meanwhile, you're going to continue drinking down all that fluffy PR about always trying to make the eight, all the while repeating the same words about Port Adelaide over and over and over again. You have fashioned a football-following life of just staring at the number '119' whilst you endure on your knees in front of Triggy and Co., taking all that they can feed you.

Mmmmm, it must really taste good.

 

[PAFC_1870]

can someone tell me where the the Crows are playing this weekend?

Something about knock out competitions and the Crows making the 2nd round I just can't put my foot on...

 

[Sekaj]

There is nothing hypothetical about it. Your finals record over the last 10 years is absolute crap. And this is the title of this thread - "Unique Crows Record" When there are 155 other teams that have been in the same situation yet you are the only team that has not made a Grand Final then the record speaks for itself, you are May champions but September duds, just live with it until you get a Coach that can make a decision under pressure and players who can do the same. Scott Thompson comes to mind here.

Oh ok. So our finals record is 'absolute crap' and we are 'September duds' and yet we still have 2 flags to your one. Why is that?

Also, our finals record is 'absolute crap' and we are 'September duds' and yet you still failed miserably to beat us in September in your 'dream final'. Why is that?

Anyway, you seem to be very proud of the fact that your team made a Grand Final and humiliated themselves by a world-record 119 points in front of the entire nation. Congratulations, I guess.

 

[Sekaj]

The Crows have not won more than one final in any year, for ten years. Why would I be concerned about a third flag?

By the same token all your team ever does is choke, humiliate themselves and quit in Round 13. Why would I be concerned about a second flag from your mob?

Meanwhile, you're going to continue drinking down all that fluffy PR about always trying to make the eight, all the while repeating the same words about Port Adelaide over and over and over again. You have fashioned a football-following life of just staring at the number '119' whilst you endure on your knees in front of Triggy and Co., taking all that they can feed you.

Well, you'd know all about how that PR tastes after gleefully swallowing the lies about your failed 'revolution'. Doesn't mean you have to take your bitterness out on the Crows.

Mmmmm, it must really taste good.

See? Thanks for proving my point.

And, no, unfortunately the gags about your 119 failure will never cease. Too bad.

 

[icrow32]

can someone tell me where the the Crows are playing this weekend?

Something about knock out competitions and the Crows making the 2nd round I just can't put my foot on...

Are you serious, I for one am glad the Crows lost last week. The NAB cup is a farce and the fact that the Crows can now concentate on Rd 1 rather than playing in glorified practice games is a bonus. The NAB cup is for teams that either need money or supporters, Port need both in bucket loads and hence are trying their best to win it all.

 

[PAFC_1870]

Oh ok. So our finals record is 'absolute crap' and we are 'September duds' and yet we still have 2 flags to your one. Why is that?

oh I know!!!

a) Divine intervention?
b) Playing St Kilda?
c) Geelong getting robbed at AAMI?
d) the Messiah coaching them?
e) Losing first final and not being elininated from 5th spot?
f) playing the bulldogs in the finals?
g) playing the bulldogs in the finals again?
h) a few flukes from Ellen?
I) stealing a Hawthorn player who had an idea about success?
J) Port not being in the comp long enough to provide adequate competition?
K) North not knowing the slightest about how to kick a ball between the 2 bigger sticks?
L) all of the above

The fact the state calls him the Messiah proves how much divine intervention was needed to get that side, consisting of absolute rubbish players over the line.

Its a self admission of Adelaide's mediocricy

 

[portfan36]

Oh ok. So our finals record is 'absolute crap' and we are 'September duds' and yet we still have 2 flags to your one. Why is that?

Also, our finals record is 'absolute crap' and we are 'September duds' and yet you still failed miserably to beat us in September in your 'dream final'. Why is that?

Anyway, you seem to be very proud of the fact that your team made a Grand Final and humiliated themselves by a world-record 119 points in front of the entire nation. Congratulations, I guess.

Sekaj you flog, hasnt anybody told you you cant take one game out of many and use this as the be all and end all of examples. You have 2 falgs to our 1 because you have been in the competition longer, and during a time when the AFL was not fully professional - FFS there were Crows players in 97-98 that still had full time jobs!!!

And yes you beat us in the only final we both have played in - does that make you better or does the fact that you have never lead the overall tally between the 2 teams make us the better team??????? The debate could go on. (P.S. I was going to use the excuse that you were ranked higher than us that year so you should have won but looking back at your history that doesnt count for much does it? hehe)

And yes I am very proud that Port made the GF in 2007 - Im as proud as you should be humiliated that your team choked AGAIN that year and maintained your pathetic finals record for which D_One has pointed out so eloquently in this thread.

 

[PAFC_1870]

When is the next Crows anniversary?

It's gonna be a quiet time in Adelaide this year!

Reliving on such moments, over a decade ago, like it was yesterday.... but hey, if you checked last nights washing you could be forgiven that it was!

 

[portfan36]

Everyone talks about Richmond always finishing just out of the eight and being called "Ninthmond", maybe we now should refer to the Cows as "Eighthelaide"

 

[Niximus]

Everyone talks about Richmond always finishing just out of the eight and being called "Ninthmond", maybe we now should refer to the Cows as "Eighthelaide"

how many times have adelaide finished 8th?

The answer is 2 by the way making "Firstelaide" just as appropriate.

Port on the other hand have never finished in the same position twice. They have done

1st - 2004
2nd - 2007
3rd - 2002
4th - 2003
5th - 2001
6th - 2005
7th - 1999
8th - 2009
9th - 1997
10th - 1998
11th - 2010
12th - 2006
13th - 2008
14th - 2000
15th - 2011
16th - 2012
17th - 2013 After GCFC
18th - 2014 After WSFC