Why Woodville were admitted.

Joined
Apr 5, 2002
Posts
234
Likes
1
Location
Adelaide
Thread starter #1
Cheers! Firstly let me sat that this is an honest question and I'm not trying to offend anybody.
BUT.....why were Woodville admitted to the SANFL in the first place?
I can see why Centrals were, with the population expanding to the north, but why Woodville?
It seems unbelievable that they would put a side in the relatively small area between two existing clubs, each with a long history, one of them with a truckload of premierships. It would be like putting a side in between Westies and the Bays, say at South Plympton.
Did they expect Woodville to bring Port down a peg or two by taking players and supporters?
Were Woodville a hugely successful amatuer club that the SANFL felt they couldn't ignore? What's the story?
I read in another posting that a Woodville supporter, originally against the merger, now takes the view that Torrens only got back what was taken away when The Peckers were admitted. I told that to an old Torrens supporter I was talking to the other day and he said he thought that was about right.
If someone could please help with some background on this, I'd appreciate it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jerome

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 3, 2000
Posts
2,722
Likes
176
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide Crows, Centrals
#2
Originally posted by Unley Legend

Did they expect Woodville to bring Port down a peg or two by taking players and supporters?
I believe that was the reason. It sort of worked - Malcolm Blight is a good example, a Port fan who played for Woodville.

Was'nt Woodville (along with Gawler)a member of the SANFL in the very early days?

Jerome
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2000
Posts
2,735
Likes
653
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#4
The woodville from the 1870's/80's was a different club to the Woodville of the SANFL in the 1960's..

However W.F.C. were a very successful amatuer club prior to SANFL admittance .The woodville we all know were formed ( from memory ) in the 20's and performed well from that time...
Woodville did take much of West Torrens area on inception to the league and were always regarded as the club that deprived West Torrens of any more success.

The effect Woodville had on Port Adelaide was perhaps underestimated as Port Adelaide didnt win a Premiership after 1965 for 12 years......1977 being their next.

Yes they played in 1966, 67, 68, 71, 72 and 76. West Torrens of course, were on a Down ward spiral after D1ck Reynolds left as coach in 64 the club really became a whipping boy..

The real shame of Torrens was they perhaps had the biggest latent supporter base in SA, that given success would have brought them out in their multitudes. That early / mid 60's eagle on the chest guernsey was so imposing and almost had me hooked as a West Torrens supporter in my youth.

PA1870
 

McAlmanac

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Posts
2,607
Likes
10
Location
Brunswick
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Woodville
#5
Originally posted by Unley Legend
Were Woodville a hugely successful amatuer club that the SANFL felt they couldn't ignore? What's the story?
I read in another posting that a Woodville supporter, originally against the merger, now takes the view that Torrens only got back what was taken away when The Peckers were admitted. I told that to an old Torrens supporter I was talking to the other day and he said he thought that was about right.
Not that successful. Won one flag after the war. :(

I also am a believer in that "giveth back" view - and I'm as hardcore Woodville as Ernie.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Posts
61
Likes
0
Location
Adelaide
Other Teams
Centrals
#6
From the Central District Website:
Fred Rogers, Secretary of the Gawler League and heavily involved with the junior competition, made an unofficial approach to SANFL President Thomas Seymour-Hill regarding an admission of a League club from the growing Northern suburbs. Fred Rogers was to be instrumental in forming the network that was to ultimately lead to the formation of the SANFL Club while those associated with the Junior League were to serve in the new entity's administration. Rogers was told that the SANFL would not entertain a single application. It was known that a consortium from Woodville were also considering an application. After several meetings in 1958 both the Gawler League/Junior Competition and Woodville agreed to make a joint submission to the SANFL.
You could argue that Woodville partly owes its existence to the lobbying of Centrals who were keen to get TWO teams admitted to the SANFL. I can't see any clear reason why Woodville were admitted to the SANFL other than to help Centrals get in!
 

EagleBlue

All Australian
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Posts
852
Likes
0
Location
Stuart McGill's fielding academy
Other Teams
Carlton/Woodville West Torrens
#7
Originally posted by Unley Legend
I read in another posting that a Woodville supporter, originally against the merger, now takes the view that Torrens only got back what was taken away when The Peckers were admitted. I told that to an old Torrens supporter I was talking to the other day and he said he thought that was about right.
If someone could please help with some background on this, I'd appreciate it.
Yep that was me, I guess that was probably the clincher that made me barrack for the "New" Eagles, although I was lukewarm to start with, the main thing was that I was still able to watch SANFL footy at the ground I had be going to religously since I was 9 (the year Woodville first made the finals in 1979) I guess if they had made Thebarton the base I probably wouldnt have supported them (well not to the extent I do now). The ground and the football club are the only things that link me to old woodville BUT that is history. As Peter Schwarz so perfectly said on GF day in 93 we are now one club and the sooner not only opposition supporters but Eagles supporters themselves accept the better, originally we did get the best of 2 clubs but given that not one player is now at the Eagles that played for Woodville or West Torrens (except for the coaching staff) I think that argument is wearing a bit thin. Dont forget the Crows in a way are a merger of 8 clubs but no one (except Port supporters) slag them off for it.
 

Macca19

Moderator
Joined
Jan 14, 2001
Posts
59,706
Likes
60,222
Location
Albertr0n
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
MUFC, Orlando Magic
Moderator #8
Originally posted by Unley Legend

Did they expect Woodville to bring Port down a peg or two by taking players and supporters?
Yup. both Centrals and Woodville were brought in to cut back Ports recruiting zone. and when they were brought in Ports recruiting zone was cut back by half. Prior to those two teams being brought into the competition, Port had won 9 out of the last 13 premierships. Domination like that had not been seen in the SANFL before (im not counting Norwoods bunch of flags in the 1870s and 1880s). After they were admitted, Port won only 1 flag in the next 13 years.

I can see merit in Centrals being added in, but not Woodville.
 

Robranisgod

Senior List
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Posts
195
Likes
49
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
North Adelaide
#9
Originally posted by DoggyBase
From the Central District Website:

You could argue that Woodville partly owes its existence to the lobbying of Centrals who were keen to get TWO teams admitted to the SANFL. I can't see any clear reason why Woodville were admitted to the SANFL other than to help Centrals get in!
Woodville were actually only admitted on the casting vote of the league president. What actually happened was the initial proposal was for Central to come in to an 8 team competition to replace South Adelaide who were in the worst slump any SANFL side has ever experienced. In the 19 years from 1945 to 1963 the highest South ever finished was sixth in an eight team competition.

Anyway the vote to replace South with Central was tied at 4 clubs all and the league president voted to keep South in the comp. It would be interesting to know which way the clubs voted.

I know we all have our particularly biasses but as a North supporter I thought that we suffered badly because of the introduction of Woodville and Central. North lost the Kilburn area, an area that had produced many of Norths champs to Woodville, lost the newly developing Pooraka and Ingle Farm to Port and areas further north east to Centrals initially and then Torrens.

North managed to win two premierships fairly early in the ten team competition but one of the primary reasons for those successes was the excellent country recruiting in the 1960s, especially the recruiting of Barrie Robran. When country zoning came into existence in 1973, North went into almost terminal decline until we got some growing areas in the north eastern suburbs in the early 1980s
 

Dogwatcher

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 10, 2002
Posts
4,399
Likes
4
Location
Loxton, SA
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Central District, Moorook
#11
Originally posted by Robranisgod
I know we all have our particularly biasses but as a North supporter I thought that we suffered badly because of the introduction of Woodville and Central. North lost the Kilburn area, an area that had produced many of Norths champs to Woodville, lost the newly developing Pooraka and Ingle Farm to Port and areas further north east to Centrals initially and then Torrens.
I thought Robran made an interesting point here, kind of contradicting one made by Macca earlier in the thread - which suggested the move to introduce the two clubs was as a result of a desire to cut back Port's recruiting zone.
I played at Pooraka as an under 17 and you see Craig Bradley's and Dwayne Russell's photos up on the wall, and I often thought to myself why did they play for Port and not North, or even Norwood. I could never comprehend how Pooraka was in Port's zone.
Another interesting note to contradict Macca was that although Port did lose the Elizabeth recruiting area, they didn't lose much ground. Port still maintained the Salisbury recruiting area, a fertile breeding ground. Which was another thing that I often wondered about growing up. It is only in the last 20 years that the north's population has grown so massively, so you'd think it would have been a huge blow to Centrals early on to not have Salisbury in their recruting zone. Again, prior to the advent of CD and Woodville, you would have thought this should have been a North zone.
As a kid it always frustrated me that players like Gavin Wanganeen, Scott Hodges and the Bond brothers, father son rule notwithstanding, ended up playing for Port because they came from Salisbury North and Salisbury West, areas which are in the Centrals support heartland.
If you look at it this way, Port seemed to have regained ground that it lost to Woodville by maintaining the Salisbury and Pooraka zones.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

H

Hollypig

Guest
#12
Apparently we missed Bradley by two weeks.
The Pooraka area was shifted some time after the new teams were introduced.

Always thought Centrals were hard done by losing Salisbury to Port. Christ you can almost kick a torpedo & hit Holdens from there.
 

Leaping Lindner

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Posts
3,912
Likes
68
Location
St Kilda
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
North Adelaide
#13
Still on the subject but slightly to the side. I came across a newspaper article in The Library urging West and South to merge as both can no longer viably continue in the same competition.
The article is "The Register's" end of season review in 1903 !!!
 

mianfei

Club Legend
Joined
May 10, 2009
Posts
1,278
Likes
239
Location
Carlton North
AFL Club
St Kilda
#14
Although I am from Victoria and have relatively little knowledge of South Australian football, my knowledge of the VFL country zoning system serves to make me interested in this question. I have heard from several sources that the SANFL's zoning system in the days before Woodville and Central Districts were admitted had the same problems that plagued country zoning in the VFL, namely an inequality of player talent that served to help some clubs at the expense of others.

Did they expect Woodville to bring Port down a peg or two by taking players and supporters?
If Woodville were admitted in an effort to end Port Adelaide's dominance of the SANFL during the 1950s and early 1960s, why was it impossible to simply adjust metropolitan zone boundaries? I know the SANFL took a quite different policy on this issue from the VFL in the same period because it wished strongly to keep zones contiguous, but is there any map of metropolitan zones from the period before Woodville and Central Districts were admitted? If there is, I would be most willing to see it or have it sent to me for serious analysis.

Were Port Adelaide at that time sufficiently powerful within the SANFL hierarchy that contracting their recruiting zone was unviable and the other clubs then in the SANFL had to resort to indirect means (like admitting a new club next to Port) to achieve a goal they desperately desired?

Alternatively, if Port Adelaide's dominance rested upon intensive recruiting from country areas of South Australia, did the SANFL consider country zoning before the VFL did?
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Posts
195
Likes
49
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
North Adelaide
#15
Cheers! Firstly let me sat that this is an honest question and I'm not trying to offend anybody.
BUT.....why were Woodville admitted to the SANFL in the first place?
I can see why Centrals were, with the population expanding to the north, but why Woodville?
It seems unbelievable that they would put a side in the relatively small area between two existing clubs, each with a long history, one of them with a truckload of premierships. It would be like putting a side in between Westies and the Bays, say at South Plympton.
Did they expect Woodville to bring Port down a peg or two by taking players and supporters?
Were Woodville a hugely successful amatuer club that the SANFL felt they couldn't ignore? What's the story?
I read in another posting that a Woodville supporter, originally against the merger, now takes the view that Torrens only got back what was taken away when The Peckers were admitted. I told that to an old Torrens supporter I was talking to the other day and he said he thought that was about right.
If someone could please help with some background on this, I'd appreciate it.
The official reason was that the Woodville council was the biggest in the state and therefore deserved a league side!!!! The unofficial reason was that Port was too strong. Ironically Port remianed strong but Torrens went from being a perennial finallist albeit underachiever in finals to being a basket case.

I often muse as to what would have happened if Woodville hadn't come into the league. In 1963 Torrens were the best team for much of the year but were decimated with injuries come finals time and lost by 17 points to Port in the second semi and 2 points to North in the Preliminary final. Meanwhile Bob Simunsen, who had grown up a Torrens supporter in the old Torrens area, was absolutely dominating the seconds competition for Woodville, having won two seconds Magarey medals and having been chosen for the state squad whilst playing seconds. I love North Adelaide but even I admit that Bob Simunsen would have made three points difference to Torrens in 1963, they then would have made a Grand Final at least, but of course it is all supposition.

The whole demise of Torrens is a sad happening. I could go on for pages as to how they went from being the richest club in South Australia to being broke and having to merge with Woodville to save any sort of identity.
 

silverfingers

All Australian
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Posts
885
Likes
7
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#16
I know Port use to give Bradley a taxi voucher each week to get to training from Pooraka. Not sure about how he was zoned in those days, but that sort of touch made it easier for Bradley to play for Port. Whether he could have played for another SANFL club, I'm not sure.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2002
Posts
55,196
Likes
87,540
Location
Port Adelaide 5015
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Adelaide Magpies
Moderator #17
And Scott Hodges was not in Port's zone. He was in Central's zone and was forced to stand out of football by Centrals to get a clearance to Port.

I think he'd qualify for Port under the SANFL father-son rule these days.
 

McCavity

All Australian
Joined
May 22, 2008
Posts
645
Likes
3
Location
Pakenham, VIC
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Gembrook-Cockatoo,Central Districts
#18
My father - who is now no longer with us - played for Elizabeth in the late 50's and also played at Centrals when they were admitted to the SANFL reserves comp prior to gaining full membership to the SANFL.

What he told me confirms what was stated by an earlier post, that the league at that time was keen to achieve several objectives;
1. Admit a team representing the rapidly developing area of Elizabeth and Salibury, particularly given that much of the population were English immigrants and had an affinity with soccer
2. Admitting the new northern team would cause a bye, which the league was not keen to see occur, so preferably a second team was needed.
3. Woodville had a long and successful history as an amateur club with a strong administration and it was though this would translate into a successful club (with time) in the SANFL
4. That the admission of Woodville as the 10th club would assist in curtailing Port's dominance of the competition and "even" the competition out

What happened of course was the opposite. Port continued to be a force, and the teams that ultimately suffered were Torrens, West Adelaide and Woodville themselves.
 

Docker Clint

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Posts
6,085
Likes
2,244
Location
Fremantle
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Sturt
#19
Port supporters hang on to the conspiracy theory that it was meant to bring them down a notch, when in reality the league at the time overestimated the projected growth in Adelaide's population and just made a blue by putting in Woodville instead of a club from say the north eastern suburbs and moving South to Noarlunga right then and there.

Woodville lobbied hard to get in and they got the nod, that's all. How the hell could they actually bring Port down? Their supporters weren't going to go across.

Saying that that is the reason Port failed to win a premiership between 1965 and 1977 is pure arrogance and a slap in the face of the work Jack Oatey did at Unley. Sturt were just that good and dominant in that period when they were defeating Port in grand finals. Add into that, North and the Bays being around the mark. It's not as if Port were finishing in the bottom of the table during this period, they were right up there. But hey, nothing beats a good conspiracy.
 

tribey

5 Wins In-A-Row Certificate Recipients '13/'14/'18
Joined
Mar 9, 2003
Posts
56,089
Likes
119,566
Location
Queen St & Peter Rd
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
NUFC, YES.
#20
Port supporters hang on to the conspiracy theory that it was meant to bring them down a notch, when in reality the league at the time overestimated the projected growth in Adelaide's population and just made a blue by putting in Woodville instead of a club from say the north eastern suburbs and moving South to Noarlunga right then and there.

Woodville lobbied hard to get in and they got the nod, that's all. How the hell could they actually bring Port down? Their supporters weren't going to go across.

Saying that that is the reason Port failed to win a premiership between 1965 and 1977 is pure arrogance and a slap in the face of the work Jack Oatey did at Unley. Sturt were just that good and dominant in that period when they were defeating Port in grand finals. Add into that, North and the Bays being around the mark. It's not as if Port were finishing in the bottom of the table during this period, they were right up there. But hey, nothing beats a good conspiracy.
Only one Port supporter in this thread has made close to that inference - and that was Macca19 mentioning that Port's zone was eaten into.

The rest are Sturt, North and Centrals fans.

But hey, nothing beats a good whinge about Port fans.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2002
Posts
55,196
Likes
87,540
Location
Port Adelaide 5015
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Adelaide Magpies
Moderator #21
Saying that that is the reason Port failed to win a premiership between 1965 and 1977 is pure arrogance and a slap in the face of the work Jack Oatey did at Unley. Sturt were just that good and dominant in that period when they were defeating Port in grand finals. Add into that, North and the Bays being around the mark. It's not as if Port were finishing in the bottom of the table during this period, they were right up there. But hey, nothing beats a good conspiracy.
dt's already pointed out the flaw in your 'conspiracy theory' in this thread - that plenty of non-Port supporters believe the Peckers were brought in to undermine Port's position of strength. It's also worth noting that Sturt were not the only Big 4 club (Port, Sturt, Norwood, Glenelg) of the 1960s-80s to have success in the 1965-1977 period. Let's have a look at the strike rates of the so-called Big 4 clubs other than Port, prior to their ultimate success.

Glenelg - 39 years before their 1973 flag
Norwood - 25 years before their 1975 flag
Sturt - 24 years before their 1966 flag

(North Adelaide won 2 flags in 1971-72 after an 8 year hiatus)

Now there's no doubt that there was a golden era for Sturt under good old JO, but it was also this period that made Sturt a Big 4 club through the 1960s-80s. No premierships or grand finals from 1940-1966 hardly made them a perennial achiever.

Glenelg were barely a blip on the radar with two grand finals in their history before 1969. Norwood of course had always been Port's traditional rival, but had endured 25 years between premierships and were unsighted in grand finals for 14 years between 1961-1975.

Again there's no doubt that Sturt had a great side through that period, their record confirms it. North Adelaide all too briefly were a powerhouse in the early 1970s, and even the Bays pulled it all together under Kerley for a lengthy period (although haunted by too many GF losses). Would these clubs all have been as successful if Port hadn't been nobbled to some extent? Who knows, they may well have been. Counter-intuitively in this period, Port could perform well against the powerhouse sides during the minor round, but couldn't find that extra gear in finals. Sometimes the difference there is one player.

But did the SANFL know these dynasties or at least cyclical upswings of other clubs were on the horizon (with Fos's methods being overtaken in the evolution of football) when the decision was made re Woodville? They couldn't have. If it wasn't a conspiracy, it surely was one happy coincidence for the SANFL. ;)
 

McCavity

All Australian
Joined
May 22, 2008
Posts
645
Likes
3
Location
Pakenham, VIC
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Gembrook-Cockatoo,Central Districts
#22
dt's already pointed out the flaw in your 'conspiracy theory' in this thread - that plenty of non-Port supporters believe the Peckers were brought in to undermine Port's position of strength. It's also worth noting that Sturt were not the only Big 4 club (Port, Sturt, Norwood, Glenelg) of the 1960s-80s to have success in the 1965-1977 period. Let's have a look at the strike rates of the so-called Big 4 clubs other than Port, prior to their ultimate success.

Glenelg - 39 years before their 1973 flag
Norwood - 25 years before their 1975 flag
Sturt - 24 years before their 1966 flag

(North Adelaide won 2 flags in 1971-72 after an 8 year hiatus)

Now there's no doubt that there was a golden era for Sturt under good old JO, but it was also this period that made Sturt a Big 4 club through the 1960s-80s. No premierships or grand finals from 1940-1966 hardly made them a perennial achiever.

Glenelg were barely a blip on the radar with two grand finals in their history before 1969. Norwood of course had always been Port's traditional rival, but had endured 25 years between premierships and were unsighted in grand finals for 14 years between 1961-1975.

Again there's no doubt that Sturt had a great side through that period, their record confirms it. North Adelaide all too briefly were a powerhouse in the early 1970s, and even the Bays pulled it all together under Kerley for a lengthy period (although haunted by too many GF losses). Would these clubs all have been as successful if Port hadn't been nobbled to some extent? Who knows, they may well have been.

But did the SANFL know these dynasties or at least cyclical upswings of other clubs were on the horizon (with probably Fos's methods being overtaken in the evolution of football) when the decision was made re Woodville? They couldn't have. If it wasn't a conspiracy, it surely was one happy coincidence for the SANFL. ;)
Your points are all valid. The decision to bring Centrals and Woodville was made around 1960. Although Port weren't premiers that year, they had been the dominant team of the 50's - indeed since the end of the war. Centrals and Woodville were admitted into the reserves comp for (I think) seasons 1962 and 1963, before full membership was granted in 1964. Even though premierships were a little more evenly spread in the early 60's, Port was still a major finals contender.

Sturt were emerging by 1965 and broke through in 1966.
 

The Big Warrior

All Australian
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Posts
810
Likes
3
Location
Pecker Park
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Woodville F.C.
#23
Your points are all valid. The decision to bring Centrals and Woodville was made around 1960. Although Port weren't premiers that year, they had been the dominant team of the 50's - indeed since the end of the war. Centrals and Woodville were admitted into the reserves comp for (I think) seasons 1962 and 1963, before full membership was granted in 1964. Even though premierships were a little more evenly spread in the early 60's, Port was still a major finals contender.

Sturt were emerging by 1965 and broke through in 1966.
There are a few conspiracy theories out there...re the Peckers & Bulldogs entry into the SANFL!! Both teams were admitted to the SANFL seconds competition for a five year probationary period commencing from the 1959 Season. I believe Centrals' results at Seconds level were similarly " unspectacular " to those of ours. I think like the Peckers, they only made the finals once between 1959-63, prior to being admitted to League ranks in 1964.

For the record, the Peckers ladder placings whilst in the Seconds comp. were: 1959-8th, 1960-3rd , 1961- Bottom, 1962-9th and 1963-5th. Incredibly, Pecker Champ: Bob Simunsen won the Seconds Magarey Medal in both 1961 & 1962 when we finished at the foot of the ladder. " Simmo " also was runner up in both the 1960 and 1963 Seconds M.Ms too. To add to this he took out the 1959 Tomkins Medal: in the Under 19's Comp. Some golden ( and Green..) years for Bob S.

Finally, I believe the casting vote of the SANFL President of the time-: Tom Kenny enabled South Adelaide to remain in the League and both Woodville and Cental District to be admitted to the competition.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Posts
195
Likes
49
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
North Adelaide
#24
It's also worth noting that Sturt were not the only Big 4 club (Port, Sturt, Norwood, Glenelg) of the 1960s-80s to have success in the 1965-1977 period. Let's have a look at the strike rates of the so-called Big 4 clubs other than Port, prior to their ultimate success.

Glenelg - 39 years before their 1973 flag
Norwood - 25 years before their 1975 flag
Sturt - 24 years before their 1966 flag

(North Adelaide won 2 flags in 1971-72 after an 8 year hiatus)


Glenelg were barely a blip on the radar with two grand finals in their history before 1969. Norwood of course had always been Port's traditional rival, but had endured 25 years between premierships and were unsighted in grand finals for 14 years between 1961-1975.
You highlight what I said previously. Woodville and Central coming in damaged North as well as Torrens. North traditionally have been the third best performing club (and remain so) and were still a power for the first 9 years after the introduction of Woodville and Central. They had their recruiting area decimated in 1972 when they lost Pooraka to Port and a lot of the north east to Torrens!!! having already lost Kilburn to Woodville and other northern areas to Central. It was only when they were given some of the north east back in 1983, that they started to be competitve again. North still performed better than the Bays and as well as Norwood in the 1960s through to the 80s, but that 10 year period when North were broke and had half the recruiting area of some of the other clubs seems to have cost North historically.
 

McAlmanac

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Posts
2,607
Likes
10
Location
Brunswick
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Woodville
#25
Not sure of the exact boundaries, but in rough terms the Woodville High kids would have gone to Port and the Findon High kids would have gone to Torrens.

Under my rough rule of thumb I reckon Bob Simunsen, Craig McKellar, M.J. Blight, Ray Huppatz, Eddie Holland and John Cummins would have finished up at Thebarton - they all came from south of the Port Road. Six blokes (five State footballers) who would have come on stream through the 60's. I reckon Torrens were the BIG losers.

The only man to play in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's - Ralph Sewer - would have finished up at Port (not sure if he actually went to school, but he's a Ferryden Park lad).

I stand corrected on these assertions, but there certainly were some handy locally bred footballers who Port and Torrens missed out on.

Oh, and North missed out on Mike Doszna 'cos he was from Kilburn. ;)
 
Top Bottom