The never ending No AFL in the SANFL whinge thread

[Dogwatcher]

Crows reserves home games would probably reveal how many supporters actually follow their SANFL side. It wouldn't be pretty, I wouldn't think.

Would the Crows actually want the expense of Adelaide Oval as their SANFL home ground and having to host those games?

Nice to see the same points reiterated over and over coming into the last round of the season.

I would have thought these were new points.

[Dogwatcher]

Crows reserves home games would probably reveal how many supporters actually follow their SANFL side. It wouldn't be pretty, I wouldn't think.

Would the Crows actually want the expense of Adelaide Oval as their SANFL home ground and having to host those games?

Should the Adelaide Reserves share an oval with another SANFL club ?
Elizabeth /Carlunga ovals might be too far , but the other grounds could possibly cater for them

Maybe - not that ground sharing was embraced with much success when it was introduced as a possibility in the 80s/90s.
Would there be enough revenue from the games to make it worthwhile for the SANFL clubs?

[CUTTERMAN]

Nice to see the same points reiterated over and over coming into the last round of the season.

And the same rhetorical denials!

[mal]

PORT ADELAIDE V NORWOOD 1907-2013

MINOR ROUND GAMES [all venues including Adelaide Oval , or any other neutral grounds used]
247 Played
112 Norwood wins
This means Norwood have a winning strike rate of 45%

NORWOOD OVAL GAMES
95 Played
56 Norwood wins
This means Norwood have a winning strike rate of 58%

This clearly shows an advantage of having a home ground advantage between the former old foes

Whilst on the subject
PORT RESERVES V NORWOOD 2014
Port has a 100% record at home
Norwood has a 100% record at home

General rule :
Sides can win on any turf, but the probability increases playing on a home deck

[Booney]

Repeat to fade.

[bennymacca]

the crows could play at university oval?

[Dogwatcher]

Is that a serious post?

[am Bays]

For those that can't or won't move on, who have protested by not buying their club's membership this year, won't go to Port or Crows SANFL games, or for those that just need a place to sook.

Here you go.

FMD look what you started.

Bloody Bays supporters, pack of whingers...

Do your jobs Mods, ban Dedja

[heater31]

the crows could play at university oval?

What is wrong with West Lakes technically that is their home.....

[Rising Power]

the crows could play at university oval?

Not enough corporate boxes in the grandstand.

[Dogwatcher]

the crows could play at university oval?

Not enough corporate boxes in the grandstand.

Wouldn't mock the Crows - Port, by being in the national league, need to be just as corporate as the opposition.

[bennymacca]

Is that a serious post?

nah not really. but just thought i would throw it out there

[Apachebulldog]

Let them play up in the Gum Trees and get the fluck out of the SANFL Comp !!!!!!!!!

[Rising Power]

the crows could play at university oval?

Not enough corporate boxes in the grandstand.

Wouldn't mock the Crows - Port, by being in the national league, need to be just as corporate as the opposition.

Even in the SANFL

[Fricky]

the crows could play at university oval?

Not enough corporate boxes in the grandstand.

Play their home games at Thebby, any games during SAAFL FInals can be on Sundays/Friday nights. SAAFL HQ would love it

[matt35]

I highly doubt the Crows would particularly want an SANFL home ground. Port, for obvious reasons that many on here choose selectively to ignore, is a completely different situation so it is logical for them to maintain their SANFL home which they have used for so long!

[matt35]

On the wider point of home ground advantage, while obviously I understand the point that no team/player/coach should ever be able to easily hide behind playing away from home as an excuse for losing or poor performance, it is pretty silly to argue against evidence built up over decades of Football history that sides playing at home do win more often than sides playing away. We all know that is the case, so to suggest that a team playing on the ground that they 1-train on and 2-play on every second week does not bring some advantage in to the game is a little silly imho.

[JK]

I highly doubt the Crows would particularly want an SANFL home ground. Port, for obvious reasons that many on here choose selectively to ignore, is a completely different situation so it is logical for them to maintain their SANFL home which they have used for so long!

Shouldn't matter what the Crows want, should be about what the SANFL wants. Sounds as though the push is for Port to operate the same way as the Crows next year tho.

[johntheclaret]

Stop whinging LPH.
By saying the Port Reserve side has an advantage you've already got an excuse in your mind, that's my opinion and I'll stick to it.

So Everton v AFC Wimbledon wouldn't be similar?

I'd say it would be very similar
Or even Burnley v Fulham

[johntheclaret]

I highly doubt the Crows would particularly want an SANFL home ground. Port, for obvious reasons that many on here choose selectively to ignore, is a completely different situation so it is logical for them to maintain their SANFL home which they have used for so long!

What are those obvious reasons that many choose to ignore.
I think the most obvious reason that you are choosing to ignore is that we currently have 2 AFL reserve sides playing in the SANFL, both with a completely different sets of rules.
It's logical to question why one team gets home advantage whilst the other doesn't. The fact that the old Port Adelaide played home games at Alberton is irrelevant.

If the reserve teams play in the SANFL, and sadly it looks like they are here to stay, then surely it is in the competitions interest to have them playing by the same set of rules. In that context either Adelaide should have home games or Port shouldn't.

If you are using Alberton as being the home of PA then the same should be said of West Lakes being the home of AFC.