SA Footy

Yawn.

Wasn't this another thread topic earlier in the year? Most would have to agree with the likely GF which would be the 6th in 8 seasons.

Don't think that makes the comp boring tho - it's been a season where, apart from Centrals, appears that anybody can beat anybody on a given day.

Means the GF attendance will again be low.

I'd like to get some bloody variety... would love to have us play Port in the GF.

But for all those yawning at the prospect of another Dogs vs. Eagles GF, yawn all you like but its not our fault your teams weren't good enough to change that outcome!

Dogsbody wrote:
But for all those yawning at the prospect of another Dogs vs. Eagles GF, yawn all you like but its not our fault your teams weren't good enough to change that outcome!

Agreed, they set the standard - up to the rest of us to match it........

Dogsbody wrote:I'd like to get some bloody variety... would love to have us play Port in the GF.

But for all those yawning at the prospect of another Dogs vs. Eagles GF, yawn all you like but its not our fault your teams weren't good enough to change that outcome!

I have to say it would be nice to see Port lose a SANFL GF. They have managed to avoid this great Centrals era and so keep their great GF record intact. Some part of me still thinks the Doggies deserve/need the ultimate credibility of beating the Magpies in a GF. Don't know why I still see that as the measuring stick, it makes no sense as all you can do is beat whatever opponest is left in the last day of the year.

No disrespect to the Eagles intended ....

hondo71 wrote:

Dogsbody wrote:I'd like to get some bloody variety... would love to have us play Port in the GF.

But for all those yawning at the prospect of another Dogs vs. Eagles GF, yawn all you like but its not our fault your teams weren't good enough to change that outcome!

I have to say it would be nice to see Port lose a SANFL GF. They have managed to avoid this great Centrals era and so keep their great GF record intact. Some part of me still thinks the Doggies deserve/need the ultimate credibility of beating the Magpies in a GF. Don't know why I still see that as the measuring stick, it makes no sense as all you can do is beat whatever opponest is left in the last day of the year.

No disrespect to the Eagles intended ....

Both teams needed to beat Port at some stage to get there....

hondo71 wrote:I have to say it would be nice to see Port lose a SANFL GF. They have managed to avoid this great Centrals era and so keep their great GF record intact. Some part of me still thinks the Doggies deserve/need the ultimate credibility of beating the Magpies in a GF. Don't know why I still see that as the measuring stick, it makes no sense as all you can do is beat whatever opponest is left in the last day of the year.

Remind us all, what was the exact score of the Qualifying final in the 'dogs first premiership year?

spell_check wrote:

hondo71 wrote:I have to say it would be nice to see Port lose a SANFL GF. They have managed to avoid this great Centrals era and so keep their great GF record intact. Some part of me still thinks the Doggies deserve/need the ultimate credibility of beating the Magpies in a GF. Don't know why I still see that as the measuring stick, it makes no sense as all you can do is beat whatever opponest is left in the last day of the year.

No disrespect to the Eagles intended ....

Both teams needed to beat Port at some stage to get there....

Yes, I know fair call ... Port just had that aura on GF day where it didn't seem to matter how the season had panned out and who was minor pemier, etc they'd just come out and win. I just want to see them LOSE the most important game of the year.

I'm prob stuck in the past Spelly

Pseudo wrote:

hondo71 wrote:I have to say it would be nice to see Port lose a SANFL GF. They have managed to avoid this great Centrals era and so keep their great GF record intact. Some part of me still thinks the Doggies deserve/need the ultimate credibility of beating the Magpies in a GF. Don't know why I still see that as the measuring stick, it makes no sense as all you can do is beat whatever opponest is left in the last day of the year.

Remind us all, what was the exact score of the Qualifying final in the 'dogs first premiership year?

To me and a lot of other people, there's beating Port in a final, but then there's beating Port in a Grand Final.

Wouldn't be as much fun beating Port's second team though would it?

Time for an SANFL draft system!!

hondo71 wrote:

spell_check wrote:

hondo71 wrote:I have to say it would be nice to see Port lose a SANFL GF. They have managed to avoid this great Centrals era and so keep their great GF record intact. Some part of me still thinks the Doggies deserve/need the ultimate credibility of beating the Magpies in a GF. Don't know why I still see that as the measuring stick, it makes no sense as all you can do is beat whatever opponest is left in the last day of the year.

No disrespect to the Eagles intended ....

Both teams needed to beat Port at some stage to get there....

Yes, I know fair call ... Port just had that aura on GF day where it didn't seem to matter how the season had panned out and who was minor pemier, etc they'd just come out and win. I just want to see them LOSE the most important game of the year.

I'm prob stuck in the past Spelly

Probably the recent past, because Port aren't unbeatable in Grand Finals:

Since the McIntyre finals systems were first introduced in 1931, Port has won 26 GFs out of 41. That's a win/loss record of 63.4%. Sturt however is not far behind - 10 wins from 7 losses - 58.8%. If people used this as a measuring stick that you had to beat Port in a GF to really achieve something, then you'd have to look at Sturt as well.

What I mean by the recent past is that they only lost 2 GFs out of 15 from 1977. But if you look before that, it was 13 wins/13 losses from 1931-1976. And if you include the premiership deciding matches before this (between 1884; 1897-1930), the record is 20 wins 25 losses.

So really this idea that the 'ulitimate credibility' is to beat Port in a Grand Final is only brought around by a 22 year period, and not the entire years that Port have been existant.

spell_check wrote:Probably the recent past, because Port aren't unbeatable in Grand Finals:

Since the McIntyre finals systems were first introduced in 1931, Port has won 26 GFs out of 41. That's a win/loss record of 63.4%. Sturt however is not far behind - 10 wins from 7 losses - 58.8%. If people used this as a measuring stick that you had to beat Port in a GF to really achieve something, then you'd have to look at Sturt as well.

What I mean by the recent past is that they only lost 2 GFs out of 15 from 1977. But if you look before that, it was 13 wins/13 losses from 1931-1976. And if you include the premiership deciding matches before this (between 1884; 1897-1930), the record is 20 wins 25 losses.

So really this idea that the 'ulitimate credibility' is to beat Port in a Grand Final is only brought around by a 22 year period, and not the entire years that Port have been existant.

Yes I know ... it's just my perception because my football-following days only started in 1980. And win-loss ratios are fine but Port would take 41 GF appearances over Sturt's 17 and 26 Premierships to 10.

I guess I would have loved it if Centrals had beaten Port 5 times out of last 7 seasons. Eagles and Sturt can keep their premierships. I'm just being

You're right, my view doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny

hondo71 wrote:

spell_check wrote:

hondo71 wrote:I have to say it would be nice to see Port lose a SANFL GF. They have managed to avoid this great Centrals era and so keep their great GF record intact. Some part of me still thinks the Doggies deserve/need the ultimate credibility of beating the Magpies in a GF. Don't know why I still see that as the measuring stick, it makes no sense as all you can do is beat whatever opponest is left in the last day of the year.

No disrespect to the Eagles intended ....

Both teams needed to beat Port at some stage to get there....

Yes, I know fair call ... Port just had that aura on GF day where it didn't seem to matter how the season had panned out and who was minor pemier, etc they'd just come out and win. I just want to see them LOSE the most important game of the year.

I'm prob stuck in the past Spelly

Probably the recent past, because Port aren't unbeatable in Grand Finals:

Since the McIntyre finals systems were first introduced in 1931, Port has won 26 GFs out of 41. That's a win/loss record of 63.4%. Sturt however is not far behind - 10 wins from 7 losses - 58.8%. If people used this as a measuring stick that you had to beat Port in a GF to really achieve something, then you'd have to look at Sturt as well.

What I mean by the recent past is that they only lost 2 GFs out of 15 from 1977. But if you look before that, it was 13 wins/13 losses from 1931-1976. And if you include the premiership deciding matches before this (between 1884; 1897-1930), the record is 20 wins 25 losses.

So really this idea that the 'ulitimate credibility' is to beat Port in a Grand Final is only brought around by a 22 year period, and not the entire years that Port have been existant.[/quote]

Spelly, I think Norwood have a much better Win / Loss ration than Port. Maybe you could confirm this

johntheclaret wrote:

spell_check wrote:

hondo71 wrote:

spell_check wrote:

hondo71 wrote:I have to say it would be nice to see Port lose a SANFL GF. They have managed to avoid this great Centrals era and so keep their great GF record intact. Some part of me still thinks the Doggies deserve/need the ultimate credibility of beating the Magpies in a GF. Don't know why I still see that as the measuring stick, it makes no sense as all you can do is beat whatever opponest is left in the last day of the year.

No disrespect to the Eagles intended ....

Both teams needed to beat Port at some stage to get there....

Yes, I know fair call ... Port just had that aura on GF day where it didn't seem to matter how the season had panned out and who was minor pemier, etc they'd just come out and win. I just want to see them LOSE the most important game of the year.

I'm prob stuck in the past Spelly

Probably the recent past, because Port aren't unbeatable in Grand Finals:

Since the McIntyre finals systems were first introduced in 1931, Port has won 26 GFs out of 41. That's a win/loss record of 63.4%. Sturt however is not far behind - 10 wins from 7 losses - 58.8%. If people used this as a measuring stick that you had to beat Port in a GF to really achieve something, then you'd have to look at Sturt as well.

What I mean by the recent past is that they only lost 2 GFs out of 15 from 1977. But if you look before that, it was 13 wins/13 losses from 1931-1976. And if you include the premiership deciding matches before this (between 1884; 1897-1930), the record is 20 wins 25 losses.

So really this idea that the 'ulitimate credibility' is to beat Port in a Grand Final is only brought around by a 22 year period, and not the entire years that Port have been existant.

Spelly, I think Norwood have a much better Win / Loss ration than Port. Maybe you could confirm this

18 wins and 15 losses Norwood has had in Premiership deciding matches, to Ports 33 wins 27 losses. Sturt has had 13 wins, 9 losses.

So thats:
Sturt: 59.1%
Port: 55.0%
Norwood: 54.5%

So really, there is no overall dominance in Grand Finals for the three teams, apart from Port between 1977 and 1999 and Sturt between 1966 and 1970.

Ah. Cheers.

hondo71 wrote:

spell_check wrote:Probably the recent past, because Port aren't unbeatable in Grand Finals:

Since the McIntyre finals systems were first introduced in 1931, Port has won 26 GFs out of 41. That's a win/loss record of 63.4%. Sturt however is not far behind - 10 wins from 7 losses - 58.8%. If people used this as a measuring stick that you had to beat Port in a GF to really achieve something, then you'd have to look at Sturt as well.

What I mean by the recent past is that they only lost 2 GFs out of 15 from 1977. But if you look before that, it was 13 wins/13 losses from 1931-1976. And if you include the premiership deciding matches before this (between 1884; 1897-1930), the record is 20 wins 25 losses.

So really this idea that the 'ulitimate credibility' is to beat Port in a Grand Final is only brought around by a 22 year period, and not the entire years that Port have been existant.

Yes I know ... it's just my perception because my football-following days only started in 1980. And win-loss ratios are fine but Port would take 41 GF appearances over Sturt's 17 and 26 Premierships to 10.

I guess I would have loved it if Centrals had beaten Port 5 times out of last 7 seasons. Eagles and Sturt can keep their premierships. I'm just being

You're right, my view doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny

Well that's right, that someones' views and feelings are shaped by when they grew up onwards. I've seen it before on this site, but Port might have had that GF invinicbility feeling, they don't have the Finals invincibility feeling anymore. And that 'changing of the guard' as I like to call it, started with the match Pseudo recalled. To resume that GF invincibility feeling Port has, they need to make one first.

hondo71 wrote:

spell_check wrote:Probably the recent past, because Port aren't unbeatable in Grand Finals:

Since the McIntyre finals systems were first introduced in 1931, Port has won 26 GFs out of 41. That's a win/loss record of 63.4%. Sturt however is not far behind - 10 wins from 7 losses - 58.8%. If people used this as a measuring stick that you had to beat Port in a GF to really achieve something, then you'd have to look at Sturt as well.

What I mean by the recent past is that they only lost 2 GFs out of 15 from 1977. But if you look before that, it was 13 wins/13 losses from 1931-1976. And if you include the premiership deciding matches before this (between 1884; 1897-1930), the record is 20 wins 25 losses.

So really this idea that the 'ulitimate credibility' is to beat Port in a Grand Final is only brought around by a 22 year period, and not the entire years that Port have been existant.

Yes I know ... it's just my perception because my football-following days only started in 1980. And win-loss ratios are fine but Port would take 41 GF appearances over Sturt's 17 and 26 Premierships to 10.

I guess I would have loved it if Centrals had beaten Port 5 times out of last 7 seasons. Eagles and Sturt can keep their premierships. I'm just being

You're right, my view doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny

Well that's right, that someones' views and feelings are shaped by when they grew up onwards. I've seen it before on this site.

Port might have had that GF invinicbility feeling, they don't have the Finals invincibility feeling anymore. And that 'changing of the guard' as I like to call it, started with the match Pseudo recalled. To resume that GF invincibility feeling Port had, they need to make one first.

spell_check wrote:18 wins and 15 losses Norwood has had in Premiership deciding matches, to Ports 33 wins 27 losses. Sturt has had 13 wins, 9 losses.

So thats:
Sturt: 59.1%
Port: 55.0%
Norwood: 54.5%

So really, there is no overall dominance in Grand Finals for the three teams, apart from Port between 1977 and 1999 and Sturt between 1966 and 1970.

Except that Port have played in 60 to Norwood's 33 and Sturt's 22. And Port have won 33 almost twice as much as Norwood and 20 more than Sturt.

Why am I highlighting these stats for Port?? I'll shut up now