SA Footy

LEAGUE



Before I talk about the game against South Adelaide I would like to reflect on where we have come from over the last few years and give some well due credit to the consistency of the playing group we have at our club. From the 2004 Grand Final team, only five of those players were in our 21 on Sunday. There were only seven left of our 2005 Grand Final side and of the same 21 from the South game, 15 played in the Grand Final of 2006. There were none playing Sunday that played in the 2000 Grand Final and only one, Paul Lindsay, played in the 2001 Grand Final. It is said that to be successful a club needs a lot of stability and I won’t disagree with that. Central were a case in point between 2000 and 2005. They had a solid list that remained fairly well in tact for that period. As you can see we have had a large turn over of players but have still been able to be a very consistent club.



Central went through a similar pattern in the 90s and it does take time to sort through the type of people it requires to be a regular contender. This is mainly because of the player’s acceptance of our culture and game style. Those that are still here have embraced what we have wanted to achieve and have worked hard to make it happen. For that they need to be congratulated and afforded a huge thank you for making the club what it is. Of course our job is to continue to make it happen. That is often a lot harder than getting there and the reason a club like Central District, as well as a club like Port Adelaide in the past, have to be admired.

Against North we had two players that played in our 2000 premiership. The team that fronted for the GF last year was vastly different from the successful 2000 side. We have had 40 players play in winning GFs so we must have had about 50 different players in the 7 GFs we have played in in the 00s so I am not sure that Mr Fuller has a really strong case. You would expect a little more turn-over in a team that was losing GFs than one that was winning them wouldn't you?

Not to mention some of the guys that we did lose were key players. We even lost our captain, sadly in different ways, from the 2000 premiership. We probably have been more stable than other clubs, but I think the key is that the guys we've brought into the team have slotted in so nicely it's made the appearance of more personnel stability than is actually the case. I think the stability we've had off the ground is the most important aspect of the last decade, not to mention the way guys who leave the club officially almost always leave when there's someone to take their position and the separation is highly amicable.

Ron Fuller is a "Great Man"

How can anyone contradict him...?

Peter Fiacchi and Ken McGregor played in the 2001 GF as well. I'm surprised with your concern you didn't pick that up.

doggies4eva wrote:Against North we had two players that played in our 2000 premiership. The team that fronted for the GF last year was vastly different from the successful 2000 side. We have had 40 players play in winning GFs so we must have had about 50 different players in the 7 GFs we have played in in the 00s so I am not sure that Mr Fuller has a really strong case. You would expect a little more turn-over in a team that was losing GFs than one that was winning them wouldn't you?

45.

Chris Gowans 7
James Gowans 7
Matthew Slade 7
Marco Bello 6
Quinton Graham 6
Daniel Healy 6
Heath Hopwood 6
Paul Scoullar 6
Nathan Steinberner 6
Simon Arnott 5
Tyson Hay 5
Yves Sibenaler 5
Michael Stevens 5
Damien Arnold 4
Richard Cochrane 4
Luke Cowan 4
Brian Haraida 4
Daniel Schell 4
Stuart Cochrane 3
Brad Currie 3
Kynan Ford 3
Paul Geister 3
Brent Guerra 3
Damian Hicks 3
Rick MacGowan 3
Jason MacKenzie 3
Adam Switala 3
Paul Thomas 3
Shannon Hurn 2
Sam McArdle 2
Luke McCabe 2
Daniel Stevens 2
Elijah Ware 2
Leigh Westhoff 2
Jeremy Aufderheide 1
Stuart Dew 1
Daniel Hulm 1
Martin McKinnon 1
Radlee Moller 1
Chris Musolino 1
Chad O'Sullivan 1
Eddie Sansbury 1
Brad Symes 1
Justin Westhoff 1
Adrian Wilson 1

As opposed to 65:

Justin Cicolella 5
Gavin Colville 4
Paul Lindsay 4
Joe Pedler 4
Peter Fiacchi 3
Jon Floreani 3
Steven Hall 3
Mark McKenzie 3
Mark Passador 3
Robert Shirley 3
Leigh Treeby 3
Andrew Beveridge 2
Andrew Crowell 2
Brent Frewen 2
Darren Holland 2
Tim Inkster 2
Chris Kluzek 2
Brodie Lomas 2
Brett O'Hara 2
Nick Pesch 2
Luke Powell 2
Matthew Stokes 2
Jamie Tape 2
David Westbrook 2
Rhett Biglands 1
Nathan Bock 1
Matthew Cooper 1
Brad Dabrowski 1
Spiros Darzanos 1
Jason Earl 1
Dale Ellis 1
Sam Fairclough 1
Robert Fiacchi 1
Scott Freeborn 1
David Gallagher 1
Adam Grocke 1
Zac Hier 1
Ben Higgins 1
Luke Jarrad 1
Matthew Kluzek 1
Chris Knights 1
Matthew Manfield 1
Chris Martin 1
Scott Matthews 1
John McCarthy 1
Ken McGregor 1
James McLure 1
Andrew Merriman 1
David Niemann 1
Adam Pearce 1
Sam Phillipou 1
Ryan Potter 1
Andrew Rogers 1
Vince Rugolo 1
Hayden Skipworth 1
Mark Stevens 1
Paul Stewart 1
Dale Symmons 1
Luke Toia 1
Adam Ugrinic 1
Bernie Vince 1
Fergus Watts 1
Tom Wigley 1
Brad Williams 1
Daniel Wise 1

Spelly seems to have sorted that debate out quickly!

So thats 45 spread over 7 GF's, compared to 65 in 5 GF's as the Eagles didn't play in the 2002 or 2003 GF's.

giffo wrote:So thats 45 spread over 7 GF's, compared to 65 in 5 GF's as the Eagles didn't play in the 2002 or 2003 GF's.

If you take 22 players per GF side then:

Centrals had 7 GFs x 22 players = 154 potentials spots
Eagles had 5 GFs x 22 players = 110 potential spots

For Centrals, only 45 players were needed for the 154 spots = 29% (45 div by 154), say 71% continuity
For Eagles, needed 65 players to fill their 110 spots = 59% (65 div by 110), say 41% continuity

Big difference

I have a feeling though that a lot of the changees to the eagles team were by choice. Do we have any idea how many of those players were available for grand finals but not selected? Could this have been partially brought about by the eagles themselves?

There are a few more AFL players on the eagles list than Centrals as well at a glance.

Whoever was in form and not incapacitated at the time is only what I can see. Do you think most played in every year between 2000-06?

There's a lot more to read in to that than purely numbers.

Dissident wrote:There's a lot more to read in to that than purely numbers.

Yes that's right. But I'm not sure people will be satisfied until we go through the players in that list one by one.

I would have thought consistency and stability over time would be in any year - not just in a year that you make, or win, a grand final.

Dissident wrote:I would have thought consistency and stability over time would be in any year - not just in a year that you make, or win, a grand final.

Do you mean over a number of years, or just one year in particular?

spell_check wrote:

Dissident wrote:I would have thought consistency and stability over time would be in any year - not just in a year that you make, or win, a grand final.

Do you mean over a number of years, or just one year in particular?

Sorry, just realised what you meant, I can be a bit slow at times.

But I think that part of his message was more about retaining those key players throughout the years - like those top 9 players that Central have/had.

I think as much as anything Ron Fuller is acknowledging that the current players are striving to reach new levels and have taken it upon themselves to drive the club to success. A number of the core group of players are closing in on 100 games. I think he can see that some of the things that made Central and Port so successful could be achieved with this group of players. They know what it's like to win and as they say, success breeds success.

Time will tell.

Dissident wrote:There's a lot more to read in to that than purely numbers.

Think we all agree with you there. Spelly was just responding to the initial comments that questioned whether there was even a player-number discrepancy to begin with. Before we even debate the why's.

Full credit to the Doggies for keeping their playing group so intact - they are the benchmark for the SANFL in a lot of areas. You could argue that the Eagles may have more than 1 premiership by now if they had managed the same .... hypothetically speaking.

Interesting stats. Thanks Spelly. But I think that they are skewed a bit by only recording GFs played. A lot of the Eagles players were available in the years they didn't make the GF - we are really looking at players over time (ie the past 7 seasons).

Anyway the interesting thing about those stats were to me were the players for each side with 1 GF only. Looking at the dogs players they fell into 3 categories:

those at the end of their careers in 2000
those that went to the AFL
and those that are still playing and available for more appearances

I doubt you can say the same thing for the Eagle players with a 1 next to their name which brings me to another interesting stat:

Central 3 Coaches since start of 2000 season
Eagles 1 Coach in same period

Perhaps is not an excessive turn-over of players that should be analysed but a deficient turnover of coaches

hondo71 wrote:

Dissident wrote:There's a lot more to read in to that than purely numbers.

Think we all agree with you there. Spelly was just responding to the initial comments that questioned whether there was even a player-number discrepancy to begin with. Before we even debate the why's.

Full credit to the Doggies for keeping their playing group so intact - they are the benchmark for the SANFL in a lot of areas. You could argue that the Eagles may have more than 1 premiership by now if they had managed the same .... hypothetically speaking.

I think the Eagles have done well keeping their group intact - it's just not always been a good enough group on some days at the end of the season... !