SA Footy

whufc wrote:In all seriousness I dont.

As cliche as it sounds I look to each game as an individual chapter of a book and the buzz of excitement pre match and during the match is what I love, I remember games like West Ham beating Man City at home for years and years to come but couldn't tell you where the hammers finished in 2003.

While the ladder generaly finishes the same the beauty of football is that each game really can go either way especially with the draw being a realistic result

If you were guaranteed the Crows would not win the premiership in the next ten years would you still take your membership and attend/watch games as much as you can. Would it dampen your excitement of the Showdown, or the big Friday night clash vs Collingwood at AO

You also have to remember that it's not just about winning the league, there is excitement in chasing a Europe spot or the up coming relegation battle game etc etc. it's very rare in the EPL that your side is involved in a complete dead rubber, which is unlike Aussie rules where games like dogs vs saints, gws vs Melb etc etc at complete dead rubbers

HH3 wrote:Every AFL teams goal is to win the premiership, and they all fight towards that goal. Even if the plan is a mulit-year one, thats what they set out to do.

70% of the EPL aim to do "ok". Thats shithouse!

whufc wrote:

HH3 wrote:Every AFL teams goal is to win the premiership, and they all fight towards that goal. Even if the plan is a mulit-year one, thats what they set out to do.

70% of the EPL aim to do "ok". Thats shithouse!

In the AFL you have 4-6 teams who are playing for absolutely nothing this year other than developing players

If your a Burnley fan you have the interest of a huge relegation battle and the hope of staying in the EPL

If your a saints fan your whole season revolves around watching what kids might be good in 5 years

That is garbage imho

bennymacca wrote:The difference is I don't think west ham will ever have the resources to win a premiership whereas a similarly placed afl team does (barring an oil tycoon takeover)

HH3 wrote:

whufc wrote:

HH3 wrote:Every AFL teams goal is to win the premiership, and they all fight towards that goal. Even if the plan is a mulit-year one, thats what they set out to do.

70% of the EPL aim to do "ok". Thats shithouse!

In the AFL you have 4-6 teams who are playing for absolutely nothing this year other than developing players

If your a Burnley fan you have the interest of a huge relegation battle and the hope of staying in the EPL

If your a saints fan your whole season revolves around watching what kids might be good in 5 years

That is garbage imho

Not really. You can look at recent turnarounds like Port and West Coast who have been at the bottom one year, and in the thick of the 8 the next.

bennymacca wrote:That's because they are shit. Not because Collingwood have an order of magnitude more money to spend then them

whufc wrote:

bennymacca wrote:The difference is I don't think west ham will ever have the resources to win a premiership whereas a similarly placed afl team does (barring an oil tycoon takeover)

Really??

West Ham have won more trophies in the last 50 years as Richmond, St Kilda, Melbourne and Western Bulldogs have put together

whufc wrote:

HH3 wrote:

whufc wrote:

HH3 wrote:Every AFL teams goal is to win the premiership, and they all fight towards that goal. Even if the plan is a mulit-year one, thats what they set out to do.

70% of the EPL aim to do "ok". Thats shithouse!

In the AFL you have 4-6 teams who are playing for absolutely nothing this year other than developing players

If your a Burnley fan you have the interest of a huge relegation battle and the hope of staying in the EPL

If your a saints fan your whole season revolves around watching what kids might be good in 5 years

That is garbage imho

Not really. You can look at recent turnarounds like Port and West Coast who have been at the bottom one year, and in the thick of the 8 the next.

And what did they win???

It's no different to west ham sitting 4th this year, except for if we finish 4th we get a pretty massive prize for doing so

Dogwatcher wrote:

whufc wrote:

bennymacca wrote:The difference is I don't think west ham will ever have the resources to win a premiership whereas a similarly placed afl team does (barring an oil tycoon takeover)

Really??

West Ham have won more trophies in the last 50 years as Richmond, St Kilda, Melbourne and Western Bulldogs have put together

This debate is interesting and you've made some good points. However, this comparison isn't quite apples and apples.
Only one team can win an AFL premiership. In English soccer, you can play to win three domestic trophies annually.

In the AFL you have 4-6 teams who are playing for absolutely nothing this year other than developing players

If your a Burnley fan you have the interest of a huge relegation battle and the hope of staying in the EPL

If your a saints fan your whole season revolves around watching what kids might be good in 5 years

That is garbage imho

Not really. You can look at recent turnarounds like Port and West Coast who have been at the bottom one year, and in the thick of the 8 the next.

And what did they win???

It's no different to west ham sitting 4th this year, except for if we finish 4th we get a pretty massive prize for doing so

Look at Tottenham and Man City. Middle range teams at best until they had money pumped into them by rich guys/corporations.

whufc wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:

whufc wrote:

bennymacca wrote:The difference is I don't think west ham will ever have the resources to win a premiership whereas a similarly placed afl team does (barring an oil tycoon takeover)

Really??

West Ham have won more trophies in the last 50 years as Richmond, St Kilda, Melbourne and Western Bulldogs have put together

This debate is interesting and you've made some good points. However, this comparison isn't quite apples and apples.
Only one team can win an AFL premiership. In English soccer, you can play to win three domestic trophies annually.

Agree, which is one reason I think the whole who can win the EPL argument is not a big issue overseas and is mainly an Aussie thing

whufc wrote:Every club can position themselves and market themselves to have money pumped into them. As I said my shit club had a big oppurtunity to get Ambravovich but blew it as usual

Dogwatcher wrote:Furthermore, in those titles won over the past 50 years, how many have been won since the start of the EPL? Because that's a game changer for all clubs.