Insignificant stat

[robranisgod]

Did anyone else notice that Warren Partland stated in his article in the Sunday Mail that 1991 was the first Grand Final for 42 years that hadn't featured Port, Norwood, Sturt or Glenelg. What a pathetic stat when you consider that 2000 was the first year ever (102 years) that hadn't featured any of Port, Norwood, Sturt or North. Surely that is much more significant and worthy or being put into an article.

Do the Sunday Mail journalists ever do any research or are they so limited in their resources that they no longer have researchers?

[Blackwhite]

Interesting. Don't be at all surprised by Partland though.

[dedja]

North are just Big 4 wannabes ...

[robranisgod]

North are just Big 4 wannabes ...

Give me 13 flags to 4 any day. And besides we are managing to lose as many Grand Finals as you are these days. That is 2 wins and 6 losses from our last 8 GFs. No wonder even you can beat us.

[dedja]

Settle, I was actually barracking for North at the GF, nearly killed me though ...

[robranisgod]

Settle, I was actually barracking for North at the GF, nearly killed me though ...

I actually think that they are twins separated at birth. When they are good they play the most attractive football, have always had a champ playing for them and fight like the Gowans twins against each other.

Even when you had a side good enough to kick 49 goals in a game you still couldn't win a flag. When we had a side good enough to beat Melbourne and Collingwood when both of them were fair dinkum we still couldn't win the flag. You won 11 games in a row and couldn't win the flag, we twice have won 11 in a row and not won the flag. Need I go on.

[dedja]

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, plus we have nine lives.

Anyway, if North can get the double chance then they may just break that premiership drought sooner rather than later.

The Bays last won a flag on the day I turned 21. If I live long enough, I may get to see another one when I turn 80.

[mal]

The BIG 4 is a fabrication dearthed by the media a few decades ago
The BIG 4 was media hyped as being PA - NW -ST -GL

IF one considers the on field SUCCESSES of all the clubs then a logical BIG 4 should be
1 PA
2 NW
3 NA or ST[I have NA narrowly in front ]

How on earth did GL ever be considered as part of the BIG 4 has astounded enough people

Warren Partlands stat is there4 insignificant

[dedja]

The big 4 was coined in the (mid) 70's when those clubs dominated ...

1971 NA d PA
1972 NA d PA
1973 GL d NA
1974 ST d GL
1975 ND d GL
1976 ST d PA
1977 PA d GL
1978 ND d ST
1979 PA d SA

PA - 5 GFs, 2 premierships
GL - 4 GFs, 1 premiership
ST - 3 GFs, 2 premierships
NA - 3 GFs, 2 premierships
ND - 2 GFs, 2 premierships
SA - 1 GF, 0 premierships

on these stats, Norwood were lucky to be in the big 4, especially when you consider they did SFA for 25 years before 1975, whilst the Bays played in the 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, and 77 GFs

[Dogwatcher]

Well, it's all a moot point now.
Port Adelaide can't be in the Big 4 any more.

[SimonH]

The big 4 was coined in the (mid) 70's when those clubs dominated ...

1971 NA d PA
1972 NA d PA
1973 GL d NA
1974 ST d GL
1975 ND d GL
1976 ST d PA
1977 PA d GL
1978 ND d ST
1979 PA d SA

PA - 5 GFs, 2 premierships
GL - 4 GFs, 1 premiership
ST - 3 GFs, 2 premierships
NA - 3 GFs, 2 premierships
ND - 2 GFs, 2 premierships
SA - 1 GF, 0 premierships

on these stats, Norwood were lucky to be in the big 4, especially when you consider they did SFA for 25 years before 1975, whilst the Bays played in the 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, and 77 GFs

If it was solely based on performance in the '70s then obviously it would be a big 5, not a big 4 (no reason to exclude 1970, in which case it's Sturt leading with 3, then 2 flags all 'round, excepting that the team that only won one, made the 2nd-highest number of GFs).

If you don't include losing GFs in the definition of "SFA", then Norwood didn't do SFA at all for 25 years before 1975. They lost 5 GFs in that time (all by 1961, so you could certainly say they did SFA for 13 seasons 1962–74). By the end of the 1980 season, Norwood and Glenelg were actually even in the 'most GFs lost since 1950' stakes (6 each). Glenelg obviously then came into their own with a withering run of losing GFs 1981–92.

Actually, neither one was the losing-est team on the last day of the year across the 1950–80 period, though—Port were. Admittedly, losing GFs is an occupational hazard when you win a shedload of flags—but the most successful team in the history of the comp had their period as bunnies too. After 8 GF victories without a loss 1954–1963, from 1964–1976 Port won one decider, and lost 7! (Always warms the cockles to talk about Port losing, especially when they go in as strong favourites—which is why one of my top 10 favourite Footy Park memories is a game when I wasn't even there: the 2003 AFL qualifying final.)

[dedja]

I'll give you the points if you can articulate the same argument in 25 words or less ...

[SimonH]

I don't think it was even an argument. Just chattin' about a bunch of random stuff. (16.)

[dedja]

Well done ...

[Panther Pack]

Well, it's all a moot point now.
Port Adelaide can't be in the Big 4 any more.

Great Point Based on Premiership Success that would move South Adelaide into the NEW BIG 4!!!!!

We are Back!!!!

Norwood
North
Sturt
South

[Dogwatcher]

Current day big four - Norwood, Eagles, Centrals, ?

[FlyingHigh]

Don't know if there really is a "big four" any more.
Over last 15 years it seems we've had changing groups three up there for a few years, but perhaps that is because Centrals were so dominant for so long and Norwood are in the throes of it the fourth one has faded by the wayside.
Mid 90's with port, Centrals, Norwood and early-mid 2000's Centrals, Eagles, Sturt are probably the longest 3 teams have been up there altogether for an extended time since the Crows inception. Recently we've had CD/NA/EA, CD/GL/ST, CD/NW/EA and now NW/WA/NA each for only a couple of years at a time, so perhaps a bit more variation than the mid-60's to mid 80's?

[therisingblues]

I think in the 5 seasons between 1974 and 1978, the top four positions were always filled with a combination of Sturt, Norwood, Port and Glenelg. With the extended run of high finishes by those four sides in the years surrounding 74 to 78 we had a big 4.

[therisingblues]

Glenelg obviously then came into their own with a withering run of losing GFs 1981–1992
After 8 GF victories without a loss 1954–1963, from 1964–1976 Port won one decider, and lost 7! (Always warms the cockles to talk about Port losing, especially when they go in as strong favourites—which is why one of my top 10 favourite Footy Park memories is a game when I wasn't even there: the 2003 AFL qualifying final.)

A couple of points:
Glenelg won two in a row in the 80's, perhaps deserves a mention.
And the best one: Port won no flags from 1966-1976. Within those 12 years they were beaten on the big day by Sturt (4 times), North (twice?) and Norwood (once). If we go two years earlier we can include South, but unfortunately Sturt dropped the ball in '65, going down by 3 points. Anyway, no flags in 12 sounds so much better than 1 in 14.
Though ATM they are 0 for 14, right? Not even a Grand Final in 14 years?

[JK]

Norwood and Port didn't play one another in a Granny between 66-76