We Need You South

[dedja]

C'mon BP, pay attention ... Knuckles didn't win a flag at Central, let alone the last one

[Pseudo]

Not for this little black duck ... every other team but mine are top blokes.

edited for SL.org compatibility.

[dedja]

I see what you did there ...

[Douglas Mawson]

Thanks Snout's boys......back on topic....We need you South!

C'arn F'ers!

[johntheclaret]

Yeah, it's hard to imagine how they've improved so much after winning 31 of their previous 100 games before this season.

It's like they have reinvented themselves.

Oh I'm sorry, I was told the Magpies were dead and there's a new team going around called Port Power Reserves. I guess they were wrong.

You're a Port fan. You'll believe anything that comes out of Alberton
Baaaaa

[Booney]

Yeah, it's hard to imagine how they've improved so much after winning 31 of their previous 100 games before this season.

It's like they have reinvented themselves.

Oh I'm sorry, I was told the Magpies were dead and there's a new team going around called Port Power Reserves. I guess they were wrong.

You're a Port fan. You'll believe anything that comes out of Alberton
Baaaaa

[Rising Power]

Yeah, it's hard to imagine how they've improved so much after winning 31 of their previous 100 games before this season.

It's like they have reinvented themselves.

Oh I'm sorry, I was told the Magpies were dead and there's a new team going around called Port Power Reserves. I guess they were wrong.

You're a Port fan. You'll believe anything that comes out of Alberton
Baaaaa

You might be thinking of Gepps Cross there fella

[Rik E Boy]

Yeah, it's hard to imagine how they've improved so much after winning 31 of their previous 100 games before this season.

It's like they have reinvented themselves.

Oh I'm sorry, I was told the Magpies were dead and there's a new team going around called Port Power Reserves. I guess they were wrong.

You're a Port fan. You'll believe anything that comes out of Alberton
Baaaaa

He's the Black and White sheep of the family.

regards,

REB

[Rik E Boy]

Yeah, it's hard to imagine how they've improved so much after winning 31 of their previous 100 games before this season.

It's like they have reinvented themselves.

Will the real Teal Slim Shady please stand up, please stand up.

regards,

REB

[SimonH]

I thought that Zac Millbank's comment that "South has never won three finals in succession" could only be right in an artist's-impression kind of way. He meant that they'd never won 3 finals in a row in the one season, right? But on a quick look at the records it seems like he's absolutely right. South have not won any 3 finals in a row it's played across any timeframe, ever*.

Man, that's a lot of history to overcome. But this is the year for disregarding history. You can do it, South.

* Nerdy postscript: You had to win at least 2 in a row to win a flag under the final-4 system (as with the current final-5 system), and so after their 3 flags in the 20th century, South bombed out in their first final the next year in each of 1936, 1939 and 1965. The only time they've won their next final after winning a flag was in 1900 after the 1899 flag, but even that only amounted to 2 in a row—1899 was in the very early days of finals being played, and so South won the flag by winning just one final. (It was done by the bizarre system of South playing 2nd placed Norwood, losing, and then playing them again in the 'challenge final' the next week and winning; that was the whole finals series.) South went on to lose the 1900 GF, ending that winning streak at 2.

[RB]

It was done by the bizarre system of South playing 2nd placed Norwood, losing, and then playing them again in the 'challenge final' the next week and winning; that was the whole finals series.

Great - that's how the finals series should work in future, with the two spots to be filled by wildcards given to the Crows and Power reserves teams.

[johntheclaret]

I thought that Zac Millbank's comment that "South has never won three finals in succession" could only be right in an artist's-impression kind of way. He meant that they'd never won 3 finals in a row in the one season, right? But on a quick look at the records it seems like he's absolutely right. South have not won any 3 finals in a row it's played across any timeframe, ever*.

Man, that's a lot of history to overcome. But this is the year for disregarding history. You can do it, South.

* Nerdy postscript: You had to win at least 2 in a row to win a flag under the final-4 system (as with the current final-5 system), and so after their 3 flags in the 20th century, South bombed out in their first final the next year in each of 1936, 1939 and 1965. The only time they've won their next final after winning a flag was in 1900 after the 1899 flag, but even that only amounted to 2 in a row—1899 was in the very early days of finals being played, and so South won the flag by winning just one final. (It was done by the bizarre system of South playing 2nd placed Norwood, losing, and then playing them again in the 'challenge final' the next week and winning; that was the whole finals series.) South went on to lose the 1900 GF, ending that winning streak at 2.

Nice work there Simon.
Let's hope this is the year to re-write history.

[johntheclaret]

It was done by the bizarre system of South playing 2nd placed Norwood, losing, and then playing them again in the 'challenge final' the next week and winning; that was the whole finals series.

Great - that's how the finals series should work in future, with the two spots to be filled by wildcards given to the Crows and Power reserves teams.

Oi, get your own troll