Search found 37 matches

Return

Re: Who xxxxed up The Forum ?

I think it looks heaps better. I'm obviously a tiny minority.
by SimonH
Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:53 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Rumours and Player Movement Discussions for 2014

Good work by Port to get them. But anyone who believes that they've signed on for $400 per SANFL league game, $100 if they play reserves, and not a cent more, also believes in fairies and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

As a bare minimum, a teensy bit of honesty and transparency as to the rules under which this competition operates, would be no bad thing. (Up until the middle of 2013, there were real SANFL clubs who copped harsh sanctions for the smallest technical breach of those rules.) Not likely, I know.
by SimonH
Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:53 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Adelaide Crows Reserves 2014

Far from being a troll, I hope and believe that beenreal is completely genuine in his delusions.

Getting massacred in AFL grand finals better than everyone else; digging deep financial holes and needing help to crawl out of them better than everyone else; running down the team and the comp that was always the bedrock of the Port Adelaide Football Club's achievements, better than everyone else; disconnecting itself from the local community and closing up shop on junior development, and so starving its SANFL reserves (and ultimately league) team of talent, better than everyone else.

Talented kids growing up a drop punt from Alberton Oval will be playing their U/16 and U/18 football for whom? Not Port, that's for sure.
by SimonH
Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:40 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Who have Norwood screwed over more ????

Hiring an unqualified coach when the board had promised Oatey the job.


Ouch

How true is this? Was Oatey infact "promised" the job? Of course it's true. It's based on specific and credible intelligence that the Norwood inner sanctum only shares with UK Fan. It's not at all related to him being disappointed that his initial troll failed to hook many fish, so he had to try to beef up his own thread in the 6th post.
by SimonH
Sun Dec 15, 2013 9:51 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Rumours and Player Movement Discussions for 2014

A few years ago now I was advocating doubling the salary cap in the SANFL. But there's no way you could think of that these days with the finances of the SANFL looking very unhealthy. Abolishing it completely will lead to clubs going bust or being uncompetitive.

However, we need something. If there is no clear jump in standard from SANFL to the lower levels then the SANFL will fold pretty quickly. Without trivialising the problems regarding players drifting away from SANFL (or never arriving at SANFL) for easy money with less commitment in the country, it does need to be kept in some kind of perspective. Players have always done it; and whether the rate of it is increasing, is more of an impressionistic thing than something easily quantified. (You can count the ex-SANFL players on official 'out' sheets who've gone to country clubs, but you'll never count players from the country who may have been approached by a SANFL club but decided not to come.) I don't think anyone would doubt the result if the best country club in the state played the wooden spoon SANFL club. The substantially higher standard of the SANFL league comp isn't only achieved by taking the same standard of players and flogging them for 5 days/nights a week instead of 1 or 2 nights in the country. You're also starting from a base of more talented players, most of whom (i.e. the 7th-to-21st best players in a club, not the stars) are attracted by the higher standard (and the carrot of AFL interest if they're good enough) rather than principally by $ signs.

One thing that is a truly terrible idea, is abolishing the SANFL reserves. Having U/18s that flow through reserves ultimately to league, in the same club wearing the same jumper, is the lifeblood of the competition. Talented U/18s, slim to no chance of getting drafted, and not yet a realistic chance of getting picked in the league squad, would be lost to the system and a fair proportion would never come back without reserves. In the middle of the year, it's a real feather in the cap of U/18s who are performing well for them to be called up to reserves; motivating them to come back and train in the summertime once they're 19 or so.

This is a point that has been overlooked in the whole AFL reserves debate. The real death of the Port Adelaide Magpies as a SANFL club, is not about 15 or so SANFL league-standard (or fringe) players who played for them in 2013 who won't be there in 2014; nor is it about where 10 or so AFL-listed players will be playing their SANFL. It's that from 2015, the tap for future talent flowing through to the Magpies reserves and ultimately league, has been turned off. And the pipes will be dug up and carted away.
by SimonH
Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:24 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Adelaide Crows Reserves 2014

Not having a crack at anybody in particular, but what argument will it be? One minute the 2 AFL sides wont give a rats toss about winning, but another post highlights the supposed advantage both will have. But both can be true. The Sydney Swans reserves, for example, have a mammoth advantage in facilities, coaches, and (in the context of the NSW/ACT comp) talent over their competitors. So much so that the comp administrators have had to game the system with caps on AFL-listed players etc, in order to minimise the lopsided results. But at the same time, Belconnen FC and their ilk will bust a gut to win a game or get the premiership—doing so is the principal reason for their existence. Whereas for the Swans reserves, winning a flag in Canberra is nice, but it isn't the be-all and end-all as long as the kids develop and learn the game plan.

The mandatory leave period under the AFLPA's enterprise bargaining agreement is just one of the reasons why AFL reserves sides tend to tail off in the finals—the sooner you can get your kids off the park and on holidays, the sooner you can start pre-season training for next year.

Either way port and adelaide will be critiqued regardless of ladder position.
They'll be critiqued regardless of ladder position quite validly. The Crows reserves finishing top, bottom or in the middle in 2014 won't validate the decision. Because the valid criticism isn't "they'll be way too strong for this comp", or "they'll be way too weak for this comp". It's, "they don't belong in this comp at all—it is a SA state football league for clubs to pit their best players against each other. They are not a SA state football league club, and they are not pitting their best players against their opponents". The situation with Port is a bit more complex in 2014, but by 2015 they will have fully adopted the 'soulless franchise reserves team' model, and so will be equally undeserving of a spot in the comp.
by SimonH
Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:56 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Adelaide Crows Reserves 2014


First of all, the PAFC haven't "adopted" the 2015 model, they've had it forced upon them. But in 2015 they'll still have a club structure consisting of an AFL side, an SANFL League side, an SANFL Reserves side and a junior academy to enhance the development of young footballers. 1. You sign up or you don't sign up. PAFC aggressively drove the 'we want an AFL seconds team in the SANFL' agenda, signed on the dotted line pretty much instantly once terms were set out, and then some PAFC people want to claim 'oh, but we only agreed to the rules of an AFL seconds team because we had a gun to our heads'!? Talk about trying to have it both ways.

2. You'll be an AFL franchise invading a comp that you don't belong to. There will be no continuous pathway for talented young Port supporters to play for Port from juniors. Quite the opposite—it'll be prohibited. The 'junior academy' is window-dressing nonsense. The AFL (outside of the 'development states' NSW and Qld) bans AFL clubs from entering into direct coaching arrangements with U/18 players. It's treated as draft tampering. The quality U/18 players will be attached to one of the continuing 8 SANFL clubs anyway. So, the Port 'academy' will be limited to players over 18, who've been overlooked at the AFL draft and rookie draft, and if they were good enough to play U/18 SANFL comp in the first place, who have been released or transferred from their SANFL club (e.g. because they're not good enough to make that team's SANFL reserves side). Having no juniors, the Power will busily go around filling up its SANFL reserves squad with the cast-offs from the superannuated U/18s of real SANFL clubs, plus the odd country over-18 who's never played in the city. The 'junior academy', and the 'academy team' are a fancy way of saying that you will train your SANFL reserves squad. Whoop-de-do.
by SimonH
Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:46 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Adelaide Crows Reserves 2014

Port Adelaide MAGPIES reserve will have the best 18 years old's that didn't get drafted to the AFL. Do you really think that a 18 year old that still wants to have a crack at AFL will want to play for norwood over Port. Having access to everything at a AFL club versus only having access to everything at a SANFL club. Sorry, how will they have access to "everything at a AFL club" if they're playing for the "Port Adelaide MAGPIES reserve[s]"?

Anyway, let's go through it all very slowly now:
1. The 18yo kid who's played Norwood from U/16s and played U/18s last year, is good. Missed getting drafted, and maybe not SANFL league good yet, but certainly reserves good, and could be good enough to push for league selection depending on performances in the 2nds.
2. Norwood obviously don't want to let him go.
3. So the only way he ends up at the Magpies is if he walks, and if Port Adelaide (on the current system) pay a transfer fee.
4. So, will he walk?
5. On the plus side, he gets a lot of talk about playing at an AFL club, having access to an AFL club's facilities, joining an 'academy' and playing for an 'academy team' ('cos that sounds so much more prestigious than joining a reserves squad and playing reserves), and living the dream of having a crack at AFL.
6. On the minus side:
• He will be training and playing with the 3rd tier group at the PAFC, and that fact will effectively be locked in for the whole year; he will be with the 2nd tier group at Norwood, and can instantly be promoted to the top tier if performances warrant it
• He is (barring an improbable run of injuries to the AFL list and the SANFL top-up list) guaranteed not to get a SANFL league game at PAFC. There are about 37 players guaranteed a SANFL league game before him (44 on AFL list + 15 league top-up - 22 AFL players picked each week). That's a massive whack of injuries required before he's even a theoretical chance; whereas Norwood can pick him for his SANFL league debut the minute he earns his spot
• Playing SANFL reserves won't get him on an AFL list. For someone who's already been passed over once, playing well at SANFL reserves level isn't going to impress AFL talent scouts. Every mature-aged draftee from SA I can think of, got the nod by playing stand-out footy at SANFL league level
• He is (if PAFC follow the rules) prohibited from being paid more than $100 per game by the PAFC because he's stuck in the SANFL reserves all year, whereas at Norwood if he earns a league debut, then within the SANFL salary cap Norwood can pay him whatever they like
• He has to leave behind his mates and club he's grown up with, which is a greater-than-usual pull if your home club is successful and the club you're thinking of transferring to, isn't
• The talk of 'if you wanna live the dream of playing AFL, your chances are better if you come to an AFL club' is an obvious crock. If they're interested in persuading him to stay, Norwood can point out to him: "Look at the number of players drafted and rookied from Norwood over the last 5 years, as compared with those wearing a prison bar guernsey."

There may well be the odd decent 18yo who requests to transfer over to Port Adelaide for a range of reasons, including that they buy the hype—in addition to the ex-U/18 castoffs who will make up the bulk of the 'academy'. People do irrational things all of the time, young people even more so.

But good luck with the claim that "the best 18 year olds that didn't get drafted to the AFL" will be lining up en masse to leave behind their SANFL club and train with the 3rd tier group at a bones-of-its-arse AFL club, in order to grasp the prize of not playing SANFL league footy and therefore not attracting the interest of AFL talent scouts.
by SimonH
Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:00 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Channel 7 announced by SANFL as preferred telecast partn

For those of you hard of reading, I'll write it again. The ABC didn't want to do it any more.

Simply put, NO CHANNEL 7, NO FOOTBALL TELECAST!!


Do you know that for sure? They are still broadcasting the WAFL this season. What you said, Hazydog. It's a myth that the ABC had made the decision to scrap SANFL coverage. There is not a single reliable source for the claim (and no, beenreal repeating something over and over is not a 'reliable source'). The news stories in mid-2013 when this suddenly popped up (as 'McGuire Media is coming to save the SANFL—for a mere $1m a year!') were doing no more than parroting the line being fed to them by the SANFL, which had decided which way it wanted to jump. See, for example, the 'boy, does this guy ever get it right?' assertions of Rucci : "... as the ABC prepares to walk away from football in both Adelaide and Perth". Um, whoops. Impeccable sources as always, I'm sure. 'The ABC is gonna walk away, leaving us with nothing' became a self-fulfilling prophecy for some people in SANFL management. The fact is that the SANFL walked away from the ABC.

WAFL has always been a lower-attendance and therefore presumably lower-rating comp than the SANFL, and yet the ABC bat on in the West. The NTFL has always been vastly smaller than both, and yet the ABC have batted on there. The ABC bats on covering the VFL in Victoria in 2014. The ABC bats on covering the local rugby union Shute Shield in NSW in 2014. There's a bit of a theme developing there, hey?
by SimonH
Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:14 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Your 2014 predictions

More injuries though whufc. Karma is a killer.

My prayers have been answered. Just need to turn 0 - 3 into 0 - 22 and I can depart this mortal coil a happy man

Sando, master coach. :D Quote from after-match press conference: "We're not hitting the panic button yet, but we're certainly starting to lean on it a little bit."

That's right, Sando: man who can't work out how to press a button.
by SimonH
Sun Apr 06, 2014 12:38 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 2014 Tribunal News & Discussions

It's at 11:25 of the 'Recovery Session' video on the SANFL site.

Barmby could have contested the ball, Phillips was blindsided because he only had eyes for the ball, Barmby decided to go the body instead and hit Phillips with an elbow to the head. That's bad news every day of the week at the Tribunal, or should be, regardless of whether the SANFL Tribunal is now following the path of the AFL. The only real question is whether it's classed as negligent or reckless. I would be flabbergasted if Barmby plays this week. He might as well give it a go at the Tribunal, though, as he could well do better than 3.
by SimonH
Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:17 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Future of the SANFL

another issue - if you have a full reserves comp, do you expand the lists? do you still have topup players? to me it would make more sense to extend lists to maybe 50-55, which then brings about more costs etc. possibly could be offset by increased broadcasting of those games. but i doubt it. 55 person lists (and that would be the minimum to almost-guarantee that 2 sides could be formed every week with only minimal & occasional top-ups) would be a very bad thing for the SANFL. Lists currently top out at 44 (plus international rookies, basketballers and weird stuff). Those extra 11 players, per club, i.e. 198 players extra on AFL lists would come from somewhere. No prizes for guessing where.

A better solution for the SANFL would be the for the AFL reserves comp to be established on similar list sizes to now, and continue to move top-ups in the direction that most AFL teams are going anyway, i.e. a testing ground for young players. Because it's not a massive priority for AFL clubs whether their reserves win ('winning culture' yadda yadda notwithstanding), and it's much more about identifying and developing talent, they will be much more interested in having a look at potential draftees (who are kids), rather than paying coin to have say Kieran McGuinness or Brett Eddy playing for their reserves side. One 'leadership player' is neither here nor there in the grand scheme. The greatest demand is for the U/18s, while the draft age remains as it is—and so the simplest model would be that each SA AFL club is allocated 4 U/18 SANFL clubs (there will only be 8 in total: Port Adelaide has, in a bargain it may come to sorely regret, signed away its U/18 zones forever from 2015 on), from whom it picks its weekly top-ups. Whenever not topping up an AFL reserves side, SA juniors continue as they were, i.e. they continue to 'belong' to their SANFL club unless and until being drafted. The rules of the AFL may need to be changed to accommodate this—otherwise, they could just go with the 'Rafferty's rules, gather left-over bits & pieces from country leagues, ammos etc' model, ditching the ill-conceived 'hey, SANFL clubs, can you loan us some spare over-18 players?' experiment that the Crows have tried in 2014.

Either way, the SANFL gets its soul back, the AFL clubs get their development league, and the SANFL's quality doesn't fall away dramatically either.
by SimonH
Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:54 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: North v Norwood - Anzac Day - Post Game

Any club arrogant enough to appoint a coach with zero coaching experience just because he knows the game plan are in for a rude shock. Norwood are starting to see this. Ben Warren may see the year out but Norwood will look back on this appointment with regret. Quiz question: have Norwood ever won a flag coached by a coach who was appointed to the job with any substantial prior coaching experience?

2012/13: Bassett. Basically nil.
1997: Rohde. Nil. Straight out of VFL/AFL playing career.
1982/84: Balme. Nil. Straight from VFL playing career.
1975/78: Hammond. Nil. Appointed as playing coach.
1946/48/50: Jack Oatey. Nil. Appointed, and won all flags, while still playing.
1941: Perc McCallum. Seemingly nil. Retired from playing 1940, appointed coach immediately.
1929: Walter Scott. Nil. Playing coach.
1925: Syd White. Nil. Playing coach.
1922/23: Tom Leahy. Seemingly nil. Retired from playing 1921, appointed coach immediately.

The flag that Norwood won prior to that was 1907, and the first entry in the Norwood club history of a coach being appointed is the year 1909, i.e. for all Norwood flags prior to 1922 there was no coach.

Might be just a coincidence. But equally it might mean something that Trevor Hill, when appointed, had more coaching experience and credentials than all of the above coaches put together. It might mean that if you've got the right dude, experience is vastly overrated. Whether Norwood have the right dude remains to be seen. But if Nathan Bassett was judged exclusively on his first 4 minor round games, he was one of Norwood's worst appointments of all time, and at the time some keyboard warriors no doubt had a ball delighting in all of the 'sack Bassett' threads that were going to be raining down come the end of 2010.
by SimonH
Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:10 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Round 7 - Port Magpies v South @ Alberton inc Post Matc

... perhaps if Port had a group of injuries as the Crows have it might have been a more even contest... . The 'injuries' line doesn't cut it any more. Adelaide had 17 AFL listed players playing on Friday night, and the 18th man on the ground at opening bounce was Ian Callinan. Can hardly blame the 3 top-ups for the performance on the night. By my count there were roughly 16 AFL-listed players in Port's team vs South.

Port Adelaide's leftover AFL-listed players are simply much better at the moment. (Probably as a result of being more experienced. Couldn't be bothered counting, but I would expect that the number of Port's SANFL squad on the weekend who have debuted at AFL level, would shade Adelaide's equivalent number.) And then the 2nd part of the equation is that there is absolutely no comparison in the quality of the top-ups/SANFL contracted players. You need to get over a critical mass of SANFL-quality (or better) players in order to 'carry' a handful that aren't at the required level. With Haren, Bruggemann, Krakouer, Biemans (and probably others), there's no doubt that they've "recruited" very well, plus retaining a smattering of last year's Magpies league and reserves players on top of Summerton and Slattery.

Having a guaranteed 5–8 non-AFL players who are up to SANFL league standard, makes the world of difference in terms of keeping you above that critical mass, bearing in mind average AFL injury lists. If you don't have that 5–8, it's not only Adelaide who wind up looking sub-standard. Peel Thunder (Fremantle reserves) are 1-7 in the WAFL, and Gold Coast Suns reserves (who've been strong in previous years) are 0-7 and a chopping block in the NEAFL—even though both sides have some players who should in theory dominate at stage league level (e.g. Jonathan Griffin in the West, Nathan Bock on the GC).
by SimonH
Mon May 19, 2014 1:00 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: The 2014 season no AFL in the SANFL whinge thread

I fully understand what was posted. As you said the big hint in the first sentence. Did you notice that the last 3 words? IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA. Meaning they are the governing body for all competitions in South Australia. The AFL is a Australia wide competition. Just so you understand.

ACT and NSW governing body is AFL NSW/ACT
NT governing body is AFL NT
Queensland Governing body is AFL Queensland
SA governing body South Australian Football Commission
Tasmania governing body is AFL Victoria
Victoria governing body is AFL Victoria
WA governing body is WA football commission

The SANFL only have a say on the leagues that based in SA, anything outside of this is out of their control e.g. the AFL. The AFL is the governing body for Australia Football and that is why all of the governing body listed above follow the laws of the game, which are set out by the governing body the AFL. I just wish that you could have used the phrase 'governing body' more often in that post. If all 'governing bodies', including the SA Football Commission, just blindly follow the chief 'governing body', the AFL, on the laws of the game, then good luck to your SANFL team in running out with 22 men and complaining about how short your 50 metre penalties are, next weekend.
by SimonH
Tue May 20, 2014 12:45 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: The 2014 season no AFL in the SANFL whinge thread

Interesting that despite Port's relative "Success" in the past 18 months they are yet to turn things around financially, where do they stand now (and the future) the SANFL are no longer bank rolling them? Here is a link, even though the 2013 Annual Report doesn't seem to be (easily found) on the PAFC website. Loss of $1.69 million, following on from a loss of $2.1 million in the 2012 Annual Report. That 2012 result was with a special grant from the SANFL of $2 million though, so it was a real trading loss of $4.1 million. (The club has a 'book' asset valuation of $5 million calculated by deducting assets from $17 million, liabilities of $12 million, but that's only 'book value' as a going concern, i.e. if you were to shut the place up and flog its assets on the market, you'd never get near $17 million.)

Financially, the dream is that Port Adelaide FC improves from being a basketcase, to a mere mediocrity (i.e. break-even or smallish losses). Or to put it another way: if it were a for-profit business on the stock exchange, its shares would be trading at about 1 cent and it could be bought for near enough to nothing by anyone willing to take on its debt. (See: the horribly starry-eyed North Melbourne FC stock market float, from the pre-Wall Street days when capitalism was going to save the world.) And yes, there are at least 6 to 8 current AFL clubs (and no doubt at least 4 or 5 SANFL clubs) you could also say that about.

Like most footy clubs forever, Port runs on commitment, belief, momentum and hope. Of course there have been a lot of wonderful things written about Adelaide Oval, and the 2014 Annual Report result should be a lot better than those that preceded it, but I doubt whether the location a club plays home games at, can change the fundamentals of its business.

The most hilarious thing about the 'Crows reserves in the SANFL' argument (among many hilarious things), was the claim, 'without the $50k per club per year fee and all of the lovely extra attention from letting the Crows play, about 5 clubs will pack up and close and the SANFL comp will be basically destroyed anyway, because look at the terrible balance-sheets these clubs have ! Newsflash: many or most footy clubs have always had balance-sheets that terrible. Ironically, the AFL was born because too many VFL clubs had sent themselves broke offering silly deals to poach stars (and just administering their business badly) by the mid-1980s, and they felt they desperately needed a cash injection to stay afloat. As the South Australians wouldn't play ball, the cashed-up West Aussies looked like an easy mark...
by SimonH
Tue May 20, 2014 5:37 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Foxtel Cup 2014

There is next to no crossover between a midweek, short-game, state league team knockout comp involving about 10 games for the whole comp, and a full-blown AFL reserves competition involving about 200 games per year, 9 every weekend, with (presumably) full-length games, a league ladder, etcetera. They are just completely different beasts.

Foxtel may well have to be involved if/when an AFL reserves comp is going to get up—but the Foxtel Cup will never morph into an AFL reserves competition.
by SimonH
Thu May 29, 2014 1:24 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 2014 State Game - SANFL v VFL @ Port Melbourne (Sat 31/5

Dozens weren't available for the VFL as were many not available for the SANFL due to the rules in place that don't allow AFL listed players in the game. As AFL players play in the respective comps (with many more in the VFL) the only fair indication of where the comps stand would be to included them. At least it would have some relevance then, yesterdays match has none. That's weird. Where there are 10 AFL sides based in Victoria, and 2 in South Australia, it's neither controversial nor interesting to observe that the non-selected AFL players running around in the VFL each week are going to be far more numerous than those running around in SA—and so if you had to form a notional 'best 22' out of them (for some unknown reason), it would probably be better than the best 22 non-selected AFL players playing in the SANFL. What "relevance" there would be in proving that 10 > 2, in a battle of the out-of-favour AFL-listers, is anyone's guess. Even presuming that the AFL clubs would release their 'best' non-selected players to play in the game, that kind of 'best of the rejects' model doesn't sound like any interstate contest I've ever heard of. Whereas the best players who are contracted to play in the SANFL, and in fact play each week in the SANFL, versus their counterparts from the VFL selected on the same basis, is true to the spirit of interstate footy going back to the year dot.

If people think that's irrelevant, that's up to them. It's only been going for 135 years now, so I'm sure it'll fall into disuse some time soon.
by SimonH
Mon Jun 02, 2014 12:04 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Round 12 LIVE scores

Great team for South to hit form against. Is that it for the final 5?

Presuming the Eags beat Glenelg tomorrow, there will be 2 matches and arguably too much percentage to catch up in the remaining games, standing between North and West and a spot in the finals, i.e. they're effectively 3 games down with 6 rounds to go. Not impossible, but they'll need to get their skates on (and hope one of Eags, Norwood, South falls in a hole).

In case anyone cared (and yeah, I know no-one does) the results so far this weekend have closed the door on Adelaide.
by SimonH
Sat Jul 05, 2014 6:21 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Decline of the long serving SANFL player since 2009

True, and really sad. The SANFL is pinched at both ends (many of the really promising or accomplished enter the AFL system, and equally there are plenty of ammo/country clubs that offer more money for less work, plus the state leagues are really a national market and there's less resistance than ever to moving interstate if the money is right), and so too many players who'd play a full decade career not long ago, drift away after half a decade now.

On the night that Callinan plays his 100th SANFL game* tomorrow night, Norwood could have five 100-gamers running around for them (albeit Bode and Craig Evans have played the bulk of their ton elsewhere). That's not too bad, but it's notable that of that 5 (and there'd be 6 if Jimmy Allan weren't injured), no-one has played 150 games. It seems like no-one's even very close to 150 games. Not only have we lost the Garry McIntoshes (guys who persist through the SANFL all the way for 10 years +), but we've also lost the Brett Jameses (those who come back to the SANFL after a relatively brief AFL career, and rather than playing a half-hearted farewell season or two, throw themselves into it, become club leaders and clock up 200 SANFL games).
by SimonH
Fri May 16, 2014 1:41 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: SANFL invitees to AFL Draft Combine

The national champ SA 2014 U/18 team was definitely a champion team rather than a team of champions. 28 Vic Metro and 16 Vic Country players invited to draft combine, while it's a maximum of 12 South Aussies who played in the U/18 champs. Out of the above list, Bampton was injured and so missed the champs, with Glenn & Eddy obviously being over-aged.

Great to see that a number of clubs are seriously considering Caleb Daniel. It might just be that simply being a really good football player, rather than merely being 200cm and able to run 100 metres in less than 11 seconds, is still enough to get you an AFL career.
by SimonH
Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:41 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Elimination Final - South v Eagles @ AO (Sat N 30/8)

Woodville 1986?

Can South go on a run and each following week add the support of those they've just knocked??

The finals games I attended in 2006 and 2011 saw heaps of old Southies come out of the woodwork.

We've actually had a fairly large supporter base there, a lot more than your average Noarlunga game. Should be more old Southies come out of the woodwork than 2011 (and even 2006), because someone's spent a couple of quid doing up your home ground before inviting you back there.
by SimonH
Thu Aug 28, 2014 4:34 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: We Need You South

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.
by SimonH
Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:07 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Preliminary Final - Port v South @ Adelaide Oval (Sun 14

Everything I say below is based on the assumption that the qualification requirements remain 'live' in finals (i.e. finals matches count) and aren't set in stone at the end of the minor round. There's nothing in the wording to suggest that finals should be ignored, but no-one's 100% confirmed it. However, the list published by Port Adelaide (quoted by RustyCage above) presumes that it is set in stone at the end of the minor round.

I've also assumed that an AFL team is deemed to be "involved" for the whole weekend when they play finals—otherwise, if the 2 sets of games were to overlap (with the AFL finishing first), the 2nds might have to take players off at half-time of their SANFL final!

In short, if the AFL team lines up as selected, and if everyone who can fly back does fly back from Perth and play SANFL, there are 2 players included in the list published by PAFC who now don't (or at least shouldn't) qualify—O'Shea and Moore—and 2 players who were excluded from the list published by PAFC who will qualify—Impey (who qualifies regardless of what happens this weekend) and Aaron Young.

Impey : At the time that list was published, he didn't qualify. Right now he does, because he's played 3 of the last 4 SANFL games, playing SANFL Rs 16 and 17, not playing at all on the weekend of 22-24 August (SANFL R18), and playing 2SF. Therefore he qualifies under the '3 of the last 5 games at SANFL level' rule. Even if Port didn't play him this weekend in the SANFL, it'll still be 3 of the last 5 and he'd be eligible for GF selection if they made it.

O'Shea : As we speak, doesn't qualify because he's played 10 AFL and 10 SANFL games this year, i.e. not the majority of his football at SANFL level. (And all of his SANFL were ages ago, so no '3 out of 5' chance for him.) He's in the named 22 for the Pahhhhr 1sts, so there's no way he'll play SANFL, therefore after this weekend he really, really won't qualify.

Mitchell : This is a tight one. 10 AFL and 8 SANFL this year, so definitely not under that rule. At the time the list was published, he'd played 3 of the last 5 SANFL minor round matches: R14, 17, 18. However, R14 is ancient history now. In the last 4 Port SANFL games he's played 2: R17 and R18. So he must play SANFL this weekend to make the 3/5 and qualify for the GF if they win. Because he had the weekend off last weekend as well, definitely the pick to fly back and play if only 1 of them does. That said, there's another emergency they may be motivated to fly back & play...

Young: Another one on the edge, who qualifies only if he plays SANFL this weekend. 14 AFL, 4 SANFL for the year, but 2 of those SANFL games were R18 and 2SF, so add a 3rd and he'll qualify under the 3/5 rule.

Neade: Makes it easily even though he's been an automatic pick for the Pahhhhhr AFL side for a few weeks now. 14 SANFL, 6 AFL this year.

Moore: As we speak, 8 SANFL and 7 AFL games this year (with the SANFL having been a while back). So if he lines up as selected in the AFL, he will lose his 'majority SANFL' and will no longer qualify.

All of that said: carrrrn the Panthers.
by SimonH
Fri Sep 12, 2014 3:56 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: The 2014 season no AFL in the SANFL whinge thread

Had lunch with a board member of an SANFL club today and he mentioned that despite yesterdays result there are still changes afoot.
At the moment 4 clubs are on board and trying to gather more support but he mentioned that it probably wouldnt get pushed until next year.
A lot depends on the two sides forming an alliance with an amateur side but the proposal would limit the ammount of AFL listed players per game to 14, the others would then go to the ammateur side to play. Small tweak to finals eligibity aswell with 6 games required to qualify unless both sides are still in (like the weekend) As he said too late to get it up this year but will be pushing hard next year for it to be introduced in 2016. He didnt say which 4 clubs were currently onboard but obviously it would be good if all clubs jumped on.
There was also talk of the AFL sides being excluded from finals but a couple of clubs have knocked that on the head already
So push the problem onto the SAAFL? If 19 full time professional players are available like in the GF, a single SAAFL club would take on the additional 5. That would make a hell of a difference to the results of games at that level. Would be interesting to see what changes are actually made. Gee, never thought I'd agree with Rising Power on this sort of topic. This sounds like a bunch of effort to take it nowhere. Mandatory ammos (and why would it be ammos? Has Port already decided that its 'Academy side' is going to flee the SANFL reserves?) is a retrograde change as things sit now. Port Adelaide would have been as strong, or stronger, in the finals series with a 14-listed-player restriction. Take out Butcher and your 4 other 'worst' AFL-listed players and add in Bruggemann, Biemans, Robbie Young, Slattery, Johansen. The quality of the side isn't going to go down. The effort at that end needs to go into stopping an AFL club using its AFL-club resources to recruit top-up players—which has partially been fixed for the future, but the rule changes announced last month mean that Port has lots of motivation to hang on to its existing SANFL-listers, none of whom it's required to get rid of. And lots of motivation to keep 'em means lots of motivation to make it worth their while to stay. The SANFL needs to either enforce the $400 per game rule strictly, or change it to something that will be strictly enforced (for an example at the crazy opposite end of the spectrum, see the WAFL figures below!). 'Cos the situation with Summerton cf Slattery this year has been a joke.

SANFL clubs should focus most of their energies on talking to their contacts in AFL House to start making plans to get an AFL reserves competition up and going. Even leaving aside the SANFL, the current arrangements are a dog's breakfast which have made a mess of:
• the VFL—a top-level player, uninjured, waiting out the final quarter on the bench while his team gets overrun because he's hoping to play a game in another competition next week, makes a mockery of a grand final and is a spit in the face of the 23k who showed up to watch,
• the NEAFL—150 point margins are normal, AFL reserves sides have different rules from week to week depending on who their opponent is, and as far as I know any AFL-listed reserves players over any applicable cap for that opponent, don't play at all that weekend, and
• the WAFL—where the 'aligned' clubs get given 20+ players, paid a grand total of millions a year, for nothing, and then on top of that get a $182k salary cap as opposed to $280k for the stand-alone clubs who have to pay all of their own players!

For god's sake get these AFL clubs, all of which have the same purpose in running reserves sides, together in the one comp. Make arrangements for the kids from U/18 comps (who are 90% of what AFL club recruiters are interested in anyway) to play as top-ups, everyone's happy, and we can get on with our lives.

For the AFL to say, 'we can't afford it' would be the greatest joke of all time. I don't think it's the hulking financial behemoth of the NEAFL as a stand-alone entity that pays for teams to fly around between Canberra, Sydney, SE Qld, Darwin and occasionally Alice every week, all footy season, to play before family-and-friends crowds (apologies to NT Thunder who do sometimes crack 1000 at their home games).

I agree that the minimum number of games should be increased so you can't play the SANFL grannie just 'cos the AFL side dropped you at the tail end of the season after you'd played AFL all year; but that's minor.
by SimonH
Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:11 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: The never ending No AFL in the SANFL whinge thread

Compared to teams like the Hawks who were missing up to a dozen of their best at the same time id say Port's injuries were not that bad

Hawthorn had a very bad run no questioning that. But to say Port didn't have is just ridiculous. Only having 1 ruck men available for majority of the year, missing our 2 key defenders and missing some of our best midfielders all at the same time, if that's not bad I'd hate to see what extremely bad is to you then. If you're so sure you're right, go through the 2014 records and track week by week how many players Port had on the injured list, compared with other AFL clubs. Especially in the 2nd half of the year. Feel free to get back to us posting some actual links and evidence rather than "some of our best midfielders" (which is a category that some people would expect should include Ebert, Cornes, Boak, WIngard, Wines, Polec). For bonus points, try adding up the number of Port injured players who were definitely in your best 22, compared with the number of best-22 injured at other clubs. Try for example this one for a starter.
by SimonH
Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:06 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 2014 Retirements & 2015 Player Movement Discussions

thought he played some pretty reasonable footy for Port in 2014 before being dropped halfway through the year to make way for others.... The question isn't why Haren's gone, but why anyone else who's SANFL league standard would stay unless their name is Steve Summerton.

Playing SANFL reserves in a club's 3rd-tier side, with promotion to the club's 2nds (and re-relegation back to its 3rds) based more on the number of injuries in the AFL squad then the merits of their form, on significantly less coin than they could be getting anywhere else (going out on a limb and presuming that Port are following the rules), ain't exactly selling it. What happened with Biemans in the finals and then Bruggemann in the grand final was like a big advertisement: 'Hey, SANFL players! Go somewhere else!'
by SimonH
Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:04 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Former Bays Coach gets 8 months Jail

Ok, but I still don't see your point - we do know all the facts of this case. It is incorrect to say that 'only the judge knows'. While in some cases the judge's determinations on issues of law may be hard to understand for the layperson, the determinations of fact the judge makes are not really in a 'professional' capacity as you have suggested; the judge makes his determinations of fact like a jury would - namely by deciding if, on the evidence presented, the charge has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

No element of a judge's decisions on fact, or on law, are inaccessible or unfathomable to the general public. No, "we" (as in, 99.99% of people reading and writing about this) don't know all of the facts of this case. Not because legal cases are heard in dark corners, closed off to the public. Nor because the law is too obscure. Just because, as a simple matter of fact, people don't actually know all the evidence . They know a bare-bones summary. Yep, the hearing was open to the public, and the Magistrate's judgments on both conviction and sentence were pronounced in a Court open to the public. Doesn't change the fact that almost nobody who wasn't directly involved in the case would have viewed the whole thing. Barring the possibility of some Court-obsessed tourist, no-one who lives in SA. As far as I can tell, the reasons for decision on Mr Stevens' conviction and sentence aren't published. This is normal at Magistrates Court level. Of the thousands of cases decided in Victorian Magistrates Courts already this year, six have reported reasons for decision. And those 6 are all WorkCover; not one criminal case as yet.

The opinion of those on (for example) SA Footy is based upon very brief summaries that are contained in media reports on the case. That's a vastly inferior foundation for an opinion on what happened, and what the right sentence is, compared with the Magistrate who saw and heard every last bit of the actual evidence. Again, this is not because the journo is part of some dark conspiracy to make everything look worse (or better), but just because it's the journo's job to make things simple and readable for those who want to spend about 2 minutes to find out the essence of what's happened, then move on to the next story.

Can the Magistrate get it wrong? Yep. Can people mount reasonable arguments that a given sentence is too light or too heavy? Yep. It's just that the opinion of, say, the County Court Judge who hears the appeal, is likely to be better informed than whatever some dude who uses the handle lindsayheadeagles53, and is basing his views on a brief article or two he's read in the Herald Sun or 'Tiser (maybe supplemented by a 'my mate reckons that he knows his cousin, who told me...') has to say on an internet forum.

On the topic (mostly) being debated here—studies consistently show that if you ask people the generic question, 'Are sentences handed down by Judges too light?', they will mostly answer, 'Hell yeah they are—pissweak Judges should lock 'em up for longer.' But if you give them all of the facts and evidence in an individual case, both the damning and the mitigating stuff, and then ask their view on an appropriate sentence, they will come up with results remarkably similar to Judges.
by SimonH
Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:46 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 2015 SANFL Retirements

Hearing that Redlegs' midfielder James Allan has retired from SANFL footy? Ben Warren in this interview said something along the lines of "I don't mean to steal his thunder, and he'll make an announcement when he's ready, but I'd expect this will be his last year". Said that he would be delighted to offer Allan an off-field role at the Legs next year—so obviously not the case that he spat the dummy & walked after being dropped in the final minor round game.

Finishes his career as the 4th-best player in the SANFL for the year... but not in the best 21 of his club.
by SimonH
Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:22 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Sydney Swans 2015

Yes he wouldve and Sydney may not have to pay him but the AFL made it very clear his portion of the salary cap would be counted for the entire 9 years of the contract regardless of how many years he played. I will be spewing if the AFL back down on that and make any concessions to Sydney. People who write media releases delight in saying things that are literally true, but misleading. To wit, the actual wording of the AFL's media release regarding its decision to approve the Franklin contract in 2013: the Swans must promise that its "long-term specific financial commitment over the nine-year agreement will apply to the Sydney Swans FC’s Total Player Payments (TPP) for each of the nine years".

But what is the "specific financial commitment" in the agreement, in the event of Franklin retiring? That's the $10m question. I simply don't believe that a club as professionally-run as the Swans failed to consider and allow for a circumstance where he couldn't play all 9 years, bearing in mind that the contract runs to an age when 98% of players are well and truly retired. Nor, on the other side of the coin, would Franklin's reps have accepted not receiving a cent towards the back end of the deal if he were forced into retirement for injury (or, as it might turn out, illness) reasons.

Remember that these contracts are not made public. And remember that what is 'leaked' and publicised is always the most exciting, largest, headline figure. Don't be surprised at all if Franklin is forced into retirement in 2016, 2018 or 2020 that the Swans:
a) have to keep paying him money in retirement until the 9 years is up, and
b) the amount that they have to keep paying him is still counted in the cap,
but that amount is a lot, lot less than $1.2m a year.
by SimonH
Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:42 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Rule Changes for 2016

You forgot about the fourth and probably most important point Simon.
That player who deliberately sends the ball out of bounds via hand or foot and does not get penalized for deliberate.
Changes a grey area when the umps had to guess a players intention into a black and white rule.
It'll make the game more old fashioned with contests up and down the corridors with more speedy play on the outside.
Can't wait! They still won't get penalised for deliberate, or anything else... as long as they don't take clean possession and so don't handball or kick.

How long do you reckon it will take coaches and players to twig to the 'if you're under any kind of heat within 10 metres of the boundary line, tap the footy along or grubber it parallel to the line towards the next contest, but under no circumstances take clean possession' policy that this rule encourages? As this kind of free will be especially murderous in defence, the SANFL is cultivating a whole competition of defenders who just can't manage to pick up the footy when anywhere near the boundary. This will, of course, make the game more attractive to watch. I can't wait!
by SimonH
Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:05 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: SANFL Player Movements - 2015 / 2016

From the NAFC website:

In response to the rumour and speculation about Lewis Johnston’s future at the NAFC, we would like to confirm the following.

After several meetings over the past couple of weeks with the Coach and management, Lewis has advised that he no longer wants to be part of the team at the NAFC. Lewis, as we know, has had a terrible 12 months with injury and has played very little football over the past few years. In addition, a week prior to pre-season training he broke his big toe playing basketball which disappointingly resulted in another period on the sidelines at this crucial time. As our supporters have rightfully demanded, there has been new standards and expectations set at the Club after a horrible season on field, and all players are required to commit fully to the program under Josh Carr. Lewis doesn’t wish to commit to this, and has indicated he prefers not to play. Lewis has not had his contract cut as rumours suggest, although he was invited in to have his contract discussed with the aim to remind him of his obligations to his Club and teammates off the field. In any case, this meeting never took place and is not the reason for him wanting to leave his teammates.
We all share the disappointment of this with our supporters, however be assured Lewis is a contracted, required player at this Club and therefore is not able to speak with any Clubs without our permission as he knows. We will continue to work with him on the issues he has as we know how talented he could be, but at the same time the new football program will not be compromised by any player who doesn’t want to buy in or play for the Club. Man, oh, man, the next recruit to the NAFC needs to be someone with some PR skills. Rule #1: don't respond to "rumour and speculation". If there's a particular person who's gone on the record as saying something that's wrong, then correct it by all means; but otherwise you just look like your agenda is being set by behind-the-scenes whispers.

There is 'playing hardball', and then there's 'hanging your dirty laundry out to dry and attacking one of your own in public for no apparent gain'. This one falls totally on the wrong side of that line.

PS Norwood could really handle an old-style full forward who can mark and kick straight, right now. Just saying.
by SimonH
Thu Nov 26, 2015 2:35 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 2016 Premiership Odds

Just making it a conversation,

It is possibly only time until the Power and Crows eventually win it,

Or is it made impossible for that to happen? If they were in the competition indefinitely, it would only be a matter of time 'til they won it. But they won't be, one way or t'other—within a couple of decades or so, either they will leave, or the competition will transmogrify into something not widely recognised as the SANFL any more.

It's far from impossible for one of the AFL clubs' reserves to win a SANFL flag. 18 months ago, one of them was only a kick away from doing it.

It's just that the odds are gamed by the fact that AFL reserves sides, playing against firsts teams of their opponents, will tend to underperform in finals compared with regular season. There are now enough AFL reserves teams that have played enough seasons in enough state leagues, that the records are there. There are other posts on the topic that I couldn't be bothered digging up now, but there are some striking examples in NSW alone both from the Swans reserves and in recent years the GWS reserves, where regularly repeated 100 point+ smashings of opponents in the H&A season segued into 'surprising' finals losses.

There are multiple reasons for this. A major one is what's technically known as 'giving a shit'. A second is that players' bodies wear down over the course of a year of AFL footy, increasing injuries and 'resting' for older AFL players at the tail end of the season, and the club is automatically taking the best and most in-form players out of the reserves to replace them. Third, very significant where it applies, is the fact that (in non-GFs) it's generally in the AFL club's interest for their state-league team to lose if their AFL side is out, so their young players commence their off-season break sooner (and so get back to pre-season training for the next year sooner, after their minimum break under the AFL players' award). Fourth are the state league finals qualification rules which have a slightly limiting effect on the reserves sides' September strength.

Adelaide reserves will no doubt hand out some more smashings in the H&A season. Unless the AFC has an exceptionally lucky run with injuries all year, I wouldn't get on them to win the flag, though.
by SimonH
Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:53 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Norwood v North Fri 1920

Glenn was a late out last week what was the reason he didnt play this week?

Sinus infection from 'powdering' his nose? There’s an unfortunate assumption that the quasi-anonymity and free-for-all nature of online forums provides some defence from defamation laws. It doesn’t. Even if you’re made of money, don’t put the admins of SAFooty, who are equally capable of being liable, in the gun by posting silly stuff.
by SimonH
Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:53 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 2019 AFL mid season draft

Whilst not exactly the same there are SAAFL clubs who feed players to SANFL clubs and they've dealt with it for years.

Devils advocate here, I don't like the prospect of SANFL players leaving mid-year but clubs below the SANFL have dealt with it for years.

Not really, its very rare for someone to be picked from grassroots clubs mid season and put in the SANFL system if they have had nothing to do with them up to that point.

Just as I think it will be for the AFL mid season draft.

Do you think Mitch Grigg could have slotted straight into an AFL midfield role in July this year? No way, he's 6 months of training from being ready to do so. Well maybe if he knew a midseason draft was around he might have payed more attention to fitness to be ready... It's not realistically a question of 'buck up and pay more attention if you want to achieve, sonny Jim!'

It's about access to levels of equipment, coaching, support that are as different as you'd expect between a hyper-professional environment and a semi-pro one; as well as a salary that allows you to focus on footy full-time.

The broader point being made earlier on, is a good one; unless an AFL club is utterly poleaxed by injuries so that they're struggling to get 22 on the park, midfielders who are starring at state level are less likely to be picked up in the mid-season draft. Clubs will be sceptical that mids can walk in, with zero pre-season with the AFL club, and aerobically (and in terms of game style) hit the mark from day 1. Role players (rucks, KPFs, small defenders etc) are much more likely to get a call up to fill specific needs when the AFL club's list has suffered an injury/injuries that has exposed them for depth.
by SimonH
Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:09 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: South v Norwood Mon 1410

Hearing Grigg was off injured for about half the game, anyone know the nature of injury? On the radio broadcast, he went off about ¾ time and they said trainers were working on his lower back. Never came back.

Bode was off prior to that for the game, as well. (Calf? Not sure.) So even though Norwood nearly dug a hole for themselves yet again in the last half of a last quarter, there were extenuating circumstances this time kicking into a strong wind, with only 1 player on the bench and missing our captain and our best player.
by SimonH
Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:24 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: SANFL 2020 Season

The experts all say 'social distancing', which is about 6 feet of distance between you and others.

Impossible to run an AFL crowd that way, and no practical way that you could choose which 7,000 get in and which 43,000 are locked out, without causing a riot. You'd just have to lock out the whole crowd and be done with it.

But a normal SANFL home and away crowd? Made for it.

The whole time over the last 30 years, we thought that the powers that be were running down the SANFL and state leagues needlessly; in fact, they were setting them up for this moment. It's the SANFL's time to shine.
by SimonH
Fri Mar 13, 2020 1:17 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |