SA Footy

If premierships pre 1907 are counted towards clubs premiership tallies, why isn't every other stat from this era included?
Please don't tell me its just a matter of the competition changing its name('Asscociation' to ' League').
I think Phil Herden has attempted to fill a hole in this area by including records from this era in his 2006 SANFL Media Guide(page 225).
I know a lot of details from 1877 to 1906 are very difficult to find but that doesn't mean we should ignore them or worse, pretend that they don't exist.

Good point. I basically just went along with the start of 1907 because that seems to be the accepted starting point of SANFL records. I'm not sure how complete and known records are before this date, especially pre 1897 stuff, so I've just gone along with the usual starting point. As you can see in the list of pre 1907 players, there is little in the way of first names and initials in some cases, and I wonder if every player before this is actually known. I have read some kind of reason apart from the name change somewhere - it has something to do with how the competition 'was' prior to this year - i.e. West Adelaide forfeited twice in 1897 and West Torrens I think did once that year as well, and the continual changes to the teams and how many there were may have something to do with it.

What you see in the Footy Budgets in terms of head to heads start from 1907, for example. The SANFL annual reports in the 60's onwards have gone with 1907 for head to heads, so I guess until they officially change this - and more information prior to 1907 comes to hand, 1907 is the start of these records - though placings and the like are still official.

Maybe us Footysa'ers and SAFooty'ers should take it upon ourselves (if some of us haven't already!) to fill in this void.
You're right SC, about West & Torrens forfeiting a couple of games.
West chickened out on Port 29 May 1897 and Torrens did the same to South on 7 August.
When they played each other on the 28th August, the game was abandoned at 1/4 time.
They both copped some fearful hidings as well, these being;
Torrens 0.0.00 Port 15.14.104
Torrens 0.0.00 Norwood 10.12.72 (1st two games of season!)
Torrens 0.1.1 South 25.31.181
West 0.0.00 North 14.26.110( these games played on same day!)
West won one game,were held scoreless twice,goaless once,1 goal three times.
Torrens weren't much better, winning three times, going scoreless three times and goaless once.
West were worse in 1898 going 0-14.
I've got scores from 1897 to 1906 which I researched to complete my Sturt history complete, and need only one or two scores, to complete them.

IMO 1897(instead of 1907) is the obvious place for stats/records to start as that was the year behinds were included in the scores. Prior to that they had been recorded but not added to the score.
Records between 1897 and 1907 in my experience are reasonably complete and easy to compile. That's not to say there aren't some mistakes (1905 goalkickers comes to mind). But by the same token other things of interest can come to light. Like in the SANFL record books it's recorded that North lost a "final" to South in 1902 before going onto to beat them a week later in the Grand Final. But it wasn't an official final but actually an exhibition game put on to entertain the public because Port pulled out of the 1902 finals series and otherwise there would have been no football that weekend. Not earth shattering admitedlly but important in the history of North as it means our greatest winnning streak is actually 15 games (as the exhibition game doesn't count).
Two of the big problems prior to 1897 I have found was the inconsistency in football reporting from year to year. You'd think that as the years went on and Football was becoming more popular the reporting would get better but this wasn't the case. For example 1887 is far better reported than 1894!!(??) In some years details of Lacrosse are better recorded.
Another problem is that "junior" clubs (Adelaide, North Adelaide and later Port Natives (West Torrens)) get far less press than the "old timers" Norwood, Port and South.
When I was researching Medindie (the forerunner of North Adelaide) they didn't even have a full team listed in the paper until 1890 (two years after they started) and that was a mid week game against Gawler. And then ironically the scores and details from this game weren't listed in The Register or The Advertiser and I worked out the final score by using Medindie's and Gawler's end of season ladders.
Speaking of records from those days from what I can gather Jack Reedman started playing "league" football with Hotham in 1887 and he retired at the end of the 1909 season with North Adelaide (23 seasons later). From my research he played in 1887 with Hotham, 1888 with North Adelaide (the "other" one), 1889-1898 (with South), 1899-1907 and 1909 with North and 1908 with West.
Now if the legend is true and was as fit as a mallee bull and only missed one game through injury in his football career (which is the story I have read) he would have played at least between 260 and 280 games. Yet as far as I know the man isn't credited in any lists of the "200" club I have seen.

Thanks LL. I'm glad to see someone else spooted the 1902 finals gaffe. Dion Hayman repeats the stuff up in his stats.
There might also be a similar mistake in regards to the 1901 finals, although it may depend on what the interpretation of a '2nd round match' was at the time. Games played on 14th September, South v North & Port v Norwood and 21st September Norwood v North are referred to as 2nd round matches but their scores seem to be incorporated into the final H&A stats.
Very confusing!!

This is Dion Hayman's justification for using 1907 as the starting point in his stats.

Taken from the introduction to his 1990 book of SANFL records:

Dion Hayman wrote:One word to remember... football statisticians have long debated as to the date from when records should be kept - 1897, the beginning of electorate football where players were compelled to play for the club in whose district they lived or 1907 when the SAFA changed its name to the South Australian Football League.

As insignificant as a name change would seem to be to a sporting body, it hardly seems fair to include matches in club statistics prior to 1907 where for instance, West Adelaide played matches without a full team.

Their 29-12 to 4-2 loss to Port at Alberton in 1903 was with only 13 men!

Matches were commonly forfeited or abandoned

As a Glenelg statistician, I'm not particularly fussed which year is used, as we only began in 1920.

Yes, that might be the comment I read, Ecky.

Ecky wrote:This is Dion Hayman's justification for using 1907 as the starting point in his stats.

Taken from the introduction to his 1990 book of SANFL records:

Dion Hayman wrote:One word to remember... football statisticians have long debated as to the date from when records should be kept - 1897, the beginning of electorate football where players were compelled to play for the club in whose district they lived or 1907 when the SAFA changed its name to the South Australian Football League.

As insignificant as a name change would seem to be to a sporting body, it hardly seems fair to include matches in club statistics prior to 1907 where for instance, West Adelaide played matches without a full team.

Their 29-12 to 4-2 loss to Port at Alberton in 1903 was with only 13 men!

Matches were commonly forfeited or abandoned

As a Glenelg statistician, I'm not particularly fussed which year is used, as we only began in 1920.

Okay but do we then start SANFL records from 1964 when Central and Woodville joined? Or should we make it 1991 when Woodville merged with West Torrens??

If West(or any other team for that matter) couldn't field compeitive sides , then tough.
I'm pretty sure country,amateur and junior comps who have had teams forfeit haven't scrapped the ENTIRE season because of one club's incompetance. Once again, I find it confusing to include one group of stats and ignore others because of the reasons given by assorted footy statisticians/historians.

I think not including these seasons because of those reasons may have something to do with keeping the integrity of the competition. That is, not having in the records a team forfeiting.

A big problem with pre-1897 matches is that many of them were against junior clubs (i.e. gawler, Kapunda) & interstate clubs. Recent research has revealed that the SAFA did not award a premiership or compile tables in its early years (same with VFA). YES - this means that many of Norwood & south's listed premierships are not really premierships. Therefore it is difficult to decipher which matches are premiership matches

Fixed rosters didnt emerge until the 1890s and it is also my understanding that SA didnt adopt the modern scoring system until 1898.

Interestingly the VFA only keeps records from 1897 (modern scoring)

If the SAFA didnt reform as the SAFL in 1907, I would suggest 1897 as the start date. As the SAFA was relegated to reserve grade status in 1907 - I agree with the notion of using 1907.

Anyway refer to page 225 of the media guide for pre 1907 SA stats.

JamesH wrote:A big problem with pre-1897 matches is that many of them were against junior clubs (i.e. gawler, Kapunda) & interstate clubs. Recent research has revealed that the SAFA did not award a premiership or compile tables in its early years (same with VFA). YES - this means that many of Norwood & south's listed premierships are not really premierships. Therefore it is difficult to decipher which matches are premiership matches

Fixed rosters didnt emerge until the 1890s and it is also my understanding that SA didnt adopt the modern scoring system until 1898.

Interestingly the VFA only keeps records from 1897 (modern scoring)

If the SAFA didnt reform as the SAFL in 1907, I would suggest 1897 as the start date. As the SAFA was relegated to reserve grade status in 1907 - I agree with the notion of using 1907.

Anyway refer to page 225 of the media guide for pre 1907 SA stats.

Welcome to the discussion James.
A couple of points I'd like to put my two bobs worth in on.
The SAFA didn't refrorm as the SAFL in 1907 it simply changed it's name from Association to League. Nothing else changed (clubs involved, rules, admin: etc - even the finals system) It's similiar (dare I say it) to the VFL in 1990 and AFL in 1991.
Just for the record it was 1897 that behinds were first included (same as the VFA/VFL)not 1898. 1897 was also the year that the (non compulsory) electorate system was introduced which is basically zoning. It became compulsory in 1899 with notable results. John Reedman to North and Bunny Daly to West are two that come to mind off the top of my head.Also apparently Alby Green (Norwood's and the state's first Magarey Medallist) retired as he didn't want to play for anyone apart from Norwood, and presumably didn't want to move!
As for pre-1897 it can confusing to follow but not impossible. For example in 1889 Medindie played 5 "outside" clubs during the season as well as their normal "association" opponents. They were Prospect (family feud ), Rovers, Point Macleay Aborigines, Combined Colleges and Salisbury. Medindie won all five of these matches but 1889 shows them as playing 15 games (against Norwood, Port, South, Adelaide and Gawler - teams that made up the SAFA) and not winning one and subsequently finishing at the bottom at the Association Table winless.
Where it does get confusing admittedly is the press of the time refer to junior clubs as both clubs from the Junior Suburban Association (a different comp: to the SAFA) and also to the younger clubs in the SAFA (eg: Gawler, Medindie, Hotham, Royal Park and South Park and then later North Adelaide and Port Natives/West Torrens).
There are some odd points from those days as well. As the standard between the top teams and bottom teams was so wide in 1895 it was agreed that North and Port Natives could use 23 players when playing Norwood, South and Port in 1896. Port abandoned the idea when North beat them for the first time, but South and Norwood kept it up.

Mr66 wrote:If West(or any other team for that matter) couldn't field compeitive sides , then tough.
I'm pretty sure country,amateur and junior comps who have had teams forfeit haven't scrapped the ENTIRE season because of one club's incompetance. Once again, I find it confusing to include one group of stats and ignore others because of the reasons given by assorted footy statisticians/historians.

EXACTLY! Anyone who thinks I for one am going to discount North's premierships of 1900,1902 and 1905 because Westies had trouble fielding a team a couple of times is effing kidding themselves!!!

Mr66 wrote:If West(or any other team for that matter) couldn't field compeitive sides , then tough.

Yeah! We count Woodville's records from 1980-1985!

I am a simple man, so I have a simple theory. The SANFL made a song and dance of their centenary in 1977, so surely any records back to 1877 should count. If you slotted one through, you should get bragging rights.

Im probably a bit more concerned with Norwood & south's non-existant premierships than when to state collating records. Being regarded as the best team by the paper is not the same as being official premiers.

The harsh reality is that many of the eraly association matches were not for a league premiership.... therefore are no more important than pre 1877 matches. I have little doubt that a post 1877 match between adel & PA is more important than a pre 1877 clash.

The SAFA acted much differently to todays league as it accepted non-senior clubs as members.... (e.g PAC). It was more a controlling body than a body that conducts a premiership. Todays league has little control over non-senior clubs (e.g. the SAAFL has had to pick up the SANFL's fumble on metro footy) and its primary pupose it to conduct the pemiership competition.

A possibility is to only include matches from the FIRST premiership season (I think mid 1880s or earlu 1890s). English football records are only collated for official competitions......i.e. when league football started (1880) not when the FA was formed.