SA Footy

I was watching "Grumpy Old Men" on Foxtel tonight where the special guest was Robert Muir. Although I hate their Victorian bias, I watch it as they often discuss interesting aspects of Aussie Rules history.

Muir mentioned that he left St Kilda in 1980 and spent a couple years in the SANFL (with Torrens and Woodville) before returning to St Kilda in 1984.

Tony Shaw's question then was

Tony Shaw wrote:4 years out of the system, playing at a different level of course, what was it like to return to the Saints?

This really annoys me that they view the SANFL as a lower level competition back then, when in reality, the standard WASN'T THAT DIFFERENT from the VFL. I am sure many of the St Kilda players of the early 80's wouldn't have got a game with many SANFL clubs!

Also I can't stand Kevin Bartlett's continual habit of referring to the VFL as the AFL. One question of his to Muir was:

Kevin Bartlett wrote:What was it like to play in your first AFL game?

Now Kevin... Muir never played AFL and neither did you - the name only changed in 1990! Please accept this and don't try to change history to make yourself seem more important!!!

Someone should mention a certain Collingwood vs North Adelaide game at Waverley in 1986 to Tony Shaw. A game he played in. If the SANFL was a lower level what does that say about Collingwood??

k.bartlett annoys me with that as well 'another great of afl football' he's no more a great at AFL than i am !! in fact i played afl ametuer football league & they think football can only be played (well) by victorians well lets face it, when they were buying players from all over australia (wa,sa,tas) most of those players were better than the ones they already had & if they were so much better why go & get them in the first place ?

they get/got 100,000 people to games why to watch non victorians represent their suburban clubs !!! i could go on but i better get little bayman to bed will add more later

Personally I think you're being a bit sensitive on this one Ecky.

"4 years out of the system at a different level" is hardly offensive. It could mean a level equal or below it, he only said "different" and I'm sure most people would agree South Australia is a hell of a lot different to Victoria!

And in regardo to AFL/VFL games, that doesn't worry me in the slightest, same league but different name, you'd get sick of talking to everyone about "AFL/VFL" games so to avoid getting it mixed up with the current VFL comp calling them AFL games would be the simplest method in my book. The name changed, so what?
The chick next to me at work changed her name last week but when I talk to her about things that she did last year I don't refer to her previous name.

The thing that really annoys me is the parnoia about Victoria some have and KG and Cornsey lead the charge.

Just my opinion, but rest assured Ecky, both my Step Dad and Mum agree with you and always disagree with me on this issue.

Just on K Bartlett, he also annoys the heck out of me on TV but for some reason I found him really good on the radio when we had SEN for that short period of time last year.

I became interested in SANFL during the 70's and they only way I could get
results was to buy the Australian every Monday.
I had the SANFL fixtures in the back of my english folder, which I would
write the scores in.
Several of my fellow students would get a peek at what I was doing and then I
would cop,'Why are you following that comp,thats not the same game as ours!',
& 'they can't play footy, we always beat em'.
I can't ever remember being told as a young footballer that SA (& WA for that matter)
couldn't play football, so I have no idea how this arrogance manifested itself, even
accounting for the dominance of Victoria in pre-Sate of Origin football.

It was never SA V VIC
It was SA V REST OF AUSTRALIA, in the old state games before SOG games.

I'm glad you saw the light and crossed the border to follow a 'real footy comp'.

This bias possibly stems back to the old sate games when we beat them and this hatred still exists today in the supposedly new 'national' AFL comp as we proved last year against the vics we have the best comp outside the AFL.

But of course, we South Australians have no comtempt for Victoria at all

Lets not kid ourselves the VFL was a much better comp than the Sanfl! I love local footy but the Ebert's, Cornes, Bradley's, Kernahans and Plattens didn't leave SA to play in a comp of the same standard, they left to challenge themselves in a better comp!
The AFL is just an extension of the VFL so I'm not bothered that they talk about the old VFL and call it the AFL because it basically is.

Read http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/the_afl_and_the_history_of_australian_rules_football.htm for some very strong evidence that the standard of the VFL and the SANFL was not that different before the mid 1980s.

Nobody is saying that the standard of the SANFL was exactly equal to the VFL, just that it was definitely not a whole level down like it is today.

gillies8 wrote:Lets not kid ourselves the VFL was a much better comp than the Sanfl! I love local footy but the Ebert's, Cornes, Bradley's, Kernahans and Plattens didn't leave SA to play in a comp of the same standard, they left to challenge themselves in a better comp!
The AFL is just an extension of the VFL so I'm not bothered that they talk about the old VFL and call it the AFL because it basically is.

it only became a better comp cause the VFL had more cash to throw around to buy the better players and make the comp better

gillies8 wrote:Lets not kid ourselves the VFL was a much better comp than the Sanfl! I love local footy but the Ebert's, Cornes, Bradley's, Kernahans and Plattens didn't leave SA to play in a comp of the same standard, they left to challenge themselves in a better comp!
The AFL is just an extension of the VFL so I'm not bothered that they talk about the old VFL and call it the AFL because it basically is.

I tend to agree with this. Over the years some SANFL clubs were able to defeat VFL clubs, but generally it was the top SA clubs v the lower VFL clubs. There have been exceptions but very rare. We didn't defeat a VFL team for 18 years between 1965 to 1983, and during this period the Vics limited themselves to 2 players from each club whereas we were full strength.

The overall State game record (SA v Vic) is heavily weighted in the Victorians' favour, so I think you would have to say that the VFL has generally been the stronger competition. During the 70s and 80s it was generally accepted that the top SANFL clubs would have done okay in the VFL but would have struggled to make the top 4.

In the 1970s, the "Big 4" of the SANFL (Norwood, Port, Glenelg & Sturt) lost very few players to the VFL and also gained some very high quality players from Victoria. However, during this time, the "then" power clubs of Victoria (Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Carlton and Richmond) were far too strong for our top clubs. Certainly in the 1980s, Hawthorn, Essendon and Carlton had way too much depth for our clubs to compete with them.

heater31 wrote:

gillies8 wrote:Lets not kid ourselves the VFL was a much better comp than the Sanfl! I love local footy but the Ebert's, Cornes, Bradley's, Kernahans and Plattens didn't leave SA to play in a comp of the same standard, they left to challenge themselves in a better comp!
The AFL is just an extension of the VFL so I'm not bothered that they talk about the old VFL and call it the AFL because it basically is.

it only became a better comp cause the VFL had more cash to throw around to buy the better players and make the comp better

And the bigger population to choose players from.

it only became a better comp cause the VFL had more cash to throw around to buy the better players and make the comp better[/quote]

thats why there is an 'afl' they through out cash they couldn't afford so 'they' get in sides to pay $4million to prop up 'their comp' as they all were going broke bar for one or two clubs

so i ask this ? if they weren't going broke & were prospering would we have it as it is or like it was ? as i dont believe it was done to suit the corporate $$$ as ross oakley said it was done out of desperation to keep their teams alive

bayman wrote:it only became a better comp cause the VFL had more cash to throw around to buy the better players and make the comp better

thats why there is an 'afl' they through out cash they couldn't afford so 'they' get in sides to pay $4million to prop up 'their comp' as they all were going broke bar for one or two clubs

so i ask this ? if they weren't going broke & were prospering would we have it as it is or like it was ? as i dont believe it was done to suit the corporate $$$ as ross oakley said it was done out of desperation to keep their teams alive[/quote]

Pretty much spot on, BM.
The AFL wasn't created because of altruism from the VFL clubs,
but by some genius (never found out who it was) who came up with the idea
of 'licence fees'.
I might have overlooked this when reading my club and VFL/AFL histories,
but I can't recall Hawthorn,Footscray or North Melbourne being slapped
with a 'licence fee' in 1925.
Clubs went broke when they saw North Melbourne dish out big dollars
for local talent(Davis,Rantall,Crosswell &Wade) and i-state (Cable,Blight,Burns).
Of course, monkey-see monkey-do, every other club had to go out and get
ready made (read SA&WA) talent.
Only 1 team per year can win a flag, so if clubs are paying big money
and not seeing premierships, ..well I don't have to elaborate.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:In the 1970s, the "Big 4" of the SANFL (Norwood, Port, Glenelg & Sturt) lost very few players to the VFL and also gained some very high quality players from Victoria. However, during this time, the "then" power clubs of Victoria (Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Carlton and Richmond) were far too strong for our top clubs. Certainly in the 1980s, Hawthorn, Essendon and Carlton had way too much depth for our clubs to compete with them.

Lmao. Glenelg? With their "2" Flags? North were champions of Australia in 72, had won 11 flags, & had football's greatest player running around for them. Glenelg Big 4? Please.....

those teams mentioned were known as the big four as they were consistent finalist year after year in the 70's & into the early 80's, you really do have a hatred of us don't you ?

Mr66 wrote: The AFL wasn't created because of altruism from the VFL clubs,
but by some genius (never found out who it was) who came up with the idea
of 'licence fees'.
I might have overlooked this when reading my club and VFL/AFL histories,
but I can't recall Hawthorn,Footscray or North Melbourne being slapped
with a 'licence fee' in 1925.

thats where our American 'NFL' friends come in. where they arent called clubs but 'Franchises' enter the the comp you have to buy one.

Punk Rooster wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:In the 1970s, the "Big 4" of the SANFL (Norwood, Port, Glenelg & Sturt) lost very few players to the VFL and also gained some very high quality players from Victoria. However, during this time, the "then" power clubs of Victoria (Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Carlton and Richmond) were far too strong for our top clubs. Certainly in the 1980s, Hawthorn, Essendon and Carlton had way too much depth for our clubs to compete with them.

Lmao. Glenelg? With their "2" Flags? North were champions of Australia in 72, had won 11 flags, & had football's greatest player running around for them. Glenelg Big 4? Please.....

"but for the last 13 years it has been one of the powers of the League" B Whimpress South Australian Football Story 1983 p 194

In the 70s and 80s we were one of the big 4 Sturt, Norwood Glenleg and Port, check some old Budgets Punky in the late 70s and early 80s those 4 clubs were always scheduled to play each other Pt v Nwd, Gl v St in the same rd, Pt v St Gl v Nwd in the same rd etc to maximise attendances.

Mate from 1973 prelim to the 1983 elimination final you didn't win one final and only played in one, the 1975 elimination. You won a wooden spoon. if that is a record of a SANFL powerhouse over a 9 year period well I'm a Port supporter. No denying the first 4 years of the 70s you were up there but from 1974 onwards you were an also ran.........

From 1970 to 1989 Glenelg and North won 3 flags each, we played in 11 Grannies you played in 7, we missed the finals 4 times you missed them 8 times, you won a spoon we didn't.

It is the only 20 year period in our history we I can comfortably say we were the better team than North.

When Sturt started their slide Dick Jones in the Football Times in 1990 referred to Gl, Pt, Nwd and North as the big 4.

In the 70s and 80s you can debate who should be considered in the big 4 but I am quite comfortable in putting our record up against anyone apart from Port and Norwood

I mean despite winning the same number of flags as us Sturt only played in 7 GFs missed the finals 7 times and won a spoon

bayman wrote:those teams mentioned were known as the big four as they were consistent finalist year after year in the 70's & into the early 80's, you really do have a hatred of us don't you ?

Yes, but funnily enough, I seem to engage in more (friendly) banter with Bay supporters! I'm sure Freud would have a field day with me over that.