What if Cahill was the Crows first coach...

[am Bays]

October 1990 and their was two candidates for the Crows first coaching job, Cahill and Cornes. History shows Cornesy got the gig and a lot of Glenelg sponsors, board members, players and match day staff followed him (as REB so eloquently pointed out on another forum ).

If Cahill got the gig and his loyal leutenents from Port followed him (e.g. Tredrea & Fairclough), he showed similar bias to Port players that Cornes did to Glenelg players i.e. M Williams, Ginevar and Fiachi (George made the SOO team in 89) made the list of 52, and Port sponsors followed him diluting the Magpies $$$$....

I wonder if:

1. Would the Magpies have been as dominant in the 90s as they were, given some of their core players from the early 90s would have been with the Crows?
2.Would Port Power have got in or would it have been Norwood in 97?
3. Would Glenelg have slid as much as the Bays people and sponsors would have more likely stayed "home"
4. Would the Crows been more successfull with the Port culture in the 90s?

I'm after some serious replies here, hence why it is in the history forum, because the history of the SANFL and Adelaide's AFL clubs in last 17 years could have been much different if Jack was the Crows head honcho in 1991......

[Snaggletooth Tiger]

After Port's failed bid for an AFL licence I'm sure Greg Boulton would've
put the kybosh on that idea quick smart!

[Adelaide Hawk]

1. Would the Magpies have been as dominant in the 90s as they were, given some of their core players from the early 90s would have been with the Crows?
2.Would Port Power have got in or would it have been Norwood in 97?
3. Would Glenelg have slid as much as the Bays people and sponsors would have more likely stayed "home"
4. Would the Crows been more successfull with the Port culture in the 90s?

My opinions only

1. Port Adelaide would probably have been less successful in the 1990s had Cahill been coach of the Crows.

2. Port Adelaide would still have been the second team admitted to the AFL.

3. Glenelg may not have slid as early as it did, but it would have eventually, once the Crows stole every bit of talent in the club (on field and off)

4. Had the Crows encompassed Port Adelaide passion, they would have been even stronger off-field as far as sponsorship, but there would have been factions inside the clubs which would probably have been detrimental to on-field performance.

Having said all that, I'm one who still feels the Crows were the worst thing to happen to footy in this state, contrary to what people tell us. Sure, they make heaps of money, get plenty of people watching, but how much of that money is returned to grass roots footy? Bugger-all. A few people have benefited, and many more have lost.

[Wedgie]

The Crows would have 4 premierships by now (at least).
The Magpies would have been less of a force in the 90s.
The Power woudln't have existed.

Christ, looking back it would have been a win/win/win move by the Crows.
Bloody morons!

[am Bays]

After Port's failed bid for an AFL licence I'm sure Greg Boulton would've
put the kybosh on that idea quick smart!

well he was interviewed for the position and Boulton wasn't president in October 1990......

[Gravel]

On field the Crows would have been more successful as Cahill was clearly the superior coach, particularly in the big games.
I think it follows that Port would not have been as strong without Cahill as coach.
Off field I don't think as many would have jumped on the Crows with a Port man as coach, and I am sure this was a significant factor in the Cornes appointment.

[Pseudo]

1. A little less dominant. Much of Port's dominance was a direct result of the club's push to control the next AFL side. Assuming that this still would have taken place, it stands to reason that Port would remain strong. However if Cahill had gone to the Crows the Darren Smiths and Scott Hodges etc would have rarely played with the Magpies. Hence Port would be less dominant.

2. If Port had seriously bid for the next AFL license, it would have still been successful. By 1997 Cahill would have long departed from the Crows, probably not by his own choice.

3. Yes, though they might have remained stronger for a little longer, at least until the end of Cornesey's tenure. I am sick to my guts of hearing Glenelg people blame the Crows for the club's slide from top (well, perennially second) to bottom. This is the sort of loser mentality which has seen Glenelg remain on the bottom. Port lost almost as many players as Glenelg yet remained top. The difference is that Port set its sights firmly on the next AFL license and moved on. Glenelg was quick to blame others for its own failings. Thankfully Glenelg finally seems to have become accountable for its own future. Shame it took a decade and a half to get there.

4. No. While Cahill walked on water at Port, his record at other teams was average at best. Getting '80s-era Collingwood to third once was not a huge achievement, given the club's record in the late '70s and early '80s. Cahill did jack (pun intended) at Westies. His record coaching SA teams is particularly woeful; he couldn't even knock of the Tassies ferchrissakes - and that was with a team featuring a large number of Port Magpies and several other Port people in support positions. The Crows upon their formation were essentially a state team. It is therefore obvious why Cornes was chosen, given his then blemish-free record of coaching the SOO team against the Vics.

And a footnote: it would have been far preferable, IMO, if the Crows coach had come from outside SANFL ranks. The Crows coach would have been free of the anti-Glenelg sentiment which came to the fore ("Cornes for Columbia", anyone?) when the Crows hit a bad patch. On a personal level, my mob would have held onto its premiership coach and the player/staff drain would have been slightly lessened.

[Footy Chick]

It makes one wonder why, upon choosing a coach for a new team about to enter a team in the highest level of competition, instead of employing a coach with an impeccible coaching record (and all around nice guy), they chose instead to employ a coach whose coaching creds and well renowned lack of communication credentials were if nothing else, questionable.

Had John Cahill been given the coaching job I dont believe there would have been the bias, (I called them the adelaide tigers in the beginning cos thats pretty much what they were)and the Crows wouldnt have had losers like Alan Bartlett in the Crows squad in the first place.

I remember interviewing Graham Cornes towards the end of that first season for my yr 12 Major English assignment and I have (had??) on tape him admitting that he thought the "Crows were going to be a fizzer" This was coming from the teams own coach.

The reason imho that Jack didnt get the job in the first place was due to the backlash at anything Port Adelaide. Its funny how the people who were quick to banish Port Adelaide joined together and took them to court were the ones for the best part running the Crows at its inception?

Why were the Magpies so successful? a) out of a squad of 50 odd which i think it was back then, there were only about half a dozen at the most Port players b) they were still a strong, experienced and developed squad who for the majority had all played together in the 88-90 threepeat, even with a new coach at that point, they still would have been a successful outfit. They have the fake Port to thank for their demise...

Cornes despite all his faults was good for Glenelg and provided they werent playing Port may have gone on to win a premiership or certainly have met with somewhat more success on field that they have since 1990. It was Glenelg in essence that started the court proceedings to stop Port which ended up in the formation of the Crows, so they have no-one but themselves to blame essentially..

Unfortunately Port Adelaide were always going to enter the AFL, not many people know that as early as 1984, there was talk of a south australian team entering the comp, however it was agreed by the vfl and sanfl at that time that this was not going to happen until at least 1996. There was no mention at that time of any combined team. That team (in Ports mind at least and i figure in a lot of other circles as well)was always meant to be Port. It was never going to be Norwood- or Norwood/Sturt or Norwood/North nor any other stupid football marriage.

imo the Crows were a good thing for me at the time, becuase I didnt want my club to enter the AFL (and it gave me an extra game of footy to go and see every week!) Even when it did happen, they sent in a bunch of imposters and gave them a different jumper and name, so as far as i'm concerned my team is still in the sanfl anyway (but thats a tired argument that i dont really want to start again!)

end of thesis

[JK]

I've always felt that the Crows should have selected Cahill as their inaugural coach, because to my mind he is a better coach than Cornesy, and pretty much anyone else for that matter ... I would imagine he would have had more success with the Crows, but it's exactly that, imagination as we will never know.

All of that is not to say that Cornes wasn't a good coach ... When you consider he took South to rare finals appearances in his 2 years there, then doubled the Bays Flag tally and gave them ample opportunity to win even more AND regularly lead SA to victories in the state games, his credentials rated very highly IMHO.

The talks on any SA based team(s) started even earlier than 84, and at the time both Norwood and Port would have been in the position to have a crack at it, but as time passed I think in all honesty only Port would have had the supporterbase to make it work (as difficult as that is for me to say lol).

Lot's of if's, what's and maybes and an interesting topic ... In hindsight how would the Adelaide Football Club have fared if they'd made a BIG play for and ultimately succeeded in getting someone like Sheedy, Matthews, Parkin, Blight etc??

[Footy Chick]

I've always felt that the Crows should have selected Cahill as their inaugural coach, because to my mind he is a better coach than Cornesy, and pretty much anyone else for that matter ... I would imagine he would have had more success with the Crows, but it's exactly that, imagination as we will never know.

All of that is not to say that Cornes wasn't a good coach ... When you consider he took South to rare finals appearances in his 2 years there, then doubled the Bays Flag tally and gave them ample opportunity to win even more AND regularly lead SA to victories in the state games, his credentials rated very highly IMHO.

The talks on any SA based team(s) started even earlier than 84, and at the time both Norwood and Port would have been in the position to have a crack at it, but as time passed I think in all honesty only Port would have had the supporterbase to make it work (as difficult as that is for me to say lol).

Lot's of if's, what's and maybes and an interesting topic ... In hindsight how would the Adelaide Football Club have fared if they'd made a BIG play for and ultimately succeeded in getting someone like Sheedy, Matthews, Parkin, Blight etc??

Hindsight is a funny thing, the one thing about AFC is that they were too narrow minded to resort to hiring Victorians to do something a South Aussie could always do better, and this was proven with the very unpopular appointments Shaw and Ayres (for mine Ayres has always been my victorian equivalent of Cornes...never a fan, even when batting for our side)

[am Bays]

Psuedo don't want to get off topic and I don't consider the Crows to be the sole reason for performances on and off the field since 1991. Agree that to blame the Crows for our ills is a defeatest attitude. Personally I think the die was cast to a certain extent when the board got rid of Horse in 1986, established a dangerous precedent of arrogance at the board level that clouded decision making for the next 15-20 years...

However if you look at the nine clubs the one that has been affected the most by the introduction of teh Crows especially in their first 5 years it is arguably us. So they are a factor in our decline but not the only factor.....

[Adelaide Hawk]

Psuedo don't want to get off topic and I don't consider the Crows to be the sole reason for performances on and off the field since 1991. Agree that to blame the Crows for our ills is a defeatest attitude. Personally I think the die was cast to a certain extent when the board got rid of Horse in 1986, established a dangerous precedent of arrogance at the board level that clouded decision making for the next 15-20 years...

However if you look at the nine clubs the one that has been affected the most by the introduction of teh Crows especially in their first 5 years it is arguably us. So they are a factor in our decline but not the only factor.....

I'm glad you said "arguably" because the introduction of the Crows didn't do Norwood many favours either, with the loss of major sponsors and key administrators. Anyone who feels the Crows have been nothing but good for SA football really needs to understand what was really going on at that time. Some clubs still haven't recovered whereas some other clubs have remained comparitively untouched by the Crows and allowed to thrive at local level.

[am Bays]

Agreed AH not trying to suggest we are the only ones to be affected, at least your best player said no and remained to provided leadership for you players post Crows.....

[am Bays]

Hmm was hoping to get Boony's and Macca views.....

[Punk Rooster]

would Graham Cornes have been the first Power coach????

[Macca19]

I was only young at the time, 9 years old or so. Despite going to the SANFL every week and being quite knowledgable about other teams etc, I was still quite raw in terms of understanding all the event of what happened back then. I didnt understand the politics behind it and certainly not the backlash afterwards. One minute we were going into the AFL, the next we werent. I didnt care as long as I still got to go and see the Magpies play every week. I ended up supporting the Crows. So my opinions are only on the research ive done on it after its all happened.

Personally I dont thinK Cahill was ever seriously going to become coach of the Crows. I think it was a foregone conclusion that Cornes was always going to be coach of the Crows. I think they interviewed Cahill solely as making it seem that they were trying to get the best people for the job, much like how Neil Craig got the current coaching job at the Crows. I think the public backlash had Cahill actually got the job would have been massive, especially if a dozen Port players would have been picked up as well. It just wouldnt make sense to take Port to court but then steal half the club for the Crows anyway.

Had that happened I dont think Adelaide would have had as many supporters as it had. Many people would have been turned off as it would have been 'too Port Adelaide'. At least Glenelg were seen as the states knights in shining armour, standing up to the evil empire. I do still laugh today at Graham Cornes words after the 1990 Grand Final. "I would never be able to work for the new club, my heart wouldnt be in it and I would not be able to live with myself". HA!!

Personally I dont believe that guys like Williams x2, Fiacchi, Hutton would have ended up making the final squad anyway, even with Cahill as coach. Many of them pulled out of initial Crows training because it didnt feel right. I still think it wouldnt have felt right even with Cahill as coach.

I also dont think Cahill would have lasted as long as Cornes. The public derision of any Port player that pulled on a Crows guernsey back then was huge. I remember a lot of the crap said about Port players at Crows matches in the first couple of years. Pathetic really. I can only imagine this would be even more intensified had Cahill been coach. I dont think he would have lasted in 93.

To answer the questions:
1. - Yes and no. Had guys like Hodges and Smith got more gametime with the Crows then maybe not. As it stands Scotty didnt play much for the Magpies in 91-92 anyway. If I go by what Tassie said and Cahill, a lot more Port players, port staff had left, then yes we may not have won the 92 premiership but I still think we would have won the 94-96 premierships. As it stands with my opinion, Cahill probably would have been back, as would Scotty, Smithy anyway.

2. Norwood werent exactly a massive onfield success in the 10 years before Port entered the AFL. They made 1 Grand Final for 1 loss. Not exactly demanding of a place in the AFL. Would they have taken charge if Port were missing key members....maybe/maybe not. THey did finish 7th in 91 and 92 and made a couple of Prelims and a Grand Final after that. I still think Port would have been the next team in as I still think they would have won in 94 and probably 92.

3. Probably would have been better than what they ended up. A lot of Glenelg players still would have been chosen. Probably not Lamb or Bartlett.

4. No. The public wouldnt have taken to them if it was seriously Port influenced, the attitude of the supporters towards the Port players and coach would have been intensified and I dont think they would have been more succesful at all.

[Magpiespower]

Fiachi (George made the SOO team in 89)

George played one state game.

But it was in 1991 against WA.

[-]

Very interesting topic.

[Footy Chick]

Very interesting topic.

thats it??? Thats not like you dasher...

[Dogwatcher]

I feel like I'm reading a thread featuring Michael J Fox....

Back To The Future! TM - you ca't upset the time space continuom!