Where do centrals rank

[birdmanptr]

5 games & you didn't sit with us..you bloody snob as for glenelg stuffing up doesn't hurt anymore why not be honest & admit you only care for the crows these days

Thats cause you sit facing the sun and i cant bloody see.Let me reword it it still hurts but i have learned how to cope with it over time.Now it has become more annoying than hurtfull.

And just for the record your honour i saw more Glenelg than Crows games this year.

[csbowes]

Agree with a few posters on here... this is definitely a monumental performance from Central and definitely is up there with the great Port Adelaide sides of the 1950's and 1990's and the Sturt side of the mid-1960's to late-1970's (admittedly the league is weaker now)

That said... Central with 9 premierships and one great era can command and has earned respect.

The best side in the league is without doubt, Port Adelaide. It is very hard to argue otherwise, they've been a tremendous force in the SANFL for nigh on 100 years and while the current period is certainly a bad lapse, but it's not the end.

Do they need to beat Port Adelaide in a GF to be one of the greats? I tend to think so, simple because Port has the history of being the greatest and so beating them in a GF, in successive GFs even, is the cream on the cake. But admittedly, I'm speaking as someone who was brought up with that Port Adelaide v Norwood / Glenelg / Sturt culture.

The best period for the Dogs in my opinion is when they competed year on year with Torrens. It's easier to beat one off GF teams, but to beat a team that is consistently one of the best in the league is much more impressive and Torrens meet that criteria, five GFs versus the Doggies, Torrens were a power team.

... and if anyone disagrees, I'd simply ask you to put a thought towards the idea that had Norwood beaten Glenelg in this years GF, would people give that win as much merit as a win over the three-in-a-row Dogs?

I'd think not... but that's just my thoughts.

[doggies4eva]

You've posted something I mainly agree with CSB

[fish]

:shock: You've posted something I mainly agree with CSB

Time to get off the grog D4E!

[Magpiespower]

Do they need to beat Port Adelaide in a GF to be one of the greats? I tend to think so, simple because Port has the history of being the greatest and so beating them in a GF, in successive GFs even, is the cream on the cake. But admittedly, I'm speaking as someone who was brought up with that Port Adelaide v Norwood / Glenelg / Sturt culture.

Reakon you're right about the romanticism of the old SANFL.

Once again, poor ol' North get stiffed when it comes to the big four argument, which seems to only ever cover the mid-60s to 1990 - even in that era they were pretty successful!

Central IS a great club.

Not beating Port in a grand final doesn't lessen their achievements, doesn't make it a 'cheap' premiership.

If anything it's an indictment on Port as a football club, not the CDFC.

Actually, I wouldn't mind if they did beat us in a grand final - runners-up sure beats 8th!

BTW, the Dogs still haven't won a six-pack.

Yet...

[Dogmatic]

Who needs a six pack when we currently "own" the brewery.

[robranisgod]

Do they need to beat Port Adelaide in a GF to be one of the greats? I tend to think so, simple because Port has the history of being the greatest and so beating them in a GF, in successive GFs even, is the cream on the cake. But admittedly, I'm speaking as someone who was brought up with that Port Adelaide v Norwood / Glenelg / Sturt culture.

Reakon you're right about the romanticism of the old SANFL.

Once again, poor ol' North get stiffed when it comes to the big four argument, which seems to only ever cover the mid-60s to 1990 - even in that era they were pretty successful!

Thanks for pointing out the biggest fallacy in SANFL footy, the so-called big 4. Doug Thomas at least had the decency to always refer to the Big 5. His point was that West in 1983 were the only team outside of that group to win a flag between 1964 and 1993.

I am probably just older than the normal poster here, but North certainly have a better record than Norwood or Glenelg in my lifetime.

[sjt]

From the end of ww2 (1945). If club success is measured by Premierships.
Sturt 8
Norwood 8
North 7
Glenelg 3

From 1964 (Central and Woodville enter the league)

Sturt 8
Norwood 5
North 4
Glenelg 3

[robranisgod]

From the end of ww2 (1945). If club success is measured by Premierships.
Sturt 8
Norwood 8
North 7
Glenelg 3

From 1964 (Central and Woodville enter the league)

Sturt 8
Norwood 5
North 4
Glenelg 3

In my lifetime :
Sturt 8
North 6
Norwood 5
Glenelg 3

As I said in my lifetime North have been more successful that Norwood and Glenelg.

[sjt]

Just for clarification, I wasn't arguing with you. I agree with your posts.
By most measures, North would have a stronger claim. Glenelg founded 1920 total 4 premierships (premiership on average 22.5 years). North 1888, 13 premierships (premiership on average 9.4 years). Since the Bays entered the league North 9 premierships, Glenelg 4.

[GWW]

I never saw North as one of the "big" clubs, but thats just a personal thing. I started to appreciate SANFL footy around 1980 when i was 8, and i think North finished bottom that year. Whereas Sturt, Glenelg and Norwood were always seen as more successful.

Obviously the records show otherwise, and North has been one of the most successful clubs, but i think a lot is to do with how someone perceives a particular club in their own lifetime.

[robranisgod]

I never saw North as one of the "big" clubs, but thats just a personal thing. I started to appreciate SANFL footy around 1980 when i was 8, and i think North finished bottom that year. Whereas Sturt, Glenelg and Norwood were always seen as more successful.

Obviously the records show otherwise, and North has been one of the most successful clubs, but i think a lot is to do with how someone perceives a particular club in their own lifetime.

North finished 8th in 1980. By the time you were 13 they finished second and remained in the top echelon for the next 7 years. They would have been your real formative years as far as following football were concerned. I just don't get youi comment at all.

[Bum Crack]

I never saw North as one of the "big" clubs, but thats just a personal thing. I started to appreciate SANFL footy around 1980 when i was 8, and i think North finished bottom that year. Whereas Sturt, Glenelg and Norwood were always seen as more successful.

Obviously the records show otherwise, and North has been one of the most successful clubs, but i think a lot is to do with how someone perceives a particular club in their own lifetime.

Hmmm. I'm confused

[GWW]

I never saw North as one of the "big" clubs, but thats just a personal thing. I started to appreciate SANFL footy around 1980 when i was 8, and i think North finished bottom that year. Whereas Sturt, Glenelg and Norwood were always seen as more successful.

Obviously the records show otherwise, and North has been one of the most successful clubs, but i think a lot is to do with how someone perceives a particular club in their own lifetime.

North finished 8th in 1980. By the time you were 13 they finished second and remained in the top echelon for the next 7 years. They would have been your real formative years as far as following football were concerned. I just don't get youi comment at all.

Fair enough, as i said it was a personal thing to me. I thought they won a spoon around that time, so i stand corrected there. It wasn't til 85 that they made a grand final in my lifetime, when i was 13. I'm not arguing a point, i'm saying from my perspective, i never thought of them as one of the "big" clubs, given that Sturt, Glenelg and Norwood were always the threats as i was growing up throughout the 70's. Obviously being born in 72, meant that i wasn't able to experience North's premierships in 71 and 72.

[whufc]

Is the league really weaker now, it is still the second best competition in Australia as it has always been.

Plus its a more even competition now with rules such as the salary cap and AFL mini draft and even recruiting boundaries.

[CENTURION]

Is the league really weaker now, it is still the second best competition in Australia as it has always been.

Plus its a more even competition now with rules such as the salary cap and AFL mini draft and even recruiting boundaries.

maybe not but the AFL is much stronger. In the 70's and 8's, a side from S.A. had a good chance of beating an AFL side but not these days, not in a fit.

[JK]

Is the league really weaker now, it is still the second best competition in Australia as it has always been.

Plus its a more even competition now with rules such as the salary cap and AFL mini draft and even recruiting boundaries.

I dont ever bother wasting time about who was better across different era's, because we can never know the answer for certain and it matters little, to finish top a team still has to be better than all the others.

One thing I found a bit scary about watching the Dogs in the GF, is that I thought they didn't have that look of invincibility about them as they had say in 2005 .. How do you guys think this years team compared with previous teams in premiership years? (lol yes I know Im asking for comparison, but I think the years and teams are perhaps more comparable in this instance)

And I say scary, because if Im right and this team wasn't perhaps as awesome as other years and they've still won the flag, then how freakin good were they in 00, 01, 03, 04, 05, 07, 08 and 09 lol

[CENTURION]

i have stated a few times that We didn't have a convincing season, only really belted West, North And Port, struggled to get the job most other times. Haven't won a game by 100 points or more since 2007. I believe that the gap has narrowed, now We need to start to re-build.

[whufc]

Is the league really weaker now, it is still the second best competition in Australia as it has always been.

Plus its a more even competition now with rules such as the salary cap and AFL mini draft and even recruiting boundaries.

I dont ever bother wasting time about who was better across different era's, because we can never know the answer for certain and it matters little, to finish top a team still has to be better than all the others.

One thing I found a bit scary about watching the Dogs in the GF, is that I thought they didn't have that look of invincibility about them as they had say in 2005 .. How do you guys think this years team compared with previous teams in premiership years? (lol yes I know Im asking for comparison, but I think the years and teams are perhaps more comparable in this instance)

And I say scary, because if Im right and this team wasn't perhaps as awesome as other years and they've still won the flag, then how freakin good were they in 00, 01, 03, 04, 05, 07, 08 and 09 lol

So so so so true was more comparing the competitions.

On the Central sides for me the teams of 01, 02, 03, 04, 05 were the most dominant sides we had regulary winning games by over 10 goals,

The team of 06 was extremly fortunate that we came across some inexperienced finals side, otherwise they probably wouldnt and didnt deserve to even make the GF.

This years team was still very dominant obviously finishing top, but at no stage did i think we were as dangerous as our ladder position suggested, we won most games by doing all we needed and rarely belted any sides, most of our games the opponents was in it for 3 quarters only one blast Central would win the game.

Some of our older blokes had servicable years with out really doing heaps such as the Gowans, Schell, Cochrane, Switala, we also had a fair few debut players this year as well which will be great for there development.

[doggies4eva]

Is the league really weaker now, it is still the second best competition in Australia as it has always been.

Plus its a more even competition now with rules such as the salary cap and AFL mini draft and even recruiting boundaries.

I dont ever bother wasting time about who was better across different era's, because we can never know the answer for certain and it matters little, to finish top a team still has to be better than all the others.

One thing I found a bit scary about watching the Dogs in the GF, is that I thought they didn't have that look of invincibility about them as they had say in 2005 .. How do you guys think this years team compared with previous teams in premiership years? (lol yes I know Im asking for comparison, but I think the years and teams are perhaps more comparable in this instance)

And I say scary, because if Im right and this team wasn't perhaps as awesome as other years and they've still won the flag, then how freakin good were they in 00, 01, 03, 04, 05, 07, 08 and 09 lol

It is just as hard to compare say teh 2000 side with the 2010 side. I find all of these comparisons a bit meaningless because there are so many variables including teh competition.

The 2000 side got the monkey off the back. After that every win has been great - we have beaten some sides that I thought were pretty awesome - ie the Glenelg side, North side and the West side and there was never much in it bewteen us and the Eagles. But right now I think that 2010 rates right up there. We were very lucky to win - Norwood played a great 2nd quarter and we didn't really have enough on the board at 3/4 time despite a good 3rd quarter. The guts shown by the players to hold out against the wind and Callinan's goal to the Northern end (our only one for the whole game) personifies that guts. He took the mark right in front of me and I could see the determination on his face to put a very difficult shot through. One of the great GFs and one of the great doggies teams.