SA Footy

As always on a Sunday morning I look forward to reading the coverage of the SANFL games in the Sunday Mail, particularly Glenelg. Nearly the whole article in this mornings paper (apart from 4 paragraphs) was dedicated to Brandt Chambers 100 goals.
Don't get me wrong the amount of space used to celebrate Chambers goals is warranted as kicking 100 goals is a fantastic achievement, but more space should have been given to the game itself. What annoys me is the Sunday Mail will give nearly a full page to cover for instance the St.Kilda v Richmond game but SANFL again gets the short straw.

Surely the 5000 people who got off their back sides and went to Glenelg Oval yesterday should justify a decent write up of the whole game

woolpack wrote:As always on a Sunday morning I look forward to reading the coverage of the SANFL games in the Sunday Mail, particularly Glenelg. Nearly the whole article in this mornings paper (apart from 4 paragraphs) was dedicated to Brandt Chambers 100 goals.
Don't get me wrong the amount of space used to celebrate Chambers goals is warranted as kicking 100 goals is a fantastic achievement, but more space should have been given to the game itself. What annoys me is the Sunday Mail will give nearly a full page to cover for instance the St.Kilda v Richmond game but SANFL again gets the short straw.

Surely the 5000 people who got off their back sides and went to Glenelg Oval yesterday should justify a decent write up of the whole game

We are talking about the Sunday Mail here. It's a bit like 5aa. Promise a lot, gives a little.

I noticed that too. The only Glenelg player who got mentioned in the article was Rudolph for giving that free kick away to Chambers for his 100th. (We think it was Sherwood who gave the free kick away anyway...)

Not good enough from Zac Milbank, especially considering he is a Glenelg supporter!

Not as bad as their stats. Could they be any more inaccurate?

Same artcle also says Rick Davies was the last Sturt player to kick 100 in a season.

Glenelg players get mentions in the last and 5th last paragraphs.

sapaul wrote:....Glenelg players get mentions in the last and 5th last paragraphs.

Typical bluddy Bays, Just like Paris Hilton.

Over exposed: again!

You guys are right far too much print on Chambers in the game summary
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FRONT PAGE NEWS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

woolpack wrote:As always on a Sunday morning I look forward to reading the coverage of the SANFL games in the Sunday Mail, particularly Glenelg. Nearly the whole article in this mornings paper (apart from 4 paragraphs) was dedicated to Brandt Chambers 100 goals.

... and those four paragraphs still managed to mention Chambers twice more in the context of reviewing the game.

Pissweak, Zac Milbank. By all means celebrate Chambers' effort. In fact why not write a separate article about it? But in a match review, how about actually reviewing the game?

I look forward to a better piece in Monday's paper.

mal wrote:You guys are right far too much print on Chambers in the game summary
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FRONT PAGE NEWS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FWIW I agree. First bloke in a decade to crack the ton should at least have got a headline on the front page.

Pseudo wrote:

mal wrote:You guys are right far too much print on Chambers in the game summary
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FRONT PAGE NEWS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FWIW I agree. First bloke in a decade to crack the ton should at least have got a headline on the front page.

of course it should but of course it wont, but if an afl player kicked a ton there would be a 6 page spread at the very least

sapaul wrote:Same artcle also says Rick Davies was the last Sturt player to kick 100 in a season.

Glenelg players get mentions in the last and 5th last paragraphs.

You must be reading something else, sapaul?

This is the article we are referring to
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22347947-21546,00.html

Ecky wrote:I noticed that too. The only Glenelg player who got mentioned in the article was Rudolph for giving that free kick away to Chambers for his 100th. (We think it was Sherwood who gave the free kick away anyway...)

Not good enough from Zac Milbank, especially considering he is a Glenelg supporter!

To be fair
No Sturt player apart from Chambers got a mention as well

The paper isn't there to write about something that's of interest to only a small percentage of people, they write about what most people want to read. You only have to look at the TV ratings of 2 non south australian teams playing on Saturday afternoon vs the SANFL to realise that any AFL game is of much greater interest than any SANFL game. Chambers 100th had to be put somewhere, and it was never going to go in any other place, and no more space was going to be given simply because they would have to take something else out that interests more people.

Ecky wrote:You must be reading something else, sapaul?

This is the article we are referring to
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22347947-21546,00.html

Ahh, well I was reading today's Sunday Mail...country edition mind you.

woolpack wrote:As always on a Sunday morning I look forward to reading the coverage of the SANFL games in the Sunday Mail, particularly Glenelg. Nearly the whole article in this mornings paper (apart from 4 paragraphs) was dedicated to Brandt Chambers 100 goals.
Don't get me wrong the amount of space used to celebrate Chambers goals is warranted as kicking 100 goals is a fantastic achievement, but more space should have been given to the game itself. What annoys me is the Sunday Mail will give nearly a full page to cover for instance the St.Kilda v Richmond game but SANFL again gets the short straw.

Surely the 5000 people who got off their back sides and went to Glenelg Oval yesterday should justify a decent write up of the whole game

Isn't that less than 0.5% of the Adelaide population?

Isn't that less than 0.5% of the Adelaide population?

My point is surely this is more relavent to South Australia readers than the bloody result of St.Kilda v Richmond?

woolpack wrote:

Isn't that less than 0.5% of the Adelaide population?

My point is surely this is more relavent to South Australia readers than the bloody result of St.Kilda v Richmond?

Dunno - do more than 0.5% of the Adelaide population follow those teams???

Personally, I think the SANFL should have ejected Port Adelaide, never joined the AFL, and bolstered the player retention scheme, but that probably puts me in a small % group too. Now that they exist I support the Crows, but Norwood are my SANFL team.

Grahaml wrote:The paper isn't there to write about something that's of interest to only a small percentage of people, they write about what most people want to read. You only have to look at the TV ratings of 2 non south australian teams playing on Saturday afternoon vs the SANFL to realise that any AFL game is of much greater interest than any SANFL game. Chambers 100th had to be put somewhere, and it was never going to go in any other place, and no more space was going to be given simply because they would have to take something else out that interests more people.

Sure, people will watch the AFL game, but how many people could be bothered reading about it? very few I believe.
All I am saying is, people passionate enough to go to a SANFL game on a Saturday afternoon are more than likely going to read about it the next day, who, apart from the few Richmond & St.Kilda supporters in S.A.are going to read the write up?

Pseudo wrote:

woolpack wrote:As always on a Sunday morning I look forward to reading the coverage of the SANFL games in the Sunday Mail, particularly Glenelg. Nearly the whole article in this mornings paper (apart from 4 paragraphs) was dedicated to Brandt Chambers 100 goals.

... and those four paragraphs still managed to mention Chambers twice more in the context of reviewing the game.

Pissweak, Zac Milbank. By all means celebrate Chambers' effort. In fact why not write a separate article about it? But in a match review, how about actually reviewing the game?
I look forward to a better piece in Monday's paper.

Good call Psuedo, i thought exactly the same thing....a separate article should have been a given, maybe a couple of pages into the sports section.. Maybe like Warren Partland Zac is over-compensating because he is reporting on a game involving the team he supports.

You might be right that few people would read the write up about the St Kilda Richmond match but how many do you think would read the SANFL write ups? We get 5000 to a game and call it a great crowd. Any AFL team gets 10000 to a game and they call it a disaster. The simple fact is there is more interest in the AFL than the SANFL. And even Adelaide and Port Adelaide fans, on the whole, would be more interested in other AFL matches than SANFL. I very much doubt even the majority of people who go to a given SANFL game would read more than a paragraph of an SANFL write up.