Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 5:41 pmBooney wrote:My 71 year old Mother thinks it was Bob McLean who adopted it after South Melbourne began using it in '61. She thinks about 63/64.
Although, it would be difficult trying to differentiate one premiership from the other in that period.
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 6:37 pmBooney wrote:Well there was 2758 at the game and the majority were supporting Port Adelaide. How you break that up to satisfy whatever it is you're after is up to you.
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:03 pmBooney wrote:CUTTERMAN wrote:The question of a breakdown of 'Magpie' supporters and Power supporters is a very valid one as many 'Magpie' supporters have traditionally followed Collingwood, Essendon, Geelong, Carlton etc in the AFL/ VFL. Many haven't changed from that with the advent of a Port AFL franchise. So if there were hardly anyone with solely 'Magpies' clobber on you'd guess they've walked away from being lied to by those running the AFL franchise and that their SANFL club has been pimped out for other needs considered to be more important.
I had this very conversation with a Magpies supporter (who followed Essendon in the AFL) last year at the Sturt game at alberton. He was gutted and wasn't sure what he'd do this year.
In the bowling club? If so, he was there yesterday.
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:19 pmTimmiesChin wrote:Ted E Bear wrote:This day was always going to happen. Now its here let rip all you knockers, get it off your chest. Your time has come.
bear in mind its the other way with the crowettes
You've changed your tune in a week or so... here's a couple quotes from the Norwood/Port post match:Ted E Bear wrote:Norwood dominated all night and the scoreboard flattered Port.
Some real pretenders in that side and they will not be a threat to the better sides this year. I never knew Renouf was such a bad playerTed E Bear wrote:Port didn't look like kicking a goal all night.
They wont get much better either.
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:55 pmEcky wrote:bennymacca wrote:
Love how people can simultaneously argue that the comp is a farce both because the reserves sides are too bad AND too good.
It is actually quite logical and one of the main points I kept arguing last year. The farce comes from the VARIANCE in performances from the AFL reserves teams. There will almost certainly be weeks when they lose by 20 goals and weeks when they will win by 20 goals, all hugely dependent on
- their injury lists
- their desire to play to win (which will depend on what suits their AFL masters from week to week)
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:05 pmPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:06 pmPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:11 pmbennymacca wrote:Agree with your second point but your first one about injuries, port and crows will doubly feel the effects, injuries in afl+sanfl
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:31 pmheater31 wrote:Booney wrote:My 71 year old Mother thinks it was Bob McLean who adopted it after South Melbourne began using it in '61. She thinks about 63/64.
Although, it would be difficult trying to differentiate one premiership from the other in that period.
Must have been 1963 as South were top dog in '64
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:33 pmCentrals reserves wouldn't, and shouldn't, be playing Norwood's first 21.kickinit wrote:bennymacca wrote:Agree with your second point but your first one about injuries, port and crows will doubly feel the effects, injuries in afl+sanfl
so your saying centrals reserves side would of still beaten norwood on the weekend?
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:53 pmkickinit wrote:bennymacca wrote:Agree with your second point but your first one about injuries, port and crows will doubly feel the effects, injuries in afl+sanfl
so your saying centrals reserves side would of still beaten norwood on the weekend?
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:28 amPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:30 amPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:38 amPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:46 amPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:08 amBooney wrote:It was among Glenelgs biggest ever losses, surely?
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:14 amBooney wrote:My 71 year old Mother thinks it was Bob McLean who adopted it after South Melbourne began using it in '61. She thinks about 63/64.
Although, it would be difficult trying to differentiate one premiership from the other in that period.
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:20 amMacca19 wrote:Ecky wrote:bennymacca wrote:
Love how people can simultaneously argue that the comp is a farce both because the reserves sides are too bad AND too good.
It is actually quite logical and one of the main points I kept arguing last year. The farce comes from the VARIANCE in performances from the AFL reserves teams. There will almost certainly be weeks when they lose by 20 goals and weeks when they will win by 20 goals, all hugely dependent on
- their injury lists
- their desire to play to win (which will depend on what suits their AFL masters from week to week)
Sorry but why is this any difference to any other club? If AFL Port have a 15 man injury list this year then the Magpies will probably get very well beaten. But, if the Magpies in any of the past 20 years had a 15 man injury list, then they would have been very well beaten as well. Any team that will be forced to put half their reserves team into the league side due to injury is going to cop probably big losses.
.
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:41 amDogwatcher wrote:Trevor Hill sure does.
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 5:17 pmBooney wrote:My 71 year old Mother thinks it was Bob McLean who adopted it after South Melbourne began using it in '61. She thinks about 63/64.
Although, it would be difficult trying to differentiate one premiership from the other in that period.
