SA Footy

Lightning McQueen wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:Never said Port weren't great, and this anti port or bashing as you put it... gee!
I just believe winning flags is a way of defining dominance... Going by that same process as you the swans have dominated for nearly a decade. I certainly don't think we have,

If Hawthorn weren't up and running at the same time as you guys, you would've been dominating.

I agree with Boonbag, anything over a 75% win ratio for a prolonged time is dominance in my eyes.

Geelong dominated in the early 90's but never won a flag.

woodublieve12 wrote:Never said Port weren't great, and this anti port or bashing as you put it... gee!
I just believe winning flags is a way of defining dominance... Going by that same process as you the swans have dominated for nearly a decade. I certainly don't think we have,

amber_fluid wrote:
Disagree mate.
West Coast dominated the early 90's and have 2 flags to prove it.

Booney wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:Never said Port weren't great, and this anti port or bashing as you put it... gee!
I just believe winning flags is a way of defining dominance... Going by that same process as you the swans have dominated for nearly a decade. I certainly don't think we have,

Well, they have. Won in '05, GF in '06, finals in '08, missed in '09, semi final '10, semi '11, won in '12, prelim in '13, GF in '14, semi in '15, GF in '16.

You've played in finals all but two years since '05 for 5 GF's and 2 flags. That's as "dominant" as anyone bar Geelong and Hawthorn in that time, as I said, there can be more than one team who dominates an era.

woodublieve12 wrote:

Booney wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:Never said Port weren't great, and this anti port or bashing as you put it... gee!
I just believe winning flags is a way of defining dominance... Going by that same process as you the swans have dominated for nearly a decade. I certainly don't think we have,

Well, they have. Won in '05, GF in '06, finals in '08, missed in '09, semi final '10, semi '11, won in '12, prelim in '13, GF in '14, semi in '15, GF in '16.

You've played in finals all but two years since '05 for 5 GF's and 2 flags. That's as "dominant" as anyone bar Geelong and Hawthorn in that time, as I said, there can be more than one team who dominates an era.

Nah fair enough. I wasn't arguing with you... I just thought premierships were the barometer... play on

Lightning McQueen wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:Never said Port weren't great, and this anti port or bashing as you put it... gee!
I just believe winning flags is a way of defining dominance... Going by that same process as you the swans have dominated for nearly a decade. I certainly don't think we have,

If Hawthorn weren't up and running at the same time as you guys, you would've been dominating.

I agree with Boonbag, anything over a 75% win ratio for a prolonged time is dominance in my eyes.

Geelong dominated in the early 90's but never won a flag.

amber_fluid wrote:

the milky bar kid wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:

Booney wrote:Certainly did, but it doesn't mean there couldn't be another dominant side in the same era, we just didn't translate that into finals victories.

But to suggest winning 16 of 22 ( 2001 ) 18 of 22 ( 2002 ), 18 of 22 ( 2003 ) and 17 of 22 ( 2004 ) isn't dominating the competition is just anti-Port Adelaide jargon from regular Port bashers. Across 4 years to suggest winning 69 of 88 (nearly 80% win rate ) isn't "dominant" is just trolling. I'm used to it though, that's why it's great that there's a "friend" and "foe" function on here.

What it suggests is you choked when it mattered!
Do you get a medal for dominating the minor round these days?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McClelland_Trophy

What part of medal didn't you get?

They finished minor premiers we know that but they didn't finish it off.

Wedgie wrote:Geelong hardly dominated, won one minor premiership in 92 and had the same amount of losses as Footscray, Collingwood and West Coast that year in the minor round.
Consistent? Yes
Dominant? No

woodublieve12 wrote:

Booney wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:Never said Port weren't great, and this anti port or bashing as you put it... gee!
I just believe winning flags is a way of defining dominance... Going by that same process as you the swans have dominated for nearly a decade. I certainly don't think we have,

Well, they have. Won in '05, GF in '06, finals in '08, missed in '09, semi final '10, semi '11, won in '12, prelim in '13, GF in '14, semi in '15, GF in '16.

You've played in finals all but two years since '05 for 5 GF's and 2 flags. That's as "dominant" as anyone bar Geelong and Hawthorn in that time, as I said, there can be more than one team who dominates an era.

Nah fair enough. I wasn't arguing with you... I just thought premierships were the barometer... play on

Booney wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:

Booney wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:Never said Port weren't great, and this anti port or bashing as you put it... gee!
I just believe winning flags is a way of defining dominance... Going by that same process as you the swans have dominated for nearly a decade. I certainly don't think we have,

Well, they have. Won in '05, GF in '06, finals in '08, missed in '09, semi final '10, semi '11, won in '12, prelim in '13, GF in '14, semi in '15, GF in '16.

You've played in finals all but two years since '05 for 5 GF's and 2 flags. That's as "dominant" as anyone bar Geelong and Hawthorn in that time, as I said, there can be more than one team who dominates an era.

Nah fair enough. I wasn't arguing with you... I just thought premierships were the barometer... play on

Well you don't win premierships if you don't play finals, so I'd say continually making finals is a dominant performance in a 16/17/18 team competition.

Unless of course you've got an advantage by playing by a different set of rules to everyone else, then it's a farce.

All comes down to the interpretation of the word "dominant"..

amber_fluid wrote:Thanks captain obvious

amber_fluid wrote:

Booney wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:

morell wrote:^^^

and it appears the continual underrating of Port's dominance in the early 2000's continues.

Dominance is proven by premierships, multiple... Brisbane dominated the early 2000's.

Certainly did, but it doesn't mean there couldn't be another dominant side in the same era, we just didn't translate that into finals victories.

But to suggest winning 16 of 22 ( 2001 ) 18 of 22 ( 2002 ), 18 of 22 ( 2003 ) and 17 of 22 ( 2004 ) isn't dominating the competition is just anti-Port Adelaide jargon from regular Port bashers. Across 4 years to suggest winning 69 of 88 (nearly 80% win rate ) isn't "dominant" is just trolling. I'm used to it though, that's why it's great that there's a "friend" and "foe" function on here.

What it suggests is you choked when it mattered!
Do you get a medal for dominating the minor round these days?

Booney wrote:I don't know about anyone else but I can barely contain myself.

Brodlach wrote:I think I will just flog off


Changes to the Port team this week?

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Brodlach wrote:I think I will just flog off


Changes to the Port team this week?

EFA