SANFL Wooden Spoon Tally?

[whufc]

This is from 1897 onwards, it's all I have got:
Central 2
Glenelg 18
North 5
Norwood 6
Port 1
South 27
Sturt 18
Torrens 5
West 17
Woodville 9

Given Torrens lack of premiership success (only 4 flags), the fact that they only finished bottom 5 times is surprising. Two of these were in a row in 1975 and 1976 and they came bottom again in 1986.
North never got the wooden spoon between 1912 and 1978 which is a good record too and 5 overall is very good, but of course Port's record of 1900 to now is incredible. As a North supporter I hope that we aren't heading for a sixth this year. Allan and Alleway would want to stay sound.

The same could be said about Central as well, especially considering their first year they got the wooden spoon.

Central have had a fair bit of success as well. Are you referring more to the fact that they only won 2 wooden spoons in their first 36 years of existence, yet didn't win a flag in that time.

I guess for much of that time Central were competitive whereas my memory of Torrens is that they were mainly uncompetitive. For example between 1981 and 1985 they came ninth every year.

Yeah surprising in that despite not winning a premiership we only got the 2 wooden spoons.

More surprising to me though is that we did that depsite going up against 8 'established' SANFL sides. I thought we might have won a few more spoons than that especially in the first 10 years.

[whufc]

As a matter of interest what was North's win loss ratio at that stage. I remember checking a few years ago now, probably around 1990 and I was surprised at that stage to see that Port, Norwood and North were the only 3 teams with a better than 50% average. Woodville/West Torrens would have a very good win/loss ratio and Centrals because of the last 11 years would now also be positive.

At the end of 1963, North was only just behind Torrens with 51.5% wins or 52.2% incl. 1/2 of draws. I think you might have last checked more recently than that, perhaps in the mid 90s because in 1990 both North and Sturt were well above 50% and it was in that year that North passed Sturt. I'm sure the Double Blues were considerably below 50% after the eight wooden spoons.

Currently the winning percentage order is Port, Eagles, Norwood, Centrals, North and Sturt (although some may say Sturt's ahead of North) all over 50%. By my calculations (subject to scrutiny) the overall closeness between North and Sturt is staggering. According to me as of today, North have played 1891 games for 958 wins, 912 losses and 21 draws. Sturt have played 1897 games for 962 wins, 918 losses and 17 draws. If you just count wins Sturt are ahead by 50.71% to 50.66%, but if you allow half a win for a draw (as I think you should), then North are ahead by 51.22% to 51.16%. It's that close that if they both keep on losing until they play each other (a distinct possibility) and Sturt win, the Double Blues would then be ahead of North whichever way you look at it.

And there record against each other is almost 50:50 as well.

All this is interesting considering North are never mentioned in the past of being in a "BIG 4" yet sturt always are.COuld this be because of supporter base ?
I can see this as being the only reason and it seems a bit unfair.
North have Farmer and Robran in their history. BY far the most dominant players in their respective positions.
It would be interesting to read a journalists opinion of what would be a BIG 4 pre 1960.
WOuld it be Port, Norwood, and who else?

Would alot of that come because Sturt had that Golden Era under Oatey, whereas North have been more consistent but have never strung 4-5 premierships in a row.

Out of interest what is the most amount of Premierships North have won in a row.

[Leaping Lindner]

Out of interest what is the most amount of Premierships North have won in a row.

Two is the most we've got in a row. We averaged a flag per decade of our existance.
1930-1931 (lost 1932 Grand Final)
1971-1972 (lost 1973 Grand Final)

[Leaping Lindner]

This is from 1897 onwards, it's all I have got:
Central 2
Glenelg 18
North 5
Norwood 6
Port 1
South 27
Sturt 18
Torrens 5
West 17
Woodville 9

To complete your records then:

1877 - Bankers
1878 & 1879 - Kensington
1880 - Adelaide
1881 - Adelaide-Kensington
1882 - Royal Park
1883 & 1884 - North
1885 - Adelaide
1886 - Port
1887 - West
1888 & 1889 - Medindie
1890 - Gawler
1891, 92 & 93 - Adelaide
1894 - North
1895 - Port Natives
1896 - Port

Medindie is North Adelaide in everything except name (playing staff, board etc, guernsey). I'll cop the 1888,1889 and 1894 spoons on the chin, but realisticly they can't be counted as prior to 1897 no behinds were added to scores and no district system was in place, in fact some players swapped from weaker clubs to stronger clubs mid season. And in many cases once the outcome of the season was beyond doubt and the season got longer many weaker clubs would have half their team turn up to games and they would make up the numbers from supporters in the crowd.

[robranisgod]

All this is interesting considering North are never mentioned in the past of being in a "BIG 4" yet sturt always are.
COuld this be because of supporter base ?
I can see this as being the only reason and it seems a bit unfair.
North have Farmer and Robran in their history. BY far the most dominant players in their respective positions.
It would be interesting to read a journalists opinion of what would be a BIG 4 pre 1960.
WOuld it be Port, Norwood, and who else?

As recently as 1995 former Port and SANFL historian John Wood wrote an article in the footy budget where he ranked the first three teams as Port, Norwood and North. futhermore he stated that since the inception of electorate football in 1897 - North were breathing down Norwood's neck.

Up until 1975 it was always Port, Norwood and North and depending on who was successful either Sturt, West or Torrens fourth. Ashley Porter termed the phrase big 4 in that year when Norwood, Glenelg, Sturt and Port were miles ahead of the rest. In general they remained the powerhouses for the next seven years, with West breaking the stranglehold in 1983.

Interestingly Doug Thomas at the time kept on saying that finally a team outside of the Big 5, had won a flag. He always considered North as being in the big five.

Supporter base is interesting too. North always have a very strong membership and when things are going well draw good crowds. I do think that they have a fair weather and old supporter base though.

[smithy]

All this is interesting considering North are never mentioned in the past of being in a "BIG 4" yet sturt always are.
COuld this be because of supporter base ?
I can see this as being the only reason and it seems a bit unfair.
North have Farmer and Robran in their history. BY far the most dominant players in their respective positions.
It would be interesting to read a journalists opinion of what would be a BIG 4 pre 1960.
WOuld it be Port, Norwood, and who else?

As recently as 1995 former Port and SANFL historian John Wood wrote an article in the footy budget where he ranked the first three teams as Port, Norwood and North. futhermore he stated that since the inception of electorate football in 1897 - North were breathing down Norwood's neck.

Up until 1975 it was always Port, Norwood and North and depending on who was successful either Sturt, West or Torrens fourth. Ashley Porter termed the phrase big 4 in that year when Norwood, Glenelg, Sturt and Port were miles ahead of the rest. In general they remained the powerhouses for the next seven years, with West breaking the stranglehold in 1983.

Interestingly Doug Thomas at the time kept on saying that finally a team outside of the Big 5, had won a flag. He always considered North as being in the big five.

Supporter base is interesting too. North always have a very strong membership and when things are going well draw good crowds. I do think that they have a fair weather and old supporter base though.

I also refer to an article I recall in 1991 when West and North played in the Grand Final where the journo stated that it was the 1st time in many years ( I can't recall the exact figure) that one of the "Big 4" wasn't a participant in the final game of the season.

[JK]

1882 - Royal Park

Don't suppose anyone knows what became of them?

[robranisgod]

All this is interesting considering North are never mentioned in the past of being in a "BIG 4" yet sturt always are.
COuld this be because of supporter base ?
I can see this as being the only reason and it seems a bit unfair.
North have Farmer and Robran in their history. BY far the most dominant players in their respective positions.
It would be interesting to read a journalists opinion of what would be a BIG 4 pre 1960.
WOuld it be Port, Norwood, and who else?

As recently as 1995 former Port and SANFL historian John Wood wrote an article in the footy budget where he ranked the first three teams as Port, Norwood and North. futhermore he stated that since the inception of electorate football in 1897 - North were breathing down Norwood's neck.

Up until 1975 it was always Port, Norwood and North and depending on who was successful either Sturt, West or Torrens fourth. Ashley Porter termed the phrase big 4 in that year when Norwood, Glenelg, Sturt and Port were miles ahead of the rest. In general they remained the powerhouses for the next seven years, with West breaking the stranglehold in 1983.

Interestingly Doug Thomas at the time kept on saying that finally a team outside of the Big 5, had won a flag. He always considered North as being in the big five.

Supporter base is interesting too. North always have a very strong membership and when things are going well draw good crowds. I do think that they have a fair weather and old supporter base though.

I also refer to an article I recall in 1991 when West and North played in the Grand Final where the journo stated that it was the 1st time in many years ( I can't recall the exact figure) that one of the "Big 4" wasn't a participant in the final game of the season.

1991 was the first time in 42 years that one of Port, Norwood, Sturt or Glenelg hadn't been in the Grand Final. The last one before that was in 1949 when North beat Torrens.

But 2000 was the first time in history that the real big 4 of Port, Norwood, North and Sturt hadn't participated in a Grand Final. From 1897 until 2000 whenever a Grand Final was played one of those four had participated in the Grand Final

[smithy]

All this is interesting considering North are never mentioned in the past of being in a "BIG 4" yet sturt always are.
COuld this be because of supporter base ?
I can see this as being the only reason and it seems a bit unfair.
North have Farmer and Robran in their history. BY far the most dominant players in their respective positions.
It would be interesting to read a journalists opinion of what would be a BIG 4 pre 1960.
WOuld it be Port, Norwood, and who else?

As recently as 1995 former Port and SANFL historian John Wood wrote an article in the footy budget where he ranked the first three teams as Port, Norwood and North. futhermore he stated that since the inception of electorate football in 1897 - North were breathing down Norwood's neck.

Up until 1975 it was always Port, Norwood and North and depending on who was successful either Sturt, West or Torrens fourth. Ashley Porter termed the phrase big 4 in that year when Norwood, Glenelg, Sturt and Port were miles ahead of the rest. In general they remained the powerhouses for the next seven years, with West breaking the stranglehold in 1983.

Interestingly Doug Thomas at the time kept on saying that finally a team outside of the Big 5, had won a flag. He always considered North as being in the big five.

Supporter base is interesting too. North always have a very strong membership and when things are going well draw good crowds. I do think that they have a fair weather and old supporter base though.

I also refer to an article I recall in 1991 when West and North played in the Grand Final where the journo stated that it was the 1st time in many years ( I can't recall the exact figure) that one of the "Big 4" wasn't a participant in the final game of the season.

1991 was the first time in 42 years that one of Port, Norwood, Sturt or Glenelg hadn't been in the Grand Final. The last one before that was in 1949 when North beat Torrens.

But 2000 was the first time in history that the real big 4 of Port, Norwood, North and Sturt hadn't participated in a Grand Final. From 1897 until 2000 whenever a Grand Final was played one of those four had participated in the Grand Final

Fair to say that Glenelg should never really be mentioned in a big 4 then execpt when it comes to supporter numbers.

[robranisgod]

And I query their supporter numbers. You never see a Glenelg supporter at Prospect for example. When they goal (which they do too often at Prospect) it is like an interstate team at Footy Park. In fact it is quieter than that.

I think that it was trendy to follow the Bays in the 70s and 80s, but I don't think that they have that strong a following really. I know that North's membership is usually at least comparable with the Bays.