SA Footy

In particular, the system that ran from 1899-1900 and 1901.

The way the finals system went in this time it virtually made the minor round season worthless. It gave last position a chance to make the final by simply winning the two section matches. Here's how:

1899-1900 system:

After twelve matches of the minor round (each team played two teams three times, and the other three twice), the teams were grouped according to their ladder position:

In 1899 it was:
(Section A)
1st: South
3rd: Port
5th: West

(Section B)
2nd: Norwood
4th: Torrens
6th: North

In 1900 it was:
(Section A)
1st: North
3rd: South
5th: West

(Section B)
2nd: Torrens
4th: Norwood
6th: Port

Each group had a round robin tournament, and each group had a separate ladder. The top teams played off in the final, except if the minor round premier did not head this stage (eg. North in 1900), they would play for the right to be challenged by the minor premier.

In 1899, there was no need for that, the Sections looked like:

(A)
South 2 - -
Port 1 1 -
West - 2 -

(B)
Norwood 2 - -
Torrens 1 1 -
North - 2 -

Norwood beat South in the final, but because South finished minor premier, they had the right to challenge Norwood. South then won the CF.

In 1900, it was a different story:

(A)
South 2 - -
North 1 1 -
West - 2 -

(B)
Norwood 2 - -
Torrens 1 1 -
Port - 2 -

Because North were minor premier, they had the right to play the winner of the top teams, South and Norwood. North beat South for the flag that year.

5th or 6th placed teams could easily make the final by winning both matches, but in both seasons each of those teams did not win a match. So, 6th place did not need to win a match throughout the minor round season, but only needed to win the last 4 to claim the title. In fact, they could have done it by only winning one out of the two section matches, and got through to the final on %. The ridiculous part about that is that 2nd had that exact same chance of winning the flag come finals time.

In 1901, the same kind of pointlessness the minor round had was shown when the minor round's bearing on the finals was just to determine the minor premier. Then the whole 7 teams played each other to determine who would play the minor premier (Norwood), or if Norwood did not make it to the top two of this section, those top two teams would play the right to be challenged by Norwood. So basically, Norwood only had to go through the motions during the 6 matches, and would be assured of the final.

As it turned out, Norwood finished 2nd on the "2nd round of matches" table - Port finished first. Norwood then defeated Port in the final.

1902's final series went to the "Argus System" which was in place until 1930, although with a few little changes to it which is described in this forum somewhere. As it turned out, South in that year had a free ride to the Final, because Port were disqualified from the finals because they did not want Umpire Kneebone to officiate. North then assumed the minor premier role. North beat Torrens, then South, to claim the title.

That's very interesting Spelly

I have a SANFL stats book up to 1989 and I remember reading about the early days and also wondering why they bothered with a minor round when they ran finals systems where all teams could play

Was there ever any trophy awarded to the minor premier in those years that might explain why the format was the way it was?

What was the go in 1897. I've seen a Port Adelaide premiership photo with 20 players but according to Dion Hayman there was no Grand Final. If it was just on minor premiers I would have thought there would be more players in photo.

southern fan wrote:What was the go in 1897. I've seen a Port Adelaide premiership photo with 20 players but according to Dion Hayman there was no Grand Final. If it was just on minor premiers I would have thought there would be more players in photo.

The team was 20 players, and 20 players only, 18 and 2 reserves [not interchange players]. That was so until everybody went soft and interchange players became necessary in recent times.

But I am sympathetic to the interchange idea - there were at least two Grand Finals, against Port, Norwood would have won had the Fos Williams technique of deliberately injuring players and leaving the opposition a man down not been possible.

Psyber wrote:

southern fan wrote:What was the go in 1897. I've seen a Port Adelaide premiership photo with 20 players but according to Dion Hayman there was no Grand Final. If it was just on minor premiers I would have thought there would be more players in photo.

The team was 20 players, and 20 players only, 18 and 2 reserves [not interchange players]. That was so until everybody went soft and interchange players became necessary in recent times.

But I am sympathetic to the interchange idea - there were at least two Grand Finals, against Port, Norwood would have won had the Fos Williams technique of deliberately injuring players and leaving the opposition a man down not been possible.

Dude, read what he said again, he's saying 20 isn't many to use over the course of an entire season, not one match.

Wedgie wrote:

Psyber wrote:

southern fan wrote:What was the go in 1897. I've seen a Port Adelaide premiership photo with 20 players but according to Dion Hayman there was no Grand Final. If it was just on minor premiers I would have thought there would be more players in photo.

The team was 20 players, and 20 players only, 18 and 2 reserves [not interchange players]. That was so until everybody went soft and interchange players became necessary in recent times.

But I am sympathetic to the interchange idea - there were at least two Grand Finals, against Port, Norwood would have won had the Fos Williams technique of deliberately injuring players and leaving the opposition a man down not been possible.

Dude, read what he said again, he's saying 20 isn't many to use over the course of an entire season, not one match.

Oh... I read it as the final team, presumably the one that won the last match of the year, whether it was the minor round or a GF, and therefore posed for the photo. I read no reference to it being the number of players for the whole year. Did I miss something earlier in the thread that made that apparent??

Sorry,there were only 18 players in the pose. Yes it was possibly the group that played trhe last game as that explains only 18 players. Otherwise a team photo should have more players over a year.

southern fan wrote:Sorry,there were only 18 players in the pose. Yes it was possibly the group that played trhe last game as that explains only 18 players. Otherwise a team photo should have more players over a year.

That makes sense.
Your retraction and abject apology will do Wedgie, and I'll stand down the legal team!

Psyber wrote:

southern fan wrote:Sorry,there were only 18 players in the pose. Yes it was possibly the group that played trhe last game as that explains only 18 players. Otherwise a team photo should have more players over a year.

That makes sense.
Your retraction and abject apology will do Wedgie, and I'll stand down the legal team!

Umm, "Otherwise a team photo should have more players over a year." is what I was pointing out to you.

Wedgie wrote:

Psyber wrote:

southern fan wrote:Sorry,there were only 18 players in the pose. Yes it was possibly the group that played trhe last game as that explains only 18 players. Otherwise a team photo should have more players over a year.

That makes sense.
Your retraction and abject apology will do Wedgie, and I'll stand down the legal team!

Umm, "Otherwise a team photo should have more players over a year." is what I was pointing out to you.

OK.. That wasn't exactly made clear either. Speaking in code has its problems. Say what you mean in actual words is a good rule of writing...

Psyber wrote:OK.. That wasn't exactly made clear either. Speaking in code has its problems. Say what you mean in actual words is a good rule of writing...

Yeah, well I am a programmer at the moment so I'm used to talking in code.

Sorry to burst this bubble but teams in 1897 still used 20 players (all on field - no reserves)

The photo is on page 60 of C K Knuckey South Australian Football Past and Present. Title is Premiers 1897 and players in shot are A Shearer, J Tompkins, W Renfrey, A Miers, O L'Estage, P Gardner, N Corston, G Earle, C Sainsbury, H Phillips, K McKenzie (capt), A Hosie, W Carr, A Lees, J Samuels, A Challander, H Graves, D Adams. The other interesting thing is F Coffee (umpire) is also in the team photo.

Leaping Lindner wrote:Sorry to burst this bubble but teams in 1897 still used 20 players (all on field - no reserves)

Interesting, I'd never known that. Thanks for the info.

hondo, I don't think there was any trophy for 1st after the minor round. Not that I could find anyway. And yes, 20 men were used on the field until 1898 - in 1899 it was reduced to 18. I did notice while there didn't seem to be any designated reserve player until 1930, on occasions another player took place of a player who got injured and had to leave the field.

Further confirmation of this is in The Advertiser report for round 1 1897 of May 1 for Port Adelaide versus West Torrens. “A moderate number of spectators witnessed the first match of the season between the Port Adelaide and West Torrens teams on the Alberton Oval on Saturday afternoon. Each club displayed a number of new men and many of them proved smart players. The game ended in an easy win for the Ports who had a full twenty in the field while their opponents only had seventeen men. the teams were Port : Ken McKenzie (capt) O L’Estage (vc) Samuel, Lees, Ryan, Ninham, Jeanes, Linklater, Tompkins(2),Adams, Earle, Sainsbury,Shearer, Renfrey, Boon, Challender(2), Carr and Munyard.
West Torrens : Corston (capt), Conroy, Collins, Green, Ray, Marshall, McDermot, S Eaton, Spain, D Nolan, Ellis, Grant , O’Brien, Hibbotson, Powell, Williams and Silver. (which is a bit different from the probable side listed in Storer’s book)

southern fan wrote:The photo is on page 60 of C K Knuckey South Australian Football Past and Present. Title is Premiers 1897 and players in shot are A Shearer, J Tompkins, W Renfrey, A Miers, O L'Estage, P Gardner, N Corston, G Earle, C Sainsbury, H Phillips, K McKenzie (capt), A Hosie, W Carr, A Lees, J Samuels, A Challander, H Graves, D Adams. The other interesting thing is F Coffee (umpire) is also in the team photo.

Coffee also features in North's 1900 premiership team photo.



Players only
Back Row : - W.Baker; J.Matthews; N.Pash; W.Dawkins; T.McNamara; F.Dickenson; H.Mumme;
Middle Row:- G.Carter; W.Coates; J.Reedman; E.Jones; S.Helseltine; N.Claxton; W.Shaw;
Front Row: - N.Clark; E.Mitchell; F.Coffey (Umpire); H.Pash; H.Wilmhurst

As a matter of interest the gentleman with the moustache, and the bow tie, next to Mumme is the trainer Arthur Brown. Brown joined Medindie when they when in the Junior Association and was a member of Medindie(1888) and North's (1893)first SAFA (SANFL) teams. He is also one of the first life members at North Adelaide.

southern fan wrote:Tompkins(2),Adams, Earle, Sainsbury,Shearer, Renfrey, Boon, Challender(2)

For those that don't know, the (2) means that there was two players with that surname that took part. I've also seen a (3) as well.