SA Footy

There's a common saying in American sport which goes like this, 'Offense wins games,Defense wins championships'
Watching a lot of american sport, I find this very true but I wonder about our game bucking that cliche.
My question is; How many SANFL premierships have been won by the best attacking team vs the best defending team?

47 times each since 1907.

A team that has both the best attack and defence has won the premiership 25 times.

Six minutes!!!!
WTF!
Back on the subject, that stat surprised me, as I thought the yank maxim would hold firm although I thought , % wise it wouldn't be 50%.

I made up a table which has that on there a while back. I can divide the teams into those three categories:

Best Attack and Defense:

1913 Port
1914 Port
1921 Port
1922 Norwood
1925 Norwood
1946 Norwood
1949 North
1954 Port
1955 Port
1956 Port
1957 Port
1959 Port
1962 Port
1970 Sturt
1972 North
1980 Port
1987 North
1991 North
1992 Port
1997 Norwood
1998 Port
2003 Central
2004 Central
2005 Central
2007 Central

Best Attack:
1909 West
1919 Sturt
1927 West
1931 North
1935 South
1936 Port
1937 Port
1938 South
1941 Norwood
1950 Norwood
1953 Torrens
1961 West
1966 Sturt
1968 Sturt
1973 Glenelg
1977 Port
1983 West
1989 Port
1990 Port
1995 Port
2000 Central
2001 Central

Best Defence:
1908 West
1910 Port
1911 West
1920 North
1926 Sturt
1928 Port
1930 North
1932 Sturt
1939 Port
1951 Port
1958 Port
1963 Port
1974 Sturt
1976 Sturt
1978 Norwood
1979 Port
1981 Port
1982 Norwood
1985 Glenelg
1986 Glenelg
1993 Eagles
2006 Eagles

It's "Defence" outside the US of A, and the emphasis is on the second syllable.

Psyber wrote:It's "Defence" outside the US of A, and the emphasis is on the second syllable.

Psyber, at last we agree on something

I thought defence was what you build around dehouse.

On a serious note then, going through those tables, who has had both the best attack and the best defence and messed up their season and not gone on and won the flag?

That's what I had on my table, defence.

Anyway:

1907 Port
1912 Port
1915 Port
1923 Sturt
1929 Port
1994 Eagles
1996 Central
2002 Central

Gimmeabreak
I've been watching the Celtics cream the Lakers and all the Boston crowd did was shout
DEE-FENSE!! DEE-FENSE!!

Hidden stat here Spelly. Including 2010, 29 premierships have been won by teams that had neither the best attack nor the best defence.

Nice one, baggy8. Something which still intrigues me is this notion of best defending teams winning premierships. Is there an actual science about it which enables this to be true? The object of the game is to finish ahead of the other team; it doesn't say how it go about it. What is about a game built from the backline up that wins matches?

As a matter of interest, which teams had the best defence and attack in North's premiership years of 1960 and 1971. I am surprised that North in 1971 had neither given that they were minor premiers.

In 1960 Norwood had the best attack and Port the best defence (6th placed Sturt had a better attack than the top two, Port and North), while in 1971 Port had the best attack and Sturt the best defence.

All I can say about Spelly's question is that it's a good one.

Two seasons that have fascinated me over the years were 1973 and 1983, two Neil Kerley premierships, Glenelg and West Adelaide. On both occasions, it appeared the emphasis was placed upon simply blowing opposition teams out of the water by scoring more than they do. That's not to say either team didn't have a good defence, but it never seemed to matter how many goals the opposition kicked.

This was the way we played basketball in those days, the emphasis was on putting the ball in the net more than the opposition. Times have changed, and always for the best. The emphasis on defence at times has made the game of football a very ugly spectacle, and the jury is still out for me to consider if it's a more effective method.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:This was the way we played basketball in those days, the emphasis was on putting the ball in the net more than the opposition. Times have changed, and always for the best. The emphasis on defence at times has made the game of football a very ugly spectacle, and the jury is still out for me to consider if it's a more effective method.

Give me a shoot out match any day.
Sure low scoring arm-wrestles can still be enthralling, but the emphasis on flooding these days robs the game of good elements.
It would seem most successful teams have had a decent balance that can counter those days where the defenders or forwards have a day to forget.