SA Footy

Hi Spelly,
Can you please list the amount of magarey medals and magarey medalists for each club? I assume Port are first and North are 2nd in each stat?
Cheers.

Medals:
Port 24
North 20
Sturt 16
West 14
Norwood 13
Glenelg 9
South 9
Torrens 9
Central 5
Woodville 1
Eagles 0

Medallists:
Port 19
North 17
Sturt 13
West 13
Norwood 10
Glenelg 9
South 6
Torrens 6
Central 5
Woodville 1
Eagles 0

There has to be something wrong with your calculation regarding number of medals or medallists for North.

Tom MacKenzie won 2 at North
Ron Phillips won 2
Barrie Robran won 3

It means that if North have won 20 medals, it can only be 16 individual medallists.

As a matter of interest, could you also do the tables for wooden spoons, grand finals played and premierships won. Could be some interesting patterns develop.

North....

Phil Sandland 1901
Tom Mackenzie 1905, 1906
Tom Leahy 1920
Harold Hawke 1937
Jeff Pash 1939
Ron Phillips 1948,1949
Ian McKay 1950
Barrie Barbary 1960
Don Lindner 1967
Barrie Robran 1968,1970,1973
Tony Antrobus 1983
Andrew Jarman 1987
Brenton Phillips 1993
Josh Francou 1996
Jim Allen 2007
Rhys Archard 2009

16 Medalists - 20 Medals

(i've forgotten Darel Hart in 1990 mind you so did the umpires!)

Leaping Lindner wrote:(i've forgotten Darel Hart in 1990 mind you so did the umpires!)

Footy's turned a full cycle. Back then they ignored a midfielder, now that's all they vote for.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

Leaping Lindner wrote:(i've forgotten Darel Hart in 1990 mind you so did the umpires!)

Footy's turned a full cycle. Back then they ignored a midfielder, now that's all they vote for.

That's OK they forgot Marshall and McDermott in that year too....

So this proves North and Port are the biggest umpires sucks of the SANFL???

What has always puzzled me about the Magarey Medal over the years is why it has become a litmus test for greatness. It was, and always has been, an umpire's award for the fairest and most brilliant player in any given season.

That is fine by me, however, like the Brownlow, it's importance has been magnified beyond proportion. Don't get me wrong, there have been many truly great players who have won Magareys (Robran, Ebert, Hank, Fitzgerald, etc), but there have been some rather average ones as well. A player having one or two good seasons (Duckworth, Grimwood, etc) really should not be numbered amongst the true greats of the SANFL.

Ipso Facto, when you think of some on the great players who never won the award, John Cahill, Paul Bagshaw, Peter Marker, Rick Davies, Greg Phillips, Peter Darley, etc, the honour board of medallists somewhat pales to insignificance.

I think the Magarey Medal is a worthy award, I just don't think we should be using it as an indication of a player's greatness.

True AH, fairest and most brilliant don't necessarily add up to most effective.
"Most effective" could include hard and brutal, a la Neil Kerley, and a few others, at least while they get away with it..

am Bays wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

Leaping Lindner wrote:(i've forgotten Darel Hart in 1990 mind you so did the umpires!)

Footy's turned a full cycle. Back then they ignored a midfielder, now that's all they vote for.

That's OK they forgot Marshall and McDermott in that year too....

McDermott never seemed to get the votes he was tipped to. His constant backchat on the field must have counted against him.

Have always had a problem with umpires giving votes for this award. Sometimes you think what in the F&^% were they thinking and were they at the same game you were at.

Case in point, Last Minor round game of 1990 Glenelg vs Sturt. David Marshall was by far the BOG but the 3 vote went to Brett Deane who spent part of the day on the bench and David Marshall only got 2 votes.
Don't get me wrong he did play well but not as well as Marshall and as a result Marshall lost the medal by 1 vote.

I was watching the count with some fellow supporters thinking we were a good chance for the medal when it came to the last round we thought 3 votes for Marshall and a medal for the club. Doh!!! Were We Wrong!!

Just goes to show that umpires sometimes don't see the game as the rest of us.

Does the Medal still have the lustre it once had when the wrong people win it?

Not all players who win it have stand out careers maybe just stand out seasons.

FOURTH ESTATE wrote:Case in point, Last Minor round game of 1990 Glenelg vs Sturt. David Marshall was by far the BOG but the 3 vote went to Brett Deane who spent part of the day on the bench and David Marshall only got 2 votes.
Don't get me wrong he did play well but not as well as Marshall and as a result Marshall lost the medal by 1 vote.

I was watching the count with some fellow supporters thinking we were a good chance for the medal when it came to the last round we thought 3 votes for Marshall and a medal for the club. Doh!!! Were We Wrong!!

FE from the deep dark recesse of my cerebral cortii I seem to recall Marsh getting the BOG votes for that game at the club on B&F night. Certainly was a run away winner that year in our B&F.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:What has always puzzled me about the Magarey Medal over the years is why it has become a litmus test for greatness. It was, and always has been, an umpire's award for the fairest and most brilliant player in any given season.

That is fine by me, however, like the Brownlow, it's importance has been magnified beyond proportion. Don't get me wrong, there have been many truly great players who have won Magareys (Robran, Ebert, Hank, Fitzgerald, etc), but there have been some rather average ones as well. A player having one or two good seasons (Duckworth, Grimwood, etc) really should not be numbered amongst the true greats of the SANFL.

Ipso Facto, when you think of some on the great players who never won the award, John Cahill, Paul Bagshaw, Peter Marker, Rick Davies, Greg Phillips, Peter Darley, etc, the honour board of medallists somewhat pales to insignificance.

I think the Magarey Medal is a worthy award, I just don't think we should be using it as an indication of a player's greatness.

I agree completely, Hawk.
People only use it to measure "greatness" because they are too lazy to do some proper research.