SA Footy

I've found the discussions comparing various teams in the 20th century interesting, here's my table from best to worst of how clubs performed in the 20th century and my reasoning on separating a few of them.

1st Port Adelaide (by a mile)
daylight
2nd Norwood (16 premierships in own right + 2 in war years (I'll give half a win for each of those)= 17 premierships)
3rd North (13 in own right + 2 combined = 14)
4th Sturt 12 premierships
daylight
5th West 8 premierships
daylight
6th Torrens (4 in own right + 1 combined in war years = 4.5)
7th Glenelg 4 premierships
8th South 3 premierships
9th WWT 1 premiership
10th Central
11th Woodville

agreed bar the obvious

Jimmy wrote:agreed bar the obvious

Not stirring up shit here Jimmy but I want you to outline your argument as to why Sturt are ahead of North and try and sell it me.

PS that photo makes me sick! So does the fact you broke your 26 year drought which I wish was now at 30 years. Although I couldnt handle it if Centrals had one 6 in a row. For some reason im leaning to Sturt winning that flag as being the lesser of two evils.

Port Adelaide
Norwood
North Adelaide
Sturt
West Adelaide
Glenelg
West Torrens
South Adelaide
W-WT Eagles
Central District
Woodville

North pip Sturt because of Sturt's 8 wooden spoons in a row - 1989-96.

north 89 gf performance must balance up the ledger.

yeah, sturts 8 WS does hurt it but winning 5 in a row stuffs that up for north.

riding on public opinion and media perception.

Sturt

Hard to compare clubs when some played 9 years and some played 100!

PS Jimmy - I hate Bob Shearman.

After reading all the articles in the new WT History book, and taling to my Dad about it - I felt violated!

sturt1 wrote:north 89 gf performance must balance up the ledger.

How does that balance up any ledger?

North kept Port to a lesser total in 1905, the discussion was the 20th century, not the last 20 years.

Using your logic, the fact that North kept Port to a lower total in 1905 than Port kept North to in 1989 actually further increases the ledger in North's favour.

It was a poor effort by norf as they were totally humiliated. I didnt see the 1905 gf but saw the 89 gf on tv. I didnt know whether to laugh at norf or feel sorry for them. Darryl Harts visit to the port change room after the game summed it all up. At least Sturt has not put in such a pathetic gf performance. Also Sturt had a golden era which only a 2 clubs were able to manage in the 20th century. The other one wasnt norf. It makes sense that Sturt were far better than norf in the 20th century.

sturt1 wrote:It was a poor effort by norf as they were totally humiliated. I didnt see the 1905 gf but saw the 89 gf on tv. I didnt know whether to laugh at norf or feel sorry for them. Darryl Harts visit to the port change room after the game summed it all up. At least Sturt has not put in such a pathetic gf performance. Also Sturt had a golden era which only a 2 clubs were able to manage in the 20th century. The other one wasnt norf. It makes sense that Sturt were far better than norf in the 20th century.

It doesn't make sense at all, this topic is "Rate all Teams of the 20th Century".
It's not entitled "Rate all Teams from games sturt1 has seen on TV".

Honestly, is it that hard to understand?

And then you go on to use the logic that because most of Sturt's success came in a short period of time, not the entire span of the century they are far better for the 20th century? WTF? Using that logic because Sturt were so bad in the early 90s they're the worst team of the 20th century.

Look, you Sturt supporters, you keep trying to work how you're better than North, and I'll keep trying to work out how Glenelg are better than Torrens!!

FWIW I think I can mount a better arguement but it wont change the rankings one iota. We played in more GFs but Torrens had a better head to head ratio against us, thanks to our pathetic first 10 years. Despite both winning four flags on their own.

In the end I have to conceed to Torrens you unfortunately 13 flags North to 12 Sturt, you have to as well...

Dissident wrote:PS Jimmy - I hate Bob Shearman.

After reading all the articles in the new WT History book, and taling to my Dad about it - I felt violated!

hehe....im glad he changed and dad was his biggest fan or i wouldnt be supporting the best team in the world lol

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:In the end I have to conceed to Torrens you unfortunately 13 flags North to 12 Sturt, you have to as well...

13 each mate

go back and count them

Jimmy wrote:

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:In the end I have to conceed to Torrens you unfortunately 13 flags North to 12 Sturt, you have to as well...

13 each mate

go back and count them

Sorry I was relying on the validity of the original post on this thread....my bad....

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:

Jimmy wrote:

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:In the end I have to conceed to Torrens you unfortunately 13 flags North to 12 Sturt, you have to as well...

13 each mate

go back and count them

Sorry I was relying on the validity of the original post on this thread....my bad....

I thought Sturt won won of their flags outside the 20th century (ie the topic of dicsussion) in 2002??

Wedgie wrote:

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:

Jimmy wrote:

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:In the end I have to conceed to Torrens you unfortunately 13 flags North to 12 Sturt, you have to as well...

13 each mate

go back and count them

Sorry I was relying on the validity of the original post on this thread....my bad....

I thought Sturt won won of their flags outside the 20th century (ie the topic of dicsussion) in 2002??

my bad, still....

Surely placings other than winning flags should come into account whern teams have the same amount of premierships