Robert Pyman on the SAFC

[Adelaide Hawk]

I don't have questions, nor do I have answers. It's going to be tough for South and I guess they need to keep going down the path they are with blooding juniors.

I think South's problems stem from a certain culture that Pyman eluded to. They have a history of sacking coaches who tried to be tough on players and alter the losing culture ... Kerley, Scott, Cahill, etc. Sacking Kerley (a premiership coach) and replacing him with a bar fly like Darley was an incredible mistake. Darley was a great player .. but a coach?

You can't turn back the clock now, but I've always believed that had South ventured to Noarlunga in the early 80s, about 10 years prior to the crows, they could have built a very strong following in that area. Better late than never, and it's unlikely they'll ever build a huge following at a time where a number of SANFL are also struggling to attract members ... thanks AFL .... NOT!

[topsywaldron]

They have a history of sacking coaches who tried to be tough on players and alter the losing culture

So, a bit like Norwood and Dale Lewis then?

[Adelaide Hawk]

They have a history of sacking coaches who tried to be tough on players and alter the losing culture

So, a bit like Norwood and Dale Lewis then?

In what way?

[topsywaldron]

They have a history of sacking coaches who tried to be tough on players and alter the losing culture

So, a bit like Norwood and Dale Lewis then?

In what way?

It's my understanding that the scenario you outlined with South and Pyman is exactly what happened to Lewis at Norwood.

[Pseudo]

The interesting thing going through the archives of when Woodville and Central Districts were admitted to the competition, a vote was held to actually kick the SAFC out of the SANFL based around the poor performances and standard of the club who at that stage had not won a premiership for 30 years.

The above is probably worth a post on the History forum. I had heard that it was agreed to admit Central, then the "kick South out" issue was considered, and when South survived this it was then decided to admit Woodville in order to keep the number of teams even. Would love to know the facts. And FWIW I'm glad South didn't get the boot.

[holden78]

Quote of the month !

He's being paid to offer an opinion and if the one he offers makes a former employer of his look bad then so be it - he is earning his money.

Better than the usual sitting on the fence crap we get form former coaches when they speak of their old employers.

[Adelaide Hawk]

The interesting thing going through the archives of when Woodville and Central Districts were admitted to the competition, a vote was held to actually kick the SAFC out of the SANFL based around the poor performances and standard of the club who at that stage had not won a premiership for 30 years.

The above is probably worth a post on the History forum. I had heard that it was agreed to admit Central, then the "kick South out" issue was considered, and when South survived this it was then decided to admit Woodville in order to keep the number of teams even. Would love to know the facts. And FWIW I'm glad South didn't get the boot.

This is the first I've heard of it. I would think it had to be an issue in the late 50s, because from the time Woodville and Central District were admitted to the Reserves competition in 1959, it was always the intention to have them both in the League in the future.

[doggies4eva]

South won the flag in 64 around the time that Centrals were admitted to league ranks!

[oldblueeyes]

Sojourner - it is disappointing that a South supporter would spread falsehoods about our club. South were not 'almost kicked out of the League'.

In 1962 the SANFL were having doubts about bringing Centrals and Woodville into the comp. An independent commission recommended that the competition should be made up of 8 clubs and that because the northern suburbs warranted a League team South Adelaide should re-locate to Elizabeth.

Port, Sturt, West and Torrens voted for this. South, North, Norwood and Glenelg voted against. It was left to the chairman to keep South in the city.

In hindsight we probably should have gone north. Afterall, up until 1979 the city club had the same level of affiliation with Noarlunga as with Elizabeth. Indeed a number of our top players from the past were Barossa locals.

[Dogwatcher]

Skewesy - what a star!

[Adelaide Hawk]

Sojourner - it is disappointing that a South supporter would spread falsehoods about our club. South were not 'almost kicked out of the League'.

In 1962 the SANFL were having doubts about bringing Centrals and Woodville into the comp. An independent commission recommended that the competition should be made up of 8 clubs and that because the northern suburbs warranted a League team South Adelaide should re-locate to Elizabeth.

Port, Sturt, West and Torrens voted for this. South, North, Norwood and Glenelg voted against. It was left to the chairman to keep South in the city.

In hindsight we probably should have gone north. Afterall, up until 1979 the city club had the same level of affiliation with Noarlunga as with Elizabeth. Indeed a number of our top players from the past were Barossa locals.

Interesting, I never knew anything about this. Just two questions:
1. Any mention of a change of name. You couldn't have a team named South Adelaide in the northern areas.
2. In view of the fact Central were playing in the Reserves competition at Elizabeth Oval at the time, what were their plans for Central?

[robranosgod]

Sojourner - it is disappointing that a South supporter would spread falsehoods about our club. South were not 'almost kicked out of the League'.

In 1962 the SANFL were having doubts about bringing Centrals and Woodville into the comp. An independent commission recommended that the competition should be made up of 8 clubs and that because the northern suburbs warranted a League team South Adelaide should re-locate to Elizabeth.

Port, Sturt, West and Torrens voted for this. South, North, Norwood and Glenelg voted against. It was left to the chairman to keep South in the city.

In hindsight we probably should have gone north. Afterall, up until 1979 the city club had the same level of affiliation with Noarlunga as with Elizabeth. Indeed a number of our top players from the past were Barossa locals.

Interesting, I never knew anything about this. Just two questions:
1. Any mention of a change of name. You couldn't have a team named South Adelaide in the northern areas.
2. In view of the fact Central were playing in the Reserves competition at Elizabeth Oval at the time, what were their plans for Central?

The club was initially to be called South Adelaide even though it was proposed that they play out of Elizabeth. The Central and Woodville experiment was going to be abandoned. I think the name of the club would have been similar to South Melbourne who initially played out of Sydney before changing their name to Sydney.

Remember between 1945 and 1963 the highest South ever finished was 6th in an 8 team comp. They won the flag in 1964, were an unlucky third in 1965 and also a tad unlucky to finish 4th in 1966. By 1969 they were bottom again, and other than a few years under Haydn Bunton, and to a lesser extent Graham Cornes and a couple under John Reid they have remained uncomeptitive. Since World War 2 they have only played in finals in 12 out of 65 seasons. It is amazing that they have any supporters at all with that record. One has to admire their supporters who continue to support them through thick and a lot of thin.

[southee]

Sojourner - it is disappointing that a South supporter would spread falsehoods about our club. South were not 'almost kicked out of the League'.

In 1962 the SANFL were having doubts about bringing Centrals and Woodville into the comp. An independent commission recommended that the competition should be made up of 8 clubs and that because the northern suburbs warranted a League team South Adelaide should re-locate to Elizabeth.

Port, Sturt, West and Torrens voted for this. South, North, Norwood and Glenelg voted against. It was left to the chairman to keep South in the city.

In hindsight we probably should have gone north. Afterall, up until 1979 the city club had the same level of affiliation with Noarlunga as with Elizabeth. Indeed a number of our top players from the past were Barossa locals.

Interesting, I never knew anything about this. Just two questions:
1. Any mention of a change of name. You couldn't have a team named South Adelaide in the northern areas.
2. In view of the fact Central were playing in the Reserves competition at Elizabeth Oval at the time, what were their plans for Central?

The club was initially to be called South Adelaide even though it was proposed that they play out of Elizabeth. The Central and Woodville experiment was going to be abandoned. I think the name of the club would have been similar to South Melbourne who initially played out of Sydney before changing their name to Sydney.

Remember between 1945 and 1963 the highest South ever finished was 6th in an 8 team comp. They won the flag in 1964, were an unlucky third in 1965 and also a tad unlucky to finish 4th in 1966. By 1969 they were bottom again, and other than a few years under Haydn Bunton, and to a lesser extent Graham Cornes and a couple under John Reid they have remained uncomeptitive. Since World War 2 they have only played in finals in 12 out of 65 seasons. It is amazing that they have any supporters at all with that record. One has to admire their supporters who continue to support them through thick and a lot of thin.

Yes, sure is a lot of thin!!!!!

It's character building to say the least......

[westozfalcon]

Clay Sampson is not the right man for the job. How can he be after our performances this season?

I was bewildered when John Cahill was sacked last year. The plan was to have Sampson serve an 'apprenticeship' for at least 2 years under the master coach and take the reigns when the great man hung up the magnet board.

In a spin-doctored letter to members after Cahill's axing, the club said the Cahill-Sampson progression plan had been brought forward. Umm no, by axing Jack the plan had been completely scuppered, not brought forward. Sampson was not ready to take the reigns because he didn't serve the apprenticeship. If he was ever the man to take us forward he needed to learn the ropes under Jack. He didn't get that opportunity and now the predictable outcome has eventuated!

[blueandwhite]

Clay Sampson is not the right man for the job. How can he be after our performances this season?

I was bewildered when John Cahill was sacked last year. The plan was to have Sampson serve an 'apprenticeship' for at least 2 years under the master coach and take the reigns when the great man hung up the magnet board.

In a spin-doctored letter to members after Cahill's axing, the club said the Cahill-Sampson progression plan had been brought forward. Umm no, by axing Jack the plan had been completely scuppered, not brought forward. Sampson was not ready to take the reigns because he didn't serve the apprenticeship. If he was ever the man to take us forward he needed to learn the ropes under Jack. He didn't get that opportunity and now the predictable outcome has eventuated!

Just a correction there westoz falcon.

1.Cahill was not "axed", he resigned- and departed the scene without informing the board of his intentions. However you are right in saying his departure was "spun " -that is an understatement!

2. It is very difficult to decide whether Clay is the right man for the job. With the talent pool currently at Noarlunga the combined talents of Barassi, Oatey, Williams and Jeans would scarcely fare better.

[csbowes]

Clay Sampson is not the right man for the job. How can he be after our performances this season?

I was bewildered when John Cahill was sacked last year. The plan was to have Sampson serve an 'apprenticeship' for at least 2 years under the master coach and take the reigns when the great man hung up the magnet board.

In a spin-doctored letter to members after Cahill's axing, the club said the Cahill-Sampson progression plan had been brought forward. Umm no, by axing Jack the plan had been completely scuppered, not brought forward. Sampson was not ready to take the reigns because he didn't serve the apprenticeship. If he was ever the man to take us forward he needed to learn the ropes under Jack. He didn't get that opportunity and now the predictable outcome has eventuated!

Just a correction there westoz falcon.

1.Cahill was not "axed", he resigned- and departed the scene without informing the board of his intentions. However you are right in saying his departure was "spun " -that is an understatement!

2. It is very difficult to decide whether Clay is the right man for the job. With the talent pool currently at Noarlunga the combined talents of Barassi, Oatey, Williams and Jeans would scarcely fare better.

How long has the board been in place?

How often do board members get sacked by the members? Is anyone ever held to account for the clubs poor performances?

I half feel like signing up as a member myself, just so I can turn up to the AGM and give the board a bit of stick...

[prowling panther]

Mate, they'd ignore you and talk around you like they have when other members have asked the hard questions of the board in other years.

There are a couple of Board members that should seriously think about catching the bus the night before the AGM and toodle off, never to be seen or heard from again.

[csbowes]

Mate, they'd ignore you and talk around you like they have when other members have asked the hard questions of the board in other years.

There are a couple of Board members that should seriously think about catching the bus the night before the AGM and toodle off, never to be seen or heard from again.

I just feel sorry for South Adelaide as a club and its long suffering supporters, but then I used to feel sorry for Centrals too and they're shafting me now by winning the goddam flag every year...

I'd prefer to see Norwood on the bottom... really hard to ever see myself feel sorry for them if they strung some spoons together!

[southee]

Have to agree. Sampson is not the right coach to make South Adelaide a force for the future. He might be a nice bloke and a favorite son of South Adelaide but that does not make a good coach. It seems to me the board and the FOC have alot of say in the way Sampson coaches South.
Im not saying Sampson is 100% at fault but recruiting has been poor this year as has been some of the game plans and skills seen.

Some of the board really need to get see what they are doing is not working. We had a letter sent out a few years ago saying if they did not play finals football in 2 years the board would step down.....this has not happened.

You ask questions but you get the usual "spin" answer which we as members are getting pretty tired of hearing.

[pale ale]

Have to agree. Sampson is not the right coach to make South Adelaide a force for the future. He might be a nice bloke and a favorite son of South Adelaide but that does not make a good coach. It seems to me the board and the FOC have alot of say in the way Sampson coaches South.
Im not saying Sampson is 100% at fault but recruiting has been poor this year as has been some of the game plans and skills seen.

Some of the board really need to get see what they are doing is not working. We had a letter sent out a few years ago saying if they did not play finals football in 2 years the board would step down.....this has not happened.

You ask questions but you get the usual "spin" answer which we as members are getting pretty tired of hearing.

Sounds a lot like McIntosh at Norwood