Wedgie wrote:nickname wrote: is a bit more open and flowing, but if that's what you enjoy most about football you might as well just watch training.
Let me get this straight, if you'd prefer Footy that "is a BIT more open and flowing" you might as well as just watch training?
So all of us that enjoyed watching the SANFL in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s that don't enjoy zone football, backwards and sideways football, poorer skills and zones/floods wasted our time in those eras going to games and should have just watched training?
You'd go watch West play 2 seasons ago but think you might as well as just watched training in 1983 instead of going to the Grand Final?
lol rightyio!
Back on topic you're always going to get a SANFL biased point of view on this site just like you'd get a VFL biased point of view except for a minority that can take emotion out of the discussion.
Here's something to think about though, in the last 3 state matches played between the 2 comps, 2 of which SA have had the home ground advantage there has been 13 points difference between the sides.
Of those teams the VFL couldn't select 50 to 100 of their better players (AFL listed players) where the SANFL couldn't select 10 to 20 of theirs.
Ever heard of hyperbole? The point I'm trying to make is that "open and flowing" footy isn't all that impressive to me if it's done under a lack of physical pressure. I don't agree with your premise that the SANFL footy of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s lacked that element. Zoning and flooding are not what I'm talking about, clearly they're blights on the game.
On the point about which players the VFL and SANFL couldn't chose, the SANFL also had the self-imposed ban on choosing interstate players who were in their first year in the SANFL. And anyway, wouldn't the best way to find out which is the best competition OUTSIDE the AFL be to preclude AFL players from the state game?