SA Footy

southernbulldog wrote:Doesnt say much for your power reserves players they should be above SANFL level .

Why, cos they're listed? You need to get better, period.

Vamos wrote:

southernbulldog wrote:Doesnt say much for your power reserves players they should be above SANFL level .

Why, cos they're listed? You need to get better, period.

Yeah cos they're listed. Your recruiting gurus cherry picked the best they could from SANFL/WAFL etc at draft time so you'd think they should be above SANFL level.

Can't believe Port fans enjoy these wins. You're playing against salary-capped sides of part timers, your headstart is phenomenal. Where's the glory in that?

Yes we need to get better. Our endeavour is great but we need a bit more height, maybe another KPP or two, and we need our opponent to have a salary cap like we do. Obvs the Power needs a reserves team, but if they play in this comp, then only enough of them to populate the $300K or so salary cap should get a start. So roughly 1 or 2.

Doddy wrote:

Vamos wrote:

southernbulldog wrote:Doesnt say much for your power reserves players they should be above SANFL level .

Why, cos they're listed? You need to get better, period.

Yeah cos they're listed. Your recruiting gurus cherry picked the best they could from SANFL/WAFL etc at draft time so you'd think they should be above SANFL level.

Can't believe Port fans enjoy these wins. You're playing against salary-capped sides of part timers, your headstart is phenomenal. Where's the glory in that?

Yes we need to get better. Our endeavour is great but we need a bit more height, maybe another KPP or two, and we need our opponent to have a salary cap like we do. Obvs the Power needs a reserves team, but if they play in this comp, then only enough of them to populate the $300K or so salary cap should get a start. So roughly 1 or 2.

Actually have to disagree with you on this.

Port cherry pick the best they could from the SANFL/WAFL with an eye to them eventually being above SANFL level. Most of the recruits are young kids who are know where near reaching their potential.

Wait, what?

Doddy wrote:

Vamos wrote:

southernbulldog wrote:Doesnt say much for your power reserves players they should be above SANFL level .

Why, cos they're listed? You need to get better, period.

Yeah cos they're listed. Your recruiting gurus cherry picked the best they could from SANFL/WAFL etc at draft time so you'd think they should be above SANFL level.

Not so, this year at the draft Port took :

Joss Sinn, 18, Sandringham Dragons
Hugh Jackson, 18, North Adelaide ( 1 SANFL reserves game )
Dante Visentini, 18, Sandringham Dragons
Jase Burgoyne, 18, Woodville West Torrens ( 3 SANFL games )

A combined total of 4 senior matches. All of which get a $105,000 salary as 1st year draftees.

Your simple measure of money, is wrong. Your assumption "they're all above SANFL" standard, is wrong.

Booney wrote:

Doddy wrote:

Vamos wrote:

southernbulldog wrote:Doesnt say much for your power reserves players they should be above SANFL level .

Why, cos they're listed? You need to get better, period.

Yeah cos they're listed. Your recruiting gurus cherry picked the best they could from SANFL/WAFL etc at draft time so you'd think they should be above SANFL level.

Not so, this year at the draft Port took :

Joss Sinn, 18, Sandringham Dragons
Hugh Jackson, 18, North Adelaide ( 1 SANFL reserves game )
Dante Visentini, 18, Sandringham Dragons
Jase Burgoyne, 18, Woodville West Torrens ( 3 SANFL games )

A combined total of 4 senior matches. All of which get a $105,000 salary as 1st year draftees.

Your simple measure of money, is wrong. Your assumption "they're all above SANFL" standard, is wrong.

iF it was like the old system, doubt any of these would be playing League footy

In this instance all 4 probably would, depending on the host club.

If it was like the old system the PAPs would have whinged that one or two of those players were not getting league exposure and/or being played out of position, and insisted that they be transferred mid-season to another SANFL club ... then the Magpies would have put up their hands to be the receipient. The ol' "reserves side by stealth" manoeuvre.

I take your points, all of you, but the nub of my argument remains.

Who they choose and for what end is up to them. They choose to get young players they think will develop into AFL players. Fine, that's what's important to them. But if Centrals (or any of the fine upstanding pure SANFL clubs) were gifted the opportunity to spend vast amounts of money on whoever they wanted, and none of other 7 clubs were allowed the same grace, then you start to see the issue. What defines any other league is the common rules all teams work within, and boundaries that define equal opportunities (the fixture, the salary cap etc) and we don't have that here.

Doddy wrote:I take your points, all of you, but the nub of my argument remains.

Who they choose and for what end is up to them. They choose to get young players they think will develop into AFL players. Fine, that's what's important to them. But if Centrals (or any of the fine upstanding pure SANFL clubs) were gifted the opportunity to spend vast amounts of money on whoever they wanted, and none of other 7 clubs were allowed the same grace, then you start to see the issue. What defines any other league is the common rules all teams work within, and boundaries that define equal opportunities (the fixture, the salary cap etc) and we don't have that here.

I agree the integrity of the league is completely comprised but don't think Port have a performance 'benefit' given the fact neither AFL club has won a flag in how many seasons.

The Crows might go close this year as I think they will take the SANFL fairly serious given where they are as a club, they need some feel good factor for both players and spectators about their direction and a SANFL premiership would give them that heading into next pre season.

whufc wrote:

Doddy wrote:I take your points, all of you, but the nub of my argument remains.

Who they choose and for what end is up to them. They choose to get young players they think will develop into AFL players. Fine, that's what's important to them. But if Centrals (or any of the fine upstanding pure SANFL clubs) were gifted the opportunity to spend vast amounts of money on whoever they wanted, and none of other 7 clubs were allowed the same grace, then you start to see the issue. What defines any other league is the common rules all teams work within, and boundaries that define equal opportunities (the fixture, the salary cap etc) and we don't have that here.

I agree the integrity of the league is completely comprised but don't think Port have a performance 'benefit' given the fact neither AFL club has won a flag in how many seasons.

The Crows might go close this year as I think they will take the SANFL fairly serious given where they are as a club, they need some feel good factor for both players and spectators about their direction and a SANFL premiership would give them that heading into next pre season.

The AFL reserves sides haven’t won a premiership not coz they’re not good enough but because they don’t want to win it enough.

^Rubbish.

Doddy wrote:

Vamos wrote:

southernbulldog wrote:Doesnt say much for your power reserves players they should be above SANFL level .

Why, cos they're listed? You need to get better, period.

Can't believe Port fans enjoy these wins. You're playing against salary-capped sides of part timers, your headstart is phenomenal. Where's the glory in that?

There's a little bloke on here who climbs up on his step ladder and slings shit over the fence all the time, it's nice to throw it back sometimes.

Vamos wrote:^Rubbish.

There have been a few pea-hearted finals efforts since 2014 as evidence that it isn't.

FWIW I don't blame them. Reserves results aren't enormously important.

Whilst we are discussing all things AFL in SANFL...

I had no dramas with the Port v Dogs game being played at Oval Ave. It was Port's home game and therefore they had a right to choose the venue.

But the timing... the game was held at 7 40 with the reason given to allow for the support staff to attend AO and then go straight to the SANFL game.
Yet, what thought was given to Centrals support staff? A 7 hour gap in the middle of the day making it too difficult for many who were not able to fulfil roles for both teams.
The Dogs proposal of a 1pm start for the league game was not accepted by Port.
Why should the sanfl clubs bend for the afl clubs? Isn't this an sanfl comp? So shouldn't the afl clubs be the ones who should bend in situations like this?

northerner wrote:Whilst we are discussing all things AFL in SANFL...

I had no dramas with the Port v Dogs game being played at Oval Ave. It was Port's home game and therefore they had a right to choose the venue.

But the timing... the game was held at 7 40 with the reason given to allow for the support staff to attend AO and then go straight to the SANFL game.
Yet, what thought was given to Centrals support staff? A 7 hour gap in the middle of the day making it too difficult for many who were not able to fulfil roles for both teams.
The Dogs proposal of a 1pm start for the league game was not accepted by Port.
Why should the sanfl clubs bend for the afl clubs? Isn't this an sanfl comp? So shouldn't the afl clubs be the ones who should bend in situations like this?

And............................................why did we agree to it.

whufc wrote:I agree the integrity of the league is completely comprised but don't think Port have a performance 'benefit' given the fact neither AFL club has won a flag in how many seasons.

By the end of 2013 Port was arguably the worst performed team in the SANFL. Had the longest finals appearance drought and longest finals win drought, IIRC.

After 2014 the team wearing the former Magpies guernsey made 3 of the next 6 Grand Finals, being within 6 points of the premiership cup in 2 of those matches.

Coincidence?

There used to be a thread to vent one's anti AFL stance, for the life of me I can't recall its title

Pseudo wrote:

whufc wrote:I agree the integrity of the league is completely comprised but don't think Port have a performance 'benefit' given the fact neither AFL club has won a flag in how many seasons.

By the end of 2013 Port was arguably the worst performed team in the SANFL. Had the longest finals appearance drought and longest finals win drought, IIRC.

After 2014 the team wearing the former Magpies guernsey made 3 of the next 6 Grand Finals, being within 6 points of the premiership cup in 2 of those matches.

Coincidence?

Lucky we didn’t try

Vamos wrote:^Rubbish.

^Ahh Rubbish