SA Footy

We never had a high quality list right from the outset in 2008 but at least under Jack Cahill's guidance we were able to produce some competitive and spirited football.

From reading the carefully worded letter the club sent to members describing the circumstances surrounding Jack's departure, it seems pretty obvious to me that he was frustrated with the club's rigid aherence to it's strategic 'plan' and that he wanted to do a few things his way.

What I don't get is why you would appoint a bloke who's coached 10 SANFL premierships and played in 5 others and not embrace his methods?

It's like having a dog and barking yourself.

Clay Sampson should have served as Jack's understudy for the full 2-year term of Jack's contract before taking the reigns himself. Then he would have been ready for the job. Now he's been thrown into the deep end and is clearly unprepared.

Instead we've chased one of the all-time great coaches away from the club and written another chapter of mediocrity into our history.

westozfalcon wrote:It's like having a dog and barking yourself.

LMAO

westozfalcon wrote:We never had a high quality list right from the outset in 2008 but at least under Jack Cahill's guidance we were able to produce some competitive and spirited football.

From reading the carefully worded letter the club sent to members describing the circumstances surrounding Jack's departure, it seems pretty obvious to me that he was frustrated with the club's rigid aherence to it's strategic 'plan' and that he wanted to do a few things his way.

What I don't get is why you would appoint a bloke who's coached 10 SANFL premierships and played in 5 others and not embrace his methods?

It's like having a dog and barking yourself.

Clay Sampson should have served as Jack's understudy for the full 2-year term of Jack's contract before taking the reigns himself. Then he would have been ready for the job. Now he's been thrown into the deep end and is clearly unprepared.

Instead we've chased one of the all-time great coaches away from the club and written another chapter of mediocrity into our history.

St Kilda did it with Blighty, South learnt from that and.... oh hold on....

westozfalcon wrote:We never had a high quality list right from the outset in 2008 but at least under Jack Cahill's guidance we were able to produce some competitive and spirited football.

From reading the carefully worded letter the club sent to members describing the circumstances surrounding Jack's departure, it seems pretty obvious to me that he was frustrated with the club's rigid aherence to it's strategic 'plan' and that he wanted to do a few things his way.

What I don't get is why you would appoint a bloke who's coached 10 SANFL premierships and played in 5 others and not embrace his methods?

It's like having a dog and barking yourself.

Clay Sampson should have served as Jack's understudy for the full 2-year term of Jack's contract before taking the reigns himself. Then he would have been ready for the job. Now he's been thrown into the deep end and is clearly unprepared.

Instead we've chased one of the all-time great coaches away from the club and written another chapter of mediocrity into our history.

-there is far more to cahills' departure than meets the eye, there are 2 sides to every argument and that is certainly the case in this issue.

westozfalcon wrote:It's like having a dog and barking yourself.

One for the ages - a classic comment that one!

I think you'll find it was South who did the 180 degree about face, and that after just 12 weeks or so, Jack was rightly none too happy about their change of heart with the approach on field. Lets face it, here was brought in to do a particular job then told that he was no longer required to do that job, but a different job instead. No wonder he left. I think you'll find that other people at South have had similar short-term experiences also.

South has done one thing right this year and although it has had a negative effect on the field in the long term it should help the club.

They have come to realise that if they are going to succeed they have to focus on the local talent in their zone. In changing focus they then have to build the club from the ground and as far as I am concerned they have out performed this year. Their list on paper is dreadfull but they have got some games into some local kids who will be the future of the club.

They still need to ment some fences with the local leagues but if they are prepared to have faith in the local kids they may find that these clubs turn around their attitudes if they are treated with respect. This is going to take a long time to acheive.

westozfalcon wrote:Re: South's 2008 fiasco.

.... and 2008 is one of their better years

Collectively SAFC is, and has been for a long time, a disgrace.

I do agree with souths policy of promoting local talent,and only recruiting wisely.
The club has been crapped on by "some" of the recruits they have picked up in the past,and maybe unlike some other SANFL clubs have been guilty of not being wise in their recruiting strategy.
We have a very young list of players who in the future should be very good players for us,its just that we really needed a couple more players bought to the club,eg a key forward,a small forward and a tough nut midfielder,not rejects from other SANFL clubs.
Clay Sampson has a tough road ahead,and is going to need a good group of assistants around him,so I would hope at seasons end the club makes it a priority to gain the services of some "quality assistant coaches",and junior development coaches.
As I said before the club is doing the right thing in promoting local players,but it has to match it with the correct systems otherwise they will not reap the benefits.
Its high time the club moved forward,and acted more proffesionally!

MagareyLegend wrote:

westozfalcon wrote:Re: South's 2008 fiasco.

.... and 2008 is one of their better years

Collectively SAFC is, and has been for a long time, a disgrace.

thanks very much for kind and thoughtful words of encouragement.

All I am saying B&W (without being rude) is that we have heard all this for many many years and nothing (absolutely nothing) ever changes despite everything South have had going for them (including a young area & $).
Personally I want South to be strong and successful and even win a bloody premiership but, to be honest, they are as far away from it as they have ever been since 1964.
Is that fair or not?
Their only unique football asset at the moment is David Tiller who has at least moved them out of being the junior development basket-case that they have been for the past 10 years.

MagareyLegend wrote:Personally I want South to be strong and successful and even win a bloody premiership but, to be honest, they are as far away from it as they have ever been since 1964.

When I became interested in football in 1964, South won the flag. Kerley was at the helm, and the Panthers were fantastic. If someone told me they wouldn't win another flag 44 years later I would never have believed it. Not only was it South's first flag since 1938, it was the first time they had made the finals since 1940.

Two years after winning that flag, Kerley was sacked because his ruthless determination to attain success was no longer wlecome at the club. They replaced him with Peter Darley who, although a great player and South Adelaide personality, was the exact opposite to Kerley in terms of disciplined regime.

Three years after Kerley was sacked they were wooden spooners, and it took 11 years before they played in another final under Bunton. IMHO, South forfeited their chance to be a long standing power in the SANFL the day it sacked Kerley, and the club has never really recovered.

My point is, there seems to be a culture at South Adelaide that almost guarantees a lack of success. How you overcome that, I don't know.

Well I'm afraid you are preaching to the converted if you are saying that South as a club have underachieved since 1964. As a six year old I was keen to see my beloved panthers in the gf. my father said dont worry son there will be plenty of other chances in the years to come.......... do you think those words ring in my ears nearly every Saturday when we are getting a hiding?
There are many problems that South have endured over the past 40 odd years, most of them have come, not from the playing group or the coach but from outside. The simple answer is that there is no quick fix. That has been tried in 2006/7 and didnt work with disastrous consequences.
The club has now embarked on a policy to channel the youth of the South into the system(at last) even to the point of it costing us matches. The lads are raw and inexperienced but hey have 2 key ingredients in my eyes, they want to play at South and they bust their guts every week. They hopefully will form the nucleus of the side in the coming years with a few recruits to complement them. Not the other way around.
To be successful South has to be successful and win the hearts and minds of the South. It definitely wont happen overnight but it will happen.

westozfalcon wrote:It's like having a dog and barking yourself.

I'm stealing this.

I am not sure, but the old message from South was "Let's play the youth!" and that seemed to be their entire focus. Then somebody screwed that idea up when they didn't get immediate results and decided that the best thing to do was buy a team of borderline AFL types. Then that mob sort of just took the money and did stuff all for the club, the youth went elsewhere because they couldn't get a game and the club was worse off than ever before. Now I am reading that South has youth as their entire focus again.
If the above is correct, what I want to know is why don't they go for a blend of youth and experience like the current strong clubs are doing and have done?
I have wondered about this for a while, the general message from Noarlunga always seems to be one extreme (juniors) or the other (recruits). Or am I just misinformed?

Adelaide Hawk wrote:When I became interested in football in 1964, South won the flag. Kerley was at the helm, and the Panthers were fantastic. If someone told me they wouldn't win another flag 44 years later I would never have believed it.

It's not that they didn't win a flag 44 years later, it's that they haven't won one in between that either must dismay the South fans. Still the way we are playing they may be having some good company in the wilderness

Blue & White dont walk around with your head stuck in the mud There are so many juniors out there that do not want to be at South and are playing local football This has been the problem for years and continues to be the problem, fix that and your then I beleive you are on the way. The attitude that if they aren't hear lets forget about them is not ok work work work work. Be available have your football manager available to talk and listen not send a email out that he is only available two hours a week on a thursday thats really progressive. Recruit locals all year round keep it going until you get the best lads out there not close the door and say its too hard.Make the families and players from the junior ranks feel like a club they spend enough time there to be appreciated.

Ok, here is todays contorversial question then.

Would the league have been better of letting South fall by the wayside in 1989-90?

Falcon Chick wrote:Ok, here is todays contorversial question then.

Would the league have been better of letting South fall by the wayside in 1989-90?

Whoa mama!!!

Falcon Chick wrote:Ok, here is todays contorversial question then.

Would the league have been better of letting South fall by the wayside in 1989-90?

You dropped the bomb FC, you moderate it.

FWIW I think the league where complicit by their lack of activity (IIRC) in wanting to let South fall over but as was the vogue in the then VFL it was supporters rallying that saved South a la Footscray and Richmond at the time (SOS - save our skins).

Never really thought about not having South in the comp ... but the suggestion is at least worthy of discussion.
It's a sorry state of affairs to think that a club that virtually has the entire southern suburbs to its own devices can't make a fist of things.
It would be negligent of the SANFL to remove a club with such a fertile breeding ground at its disposal.
But South has been unable to run a corner deli for four decades now so if there was a willing partner to amalgamate with, thus keeping the area in play but no longer the sole responsibility of SAFC, perhaps it should be considered.
Will it ever happen? I doubt it. And do I want GFC to be that club? Not on your life.