SA Footy

Uncovered this little gem recently whilst researching some 1984 data - just gives proof that for years now the media have never really known who did play well in a game of footy.
In Round 6 1984 Sturt 26.10 166 thrashed Torrens 13.18 96 at Football Park before a crowd of 5,693. Sturt led by 23 points at quarter time, 21 at half time, 54 at three quarter time before going on to triumph by 70 points. Seems to be a fairly one sided game and you'd expect the best players on the ground to be Sturt players.
Voting for the Advertiser trophy was 3 points to Mark Pavlich, 2 points to Daryl Schimmelbusch and 1 point to Jeff Sarau - all members of the side that got easily beaten.
Voting for the $2000 Jervis Cup (run by the now extinct News daily paper) seemed more sensible with 3 points to Phil Heinrich, 2 points to Chris Radbone and 1 point to Peter Hargreaves - all Sturt players.
So there you go - has there ever been such a stark contrast in best players named by the media before?
Were Pavlich, Schimmelbusch and Sarau outstanding that day because their teammates were absolutely woeful?
Are there any other examples of unusual "best players" over the years?
I believe players in the past did score votes for the Advertiser trophy despite not playing - I will endeavour to obtain more evidence of that event.

The reason given was according to who did the votes, that they were the stand out players on the ground. So you could say that what was really meant was a totally even contribution from the Sturt players to prevent any one of them getting votes.

spell_check wrote:The reason given was according to who did the votes, that they were the stand out players on the ground. So you could say that what was really meant was a totally even contribution from the Sturt players to prevent any one of them getting votes.

Or they were just so conspicuous as the rest of the Torren's players were so inept, where as the Sturt players whilst they were best players on the ground were harder to distinguish due to the collective high standard of play by the whole team?

When I was forced to do votes as an umprie I refused to give best player to any player in a team that was thrashed if they were outstanding in a losing team and stood out you might give them a 3rd or 2nd best vote. However there was always a very good reason why they were in a team that was thrashed - no matter how "even" the performance of teh winningt eam, others players ont eh ground were better than them.

Could be a perception that these players played well in the second half to stop an absolute belting, and this was more "recent" in the writers mind, which would appear to be unprofessional on his behalf.
Though, as amBays says, there is a reason their team was so far behind, so where were they in the first half? Either being belted by their opponents, or perhaps broke even and then dominated second half? Who knows?

am Bays wrote:When I was forced to do votes as an umprie I refused to give best player to any player in a team that was thrashed if they were outstanding in a losing team and stood out you might give them a 3rd or 2nd best vote. However there was always a very good reason why they were in a team that was thrashed - no matter how "even" the performance of teh winningt eam, others players ont eh ground were better than them.

I wonder how many times Malcolm Blight polled BOG in his Magarey winning season, and how many times that coincided with the Peckers getting pantsed. Spelly?

3 times (well 6 really, but halved because of the double 3-2-1). I don't have the game by game, so I can't say when he got them.

Methinks you're confusing Brownlow for Magarey, Spelly.

I was there

McAlmanac wrote:Methinks you're confusing Brownlow for Magarey, Spelly.

No, I was thinking of his final season.

Ok, 1972 saw him get 6 BOGs; but the same deal as far as the game by game. I wonder if anyone has those records anywhere?

Mickyj wrote:I was there

Well Mickyj it is upto you to decide who were the best 3 players on the ground according to your expert opinion. The Advertiser & The News football experts could not agree at the time - must have been a great conversation in the press box that day after the game...
Seeing the match was at Football Park it should have been a televised game hence the mission is on to find someone who taped & kept the game so us SA Footy experts can watch it now and then give our votes. I'd be somewhat surprised if anyone else can give the best on ground 3-2-1 votes to players from a side that lost the match by 70 points.

rd wrote:

Mickyj wrote:I was there

Well Mickyj it is upto you to decide who were the best 3 players on the ground according to your expert opinion. The Advertiser & The News football experts could not agree at the time - must have been a great conversation in the press box that day after the game...
Seeing the match was at Football Park it should have been a televised game hence the mission is on to find someone who taped & kept the game so us SA Footy experts can watch it now and then give our votes. I'd be somewhat surprised if anyone else can give the best on ground 3-2-1 votes to players from a side that lost the match by 70 points.

I may have been there but have no idea who should have won the votes

Mickyj wrote:

rd wrote:

Mickyj wrote:I was there

Well Mickyj it is upto you to decide who were the best 3 players on the ground according to your expert opinion. The Advertiser & The News football experts could not agree at the time - must have been a great conversation in the press box that day after the game...
Seeing the match was at Football Park it should have been a televised game hence the mission is on to find someone who taped & kept the game so us SA Footy experts can watch it now and then give our votes. I'd be somewhat surprised if anyone else can give the best on ground 3-2-1 votes to players from a side that lost the match by 70 points.

I may have been there but have no idea who should have won the votes

Mickyj - you're not Kevin Foley by any chance are you ?

rd wrote:

Mickyj wrote:

rd wrote:

Mickyj wrote:I was there

Well Mickyj it is upto you to decide who were the best 3 players on the ground according to your expert opinion. The Advertiser & The News football experts could not agree at the time - must have been a great conversation in the press box that day after the game...
Seeing the match was at Football Park it should have been a televised game hence the mission is on to find someone who taped & kept the game so us SA Footy experts can watch it now and then give our votes. I'd be somewhat surprised if anyone else can give the best on ground 3-2-1 votes to players from a side that lost the match by 70 points.

I may have been there but have no idea who should have won the votes

Mickyj - you're not Kevin Foley by any chance are you ?

Heaven forbid I'm much better looking
But 84 was a hell of a long time ago RD.

Only joking Mickyj re the Foley comment.
I'm just curious how a football writer can give the overall best on ground 3-2-1 to 3 players from the losing-by-70-points side. I think anyone who went to this match would have forgotten it pretty quickly due to the one-sided nature of it (plus it was just another 70 point loss for Torrens in the 80s). I will have to try and get the stats of the game from somewhere to see why Pavlich,Schimmelbusch & Sarau stood out in The Advertiser's opinion.

It's the reason I've never bothered with best player lists with my records. "Best players" are merely an opinion presented from one journalist. It's not a definitive one by by any means. If this guy honestly thought three Eagles players were the best 3 on the ground, then so be it.

Best players are a vexed issue in that two people can have diametrically opposed points of view.

We have to accept umpires' votes in the Magarey Medal, so we have to accept a journalist's opinion in the papers.

rd wrote:Only joking Mickyj re the Foley comment.
I'm just curious how a football writer can give the overall best on ground 3-2-1 to 3 players from the losing-by-70-points side. I think anyone who went to this match would have forgotten it pretty quickly due to the one-sided nature of it (plus it was just another 70 point loss for Torrens in the 80s). I will have to try and get the stats of the game from somewhere to see why Pavlich,Schimmelbusch & Sarau stood out in The Advertiser's opinion.

Yep its easier to forget the Losses .
Sarau as a side line thought at the end of his Career he should coach the Eagles .Not certain if 84 was the start of his SANFL(after the vfl) or just the end.

The game is featured on the Torrens '84 video, so a full video of it maybe out there somewhere.

Have found someone who has a copy (on beta) of the replay screened on ch 7 that night - will try to get a copy onto dvd so I can study these 3 Torrens players who put in these "exceptional efforts".

On a point which may relate to this match, Sturt polled the least amount of Magarey votes in 1984. Even though Sturt had 4 more wins than Woodville and two more than North or Torrens.

The BOG votes when halved as opposed to wins are:
Port 15.5 (17)
Glenelg 13 (17)
Central 15 (16)
South 14.5 (13)
Norwood 13 (13)
West 9.5 (10)
Sturt 8 (8)
North 9.5 (6)
Torrens 8 (6)
Woodville 4 (4)

That doesn't really say much; however it's possible that West Torrens got 2nd and 3rd preferences from at least one umpire from that match if you consider this:

2nd preference:
Port 16.5
Central 14
Glenelg 14
Norwood 13.5
South 12.5
Woodville 11.5
West 8.5
Torrens 8
North 7.5
Sturt 4.5

3rd preference:
Glenelg 13
North 13
Port 13
South 13
Woodville 12
Norwood 11.5
Torrens 10.5
Central 10
Sturt 7
West 7

As you can see, the umpires were not afraid to give their 2nd and 3rd preference votes to players from the losing side.

spell_check wrote:On a point which may relate to this match, Sturt polled the least amount of Magarey votes in 1984. Even though Sturt had 4 more wins than Woodville and two more than North or Torrens.

The BOG votes when halved as opposed to wins are:
Port 15.5 (17)
Glenelg 13 (17)
Central 15 (16)
South 14.5 (13)
Norwood 13 (13)
West 9.5 (10)
Sturt 8 (8)
North 9.5 (6)
Torrens 8 (6)
Woodville 4 (4)

That doesn't really say much; however it's possible that West Torrens got 2nd and 3rd preferences from at least one umpire from that match if you consider this:

2nd preference:
Port 16.5
Central 14
Glenelg 14
Norwood 13.5
South 12.5
Woodville 11.5
West 8.5
Torrens 8
North 7.5
Sturt 4.5

3rd preference:
Glenelg 13
North 13
Port 13
South 13
Woodville 12
Norwood 11.5
Torrens 10.5
Central 10
Sturt 7
West 7

As you can see, the umpires were not afraid to give their 2nd and 3rd preference votes to players from the losing side.

There was a very good reason why North polled more first and third preferences that year than you would expect. North only won 6 games and lost 16 yet incredibly they had a percentage of over 50. They won most of their games by heaps, but lost a number of games by very small margins. In a loss of less than a goal, the losing side quite often gets the b.o.g. and in small losses certainly often get the third preference at least.