Why Woodville in 1964

Anything to do with the history of the SANFL

Why Woodville in 1964

Postby Fluffbag » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:13 pm

As I am going to watch Modbury play Gaza this weekend in the semis, I was wondering why in 1964, Woodville entered the competition when I thought it seems to make more sense for a team in the north east suburbs.

Was that considered at the time? Would a Modbury team have been more successful than Woodville?

I remember growing up in Holden Hill and playing for Torrens in the mini league which seemed strange to represent a team on the other side of town.
Fluffbag
Under 16s
 
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:24 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 48 times
Grassroots Team: Modbury

Re: Why Woodville in 1964

Postby GWW » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:26 pm

I had heard it was to lessen Port's success.
User avatar
GWW
Moderator
 
Posts: 15674
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:50 pm
Location: Eastern suburbs of Adelaide
Has liked: 816 times
Been liked: 166 times

Re: Why Woodville in 1964

Postby heater31 » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:11 pm

Didn't they also want to even up the bye when the push for Central District was on? Maybe they thought 1 team out Far North Suburbia was enough?
User avatar
heater31
Moderator
 
 
Posts: 16521
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:42 am
Location: the back blocks
Has liked: 525 times
Been liked: 1259 times

Re: Why Woodville in 1964

Postby RB » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:17 pm

Because they wanted to screw Torrens over. :D
R.I.P. the SANFL 1877 - 2013
User avatar
RB
Coach
 
Posts: 5628
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 3:45 pm
Has liked: 759 times
Been liked: 1073 times

Re: Why Woodville in 1964

Postby robranisgod » Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:13 am

Fluffbag wrote:As I am going to watch Modbury play Gaza this weekend in the semis, I was wondering why in 1964, Woodville entered the competition when I thought it seems to make more sense for a team in the north east suburbs.

Was that considered at the time? Would a Modbury team have been more successful than Woodville?

I remember growing up in Holden Hill and playing for Torrens in the mini league which seemed strange to represent a team on the other side of town.


There were a number of reasons given. Woodville was the biggest local council. Woodville had a district cricket side and there was always the rumour that it was to weaken Port.

Remember the other alternative was to keep an 8 team comp, but to replace South Adelaide with Central District. This was defeated by the casting vote of the league president.

Modbury and Tea Tree Gully were still country towns in 1964 but prominent North Adelaide and national football administrator Jack Forrester was a strong proponent of either North moving out that way or another team being placed in that area.

North were probably screwed by Woodville and Central's introduction as much as Torrens. North lost Kilburn to Woodville and area like Pooraka and Para Hills to Central initially and then Port. By the 1970s North had half the population in their area as all of the other clubs.
robranisgod
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1981
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:36 pm
Has liked: 89 times
Been liked: 224 times
Grassroots Team: Flinders University

Re: Why Woodville in 1964

Postby bennymacca » Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:24 pm

Probably an ageing population in North Adelaide's zone too (though that may have changed in recent years)
User avatar
bennymacca
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15028
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 12:22 pm
Has liked: 2253 times
Been liked: 1803 times
Grassroots Team: Freeling

Re: Why Woodville in 1964

Postby Dogwatcher » Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:33 pm

bennymacca wrote:Probably an ageing population in North Adelaide's zone too (though that may have changed in recent years)


Given many of the young people back then were young Baby Boomers, I'd reckon that's unlikely an issue.
Last edited by Dogwatcher on Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: Why Woodville in 1964

Postby holden78 » Sat Sep 12, 2015 1:08 pm

Torrens got shafted big time by the sanfl and the moron clubs that voted to bring woodville in ,thats why i dont recognise any premiership between 1964 till Torrens got their district back
holden78
League - Best 21
 
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:43 am
Has liked: 37 times
Been liked: 55 times

Re: Why Woodville in 1964

Postby therisingblues » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:56 pm

I thought that zoning was done so that each club had access to roughly the same number of able bodied young people?
It would be interesting to see how the boundary zones changed before and after 1964, and which clubs lost the most territory. Had there not been a Central District, North would have become a massive powerhouse, surely?
I'm gonna sit back, crack the top off a Pale Ale, and watch the Double Blues prevail
1915, 1919, 1926, 1932, 1940, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1974, 1976, 2002, 2016, 2017
User avatar
therisingblues
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6190
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:50 am
Location: Fukuoka
Has liked: 369 times
Been liked: 514 times
Grassroots Team: Hope Valley

Re: Why Woodville in 1964

Postby robranisgod » Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:57 am

therisingblues wrote:I thought that zoning was done so that each club had access to roughly the same number of able bodied young people?
It would be interesting to see how the boundary zones changed before and after 1964, and which clubs lost the most territory. Had there not been a Central District, North would have become a massive powerhouse, surely?

You are right but somehow the league stuffed up badly in their 1959 and early 1970s boundaries allocations. As I said, by the late 1970s North had half the young male population of the other clubs. It was only redressed in 1983.

Central were always going to come in. It was simply whether to keep the league at 8 teams by dropping South and bringing in Central or bringing in Central or Woodville.
robranisgod
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1981
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:36 pm
Has liked: 89 times
Been liked: 224 times
Grassroots Team: Flinders University

Re: Why Woodville in 1964

Postby Dogwatcher » Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:47 am

robranisgod wrote: You are right but somehow the league stuffed up badly in their 1959 and early 1970s boundaries allocations. As I said, by the late 1970s North had half the young male population of the other clubs. It was only redressed in 1983.


So did North's zoning worries come in from 1959? Or did it change in the late 60s and into the 70s and the housing subdivisions starting sprouting up further north and north east?

As I posted, below, when Benny discussed North's ageing population, I'd have thought it wasn't a problem initially due to the Baby Boomer generation and the fact those housing subdivisions hadn't really kicked into gear yet.


Dogwatcher wrote:
bennymacca wrote:Probably an ageing population in North Adelaide's zone too (though that may have changed in recent years)


Given many of the young people back then were young Baby Boomers, I'd reckon that's unlikely an issue.
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: Why Woodville in 1964

Postby robranisgod » Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:54 pm

Dogwatcher wrote:So did North's zoning worries come in from 1959? Or did it change in the late 60s and into the 70s and the housing subdivisions starting sprouting up further north and north east?



It started in the 1959 redistribution when areas such as Kilburn were given to Woodville and everywhere from Pooraka north were given to Central. Then in the next redistribution in the early 1970s (when North incidentally were reigning premiers) they lost areas such as Valley View through to Holden Hill to West Torrens thus leaving North "land-locked" with no growing area and Pooraka/Ingle Farm became part of Port's area. The next redistribution in 1983 redressed this problem.
robranisgod
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1981
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:36 pm
Has liked: 89 times
Been liked: 224 times
Grassroots Team: Flinders University

Re: Why Woodville in 1964

Postby therisingblues » Wed Sep 23, 2015 7:50 am

Interesting that some Port fans like to trot out the story that Woodville was invented to hobble the Magpies, yet the zoning policies at the time were geared towards an even distribution of population to each team's zone, and if anything they benefited from an oversight which awarded them extra area from North.
I'm gonna sit back, crack the top off a Pale Ale, and watch the Double Blues prevail
1915, 1919, 1926, 1932, 1940, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1974, 1976, 2002, 2016, 2017
User avatar
therisingblues
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6190
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:50 am
Location: Fukuoka
Has liked: 369 times
Been liked: 514 times
Grassroots Team: Hope Valley

Re: Why Woodville in 1964

Postby Dog_ger2 » Fri Oct 09, 2015 6:25 pm

GWW wrote:I had heard it was to lessen Port's success.


Yes it was to de-value or try to de-value the mighty magpie.

Some said it was other teams passing the cemetery, visiting alberton.

Woodville SANFL was to even up the competition..

Such was the power of "FOS"

Maybe he should have a statue at "Adelaide Oval".

Or a bridge named after him.
Dog_ger2
Under 16s
 
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:39 pm
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 17 times
Grassroots Team: Salisbury North

Re: Why Woodville in 1964

Postby Spargo » Fri Oct 09, 2015 9:01 pm

Dog_ger2 wrote:
GWW wrote:I had heard it was to lessen Port's success.


Yes it was to de-value or try to de-value the mighty magpie.

Some said it was other teams passing the cemetery, visiting alberton.

Woodville SANFL was to even up the competition..

Such was the power of "FOS"

Maybe he should have a statue at "Adelaide Oval".

Or a bridge named after him.

How the hell do you post this crap with that straight jacket on? :lol:
2017 safooty NFL tipping champ

Don’t lose your grip on the dreams of the past
You must fight just to keep them alive...
Spargo
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15877
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:42 pm
Location: Getting out of Dodge
Has liked: 5457 times
Been liked: 5089 times
Grassroots Team: Sacred Heart OC

Re: Why Woodville in 1964

Postby Dog_ger2 » Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:06 pm

Spargo wrote:
Dog_ger2 wrote:
GWW wrote:I had heard it was to lessen Port's success.


Yes it was to de-value or try to de-value the mighty magpie.

Some said it was other teams passing the cemetery, visiting alberton.

Woodville SANFL was to even up the competition..

Such was the power of "FOS"

Maybe he should have a statue at "Adelaide Oval".

Or a bridge named after him.

How the hell do you post this crap with that straight jacket on? :lol:


Maybe you need help Mate... :D

Only returning fire Admin... :D
Dog_ger2
Under 16s
 
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:39 pm
Has liked: 11 times
Been liked: 17 times
Grassroots Team: Salisbury North


Board index   Football  SANFL History Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |