Magellan wrote:Here it is, from behind the Great Paywall of Murdoch. Make of it what you will. I'll say this, though: for all his spruiking, I wonder if he went on the weekend, or if he'll go this Sunday?
A SIDE has hardly dominated a competition when, over a three-year period, it has a win-loss record of 27-27 and one draw ... has it?
Adelaide’s SANFL side finished eighth in 2014, seventh in 2015 and this year fourth at the end of the home and away season.
On the weekend the SANFL Crows played in their first final in three years and happened to play their best game for the year. As a result, they won.
If they played like they had the game prior they would have been knocked out in the elimination final. It’s not exactly the form line of a Hawthorn is it?
The Crows played Central District in the final — a side that had not only beaten them twice this year but beat them by a record 55 points in Round 13.
Central had every reason to be confident going into the game.
Unfortunately, coach Roy Laird chose to publicly focus on the SANFL’s decision to “bend over” to allow Cameron Ellis-Yolmen to play instead.
CEY had played 16 SANFL games this year and only two AFL games — one a result of Rory Sloane’s suspension a week prior. The Crows could have played Sloane and Brodie Smith on the weekend but didn’t.
I’m not sure what Roy tried to achieve by this but it came across poorly and the SANFL felt the need to fine him as a result.
I would highly doubt that his comments had a positive impact on his players. In fact I would say there is every chance it had a negative effect.
Just for the record, the Crows had 10 players 21 years old and younger. Eleven of them had no AFL experience at all. Six had played 20 AFL games or less and only five had played an AFL game this year.
Three others were ‘top up’ players who have only played a handful of SANFL games between them.
The Crows are having their best year in the SANFL, winning twelve games and losing, seven so hardly dominating.
The AFL team has had the least amount of injuries of any side in the competition and as a result has a strong team in the SANFL.
It’s no different to any other SANFL side having an injury-free year. When you do, your team goes well. When you don’t, they don’t play so well.
South Adelaide, unfortunately, has injuries to several of its best players this week ... is that the Crows’ fault? I don’t think so.
South has beaten the Crows twice this year like Central had. South won by 38 points against the Crows only 10 days ago. Surely they won’t have the same negative attitude as Central did.
Like Central, both of those wins were at their home ground because of the fact that every Crows match in the home and away season is an away game.
Finals, however, are played at Adelaide Oval, which is where they should be. Surely that’s where the players would want to be as well?
Even in the AFL the finals are compromised slightly. Take Geelong finishing above Hawthorn but having to “host” their final at the Hawks’ home ground the MCG on Friday night.
Whether Central or other clubs agree with the Crows and Port being in the SANFL, surely it’s time to move on isn’t it?
The SANFL made the decision and the clubs have to get on with the job. The SANFL would have thought long and hard about this decision given that it was clear that some clubs were against it.
The SANFL bosses must have thought it was in the competition’s best interest to have the AFL clubs in, otherwise they wouldn’t be.
The Crows pay each SANFL club $50,000 a year, so $400,000 total annually, just to play in the competition. That’s big money for the clubs and big money for Adelaide. Could the SANFL clubs do without it?
Isn’t it better having 10 teams and not nine?
’m sure the players from the other eight sides love shaping up against the AFL teams to test themselves out.
I remember my dad picking me up from school early so I come down and play for Westies on Norwood’s Garry McIntosh as a 16-year-old. I was extremely nervous but also very excited about the challenge and I am still here to tell the story.
Like it or not, the SANFL has been on the decline since the Crows came in back in 1991. Just like every state-based league since the VFL turned national and became the AFL.
Crowds have been falling away since then. The Crows predicted bigger crowds but they unfortunately haven’t come. Channel 7, however, is very happy with the television numbers when they broadcast their game of the week.
On the weekend they had an audience of about 100,000 viewers over the two games.
It is crucial that the two AFL sides have reserves teams. To have them train and play together with the same coaches and gamestyle is a big winner.
It is also important for the SANFL itself that the AFL sides perform well, given that proceeds from AFL crowds flow through to the SANFL coffers.
But back to the SANFL finals — the rules are set, the Crows and Port are in the competition.
Let’s not get emotional about one week of footy, let’s enjoy the SANFL finals for what they are.
Great footy at one of the best stadiums in the world with spring weather to top it off.
If the Crows beat South Adelaide then good luck to them. If they lose, they’re out and congratulations to South.
Let’s not focus on whether they should be there or not, three years after the decision was made.
I'm going to respond to this tonight, unfortunately I'll have to subscribe first. I'm sick of the blatant lies, they can't hide behind ignorance and lack of research. A few key points- no crowds weren't dropping before the reserves (afl spin), 100k viewers crap, is 10 teams better than 9? Not when as a result crowds have dropped 20-30%, we now have more byes, 18 games instead of 20 and integrity has been lost. The old line about the $400,000 being so important. The television cost $300k, lost revenue from 80,000 supporters no longer going since their inception- that must be about $800,000k etc etc. Fuming, sick of false propaganda and afl supporters and advocates that don't go to games or obviously know to much about the SANFL, telling me how I should think.
