A More Detailled SANFL Boundaries Map?

All discussions to do with the SANFL

Re: A More Detailled SANFL Boundaries Map?

Postby am Bays » Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:05 am

PhilH wrote:Ironbank, Echunga, Meadows, Macclesfield and Mt Barker are Sturt

Kangarilla, Strathalbyn & Langhorne Creek are South (for the time being)

South's metro zone Northern boundary is now just 1.5km north of Hickinbotham Oval (Christie Creek)
I suspect the suburbs they South would lose first would be
- Happy Valley, O Halloran Hill to West
- Reynella to Glenelg


Prior to the last distribution Glenelgs Northern boundary was 1 km N of Glenelg Oval (Anzac Highway). We got back North Glenelg and West beach but lost parts of Happy VAlley and Morphett vale. So in each change clubs win and lose. B&W I was involved in numerous clinics at Morphett vale in the last boundaries, South were the recipiants of some of teh hard work Glenelg did in that area that went to Sount in the last distribution (like we gained from the work Westies did in West beach and North Glenelg??).

AS population changes so to the zone boundary change. It figures that as AAdelaides population drifts South so to will the Southern most footy zone.
Let that be a lesson to you Port, no one beats the Bays five times in a row in a GF and gets away with it!!!
User avatar
am Bays
Coach
 
 
Posts: 19775
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:04 pm
Location: The back bar at Lennies
Has liked: 184 times
Been liked: 2130 times

Re: A More Detailled SANFL Boundaries Map?

Postby Mr Fuller » Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:24 am

Does anyone know what criteria is used when redefining the boundaries? Is it population density? Is it age and number of males? These are factors I've heard being mentioned from time to time.

However while these may be the case there is another factor which I'm pretty sure does not get taken into account - ethnic background.

For families who migrate to Australia from another country the kids grow up not hearing about AFL and certainly not playing it. It makes it much harder for the clubs to promote interest and even then only a small fraction will ever be of the right standard.
Mr Fuller
Reserves
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:16 pm
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 131 times

Re: A More Detailled SANFL Boundaries Map?

Postby therisingblues » Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:20 pm

Mr Fuller- After reading the original link from this topic it looks as though they only take into account males aged between 0 to 24. Beyond that it appears that no other factors are taken into account so far as I can see. Probably isn't so relevant now I imagine, from my understanding it is probably only Central's area that has a high concentration of 1st or 2nd generation migrants of a stock (English) not so vastly represented elsewhere. Sure, most of us have pommy heritage somewhere along the line, but most pommy bloodlines in Adelaide originated over a hundred years ago, unlike in Central's area.
I am not so up to date with the current demographics, so I could be wrong but I imagine that every other area has near enough an equal representation of Mediterraneans or Asians or Africans.
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: A More Detailled SANFL Boundaries Map?

Postby Pag » Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:21 pm

HeartBeatsTrue wrote:
Dogwatcher wrote:
HeartBeatsTrue wrote:
therisingblues wrote:Pretty interesting that, thanks for bringing it up Sojourner.
Says that with the redistribution of club boundaries that there is a maximum 10% discrepancy for the number of males aged 0 to 24 between any of the clubs. Seems to be a pretty fair way of assessing where the boundaries lay.

May seem fair at first glance. Country zones although they are equal with number of teenage boys, some will produce more footballers than others.
Comparing Norwood (partial hills) and Port (Eyre Pen). The number of sports a boy can choose if living in the hills is much higher than a boy that lives in Eyre Pen. Do they play anything but footy in Eyre Pen?
Yes, the hills has a lot of towns with just footy clubs, but a drive to the city to play any other sport is not out of reach.

I guess the counter arguement would be that some would not want to be too far from home and happy to keep playing at their country club.


Strange thinking HBT.
As there would be a higher population of kids living in the Adelaide Hills as compared to the Eyre Peninsula. Therefore, the talent pool should be a lot smaller on the Peninsula.

Sorry dogwatcher your arguement isnt a valid one.
Population between zones would be similar, thats how they work out the boundaries, Ports area would be less concentrated in population but thats why it has the biggest land mass.
Also Norwood doesnt have the whole hills. Sturt have the southern hills, eg Mt Barker, Hahndorf, Strathalbyn etc and Centrals have north of Kersbrook.
Centrals have the hills north of Kersbrook? What towns are you talking about? Williamstown? They're part of the BL&G, can hardly use that.
User avatar
Pag
Coach
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:57 pm
Has liked: 22 times
Been liked: 511 times

Previous

Board index   Football  SANFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

Around the place

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