Hypothetical s

If your team won the Grand Final this year would it beat the team that last won a G/F Example
WA 83 v 2012 Side
Nor 1997 v 2012
Dogs would have to be be first of many G/Fs 2000 V 2012
Eagles 1993v Side 2012
NA 91 V 2012.

I think it's safe to say West's 2012 side wouldn't get near the 1983 side, one of the best teams ever.

This side in a year or tow, though.......

I think Luders, Lindner, Smith, Meuret et al would be wondering why there were 30 players in the forward line.

Of all of the teams I've seen in my years of SANFL, I don't think any of this year's teams would get within 5 goals of the 1983 West side, frankly. That side was one right out of the box.

Not sure about this one. Players are a lot fitter these days.

Just on fitness alone, I suspect most sides today would beat most sides of 30 years ago.

C.K wrote:Of all of the teams I've seen in my years of SANFL, I don't think any of this year's teams would get within 5 goals of the 1983 West side, frankly. That side was one right out of the box.

Agreed. The 1983 West side that presented itself for the 2nd Semi against Norwood and the GF against Sturt were the most awesome SANFL team I've seen. For Sturt to get within 5 goals that day was a fantastic effort.

People talk about increased fitness, but players used to run out a full 100 minutes of footy in those days.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

People talk about increased fitness, but players used to run out a full 100 minutes of footy in those days.

And play every week, no byes.

And nowhere near the interchanges.

Were there interchanges in 1983?

Handy bench in that game.

Only 2 on the bench: Fielke and Meuret.

Best starting bench ever in a big game?

And when you consider Mickan and Roger Winter missed through injury, and Craig Burton couldn't make the side...

Players need to be fitter now because I suspect they spend more time running as to actually being involved in the play than before.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:People talk about increased fitness, but players used to run out a full 100 minutes of footy in those days.

At about half the speed of today's players.

I've got a fair bit of footage from the 70s and 80s and everything looks like it's in slow motion. Or maybe it's because my footage is of Centrals and we were crap back then?

Captain Centrals wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:People talk about increased fitness, but players used to run out a full 100 minutes of footy in those days.

At about half the speed of today's players.

I've got a fair bit of footage from the 70s and 80s and everything looks like it's in slow motion. Or maybe it's because my footage is of Centrals and we were crap back then?

IMHO, the supposed increase in speed of the game is not because players are fitter or because they can run faster, it's because of tackling. The increased intensity of tackling makes the game seem faster because players have to react quicker to get rid of the ball.

It's like the ball in cricket that kicks off a good length. The ball is no quicker, as a matter of fact it slows once it hits the deck. It's that the batsman is surprised by it and reacts quicker than he normally would, thereby making the delivery look quicker. It annoys me to hear the saying, "the ball quickened off the pitch". Under the laws of physics, that's impossible.

I think today's players are fitter than yesteryear, but not by that big a margin. It's a different type of fitness, based on stamina rather than endurance. As for the pace of the game, the ball used to travel from one end of the ground to the other ever bit as quick then, possibly quicker.

No, that's correct about the speed of the game, although looking at West's 83 win, it stands up very well t today's speed.

When making these comparisons, I think it's generally accepted that we're talking about relative ability related to how the game was played at the time.

As for Norwood 1997 v Norwood 2012, I believe the team of players we had at the start of the season would have given it a shake, but not the current team. As well as they have played all season despite injuries, the 1997 team was superior in so many ways.

For a start, although he wasn't in the GF team, we had superstar midfielders in McIntosh and Jarman, backed up by Harvey, Cunningham and the two James boys. That's as good a midfield in the history of the SANFL.

James West kicked 80 goals at full forward and defenders Clements, Fleming and Pitt we unpassable all season. Our ruckmen Eastaugh and Keating were pretty handy as well. Throw in speedy talented wingmen Thiessen and Obst, and that's a pretty fair combination.

The icing on the cake, however, was our hardness. The 1997 Norwood team was quick, it was talented, and it was tough and hard. McCormack was one of the toughest players I've ever seen, he stepped aside for nobody.

Not selling our current team short, but I just cannot rate them as highly as our 1997 team. PLUS ... we haven't won the flag yet

spell_check wrote:Players need to be fitter now because I suspect they spend more time running as to actually being involved in the play than before.

i think it should read ''more time running on & off the ground''

bayman wrote:

spell_check wrote:Players need to be fitter now because I suspect they spend more time running as to actually being involved in the play than before.

i think it should read ''more time running on & off the ground''

That along with zoning.

Flag No.9 wrote:And when you consider Mickan and Roger Winter missed through injury, and Craig Burton couldn't make the side...

He went on to be Norfs only goal kicker in a grand final in the late eighty"s

bayman wrote:i think it should read ''more time running on & off the ground''

That's where the real fitness kicks in. You have to be fit enough to sprint 150 metres to the boundary line. If you weren't knackered before coming off, you certainly will be by the time you reach the bench.

I just go giddy watching Bassett's rotations, full forwards coming off after 3 minutes, etc. And isn't it amazing how a player kicks a goal and suddenly needs a rest. Why is that?

A slight deviation ,talking about Wests 83 team it was a betetr game to watch back then regardles off speed, fitness etc. Good attacking footy .

waddayamean wrote:A slight deviation ,talking about Wests 83 team it was a betetr game to watch back then regardles off speed, fitness etc. Good attacking footy .

Agreed. That was the way footy was meant to be played.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

bayman wrote:i think it should read ''more time running on & off the ground''

That's where the real fitness kicks in. You have to be fit enough to sprint 150 metres to the boundary line. If you weren't knackered before coming off, you certainly will be by the time you reach the bench.

I just go giddy watching Bassett's rotations, full forwards coming off after 3 minutes, etc. And isn't it amazing how a player kicks a goal and suddenly needs a rest. Why is that?

Crazy stuff .The player would be feeling really good and motivated yet sprints off . I see it with young players and that is juust dumb, let them play they'd be pumped.Same for blokes out of form .

It's almost as silly as having a whole Saturday afternoon free, and waiting around until Sunday for the finals.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

Agreed. That was the way footy IS meant to be played.

edited for accuracy

waddayamean wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

bayman wrote:i think it should read ''more time running on & off the ground''

That's where the real fitness kicks in. You have to be fit enough to sprint 150 metres to the boundary line. If you weren't knackered before coming off, you certainly will be by the time you reach the bench.

I just go giddy watching Bassett's rotations, full forwards coming off after 3 minutes, etc. And isn't it amazing how a player kicks a goal and suddenly needs a rest. Why is that?

Crazy stuff .The player would be feeling really good and motivated yet sprints off . I see it with young players and that is juust dumb, let them play they'd be pumped.Same for blokes out of form .

yes, there is basically no player these days that can kick 2 or 3 goals in a 5 minutes burst, that can spark a side because their sitting down .....a burst or spark can be a tool for winning games & sadly that is basically a thing of the past these days

I'm still smarting from the 2010 GF when Norwood had Central down mid 2nd qtr with a burst of goals. Big Sam Rowe took a great mark and booted a vital goal to put Norwood 4 goals ahead and building.

I said to my mate, "One or two quick goals and we've got them". What happens? Bassett takes Rowe from the ground, we bring the ball out the middle and kick it to .... where's Rowe???!!! He's not there. Nobody was there, the ball turned over, momentum is slowed, and Norwood doesn't score again that quarter.

If that's good footy tactics, then I just don't understand footy any more. Why on earth would anyone drag a dominant forward when you are going for the kill?