The funny thing is , Swan 42, as you know, Subi would not have won the flag in the colts that year .
[/quote]
Swans certainly didn’t AR.
[quote=“Stand the Test post=203506”]LH ha, good call mate, my buy!!
And TT there is one person who doesn’t get the school analogy as far as I can tell and it’s you.
How about I make it a bit easier for you.
It is not supposed to be a parallel of two organisations, it is a way of illustrating an imbalance. Make it the USA and Angola in Olympic basketball. Is that helpful??
[/quote]
I get the “point”. Thus I’ve posted these stats which would on face value appear to favour Claremont as privileged.
I’ve given zone alternatives also. I get it man…jeez
LH ha, good call mate, my buy!! Not having a go at you La Hincha, far from it. I agree we could sort out over a beer or two.
I have a problem with TT.
And TT there is one person who doesn’t get the school analogy as far as I can tell and it’s you.
How about I make it a bit easier for you.
It is not supposed to be a parallel of two organisations, it is a way of illustrating an imbalance. Make it the USA and Angola in Olympic basketball. Is that helpful??
Claremont will always be around the mark because of your zone. PFC , swans will be around the mark now and again. They are not assured to be competitive like Claremont BECAUSE of their zones. A lot has to go right for SD or PFC to have success. SD needs a krakouer and a coniglio. God knows what PFCneeds. Maybe it will never happen for us.
Clubs which have good coastal suburbs in their zone are lucky. Good on ya. But you aren’t special, just lucky.
[quote=“Stand the Test post=203510”]LH ha, good call mate, my buy!! Not having a go at you La Hincha, far from it. I agree we could sort out over a beer or two.
I have a problem with TT.
And TT there is one person who doesn’t get the school analogy as far as I can tell and it’s you.
How about I make it a bit easier for you.
It is not supposed to be a parallel of two organisations, it is a way of illustrating an imbalance. Make it the USA and Angola in Olympic basketball. Is that helpful??
Claremont will always be around the mark because of your zone. PFC , swans will be around the mark now and again. They are not assured to be competitive like Claremont BECAUSE of their zones. A lot has to go right for SD or PFC to have success. SD needs a krakouer and a coniglio. God knows what PFCneeds. Maybe it will never happen for us.
Clubs which have good coastal suburbs in their zone are lucky. Good on ya. But you aren’t special, just lucky.
[/quote]
Have you suddenly got confused and think I’m a Claremont supporter?
LH I refer to TT.
No problem at all with you mate ( even tho you go for Subi)
It’s just a rough guess but did Claremont win? They’ve won 15 premierships in 45 years
[/quote]
Thanks to WAFL footy facts it was on the 6th June, 1987 at Subiaco Oval: Subi 11.9 SD 0.10. The club that won the colts GF that year was East Freo 14.13 to Cl 7.12. Swans finished last with 3 wins and Subi 6th with 5 wins.
How’d PFC go?
[quote=“Stand the Test post=203514”]How’d PFC go?
[/quote]
Between us and Subi.
[quote=“Stand the Test post=203512”]LH I refer to TT.
No problem at all with you mate ( even tho you go for Subi)
[/quote]
Mate TT, never said at any stage Claremont deserve their big zone. He said more or less that North Beach could belong to Subi. He has been fair.
The thing is, the Northern Suburbs issues don’t affect Perth. That all goes back to the invention of Peel and the rearrangement of the Southern Suburbs in the great redistribution.
We know how to fix the zones…it’s been talked about here today often.
TT honestly thinks Claremont are ‘better at it’ than PFC and labels my complaints whinging!!!
And I think my whole point may just be what you state. A spat between two successful clubs over a golden egg has ‘nothing to do with PFC.’
That’s kind of what I’m on about mate.
We have no hope, beginning to wonder why I’m hanging in there.
Whether we should get a great suburb like North Beach to help us win another colts flag and keep us competitive at league level or whether we should get it to go with our twenty year dominance of the comp…
Christ nice problems to have.
Meanwhile over at PFC can we please have a growing poor area to go with our established poor areas.
If you think thats what I mean by fixing the zones you are miles off. I don’t want Byford or Armadale or kelmscott. You take em. I want a zone that will give us fckn chance.
PFC needs REAL help.
You lot ( sf, ef, Claremont, subi, wp) have got it soooo good you have no idea, you have lost touch.
I just spent some time on wafl footy facts trying to find last time PFC finished top of ladder in colts. Went back to mid 90s before gave up.
Now I know that all our directors, administrators and coaches have spent the last 40 years going out to these clubs doing donuts on their ovals and throwing rocks through windows cos we all hate each other so much, I get that, but even Peel have finished top!!!
Are you seriously arguing that peel better run than PFC?
Wake up footy fans. Our zone is hopeless and PFC has no chance until real change. Real change.
[quote=“Stand the Test post=203510”]LH ha, good call mate, my buy!! Not having a go at you La Hincha, far from it. I agree we could sort out over a beer or two.
I have a problem with TT.
And TT there is one person who doesn’t get the school analogy as far as I can tell and it’s you.
How about I make it a bit easier for you.
It is not supposed to be a parallel of two organisations, it is a way of illustrating an imbalance. Make it the USA and Angola in Olympic basketball. Is that helpful??
Claremont will always be around the mark because of your zone. PFC , swans will be around the mark now and again. They are not assured to be competitive like Claremont BECAUSE of their zones. A lot has to go right for SD or PFC to have success. SD needs a krakouer and a coniglio. God knows what PFCneeds. Maybe it will never happen for us.
Clubs which have good coastal suburbs in their zone are lucky. Good on ya. But you aren’t special, just lucky.
[/quote]
No that’s not a helpful example at all STD
You now want to compare the imbalance of the US basketball team comprising their 10 best professional players from a population base of 330 million to Angola who has a total population of 33 million and only had 1 player ever drafted into the NBA. Jeez Basketball is the US biggest participation sport, there’s nearly as many people play structured basketball in the US than there is people living in Angola!
Are you suggesting that Claremont’s zone has 10 times the population or disproportionately high participation levels when compared to Perth’s zone?
You can invent as many shite examples as you want.
Zones get looked at every 4-5 years, every WAFL club gets to propose changes, participation and population trends are considered and decisions are made where the borders of zones move or stay.
2009 Zone Review
https://www.wafooty.com.au/download/d/v6Qjm-T2EU1cuO47sdg9_P9rbDJQDudVI4kb3wpQMFA
Stop pretending to be stupid.
But thanks for that link. Here are some interesting points.
- There are fairer models but they are too hard.
- PFC a net loser, Subi a net gainer. WTF , WTF , WTF. My head is exploding.
- We’ll take another look in 2021!!!
We have no chance.
WTF!!!
What about Perth not requesting any change to their country district - the club was happy with it?
Or the chart which showed that Perth had slightly higher Junior participation levels in their zone than Claremont?
good posts lads: Obviously the WAFL Commisson do not look at matters in terms of premierships, which will be controversial for many people.
Thanks Ark. No they don’t. I could almost live with it if WAFC would just come out and say,
’Of course we know this means that PFC has no fckn chance at senior level but that’s the way the biscuit crumbles…’
TT stop pretending that you are stupid!!!
It wouldn’t matter if PFC had 3 times the number of junior footballers. You do understand what is being said I know you do.
Have look at the colts season in 1989—the sharks were last, the tigers second last
[quote=“ArkRoyal post=203537”]Have look at the colts season in 1989—the sharks were last, the tigers second last
[/quote]
From 1990 onwards how many times have East Freo and Claremont finished in the bottom two positions in the Colts?
Thanks tiger tales for the link. I was impressed by the systematic attempt to achieve eveness in numbers at the time and in the future.
Stand the test is more or less arguing for “coastal privilege” and numbers being not the correct lens through which to view the matter.
I think because the issue is so complex it’s best to simplify everything and use an equal numbers approach. To try to compensate for coastal privilege in your zoning just gets too arbitrary and insulting.
Maybe Perth does have to accept its lot as the club of the Armidale branch of the WAFL railway system. Is not a easy line. No dispute. But you know what you’ve got and you’ve got to deal with it.
Equalization might be better coming in terms of player points and that seems to be in place, as mentioned above. Maybe tweak that further depending on average ladder finish over last 5 years, or something like that. For every year you don’t make the finals, here’s another 10 points. Or something like that.
The world isn’t even. You redistribute as much as you can without taking the fun, innovation, and competition out of life and ending up in uniform grey communist Eastern Europe. Apologies to anyone from the old Soviet block, but you know what I mean.
How’s that for some mangled metaphors?
JL I have no problem with most of what you say.
I just want the WAFC to officially announce we have little or no chance under the present system.
Then at least I won’t go insane.
Yeah short trip in any event I know, ha ha.
Hang in there. It’s been an enjoyable thread.