Hoops

Grand Final Team Results

Southern do pay court hire fees- it has changed in the last six months.

Under 16 boys Div 1 this year has been a great competition.
Sturt, Mavs & Norwood started the season way above the other teams.
But as the season developed, many of the other clubs raised their level over the season.
South, Eagles & Tigers improved enormously.
There were not many games that was a foregone conclusion.
All the Div 1 teams worked hard during the season, and evan the teams that finished near the bottom, played good solid basketball.
For me, this was the most evan competition I have seen over the past 7 years.
I suppose it is a shame that many of these teams gets broken up into different teams, and the process starts again.

I have been critical of the varying standards over the years, but this age group has been very good all the way to the bottom team.
This only happens by dedicated coaches and support staff and decicated players.

Not all clubs can make the grand final, and many times it is a fine line between winning and losing.
Many times statistics about how the clubs done can be very misleading, and does not show the true effort that goes into the players every week.

Well done to all those involved - a great season.

Sturt/Forestville - do they have club rooms and an office? Dot hey have a canteen and a bar (ie available revenue source)? Not all clubs do, which, you will concede, makes running an organisation difficult.
Stadiums - Issues of cost AND availability. BSA venues (Wayville, Pasadena, Hillcrest etc) far cheaper than private ones, which is one difference with Norwood/Southern.
Availability - Seem to remember Flames moved to the Dome at one point, which indicates an unhappy relationship with Marden. Also heard an effort to establish a domestic comp at Marden failed. TV Cougars also based at Marden.
No doubt it was difficult for Sturt to be out of Pasadena, so show some understanding for clubs which don't belong to any stadium.
It's not as if SA has a heap of unused stadiums looking for players/clubs, now is it?

I'd rather see all clubs have the opportunity to compete on equal terms, with equal or similar revenue options/courts and court charges/facilities/ etc. Not two superclubs and a host of also-rans. Better for the game and everyone in the long run.

So it's all hard work and good planning at Sturt and Forestville that accounts for their success? I don't think so.
You do the game and the other clubs a disservice not to recognise the financial and infrastructure problems impacting on the other clubs.
Why can Forestville etc hire a court at half the price some other clubs pay? And sometimes it's not even a matter of cost, but courts are simply not available, for training or domestic comps or whatever.
Of course S and F work hard, but if you could stop patting yourself on the back for a moment you might see that's only part of the story.

Don't give us this rubbish about Sturt and Forestville's hard work leading to success. As if the other clubs don't! S and F must accept their privileged position re facilities and specialist sports school has a lot to do with their success.
If you want to develop juniors you have to have somewhere to develop them.

Dispiriting that two clubs share most of the silverware. No coincidence that they have the best facilities, but wonder if there's more competition between and within sturt and forestville than in the main district comp? They seem to be light years ahead of everyone else.
Can you imagine the uproar in afl or other leagues if the winner was always one of two clubs. BSA, we have a problem.

Apparently Woodville won a grand final, if you haven't heard.