23 heroes and one game

[Lucky Knickers]

Originally posted by Destructive
If we'd have lost the game, that would have been the catalyst for it. As it turned out, we won, and that episode is all but forgootten.

I don't agree.....if we had lost it would have been our failure to convert our opportunities in front of goal. Our misses were appalling from set shots.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by singaporeswan
LMAO! I think you are being generous...more like 1/2!!!!

Most blonde highlights in a GF?

When you look at it in the light of the commets about Luke Ablett (LEAVE THE BOY ALONE) then it was Chris Judd who won the GF for us

[Xie Shan]

Those are incredible stats. And a story behind each and every one of them. Could you say that about NMWBloods' stats?

The game itself is already considered to be a classic. Yet the aggregate score of 112 points is the same as the aggregate score for the 2002 draw against St Kilda, considered by some to be one of the worst games ever played.

The reason why everyone said the grand final was a classic, is quite simple - it was just contested footy. As Roosy said in the press conference, which you can download from http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200509/r59418_163197.mp3 (warning - nearly 5MB!), the great teams play contested footy, and while the Swans might not be as talented as Brisbane 2001-2003, all they've done is take a leaf out of their book in playing contested footy. (He said it, not me) It's not like both teams didn't create enough chances to score, it's just that the pressure was so great.

While the St.Kilda game that got bagged as one of the worst games ever played, that was just an ultra-flood, nothing contested about that, just 22 players clogging up one half of the ground for pretty much the whole game for no other purpose than to stop the other team from scoring. *rolls eyes*.

[silent lurker]

Originally posted by liz
Kirk was never delisted from the Swans.

He was on the Supplementary List for a year and then not invited back the following year. I don't think the Sup List has ever been considered to be part of the list-proper.

Kirky was commuting from Wagga (where he was studying at uni) to play reserves, and believe that the club told him then that he'd be invited back up when he finished his degree.

[punter257]

Originally posted by silent lurker
Kirky was commuting from Wagga (where he was studying at uni) to play reserves, and believe that the club told him then that he'd be invited back up when he finished his degree.

totally unrelated, but can you explain the "destructive dan mozz"?

sounds like good times

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by sydfan83

The game itself is already considered to be a classic. Yet the aggregate score of 112 points is the same as the aggregate score for the 2002 draw against St Kilda, considered by some to be one of the worst games ever played.

The reason why everyone said the grand final was a classic, is quite simple - it was just contested footy. As Roosy said in the press conference, which you can download from http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200509/r59418_163197.mp3 (warning - nearly 5MB!), the great teams play contested footy, and while the Swans might not be as talented as Brisbane 2001-2003, all they've done is take a leaf out of their book in playing contested footy. (He said it, not me) It's not like both teams didn't create enough chances to score, it's just that the pressure was so great.

While the St.Kilda game that got bagged as one of the worst games ever played, that was just an ultra-flood, nothing contested about that, just 22 players clogging up one half of the ground for pretty much the whole game for no other purpose than to stop the other team from scoring. *rolls eyes*.

I mentioned the aggregate score because it's an interesting coincidence. The games have two things in common: the same aggregate score and the Swans played in both games. Apart from that the games have little in common. I cannot comment further on comparisons here because I did not see the drawn game.