Saddington

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Wil
    On the Rookie List
    • Jun 2004
    • 619

    #31
    Originally posted by liz
    Are you kidding? Or do you watch a different team to the one I watch. I reckon we have one of the faster midfields going around and we need it for our game plan - to carry the ball and break the lines.
    We would be more successful in that if we had a faster midfield. Who out of Ablett, Bolton, Kirk, Mathews and Williams are particularily fast? Oh yeah, the 32 year old.

    We have a fast half backline. But our midfield slows us down anyway. At least Saddo and Goodes could create some mismatches and get the ball actually moving through the midfield. Most of the time Ball ends up being our main midfield target anyway.

    Comment

    • ROK Lobster
      RWO Life Member
      • Aug 2004
      • 8658

      #32
      Originally posted by Captain
      What a load of @@@@!

      The thread was suggesting that Saddo is at the crossroads and a move to the forward line could do wonders for him ala Leo Barry moving to the backline.
      'Ere... I think he was being sarcastic...

      Comment

      • Captain
        Captain of the Side
        • Feb 2004
        • 3602

        #33
        Originally posted by ROK Lobster
        'Ere... I think he was being sarcastic...
        Thanks for sharing that. I understand he was being sarcastic and making a joke regarding bagging Matthews. However it was a pointed comment aimed at protecting his favourite little player.

        Comment

        • liz
          Veteran
          Site Admin
          • Jan 2003
          • 16744

          #34
          Originally posted by Wil
          We would be more successful in that if we had a faster midfield. Who out of Ablett, Bolton, Kirk, Mathews and Williams are particularily fast? Oh yeah, the 32 year old.

          No team has a dozen speedsters in its midfield. Bolton, Kirk and Mathews are probably our slowest 3 established players but none is a slug in AFL terms.

          Williams, Ablett, Maxfield, Crouch, Fixter, Bevan, Fosdike, Schneider, Buchanan, McVeigh are all reasonably fleet of foot.

          Comment

          • Captain
            Captain of the Side
            • Feb 2004
            • 3602

            #35
            Originally posted by liz
            No team has a dozen speedsters in its midfield. Bolton, Kirk and Mathews are probably our slowest 3 established players but none is a slug in AFL terms.

            Williams, Ablett, Maxfield, Crouch, Fixter, Bevan, Fosdike, Schneider, Buchanan, McVeigh are all reasonably fleet of foot.
            Speaking of Crouch, I see that he wasn't in the final of the grand final sprint.

            Does anyone know if he competed in the heats? Was he even there?

            Comment

            • Damien
              Living in 2005
              • Jan 2003
              • 3713

              #36
              Originally posted by Captain
              Speaking of Crouch, I see that he wasn't in the final of the grand final sprint.

              Does anyone know if he competed in the heats? Was he even there?
              Yes finished 5th in his heat, missed the final by a metre or so.

              Comment

              • dendol
                fat-arsed midfielder
                • Oct 2003
                • 1483

                #37
                Originally posted by Damien
                Yes finished 5th in his heat, missed the final by a metre or so.
                So hes slowing down as he gets older. Delist him now.

                Comment

                • chammond
                  • Jan 2003
                  • 1368

                  #38
                  Originally posted by Captain
                  Thanks for sharing that. I understand he was being sarcastic and making a joke regarding bagging Matthews. However it was a pointed comment aimed at protecting his favourite little player.
                  Wait a minute, aren't you the dickhead who berated me for "protecting" Jude Bolton because he's my favourite player?

                  Or are you just some other ****wit with an addytood problem?

                  Comment

                  • Damien
                    Living in 2005
                    • Jan 2003
                    • 3713

                    #39
                    Originally posted by chammond
                    Wait a minute, aren't you the dickhead who berated me for "protecting" Jude Bolton because he's my favourite player?

                    Or are you just some other ****wit with an addytood problem?
                    Always fun watching the stupid people resort to name calling when all else fails.

                    Comment

                    • Captain
                      Captain of the Side
                      • Feb 2004
                      • 3602

                      #40
                      Originally posted by chammond
                      Wait a minute, aren't you the dickhead who berated me for "protecting" Jude Bolton because he's my favourite player?

                      Or are you just some other ****wit with an addytood problem?
                      Err no I wasn't that stupid dickhead. Maybe you should check your facts before you start throwing big words around.

                      Comment

                      • Wil
                        On the Rookie List
                        • Jun 2004
                        • 619

                        #41
                        Originally posted by liz


                        Williams, Ablett, Maxfield, Crouch, Fixter, Bevan, Fosdike, Schneider, Buchanan, McVeigh are all reasonably fleet of foot.
                        (Trying to keep this thread on topic... )

                        I was thinking about all of those. I hope guys like Crouch, Bevan, Scheides, Bucky and McVeigh get some more permanent appearance in the midfield next season.

                        Still I think at least Goodes and/or Saddo in the midfield would be handy.

                        How good is Jolly around the ground?

                        Comment

                        • chammond
                          • Jan 2003
                          • 1368

                          #42
                          Originally posted by ROK Lobster
                          'Ere... I think he was being sarcastic...
                          Oh bugger . . . I was trying to be ironic . .

                          Comment

                          • OldE

                            #43
                            Originally posted by chammond
                            Oh bugger . . . I was trying to be ironic . .
                            Oooh! Grammar! How exciting!!!

                            Just wanted to back you up that it was definately irony. Sarcasm is when what you say is the literal opposite of what you mean. Irony is when what you say and what you mean are different, though not neccessary opposite. Sarcasm is a subset of irony.

                            So, as there's definately a grain of truth in "'Ere . . . this thread is for bagging Saddington!", and you didn't appear to literally mean "this is a thread for NOT baggin Saddington" you were, in fact, being ironic.



                            Alanis Morrissette confused the world.

                            Erin

                            PS I'm an English student. Obsessive messages about grammar come with the territory

                            Comment

                            • liz
                              Veteran
                              Site Admin
                              • Jan 2003
                              • 16744

                              #44
                              Originally posted by eirinn
                              Oooh! Grammar! How exciting!!!

                              Not wanting to be semantic, or anything ( ) but are we talking grammar or semantics here?

                              Comment

                              • ROK Lobster
                                RWO Life Member
                                • Aug 2004
                                • 8658

                                #45
                                Originally posted by eirinn
                                Oooh! Grammar! How exciting!!!

                                Just wanted to back you up that it was definately irony. Sarcasm is when what you say is the literal opposite of what you mean. Irony is when what you say and what you mean are different, though not neccessary opposite. Sarcasm is a subset of irony.

                                So, as there's definately a grain of truth in "'Ere . . . this thread is for bagging Saddington!", and you didn't appear to literally mean "this is a thread for NOT baggin Saddington" you were, in fact, being ironic.



                                Alanis Morrissette confused the world.

                                Erin

                                PS I'm an English student. Obsessive messages about grammar come with the territory
                                I taught literature for a while - but neither grammar nor semantics so am more than happy to stand corrected. I struggled for a while over whether or not chammond was being ironic or sarcastic and basically went for sarcasm on (percieived) tone. Personally I prefer the simple category of "taking the p1ss" which so far as I can tell includes both sarcasm and irony. As a student and teacher of Australian literature I find it more appropriate too.
                                Last edited by ROK Lobster; 13 October 2004, 05:57 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...