Roos beat Sydney flood

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • NMWBloods
    Taking Refuge!!
    • Jan 2003
    • 15819
    #1

    Roos beat Sydney flood

    From http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/r...302290283.html

    When you have the fortune to watch a spectacle such as Friday night's end-to-end belter between Carlton and Essendon, you cannot help but be disappointed and more than a tad disillusioned when the type of drudgery on display at Manuka Oval yesterday is served up less than a day later.

    It might not have been the worst game of AFL football in history, but, well, it would rank right up there.

    So lacklustre, indirect and mistake-riddled was the affair that even a senior AFL official was heard to muse over scones and jam in the Kangaroos president's lunch - "I don't think I'll be ordering this one on DVD . . . " That was at half-time, and sadly, things did not improve.

    As an ABC radio commentator put it succinctly during the match call: "The tsunami might have been devastating, but flooding is killing football."
    Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

    "[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."
    Tags: beat, flood, roos, Swans, sydney
    • Rizzo
      On the Rookie List
      • Jan 2003
      • 655
      #2
      What a load of BS. The Roos started playing keepings off at the 9 minute mark of the last quarter.

      Also, Archer played loose in defence the whole match....whose game was negative?

      I tend to think 17 behinds hurt!

        Comment

        • Sanecow
          Suspended by the MRP
          • Mar 2003
          • 6917
          #3
          Originally posted by Rizzo
          I tend to think 17 behinds hurt!
          Enough bragging about Mardi Gras already.

            Comment

            • Go Swannies
              Veterans List
              • Sep 2003
              • 5698
              #4
              Originally posted by Rizzo
              ?

              I tend to think 17 behinds hurt!
              Who were the five players who didn't get their bums kicked?

                Comment

                • Wazza
                  Regular in the Side
                  • May 2004
                  • 805
                  #5
                  Originally posted by Rizzo
                  What a load of BS. The Roos started playing keepings off at the 9 minute mark of the last quarter.

                  Also, Archer played loose in defence the whole match....whose game was negative?

                  I tend to think 17 behinds hurt!
                  It wasnt BS at least the Kangas had 3 forwards at all times during the second half, Roos was out coached simple as that. The Kanga backs moved up and ran the ball through 50 to beat the flood and Roos couldnt counter this. Of course fat KFC munching forwards who didnt stay with their opposite number who in turn kicked a goal at a critical time didnt help either.

                  Cheers

                  Waz

                    Comment

                    • chammond
                      • Jan 2003
                      • 1368
                      #6
                      Re: Roos beat Sydney flood

                      Originally posted by NMWBloods
                      From http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/r...302290283.html

                      When you have the fortune to watch a spectacle such as Friday night's end-to-end belter between Carlton and Essendon, you cannot help but be disappointed and more than a tad disillusioned when the type of drudgery on display at Manuka Oval yesterday is served up less than a day later.

                      It might not have been the worst game of AFL football in history, but, well, it would rank right up there.

                      So lacklustre, indirect and mistake-riddled was the affair that even a senior AFL official was heard to muse over scones and jam in the Kangaroos president's lunch - "I don't think I'll be ordering this one on DVD . . . " That was at half-time, and sadly, things did not improve.

                      As an ABC radio commentator put it succinctly during the match call: "The tsunami might have been devastating, but flooding is killing football."
                      That was an exceptionally biased piece of commentary, even for a Melbourne paper. Not sure what the journo was trying to achieve with his sneering, given that anyone who saw the game live or on TV would know that ultra-defensive tactics were used by both coaches throughout the whole game.

                      Must be a Kangaroos fan I guess.

                        Comment

                        • NMWBloods
                          Taking Refuge!!
                          • Jan 2003
                          • 15819
                          #7
                          It was undoubtedly biased as it placed the fault of the flooding solely at our feet. However, the perception that Sydney are a flooding team is fairly firmly entrenched, and our abysmal game style does nothing to counter that.

                          The general view of how boring the game was, whoever's fault it was, is quite valid. That the Kangaroos wanted to flood doesn't mean we needed to play so badly.

                          I recall in that shocking game a few years ago against St Kilda, some people said it wasn't our fault we played so badly because St Kilda flooded so what could we do! The following week St Kilda tried it again and lost by 14 goals to Collingwood - that's what we could have done!!
                          Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

                          "[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."

                            Comment

                            • chammond
                              • Jan 2003
                              • 1368
                              #8
                              I'm not convinced about this 'abysmal game style' . . . . we don't always play boring football.

                              As far as I can see the problem is the inflexibility in the game plan. When it works, the running game from deep in defence, or the fast, zig-zagging breaks, look fantastic. But up against a more determined opponent, we don't seem to have the confidence (or ability?) to try something different . . . and we had the same problem when Eade was coach.

                              Laidley had obviously done his homework better than Roos, and effectively clamped most of the midfield options, and, without O'Loughlin to worry about, he was able to intercept most of the long kicks into the Swans F50 . . . no rocket-science there . . . put a hard-nut into the hole in front of Hall and our best option is gone.

                              This meant that the Swans were afraid to kick long, but weren't good enough to open up the defence with superior skills. Our defence was still doing its usual professional job, with the extra luxury of having Craig Bolton playing loose, so we just ended up with 3 quarters of mind-numbing stalemate.

                              For this journo to say that the boring outcome was caused by the Swans tactics any more than the Kangaroos tactics is just plain rubbish. It was a combined effort.

                                Comment

                                • chammond
                                  • Jan 2003
                                  • 1368
                                  #9
                                  And let's not forget that, even with questionable tactics and poor skills, we still created enough opportunities to win the game if we could have just kicked straight!

                                    Comment

                                    • NMWBloods
                                      Taking Refuge!!
                                      • Jan 2003
                                      • 15819
                                      #10
                                      Inflexibility is a major factor.

                                      However, we do play boring football more frequently than other teams. Witness the Adelaide game at the SCG last year.
                                      Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

                                      "[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."

                                        Comment

                                        Previous template Next
                                        Working...