Game v Port thread

[lwoggardner]

Originally posted by FredFlintstone
Pretty average Game tonight..could have had the game wrapped up by half time, if only we could kick between the middle posts!

We did. Us at half time 53. Them at full time 50.

For all the whinging that goes on this board we seem to have missed the brilliant defensive games by LRT, Kennelly, Barry and B2.

Absolutely would have been better viewing if they kicked straight but the team played well and won easily.

[liz]

Originally posted by RogueSwan
Seen the Bummer/Lions score?
Bummers 160
Lions 123!

Haven't seen that game, but the scoreline tells me that there was almost no pressure applied by either side. Put some pressure on the Bombers and they're likely to turn the ball over.

Was hardly a classic game tonight but the Swans did what they needed to. Port's tactic of massive numbers behind the ball, combined with a wet second half and appalling kicking for goal collectively hide how in control the Swans were all game, without really getting out of second gear.

The goal kicking was frustrating but other than that a regulation win at this time of year isn't a bad thing. Let them keep their best football for Melbourne at the G and the Cats at Shell.

[Nico]

I was working so missed the game, the first in years.

Snowy gave Bevan a bake. Any one else wish to give a critique on his performance.

[ugg]

I was cringing everytime we chipped the ball back to Bevan. Its fine if you want to chip around in the back line and the ball goes to Kennelly, but Bevan's kicking just isn't accurate enough for him to be carrying out this role. And true to form he did cause a few turnovers.

[NMWBloods]

Really rather uninspiring.

BTW - high scoring doesn't necessarily mean no pressure. And anyway, seeing a goal is more interesting than seeing a ball up!!

[SimonH]

I've watched dozens of more intense, entertaining SANFL games than the one I suffered through tonight. (Luckily I only suffered through it on TV, so at least I stayed dry.) How can a team go from really quite good, to so bloody awful, in the space of a week? The only things up to AFL standard were Sydney's foot-skills (most of the time, when not kicking for goal) and Port's tackling.

I'm sorry, but regardless of 4 points, a desperately negative opposition, and all: if I was the coach I'd be tearing strips off the paint on the changeroom walls after that nonsense.

Bucky and Goodes were a class above the other 42 players out there; too many of the rest were happy to stand off the contest and do only the predictable/required thing.

To give credit to those others who deserve it: Jolly played probably his best game for the year; Port let Kirk run himself back into form; JBolt showed his usual commitment; BBBH was sporadically good; Malceski disposed of it well just over 50% of the time he got it; Leo Barry and Kennelly were predictably solid. That's about it.

Percentage is going to be crucial come the end of the year. Port were a team that came out tonight begging for a flogging, and we didn't give it to them. St Kilda did hand out a flogging to their poor opposition, and now we find ourselves not leading the battle of the percentages for the first time in a long time. This could really hurt come R22.

Bad conversion is bad football. Teams who kick more points than goals get found out badly in tight games. The following sequence, if it's continued, can only end in misery: 7.8, 11.16, 12.19, 8.14, 9.11, 14.17, 10.17. That's seven freakin' weeks of more behinds than goals! Another 6 hours of goal kicking practice? More time with the team psychologist? Whatever it takes.

[floppinab]

SANFL > Swans

[swantastic]

Originally posted by SimonH
Teams who kick more points than goals get found out badly in tight games. The following sequence, if it's continued, can only end in misery: 7.8, 11.16, 12.19, 8.14, 9.11, 14.17, 10.17. That's seven freakin' weeks of more behinds than goals! Another 6 hours of goal kicking practice? More time with the team psychologist? Whatever it takes.

Spot on we used to be 1 of the most accurate teams in the AFL WTF happend?

[Nico]

Originally posted by SimonH
I've watched dozens of more intense, entertaining SANFL games than the one I suffered through tonight. (Luckily I only suffered through it on TV, so at least I stayed dry.) How can a team go from really quite good, to so bloody awful, in the space of a week? The only things up to AFL standard were Sydney's foot-skills (most of the time, when not kicking for goal) and Port's tackling.

I'm sorry, but regardless of 4 points, a desperately negative opposition, and all: if I was the coach I'd be tearing strips off the paint on the changeroom walls after that nonsense.

Bucky and Goodes were a class above the other 42 players out there; too many of the rest were happy to stand off the contest and do only the predictable/required thing.

To give credit to those others who deserve it: Jolly played probably his best game for the year; Port let Kirk run himself back into form; JBolt showed his usual commitment; BBBH was sporadically good; Malceski disposed of it well just over 50% of the time he got it; Leo Barry and Kennelly were predictably solid. That's about it.

Percentage is going to be crucial come the end of the year. Port were a team that came out tonight begging for a flogging, and we didn't give it to them. St Kilda did hand out a flogging to their poor opposition, and now we find ourselves not leading the battle of the percentages for the first time in a long time. This could really hurt come R22.

Bad conversion is bad football. Teams who kick more points than goals get found out badly in tight games. The following sequence, if it's continued, can only end in misery: 7.8, 11.16, 12.19, 8.14, 9.11, 14.17, 10.17. That's seven freakin' weeks of more behinds than goals! Another 6 hours of goal kicking practice? More time with the team psychologist? Whatever it takes.

Congratulations Simon. A very good post on the stats. If you watch the run up of Hall and MOL on the telly from behind, they continually run to the right then drop the ball outside their right foot, hence a fading kick. I wonder if their golf games are similar.

[Q...]

Ebert led Kennelly to the ball all night. Kennelly looked good when he had the ball but he was lucky Ebert didn't make him pay.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Q...
Ebert led Kennelly to the ball all night. Kennelly looked good when he had the ball but he was lucky Ebert didn't make him pay.

Ebert has a very large head. Ouch said his mum.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Nico
Ebert has a very large head. Ouch said his mum.

He looks like a fully grown dwarf (if that makes sense?).

[Nico]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
He looks like a fully grown dwarf (if that makes sense?).

If you look closely a lot of Port players have big nadgets.

Tredrea, Brogan, Cornes brothers (yet their dad has a pin head)
and Damon White has the biggest of them all. While we have a "no ****heads policy" it appears that Port have a big heads recruiting policy.

Next time you watch a Port game observe this phenomena. It must be something in the Port Adelaide water.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Nico
Ebert has a very large head.

Didn't his old man have a big head as well. "I'm good, just ask me."

[Nico]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
He looks like a fully grown dwarf (if that makes sense?).

Makes no sense at all.