SA Footy

I know its early days but, based on recent trials and looking at the talent available, the competition looks like being a bit lopsided this year. Talent and depth wise I reckon there are the "haves" and "have-nots". The top 4 teams will be miles ahead of the other 5. The only exception might be Norwood who, while Ive included them in the "have-nots", might surprise.

Haves:
Dogs
Eagles
Magpies
Roosters

Have-nots:
Blues
Panthers
Bloods
Bays
Redlegs

sus wrote:I know its early days but, based on recent trials and looking at the talent available, the competition looks like being a bit lopsided this year. Talent and depth wise I reckon there are the "haves" and "have-nots". The top 4 teams will be miles ahead of the other 5. The only exception might be Norwood who, while Ive included them in the "have-nots", might surprise.

Haves:
Dogs
Eagles
Magpies
Roosters

Have-nots:
Blues
Panthers
Bloods
Bays
Redlegs

Whilst Port are my tip for the flag, given their two trials at home, 1 for a loss and 1 for a 4 1/2 goal win, as this forms part of your criteria how do you rate them so highly above others?

Talented list C_P

Dogs, Magpies, Roosters - salary cap.

It should be more like... Haves, Have Nots and Have F***-alls!

redandblack wrote:Dogs, Magpies, Roosters - salary cap.

Here we go again , get over it and stop looking for something to mask your own side's inability to attract quality players.

How about South = Salary cap.

Bit sensitive, Ian

MightyEagles wrote:How about South = Salary cap.

So Weagles>Salary Cap?

Forget abpout why it might have happened - to blame the salary cap is an oversimplification. Do people agree that we are looking at a very lopsided competition this year which cant be healthy?

I agree wuth you Sus but I think that even the bottom half may be uneven I think Norwood and Sturt might finish battling for 5th spot with South and West struggling and the less said about Glenelg the better

sus wrote:I know its early days but, based on recent trials and looking at the talent available, the competition looks like being a bit lopsided this year. Talent and depth wise I reckon there are the "haves" and "have-nots". The top 4 teams will be miles ahead of the other 5. The only exception might be Norwood who, while Ive included them in the "have-nots", might surprise.

Haves:
Dogs
Eagles
Magpies
Roosters

Have-nots:
Blues
Panthers
Bloods
Bays
Redlegs

Perhaps the headers should read:

Have-chance and have-none.

redandblack wrote:Dogs, Magpies, Roosters - salary cap.

are you bitter because your attempts to lure the Rooster Guns failed?

sus wrote:Forget abpout why it might have happened - to blame the salary cap is an oversimplification. Do people agree that we are looking at a very lopsided competition this year which cant be healthy?

Its been lopsided for a few years now:

Doggies
Daylight
The rest

I think its evened up this year! There are 4 clubs who can be considered a possibility.

RoosterMarty wrote:

redandblack wrote:Dogs, Magpies, Roosters - salary cap.

are you bitter because your attempts to lure the Rooster Guns failed?

I'm realistic and we didn't attempt to lure any Rooster Guns. I think you lured one of ours, though.

HAVES
EAGLES, DOGS, GERARDS(i mean the rooster

MIDDLES
WESTIES & MAGPIES

HAVE NOTS
STURT, SOUTHS, GAY BAYS & NORWOOD (who will improve more i think)

MEDAL (ben haynes if they win 10 or more game by a mile)

redandblack wrote:

RoosterMarty wrote:

redandblack wrote:Dogs, Magpies, Roosters - salary cap.

are you bitter because your attempts to lure the Rooster Guns failed?

I'm realistic and we didn't attempt to lure any Rooster Guns. I think you lured one of ours, though.

Doug Thomas and his pitiful display at trying to lure Brett White to Richmond after the NT game was pathetic and all it did was make him look even *silly* - fancy trying to get a player after the season has started let alone that player being the acting captain of the club. He was offerign all sorts of riches.

You sacked Howard don't forget - we got him quite cheaply - a bonus for us. Pity he is not playing against you in this weeks trial though - still your players can all try and belt Owen Weatherley in place of Howard.

Edit, although I agree with your sentiments Drebin and know your account is 100% I thought your description of Doug may borderline on liability so I altered it but it was an unimportant part of the post. - Wedgie

You have to be kidding don't you! I have seen a lot worse be let through to the keeper on various forums! This should ensure a good debate tommorow over a few ales (or bundies). Hmm, not getting soft on us are you Wedgie?

Possibly your most inaccurate post for a while, drebin, and that's saying something. We didn't sack Dean Howard, he was suspended for two weeks and decided to leave. As for getting him cheaply, that's a subjective judgement, but I'd say he was expensive for an older player.

If you think that Doug Thomas talking to a player in public was a genuine attempt to lure a player to Westies rather than a laugh, you need a reality check. Brett White was never mentioned as a likely recruit and to believe otherwise shows a lack of understanding of the system.

Yes, I know, you're very high up at Roosterland and know more about these things than the rest of us.

Well after speaking to Dean Howard personally - he tells a different story to what you are saying. Of course the WAFC official line would be that "we released him" or "he decided to leave":roll:

As for the Brett White story - I was alongside Brett when Doug approached him and I was the first person he told after the approach - put it this way Brett intially thought Doug was having a lend but in the end he was deadly serious and Brett was quite shocked to say the least. I suppose because White wasn't on your recruiting list - assuming you would know who was - you wouldn't have him if he said yes? I suppose Wedding was on your list before the NT game?

As for your comment re my lack of understanding of the system? What system is that and what don't I know? I'm very curious?

P.S. I am not high up at North either - just involved.

drebin wrote:P.S. I am not high up at North either - just involved.

Oh, but thats the thing, you are and you always have been...

sorry been watching The Shining too much