SA Footy

I say yes. They are actually the hardest* team i've seen play so far this year. A pity for them they aren't disciplined, and don't have the fitness to run out a game.

Oh, and that Hargs and Clive are both past it.

Rushby Hinds wrote:I say yes. They are actually the hardest* team i've seen play so far this year. A pity for them they aren't disciplined, and don't have the fitness to run out a game.

Oh, and that Hargs and Clive are both past it.

& they've got a lot of injuries but it is still good to beat them

Rushby Hinds wrote:I say yes. They are actually the hardest* team i've seen play so far this year. A pity for them they aren't disciplined, and don't have the fitness to run out a game.

Oh, and that Hargs and Clive are both past it.

or are Glenelg just front-runners?

IMO I thought they were pretty good today. Certainly hit the man hard...

The forward line did look slow, but apart from that they rattled the Bays
today.

The seem to have loose men on the rebound, and hence seemed to score
their goals "easy", but when the ball was held in the Glenelg half, Glenelg had the men
around the ball to make a difference....

Punk Rooster wrote:

Rushby Hinds wrote:I say yes. They are actually the hardest* team i've seen play so far this year. A pity for them they aren't disciplined, and don't have the fitness to run out a game.

Oh, and that Hargs and Clive are both past it.

or are Glenelg just front-runners?

Well we're running all right ATM, but thanks for your concern...

To be in a position to be in a grand final, you have to be in front at the final siren of most games. If that means they are front runners, then yeh (I spose they are). But Glenelg have proven they are doing ok*

* = better than everyone else in the comp.

Re Port - I thought they were pretty good against Sturt a few weeks ago. They lacked polish and their forward line was disfunctional. They didn't have Clive that week. Whether that's good or bad, not sure.

Their midfield was their downfall as far as I'm concerned. They had Wilson in their side that week but still lacked the consistency of Sturt's midfield.

I really don't think they are far off the mark, however I'd say they should be looking toward 2009 without Hargreaves and Clive if they are going to get anywhere in the next few years.

I think the club isn't that far off being right up there, but will need to recruit a quality forward in the off season, not lose any key players, and also maybe recruit another midfielder as well.

What happens with the coaching position in the off season will have a significant say on what happens in the next year or 2 as well.

The rest of the season, is basically a chance to give some of the younger players a chance to be exposed to more league footy. I'm not used to writing off as season as a Port supporter, but the pattern under Ginever's tenure, is such that the team can't win games that it should.

GWW wrote:I think the club isn't that far off being right up there, but will need to recruit a quality forward in the off season, not lose any key players, and also maybe recruit another midfielder as well.

What happens with the coaching position in the off season will have a significant say on what happens in the next year or 2 as well.

The rest of the season, is basically a chance to give some of the younger players a chance to be exposed to more league footy. I'm not used to writing off as season as a Port supporter, but the pattern under Ginever's tenure, is such that the team can't win games that it should.

Gee Dubbya Dubbya........you sort of hit on my point. Tim Chinever has not got the cattle to go further.

He probably hasn't but its not that bad on paper. My main concern is the amount of times the team has given up leads late in games (yes i know like their AFL cousin) eg. again North Adel a few weeks back, and against Glenelg last year when it finished in a draw. Theres been a few other examples during Ginever's rein as well.

This isn't a bad topic, they were a better team than North at Alberton, Im still not sure how North won that game.
Port IMHO are probably the 4th best side but have been unlucky/unable to put away close games.

At the other end of the spectrum is Norwood the worst ever 4th placed team (and North the worest ever 5th placed team - or does that get taken by West a few years back?)

Port are a mile off of the pace.

Need to focus on bringing there kids through that have dominated the juior levels.

Funny thing is at junior level they look bigger and stronger than the rest but at senior level they look skinnier than the rest.

They also need some class and as has been already pointed out their key fowards are now on the down curve due to age. Things could get a lot worse before they get better.

It needs some individuals inside the club to say we are not going to take this and we are going to take the sanfl to annother level. I cant see where this is going to come from at the moment.

Remember West Adelaide beat them.

whatever wrote:Remember West Adelaide beat them.

Not this year they haven't.

Well, Port were absolute rubbish 2 weeks ago when We played them, South & West played better against Us! Although I must say, they have been pretty competitive for most part of the season so far.

Wedgie wrote:This isn't a bad topic, they were a better team than North at Alberton, Im still not sure how North won that game.
Port IMHO are probably the 4th best side but have been unlucky/unable to put away close games.

At the other end of the spectrum is Norwood the worst ever 4th placed team (and North the worest ever 5th placed team - or does that get taken by West a few years back?)

We couldnt put away the close games last year either.

There is no point saying they are the best ever 8th placed team because the fact is they wouldnt be 8th if they were a good team. Taking in to consideration injuries etc etc they still cant win and so are not a good team....

Footy Smart wrote:There is no point saying they are the best ever 8th placed team because the fact is they wouldnt be 8th if they were a good team. Taking in to consideration injuries etc etc they still cant win and so are not a good team....

????


Are you saying that every single 8th placed team has always been of an identical level of goodness?

Rushby Hinds wrote:

Footy Smart wrote:There is no point saying they are the best ever 8th placed team because the fact is they wouldnt be 8th if they were a good team. Taking in to consideration injuries etc etc they still cant win and so are not a good team....

????


Are you saying that every single 8th placed team has always been of an identical level of goodness?

No im saying that there is no point worrying about it as its just an excuse used by Port Adelaide(power) to try an explain there mediocre performances this year. focus should be on why they are sitting 8th not how good they are but still not winning

Did the Bays drop as low as 8th at any stage in 2007?

Constance_Perm wrote:Did the Bays drop as low as 8th at any stage in 2007?

They were 9th for a while in 2007.

Constance_Perm wrote:Did the Bays drop as low as 8th at any stage in 2007?

Stone cold motherless after a fatefull night in May last year. However up to then we well and truly deserved to be last given our performances, certainly the Port 2008 version till June is better (IMO) than the 2007 till June version of the Bays (if that makes sense )