SA Footy

Final Score
Glenelg 13.8.86
Port 11.11.77

Goal Kickers
Glenelg: Kirkby 4, Tenace 3, Ruwoldt 2, Kirk 1, T.Grima 1, A.Grima 1, Meyer 1
Port: Rose 3, Cloke 2, Johncock 2, Dolling 1, Watson 1, Thurgood 1, Biacsi 1

Best Players
Glenelg: Allen, C.Kane, Mules, Tenace, Mills, R.Kirkby
Port: Johncock, Thurgood, Rose, Carr, Biacsi, Clayton

QXQ
Glenelg: 2.5 | 7.7 | 12.7 | 13.8.86
Port: 2.0 | 4.2 | 8.3 | 11.11.77

Reserves
Glenelg: 9.13.67
Port:12.8.80

U/18's
Glenelg: 3.8.26
Port: 13.23.101

Another close loss once again, how many has it been this year & what if?

From all reports the Bays should've won by plenty

NO-MERCY wrote:Another close loss once again, how many has it been this year & what if?

same as last year & the year before, if I remember correctly.

port were brave as per usual & gave it a big crack, however glenelg responded to the challenges throughout the game, i thought tenace & kirkby (early) were outstanding with bode, allen, ruwoldt & sellar all good while port is was the usual suspects clayton, rose (early), cloke & there was this young bloke who was outstanding especially when shifted onto the ball & he wore number 7, HE WILL BE A GREAT PLAYER

the port player (ruckman) in the reserves wearing number 6 impressed me & with some weight added on over the summer will be a valuable assett to them for many years

in the reserves port won 12.8.80 to glg 9.13.67 in an entertaining encounter

ps, happy 140th port

port never looked likely, the end result flattered them, they fight hard and never give in, some undisciplined acts cost them in the first half, glenelg did what they had to do to win GO THE BAYS!!!!!!

Well if the 140th birthday weekend has proven anything the Port Magpies are the real PAFC. The ACN might have gone to the AEL (Australian Entertainment League) but the weekend proved which of the two Ports adheres to the creed and follows the long Port tradition of always haveing a crack.

We didn't play too well I thought just did enough to win and the bye next week is handy.

entertaining game tennace our best
port never gave up but never going to win

bayman wrote:ps, happy 140th port

Not sure I'd entirely agree Port were "never going to win". A few poor skill decisions and a few inexplicable lapses in discipline from Graham Johncock didn't help them (two 25's in quick succession, plus some unnecessary physical stuff - which was a shame as his skills were outstanding at times). Matthew Rose started with two quick goals but faded a little in attack before a good finish. Some of Thurgood's contested marking was special to watch. In tricky conditions, he took nearly every mark as a decisive "one grab" against more than one opponent at times. Their last quarter was a mixture of great attack and a couple of odd tactical decisions. Twice, they had chances to go into attack from the edge of the square, but bombed long to a forward 50 that had nobody in it from either team. As AM Bays said, we certainly saw the spirit of the Magpies today and they shouldn't be too disappointed.

Tenace was brilliant for much of the day, thought that Danny Meyer's class stood out for a lot of the day also, as well as a great mark on the outer side. Allen also very influential in the conditions and the ruck battle between Cranston and Miekeljohn was very entertaining all day. Ultimately, the class factor got Glenelg home, but they had some moments when Port really threatened to surge at them before the Tigers steadied at the right times.

Bayman - that (no. 6) was former Hawthorn big man, Tim Walsh in the reserves and agreed, he was brilliant all day for the Magpies. Jumped all over the Bays rucks and took some really good grabs.

magpie in the 80's wrote: Graham Johncock 2,

... both of which were pure opportunism; lucky to be behind the pack when the ball sailed over it. In fact not even lucky, since he was only in that location due to a sheer lack of ability to run more than 20 metres without doubling over in a stitch. No wonder they call him "stiffy"; he runs as fast as a corpse in which rigor mortis has set.

Pseudo wrote:

magpie in the 80's wrote: Graham Johncock 2,

... both of which were pure opportunism; lucky to be behind the pack when the ball sailed over it. In fact not even lucky, since he was only in that location due to a sheer lack of ability to run more than 20 metres without doubling over in a stitch. No wonder they call him "stiffy"; he runs as fast as a corpse in which rigor mortis has set.

bit harsh i thought he was very good for port today & a good player does get to the right position most time psuedo

CK wrote:Not sure I'd entirely agree Port were "never going to win". A few poor skill decisions and a few inexplicable lapses in discipline from Graham Johncock didn't help them (two 25's in quick succession, plus some unnecessary physical stuff - which was a shame as his skills were outstanding at times). Matthew Rose started with two quick goals but faded a little in attack before a good finish. Their last quarter was a mixture of great attack and a couple of odd tactical decisions. Twice, they had chances to go into attack from the edge of the square, but bombed long to a forward 50 that had nobody in it from either team.

Tenace was brilliant for much of the day, thought that Danny Meyer's class stood out for a lot of the day also, as well as a great mark on the outer side. Allen also very influential in the conditions and the ruck battle between Cranston and Miekeljohn was very entertaining all day. Ultimately, the class factor got Glenelg home, but they had some moments when Port really threatened to surge at them before the Tigers steadied at the right times.

The skills errors lapses could be argued agaisnt Glenelg too CK, some of our skills and decision making in the first and last quarters gifted Port some of their goals. When we respected the first give and or kicked the ball in long to our forwards we were a much better side.

bayman wrote:port were brave as per usual & gave it a big crack, however glenelg responded to the challenges throughout the game, i thought tenace & kirkby (early) were outstanding with bode, allen, ruwoldt & sellar all good while port is was the usual suspects clayton, rose (early), cloke & there was this young bloke who was outstanding especially when shifted onto the ball & he wore number 7, HE WILL BE A GREAT PLAYER

the port player (ruckman) in the reserves wearing number 6 impressed me & with some weight added on over the summer will be a valuable assett to them for many years

in the reserves port won 12.8.80 to glg 9.13.67 in an entertaining encounter

Bayman, why didnt you buy a budget, then you would know who the opposition players are you are talking about, or is it just because you know your own team the rest dont matter.

am Bays wrote:

CK wrote:Not sure I'd entirely agree Port were "never going to win". A few poor skill decisions and a few inexplicable lapses in discipline from Graham Johncock didn't help them (two 25's in quick succession, plus some unnecessary physical stuff - which was a shame as his skills were outstanding at times). Matthew Rose started with two quick goals but faded a little in attack before a good finish. Their last quarter was a mixture of great attack and a couple of odd tactical decisions. Twice, they had chances to go into attack from the edge of the square, but bombed long to a forward 50 that had nobody in it from either team.

Tenace was brilliant for much of the day, thought that Danny Meyer's class stood out for a lot of the day also, as well as a great mark on the outer side. Allen also very influential in the conditions and the ruck battle between Cranston and Miekeljohn was very entertaining all day. Ultimately, the class factor got Glenelg home, but they had some moments when Port really threatened to surge at them before the Tigers steadied at the right times.

The skills errors lapses could be argued agaisnt Glenelg too CK, some of our skills and decision making in the first and last quarters gifted Port some of their goals. When we respected the first give and or kicked the ball in long to our forwards we were a much better side.

I actually didn't think Glenelg's skills were too bad on the day. There weren't many passages of play (apart from one in the last term that was a comedy of clangers from both teams for about two minutes, back and forth to each other in packs) were Glenelg really coughed it up. Certainly there were times when errors were made that didn't help them and agreed, when the ball went long into attack, it looked a lot better. Part of this was Port putting numbers behind the ball and clogging the Glenelg 50, though.

airlines, they were never ever going to win that game , easy in the wash up i know

For those who were at the game, did Port show enough promise against Glenelg to potentially get a win next week at (Alberton) against the Eagles?

Squawk wrote:For those who were at the game, did Port show enough promise against Glenelg to potentially get a win next week at (Alberton) against the Eagles?

For sure.

Squawk wrote:For those who were at the game, did Port show enough promise against Glenelg to potentially get a win next week at (Alberton) against the Eagles?

Yes.