SA Footy

West Adelaide 11.11 77
Port Adelaide Magpies 9.8 62

Ordinary game of footy in greasy cold conditions. Port were "fired up" from the start whereas Westies looked very flat. Couldn't name our best player, maybe Schmidt, Bricknell or MacCreadie. Being 6-1 is good but not playing anywhere near our best. Other than booing the umpire, not atmosphere at all


Three umpires were total muppets who gave free kicks for no reason then didn't pay them when they were obvious. They tried their best to ruin the game

Looks like "The Future" had another steller game
Listened a bit on the radio, sounded like Port were getting a very good run with the umps.
A lot closer result than I expected

Jim05 wrote:Looks like "The Future" had another steller game

Didn't Port sign him to a long term big money contract?

Jim05 wrote:Looks like "The Future" had another steller game
Listened a bit on the radio, sounded like Port were getting a very good run with the umps.
A lot closer result than I expected

And to think there is a poster on here who thinks 'the future' is just a tad out of luck at the moment.

topsywaldron wrote:

Jim05 wrote:Looks like "The Future" had another steller game

Didn't Port sign him to a long term big money contract?

Plus taking up another spot on their list and salary to bring his brother here to keep him happy.

I blame the SANFL!

Crowd at City Mazda Stadium tonight - 2,665

Great story with Simon Dean back playing League footy, 9 years apart. Was down in the rooms post game and he was a popular lad !!! Andy Collins mentioned to me about his effort late in the last term typifying the player he is...

Very confusing and no doubt frustrating umpiring this evening. Not a lot of consistency from the men in white.

Is there any way we could bash both West and Port in this thread?

topsywaldron wrote:Is there any way we could bash both West and Port in this thread?

Nah as much as id love to
West got the job done, may not have been convincing but its another win on the board and further cements their spot near the top. Sign of a good side that can win whilst not playing at their best.
Crowd seemed a tad disappointing, I know you dont get the full effects listening on radio but it seemed a very dull atmosphere, wasnt a lot of cheering for goals

topsywaldron wrote:Is there any way we could bash both West and Port in this thread?

Certainly:

A crowd figure of 2665 suggests that both Port and West play unattractive football, and that neither club has more than a handful of supporters who attend every game.

I think night games should have ended a fortnight ago - Would have been a bigger crowd on a Saturday this time of year. Same for last game against the Bays. Nearly all Westies supporters at that game too - not many Glenelg fans came out that night.

Jim05 wrote:West got the job done, may not have been convincing but its another win on the board and further cements their spot near the top.

Near the top?
I thought West were on top?

Pseudo wrote:

topsywaldron wrote:Is there any way we could bash both West and Port in this thread?

Certainly:

A crowd figure of 2665 suggests that both Port and West play unattractive football, and that neither club has more than a handful of supporters who attend every game.

It's getting to the period in the season when night crowds start dwindling, it's too cold for parents to take young kids to the game

[quote="Jim05Crowd seemed a tad disappointing, I know you dont get the full effects listening on radio but it seemed a very dull atmosphere, wasnt a lot of cheering for goals[/quote]
Must have been the radio living "next door" to Richmond oval . I could clearly hear the fence being banged and even hear the port people cheering for port!!

What I'd like to know did Port play that shocking footy like they played at Woodville oval. You know kicking the ball back and across and back again!!

They did. They were actually quite good I thought. They also were attempting to play the same way as Norwood and North with the immediate body pressure as soon as we got the ball. They were unable to do it for the whole game hence why we were able to get a couple of run ons in the 2nd and 3rd quarter.

Macreadie was best again I thought and would almost be leading the Magarey. Thought Schmidt was next best after a slow start and Bricknell and Ferguson were also good.

Umpiring....... Well that was poor. Pleas retire Tony Dey. You have ruined enough games.

Mickyj wrote:What I'd like to know did Port play that shocking footy like they played at Woodville oval. You know kicking the ball back and across and back again!!

Anyone would think their coach was ex-Glenelg.....

[quote="Brodlach"]Ordinary game of footy in greasy conditions.
.

Unattractive enough to beat your team of muppets by 50 points the previous round!!

Pseudo wrote:

topsywaldron wrote:Is there any way we could bash both West and Port in this thread?

Certainly:

A crowd figure of 2665 suggests that both Port and West play unattractive football, and that neither club has more than a handful of supporters who attend every game.

Their was only 2000 Port supporters there Friday night, that was disappointing!!!

NO-MERCY wrote:Their was only 2000 Port supporters there Friday night, that was disappointing!!!

I think it was the smallest number of Port supporters I have seen at one of their games