SA Footy

Thought SPP was huge on Sat night, if you had more of his determination and will for the contest across the group you would have won. Johnson looked out of his depth and I noticed in the North game Ryder was struggling to cover the ground, is his career coming to rapid close? Maybe why they went so hard at Lycett?

Dutchy wrote:Thought SPP was huge on Sat night, if you had more of his determination and will for the contest across the group you would have won. Johnson looked out of his depth and I noticed in the North game Ryder was struggling to cover the ground, is his career coming to rapid close? Maybe why they went so hard at Lycett?

SPP tackles poorly and I think struggles to know where the ball is going to be, I love his endeavour and the feeling of "something's gonna happen" when he's around it but for an on-baller I don't think he gets it enough.

Couldn't agree with you more about Johnson, whether it was because it was his first game for the year or just plain not up to it, he panicked with it, the kick into the man on the mark when Westhoff had half an oval to himself was very poor and costly.

I have no concerns with Ryder, he didn't ruck full time at Essendon and I'm more than happy to have Lycett do 70%+ of the rucking and have Paddy roaming around the forward half of the ground, Westhoff and Marshall cannot be in our first two two tall targets, neither have the body for it.

Give me SPP's (19 possessions) over Rockliff's (41) any day.

Dutchy wrote:Give me SPP's (19 possessions) over Rockliff's (41) any day.

I'd hardly say SPP's are silky.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Give me SPP's (19 possessions) over Rockliff's (41) any day.

I'd hardly say SPP's are silky.

Sorry I didn't qualify it well, I mean his overall game, there is lot more to his game than 19 possessions and a lot less for Rockliff's 41

Dutchy wrote:Give me SPP's (19 possessions) over Rockliff's (41) any day.

SPP was terrible

Agree that rocky didn't really affect the game either though.

Give me Sloane's 26 touches instead [emoji3590]

Dutchy wrote:Sorry I didn't qualify it well, I mean his overall game, there is lot more to his game than 19 possessions and a lot less for Rockliff's 41

I don't think we need Broadbent and SPP out there, it was distorting my perception.

I'm probably dirty as I needed SPP to get 20 disposals for a multi.

Had a 15 legger in the St.K vs WCE one, if WCE kicked 1 more goal they would've got over the 162.5 and into the 20-39 bracket and I would've been $465 for my $5 bet, got all the disposal and goal scorers over the line.

bennymacca wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Give me SPP's (19 possessions) over Rockliff's (41) any day.

SPP was terrible

Agree that rocky didn't really affect the game either though.

Give me Sloane's 26 touches instead [emoji3590]

Warm under the bridge mate?

Absolutely, the cream rises to the top when it matters, he was BOG for mine.

Had to laugh, when he took the mark in the last, Dwayne Russell "Oh, there's mark of the night" it was ok, but hardly anything special.

5 minutes later Greenwood takes one "There's mark of the night"

He's a bit of a dopey prick, Greenwood's was a great grab though.

bennymacca wrote:

Dutchy wrote:Give me SPP's (19 possessions) over Rockliff's (41) any day.

SPP was terrible

Agree that rocky didn't really affect the game either though.

Give me Sloane's 26 touches instead [emoji3590]

I'm sure you watched the Port midfield closely.

Johnson was terrible, Marshall was terrible, SPP was not.

Dutchy wrote:Thought SPP was huge on Sat night, if you had more of his determination and will for the contest across the group you would have won. Johnson looked out of his depth and I noticed in the North game Ryder was struggling to cover the ground, is his career coming to rapid close? Maybe why they went so hard at Lycett?

No mate, he was terrible.

Yes, I think Father Time has snuck up behind Ryder without him noticing.

SPP was best for us, perhaps a low bar but so be it.
The thing I noticed more about Ryder wasn't so much his inability to cover the ground, but rather how much he fumbled.
His inability to take a mark at the moment might be a mixture of both, either not getting to the contest or dropping it once he does.

What a bunch of bitches

119 points

Sheesh!! Wedgie has some stiff competition.

For those of you who haven't been playing along with this game as long as yours truly, UK was once banned for having a crack at Veronica ( Von ) Williams, the late wife of Fos and mother to Jenny, Mark, Stephen and the late Anthony.

Booney wrote:For those of you who haven't been playing along with this game as long as yours truly, UK was once banned for having a crack at Veronica ( Von ) Williams, the late wife of Fos and mother to Jenny, Mark, Stephen and the late Anthony.

What does having a crack constitute.?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Lightning McQueen wrote:Sheesh!! Wedgie has some stiff competition.

:

Told ya they were zingers!

Jase wrote:

Booney wrote:For those of you who haven't been playing along with this game as long as yours truly, UK was once banned for having a crack at Veronica ( Von ) Williams, the late wife of Fos and mother to Jenny, Mark, Stephen and the late Anthony.

What does having a crack constitute.?

It was a long time ago and it was deleted at the time, I can't recall the exact context, but it was a disparaging remark.

mots02 wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:Sheesh!! Wedgie has some stiff competition.

:

Told ya they were zingers!

If that was the best my kid could come up with I'd slap them.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

mots02 wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:Sheesh!! Wedgie has some stiff competition.

:

Told ya they were zingers!

If that was the best my kid could come up with I'd slap them.

It got the better of me so I had a look. He knows the AFLW crowd got in for free, you'd imagine so, wouldn't you?