SA Footy

LMA wrote:Was a good spectacle to watch as skills were generally top notch. No team structures/defence contributed to this which you wouldn't see in a normal game these days. Keep it as a charitable event every 3-4 years so it keeps its appeal.

Agree on the skills, but as far as passion and giving a flying **** who actually wins it’s not state of origin footy. Another compromised offering from Gill and crew at the AFL.

The game with good players relies less on defensive structures to accomodate average players.
Get rid of irrelevant franchises like Fremantle, Nth Melb, St Kilda, GWS, Port Ade, GC and the talent pool wouldn’t be spread as wide, meaning less coached structures and more skills.

Corona Man wrote:

LMA wrote:Was a good spectacle to watch as skills were generally top notch. No team structures/defence contributed to this which you wouldn't see in a normal game these days. Keep it as a charitable event every 3-4 years so it keeps its appeal.

Agree on the skills, but as far as passion and giving a flying **** who actually wins it’s not state of origin footy. Another compromised offering from Gill and crew at the AFL.

Yeah when there is only one side who can feel that state pride there's no point in calling it something it ain't. Unfortunately with probably 50% of draftees coming out of the TAC Cup a true SOO would be too lopsided these days. Was trying to think last night who, for SA, are genuine A graders for their positions and only come up with Grundy, Neale, Hurn and Laird.

helicopterking wrote:The game with good players relies less on defensive structures to accomodate average players.
Get rid of irrelevant franchises like Fremantle, Nth Melb, St Kilda, GWS, Port Ade, GC and the talent pool wouldn’t be spread as wide, meaning less coached structures and more skills.

That makes very little sense

LMA wrote:

Corona Man wrote:

LMA wrote:Was a good spectacle to watch as skills were generally top notch. No team structures/defence contributed to this which you wouldn't see in a normal game these days. Keep it as a charitable event every 3-4 years so it keeps its appeal.

Agree on the skills, but as far as passion and giving a flying **** who actually wins it’s not state of origin footy. Another compromised offering from Gill and crew at the AFL.

Yeah when there is only one side who can feel that state pride there's no point in calling it something it ain't. Unfortunately with probably 50% of draftees coming out of the TAC Cup a true SOO would be too lopsided these days. Was trying to think last night who, for SA, are genuine A graders for their positions and only come up with Grundy, Neale, Hurn and Laird.

If the AFL are going to bring back SOO then do it properly. Vic v SA, then Vic v WA play it every 2 years for whatever is the most deserving charity at the time. So Vics play every other year, SA & WA every 4 years. That way a player from SA or WA may only get 1, maybe 2 opportunities in their career to play SOO.... they’d jump at it!

Dangerfield trolling Walker with the Power stance is top notch trolling.

Booney wrote:Dangerfield trolling Walker with the Power stance is top notch trolling.

How did Dangerfield stand in all the GF he’s played in?

gadj1976 wrote:

helicopterking wrote:The game with good players relies less on defensive structures to accomodate average players.
Get rid of irrelevant franchises like Fremantle, Nth Melb, St Kilda, GWS, Port Ade, GC and the talent pool wouldn’t be spread as wide, meaning less coached structures and more skills.

That makes very little sense

Makes perfect sense
You of people should understand how teams with very average players rely on defensive structures to prevent having their lack of skills exposed and blown out the water by the good teams

Booney wrote:Dangerfield trolling Walker with the Power stance is top notch trolling.

Get the feeling Danger is a bloke that likes a chirp but isn't quite so keen when he cops a bit himself. He got more than a little salty when Hodge took the piss and asked him when he was going to pull his finger out during the match.

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:

Booney wrote:Dangerfield trolling Walker with the Power stance is top notch trolling.

Get the feeling Danger is a bloke that likes a chirp but isn't quite so keen when he cops a bit himself. He got more than a little salty when Hodge took the piss and asked him when he was going to pull his finger out during the match.

regards,

REB

Or the look on his face when all his Geelong teammates were getting interviewed before him. I see that look every night when I give my eldest dog a smacko before the 2yo pup.

gadj1976 wrote:

helicopterking wrote:The game with good players relies less on defensive structures to accomodate average players.
Get rid of irrelevant franchises like Fremantle, Nth Melb, St Kilda, GWS, Port Ade, GC and the talent pool wouldn’t be spread as wide, meaning less coached structures and more skills.

That makes very little sense

It’s a dumb post, regardless of the fact North were named.
Calling teams irrelevant is simply narrow minded.

Spargo wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:

helicopterking wrote:The game with good players relies less on defensive structures to accomodate average players.
Get rid of irrelevant franchises like Fremantle, Nth Melb, St Kilda, GWS, Port Ade, GC and the talent pool wouldn’t be spread as wide, meaning less coached structures and more skills.

That makes very little sense

It’s a dumb post, regardless of the fact North were named.
Calling teams irrelevant is simply narrow minded.

I wouldn’t use the term irrelevant but there is definitely 4-6 teams too many in the comp but because of the TV rights nothing will change and it may even expand more. The talent is already stretched far too thin across the comp

Jim05 wrote:

Spargo wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:

helicopterking wrote:The game with good players relies less on defensive structures to accomodate average players.
Get rid of irrelevant franchises like Fremantle, Nth Melb, St Kilda, GWS, Port Ade, GC and the talent pool wouldn’t be spread as wide, meaning less coached structures and more skills.

That makes very little sense

It’s a dumb post, regardless of the fact North were named.
Calling teams irrelevant is simply narrow minded.

I wouldn’t use the term irrelevant but there is definitely 4-6 teams too many in the comp but because of the TV rights nothing will change and it may even expand more. The talent is already stretched far too thin across the comp

People were saying this 20 years ago yet more & more teams were added.
And you’re right, they’re not getting rid of any teams. I reckon it’ll be a 20 team comp within 10 years.

Tassie and who? Couldn't see NT having a side.

LMA wrote:Tassie and who? Couldn't see NT having a side.

Already in talks for WA3.

Jim05 wrote:

LMA wrote:Tassie and who? Couldn't see NT having a side.

Already in talks for WA3.

Out of the WAFL or a new club? Norwood and Sturt could finally merge

Get rid of irrelevant franchises like Fremantle, Nth Melb, St Kilda, GWS, Port Ade, GC and the talent pool wouldn’t be spread as wide, meaning less coached structures and more skills.[/quote]

That makes very little sense[/quote]

It’s a dumb post, regardless of the fact North were named.
Calling teams irrelevant is simply narrow minded.[/quote]I wouldn’t use the term irrelevant but there is definitely 4-6 teams too many in the comp but because of the TV rights nothing will change and it may even expand more. The talent is already stretched far too thin across the comp[/quote]
People were saying this 20 years ago yet more & more teams were added.
And you’re right, they’re not getting rid of any teams. I reckon it’ll be a 20 team comp within 10 years.[/quote]

12 team Comp, play everyone Twice. No Pre season.
Talent isn’t spread as wide.
Better comp, better players, more Aggresive ball movement ,less Defensive structures needed=less coaches
Makes perfect sense.

helicopterking wrote:The game with good players relies less on defensive structures to accomodate average players.
Get rid of irrelevant franchises like Fremantle, Nth Melb, St Kilda, GWS, Port Ade, GC and the talent pool wouldn’t be spread as wide, meaning less coached structures and more skills.

Mr. Helicopter , what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

LMA wrote:

Jim05 wrote:

LMA wrote:Tassie and who? Couldn't see NT having a side.

Already in talks for WA3.

Out of the WAFL or a new club? Norwood and Sturt could finally merge

New club

LMA wrote:Tassie and who? Couldn't see NT having a side.

Combined Crows and Port reserves