SA Footy

Mic wrote:

cennals05 wrote:After quarter time it was some of the best football Centrals have played over the last couple of years. I thought Thomas, Williams and Goodrem were all great. Potter's clearance work was good and the run of Nason was a huge factor in the win.

Great to see some of the reserves players step up and play well. It was one of those games where everyone played their role.

I thought Norwood look tired and out of legs (pardon the pun) by the end of the second quarter.

Kris Grant let his feelings known about the AFL reserves teams at the presentations afterwards.

What did he say?

He called the Crows a few derogatory names. Then said the game is the another word for a homosexual v the team that voted NO. Roy said a couple of things as well.

I enjoyed Saturday's game for obvious reasons. I picked the margin, just the wrong winner.

But, it was a strange feeling at the ground - which was nowhere as full and as vocal as usual for Centrals v Norwood game.
I saw car parks just outside of the ground and know of someone who was 10 minutes late and was able to park just outside the gates. In all of my time attending Doggies games, I've never ever seen that.
Was it the time slot? Was it the live-against-the gate factor? Was it low expectations on behalf of Dogs supporters? Was it the SANFL/AFL reserves debate?
And where were the usually strong contingent of Redlegs supporters?
Whatever it was, that was the most disappointing crowd I've seen at a Doggies game for a long time.

Great win by the Dogs. I got there late, just in time to see a Redleg carried off on the stretcher, so missed the bad parts from the Dogs' perspective.

Best win I've seen for several seasons now.
Loved the run of our blokes - fitness was talked up pre-season so it was good to see some of that coming to the fore.
The tackling and aggression was outstanding. We often had two to three taking on one player in the contests.
Nason played the best game I've seen him play for us, while the veterans (Goodrem, Thomas and Williams) led the way.
Barmby's bump on Flipper was right in front of where I was standing and looked fair to me in 'real time', I thought he might have hit his head on the ground. The contact looked shoulder to chest to me - a solid bump. But...I haven't seen a replay (and we know how different things look on replay).
Strangely, I heard mutterings and the occasional yell from Norwood supporters about Ian Callinan following that bump.

The last quarter was beautiful, gut running and we had Norwood well and truly on the ropes. I saw players with their heads down and hands on knees a handful of times in the final term. Not a good sign for the Legs.

And...I'll have to stand up a little for Brady Dawes. I think his intention was to shepherd the ball through but it didn't run end over end as it should and bounced up back towards him and hit him in the chest. The soccer kick only came after the ball hits his chest. If anything, he may have been guilty of getting too close to the ball in the shepherd - but it was an unpredictable bounce. Still, it was very funny and foreshadowed what was to come.

cennals05 wrote: Then said the game is the another word for a homosexual v the team that voted NO.

Huh?

Dogwatcher wrote:

cennals05 wrote: Then said the game is the another word for a homosexual v the team that voted NO.

Huh?

I'm not sure I can say what he actually said without getting banned.

cennals05 wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:

cennals05 wrote: Then said the game is the another word for a homosexual v the team that voted NO.

Huh?

I'm not sure I can say what he actually said without getting banned.

Stay classy Centrals management

heater31 wrote:

cennals05 wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:

cennals05 wrote: Then said the game is the another word for a homosexual v the team that voted NO.

Huh?

I'm not sure I can say what he actually said without getting banned.

Stay classy Centrals management

Sorry that we didn't bend over like your club.

heater31 wrote:

cennals05 wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:

cennals05 wrote: Then said the game is the another word for a homosexual v the team that voted NO.

Huh?

I'm not sure I can say what he actually said without getting banned.

Stay classy Centrals management

Yes, I wish we were more like your club with all those principles and standards.

Making derogatory comments in a public forum about a decision that went against your beliefs is just as wrong as the ones that voted for the proposal that was morally corrupt....

Dogwatcher wrote:

cennals05 wrote: Then said the game is the another word for a homosexual v the team that voted NO.

Huh?

So Grant referred to Norwood as "poofters" or "fags" is what I make of that. Yes cennals?

my god you guys are idiots sometimes. surely the reserves debate cant permeate every single thread on this forum can it?

was at home watching it on TV, but i certainly enjoyed the game. centrals just seemed to be able to link up a lot better, their ball movement and pressure was first class.

from a couch potato's point of view, it was great to have a triple header of footy on channel 7. they made the right decision in terms of broadcasts to start the game earlier so it did not clash with the power game, but messing with the timeslots too much might not be a good thing, especially for crowds, as others have mentioned.

was great to see SANFL get prominence on Ch7 though.

Central dominated us from Qtr time. Their ball movement and team work was outstanding. Well deserved.
Very disappointed with the 10 or so in the Dogs cheer squad at the Northern end of the ground.
Doesn't matter if its an opposition player or not. Don't yell "get up princess" plus other shit when a player is almost knocked out surrounded by medical staff. You're an embarrassment to your club

tazz wrote:Central dominated us from Qtr time. Their ball movement and team work was outstanding. Well deserved.
Very disappointed with the 10 or so in the Dogs cheer squad at the Northern end of the ground.
Doesn't matter if its an opposition player or not. Don't yell "get up princess" plus other shit when a player is almost knocked out surrounded by medical staff. You're an embarrassment to your club

Calling them the cheer squads is kind, there known by most on the northern hill as the quads!!

heater31 wrote:Making derogatory comments in a public forum about a decision that went against your beliefs is just as wrong as the ones that voted for the proposal that was morally corrupt....

Well, let's see. Public name calling versus moral corruption. Hmmm...

Yep, I can see how one might have trouble separating those two concepts.

Booney wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:

cennals05 wrote: Then said the game is the another word for a homosexual v the team that voted NO.

Huh?

So Grant referred to Norwood as "poofters" or "fags" is what I make of that. Yes cennals?

Not Norwood but Adelaide.

Crowd was 1,959.

Awful.

Gozu wrote:Crowd was 1,959.

TV broadcast at that time arguably cost 1100-1600 people by previous attendances

whufc wrote:

Gozu wrote:Crowd was 1,959.

TV broadcast at that time arguably cost 1100-1600 people by previous attendances

what is an acceptable number, given the assumption that they got close to the record TV ratings? how many TV fans equal a fan at the ground?

serious question, because obviously low crowds are a big problem, but if it is traded off against increased exposure, it may still be beneficial.

the early start time would have hurt a lot i would have thought. particularly with young kids finishing footy and then going down to the game, which is what i always used to do when i was that age.

bennymacca wrote:

whufc wrote:

Gozu wrote:Crowd was 1,959.

TV broadcast at that time arguably cost 1100-1600 people by previous attendances

what is an acceptable number, given the assumption that they got close to the record TV ratings? how many TV fans equal a fan at the ground?

serious question, because obviously low crowds are a big problem, but if it is traded off against increased exposure, it may still be beneficial.

the early start time would have hurt a lot i would have thought. particularly with young kids finishing footy and then going down to the game, which is what i always used to do when i was that age.

Low crowds are definately a worry, especially to clubs that make a fair bit off meals etc during the day. I would think Centrals would of made a loss on the weekend. Grand Central is normally full of people having a meal and drink. Would think bar and canteen sales would of been only half of normal

in the future though, if they are guaranteed increased exposure through the game being televised on commercial TV, increased sponsorship opportunities would offset or maybe even eclipse the downturn in people turning up. just not sure what that number is.