JK wrote: Wouldn't a Sugar agree drink with Skittles defeat the purpose? Like a large Maccas meal with a diet coke
I know, I remember orchestrating a stocktake at work and I had to organise lunch, majority vote won, KFC it was.
Upon eating it this overweight chick says to me in a snarly voice while munging on a fatty piece of chicken "You didn't get any pepsi max".
I tried my best to answer civilly.
My favourite KFC story is, in the Elizabeth drive through, the rotund woman in front of me was made to park, obviously because she had a car full of feral kids and they had a big order.
I had a meal for one, being the bachelor I was at the time. As I drive past her with my meal, she's hanging out the window screaming, "How's this c**t got his food? Where's my f**kin' CHICKEN!"
Over seven years ago and I can still see her fugly face.
JK wrote: Wouldn't a Sugar agree drink with Skittles defeat the purpose? Like a large Maccas meal with a diet coke
I know, I remember orchestrating a stocktake at work and I had to organise lunch, majority vote won, KFC it was.
Upon eating it this overweight chick says to me in a snarly voice while munging on a fatty piece of chicken "You didn't get any pepsi max".
I tried my best to answer civilly.
Obese or not it's a valid question as Pepsi Max IS the ONLY drink compatible with KFC and you, in your role, appeared to be negligent.
Ok, I'm off ya.
First of all, Pepsi is shit to begin with. I can only drink it if its in an ice cold can. I even ask for cans when I get large meals. For some reason, KFC 600ml bottles are always room temp, straight out of the fridge.
Second of all, MAX, Diet, Zero, etc taste like arsehole. You can taste the cancer you're catching and the aftertaste is something I imagine would be comparable to what Mrs HH3 has to put up with when I get a pity BJ.
HH3 wrote: My favourite KFC story is, in the Elizabeth drive through, the rotund woman in front of me was made to park, obviously because she had a car full of feral kids and they had a big order.
I had a meal for one, being the bachelor I was at the time. As I drive past her with my meal, she's hanging out the window screaming, "How's this c**t got his food? Where's my f**kin' CHICKEN!"
Over seven years ago and I can still see her fugly face.
First of all, Pepsi is shit to begin with. I can only drink it if its in an ice cold can. I even ask for cans when I get large meals. For some reason, KFC 600ml bottles are always room temp, straight out of the fridge.
Second of all, MAX, Diet, Zero, etc taste like arsehole. You can taste the cancer you're catching and the aftertaste is something I imagine would be comparable to what Mrs HH3 has to put up with when I get a pity BJ.
I used to think the same, I converted to coke zero to go with my CC's, we don't normal coke now and if I do I can feel and taste the sugar I'm chucking down my gullet.
JK wrote: Wouldn't a Sugar agree drink with Skittles defeat the purpose? Like a large Maccas meal with a diet coke
I know, I remember orchestrating a stocktake at work and I had to organise lunch, majority vote won, KFC it was.
Upon eating it this overweight chick says to me in a snarly voice while munging on a fatty piece of chicken "You didn't get any pepsi max".
I tried my best to answer civilly.
My favourite KFC story is, in the Elizabeth drive through, the rotund woman in front of me was made to park, obviously because she had a car full of feral kids and they had a big order.
I had a meal for one, being the bachelor I was at the time. As I drive past her with my meal, she's hanging out the window screaming, "How's this c**t got his food? Where's my f**kin' CHICKEN!"
Over seven years ago and I can still see her fugly face.
daysofourlives wrote:Im a little confused. It all started when i started to read the Div 7 reserves genius's insights into structures and systems of an AFL club. I was left with the distinct impression that there is no way you can be successful without at least 2 key forwards. Small forwards who lock the ball in and provide tackling pressure are also not required. That guy put his point across very convincingly and i started to believe him. Then Richmond made the Grand Final. How does this happen? I guess the morrell of the story is dont believe everything you read on here or at the very least choose wisely who you get your intel from.
Except I never said that you don't need small forwards who provide tackling pressure. I just said Port had too many. One or two is perfect. We had 4 at times.
Yes, I am surprised Richmond have made the GF. I'll be even more surprised if they win it. Want and belief can make up for poor structures I suppose, I'd like both ideally. Getting Geelong at their home ground and a cooked GWS helps. As does having the best marking forward, the best midfielder and the best key defender.
But. If Adelaide play anywhere near their best they'll smoke them.
daysofourlives wrote:Im a little confused. It all started when i started to read the Div 7 reserves genius's insights into structures and systems of an AFL club. I was left with the distinct impression that there is no way you can be successful without at least 2 key forwards. Small forwards who lock the ball in and provide tackling pressure are also not required. That guy put his point across very convincingly and i started to believe him. Then Richmond made the Grand Final. How does this happen? I guess the morrell of the story is dont believe everything you read on here or at the very least choose wisely who you get your intel from.
Except I never said that you don't need small forwards who provide tackling pressure. I just said Port had too many. One or two is perfect. We had 4 at times.
Yes, I am surprised Richmond have made the GF. I'll be even more surprised if they win it. Want and belief can make up for poor structures I suppose, I'd like both ideally. Getting Geelong at their home ground and a cooked GWS helps. As does having the best marking forward, the best midfielder and the best key defender.
But. If Adelaide play anywhere near their best they'll smoke them.
You're saying Jack Reiwoldt is the games best marking forward then?
J McGovern 61 contested marks, Reiwoldt 21st with 34.
daysofourlives wrote:Im a little confused. It all started when i started to read the Div 7 reserves genius's insights into structures and systems of an AFL club. I was left with the distinct impression that there is no way you can be successful without at least 2 key forwards. Small forwards who lock the ball in and provide tackling pressure are also not required. That guy put his point across very convincingly and i started to believe him. Then Richmond made the Grand Final. How does this happen? I guess the morrell of the story is dont believe everything you read on here or at the very least choose wisely who you get your intel from.
Except I never said that you don't need small forwards who provide tackling pressure. I just said Port had too many. One or two is perfect. We had 4 at times.
Yes, I am surprised Richmond have made the GF. I'll be even more surprised if they win it. Want and belief can make up for poor structures I suppose, I'd like both ideally. Getting Geelong at their home ground and a cooked GWS helps. As does having the best marking forward, the best midfielder and the best key defender.
But. If Adelaide play anywhere near their best they'll smoke them.
You're saying Jack Reiwoldt is the games best marking forward then?
J McGovern 61 contested marks, Reiwoldt 21st with 34.
Docherty 199 marks total, Reiwoldt 33rd with 132.
He took the most marks inside 50 in the AFL. So he's up there at a minimum.
Yeah, they do go for him a lot, but they can, because he is an excellent aerialist and generally makes a contest.
Richmond have the best defender, the best midfielder and the best marking forward, complimented by a swarm of small pressure forwards = Grand Final bound.
Port have an agile and stingy backline, the best ruckman, one of the best utilities (Gray),, and one of the best marking forwards, complimented by a swarm of small pressure forwards = Poor structures.
Morell where am I going wrong here?!
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
morell wrote:[As does having the best marking forward
You don't rate Dixon?
I do, it would be between him and Jack as the "marking" key forward in the game. Kennedy as well be his more lead up than those two imo
So why does Richmond's setup work, and Port's does not?
As I said, they have the best goalkicking midfielder and the best CHB in the comp. That's what it takes to compensate for a poor structure - league leaders in other areas.
Plus Caddy, Rioli and Butler do provide a semblance goal kicking capability as well as pressure.
Still, all credit to them, they've compensated their forward line flaws really well and made the most of what they've got.
The Bedge wrote:Richmond have the best defender, the best midfielder and the best marking forward, complimented by a swarm of small pressure forwards = Grand Final bound.
Port have an agile and stingy backline, the best ruckman, one of the best utilities (Gray),, and one of the best marking forwards, complimented by a swarm of small pressure forwards = Poor structures.
Morell where am I going wrong here?!
Their pressure forwards are much better. Their defensive half is much better/experienced. Their midfield is a bit better.
They're a more cohesive team and their poor structures up forward doesn't become as big a problem as teams cannot go on scoring sprees against them.
Still, Freo made a GF with a shitty forward line. They got found out. I suspect Adelaide will do the same. Provided they turn up.
Last edited by morell on Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
