SA Footy

Posted: **Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:22 pm**

johntheclaret wrote:Final Glenelg Oval

Central District 10-11-71 def Glenelg 4-14-38

Goals
Centrals: McKenzie 2, Butcher, D Fort, F Fort, Hanna, Hoskin, Jenner, O’Gorman, T Schiller
Glenelg: Scott 2, Hosie, Motlop

Disposals
Centrals: T Schiller 29, Hoskin 23
Glenelg: Schott 32, Chalmers 26, Nicholson 25, Amato 24, Scharenberg 23, Curran 22, Sawford 21

Stats
Disposals CD 291, Gl 395
Marks CD 77, Gl 129
Tackles CD 57, Gl 47
Inside 50’s CD 51, Gl 32
Rebound 50’s CD 28 Gl 40

Hasd anybody been so comprehensively beaten despite having 100 more possessions and 50 more marks EVER? and 32 I50s from 400 poss?

Posted: **Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:29 pm**

daysofourlives wrote:
johntheclaret wrote:Final Glenelg Oval

Central District 10-11-71 def Glenelg 4-14-38

Goals
Centrals: McKenzie 2, Butcher, D Fort, F Fort, Hanna, Hoskin, Jenner, O’Gorman, T Schiller
Glenelg: Scott 2, Hosie, Motlop

Disposals
Centrals: T Schiller 29, Hoskin 23
Glenelg: Schott 32, Chalmers 26, Nicholson 25, Amato 24, Scharenberg 23, Curran 22, Sawford 21

Stats
Disposals CD 291, Gl 395
Marks CD 77, Gl 129
Tackles CD 57, Gl 47
Inside 50’s CD 51, Gl 32
Rebound 50’s CD 28 Gl 40

Hasd anybody been so comprehensively beaten despite having 100 more possessions and 50 more marks EVER? and 32 I50s from 400 poss?

I was wondering the same when typing them up

Posted: **Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:31 pm**

daysofourlives wrote:
johntheclaret wrote:Final Glenelg Oval

Central District 10-11-71 def Glenelg 4-14-38

Goals
Centrals: McKenzie 2, Butcher, D Fort, F Fort, Hanna, Hoskin, Jenner, O’Gorman, T Schiller
Glenelg: Scott 2, Hosie, Motlop

Disposals
Centrals: T Schiller 29, Hoskin 23
Glenelg: Schott 32, Chalmers 26, Nicholson 25, Amato 24, Scharenberg 23, Curran 22, Sawford 21

Stats
Disposals CD 291, Gl 395
Marks CD 77, Gl 129
Tackles CD 57, Gl 47
Inside 50’s CD 51, Gl 32
Rebound 50’s CD 28 Gl 40

Hasd anybody been so comprehensively beaten despite having 100 more possessions and 50 more marks EVER? and 32 I50s from 400 poss?

It was comical. Junior colts like skills in the first half.

Posted: **Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:17 pm**

I remember, around about this time last year, the Bays best us quite convincingly and looked a million dollars.

Posted: **Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:23 pm**

therisingblues wrote:I remember, around about this time last year, the Bays best us quite convincingly and looked a million dollars.

A fortnight ago they looked pretty good against Norwood.
New coach, new game plan will take time. Key personnel out yesterday but our skills were deplorable.

Posted: **Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:45 pm**

Sack Lokan

Posted: **Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:21 pm**

Spargo wrote:
therisingblues wrote:I remember, around about this time last year, the Bays best us quite convincingly and looked a million dollars.

A fortnight ago they looked pretty good against Norwood.
New coach, new game plan will take time. Key personnel out yesterday but our skills were deplorable.

When they are on they do look good

Just makes me wonder who will lift the spoon this year. Adelaide Reserves must be favorites but looking at the real sanfl clubs I’d say South look most vulnerable. North have picked up big style, Westies are much better than that hammering suggests and the have some decent players to come back yet, Webb, Beech, Porps.

You’d think Norwood have a bit too much in the tank to be worried but they are 2 & 3 and the two were South and a very weak Adelaide Reserves. Bays have a new coach and a new game plan, looked unlucky against Port Reserves and good against Norwood so might surprise a few this year.

Posted: **Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:44 pm**

Had a giggle at the budget today, was an interview with Marlon Motion who said he left North to play at Glenelg as the Bays are an attacking team and North are defensively minded. Nek Minnit. :lol:

Posted: **Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:06 pm**

Dogs seem pretty predictable again this year! Best is good, worst is horrible!!

Finish 4th-5th, win one final and then get knocked out

Posted: **Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:12 pm**

whufc wrote:Dogs seem pretty predictable again this year! Best is good, worst is horrible!!

Finish 4th-5th, win one final and then get knocked out

If that’s your best yesterday, you’re not playing finals.

Posted: **Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:28 pm**

West V South had a bigger crowd at their last game.

Posted: **Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:24 am**

What happened after half-time?
Another back half slow down from us.

Posted: **Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:24 am**

our first half was woeful, 2nd half a bit better, made an ordinary dog side look good as all they had to do was sit back and wait for our boys to turn it over with some shocking decision making

Posted: **Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:21 pm**

Great preparation from the Dogs hierarchy. Had a good look at the Bays in a trial game and came up with a mix of zones and pressure on the ball carrier to strangle the Bays strategies on a small deck. The most illuminating stat was Centrals had 51 Inside 50s from 291 .... one in 6 possessions. The bays had 32 Inside 50s in 395 at 1 in 12 possessions.
A win for the coaching staff.

Posted: **Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:37 pm**

Northerner, what do you make of our second half?

I'm really curious, as they outscored us and our second halves haven't been great.

Posted: **Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:21 pm**

Spargo wrote:
whufc wrote:Dogs seem pretty predictable again this year! Best is good, worst is horrible!!

Finish 4th-5th, win one final and then get knocked out

If that’s your best yesterday, you’re not playing finals.

I don't know I wasn't there but our results this year have seen us beat the top side and lose to the 8th so once again it appears we are very inconsistent

Posted: **Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:21 pm**

Dogwatcher wrote:Northerner, what do you make of our second half?

I'm really curious, as they outscored us and our second halves haven't been great.

Glenelg took the game on, showed some intent and kicked the ball forward quickly. We went flat and watched the world go by again but wrestled back some of the initiative then the game became a bit of a stalemate. As a couple of the Bays lads have said, their insipid first half made us look better than we actually are at the moment. There are some promising signs but we need to be better at shutting the game down when things aren't going our way.

Posted: **Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:07 pm**

Dogwatcher wrote:Northerner, what do you make of our second half?

I'm really curious, as they outscored us and our second halves haven't been great.

I thought the pressure dogs applied in the first half was going to be very tough to match in the second.

Our first half was incredible and if not for kicking against a massive breeze in the first quarter we would of been 10-12 goals up at the half.

As for the second half. Whether we mentally got complacent or physically got tired I’m not sure yet.

Certainly think the dogs will play finals.

Two wins better than last year already

Posted: **Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:23 pm**

goddy11 wrote:Its early season but how do you Bay supporters rate the playing style. Last week against the Eagles, Glenelg looks to have a lot of talent but I saw no real pressure being put on. The bays try to play an on style that left them exposed. I am all for local coaches in the SANFL. The most successful over a long time have come through our system and have done a bit of an apprenticeship.

Considering Div 7 Ammo clubs all had their coaches in place when we were still looking for ours its going to take time.

Posted: **Tue May 01, 2018 12:41 am**

Dutchy wrote:
goddy11 wrote:Its early season but how do you Bay supporters rate the playing style. Last week against the Eagles, Glenelg looks to have a lot of talent but I saw no real pressure being put on. The bays try to play an on style that left them exposed. I am all for local coaches in the SANFL. The most successful over a long time have come through our system and have done a bit of an apprenticeship.

Considering Div 7 Ammo clubs all had their coaches in place when we were still looking for ours its going to take time.

SA Footy

Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central

Re: Rd 5 Glenelg v Central