dedja wrote:Dutchy wrote:We talking 1991?![]()
Steve Sims ... all class.
typical North.
by CENTURION » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:17 am
dedja wrote:Dutchy wrote:We talking 1991?![]()
Steve Sims ... all class.
by DOC » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:19 am
CENTURION wrote:DOC wrote:But not many others . Weak as urine.
sorry but We'll stick to the important things......like trying to win Premierships in The SANFL, after all, isn't that what it's all about?
by DOC » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:25 am
by mr o » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:30 am
by CENTURION » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:32 am
mr o wrote:I thought i would never say this in my life time, but i have to agree with graham cornes collem in the advertiser today.Lets go back to when we didnt have the bye and we were playing escort cup preseason, thats how it is meant to be people, remember, the bye is there because of two sides merging, not because we whant it there.For some of the top sides this week to come out and say that they need the bye to rest their players in the quest for a premiship at the end of the season is laughable.Are these top sides that are in our comp saying , they are not as strong as teams from twenty and thirty years ago because they need the bye to rest up there players, i hope not.In the words of graham cornes in this weeks saturday advertiser, HARDEN THE #UCK UP.
by CENTURION » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:42 am
by auto » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:57 am
by CENTURION » Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:00 am
automaticwicky wrote:Agree...weak as piss Central, Norwood etc etc.
by Hopeful Jelly » Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:17 am
mr o wrote:I thought i would never say this in my life time, but i have to agree with graham cornes collem in the advertiser today.Lets go back to when we didnt have the bye and we were playing escort cup preseason, thats how it is meant to be people, remember, the bye is there because of two sides merging, not because we whant it there.For some of the top sides this week to come out and say that they need the bye to rest their players in the quest for a premiship at the end of the season is laughable.Are these top sides that are in our comp saying , they are not as strong as teams from twenty and thirty years ago because they need the bye to rest up there players, i hope not.In the words of graham cornes in this weeks saturday advertiser, HARDEN THE #UCK UP.
by DOC » Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:22 am
Jim05 wrote:Yep trying to wrestle the title from the dogs is a much bigger priority than playing a bunch of scrubbers.
Our u18's would wipe the floor with half the sides in this comp.
by Hopeful Jelly » Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:32 am
PhilH wrote:Hi Jas
I could be wrong ... but hard to see logistically how the SANFL can finalise a schedule until it knows when North Port & West need their byes to play in the champions league.
There was already a reported draft schedule issued that allocated games with the AFL Matches. Replace Central with Port to give them that Magpies / Power doubleheader v Ainslie.
Then send West to Sydney, North to Brisbane or vice versa ..... then let us get on with our league schedules.
by EasyE » Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:46 am
Hopeful Jelly wrote:His argument is very much based in the 1980's when things were different ... shown by his reference to WWT as Woodville.
by ORDoubleBlues » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:04 pm
by mr o » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:04 pm
by once_were_warriors » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:25 pm
mr o wrote:I thought i would never say this in my life time, but i have to agree with graham cornes collem in the advertiser today.Lets go back to when we didnt have the bye and we were playing escort cup preseason, thats how it is meant to be people, remember, the bye is there because of two sides merging, not because we whant it there.For some of the top sides this week to come out and say that they need the bye to rest their players in the quest for a premiship at the end of the season is laughable.Are these top sides that are in our comp saying , they are not as strong as teams from twenty and thirty years ago because they need the bye to rest up there players, i hope not.In the words of graham cornes in this weeks saturday advertiser, HARDEN THE #UCK UP.
by holden78 » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:50 pm
by Hondo » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:24 pm
once_were_warriors wrote:Look at it the other way the 3 teams playing in the Murdoch Cup potentially play 4 more games , whilst the 6 other SANFL teams don't.
You can't tell me playing 4 additional games won't have an impact.
by Mickyj » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:48 pm
CENTURION wrote:DOC wrote:But not many others . Weak as urine.
sorry but We'll stick to the important things......like trying to win Premierships in The SANFL, after all, isn't that what it's all about?
by Mickyj » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:53 pm
EasyE wrote:Hopeful Jelly wrote:His argument is very much based in the 1980's when things were different ... shown by his reference to WWT as Woodville.
The 1980's was probably the last time his opinion on anything SANFL related was relevant.
"The football gods have a habit of noticing things like this." I'd love to see the evidence to support that claim, Graham? Unless of course that when he is referring to the football gods he means Demetriou, Anderson and Murdoch!
by SDK » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:56 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |