SA Footy

Full time

Sturt 19.15.129
Port 5.7.37

Chambers 4

Pretty loose checking by Sturt's defence to allow Port to sneak ahead of Chambo in the dying minutes. Heads must roll.

Thiele wrote:Full time

Sturt 19.15.129
Port 5.7.37

Chambers 4

Nice

And on a day of upsets South narrowling defeated Walker ...

mal wrote:And on a day of upsets South narrowling defeated Walker ...

n walker thinks he is good enough to play AFL

To be brutally honest, I thought the scoreline of 19.15 to 5.7 was not a strong enough reflection of Sturt's performance. This was a complete demolition job on what turned out to be a woefully inadequate Port Adelaide side. I personally expected this to be a tough match that Sturt would really need to work for in order to win, but it was anything but that.

The first quarter saw Sturt squander a number of somewhat easy shots on goal and so the scoreline of 4.5 to 0.1 was probably flattering for the Magpies, as they simply had almost zero opportunity to score for themselves. The Blues were looking slick, were passing well but just not being as clean up forward with some wayward kicking. That said, no fair minded fan could be disappointed going into the first break with a 28 point lead against a potentially awkward opponent.

The second quarter was much more of a slog and once again the Magpies really had nothing much to work with, while Sturt probably made things appear a bit more difficult than they actually were moving to a 6.10 to 0.3 half time lead.

The third quarter, once again, was the premiership quarter as the Blues smashed home 9.1 to 2.0 for the quarter to really (finally) get a margin that was somewhat reflective of the two sides ability on the day. The lead of 15.11 to 2.3 looked much more like what I had been watching in the first half and it wasn't looking good for the Pies going into the last. That said, the last was once again an arm wrestle, more so than I expected, but Sturt put 3 goals on the board in time on to really hammer the point home.

So for Sturt, a polished performance in the main. After two poor efforts against North Adelaide and Glenelg, they've come back to do what was needed smashing West Adelaide, thumping Torrens, sneaking home against South (oops) but then hammering Port.

The big games begin hereon in really...

For Port, well probably one of their worst performances in many weeks, more an indication of what they were like in the first half of the year rather than recently and as for Burgoyne, he was atrocious as an AFL player today.

Thiele wrote:Full time

Sturt 19.15.129
Port 5.7.37

Great result.
Hopefully Kurtze is ok to come back next game with Bowen getting injured.

had dad giving me the scores and great to hear....love thumping port!

Sturt should've won by 20 plus today and played scrappy football, what I want to know is how did Port almost beat the Bays!!!!

According to the radio Port's lowest ever score against Sturt was 3-7. It wasn't until about 14 minutes into the final quarter that Port got above that.
I agree with Bowes' look of the game. Listening on the radio, for most of the game the commentators had time to call the Sturt plays with ease, but as soon as Port laid a hand on it they didn't have time enough to describe the amount of action happening around the ball carrier. Invariably it'd get turned over and once in safe Sturt hands the commentators would again have time to breathe and call the action. That view is without bias. In time the commentators themselves began saying how Sturt seemed to have all the time in the world as opposed to the Magpies who were imediately under the hammer once they got possssion.
Bloody satisfying, but it would have been nice to have really gone in for the kill and massacred them by more than 100 and got some records to show for the win. We missed more than a few shots from straight in front and not far out, even with the wind. Chambo kicked a couple out on the full, and he wasn't the only one. Count all those shots and the kicking in the first half was actually worse than the 6-10 they managed to record.
I guess the gap in the two sides was so immense that we could get away with missing all those shots and still come away with a 92 point win.
Perhaps Port losing Mieklejohn half-way through the first hurt them a bit, but in all honesty there didn't seem much difference in the action between when he was on the field and off it. Sturt also didn't have a ruckman today, but we went in to the game with that as a given, wheras Port had it suddenly thrust on them during the play. In the second half Port got a few goals when they sent their full back (Lockett?) up forward, but the gaps in effective Port plays made it difficult to really find any contributors except for him.
Great win. Love mopping up the house with the Magpies.

Got the pics up of the banner we made for Chambo's 600 goal milestone http://www.sturtcheersquad.com/apps/pho ... id=6619216
Will be adding a match gallery tonight if I get time, if not tomorrow.
Enjoy

2 pages of pics once again on the cheer squad website http://www.sturtcheersquad.com/apps/pho ... id=6620719
One interesting pic was this one http://www.sturtcheersquad.com/apps/pho ... d=45842505
lots of players on the floor and one Port player doing what Port players have been doing to the rest of the comp for years up until this decade

How good is Sturt's Trengove? Must be a real chance of going top 3 in the draft.

CUTTERMAN wrote:Sturt should've won by 20 plus today and played scrappy football, what I want to know is how did Port almost beat the Bays!!!!

because we can't kick straight

smithy...i can tell you kurtz will not play this week against north but should be right the week after

bayman wrote:

CUTTERMAN wrote:Sturt should've won by 20 plus today and played scrappy football, what I want to know is how did Port almost beat the Bays!!!!

because we can't kick straight

smithy...i can tell you kurtz will not play this week against north but should be right the week after

So he will be ready for the bye ...that's handy.
I think Sturt won't risk him this week to give him the 2 weeks to get over the injury anyway Bayman. Seems the sensible thing, and if there is any doubt on Bowen , it will be the same I would imagine.

lesthemechanic wrote:

bayman wrote:

CUTTERMAN wrote:Sturt should've won by 20 plus today and played scrappy football, what I want to know is how did Port almost beat the Bays!!!!

because we can't kick straight

smithy...i can tell you kurtz will not play this week against north but should be right the week after

So he will be ready for the bye ...that's handy.
I think Sturt won't risk him this week to give him the 2 weeks to get over the injury anyway Bayman. Seems the sensible thing, and if there is any doubt on Bowen , it will be the same I would imagine.

Just on the ruck department issue at the Double Blues, there is a good article on the Messenger web site about young Sturt ruckman Adam Davey...

http://eastern-courier-messenger.whereilive.com.au/sport/story/sturt-may-try-rookie-ruckman/

Reece Homfray @ Messenger Press wrote:STURT could be forced to call on untried ruckman Adam Davey if its permanent ruck stocks Jake Bowen and Angus Kurtze don’t recover from ankle injuries in time for Saturday’s clash with North Adelaide.

Kurtze missed Saturday’s win over Port Adelaide in which Bowen rolled his ankle before half time.

The Double Blues sent utility Michael Coad into the ruck against a depleted Magpies’ attack that had lost James Meiklejohn to injury early in the game.

Sturt football operations manager Duane Massey said the club would not risk Kurtze and Bowen this weekend if they were not ``100 per cent’’. Instead they may get two weeks rest as Sturt has the bye in Round 19.

``It’s not ideal to have them both go down but they’re not major injuries,’’ Massey said.

``We may rest one or both of them this week if they’re not 100 per cent.’’

Waiting in the wings is Davey who has been playing Reserves this season.

``He’s (Davey) going well,’’ Massey said.

``He’s still got a little bit more developing to do but he’s going to be around the place in the future so we’ll go with him.’’

bayman wrote:

CUTTERMAN wrote:Sturt should've won by 20 plus today and played scrappy football, what I want to know is how did Port almost beat the Bays!!!!

because we can't kick straight

smithy...i can tell you kurtz will not play this week against north but should be right the week after

nor could we for the 1st half but we still thumped them. Must've had something to do with your intensity

lesthemechanic wrote:

bayman wrote:

CUTTERMAN wrote:Sturt should've won by 20 plus today and played scrappy football, what I want to know is how did Port almost beat the Bays!!!!

because we can't kick straight

smithy...i can tell you kurtz will not play this week against north but should be right the week after

So he will be ready for the bye ...that's handy.
I think Sturt won't risk him this week to give him the 2 weeks to get over the injury anyway Bayman. Seems the sensible thing, and if there is any doubt on Bowen , it will be the same I would imagine.

ok, i should have added 'next' after my sentence so it would read ''i can tell you kurtz will not play this week against north but should be right the week after next'' (ie sturts next game) seriously though you knew what i meant

CUTTERMAN wrote:

bayman wrote:

CUTTERMAN wrote:Sturt should've won by 20 plus today and played scrappy football, what I want to know is how did Port almost beat the Bays!!!!

because we can't kick straight

smithy...i can tell you kurtz will not play this week against north but should be right the week after

nor could we for the 1st half but we still thumped them. Must've had something to do with your intensity

perhaps that comment has some merit