Page 1 of 2
RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:32 pmby magpie in the 80's
Final Score
North 13.10 (88)
Port 9.7 (61)
Goal Kickers
North: Dempsey 3, Rsywyk 2, Younie 2, Williams 2, Allan, Bennett, Whymann, Thring ea 1
Port: Young 3, Kirkwood 2, Summerton 2, Kirkwood 2, Thurgood, Wanganeen ea 1
Best Players
North: Allan, McIntyre, Gill, Ackland, Archard, Pfeiffer
Port: Lokan, Gray, Wanganeen, Young, Beard, Weetra
QxQ
North:..6.1...8.4...10.8...13.10 (88)
Port:....1.1...2.2....4.6.....9.7 (61)
Reports
Port: Cloke (unduly rough play).
Reserves
North: 11. 6 72
Port: 19. 6 120
U/18's
North: 11.8-74
Port: 20.18-138
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:33 pmby Dutchy
devilsadvocate wrote:What to say? Well played North. Better skills and good finishing in pretty tough conditions won the game.
I have never seen a more disgraceful, blatant cheat of an umpire than what I witnessed today. It began at the end of the first and reached fever pitch throughout the second. The patch of play on the eastern wing where Mieklejohn (from memory) had his ankle held while trying to get up with the ball in full view of the umpire, only to be balled up was the final straw. I thought a Magpies fan was going to jump the fence and rip his head off.
To follow up, the marking contest after the kick into NA's forward line had a free kick plucked from nowhere, followed by a 25m penalty and goal. There were 4 goals resulting directly from blatant umpire cheating in the first half.
Port's poor skills and decision making compounded the umpires cheating and it was game over early in the 3rd realistically.
Once again, Port had a crack until the end, but the final scoreboard probably flattered Port.
Allen, Younie and Alleway are bloody good players. Ackland has got worse
Slattery was good for Port, as was Kirkwood & Wanganeen. Lycett & Heath were serviceable.
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:06 pmby Wedgie
It's always good to know as bad as we are Port are worse.
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:21 pmby on the rails
Umpiring wasn't good and after North couldn't get a free kick for the first 15 minutes the umps opened the flood gates and we got heaps!
The Cloke report just about summed them up today - a joke. Surely that will be withdrawn as soon as possible. Even Alleway was pleading with the umpire that there was nothing in it!
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:45 pmby devilsadvocate
on the rails wrote:Umpiring wasn't good and after North couldn't get a free kick for the first 15 minutes the umps opened the flood gates and we got heaps!
The Cloke report just about summed them up today - a joke. Surely that will be withdrawn as soon as possible. Even Alleway was pleading with the umpire that there was nothing in it!
What was Cloke actually reported for? I couldn't see anything in it, but was a fair distance away.
A Port player was hit right in the face in the 1st quarter, with no punishment for the North player.
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sat Jul 10, 2010 9:03 pmby goraw
devilsadvocate wrote:on the rails wrote:Umpiring wasn't good and after North couldn't get a free kick for the first 15 minutes the umps opened the flood gates and we got heaps!
The Cloke report just about summed them up today - a joke. Surely that will be withdrawn as soon as possible. Even Alleway was pleading with the umpire that there was nothing in it!
What was Cloke actually reported for? I couldn't see anything in it, but was a fair distance away.
A Port player was hit right in the face in the 1st quarter, with no punishment for the North player.
what was worse was there was no medal for him!!
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:04 amby whatever
The score probably a true reflection of the game
Umpires totally killed the contest through either being totally inept or blatent cheating. You know you are getting a raw deal from the umpires when the opposition supporters around you start shaking their head at the umpires knowing that they are getting the dreamiest of dream runs from the umpires. If these umpires are umpiring league football next week the SANFL should be shot.
As for the game the umpires helped put it beyond doubt at half time where what should have been a 3 goal advantage was a 6 goal advantage, mind you because North got so far in front they took the pedal off and to the magpies credit they kept trying and was able to make the scoreboard look respectable.
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:58 amby beenreal
That was as deplorable first half as I have seen this year. NO checking, NO accountability, NO discipline, NO.... ANYTHING!
The quarter time address was the first time I've seem Tony Bamford actually lose it. And that was after Cameron Cloke lost it first. Why do they refuse to kick long to him?
Hauled themselves back into the game (AGAIN) and in the end it was the first quarter that cost them (AGAIN).
Good game from Wanganeen. BUT, he ran into an open goal and tried one of those STUPID dribble kicks along the ground, the ball bounced the wrong way and went through for a point. JUST SH!TS ME!
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:11 amby Lynwood
All the umpiring issues aside. We should have been beaten by alot more. A few goals in the last Qtr made the score look like a contest but we should hjave been done by 10 goals with the way we played.
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:14 amby devilsadvocate
Lynwood wrote:All the umpiring issues aside. We should have been beaten by alot more. A few goals in the last Qtr made the score look like a contest but we should hjave been done by 10 goals with the way we played.
That's how I saw it too.
Port didn't really turn up yesterday.
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:54 amby bayman
with north having kicked 6 goals in the first term & 7 for the rest of the match, did they change the game plan to be less attacking or just went through the motions ?
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:53 pmby on the rails
bayman wrote:with north having kicked 6 goals in the first term & 7 for the rest of the match, did they change the game plan to be less attacking or just went through the motions ?
Who would really know with North but to be fair to Port despite a poor start which seems to be a trend for the Pies this year, they do finish games off strongly where as North don't as a rule.
Whilst we kicked a little more accurately over the game, we did miss some giveme's in the third quarter which could have really blown the lead out and I think we kicked 4 points in a row at one stage and 3 were very gettable. Lucky we got about 3 or 4 in the first half from 25's which almost guarentted that even our worst goalkickers couldn't miss those chances.
I am bemused by the journo's take on the match in the Mail / Adelaide Now write up - his mention there a couple of times as North being back to old business is stretching it? We won the match and played ok in patches for most of the game but still look way off being a finals side which is realistically remote at best anyway.
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:20 pmby devilsadvocate
bayman wrote:with north having kicked 6 goals in the first term & 7 for the rest of the match, did they change the game plan to be less attacking or just went through the motions ?
Port were shocking in the 1st quarter. The umpiring didn't help our cause.
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:50 pmby Ian
bayman wrote:with north having kicked 6 goals in the first term & 7 for the rest of the match, did they change the game plan to be less attacking or just went through the motions ?
This year 7 shots would normally give a return of 1-6 or 2-5, not the 6-1 yesterday, the inacuracy returned as the game went on
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:46 pmby Pseudo
Serious question:
What difference to the margin - if not the result - would one J. Clayton have made?
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:48 pmby CENTURION
are North schizophrenic? Port should have won this match, or are Port schizophrenic? Now I'm confused.
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:51 pmby CK
Have been going to SANFL since I was a very little tacker, but Tony Bamford's 1/4 time address to the players yesterday was one of the most ferocious bakes I have ever heard at this level. Was absolutely frank with his players on every level possible and laid a number of home truths on the line to the group. He had spent the last few minutes of the term on the bench and the signs were there then for it.
Psuedo - in all honesty, probably not a heap. The biggest malaise striking Port yesterday was skill errors. I lost count of how many times players would handball to the feet of the next player, or kick over the head of a leading target. No doubting it was a very tricky breeze to read at ground level, but Bamford's frustration with their skills was very, very evident throughout.
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:52 pmby CENTURION
CK wrote:Have been going to SANFL since I was a very little tacker, but Tony Bamford's 1/4 time address to the players yesterday was one of the most ferocious bakes I have ever heard at this level. Was absolutely frank with his players on every level possible and laid a number of home truths on the line to the group. He had spent the last few minutes of the term on the bench and the signs were there then for it.
Psuedo - in all honesty, probably not a heap. The biggest malaise striking Port yesterday was skill errors. I lost count of how many times players would handball to the feet of the next player, or kick over the head of a leading target. No doubting it was a very tricky breeze to read at ground level, but Bamford's frustration with their skills was very, very evident throughout.
are you sure you weren't at the Sturt v Centrals match??
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:47 pmby Trent Plucktrum
CENTURION wrote:are North schizophrenic? Port should have won this match, or are Port schizophrenic? Now I'm confused.
Nope your not confused i would explain it simply by stating that your just a plain and simple idiot !!
Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review
Posted:
Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:48 pmby CENTURION
Trent Plucktrum wrote:CENTURION wrote:are North schizophrenic? Port should have won this match, or are Port schizophrenic? Now I'm confused.
Nope your not confused i would explain it simply by stating that your just a plain and simple idiot !!
you're so cute, Trent.