SA Footy

Sturt's whole season was a case of playing catch up footy while Glenelg (again) crumbled when the heat was on.
My vote is Sturt.
Proved they could beat the big guns but then lose to the water pistols

Neither.

North for mine.

SJABC wrote:Neither.

North for mine.

agreed 150%

sturt = up & down all year

glenelg = bad finals series

north = poor enough to have the coach sacked

I agree with Bayman but at least we knew about a quarter of the way into the season we were shit and didn't pretend to be otherwise - what are the Sturt and Bay's excuses?

on the rails wrote:I agree with Bayman but at least we knew about a quarter of the way into the season we were **** and didn't pretend to be otherwise - what are the Sturt and Bay's excuses?

obviously slow on the take ...

Neither. Sturt and glenelgs performance didn't disappoint me at all.

on the rails wrote:I agree with Bayman but at least we knew about a quarter of the way into the season we were **** and didn't pretend to be otherwise - what are the Sturt and Bay's excuses?

Its 2010 not 2006

I think Sturt were basically rubbish the whole season. They had a good final run into the finals, but collapsing in a heap at the first hurdle was just so indicative of a woefully unsuccessful season. I seriously disagree with the season review on Sturt, I don't think they overachieved at all last season, they finished 3rd, so making the GF wasn't a miracle.

Not backing it up with a top three finish this year though is just downright poor...

As for Glenelg, I think they had a great season during the minor round, but unfortunately, yet again, for the third year running maybe, all that effort in getting there was completely wasted by throwing away the season in the finals. As a Sturt fan I'm just annoyed at how crap the team finished off, but I'd think Bays supporters are completely eff'ed off.

Last year I'd give Sturt a 9/10 for the year... this year, I'd give them a 4/10.

For Glenelg, that's tough, they deserve 1/10, but 15-5 says they should get more, but 1/10 seems apt for some reason.

My biggest disappointment is that South were worse than Port.

smithy wrote:My biggest disappointment is that South were worse than Port.

Even more disappointing is that despite that, Port still could've got the spoon had Sturt beaten them.

csbowes wrote:I think Sturt were basically rubbish the whole season. They had a good final run into the finals, but collapsing in a heap at the first hurdle was just so indicative of a woefully unsuccessful season. I seriously disagree with the season review on Sturt, I don't think they overachieved at all last season, they finished 3rd, so making the GF wasn't a miracle.

Not backing it up with a top three finish this year though is just downright poor...

As for Glenelg, I think they had a great season during the minor round, but unfortunately, yet again, for the third year running maybe, all that effort in getting there was completely wasted by throwing away the season in the finals. As a Sturt fan I'm just annoyed at how crap the team finished off, but I'd think Bays supporters are completely eff'ed off.

Last year I'd give Sturt a 9/10 for the year... this year, I'd give them a 4/10.

For Glenelg, that's tough, they deserve 1/10, but 15-5 says they should get more, but 1/10 seems apt for some reason.

Agree csb, they didn't overachieve last year. Remember they had Centrals on the ropes with 8-10 minutes left in the QF.

Barto wrote:

smithy wrote:My biggest disappointment is that South were worse than Port.

Even more disappointing is that despite that, Port still could've got the spoon had Sturt beaten them.

Was that the game at Alberton late in the year where we took the stuffing out of you blokes?

Sturt for mine. Young team so close to success last year, barely lost any guns and failed to fire a shot this year. Fell arse backwards into finals too.

I would say Glenelg.
2010 was all about redemption from their 2009 straight sets finals exist.
2010 their finals performance was even worse.

Booney wrote:

Barto wrote:

smithy wrote:My biggest disappointment is that South were worse than Port.

Even more disappointing is that despite that, Port still could've got the spoon had Sturt beaten them.

Was that the game at Alberton late in the year where we took the stuffing out of you blokes?

Sturt for mine. Young team so close to success last year, barely lost any guns and failed to fire a shot this year. Fell arse backwards into finals too.

I'd say Sturt. Lost two very good players. But picked up three from other SANFL clubs. I wouldn't have thought scraping into the finals to finish fifth, wouldn't have met their pre-season expectations.

We played elimination finals for the last 8 weeks of the regular season - we had to drop one sooner or later.

For me the blue boys had a bad start and could never recover - and that was that !!!

Glenelg. Out in straight sets last year from minor premier and looking for "redemption" lose the play off for top and then get pretty soundly whipped in the finals.

SJABC wrote:Neither.

North for mine.

X 2

Here's one for spelly looking at Glenelgs year. Has anyone had 6 players in the SANFL team of the year and failed to make a least a Prelim final?
A fair effort by th Bays having almost a third of the team of the year and going out in straight sets.

Well I'm more disappointed in our year than Sturts, or North's for that matter.

Grahaml wrote:Glenelg. Out in straight sets last year from minor premier and looking for "redemption" lose the play off for top and then get pretty soundly whipped in the finals.

That's the crux of the matter you would have thought the opportunity to atone for last year would've been a strong motivation. FWIW the Centrals loss didn't worry me as we didn't deserve top spot (only in that position thanks to Centrals mini falter at the end of the minor round) however the next two weeks.