by Rik E Boy » Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:23 pm
by Q. » Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:27 pm
by Rik E Boy » Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:33 pm
Quichey wrote:Fair dinkum REB, how many games did you ever play, I reckon you should have a look in the mirror.
Regards,
Q
by White Line Fever » Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:35 pm
Quichey wrote:Fair dinkum REB, how many games did you ever play, I reckon you should have a look in the mirror.
Regards,
Q
by Wedgie » Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:14 pm
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Drop Bear » Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:18 pm
by jackpot jim » Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:50 pm
Rik E Boy wrote:Can Port possibly move forward with Mark Williams in charge? While he has done great things in his career and he has forgotten more about football than I ever knew perhaps a move would benefit both parties. Sheedy raves about Choco so maybe he should go Greater West young man.
As for the Power, how long can the Portonians persist with Williams methodology? After watching Port's effort against Richmond in the slosh it is debatable that Mark still follows what I understand to be Williams methodology...
POWER AT THE BODY AND THE BALL
KICK IT DOWN THE GUTS
IF THE OTHER BLOKE WANTS IT MORE THAN YOU HE GETS IT
..now in the wet like last week surely the great Fos would have engineered a victory not only against Richmond but in all probablity Geelong or St Kilda as well but Port tried to play pretty football.
Now obviously the Williams methodology is more complex than that but to this outsider it was the simplicity of it that made it so effective against teams like Glenelg and Norwood over the years with thier high possession (or at the very least less direct) game plans. Why is Choco turning Port into Glenelg and Norwood?
I'm no Portionian (hey, say hello to Captain Obvious!) but surely Choco's time is up. Now don't come on here and say 'who is better?' because right now you could almost say anybody and it wouldn't rank as a glib comment.
Seriously, When will Choco get the arse?
regards,
REB
by Booney » Fri Jun 04, 2010 3:32 pm
by Swooper16 » Fri Jun 04, 2010 3:43 pm
by Rik E Boy » Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:19 pm
jackpot jim wrote:![]()
![]()
by Rik E Boy » Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:20 pm
Swooper16 wrote:Hard to argue with alot of that REB altho to pick you up on a couple of points
We did beat St Kilda in the wet a few weeks ago.
We won the 2004 Premiership with a very high possession based game plan.
The 2010 gameplan doesnt look a whole lot different to 2001-2004 except we just dont have the same quality players. We never adequately replaced Roger James, Josh Carr (yes i know we got him back but he isnt the same player) & Michael Wilson which is why it appears we get pushed around quite a bit.
Our 2008 & 2009 seasons were below par. If 2010 continues down this path (which unfortunately it appears it just might) then you would think his position would come very much into question.
by Dog_ger » Sun Jun 06, 2010 2:49 pm
by Media Park » Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:32 pm
Rik E Boy wrote:jackpot jim wrote:![]()
![]()
Another brilliant contribution.
regards,
REB
Wedgie wrote:I wear skin tight arseless leather pants, wtf do you wear?
by auto » Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:03 pm
by NO-MERCY » Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:19 pm
by Punk Rooster » Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:01 am
Ralph Wiggum wrote:That's where I saw the leprechaun. He told me to burn things
by Psyber » Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:14 pm
by Booney » Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:21 pm
Psyber wrote:I reckon the Power may have won a couple more premierships if the administration had listened to the sponsor in 2003, and got someone who would weed out a few front runners and revise the game plan...
by Choccies » Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:27 pm
by Q. » Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:33 pm
Booney wrote:Psyber wrote:I reckon the Power may have won a couple more premierships if the administration had listened to the sponsor in 2003, and got someone who would weed out a few front runners and revise the game plan...
Sponsor said "Port will never win a premiership under Mark Williams". Alan Scott, was wrong.
Revise the game plan,hmmm? So how does the game plan of one side differ to any other in the modern game, for that matter at any point during the history of the game?
Most sides play a very similar style, some have the playing group to execute the style and some dont.
Front runners,hmmm. So in 2001/2/3/4 when we were top or thereabouts who would be the "frontrunners" then? Like most sides when on top of the table you have what could be termed frontrunners, they are in front more often than not afterall.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |