RD16 - North v Port Match Review

All discussions to do with the SANFL

RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby magpie in the 80's » Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:32 pm

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
I went to a fight the other night, and a hockey game broke out. - Rodney Dangerfield (1921 - 2004)
User avatar
magpie in the 80's
Coach
 
 
Posts: 35437
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:56 pm
Location: in the quiz books
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 24 times

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby Dutchy » Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:33 pm

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 :lol:

Slattery was good for Port, as was Kirkwood & Wanganeen. Lycett & Heath were serviceable.
User avatar
Dutchy
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 45996
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Location, Location
Has liked: 2584 times
Been liked: 4207 times

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby Wedgie » Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:06 pm

It's always good to know as bad as we are Port are worse.
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
User avatar
Wedgie
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 51721
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:00 am
Has liked: 2153 times
Been liked: 4093 times
Grassroots Team: Noarlunga

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby on the rails » Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:21 pm

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!
Piss weak SANFL and the CLOWNS who run it.
on the rails
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 3147
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:40 am
Has liked: 79 times
Been liked: 83 times

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby devilsadvocate » Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:45 pm

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.
User avatar
devilsadvocate
Coach
 
Posts: 6872
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:28 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 0 time

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby goraw » Sat Jul 10, 2010 9:03 pm

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!! ;)
goraw
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1739
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:16 am
Location: prospect
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time
Grassroots Team: Gaza

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby whatever » Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:04 am

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.
whatever
Under 16s
 
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 9:33 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby beenreal » Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:58 am

That was as deplorable first half as I have seen this year. NO checking, NO accountability, NO discipline, NO.... ANYTHING! X(

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! ](*,)
PORT ADELAIDE FOOTBALL CLUB
Serving the community since 1870
Developing footballers for 143 years
Proud of the Past, Confident of the Future
User avatar
beenreal
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1308
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:57 am
Location: Port Adelaide
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 11 times
Grassroots Team: Seaton Ramblers

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby Lynwood » Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:11 am

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.
User avatar
Lynwood
Rookie
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 8:39 pm
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 0 time

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby devilsadvocate » Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:14 am

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.
User avatar
devilsadvocate
Coach
 
Posts: 6872
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:28 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 0 time

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby bayman » Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:54 am

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 ?
i thought secret groups were a thing of the past, well not on websites anyway
bayman
Coach
 
 
Posts: 13922
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:12 pm
Location: home
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time
Grassroots Team: Plympton

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby on the rails » Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:53 pm

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.
Piss weak SANFL and the CLOWNS who run it.
on the rails
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 3147
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:40 am
Has liked: 79 times
Been liked: 83 times

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby devilsadvocate » Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:20 pm

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.
User avatar
devilsadvocate
Coach
 
Posts: 6872
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:28 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 0 time

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby Ian » Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:50 pm

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
North Adelaide F C : Champions of Aust 1972 : Premiers 1900, 02, 05, 20, 30, 31, 49, 52, 60, 71, 72, 87, 91
User avatar
Ian
Moderator
 
 
Posts: 11443
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:25 pm
Has liked: 312 times
Been liked: 93 times
Grassroots Team: Lockleys

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby Pseudo » Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:46 pm

Serious question:

What difference to the margin - if not the result - would one J. Clayton have made?
Clowns OUT. Smears OUT. RESIST THE OCCUPATION.
User avatar
Pseudo
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12175
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:11 am
Location: enculez-vous
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 1640 times
Grassroots Team: Marion

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby CENTURION » Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:48 pm

are North schizophrenic? Port should have won this match, or are Port schizophrenic? Now I'm confused.
Member No. 988 & PROUD to sponsor The CDFC!!
User avatar
CENTURION
Coach
 
 
Posts: 11101
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:11 am
Location: Campbelltown, 5074
Has liked: 204 times
Been liked: 112 times
Grassroots Team: Salisbury

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby CK » Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:51 pm

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.
Can you guess where I'm calling from, the Las Vegas Hilton...
CK
Veteran
 
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:10 am
Location: At an SANFL game near you.
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 3 times

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby CENTURION » Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:52 pm

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??
Member No. 988 & PROUD to sponsor The CDFC!!
User avatar
CENTURION
Coach
 
 
Posts: 11101
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:11 am
Location: Campbelltown, 5074
Has liked: 204 times
Been liked: 112 times
Grassroots Team: Salisbury

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby Trent Plucktrum » Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:47 pm

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 !! ;)
My Team


The Cocks
User avatar
Trent Plucktrum
Under 16s
 
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:05 pm
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 20 times

Re: RD16 - North v Port Match Review

Postby CENTURION » Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:48 pm

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.
Member No. 988 & PROUD to sponsor The CDFC!!
User avatar
CENTURION
Coach
 
 
Posts: 11101
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:11 am
Location: Campbelltown, 5074
Has liked: 204 times
Been liked: 112 times
Grassroots Team: Salisbury

Next

Board index   Football  SANFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 15 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |