Ted wrote:What was the score in the PV / Nek game?
I thought the Knites where cruising............
I believe the score was PV batted first scored 260. then bowled out NEK for 106.
by spintwin » Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:16 pm
Ted wrote:What was the score in the PV / Nek game?
I thought the Knites where cruising............
by Ted » Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:20 pm
by Punk Rooster » Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:59 pm
who was un-registered?Phantom Gossiper wrote:Results anyone?
Div 1
Para Vista Smashed NEK! Young Jon Smith 85, was mentioned in earlier pages as a bloke to watch
Morialta disposed of Rose Park easy
Fitzroy by 9 runs over Paralowie
Also interesting to see Fitzroy lost some points for unregistered players..
Div 3 interesting..
Enfield tied Eastside
CM defeated Paralowie last ball
Ralph Wiggum wrote:That's where I saw the leprechaun. He told me to burn things
by spintwin » Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:20 pm
Punk Rooster wrote:who was un-registered?Phantom Gossiper wrote:Results anyone?
Div 1
Para Vista Smashed NEK! Young Jon Smith 85, was mentioned in earlier pages as a bloke to watch
Morialta disposed of Rose Park easy
Fitzroy by 9 runs over Paralowie
Also interesting to see Fitzroy lost some points for unregistered players..
Div 3 interesting..
Enfield tied Eastside
CM defeated Paralowie last ball
by auto » Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:07 pm
Ted wrote:Good work Phantom, you have your finger on the pulse!
Bit concerning for Fitzroy, Paralowie had no Holland and no henderson
yet only win by 9?
by Pidge » Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:10 pm
spintwin wrote:Ted wrote:What was the score in the PV / Nek game?
I thought the Knites where cruising............
I believe the score was PV batted first scored 260. then bowled out NEK for 106.
by Magpies96 » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:01 am
spintwin wrote:
I believe this is the info you are after
K Dahak played a few games unregistered
by Phantom Gossiper » Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:11 am
Magpies96 wrote:spintwin wrote:
I believe this is the info you are after
K Dahak played a few games unregistered
He has and always has been a Fitzroy player, so we are trying to work how it didn't go thru.
by Phantom Gossiper » Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:13 am
Pidge wrote:spintwin wrote:Ted wrote:What was the score in the PV / Nek game?
I thought the Knites where cruising............
I believe the score was PV batted first scored 260. then bowled out NEK for 106.
Were NEK at full strength?
by Magpies96 » Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:44 am
Phantom Gossiper wrote:What you need to remember is regardless of whether he has played previous seasons, at the beginning of the year the club must register the players again, same with any sport..
by Phantom Gossiper » Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:33 pm
Magpies96 wrote:Phantom Gossiper wrote:What you need to remember is regardless of whether he has played previous seasons, at the beginning of the year the club must register the players again, same with any sport..
What I am saying is he filled out a regestration form at the start of the season like all the rest of the players, but I'm not going to debate that on a public forum.
by spintwin » Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:48 pm
by Phantom Gossiper » Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:58 pm
spintwin wrote:Well the question has to be asked can Paralowie still make finals after that loss. Has NEK started to crumble we all thought there bubble had to burst sometime.
by carey18 » Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:01 pm
automaticwicky wrote:Ted wrote:Good work Phantom, you have your finger on the pulse!
Bit concerning for Fitzroy, Paralowie had no Holland and no henderson
yet only win by 9?
Fitzroy had no Bourke, Blowes and no Valente. So what. A win is a win!
by carey18 » Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:13 pm
by Pidge » Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:56 pm
Phantom Gossiper wrote:Pidge wrote:spintwin wrote:Ted wrote:What was the score in the PV / Nek game?
I thought the Knites where cruising............
I believe the score was PV batted first scored 260. then bowled out NEK for 106.
Were NEK at full strength?
I think you over-rate NEK Pidge, the style of game they play is bound to come unstuck sooner or later. I believe they let themselves down with poor fielding and a couple of dubious umpire decisions but at the end of the day that doesnt make 150 runs difference, they were beaten by CRICKETERS today not 20/20 players![]()
by Magpies96 » Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:02 pm
carey18 wrote:haha show us his blood BB!! Hows your side looking for Sat?
by Magpies96 » Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:07 pm
Phantom Gossiper wrote:Moving along, fantastic win by your a grade, what happened to your c grade though, i heard CM only had 7 players?!
by mattsy » Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:39 pm
by Pidge » Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:42 pm
mattsy wrote:So they would have had 5 fielders then. Well, a bowler, keeper and then 5 genuine fielders - that's a good effort I reckon.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |