Rd 23 Norwood v Central Game Reviews

[CUTTERMAN]

Glenelg were always going to get the 1st week of finals off so if they played sat or sun didn't matter. Can someone explain this better than I can?

[purch]

I had a feeling this result would happen today. There's just something about the way that Norwood match up on Central, and this time the Legs didn't crumble at the final hurdle. Laird was livid at 3/4 time according to the radio. It makes for an interesting challenge for the reigning premiers in the QF...can't wait.

Congrats to the Legs: It must be a good feeling to end the season like that.

[sjt]

Glenelg were always going to get the 1st week of finals off so if they played sat or sun didn't matter. Can someone explain this better than I can?

You must be be Nostradamus. You missed the point entirely and musn't have read the previous. Anyway other posters before today have concurred the last round games should be played at the same time.
When there's nothing on the line the dynamics of a game can change. Isn't it obvious ?

[dedja]

Glenelg were always going to get the 1st week of finals off so if they played sat or sun didn't matter. Can someone explain this better than I can?

You must be be Nostradamus. You missed the point entirely and musn't have read the previous. Anyway other posters before today have concurred the last round games should be played at the same time.
When there's nothing on the line the dynamics of a game can change. Isn't it obvious ?

And it all would have been immaterial if the Dogs won like they should have. Also, the Bays would have had a day less for the qualifying final if they dropped top spot, so it's not all just one way.

At the end of the day Cutterman is exactly 100% correct.

Anyway, back to the game.

I'm assuming the Legs were up all day so they obviously deserved the points. Anything of note in the game?

[purch]

Also heard on RPH on my way back from Alberton that there was a possibility of Hayes being cited by the tribunal if they bother to review the video.

[sjt]

Glenelg were always going to get the 1st week of finals off so if they played sat or sun didn't matter. Can someone explain this better than I can?

Congratulations you should have made a fortune, by putting a heap on the Bays to be guaranteed to beat Westies.
Glenelg are $1.16, you should put the "house" on it.

[sjt]

Glenelg were always going to get the 1st week of finals off so if they played sat or sun didn't matter. Can someone explain this better than I can?

An even more obvious way to explain it is. What if the scenario were: Westies were still even with North on points, just out of the five. It would be unfair for North, now knowing Glenelg don't need to win (nothing to play for) and Westies were playing for a spot in the five to knock them out. Noone need explain it better than this, it's obvious.

[dedja]

Glenelg were always going to get the 1st week of finals off so if they played sat or sun didn't matter. Can someone explain this better than I can?

An even more obvious way to explain it is. What if the scenario were: Westies were still even with North on points, just out of the five. It would be unfair for North, now knowing Glenelg don't need to win (nothing to play for) and Westies were playing for a spot in the five to knock them out. Noone need explain it better than this, it's obvious.

What's really obvious is that you've never played football yourself. When a player is going for the ball, does he think ... hmmm, do we need to win this game to earn a particular spot on the premiership table? Well, if we do, I'll go in hard for the ball, if not, then I'll dance around and let someone else get it because I don't want to hurt myself before next week.

Please, give us a break!

The Bays have been on the top of the premiership table for 3 months and West haven't beaten them ages. I'm not sure but I think the Doggies were expecting to front up to a qualifying final next week.

Now, back to the match review.

Let's give Norwood some credit ... apparently they won the match today.

[Cambridge Clarrie]

Full credit to Norwood. I don't think Central would have been playing for anything but a strong win today.

I wouldn't want to be going into next weeks match with a loss against one of this years more disappointing teams fresh in my mind...

Laird would rightly be seriously p!ssed with the result and angry at his players.

Next weeks match will be a ripper...

[purch]

The Bays have been on the top of the premiership table for 3 months and West haven't beaten them ages.

Maybe. But Westies did beat Central of all teams, and not that long ago. Still, I find it very unlikely that they will do the job against the Bays tomorrow...but I say good luck to them

Well done Norwood. As a Sturt supporter I am very happy about this result too...as I imagine many other clubs' supporters are.

[CUTTERMAN]

Sjt,
1. I don't own a house for a start.
2. I'm not much of a betting man.
3. Another point that I failed to make is the responsibility that our comp has to the ABC for a telecast game, obviously, because of the possible timing of the Crows Elim final they set a game in for sunday. It all means nothing in the end, the odds were that it would come to nothing and I really don't understand what you want the SANFL to explain. I would've thought it was obvious.

[sjt]

Glenelg were always going to get the 1st week of finals off so if they played sat or sun didn't matter. Can someone explain this better than I can?

An even more obvious way to explain it is. What if the scenario were: Westies were still even with North on points, just out of the five. It would be unfair for North, now knowing Glenelg don't need to win (nothing to play for) and Westies were playing for a spot in the five to knock them out. Noone need explain it better than this, it's obvious.

What's really obvious is that you've never played football yourself. When a player is going for the ball, does he think ... hmmm, do we need to win this game to earn a particular spot on the premiership table? Well, if we do, I'll go in hard for the ball, if not, then I'll dance around and let someone else get it because I don't want to hurt myself before next week.

Please, give us a break!

The Bays have been on the top of the premiership table for 3 months and West haven't beaten them ages. I'm not sure but I think the Doggies were expecting to front up to a qualifying final next week.

Now, back to the match review.

Let's give Norwood some credit ... apparently they won the match today.

You've proved my point, you don't know what's obvious. I have played football myself (really good point by the way).
The point has nothing to do with giving Norwood credit or not. It's about games been played at the same time. Again you must have made a fortune on backing the Bays to be guaranteed top spot.
No I don't believe players would generally change how they play, deliberately. I reckon I've heard players say before how hard it is sometimes to get up for a game that has nothing really on it, though. Do you think conceivably if there were a few goals in it in the last quarter tomorrow and the Bays had a couple of tired/sore players they may give them a rest earlier than they otherwise may have? Geez, I reckon I've seen that happen more than a few times, if you haven't you obviously don't watch much footy! The players don't dictate selection, positional placements or whose going to rest on the bench.
The points not just related to this season.

[dedja]

My last point on this ... what you have absolutely no appreciation for is that there are at least 25 very good quality players at the Bays trying to get into a league side of 21, and that's not counting any AFL players that are eligible to play finals. The competition is fierce to play well and earn a spot. West are also a side (like any other) not to be taken lightly and good form coming into the finals is very important.

So, today's results will have no bearing on how the Bays approach tomorrow ...

This issue has been done to death so let's get back to the match review because that's what this thread is all about.

If you want to continue to debate your point there is a Round 23 thread which is more appropriate.

Again, congratulations to Norwood today.

[sjt]

Sjt,
1. I don't own a house for a start.
2. I'm not much of a betting man.
3. Another point that I failed to make is the responsibility that our comp has to the ABC for a telecast game, obviously, because of the possible timing of the Crows Elim final they set a game in for sunday. It all means nothing in the end, the odds were that it would come to nothing and I really don't understand what you want the SANFL to explain. I would've thought it was obvious.

Cutterman

1. Putting the house on it is merely an Australian term. You're said you should put the house on it if it's a guaranteed end result in your favour. Maybe you could Google it.
I understand the responsibilty with the ABC, I have no problems with that. All games should have remained Sunday. I believe the games were changed after the AFL draw was known. I understand what the odds were. Even if you're not much of a betting man, you shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. As you knew Glenelg were "always going to get the 1st week off".

[Sam_goUUUdogs]

Well, if you want to see a close game of footy head to a Centrals game on the Parade, would that be 4 of the last 6 decided by a goal or less?

Centrals were rubbish today, and will need a major lift if they are to be a chance in the next few weeks.
A few people after the game made mention of some poor umpiring decisions late on, and while this may have been the case, Centrals should never have let the game get to a position where it could be decided by a couple of umpiring decisions.

This certainly isnt the first time we have somewhat stumbled into the finals, it reminds me of 2006 abit when we seemed to slip under the radar, then 2 up 2 down and we are playing in a grand final,
I dont think Centrals are anywhere near as good as we were in 2006, but having said that i dont think main competition is as far ahead either.

[purch]

A few people after the game made mention of some poor umpiring decisions late on, and while this may have been the case, Centrals should never have let the game get to a position where it could be decided by a couple of umpiring decisions.

Sam, Do you think the game was decided on dodgy umpiring decisions or did Norwood play better over the course of the game? I wasn't there so would like to know.

[NFC]

Blame Giles for dropping a sitter.

[JK]

Norwood are back to 2004 IMHO.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing, but regardless of todays result that was a stupid comment.

After a dog of a year, Im glad it's all over, personally for me that's the highlight .. Of course it's always good to finish the year with a win, but I think perspective needs to be kept.

Central were terrible today by their lofty standards, and would need to improve massively on that for the finals ... That said, they rarely play two stinkers in a row so I think they'll bite back hard next week.

Hayes will surely get at least a game (even in the SANFL) for his courageous effort.

Bigger ground and mental strength will help the Dogs as of next week, but they'll need to take their game up to their usual September effort to cause the damage they normally do.

[purch]

Norwood are back to 2004 IMHO.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing, but regardless of todays result that was a stupid comment.

After a dog of a year, Im glad it's all over, personally for me that's the highlight .. Of course it's always good to finish the year with a win, but I think perspective needs to be kept.

Central were terrible today by their lofty standards, and would need to improve massively on that for the finals ... That said, they rarely play two stinkers in a row so I think they'll bite back hard next week.

Hayes will surely get at least a game (even in the SANFL) for his courageous effort.

Bigger ground and mental strength will help the Dogs as of next week, but they'll need to take their game up to their usual September effort to cause the damage they normally do.

I'm hoping the dogs played their final last week. It would be nice to see them go out in straight sets - it has to happen one day

[CUTTERMAN]

Sjt,
1. I don't own a house for a start.
2. I'm not much of a betting man.
3. Another point that I failed to make is the responsibility that our comp has to the ABC for a telecast game, obviously, because of the possible timing of the Crows Elim final they set a game in for sunday. It all means nothing in the end, the odds were that it would come to nothing and I really don't understand what you want the SANFL to explain. I would've thought it was obvious.

Cutterman

1. Putting the house on it is merely an Australian term. You're said you should put the house on it if it's a guaranteed end result in your favour. Maybe you could Google it.
I understand the responsibilty with the ABC, I have no problems with that. All games should have remained Sunday. I believe the games were changed after the AFL draw was known. I understand what the odds were. Even if you're not much of a betting man, you shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. As you knew Glenelg were "always going to get the 1st week off".

Sorry sjt, as a recent immigrant of cornish, hungarian, scottish, Iranian, yugoslav and Uzbekistani origins I have absolutely no idea what you meant. I am deeply grateful that you've so humbly taken it upon yourself to help me fit into Aussie society.
let's stop squabbling and get on with it.