RD8 Sturt v Panthers Match Review

[smithy]

So Sturt supporters did not see the last 1/4 of football ????

Im sure that would have evened the frees for and against up a bit

Agreed we got the best of it in the last 1/4 southee. That is not the point. The umpiring was woeful from start to finish, and the free kick count was almost double to South at the end of the day still. And IF what cutterman's informant said is true then it is bad for all of us.

I said to my mate (Sturt supporter) who was angry at the umpires that they would have looked at the stat sheet at 3/4 time and seen South get the frees....I knew they were going to try even them up in the last 1/4. I knew we were gone in a tight contest. They always do try to make it look good for the paper.

Still not satisfied with a 32-16 free kick in favour count ?

[Choaty]

Interesting stats, I'm sure Spelly could tell you the last time South have had more free kicks than the opposition in a game, but it hasn't happened a heck of a lot in the past 3 years! I've always put that down to South being second to the ball, although this year that has changed in our game style.
Given, the umpiring WAS woeful yesterday (and perhaps not due a double difference), but Sturt supporters need to realise, that if your team are going to be second to the ball, and not the last one to get up, lay fewer tackles, then that free kick count is not going to go your way!

[saintal]

A reasonably entertaining game I thought. Read with interest in today's paper that the inside 50 count to 3/4 time was South's way nearly 2 to 1. As Fuller said we had enough of the footy to win the game, but credit to Sturt that when they did go forward they made the most of their opportunities (very straight kicking to 3/4 time.)

Liddle best for South again.

[topcat10]

Given, the umpiring WAS woeful yesterday (and perhaps not due a double difference), but Sturt supporters need to realise, that if your team are going to be second to the ball, and not the last one to get up, lay fewer tackles, then that free kick count is not going to go your way!

In round 1 South laid 62 tackles to Sturt's 39,yet the free kick count was in Sturt's favour 25-21-your argument is flawed Choaty. First to the ball does NOT always equal a majority of free kicks-it may prove that players with the ball are unable/unwilling to dispose of it or that they are experts at dropping their heads or throwing their heads backwards to claim a free Often an uneven count indicates that the umpires are rarely in the correct position to see the play and just guess an outcome from the "blindside".

[southee]

So Sturt supporters did not see the last 1/4 of football ????

Im sure that would have evened the frees for and against up a bit

Agreed we got the best of it in the last 1/4 southee. That is not the point. The umpiring was woeful from start to finish, and the free kick count was almost double to South at the end of the day still. And IF what cutterman's informant said is true then it is bad for all of us.

I said to my mate (Sturt supporter) who was angry at the umpires that they would have looked at the stat sheet at 3/4 time and seen South get the frees....I knew they were going to try even them up in the last 1/4. I knew we were gone in a tight contest. They always do try to make it look good for the paper.

Still not satisfied with a 32-16 free kick in favour count ?

You won the game guys....be happy with that!!!

Play on.....

[topcat10]

Yep Sturt won the game despite the men in white. Which makes you wonder why the complaints about a 32-16 free kick tally??? There is normally a little more justification for investigation when the WINNING team's supporters have a problem Imagine if Sturt had been gifted 4 goals from their first 5 directly from free dubious kicks as South were. The margin could have been 8 or 9 goals

[csbowes]

The umpiring was poor... 32-16 wasn't a reflection of how the game was played IMNSHO. The tiser stated that South were constantly first to the ball, which I would dispute, certainly weren't first to the ball twice as much as Sturt.

There were just a number of incidents where the umpires were totally conned by the players. A South player ducked his head right outside the goal square, the second he did it, I was thinking, right, here comes a crap free and so it came.

Rewarding a player who played for a free... that is poor and not in the spirit of the game.

Was I pleased when Sturt were clearly holding the ball in the last term when it was only about 10 points difference and it was given as a high tackle and free to us, oh yes, but it doesn't make it right. That free would have put South in a position to move into the forward 50 and possibly reduce the margin, the poor decision allowed Sturt to go into attack and score themselves.

Overall it was a woeful display from the umpires on the day...

[blueandwhite]

hate to be a stick in the mud but more often its not the free kicks that were paid but the ones that were not paid.

Personally I thought the umpiring was poor but that is the way it has been all year-week in week out.
South had far more of the ball in the first 3 quarters and with the opportunities they had should have put the game beyond Sturts' reach at 3/4 time.A lack of poise under pressure and some insipid skill errors by South kept Sturt in the game.
Sturt really just ran over us in the last quarter; it was disappointing but South are on the improve and Ron is doing a great job.

[godoubleblues]

The umpiring was poor... 32-16 wasn't a reflection of how the game was played IMNSHO. The tiser stated that South were constantly first to the ball, which I would dispute, certainly weren't first to the ball twice as much as Sturt.

Overall it was a woeful display from the umpires on the day...

just the tiser toeing he party line, you really think they are going to print anything controversial

and your last statement says it all, on they day....

[godoubleblues]

but South are on the improve and Ron is doing a great job.

agreed

[am Bays]

The umpiring was poor... 32-16 wasn't a reflection of how the game was played IMNSHO. The tiser stated that South were constantly first to the ball, which I would dispute, certainly weren't first to the ball twice as much as Sturt.

Overall it was a woeful display from the umpires on the day...

just the tiser toeing he party line, you really think they are going to print anything controversial

and your last statement says it all, on they day....

I dunno after the '07 Elimination Final Partland a) didn't toe the party line and b) demonstrated his lack of understanding of the laws of Australian Football.

[topcat10]

Please explain

[Voice]

hate to be a stick in the mud but more often its not the free kicks that were paid but the ones that were not paid.

Personally I thought the umpiring was poor but that is the way it has been all year-week in week out.
South had far more of the ball in the first 3 quarters and with the opportunities they had should have put the game beyond Sturts' reach at 3/4 time.A lack of poise under pressure and some insipid skill errors by South kept Sturt in the game.
Sturt really just ran over us in the last quarter; it was disappointing but South are on the improve and Ron is doing a great job.

So you wont more than 48 free kicks given in a game Surely not blueandwhite. More than 30 IMO shows that a game is being over umpired.

[Blueandwhiteforever]

I am bias but I thought South was the better team for most of the day. Sure south did get a few easy frees in front of goal generally because they were first to the ball and Sturt were generally second. South let Sturt get easy goals without pressure which was the main contributing factors in why Sturt won. South should have been well up at 3/4 qtr time with Warren missing 3 sitters. This was another factor Chambers 6.0 to Warren 1.3 to 3/4 qtr time. I was more than happy with endeavour and committment but skills errors and poise to convert and keep the ball needs a lot of improvement. Thought it was 2 point lost.
Sturt without Chambers would be a bottom side. He is a great finisher and gives Sturt so much confidence. Dont know the conversion rate inside 50 but it would have been 75% I would have though to South's probably 30%. Very frustrated that we didnt win but some good signs for South though.

[darley16]

Good contested footy all day, Sturt had better delivery skills when under presure therefore finished off slightly better however for an inexperienced youthful team the Panther lads showed plenty of courage and up-side in their performance. Agree that Chambers was probably the difference but Sturt would still be a good side without him, Ben Warren uncharacteristically missing set shots maybe the presure of captaincy effecting this. As a long term Southie the club is showing real signs of genuine commited improvement which reminds me of the early days of the Hayden Bunton era when from the ashes a nucleus of an excellent team was being assembled.

[CUTTERMAN]

Can't quite understand this "South were first to the ball" stuff, thought it was pretty even and 188 kicks to 155, 87 marks to 38, 156 handballs to100 and 60 tackles to 67 would all indicate that South weren't first to the ball enough to warrant double the free kicks.

[Cambridge Clarrie]

I am bias but I thought South was the better team for most of the day. Sure south did get a few easy frees in front of goal generally because they were first to the ball and Sturt were generally second. South let Sturt get easy goals without pressure which was the main contributing factors in why Sturt won. South should have been well up at 3/4 qtr time with Warren missing 3 sitters. This was another factor Chambers 6.0 to Warren 1.3 to 3/4 qtr time. I was more than happy with endeavour and committment but skills errors and poise to convert and keep the ball needs a lot of improvement. Thought it was 2 point lost.
Sturt without Chambers would be a bottom side. He is a great finisher and gives Sturt so much confidence. Dont know the conversion rate inside 50 but it would have been 75% I would have though to South's probably 30%. Very frustrated that we didnt win but some good signs for South though.

Yep, you are biased. I don't think South were the better team for much of the day at all. If South had been for 'most of the day' they would have been pretty comfortably in front at 3/4 time. I think that they played above what everyone expected from them and Sturt below what everyone expected from them which may give a false impression as to who the better team was.

Certainly good signs for the Panthers though if they can hang on to their developing group.

[smithy]

As a long term Southie the club is showing real signs of genuine commited improvement which reminds me of the early days of the Hayden Bunton era when from the ashes a nucleus of an excellent team was being assembled.

What do you base this "genuine improvement" on ?
League side is 2nd bottom on 2 wins and your other grades are bottom and winless.

[blueandwhite]

Can't quite understand this "South were first to the ball" stuff, thought it was pretty even and 188 kicks to 155, 87 marks to 38, 156 handballs to100 and 60 tackles to 67 would all indicate that South weren't first to the ball enough to warrant double the free kicks.

Believe it or not statistics do lie.

Two of the most important statistical areas in todays footy are tackles and inside 50's. As you have pointed out the tackle count was 60-67- pretty close. The most telling statistic from Souths point of view was the inside 50's. At 3/4 time South had entered their 50m arc twice as many times as Sturt. Check out your own clubs stats if you like.
For all of that South had very little to show for it on the scoreboard, hence most South supporters disappointment in the end result.

[saintal]

As a long term Southie the club is showing real signs of genuine commited improvement which reminds me of the early days of the Hayden Bunton era when from the ashes a nucleus of an excellent team was being assembled.

What do you base this "genuine improvement" on ?
League side is 2nd bottom on 2 wins and your other grades are bottom and winless.

2009 record- 2 wins, 18 losses, shocking %
2010 record- 2 wins, 1 draw, 4 losses

That in itself would indicate improvement by the league side yes?

The other grades, particularly the U18s are a worry, yes.