SA Footy

Full Time

GL 16.11.107
PAM 8.9.57


Goalkickers Glenelg: Willoughby 3, Backwell 3, T Grima 2, B Kane 2, Kirkby 2, Hinge, Meyer, Sellar, Adlington.
Goal Kickers Port: Fitzgerald 2, Krakouer 2, Young 2, Perry 1, Mardling 1

Best Players Glenelg: Murphy, Kirk, Kane, Willoughby, Meyer, Ruwoldt
Best Players Port: Murray, AhChee, Elstone, Meiklejohn, Perkins, Lokan


Reserves:
Glenelg 18.22-130 def. Port Adelaide Magpies 10.13-73

Bugger we both posted a review for this game at the same time.

MightyEagles wrote:Bugger we both posted a review for this game at the same time.

Anyone got goalscorers?

Glenelg 6.2 / 10.4 || 13.8 / 16.11. (107)
PAM 2.1 / 4.2 || 5.6 / 8.9 (57)

Goalkickers: Glenelg ; Willoughby 3, T Grima 2, Backwell 2, B Kane 2, Kirkby 2, Allen, Hinge, Meyer, Sellar, Adlington.
Port ; ?

Bays 4 goals in the first 10 mins, then put the cue in the rack. Not a great game of footy seven of Ports 8 goals came from our turnovers or basic mistakes. Last half not great footy from either side - Port were down to 1 on teh bench I think from teh 5 min mark of teh 3rd quarter. If we played liked we did agaisnt norwood we would have won by 15 goals.

The most frustrating thing today was the umpiring, however they were consistant. The great thing about SANFL umpires is they only pay the obvious free kick and have some footy nous (generally) about what footy is all about. Today was umpired straight out of the AFl interpretation book. I'm known on here for my defence of the umpires but seriously their interpreation of what is spoil (the law book refers to incidental contact) and over the shoulder was not very good especially when players had their eyes on the ball and were making a genuine attempt to spoil rather than infringe.

As I said it went both ways so you can't accuse them of being inconsistant or favouring one team.

agree with your last sentence taz, they were consistent.................bad, for both teams, lets hope they dont go the way of the AFL umps who wont pay the obvious but give the tiggy touchwood frees

am Bays wrote:Bays 4 goals in the first 10 mins, then put the cue in the rack. Not a great game of footy seven of Ports 8 goals came from our turnovers or basic mistakes. Last half not great footy from either side - Port were down to 1 on teh bench I think from teh 5 min mark of teh 3rd quarter. If we played liked we did agaisnt norwood we would have won by 15 goals.

The most frustrating thing today was the umpiring, however they were consistant. The great thing about SANFL umpires is they only pay the obvious free kick and have some footy nous (generally) about what footy is all about. Today was umpired straight out of the AFl interpretation book. I'm known on here for my defence of the umpires but seriously their interpreation of what is spoil (the law book refers to incidental contact) and over the shoulder was not very good especially when players had their eyes on the ball and were making a genuine attempt to spoil rather than infringe.

As I said it went both ways so you can't accuse them of being inconsistant or favouring one team.

Stampy & am bays i think you know how bad those umps were today & they wern't in favour of the away side.
That didn't cost Port the game today as Port were absolutely deplorable with their disposal & got showed up big time by the Bay's in just how to use the ball when going forward ( out in front & to advantage ) & how to hold their feet.
To be honest tho those umpires need to have a good look at themselves as they were terrible & wern't up to scratch for SANFL standard.

NO-MERCY wrote:That didn't cost Port the game today as Port were absolutely deplorable with their disposal & got showed up big time by the Bay's in just how to use the ball when going forward ( out in front & to advantage ) & how to hold their feet.

To be frank I didn't think we were very good at hitting the target, disposing to advantage or holding our feet when going forward. We burnt the ball too many times for my liking. Where I think we were good was our pressure, intensity at the contest to cause turnovers and our work rate.

NM I can think of at least four free kicks that Port got that I believe shouldn't have been paid (three from legitimate spoils and 1 HTB on the outer side) mind you there were at least four free kicks that we got that I thought WTF??? How did we get that (one to Wiilo-b in teh first quarter and another one that Kirkby got too). I agree those umpires did not umpire to the usual SANFL interpretations or standard.

Frees
Glenelg 21
Port 29

50 frees in the game is high by these day's standards. Didn't see the match but were a lot unwarranted? Or was it just that type of sloppy game that attracted them at every contest?

After seeing todays game how can so many players keep falling over.
The amount of Port players that kept losing their feet which resulted in turnovers was shocking.
They know that the ground is slippery and slightly muddy but they still want to wear these molded soles and blade type boots how dumb can you be and still breathe.
I wouldn't even consider going out their in those conditions unless I wore long screwins.

Even when we used to belt Port at the Bay they still had good sides they just didn't play well that day. The side that Port put out there today would have to be the worst Port side I have ever seen play from a skills level.

While we wern't much better we made the most of their mistakes.

scott wrote:Frees
Glenelg 21
Port 29

50 frees in the game is high by these day's standards. Didn't see the match but were a lot unwarranted? Or was it just that type of sloppy game that attracted them at every contest?

it wasn't the most "clean" -disposal wise game of footy I've seen but yes IMO there were numerous unwanted frees paid.

am Bays wrote:

NO-MERCY wrote:That didn't cost Port the game today as Port were absolutely deplorable with their disposal & got showed up big time by the Bay's in just how to use the ball when going forward ( out in front & to advantage ) & how to hold their feet.

To be frank I didn't think we were very good at hitting the target, disposing to advantage or holding our feet when going forward. We burnt the ball too many times for my liking. Where I think we were good was our pressure, intensity at the contest to cause turnovers and our work rate.

NM I can think of at least four free kicks that Port got that I believe shouldn't have been paid (three from legitimate spoils and 1 HTB on the outer side) mind you there were at least four free kicks that we got that I thought WTF??? How did we get that (one to Wiilo-b in teh first quarter and another one that Kirkby got too). I agree those umpires did not umpire to the usual SANFL interpretations or standard.

Far cleaner going forward than Port were, i'd like to see the numbers of marks inside 50 compared to Port.
Glenelgs pressure ( tackling ) on the opposition was fierce & resentless in numbers, they rebounded far better than Port did & were more prepared for wet weather football.

FWIW I thought Glenelg had the best of the umps for 3 quarters, though they did swing a bit the other way in the last term.

Agree with N-M though, it had absolutely no bearing on the result; Port Adelaide today was woeful, the worst team I have seen all year. Agree with 4th Estate, that would easily be the worst Port team I can ever remember seeing. The best that could be said about Port today is that they did try for 4 quarters. They simply did not have the skill to match it with Glenelg.

Reasonably happy with the Bays performance. Good team effort, and out of the blocks early. Any fears that a 3 1/2 week break would leave them flat were unwarranted. One of the better performances this year but still some room for improvement. Less farting around with handball in defence, and less inclination to play on after taking a mark within scoring range (particularly in the 1st term) would improve the Bays. Agree with amB, had the Tigers played like they did against Norwood then we'd be reaching for the record books tonight.

NO-MERCY wrote:
Far cleaner going forward than Port were, i'd like to see the numbers of marks inside 50 compared to Port.
Glenelgs pressure ( tackling ) on the opposition was fierce & resentless in numbers, they rebounded far better than Port did & were more prepared for wet weather football.

Agree with that but I kept thinking if we want to to take the next step this year we can't afford to have handballs missing targets, delivered so team mates have to stop or slow down to receive it or aimed at their bootlaces if we are going to challenge the likes of Centrals or Sturt.

Yes our marks inside 50 would have been greater but I understand from our stats team that our efficiency with inside 50s was down below average.

[quote="Pseudo"]FWIW I thought Glenelg had the best of the umps for 3 quarters, though they did swing a bit the other way in the last term.

It did look like they were trying to even things up in the last qtr.
No way Port were in front of the free kick count.

am Bays- The conditions played a part in your disposal wheather it was by hand or foot but i can tell you one thing your skill level was far better than Port & you'd be more worried if you were a Port supporter!

baysman wrote:Glenelg 6.2 / 10.4 || 13.8 / 16.11. (107)
PAM 2.1 / 4.2 || 5.6 / 8.9 (57)

Goalkickers: Glenelg ; Willoughby 3, T Grima 2, Backwell 2, B Kane 2, Kirkby 2, Allen, Hinge, Meyer, Sellar, Adlington.
Port ; ?

Should be Glenelg 10.3 at half time

and

Backwell 3 goals, Allen 0.

just far too classy overall today, i listened to ginevers speech (what i could hear of it anyway) at 1/4 time & i wonder whether the players actually believed in what he said which was ''we (port) can still win this we have to work harder, cleaner & peg them back one goal at a time'' now as i said would the players have believed it ? i'm sure timmy did but not sure about the players

i thought kirk & murphy were our best 2 players & i wonder how worse port would be if they ever lost corey ah chee

the comment of the day goes to a glenelg player in response to jarrod young saying to sellar in the last term when lining up for goal ''that you can't kick & that's why your not playing in the afl'' the comment to jarrod young was "you can talk, how was your last kick last week ?"

& why did matthew lokan give the crowd 'the bird' during the last term ?

bayman wrote:just far too classy overall today, i listened to ginevers speech (what i could hear of it anyway) at 1/4 time & i wonder whether the players actually believed in what he said which was ''we (port) can still win this we have to work harder, cleaner & peg them back one goal at a time'' now as i said would the players have believed it ? i'm sure timmy did but not sure about the players

i thought kirk & murphy were our best 2 players & i wonder how worse port would be if they ever lost corey ah chee

the comment of the day goes to a glenelg player in response to jarrod young saying to sellar in the last term when lining up for goal ''that you can't kick & that's why your not playing in the afl'' the comment to jarrod young was "you can talk, how was your last kick last week ?"

& why did matthew lokan give the crowd 'the bird' during the last term ?

Coz the bloke is a wanker of the highest order.

Bays were sound today, not fully wound up which is good considering the thought fortnigh ahead

Port were poor but you couldnt fault their endeavour, just aint got cattle (or $$$)