SA Footy

Bays going about their business methodically at the moment. Of course Centrals and Sturt are the front runners. Play on !

Yep we won they lost, did what we had to do after rocking up at 1/4 time. Still lots of things to improve on if we are to beat the likes of Sturt, Centrals and after today North.

ressies won by 12 so would expect C Hall to come in this week.

big game this week coming up, shoulders to the wheel boys still a long way to go.

much more comfortable being the 3rd best team in the comp at the moment (or maybe 4th after North?) and hopefully peaking at the right time this year, good win, any win is a good one off a 5 day break

Dutchy wrote:much more comfortable being the 3rd best team in the comp at the moment (or maybe 4th after North?) and hopefully peaking at the right time this year, good win, any win is a good one off a 5 day break

And well done to the Mouse who has been crook all week and didn't look well today who once again went in and got the job done. Pro.

Solid effort today after facing a 5 goal gale and a pumped Westies outfit in the first to be down 21 at quarter time.

In control of the game from late in the 2nd but never quite shook them off until the last 15 mins of the game.

West really need to back themselves because when they do they can be damaging, but reverted to the flooding game plan again at times today.

Tom Holmes surprised with 5, Willoughby backed up his very good game from last week and Kirk again strong down back.

The Bays are quietly going about their business but a long, long way to go yet.

Thought we started of well. Then we just slipped out the game.

The sooner we learn to play 4 Quaters the better.

Thought Ferguson was our best today.

Had a chance to get back in the game last but blew it

Congrats to the bays. I guess we are still learning.

Looking forward to week off.

We have a tough 5 weeks comming up

Does this thread win the " WHO GIVES A ****" award this week?

*edit* Watch the language please guys...thank you from the Mod team

The Sleeping Giant wrote:Does this thread win the " WHO GIVES A ****" award this week?

Grow up

Farbs wrote:

The Sleeping Giant wrote:Does this thread win the " WHO GIVES A ****" award this week?

Grow up

Then I couldn't post on here. What to do?

bays too good as expected but why do west continue to play defensive is beyond me, they had the 4-5 goal breeze in the first term & still played defensively i could understand them doing it in the 2nd term but when this is done only one team can score as happened yesterday & with this tactic even at 1/4 time when we were behind i wasn't worried as only one team can score when your defending.....surely in their education playing attacking footy would be more beneficial in the long run anyway

Thiele I thought West played 4 quarters; would probably rate this as the best aspect of their game. They played with reasonable intensity for 4 quarters, they put pressure on the Bays players, they had an obvious plan and stuck to it for the whole game. The only problem is that the game plan still seems to be ultra-defensive; getting numbers a kick behind the play (or what people might simply call "flooding") and getting numbers at the stoppages to choke the play. I rated their effort as better than the last time they visited Brighton Road. Still need some polish but they're on the right track.

FWIW Glenelg I thought Glenelg also played defensively, particularly when kicking into the wind. On the hill we were getting frustrated with the obvious attempt to keep the play on the outer boundary line. I guess the conditions demand this style of play, put if makes for an ugly game to watch. Skills also a little down; a couple of players consistently dropped marks which they should have eaten. Again one could blame the conditions, but still... Pleasing at least to see the Bays play mostly 4 quarters. I was especially impressed with the first ten minutes of the game which Glenelg controlled, though not by troubling the scoreboard attendant. West could have gotten to a much bigger lead at quarter time were it not for this.

We need to go into the games with 2 ruckman not 1

Thiele wrote:We need to go into the games with 2 ruckman not 1

you need to go into games with an attacking attitude & not a defenive one

Who would your second ruckman be Thiele?

LBT wrote:Who would your second ruckman be Thiele?

Borholm

The Sleeping Giant wrote:Does this thread win the " WHO GIVES A ****" award this week?

*edit* Watch the language please guys...thank you from the Mod team

Not ahead of your post.

Pseudo wrote:Thiele I thought West played 4 quarters; would probably rate this as the best aspect of their game. They played with reasonable intensity for 4 quarters, they put pressure on the Bays players, they had an obvious plan and stuck to it for the whole game. The only problem is that the game plan still seems to be ultra-defensive; getting numbers a kick behind the play (or what people might simply call "flooding") and getting numbers at the stoppages to choke the play. I rated their effort as better than the last time they visited Brighton Road. Still need some polish but they're on the right track.

FWIW Glenelg I thought Glenelg also played defensively, particularly when kicking into the wind. On the hill we were getting frustrated with the obvious attempt to keep the play on the outer boundary line. I guess the conditions demand this style of play, put if makes for an ugly game to watch. Skills also a little down; a couple of players consistently dropped marks which they should have eaten. Again one could blame the conditions, but still... Pleasing at least to see the Bays play mostly 4 quarters. I was especially impressed with the first ten minutes of the game which Glenelg controlled, though not by troubling the scoreboard attendant. West could have gotten to a much bigger lead at quarter time were it not for this.

nothing wrong with the play being on the eastern boundary - especially if your sitting there.