SA Footy

tigerpie wrote:Fabulous Phil was interesting. Norwood far more professional than Collingwood, and that the standard wasnt what he expected!
And that his best footy moment was Sturts first victory after a whole bunch of crappy years in a row.
Stick that up ya a*** VFL/AFL.

Different cat Phil, but he sure could play.

Thoroughly enjoyed that one after a bunch of crap ones in a row.
Couldn't stand Mike at the end apologising for bringing up negative stuff.
Either ask it or don't. Don't apologise for it tosser.

Baron Greenback wrote:

tigerpie wrote:Fabulous Phil was interesting. Norwood far more professional than Collingwood, and that the standard wasnt what he expected!
And that his best footy moment was Sturts first victory after a whole bunch of crappy years in a row.
Stick that up ya a*** VFL/AFL.

Different cat Phil, but he sure could play.

Thoroughly enjoyed that one after a bunch of crap ones in a row.
Couldn't stand Mike at the end apologising for bringing up negative stuff.
Either ask it or don't. Don't apologise for it tosser.

Plus there was pretty much nothing about his playing career in SA because Mike doesn't rate it or care
The contract wrangle between Norwood and Collingwood was actually a pretty big story from my undertstanding, so I can't believe he didn't mention it.
No to mention his insistence on referring to Phil's career in the "AFL".
It was the VFL you tosser

I remember watching Phil play for Norwood @ Woodville as a 17yo when he was still going to Kings college & absolutely dominate, what a gun. He took some absolute screamers & everyone was in awe of this kid.

I thought this i/view was full of regrets from him for what he could have been. He seemed to buck officialdom at VFL clubs.

How was his 1st year in the VFL - 3rd in the Brownlow, whilst missing 8 games when he broke his foot in a state game - no wonder they dont have these games now.

He kicked 11 goals in one game in his 1st year, amazing, & really with more disicipline he should have been a 300 game player for Collingwood.

must admit that i was disappointed with this episode
phil could have been one of the best interviews of all time but the fact he only focused on one side of him was a shame
would have loved to hear more about his early years,his ambitions but more importantly what he thinks about the game today,the style,the players and coaches and his thoughts on the mrp
so much more to tell

dee man wrote:must admit that i was disappointed with this episode
phil could have been one of the best interviews of all time but the fact he only focused on one side of him was a shame
would have loved to hear more about his early years,his ambitions but more importantly what he thinks about the game today,the style,the players and coaches and his thoughts on the mrp
so much more to tell

I agree it was a little disappointing but they did cover the biggest issues in his VFL time, which is Mikes form. Would I loved an hour or more to cover his entire footy career. They didn't even discuss his year at North I don't think? Might of seen a highlight or 2 but that's it.

Yeh i agree with you both, there was so much more that Mike could have asked instead of the negative stuff, like what AFL club if any does he follow now? Phil did seem on the back foot with a lot of the questions.

He had a chance but didnt grasp it, as he had so much to offer, & was a whisker off being a regular on Brownlow night.
Oh he must wonder what might have been.

dee man wrote:must admit that i was disappointed with this episode
phil could have been one of the best interviews of all time but the fact he only focused on one side of him was a shame
would have loved to hear more about his early years,his ambitions but more importantly what he thinks about the game today,the style,the players and coaches and his thoughts on the mrp
so much more to tell

Sounds just like Carman's career. Phil could have been one of the best players of all time but he was a complete and utter nutter. One of the great wasted talents of Australian Football.

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:

dee man wrote:must admit that i was disappointed with this episode
phil could have been one of the best interviews of all time but the fact he only focused on one side of him was a shame
would have loved to hear more about his early years,his ambitions but more importantly what he thinks about the game today,the style,the players and coaches and his thoughts on the mrp
so much more to tell

Sounds just like Carman's career. Phil could have been one of the best players of all time but he was a complete and utter nutter. One of the great wasted talents of Australian Football.

regards,

REB

The way he answered a few questions you get the feeling he regrets not making the most of it, it helped in his approach to coaching though, he mentioned he was hard on guys making the most of their time at the club and taking their opportunities.

unfortunately carman is better known for his misdemeanors rather than for his abilities as a player hence the way the interview unfolded, i for one wanted to hear his take on those rather than what he thinks of the game today, who cares what he thinks, i wanted to hear the man explain his actions

stampy wrote:unfortunately carman is better known for his misdemeanors rather than for his abilities as a player hence the way the interview unfolded, i for one wanted to hear his take on those rather than what he thinks of the game today, who cares what he thinks, i wanted to hear the man explain his actions

It was intersting how he explained hitting Tuck in the 77 Second Semi. "kicked the first goal, set up the second, 90,000 people screaming, the adrenaline was pumping, saw him there so I wacked him!!"

Sheahan couldnt believe it!

Stephen Baker on open mike last night was one of the best i have seen
he answered questions honestly,in a way that it was like talking to any bloke at a game or pub
was honest,showed respect to players that stood up to him,very candid about coaches
if phil carmen had been treated the same way in his interview,his would have been so much better
dont agree with some of bakers actions but loved his truthfulness

I like Baker more now. Honest guy. Love the comment about the hands in the back rule.

The Sleeping Giant wrote:I like Baker more now. Honest guy. Love the comment about the hands in the back rule.

Ditto, just reinforced my belief that the game needs to stay a game for all types, not just those that can run the fastest 50m or have the highest vertical leap etc

Also how Baker would keep punching an opponent in the same spot on the arm, all game. Even had a player go off injured because of it.

JK wrote:

The Sleeping Giant wrote:I like Baker more now. Honest guy. Love the comment about the hands in the back rule.

Ditto, just reinforced my belief that the game needs to stay a game for all types, not just those that can run the fastest 50m or have the highest vertical leap etc

Except that it's not a game for all types, cos if it were a maggot like him wouldn't last long before he'd cop a broken jaw. He got away with it cos he knew there's nothing anyone could do. Same with the yap dog Jake King, easy to puff your chest out when you know the worst someone will do is give you a push back.

test wrote:

JK wrote:

The Sleeping Giant wrote:I like Baker more now. Honest guy. Love the comment about the hands in the back rule.

Ditto, just reinforced my belief that the game needs to stay a game for all types, not just those that can run the fastest 50m or have the highest vertical leap etc

Except that it's not a game for all types, cos if it were a maggot like him wouldn't last long before he'd cop a broken jaw. He got away with it cos he knew there's nothing anyone could do. Same with the yap dog Jake King, easy to puff your chest out when you know the worst someone will do is give you a push back.

very true but in Jake Kings case i was told by Ben Nason he is the strongest bloke at the club and bench presses only 5 kilos less than Ivan Maric. Is also apparently by far the best boxer at the club. Apparently can hold his own very well and if he wasnt a footballer would probably take MMA serious.

Baker copped as good as he gave. Even got one of Judd's elbows.

whufc wrote:

test wrote:

JK wrote:

The Sleeping Giant wrote:I like Baker more now. Honest guy. Love the comment about the hands in the back rule.

Ditto, just reinforced my belief that the game needs to stay a game for all types, not just those that can run the fastest 50m or have the highest vertical leap etc

Except that it's not a game for all types, cos if it were a maggot like him wouldn't last long before he'd cop a broken jaw. He got away with it cos he knew there's nothing anyone could do. Same with the yap dog Jake King, easy to puff your chest out when you know the worst someone will do is give you a push back.

very true but in Jake Kings case i was told by Ben Nason he is the strongest bloke at the club and bench presses only 5 kilos less than Ivan Maric. Is also apparently by far the best boxer at the club. Apparently can hold his own very well and if he wasnt a footballer would probably take MMA serious.

Well there you go, he might have a future as a fly weight!

Would probably be bee d**k weight if they had one LOL

whufc wrote:very true but in Jake Kings case i was told by Ben Nason he is the strongest bloke at the club and bench presses only 5 kilos less than Ivan Maric

Helps that King's arms are half the length of Maric's