DOC wrote:St Kilda beat North by 91 points.
North had a few players out with cricket finals and there was a wedding.
by Lightning McQueen » Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:17 am
DOC wrote:St Kilda beat North by 91 points.
by DOC » Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:26 am
by mots02 » Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:23 am
DOC wrote:St Kilda described North as lacklustre on their website.
That is a fair slag for a trial game and not something that should be said about an opponent, trial match or not.
by Bum Crack » Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:29 am
DOC wrote:St Kilda described North as lacklustre on their website.
That is a fair slag for a trial game and not something that should be said about an opponent, trial match or not.
by Brodlach » Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:31 am
Bum Crack wrote:DOC wrote:St Kilda described North as lacklustre on their website.
That is a fair slag for a trial game and not something that should be said about an opponent, trial match or not.
They have a lot of upside though. Definitely a lot more than the Crows
Brodlach wrote:Rory Laird might end up the best IMO, he is an absolute jet. He has been in great form at the Bloods
by Bum Crack » Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:33 am
Brodlach wrote:Bum Crack wrote:DOC wrote:St Kilda described North as lacklustre on their website.
That is a fair slag for a trial game and not something that should be said about an opponent, trial match or not.
They have a lot of upside though. Definitely a lot more than the Crows
Surely we couldn’t get any worse.
by Armchair expert » Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:08 pm
Bum Crack wrote:Brodlach wrote:Bum Crack wrote:DOC wrote:St Kilda described North as lacklustre on their website.
That is a fair slag for a trial game and not something that should be said about an opponent, trial match or not.
They have a lot of upside though. Definitely a lot more than the Crows
Surely we couldn’t get any worse.
You're definitely not worse than North Melbourne that's for sure. Worst team in the AFL by a country mile.
by DOC » Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:18 pm
mots02 wrote:DOC wrote:St Kilda described North as lacklustre on their website.
That is a fair slag for a trial game and not something that should be said about an opponent, trial match or not.
That article was written by Mitch Cleary not the Saints.
by mighty_tiger_79 » Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:15 pm
by Wedgie » Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:34 pm
by Brodlach » Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:09 pm
Brodlach wrote:Rory Laird might end up the best IMO, he is an absolute jet. He has been in great form at the Bloods
by mighty_tiger_79 » Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:10 pm
In protest over this new ruleBrodlach wrote:Bruce McAvaney has retired from calling AFL
He’s had a special career
by Lightning McQueen » Mon Mar 01, 2021 8:48 am
Brodlach wrote:Bruce McAvaney has retired from calling AFL
He’s had a special career
by Lightning McQueen » Mon Mar 01, 2021 8:49 am
Wedgie wrote:LOL, see the 50m Cox gave away for walking backwards off the mark today.
This rule is comedy GOLD!
by am Bays » Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:08 am
Lightning McQueen wrote:Wedgie wrote:LOL, see the 50m Cox gave away for walking backwards off the mark today.
This rule is comedy GOLD!
I seen it in the CDFC vs NAFC under 16's yesterday, it's a diabolical rule, it has little merit.
by Lightning McQueen » Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:48 am
am Bays wrote:Lightning McQueen wrote:Wedgie wrote:LOL, see the 50m Cox gave away for walking backwards off the mark today.
This rule is comedy GOLD!
I seen it in the CDFC vs NAFC under 16's yesterday, it's a diabolical rule, it has little merit.
Huh? It's not being adopted in the SANFL this year. https://sanfl.com.au/league/news/more-space-for-defenders-under-sanfl-rule-change/
Maybe it was a protected area 50 m, Mate?
I think it has merit, but I think the example circulating on social media is an incorrect interpretation given he only turned around he didn't go off his mark
by gadj1976 » Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:24 am
am Bays wrote:Lightning McQueen wrote:Wedgie wrote:LOL, see the 50m Cox gave away for walking backwards off the mark today.
This rule is comedy GOLD!
I seen it in the CDFC vs NAFC under 16's yesterday, it's a diabolical rule, it has little merit.
Huh? It's not being adopted in the SANFL this year. https://sanfl.com.au/league/news/more-space-for-defenders-under-sanfl-rule-change/
Maybe it was a protected area 50 m, Mate?
I think it has merit, but I think the example circulating on social media is an incorrect interpretation given he only turned around he didn't go off his mark
by DOC » Mon Mar 01, 2021 3:25 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |