JACK BACK, TIMMY OUT?

[wedgetail]

wots Stephen Williams up to these days???.........would love to see him back....

I believe he's a mobile phone salesman and very successful at it too!

[bayman]

wots Stephen Williams up to these days???.........would love to see him back....

I believe he's a mobile phone salesman and very successful at it too!

has he given up working as a fireman ?

[wedgetail]

wots Stephen Williams up to these days???.........would love to see him back....

I believe he's a mobile phone salesman and very successful at it too!

has he given up working as a fireman ?

Bayman, think back to an incident at Woody Oval about 5-6 years ago where a phone became mobile courtesy of S. Williams

[OCT]

I think the Williams era is nearly finished. Stephen was very fortunate he had a very good side ( like a lot of port coaches) and the other ones approach to coaching went out a while ago , blokes dont respond to that stuff anymore. Have a raed( if you can bear it ) of Rucci column of late to work out what he thinks of Mark .............and he is a port man.

I say please take Stephen as your next coach. Continue your tradition of going within & not exporing how to improve your your club in its current poor state.

[therisingblues]

I tend to agree Oct. If Timmy doesn't get the gig again next year who are they going to take on? Any outsider that comes in will have 120+ years of Magpie egos to contend with, as soon as anything goes wrong they'll all be sh1tting on whoever it is just because he's not part of the Magpie family. I can only see them getting an ex-Magpie to take over once Timmy's gone (whenever that might be).

[OCT]

Not sure about 120+ years Theri . They are a new club of about 11 or so years experience aren't they ?

[therisingblues]

Ah-a! But I was talking about the egos. I think there is really no shortage of years that they'd like to stretch it back to.

[OCT]

Yep , bugger the indigenous round , lets have a Port Adelaide round, some would argue they made the game

[therisingblues]

Hey if they want to buy everybody a beer that's fine with me.

[Magpiespower]

He never looked very adaptable as a player. He was made by being in front of a dominant team, I thought.

I apologise before hand but I just noticed this...

In this most ridiculous thread..

This is THE most ridiculous post.

Without Scotty Hodges...

Some dirty clubs like Glenelg (1990), Eagles (1994) and Central/s (1996) would have an extra Thomas Seymour-Hill in their trophy cabinet.

Psyber, you need a binge drink!

[Spideroncall]

Source was from an ex champion Port player who also played in the VFL.

For the Swans ?

No But I believe he had the Wood on others?

[Big Phil]

Some dirty clubs like Glenelg (1990), Eagles (1994) and Centrals (1996) would have an extra Thomas Seymour-Hill in their trophy cabinet.

We aren't a dirty club as like you suggested Magpiespower, or can I call you Magpiesfailure... !!??

I'd take a look in your own backyard mate, don't throw stones in glass houses...

I guess, if anything to a small degree, Centrals can thank Port Adelaide for their recent success on field...

Kris Grant and Alan Stewart were instrumental in the change of attitude and direction the club took after stating they wanted to use a similar model to that of the Port Adelaide Football Club. Thanks Port, 6 premierships in 8 years has been wonderful and would think far from dirty mate

GO U DOGGIES...

Big Phil...

[OCT]

Why thank Port , thank Stewart in particular for having the vision to say you needed to change. Footy has been like that since its inception , clubs follow others . I find it amazing a Port supporter would call other clubs dirty , there history is littered with it.

[Big Phil]

I guess, if anything to a small degree, Centrals can thank Port Adelaide for their recent success on field...

Oct,

For once I actually agree with something you say...

Well not EVERYTHING exactly, like I highlighted above, I said to a small degree we can thank them. I guess I actually meant we can somewhat acknowledge them for the prior success and system they had in place that we simply emulated in our own way...

Big Phil...

[OCT]

Actually I think it's 2 times now mate. ( I reckon if you read them all seriously you'd agree with a lot I have said !!)

[Big Phil]

Actually I think it's 2 times now mate. ( I reckon if you read them all seriously you'd agree with a lot I have said !!)

2 out of 200 mate !!??

Big Phil...

[Rik E Boy]

Henley, then Seaton, now nowhere.

This bloke wouldn't be scotty himself would he?

regards,

REB

[NO-MERCY]

Why thank Port , thank Stewart in particular for having the vision to say you needed to change. Footy has been like that since its inception , clubs follow others . I find it amazing a Port supporter would call other clubs dirty , there history is littered with it.

Atleast Central ( Stewart ) were honest & needed to change the direction they were heading & quickly, thats why their where they are today, Centrals not only changed their game, similar to Ports in (2000) but also kept in touch with the modern era of footy since, something Port has not. ( living in the past )
Matthew Knights tried to do that (2004) but was ridiculed by all because the success didn't follow in that (one year) oh & of course, he was from Richmond!
What success has followed since his departure??
They are playing basically the same brand of footy since their successful era 1988-1999.
Port, from what i've seen don't have the game plan & i don't see the same supporters jumping up & down like they were when Matthew was in charge, atleast if he was in charge today, the whiteants of the club would of been terminated & they'd be playing a brand of footy far superior to the current.
Maybe some of those players back then are now regretting their reluctance to change the style when they had the chance? The very same supporters back then & hyreichy should hang their heads in shame & wake up to themselves.

[am Bays]

In all seriousness NM what are the major differences between Port mid 80s to mid 90s and the Centrals of the 00s?

For mine both games are pretty similar, Strong rebounding half back line, attack the footy, pressure on the ball carrier, kick long to strong forward target (Hodges/Schell).

Whilst there are some subtle differences as footy tactics have changed in the last 20 years, in switching the play and stoppage set ups the essence of the game plan IMO is essentially similar.

I would be interested on where you think the differences lie???

Mind you some of the philosophies of Len Smith still hold true today - quick delivery into the forward line, crumbing, working together and his rules on tackling, mind an opponent, and slowing the play down are still relevant. The discussion of footy tactics evolution is one that I find fascinating as SOME of the basic principles of the game havent changed much in 50 years

[NO-MERCY]

Port back in the 80s & 90s compared to todays Port-played more of a kick long at all costs, never over handball, outnumbered the opposition at the contests front & square & intimidate the opposition ( in their face ).
The midfielders i believe were more accountable than todays, today they play more off each other.
Port were very good in defence, they rebounded aggressively, their ability to switch play with pin point accuracy & run in numbers & break lines, which gave the fwds quick use & a chance by puting the ball to space & in front, not like todays hospital balls or delivery wide deep in pockets on the boundary.
The defence of today can't switch play effectively, time & time again they turn the ball over, even under no pressure.
I don't see lines of 3-4 Port players trying to break the lines with pace & possession footy, they havn't got the confidence or belief to do it, they don't work hard enough to help out other defenders with the 1%ers of the game ( tackle, sheppherd, chasing etc ).
The fwds can't kick goals when they get the ball ( don't like to be caught in pressure situations ), theirs only one main target in Hargraves & he's not blessed with pace & is getting on in age, although he can hold his head up coz he's been having a crack but you'd get alot of the ball to if it was given to you at all costs, indirectly alot of the times & out of position ( wide to the pockets ).
Fwds don't work hard enough to hold the ball inside 50, they should be more aggressive & get in the face of their opponent, not letting them run off & create. just doesn't seem to be any structure up fwd.
Centrals on the other hand are alot quicker, which is where the game has changed in recent years, they are also cleaner by a long shot with the use of the footy, they seem to have better structure coming out of defence & hit there better structured options up fwd, they have smalls ( midfielders ) that not only work hard offensively ( kicking goals ) but defensively helping out the there defenders.
When they lose a couple of centre clearances in a row, they'll man up & back themselves in a 50\50 contest, ACCOUNTABILITY something Port players don't know the meaning of.
One thing Centrals maintain is their aggressive approach at every contest & intimidation ( Gowans ) in your face all day.
So yes Tassie both games are similar & the clubs fundementals to a degree, the pace & possession ( handball ) has increased enormously in our game today & Centrals use the ball far better than most clubs, especially Port.