RD 5 Sturt v North Review

[spell_check]

I heard on the radio on the way home North were 7 goals to 1 goal at half time? Ended up winning without kicking a goal in the 2nd half? Spelly will have a field day with this!

I reckon the Bays reserves won at Prospect despite not goaling in the second half, sometime within the last few years.

Without scoring, in fact:
Rd 13 2006
Glenelg 5.4 11.6 11.6 11.6 (72)
North 3.1 7.2 7.5 9.8 (62)

[Cambridge Clarrie]

Took a lot out of the win, losing Archard before the game was a huge loss and then to have the likes of Ackland, Ryswyk, White all with injuries well before half time says alot for the character of the side. In the end, it was a great tussle and either side could have won. Game was wrecked by the worst umpiring display I have seen in many many years. Supporters on both sides could have alot to whinge about in regards to that. In the end our first win at Unley since 04 and with 5 or 6 of our regular players out injured etc great win

I'm having trouble seeing how that was a great win (despite players out etc.) The Roosters went to water in the second half...

Like I said, probably the correct result, but not a good win given you only kicked 1 goal in the second half (and coming home with a 5 goal breeze)...

could say the same about Sturts first half perhaps we can agree to disagree

I'll agree with you on that one...

[FD88]

The goal Phil Davis set up on his own against the breeze was one of the most magnificent things Ive seen for a long time

Very good to hear.

[goraw]

The goal Phil Davis set up on his own against the breeze was one of the most magnificent things Ive seen for a long time

Very good to hear.

phil reminds me of a young peter caven. looks awkward but is effective.

good win by the boys today, held on when maybe last year they would have folded. good to see a lot of young blood in the team getting a fair bit of experience too. we have a nice blend at the moment, with a few to come back aswell.

[Wedgie]

How come Spelly gets credit for my remark?

[the joker]

how dark was it in the last qtr

[Cambridge Clarrie]

how dark was it in the last qtr

Dark, but not as bad as I'd have thought...

[Wedgie]

Ironically it was lighter about 5 minutes after the game had finished, if they'd left it as a 3pm start the game would have finished in lighter conditions! lol

[spell_check]

How come Spelly gets credit for my remark?

And how would I have known that had happened?

[Jars458]

I'm not sure who I think deserved to win this game.

North Adelaide. They kicked a higher score.

Really poor post on at least two levels.

[Wedgie]

I'm not sure who I think deserved to win this game.

North Adelaide. They kicked a higher score.

Really poor post on at least two levels.

I thought it was a really good post on at least one level.

I have no doubt North deserved to win today.

[smithy]

I'm not sure who I think deserved to win this game.

North Adelaide. They kicked a higher score.

Really poor post on at least two levels.

And an even better introduction to this site !

[Adelaide Hawk]

I'm not sure who I think deserved to win this game.

North Adelaide. They kicked a higher score.

Really poor post on at least two levels.

Why? I'm really tired of all this crap people go with about who deserved to win. There's a simple rule in footy people, you get 6 points for a goal, and 1 point for a behind. The aim of the game is to score as many of these as possible, and the team that gets the most points deserves to win.

People crap on about inside 50s, and all these other stupid stats, but the only stats that matter are goals and behinds.

Maybe the fact I played basketball and cricket is the way I think this way. You rarely sit around after a game questioning who deserved to win. If the other side got more runs, or hit more points then they won. Simple as that. But for some reason in football, that's not enough.

Footy fans seem to think you can deserve to win even though you haven't kicked as high a score as your opponent. Strange outlook.

I'd really love to here you BS theories as to why my comment was a "really poor post on at least 2 levels". Try 3, maybe 4, or even 5 levels if you like ... but they'd all be total BS.

[Jars458]

Ist level was that he said HE was not sure.

Second level is if the team that deserves to win is always the team that actually wins you are saying that the word "deserves" has no meaning.

Silly really.

[drebin]

Sturt lacked intensity in the first half, North lacked intensity in the second half. Probably the correct result, but if I were a Roosters supporter I wouldn't take a lot out of the win...

The loss of Coad before the game and McLeay in the second half hurt us but I was impressed by the efforts of Fittock & McGlone in defence. (how the hell does Thurstans play AFL???)

Looking forward to next week and the opportunity to whip the swampies!

Wouldn't take a lot from the win hey? Well we will take the two points for starters.

The loss of Archard before the game for us considering he has been our best player this year didn't help our cause! White off with concussion for all the 2nd half was a bigger loss than McLeay, corkies to both Schwarze and Ackland also didn't help which probably unsettles the side and the drop of intensity as more to do with Sturt creating more space and going more direct.

I thought Sturt had plenty of it in the first half but were so indirect - going side ways and backwards due to North's pressure. The Sunday Mail stats are amazing - Sturt had so much more possession overall but still lost. Stats however don't always paint the real picture.

[Kev]

"if I were a Roosters supporter I wouldn't take a lot out of the win..."

Well I woke up this morning feeling a lot better than I know I would have if we had lost by a couple of points!

We also look a lot better on the ladder (two premiership points does that!)

Then I rolled over and thought about how well our young guys were doing (3 out of 4 wins) and who we had to come back (Archard, Gill, Whyman, O'Hara, Dodman, Younie, Sporn, Sloane and Delvins) - all of whom could/will play league b4 the season is over.

But you are right - not a lot out of the win but more than you can take out of the loss.

Onto next week - be good for the Swampies to have their first win for the year and for North to have their fourth.

[Dog_ger]

Mrs_dog_ger is so happy.

regardless to say, so am I....

[therisingblues]

Listened to this game at my own leisure after I recorded it on my walkman. So much better than before when I'd rush to the internet whenever I could, these days Saturdays are just so busy I have no hope of hearing anything live unless it is after 7:00.

I was thinking that Sturt had a lot of the ball in the first quarter, but I was worried at that stage because they said we were playing with a gale, and it sounded as though we were just wasting opportunities. North on the other hand would go forward and slot it through from half a chance, by the sounds.
I thought the real turning point however was about 7 or 8 minutes into the second quarter where Bowen (I think) tried to center and picked out a North player between two Sturt players, which sent the Roosters forward for a goal. North dominated a lot after that and Sturt seemed to go to sleep. Until that point Sturt sounded as though they were getting a lot of it, but overused it so often that it finally wore away their confidence.
The radio mentioned a few times the difference in experience between the two sides, so that would possibly account for some of the poor decisions made by Sturt. It would have been great to get this one, but not to be.

[good ol' red and white]

Sturt did waste the ball especially in the first quarter. Too many short kicks. This summed up Sturt's first half to a certain extent. The first kick by North with the breeze was high and long. Sturt were much more commited in the second half, but we managed to hang on. Umpiring was embarrasing.

[Jimmy]

hate losing these games...esp at home...

oh well, bring on the maggies