View Full Version : Showdown12
Well, a disappointing result from the boys but lets look at the positives:-
Francou (a blinder) and Primus (good game) were standouts for the Power. Who the heck was on Francou? In addition, both their key forwards, Tredrea and Cornes, absolutely gave us a shelllacking. Our usage of the ball was disgusting. Whilst both sides had about the same no of players out (Port - Scholefield, Stevens, Hardwick, Kingsley. Adelaide - Riccuito, Goodwin, Welsh and Bassett), I think the more damage would be done by the Crows absentees (two All-Australians if you don't mind). And what was the result, an 8 point loss. Methinks that the Crows have more ability to improve than the Power, so all is not lost.
What did we have to gain by winning today? - we have a top four spot wrapped up, we couldn't conceiveably get 2nd, so perhaps our motivation wasn't as good as it should have been. And given the way some of our senior players played I would suggest that was the same thinking.
Umpriring - absolutely shocking for both sides however when is a holding the ball, holding the ball. Only when you are a Crows player!
Bickley report - unfortunate and will miss 2-3 weeks, but what about some other incidents from the other side. Only goes one way me thinks.
As I said before I think Adelaide can improve immeasurably on today whilst the Power, hm, not sure given the dominant performances from Francou, Tredrea and Cornes.
Ok, where the heck was the Crows team which played Essendon last week?
It seems that when the Crows play the Power, their brains turn to marshmallow! Good decision making goes out the window.
Francou has won two Showdown medals before, so they know he lifts for these games, so why the *beep* don't they mind him better???
What happened to all that terrific goal kicking practice???
The Power certainly seem to have the wood on them. The Crows were lucky to only lose by 8 points.
Don't worry about this result guys as all that matters for Port in a season is beating us. Honestly we couldn't care half as much as they do about winning the showdown because every game in the season is worth four points. We had no incentive to win today, were without 2 of our best three players, our full back and our full forward, we played one of our worst games for the season, the umpires were against us all day (Josh Carr's "mark" in the final quarter was disgraceful), and they could still only beat us by 8 points.
If Stevo had kicked even 2 of the sitters he missed we would have won. We will cream them in the finals, I have no doubt about this. Everyone's talking about Port in the Prelim having to play in Melbourne - they have to be actually able to win a game first.
Anyway not all bad, we will lose Bicks for two weeks but to be quite honest I see no difference in this incident with the Roger James incident against Carlton, and he got no weeks. Maybe Gary can say how inconsistent the tribunal is just before Bickley's case:D
Looking forward to the finals!
You wouldn't see the difference, one was in malice and fractured a players cheekbone from which he will be out for 6 weeks, the other was a self defence mechanism which hardly made contact whatsoever.
Originally posted by Zombie
You wouldn't see the difference, one was in malice and fractured a players cheekbone from which he will be out for 6 weeks, the other was a self defence mechanism which hardly made contact whatsoever.
You also may of missed the fact that the Carlton player in question fell to the ground looking for a free because contact was high during a CONTEST for the ball and when it (the free) wasn't forthcoming he got up and continued on the game/season, whereas Wakelin got hit very (very) late and actually had his jaw broken.
Macca19
19 Aug 2002, 00:04
Originally posted by kirky
Who the heck was on Francou?
Apparently, according to Francous after match interview - Kane Johnson. Then again, Johnson isnt a negator. Trying to 'outplay' each other i guess.
In addition, both their key forwards, Tredrea and Cornes, absolutely gave us a shelllacking. Our usage of the ball was disgusting. Whilst both sides had about the same no of players out (Port - Scholefield, Stevens, Hardwick, Kingsley. Adelaide - Riccuito, Goodwin, Welsh and Bassett),
I think the more damage would be done by the Crows absentees (two All-Australians if you don't mind).
Riccuito was All Australian nearly three seasons ago. I hardly see the relevance. As for Goodwin - hasnt been near as good as he was last year and wont be All Australian this year. Stevens and Kingsley (well apparently in Kingsleys case) are in the running for All Australian THIS year....Hardwick should definatly be in the AA side this year. Schofield has also been one of our best midfielders this season.
Methinks that the Crows have more ability to improve than the Power, so all is not lost.
Subjective really isnt it.
What did we have to gain by winning today?
Err...teams usually go out on the park to win. Trying to beat a side that you are most likely going to meet in the finals and that have the wood on you is a start.
Umpriring - absolutely shocking for both sides however when is a holding the ball, holding the ball. Only when you are a Crows player!
Port had 3-4 holding the balls against them as well. Also a 'dropping the ball' (even tho it was spilled out in a tackle) which is the first ive seen an umpire pay that for about 2 years.
Bickley report - unfortunate and will miss 2-3 weeks, but what about some other incidents from the other side. Only goes one way me thinks.
Mcgregor got up straight away from Burgoynes bump. No different to Mcleods really...yet every Crow fan thinks Mcleod was an innocent little bunny protecting himself when he bumped into Lloyd....yet here Burgoyne is seen as a big villian!!! Go figure! As for Monty - probably get a week. Burton rammed into Monty and Monty retalliated, stupidly mind you. Burton got up and kept playing. Wakelin did not antagonise or ram into Bickley...he simply got rid of the ball and Bickley clobbered him. Reckless...maybe. Intentional...maybe, maybe not - who knows...point is whether intentional or not - Bickley forcefully hit someone with a forearm to the face which has now cost that player the rest of his season - possibly a premiership medal too. Given how Ports Stevens' got two weeks for their incidents, youd think Bickley would get 4.
As I said before I think Adelaide can improve immeasurably on today whilst the Power, hm, not sure given the dominant performances from Francou, Tredrea and Cornes.
We got plenty of room for improvement. You just choose not to see it! Schofield, Kingsley, Hardwick and Stevens would all be in our best 10 players this season. Now losing Wakelin as well who has also been in our best ten players...thats just as hefty as the outs that the Crows had. I honestly couldnt care if Riccuito was an All Australian 3 seasons ago....the relevance to todays game and this year (where Roo has been exceptionally poor up until the last 6 or so weeks) is minimal.
Macca19
19 Aug 2002, 00:09
Originally posted by Crow54
Ok, where the heck was the Crows team which played Essendon last week?
Essendon are a reasonable side with a crap away record. You were playing a quality side at its "home turf" this week. Quite a big difference. Plus the two midfield outs from the Crows as well.
The major difference was the pressure. Essendon looked lethargic and didnt seem to care last week. Port chased and chased and forced the Crows into many many unforced errors today.
It seems that when the Crows play the Power, their brains turn to marshmallow! Good decision making goes out the window.
Its just pressure thats all.
Francou has won two Showdown medals before, so they know he lifts for these games, so why the *beep* don't they mind him better???
Dunno if you listen to after match radio but they were speacking to Francou on 5AA i beleive (coulda been MMM) and he said that each Showdown he has played with Ayres as Crows coach, he hasnt had a minder at all. He hasnt had a tagger at all and he basically said he can do whatever he likes cos he doesnt have to worry about an opponent. Also said that Ayres put a minder on James today. Maybe Ayres needs to change his strategy seeing as he has killed you in 3 showdowns in the last few years.
PrideofSA
19 Aug 2002, 00:11
Was anyone near the Northen End Goals?
The Umpiring was dreadful
Edwards took a mark....not paid (this was disgusting)
Burton was pushed in the back......not paid
Shir was pushed in the back......not paid
Port player tripped his own player.....free kick paid!
All were very obvious!
In the end we gave up on the decisions of the umps!
But I"m glad we only lost by 8 points because we didn't play very well at all and to still be competitive is great for the boys!
But I heard Mcleod isn't fully right, because after the game he seemed very sore and in pain!
I can see the bigger picture though of us worrying about cementing 3rd place and then tackling the finals head on!
Macca19
19 Aug 2002, 00:43
Originally posted by ajmart
Don't worry about this result guys as all that matters for Port in a season is beating us.
Of course. Keep telling yourselves this, we'll just keep laughing at most Crows supporters telling us what we are thinking. In fact i dont know why Port play the entire season. They might as well only play the two Showdowns considering thats all we care about. Thankyou for telling me, and every other Port supporter, what we care about. I can now see that me thinking we were in this competition to win the premiership at the end of the season is a mistake. Thankyou very much for clearing that up for me. Ah well...no more footy for me this year then....Showdowns are finished for the year...bring on cricket season!!!! Remind me during the week of the Showdowns next year so i can bring out my footy gear from the closet and watch those two games. Im not gonna bother watching the other games considering the Showdown is all that matters to us! No point. Give us a buzz when the next Showdown is on...im leaving BigFooty tell then.
Honestly we couldn't care half as much as they do about winning the showdown
Is that why you are coming up with all these excuses as to why you lost?
We had no incentive to win today, were without 2 of our best three players, our full back and our full forward, we played one of our worst games for the season, the umpires were against us all day (Josh Carr's "mark" in the final quarter was disgraceful), and they could still only beat us by 8 points.
Love the excuses! But if thats what makes you sleep at night then keep telling yourself that a half strength Adelaide side with pro-Port umpiring beat a full strength Port side in unbelivable form. Here i was thinking the Crows had the better form coming into this week!! How silly of me!! We had two of our best midfielders (one in AA contention), our best defender in Hardwick (almost walk up start to AA this year), and another one of our best defenders out in Kingsley.
Did it ever cross your feeble mind to think that the reason you played one of your worst games of the year is because Port made you look bad? The fact that Port pressured you time after time, contest after contest into making many many many unforced errors...you ever think that might be the reason you played one of your worst games of the year??
No incentive to win....what a stupid bloody thing to say. Right...two weeks before the finals, playing the 2nd best side in teh competition, a team who you will most likely be playing in the first week of the finals, your biggest rival that has won its last 4 (now 5) games against you...and you had no incentive to win??? What a load of absolute rubbish.
What incentive is there against Richmond next week then?? A crap side playing on a ground they usually get thumped at...gee...if there was no incentive to win against Port then why bother showing up at all next week!
As for the umpiring. You mention the josh carr mark...yet you must think its fine that Bickley fouly clobbers Wakelin late and there is not even a free in it - when its likely Bickley is gonna get 2-4 weeks!!!! There were about 40 umpiring decisions just as bad as Josh Carrs dropped mark.
As for only beating you by 8 points. You mustnt think highly of your side if you expected a Port side without 4 of its best players and losing its full back before halftime to thump your mob. If you think we were going anywhere near full pace youll have a big surprise come finals time. We were going 75% pace out there today.
If Stevo had kicked even 2 of the sitters he missed we would have won.
More excuses!! For someone who doesnt care about Showdowns and in a game where there was no incentive to win youre certainly coming out with the excuses arent you!
If Francou had of kicked the sitter he missed in the first quarter, and Tredders and CCC kicked their sitters that they missed in the last then we would of won by more!!! Could play this game all night!
We will cream them in the finals, I have no doubt about this.
If it makes you sleep at night!
Looking forward to the finals!
is there incentive there is it?? Will there be incentive when you play us in the first week of the finals?? I mean, considering if you lose that one then there is always the semi final the next week...what possible incentive could you have for winning the final against us!!!
PrideofSA
19 Aug 2002, 00:50
Macca has some truth to what he is saying...the boys did go out there to win, but it didn't happen!
But a loss now (after 5) especially to the 2nd team is probably good in terms of the bigger picture. It was a finals type test for both sides and to lose mean we can work on what didn't go right, because if you have it all your way leading into the finals things sometimes fall apart!
Can't wait til Mcleod, Goodwin, Ricciuto, Bassett and Welsh are all fit and finding form!
Well done to the younger boys today for stepping up, because, the older guys will perform in the finals, and it is the younger guys we need to perform to really excell in the finals!
Originally posted by PrideofSA
Was anyone near the Northen End Goals?
The Umpiring was dreadful
Edwards took a mark....not paid (this was disgusting)
Burton was pushed in the back......not paid
Shir was pushed in the back......not paid
Port player tripped his own player.....free kick paid!
All were very obvious!
In the end we gave up on the decisions of the umps!
But I"m glad we only lost by 8 points because we didn't play very well at all and to still be competitive is great for the boys!
But I heard Mcleod isn't fully right, because after the game he seemed very sore and in pain!
I can see the bigger picture though of us worrying about cementing 3rd place and then tackling the finals head on!
You always see the ones that affect your team hey? They were the 3 best umpires in the AFL and did a reasonable job. As for the Port player who tripped his own player the actual free kick was paid for the Crows player standing on Waeklins head a few seconds after he tripped over Montgomery, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Shir's "push in the back" was actually a hand on the back whilst spoiling which Shir tried to milk, the umpire wasn't fooled. Edwards mark wasn't a mark because C.Cornes touched the ball just before Edwards got there, you always pay the man in front.
As for Adelaide didn't play well, well you would say that in any result other than a massive Crows win. Ayres said he was very happy with his teams performance, personally I thought the Crows played fairly well, they stayed hard at it and didn't let Port blow them away despite Port controlling pretty much the whole match.
PrideofSA
19 Aug 2002, 00:53
Without doubt we were very intense and hard at it, but the pressure to perform wasn't up to scratch. Some bad shots on goal, poort delivery into the forward line, and the lack of tagging Francou. Haven't we learned from that mistake before!
gretel_killeen
19 Aug 2002, 00:55
If Stevo had kicked even 2 of the sitters he missed we would have won
Ah yeah right and Josh Carr kicked 2.3, Shaun Burgoyne, Carr, Tredrea, Cornes, Dew and CCC all missed easy goals. If this..If that...shoulda woulda coulda...Port won, that's all that matters. "If" the Port forward line converted even 25% of the midfields (and especially Francous) work in the 3rd quarter, they woulda won by 8+ goals.
PrideofSA
19 Aug 2002, 00:58
I think it just comes down to the fact that both team were under enormous pressure all the time and very few easy kicks or marks were taken all day. That and the wind had a bit to do with the kicking!
gretel_killeen
19 Aug 2002, 01:10
By the way any crows fans that complain about the umpires are complete morons. Wakelin gets his cheekbone broken by a premeditated, vicious elbow to the face, designed to take the All-Australian full back out of the game because Mark Stevens couldnt even get a touch against him, and Port don't even get a free kick for it? Any free kick or non-free kick situation in todays game paled in comparison to that. Up until today i respected Bickley, but that was just a dirty, dog act. He didn't have the balls or skill to take Wakelin out fairly like Pickett or Voss would have, with a well timed bump, he had to go in with the point of the elbow. Wakelin wasn't even looking in Bickleys direction. Bickley should get 6 weeks but will probably get 4.
Monty will get off, if you look at the replay closely, he doesn't connect with any real force at all. Kind of like the Jakovich one a few weeks ago.
PrideofSA
19 Aug 2002, 01:14
Who knows with the Tribunal. But I doubt Bickley would premeditate that kind of act. I guess Power supporters like to think that but it makes them feel better, although it looked bad and Bickley hasn't a hope, they seem to want him to deliberately do it.
Some ppl are never satisfied!
Macca 19 and gretell killeen - thank you, thank you, thank you for visiting our Board! You have shown me the true way. You have taken the blinkers from my eyes.
The Power is the most magnificent team in the competition. They are perfect. Our players are hopeles. Bickley is a dirty vicious dog.
Please have a lovely day. A lovely week. A lovely year. You are blessed to be barracking for the most wonderful team in the world.
When you win the Grand Final, please come back and grace us with your most humble presence. http://pages.sprint.ca/rickmaniacs/files/notworthy.gif
PAfolwr
19 Aug 2002, 12:14
Originally posted by PrideofSA
Who knows with the Tribunal. But I doubt Bickley would premeditate that kind of act. I guess Power supporters like to think that but it makes them feel better, although it looked bad and Bickley hasn't a hope, they seem to want him to deliberately do it.
Some ppl are never satisfied!
Can you describe the play from just before the ball went into Wakelin's area to after it left there?
Where did it come from, where did it go from there, when did he get hit, that sort of thing. Just curious that's all.
Macca19
19 Aug 2002, 12:15
Originally posted by Crow54
Macca 19 and gretell killeen - thank you, thank you, thank you for visiting our Board! You have shown me the true way. You have taken the blinkers from my eyes.
The Power is the most magnificent team in the competition. They are perfect. Our players are hopeles. Bickley is a dirty vicious dog.
Please have a lovely day. A lovely week. A lovely year. You are blessed to be barracking for the most wonderful team in the world.
When you win the Grand Final, please come back and grace us with your most humble presence. http://pages.sprint.ca/rickmaniacs/files/notworthy.gif
Now thats a post!!!!! :D
No need to be like that is there...i mean...you guys wanted to lose considering there was no incentive to win! :rolleyes:
Fact is we got beat & the paps have now won the last 5 showdowns, if that does not eat into the heart of all crow supporters then there something is wrong with you,
Francou killed us around the stoppages, Smart failed against Tredrae [ after shouting his mouth off earlier on in the week], Ports backline stifled our forwards & our delivery by hand & foot was poor for most of the day, in spite of all that our intensity & tackling was good & we only got beat by 8pts as well as fighting back when it looked like the paps were going to run away the game in the 2nd & 4th quarters,
Also where i was sitting in section N on the n/e pocket the pap supporters were great for most of the day & never over done the abuse & kept it to good natured drivel, i only left the stadium with 1 black eye & a torn crow scarfe so that wasn't to bad,
One last comment "The Bloody Umpires Crucified Us "
Porthos
19 Aug 2002, 13:16
I'd just like to take this opportunity to note the absence of Port supporters flooding your board with inane threads, even though we won again.
Thank you.
My opinion (for those who care).
Port were the better team on the day. I think the major difference between the two teams was Tredrea and C. Cornes. To have not one, but two marking targets in the forward half made all the difference. Why the Crows insist on continually bombing it to a 50/50 contest in the forward 50 is beyond me.
Also seemed that Port's goals came a lot easier than ours.
Thought the headline in the Advertiser today said it all - "That's why the Crows need Carey" - not often I agree with Rucci, but I do this time.
Thought it was good that we kept the pressure up all day, and didn't have any of our famous "fade outs" for the entire game.
The Bickley incident was interesting - totally out of character in my opinion.....don't know what he was thinking. I think he'll go for 2-3 weeks, due to his good record at the tribunal. Shame about Wakelin though, hopefully he'll be OK to play towards the end of the season.
Crows had a lot to play for yesterday, despite what other people have said on this board. A chance to prove themselves as a worthy top four side. The only side in the top four they have beaten is Brisbane, having lost to Port Adelaide twice, Collingwood, Melbourne, Kangaroos and West Coast. They also had a chance to cement their position in the top three with Collingwood losing on Saturday night. Chances are now that we'll finish fourth.
This week against Richmond will be a tough game. They have won their past three and are in some good form. Having Roo and Goodwin back will be handy.
Cheers
Port1978
19 Aug 2002, 16:15
It really is amazing the kind of excuses you fruit loops supporters come up with when you lose....
ok.crows
19 Aug 2002, 16:57
Macca:
Bickley forcefully hit someone with a forearm to the face
Looked to me like it was Bickleys shoulder.
In either case though, shoulder or elbow, it can't be called "late" now, can it?
Wakelin had the ball. Bickleys arm was past Wakelin before contact was made.
Defies any definition of "late".
Reckles, yes. Dirty, or late? No.
Bugoyne was late.
ok.crows
19 Aug 2002, 17:03
Crows had a lot to play for yesterday, despite what other people have said on this board. A chance to prove themselves as a worthy top four side. The only side in the top four they have beaten is Brisbane, having lost to Port Adelaide twice, Collingwood, Melbourne, Kangaroos and West Coast. They also had a chance to cement their position in the top three with Collingwood losing on Saturday night. Chances are now that we'll finish fourth.
It would have been good for Crows to have won, but it will probably not affect their finishing position now they have lost.
Also, I thought Crows did enough to show they can beat Power. Crows didn't play that well, making more errors than normal. Crows were unlucky on numerous occassions - Edward's mark not paid, Burton's mark not paid, McGregor not paid 50m, Carr goaled after being paid a dropped mark, Stevens with 3.5 which should have been 5.3.
Just a bit of that luck turns our way, a tiny improvement in disposal and/or decision making ... and Crows win that game by four or five goals IMO.
Hopefully that is the way it will turn out when it really counts in September.
Originally posted by ok.crows
Macca:
Looked to me like it was Bickleys shoulder.
That's because you haven't seen the incident, it was clearly the elbow
In either case though, shoulder or elbow, it can't be called "late" now, can it?
yes it can, Waeklin did not have the ball when Bickley hit him, but not actually seeing the incident you wouldn't know.
Wakelin had the ball. Bickleys arm was past Wakelin before contact was made.
Waeklin did not have the ball. Bickley missed with the fist and then followed through with the elbow.
Defies any definition of "late".
Once again you haven't seen the incident (obviously because of your inaccuracies) so why are you commenting???
Reckles, yes. Dirty, or late? No.
It wasn't reckless, you obviously don't know the meaning of reckless. It was very late 1-2 seconds after Waeklin had disposed of the ball, if a deliberate, behind the play incident which puts a player out for 6 of the most important weeks of his life isn't dirty then what is?
Bugoyne was late.
Yes he was but the umpire was right there and didn't even pay a 50 meter penalty, obviously McGregor was trying to milk it. Burgoyne wasn't dangerous or vindictive and most probably won't be reported.
snakebite01
19 Aug 2002, 18:13
Why can't you Port supporters go back to your own board. We don't want you here. Especially you Macca. We don't need you to write an essay analysing every single thread we post, having an answer for everything we write. You have a board for your supporters. And as for you all saying Wakelin didn't even get a free-kick for that thing, he did it was just to advantage so stop saying this as you have absolutely no idea.
And Macca, how can you keep rebutting all of our excuses and then say "Port were only playing at 75%". That is the most uneducated comment anyone has ever written on this board.
Also, Montgomery did make contact with Burton, that's why he couldn't open his eye for the rest of the game. For the rest of us Crows supporters, let's get excited because the next time we play them we'll be getting 3 Premiership players back, dual All-Australians and half of our leadership group - things that Port can't say they'll have because they haven't won a final let alone a Grand Final.
Bring on the finals!
Macca19 posts: 8000+
Snakebite01 posts: 1
Another Crows bandwagoner come finals time.
PAfolwr
19 Aug 2002, 18:55
Originally posted by ok.crows
It would have been good for Crows to have won, but it will probably not affect their finishing position now they have lost.
Also, I thought Crows did enough to show they can beat Power. Crows didn't play that well, making more errors than normal. Crows were unlucky on numerous occassions - Edward's mark not paid, Burton's mark not paid, McGregor not paid 50m, Carr goaled after being paid a dropped mark, Stevens with 3.5 which should have been 5.3.
Just a bit of that luck turns our way, a tiny improvement in disposal and/or decision making ... and Crows win that game by four or five goals IMO.
Hopefully that is the way it will turn out when it really counts in September.
You have not seen the incident have you?
Originally posted by PAfolwr
Can you describe the play from just before the ball went into Wakelin's area to after it left there?
Where did it come from, where did it go from there, when did he get hit, that sort of thing. Just curious that's all.
This question was directed to Pride of SA, perhaps you can answer it.
Bickley should go for heaps if the tribunal does it's job properly.
Leigh Roy
19 Aug 2002, 19:09
Porthos, that's been done that on the AFL board, not here.
You're slowly learning.
I haven't seen the incident yet but he'll be back in our side come the qualifying final at the earliest.
What I can't work out is why people are so narky over this one incident, I'd like to see the other parts where there were reckless acts out there.
These are Showdowns, not netball games.
topjars
19 Aug 2002, 19:40
[QUOTE]Originally posted by port1978
It really is amazing the kind of excuses you fruit loops supporters come up with when you lose.... [/QUOTE
What a stupid thing to say...
Who invited you GOATS BREATH?
topjars
19 Aug 2002, 19:42
Originally posted by Porthos
I'd just like to take this opportunity to note the absence of Port supporters flooding your board with inane threads, even though we won again.
Thank you.
Half of 'em cant spell Porthos:D
Macca19
19 Aug 2002, 20:33
Originally posted by snakebite01
Why can't you Port supporters go back to your own board. We don't want you here. Especially you Macca. We don't need you to write an essay analysing every single thread we post, having an answer for everything we write. You have a board for your supporters. And as for you all saying Wakelin didn't even get a free-kick for that thing, he did it was just to advantage so stop saying this as you have absolutely no idea.
And Macca, how can you keep rebutting all of our excuses and then say "Port were only playing at 75%". That is the most uneducated comment anyone has ever written on this board.
Also,
Gday QT!!!!!!! Long time no see!!!!! :D
Macca19
19 Aug 2002, 20:37
Originally posted by Leigh
Porthos, that's been done that on the AFL board, not here.
You're slowly learning.
I haven't seen the incident yet but he'll be back in our side come the qualifying final at the earliest.
How the hell can you have an opinion on something you havent even seen!!!!!
What I can't work out is why people are so narky over this one incident, I'd like to see the other parts where there were reckless acts out there.
How bout you wait till you see it before commenting...then youd realise why the Port fans are so narky over it!
Macca19
19 Aug 2002, 20:59
Originally posted by PAfolwr
Can you describe the play from just before the ball went into Wakelin's area to after it left there?
Where did it come from, where did it go from there, when did he get hit, that sort of thing. Just curious that's all.
i can....this is from teh first replay they show that im watching in slow motion now:
Wakelin handballs the ball - Bickley is not in screen yet.
Bickley enters the screen from the left, eyes on wakelin he starts to swing his arm around after the ball has been handballed. When his forearm hits Wakelin, Bickleys forearm is at his head level. Bickleys eyes are entrenched on Wakelin. He strikes Wakelin with his forearm very close to the elbow - but not the actual elbow itself...maybe two inches up his forearm.
He probably meant to collect Wakelin half way up his arm and misjudged - but that is no excuse.
ok.crows
19 Aug 2002, 21:31
Originally posted by Macca19
i can....this is from teh first replay they show that im watching in slow motion now:
Wakelin handballs the ball - Bickley is not in screen yet.
Bickley enters the screen from the left, eyes on wakelin he starts to swing his arm around after the ball has been handballed. When his forearm hits Wakelin, Bickleys forearm is at his head level. Bickleys eyes are entrenched on Wakelin. He strikes Wakelin with his forearm very close to the elbow - but not the actual elbow itself...maybe two inches up his forearm.
He probably meant to collect Wakelin half way up his arm and misjudged - but that is no excuse.
Pretty accurate description Macca, from slow motion replay. Fair enough call and quite different to what I had thought it was from recollection (which of course was full speed).
PrideofSA
19 Aug 2002, 21:32
Can't we all get over it now, it's been done to death. Let the tribunal decide his fate now and get over it!
Leigh Roy
19 Aug 2002, 21:45
My opinion was on the penalty, not the act.
You know the tribunal.
Originally posted by Zombie
Macca19 posts: 8000+
Snakebite01 posts: 1
Another Crows bandwagoner come finals time.
Port1978 posts:1 Why would his/her first post be on the Crows board?
Originally posted by Macca19
Gday QT!!!!!!! Long time no see!!!!! :D
Not sure if you are aware Macca but QT has been around the place recently.
Originally posted by dbcrow
Crows had a lot to play for yesterday, despite what other people have said on this board. A chance to prove themselves as a worthy top four side. The only side in the top four they have beaten is Brisbane, having lost to Port Adelaide twice, Collingwood, Melbourne, Kangaroos and West Coast. They also had a chance to cement their position in the top three with Collingwood losing on Saturday night. Chances are now that we'll finish fourth.
Cheers
I actually hope we finish 4th.....we struggle the week after playing a WA team in round 22 (gotten flogged twice in first week of finals in 1998 and last year).....would probably lose first week anyway to Power if we finish 3rd, and we could potentially play Bris at the Gabba in a prelim....better we get Brissie outta the way first, hopefully recover and win at home in week 2, then hopefully play Port at G in a prelim!
Of course, so many other things come into play here.....Port could finish top....Pies could upset Port....or Brissie.....so really it's a moot point.....I think I'll end this pointless post now :o
PAfolwr
19 Aug 2002, 23:28
Originally posted by ok.crows
Pretty accurate description Macca, from slow motion replay. Fair enough call and quite different to what I had thought it was from recollection (which of course was full speed).
That is why the question.
From what some people have been saying you would think it was a marking contest and Bickley had his arms near Wakelin's head because the ball was there as well.
Even going as far as comparing it to McLeod's and Burgoyne's incidents.
This was late enough to consider it to be behind play, nothing reckless or "late" about it.
Originally posted by Macca19
Riccuito was All Australian nearly three seasons ago. I hardly see the relevance. As for Goodwin - hasnt been near as good as he was last year and wont be All Australian this year. Stevens and Kingsley (well apparently in Kingsleys case) are in the running for All Australian THIS year....Hardwick should definatly be in the AA side this year. Schofield has also been one of our best midfielders this season.
Subjective really isnt it.
[b]
Err...teams usually go out on the park to win. Trying to beat a side that you are most likely going to meet in the finals and that have the wood on you is a start.
[b]
Mcgregor got up straight away from Burgoynes bump. No different to Mcleods really...yet every Crow fan thinks Mcleod was an innocent little bunny protecting himself when he bumped into Lloyd....yet here Burgoyne is seen as a big villian!!! Go figure! As for Monty - probably get a week. Burton rammed into Monty and Monty retalliated, stupidly mind you. Burton got up and kept playing. Wakelin did not antagonise or ram into Bickley...he simply got rid of the ball and Bickley clobbered him. Reckless...maybe. Intentional...maybe, maybe not - who knows...point is whether intentional or not - Bickley forcefully hit someone with a forearm to the face which has now cost that player the rest of his season - possibly a premiership medal too. Given how Ports Stevens' got two weeks for their incidents, youd think Bickley would get 4.
[b]
We got plenty of room for improvement. You just choose not to see it! Schofield, Kingsley, Hardwick and Stevens would all be in our best 10 players this season. Now losing Wakelin as well who has also been in our best ten players...thats just as hefty as the outs that the Crows had. I honestly couldnt care if Riccuito was an All Australian 3 seasons ago....the relevance to todays game and this year (where Roo has been exceptionally poor up until the last 6 or so weeks) is minimal.
1. Yes, it is and thats your opinion. One would say Smart would also be in contention, look at the players he has quitened this year. Look outside and smell the roses!!!
2. Sorry, me forget we have been shell-lacked the last three times and all by 8 points (thats one goal two points for the uninformed). Hardly the stuff that makes one quiver at the prospect at finals time - remember you had possible the best 4 players on the field and STILL ONLY WON BY 8 POINTS. What don't you understand!!!
3. And the point is, if you are equating it with McLeod, the same penalty should apply. Out for one week. End of story.
Burton was already in midflight, now correct me if I am wrong but I am not sure that the scientific community has found a way of stopping in midflight and dropping like a dead duck.
4. Now let me repeat for the genuis amongst us. You had the best ruckman, best runon player, best two forwards and yet still only win by 8 points. You can't get any better even with those in because our inclusions would match or even exceed yours.
Bring on the finals because they will produce another step and I know that the Crows will be up to it. Port, I would not want it to be close because that choker chain will be pulling extremely tight.
PrideofSA
19 Aug 2002, 23:55
Originally posted by kirky
1. Yes, it is and thats your opinion. One would say Smart would also be in contention, look at the players he has quitened this year. Look outside and smell the roses!!!
2. Sorry, me forget we have been shell-lacked the last three times and all by 8 points (thats one goal two points for the uninformed). Hardly the stuff that makes one quiver at the prospect at finals time - remember you had possible the best 4 players on the field and STILL ONLY WON BY 8 POINTS. What don't you understand!!!
3. And the point is, if you are equating it with McLeod, the same penalty should apply. Out for one week. End of story.
Burton was already in midflight, now correct me if I am wrong but I am not sure that the scientific community has found a way of stopping in midflight and dropping like a dead duck.
4. Now let me repeat for the genuis amongst us. You had the best ruckman, best runon player, best two forwards and yet still only win by 8 points. You can't get any better even with those in because our inclusions would match or even exceed yours.
Bring on the finals because they will produce another step and I know that the Crows will be up to it. Port, I would not want it to be close because that choker chain will be pulling extremely tight.
I think you are dead right with everything here! Good work!
Macca19
20 Aug 2002, 00:32
Originally posted by kirky
1. Yes, it is and thats your opinion. One would say Smart would also be in contention, look at the players he has quitened this year. Look outside and smell the roses!!!
One could say that. But then again...what is your point?? Where did the mentioning of Smart come from? He also played if you can recall correctly - Hardwick, Kingsley and Stevens (three players in AA contention this year) did not.
2. Sorry, me forget we have been shell-lacked the last three times and all by 8 points (thats one goal two points for the uninformed). Hardly the stuff that makes one quiver at the prospect at finals time - remember you had possible the best 4 players on the field and STILL ONLY WON BY 8 POINTS. What don't you understand!!!
So you agree with the idiot that said you had no incentive to win?? Yes we had the 4 best players on the ground. The scoreline falttered the Crows. We did enough to win the game and do it fairly easily. Sure we only won by 8 points, but the result was rarely in doubt after 1/4 time...Port seemingly always had control of the match. We did enough to win and that is that.
3. And the point is, if you are equating it with McLeod, the same penalty should apply. Out for one week. End of story.
Not at all...a blind fool could see that Burgoynes bump wasnt half as forceful as Mcleods bump.
4. Now let me repeat for the genuis amongst us. You had the best ruckman, best runon player, best two forwards and yet still only win by 8 points. You can't get any better even with those in because our inclusions would match or even exceed yours.
Now let me repeat for the braindead among us. Port were in control for much of the game. They did enough to win the game - which was playing well for about 10 minutes a quarter. We probably should of won by more. Yes we had the two best forwards on the park but our forward line was average i thought. May sound strange but look at where Cornes and Tredrea did the majoriity of their work. Tredrea had two scoring oppurtunities the whole game...i dont think Cornes had 1....most of their work coming up the field. We wasted many oppurtunities in the last half when going forward. Doesnt matter if we won by 8 or 80 points, everytime we raised the pace of the game Adelaide couldnt cope...everytime we lifted the pedal, Adelaide came back. Yes Port played well...but not very well, and not near our best form. If you think that Port have no room for improvement then i believe it is Adelaide who will get the shock in the Showdown Final.
Its not that hard to analyse it really. The Crows played poor because Port made them look poor. The majority of the Crows mistakes came from the pressure Port put on them. Yeah the Crows have a lot of improvement based on yesterdays game - but dont expect them to if Port put that much pressure on their midfielders and defence again - the result will be the same. And its not like Port played a faultless game either - they squandered a number of oppurtunities - especially in the third quarter.
PrideofSA
20 Aug 2002, 00:36
Originally posted by Macca19
One could say that. But then again...what is your point?? Where did the mentioning of Smart come from? He also played if you can recall correctly - Hardwick, Kingsley and Stevens (three players in AA contention this year) did not.
[b]
So you agree with the idiot that said you had no incentive to win?? Yes we had the 4 best players on the ground. The scoreline falttered the Crows. We did enough to win the game and do it fairly easily. Sure we only won by 8 points, but the result was rarely in doubt after 1/4 time...Port seemingly always had control of the match. We did enough to win and that is that.
[b]
Not at all...a blind fool could see that Burgoynes bump wasnt half as forceful as Mcleods bump.
[b]
Now let me repeat for the braindead among us. Port were in control for much of the game. They did enough to win the game - which was playing well for about 10 minutes a quarter. We probably should of won by more. Yes we had the two best forwards on the park but our forward line was average i thought. May sound strange but look at where Cornes and Tredrea did the majoriity of their work. Tredrea had two scoring oppurtunities the whole game...i dont think Cornes had 1....most of their work coming up the field. We wasted many oppurtunities in the last half when going forward. Doesnt matter if we won by 8 or 80 points, everytime we raised the pace of the game Adelaide couldnt cope...everytime we lifted the pedal, Adelaide came back. Yes Port played well...but not very well, and not near our best form. If you think that Port have no room for improvement then i believe it is Adelaide who will get the shock in the Showdown Final.
Its not that hard to analyse it really. The Crows played poor because Port made them look poor. The majority of the Crows mistakes came from the pressure Port put on them. Yeah the Crows have a lot of improvement based on yesterdays game - but dont expect them to if Port put that much pressure on their midfielders and defence again - the result will be the same. And its not like Port played a faultless game either - they squandered a number of oppurtunities - especially in the third quarter.
For port being in control they certainly failed to capitalise on their opportunities. The score was never 19 points apart. That's a waste of the ball seeming that Port was in control since quarter time!
Originally posted by Zombie
Macca19 posts: 8000+
Snakebite01 posts: 1
Another Crows bandwagoner come finals time.
More likely one of the other cowies who is too gutless to have a go a Macca in person and instaed decides to "hide" behind another persona. A Gutless wonder whoever it was.
Originally posted by sapaul
Port1978 posts:1 Why would his/her first post be on the Crows board?
At least they didn't go for Power4Premiers;)
Should we feel flattered to see Port Power supporters reading our Board?
I, for one, couldn't be bothered in the slightest going any where near theirs.
Originally posted by Macca19
Now let me repeat for the braindead among us. Port were in control for much of the game. They did enough to win the game - which was playing well for about 10 minutes a quarter. We probably should of won by more. Yes we had the two best forwards on the park but our forward line was average i thought. May sound strange but look at where Cornes and Tredrea did the majoriity of their work. Tredrea had two scoring oppurtunities the whole game...i dont think Cornes had 1....most of their work coming up the field. We wasted many oppurtunities in the last half when going forward. Doesnt matter if we won by 8 or 80 points, everytime we raised the pace of the game Adelaide couldnt cope...everytime we lifted the pedal, Adelaide came back. Yes Port played well...but not very well, and not near our best form. If you think that Port have no room for improvement then i believe it is Adelaide who will get the shock in the Showdown Final.
Its not that hard to analyse it really. The Crows played poor because Port made them look poor. The majority of the Crows mistakes came from the pressure Port put on them. Yeah the Crows have a lot of improvement based on yesterdays game - but dont expect them to if Port put that much pressure on their midfielders and defence again - the result will be the same. And its not like Port played a faultless game either - they squandered a number of oppurtunities - especially in the third quarter.
Umm, I've kept out of this till now, but honestly, are you implying that Port didn't try, or only played in bursts so that the Crows seemed to have a chance all game?! That Port could have wiped the Crows by 80 points had it deemed fit to do so!? Come on mate!
All the cr*p from both sets of supporters about ins and outs, umpiring decisions, injuries, unfair strikes, etc etc aside. Port were the better team on the day. By one goal. That's it. See you in the finals.
snakebite01
20 Aug 2002, 10:36
Actually the reason that was my first thread was because I was only recently told about this site after not being able to write on a forum at all. Before that I didn't want to reply to you pathetic Port supporters coming on to our board to try and stir us up when, from what I was hearing and seeing at the match, Port supporters would be probably some of the most uneducated supporters in AFL. They don't know what the advantage rule is, can't see beyond the 5 metre radius where the play is and don't fully know the rules.
As for you all saying that McLeod is a receiver - have a look at Francou. All he does is just runs to the attacking side of the pack and gets the handball from someone who does the hard work. That is why he is always so free and on his own because he is a footy **** as we call it and a receiver.
Macca19
20 Aug 2002, 11:54
Originally posted by PrideofSA
For port being in control they certainly failed to capitalise on their opportunities. The score was never 19 points apart. That's a waste of the ball seeming that Port was in control since quarter time!
Thats what i said if you bothered to read. We had control but never capitalised on it - especially in the third quarter.
Macca19
20 Aug 2002, 11:56
Originally posted by Crow54
Should we feel flattered to see Port Power supporters reading our Board?
I, for one, couldn't be bothered in the slightest going any where near theirs.
Do you want a medal?
Originally posted by snakebite01
As for you all saying that McLeod is a receiver - have a look at Francou. All he does is just runs to the attacking side of the pack and gets the handball from someone who does the hard work. That is why he is always so free and on his own because he is a footy **** as we call it and a receiver.
You have obviously posted more post then you seen minutes of the showdown if you think Francou is a receiver. How many times was it Francou pulling himself up from the bottom of a congested pack?? And how many times was it Mcleod???
Even check out the stats (more handballs normally suggest the player is feeding the ball out from tight packs whilst more kicks normally suggest they have received the ball in some space):
Francou 12 kicks 17 Handballs
Mcleod 15 kicks and 7 Handballs
I couldn't find the hardball gets stats but they would be interesting to see.
If Francou is a football **** then that must make Mcleod 'Linda Lovelace'.
Now Nick Stevens is a receiver for Port but I think you're dillusional from bite yourself if you think Francou is a receiver.
SKC
Originally posted by Crow54
Should we feel flattered to see Port Power supporters reading our Board?
I, for one, couldn't be bothered in the slightest going any where near theirs.
Perhaps you should as at least there is a few more topics of conversation/discussion going on there, go on try it most of the other cow supporters spend half their lives there. Sh*t you might even learn something.
Originally posted by snakebite01
Actually the reason that was my first thread was because I was only recently told about this site after not being able to write on a forum at all. Before that I didn't want to reply to you pathetic Port supporters coming on to our board to try and stir us up when, from what I was hearing and seeing at the match, Port supporters would be probably some of the most uneducated supporters in AFL. They don't know what the advantage rule is, can't see beyond the 5 metre radius where the play is and don't fully know the rules.
From your own comments you are well acredited to point out the uneducated football follows out there as you my friend are surely one of them. Francou a "footy ****", OMG, you have no idea.
BTW i don't subcribe to the theory that McLeod is just a receiver, he also has a hanit of finding the ball in traffic, mind you he does have his fair share of handball receives.
Originally posted by snakebite01
As for you all saying that McLeod is a receiver - have a look at Francou. All he does is just runs to the attacking side of the pack and gets the handball from someone who does the hard work. That is why he is always so free and on his own because he is a footy **** as we call it and a receiver.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You have really made a fool of yourself now, Francou a reciever? Hahahahaha!
He is the grestest in and under players in the AFL, and that's not just Port supporters saying that , all the "experts" say it. How a player can be called a reciever when they are the best player in the AFL at going into packs and emerging out the other side with the ball is beyond me.
More than 55% of his possession are handballs, recievers always have higher kick counts.
Congratulations, you have adequately displayed to everyone that you don't know the first thing about football, Well Done.
PrideofSA
20 Aug 2002, 14:30
if player is a reciever than he has done well enough to be clear of his opponents and set up some run. The hard work to get the ball is useless unless there is someone free to give it to, do i suggest that both are equally important!
Originally posted by PrideofSA
if player is a reciever than he has done well enough to be clear of his opponents and set up some run. The hard work to get the ball is useless unless there is someone free to give it to, do i suggest that both are equally important!
Finally a sensible post, congrats (1/159 ain't bad). Yes both are important, equally important, debateable. However to label either Francou or Mcleod as just receivers is plain wrong. Francou a receiver is clearly very very wrong & biased. McLeod while he does "receive" the ball on many occassions also has the ability to create his own possessions and also create for team-mates, to say either is just a reciever is just underselling both players IMO.
Originally posted by PrideofSA
if player is a reciever than he has done well enough to be clear of his opponents and set up some run. The hard work to get the ball is useless unless there is someone free to give it to, do i suggest that both are equally important!
Excatly... I have been lableling Mcleod as a receiver, but I never said it was bad (I did note on Port's board though he delivered poorly to his forwards on the w/e). I said he was a receiver to ruffle a few feathers and it is true he is a receiver, just like Stevens is for us, but he is a bloody good one at that.
Now to point out something else people have been arguing... both sides have bias view about incidents during the showdown but this is how is was viewed by a BF very well respected commentator... as quoted from Tim Murphy on the Match Results board...
"....At this stage Port's full-back Darryl Wakelin was concussed and suffered a broken cheekbone resulting from a nasty, late flying elbow from Bickley. A very ordinary effort from the Camry ex-skipper, himself sporting a black eye thanks to an earlier (accidental) elbow."
Some people have argued that the hit was NOT late and then also argued that Bickleys black eye was due to eye gouging instead of an accidential clash.
I think maybe the Crows supporters are too emotionally involved to think rationally about incidents.
SKC
snakebite01
20 Aug 2002, 15:27
I was also trying to ruffle a few feathers by calling Francou a receiver but it's a great rivalry between the two clubs ain't it!:D
I was just watching a bit of the replay while I'm at home sick and noticed that it was actually Bickley's shoulder which would have caused the damage to Wakelin because if you see it in slow motion it did hit him pretty hard on his face.
Anyway he will still go and I am comfortable with that but just to let you know that this means, for some of you who may think it, that it was 100% unintentional because Bickley's little forearm wouldn't have caused any damage. It was simply an unfortunate incident where his shoulder hit him hard.
I feel very sorry for Wakelin but Port supporters, don't be surprised if he doesn't get more than 2.
Good luck to Wakelin! (and Bicks)
Kane McGoodwin
20 Aug 2002, 15:46
Originally posted by kaysee
I think maybe the Crows supporters are too emotionally involved to think rationally about incidents.
SKC ... & Port supporter have not been emotional about the Bickley - Wakelin incident? :rolleyes: Footy is an emotional game, but to suggest Port supporters have been less emotional about this incident than Crows supporters is ridiculous. Who started all these threads? Don't reckon the likes of Macca have been holding back their emotions (& nor should he).
I think all us Crows supporters should take Kane McGoodwin's advice: "Never argue with an idiot....."
The day I learn anything from a PAP supporter is the day Hell freezes over http://pages.sprint.ca/Harliiwood/files/kissy2.gif
Port1978
21 Aug 2002, 22:27
Originally posted by Crow54
I think all us Crows supporters should take Kane McGoodwin's advice: "Never argue with an idiot....."
The day I learn anything from a PAP supporter is the day Hell freezes over http://pages.sprint.ca/Harliiwood/files/kissy2.gif
Is that because Cows supporters are incapable of learning anything? :p