Hall/Thompson

[BIGBEZ]

I reckon Thommo's heart would have stopped beating when Hall launched from the ground

 

[remedi]

In this thread....

NM: Thier fans are hurting. Thinks thompson is a angel/legend. Put hall at fault. Having a dig at the bulldogs history.

Bulldogs: Just defending thier club

Everyone: Thinks Thompson is a coward/or disgrace.

 

[jacko57]

Incorrect. There were half a dozen instances of short steps taken by North players yesterday,

Feel free to name them.

 

[inflames1919]

In this thread....

NM: Thier fans are hurting. Thinks thompson is a angel/legend. Put hall at fault. Having a dig at the bulldogs history.

Bulldogs: Just defending thier club

Everyone: Thinks Thompson is a coward/or disgrace.

This

 

[Tas]

Feel free to name them.

Come on, if BF had to rely on fact then there would only be a handful of threads on the main board.

Let the desk thumper believe in his delusions.

 

[Leon]

Pretty sad comeback. But then, I suppose you can only work with the material you have. 85 years of shit sure makes that cupboard bare.

Hahaha.

What's sad about it exactly? That its true?

That the only comebacks you and your Norf brethren have been able come up with for your pathetic display yesterday have been to take pot shots at our history, which as I have pointed out, and you have admitted, have no relevance?

 

[Sedat!]

Feel free to name them.

A couple of separate instances from Hansen early in the piece, at least half a dozen occasions immediately following a stoppage where Dogs players (Cross a couple of times, Boyd once, Picken once, Cooney a couple of times) showed far greater desire to win the 50-50 ball (was more like a 30-70 ball North's way), 2 instances where North players were looking at each other instead of attacking the ball and missing out on simple marking opportunities as a result. As I said, most unlike North.

One horrendous day at the office happens to the best of clubs. North have had 3 in 9 weeks under Scott. North hardly ever has horrendous days at the office. Concerning to say the least.

 

[Tas]

In this thread....

NM: Thier fans are hurting. Thinks thompson is a angel/legend. Put hall at fault. Having a dig at the bulldogs history.

Bulldogs: Just defending thier club

Everyone: Thinks Thompson is a coward/or disgrace.

Find one post that even suggests Thompson is an angel. You can't because it doesn't exist. He is the player hit the most because he pisses players off with niggling, we know he is an annoying bastard and that is why we love him.

You twits also have to look up the meaning of coward and then tell me how many AFL players would have the balls to niggle Hall and continue doing so even when the brain cells fail to fire.

Besides, our care factor of what opposition supporters think is non-existent. We just do not care for the blatant lies or the sooky pussies who are crying over poor Hall being abused. If the Dogs are that soft they will never win a flag.

 

[jinny1]

wouldnt have had a problem with thompson even they didnt get thumped by 70 points

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Hahaha.

What's sad about it exactly? That its true?

That the only comebacks you and your Norf brethren have been able come up with for your pathetic display yesterday have been to take pot shots at our history, which as I have pointed out, and you have admitted, have no relevance?

Stop digging, dude. I'm sure a lot of your fellow Dogs supporters would prefer you didn't keep giving us a chance to be cruel about your history. But you have, so I'll just say it again.

Yesterday: one embarrassing loss by a lower level team against one of the better teams; included one incident that was quite mild other than for what it revealed about your full forward (something that you all hoped had gone away, but woops, it's there).

One embarrassing loss is reasonably easy to take. 85 years of abject failure, far less so, I would have thought. See, the history is relevant because it gives context and perspective.

 

[Leon]

Stop digging, dude. I'm sure a lot of your fellow Dogs supporters would prefer you didn't keep giving us a chance to be cruel about your history. But you have, so I'll just say it again.

Yesterday: one embarrassing loss by a lower level team against one of the better teams; included one incident that was quite mild other than for what it revealed about your full forward (something that you all hoped had gone away, but woops, it's there).

One embarrassing loss is reasonably easy to take. 85 years of abject failure, far less so, I would have thought. See, the history is relevant because it gives context and perspective.

LOL

Yeah, those 85 years made it so difficult for me to enjoy us belting you yesterday

You and your Norf brethren have nothing, and you know it. You got thrashed, you were embarrassed, thats why you're bringing up irrelevant things like our past.

You can't justify your performance, you can't justify your cheapo tough man tactics, instead of admitting that you were embarrassed, you, like your team, are taking the cheap shots and ignoring the real issue

If us having an unsuccessful history is what makes you justify or feel better about your club's efforts yesterday, then that's sad.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

LOL

Yeah, those 85 years made it so difficult for me to enjoy us belting you yesterday

You and your Norf brethren have nothing, and you know it. You got thrashed, you were embarrassed, thats why you're bringing up irrelevant things like our past.

You can't justify your performance, you can't justify your cheapo tough man tactics, instead of admitting that you were embarrassed, you, like your team, are taking the cheap shots and ignoring the real issue

If us having an unsuccessful history is what makes you justify or feel better about your club's efforts yesterday, then that's sad.

Thanks mate, there's a few more things I can post. First, you probably need some lessons in comprehension - you say "instead of admitting that you were embarrassed", but each of my responses has conceded the loss was embarrassing.

But then there's context. Individually, home and away losses don't mean a great deal, it's the aggregate that counts, as I'm sure you know. Win enough, and you go to the finals, which is where the real business starts. I don't need to continue this line of thought, do I?

OK, if you insist, I will. Do you realise that in your club's 85 year history, they have won only one solitary 2nd semi final and one solitary preliminary final. Two grand final appearances only. From 85 chances? Surely even you can get your mind around how pathetic that is?

Maybe you like stats. 2/85 is 2.35%. Pretty low, hey? Statistically insignificant at the 95% confidence level, in fact. And even more damning given neither appearance has been in the modern era of football (I'm not sure when that started, but it was certainly after 1961. Probably around 1973 ).

Please come back, I can do this all night.

 

[comrade]

Please come back, I can do this all night.

Tragically, you're not even joking, are you?

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Tragically, you're not even joking, are you?

Boys, if you pick a shitfight, you're going to get a shitfight

 

[blackshadow]

Why isn't the football world up in arms about the cheap shot by Eagleton that put Jack Ziebell down behind play, yet they're prepared to draw and quarter Thompson for a minor bump?

 

[breeno]

Why isn't the football world up in arms about the cheap shot by Eagleton that put Jack Ziebell down behind play, yet they're prepared to draw and quarter Thompson for a minor bump?

Because it's acceptable to cheap shot a bloke more than ten years your junior, but it's unacceptable to knock over (at the worst cheap shot, but its intent was to annoy, not to cause harm) a bloke 19kg heavier and 10 years your elder, you should know this.

 

[blackshadow]

Because it's acceptable to cheap shot a bloke more than ten years your junior, but it's unacceptable to knock over (at the worst cheap shot, but its intent was to annoy, not to cause harm) a bloke 19kg heavier and 10 years your elder, you should know this.

Silly me for even thinking that way.

Thanks for setting me straight breeno

 

[Gus]

I reckon Thommo's heart would have stopped beating when Hall launched from the ground

And a brown excretement ran from his back end.


Imagine his thought process:


"hehe *bump* yeah got him good"

Hall gets up, suddenly his thoughts change dramatically

"ah... ****"

Hall decks him

"Oh god I am going to die... MUMMY!!!"

 

[Leon]

Thanks mate, there's a few more things I can post. First, you probably need some lessons in comprehension - you say "instead of admitting that you were embarrassed", but each of my responses has conceded the loss was embarrassing.

But then there's context. Individually, home and away losses don't mean a great deal, it's the aggregate that counts, as I'm sure you know. Win enough, and you go to the finals, which is where the real business starts. I don't need to continue this line of thought, do I?

OK, if you insist, I will. Do you realise that in your club's 85 year history, they have won only one solitary 2nd semi final and one solitary preliminary final. Two grand final appearances only. From 85 chances? Surely even you can get your mind around how pathetic that is?

Maybe you like stats. 2/85 is 2.35%. Pretty low, hey? Statistically insignificant at the 95% confidence level, in fact. And even more damning given neither appearance has been in the modern era of football (I'm not sure when that started, but it was certainly after 1961. Probably around 1973 ).

Please come back, I can do this all night.

Oh dear

Let's have a very quick recap

- You've won only one premiership!!!!!!!!
- Bazza is a thug!!!!!
- We'll see how yous go in september and in another Prelim!!!!!!!! lolz
- But you had Libba!!!!!!


How are these points even remotely relevant to what happened yesterday?

You in response

They aren't, but they are just facts being pointed out and not a defence of the game yesterday

So, you have admitted that said points (i.e Dogs unsuccessful history) are completely irrelevant, yet continually bring them up. Why would that be?

So what if we've been unsuccessful? It does not impact at all on my ability to love the club and support them. It also doesn't mean I don't criticize them and can't see that sometimes we're not always in the right.

Put it this way. Have I taken cheap shots at North's financial plight and relocation and what not? No, because I can see that a) its hypocritical and b) it has zero relevance to what happened yesterday, just like the dog's history.

If the roles had been reversed yesterday, and we had have gotten flogged and resorted to those tactics, I would have no problem blasting us for it. I would not come on here, take shots at North's finances and what not, I would put aside my support for the club and see the effort (i.e on field and the Hall Tactics) as poor and one that embarrassed the club.

You in particular cannot do this and keep going with the 85 years of shitness line, which as has been pointed out, and you have admitted as above, are irrelevant.

 

[jacko57]

A couple of separate instances from Hansen early in the piece, at least half a dozen occasions immediately following a stoppage where Dogs players (Cross a couple of times, Boyd once, Picken once, Cooney a couple of times) showed far greater desire to win the 50-50 ball (was more like a 30-70 ball North's way), 2 instances where North players were looking at each other instead of attacking the ball and missing out on simple marking opportunities as a result. As I said, most unlike North.

One horrendous day at the office happens to the best of clubs. North have had 3 in 9 weeks under Scott. North hardly ever has horrendous days at the office. Concerning to say the least.

Maybe we were at different games.........I won't categorically say you're wrong, because you see the game from where you're sitting.

But I will say this : I have seen Hansen take enough contested marks backing into the pack this year to have no worries about his courage. A few contested balls where a Dogs player managed to get the pill? Maybe that was good play on Cooney's (or whoever's part)? I certainly saw a few North blokes (Ziebell, Swallow etc) win contested balls, I doubt you would say that means your blokes were short-stepping, right?

A couple of missed marking opportunities where 2 players left the ball for each other? Not great, but again, not what I'd call convincing proof of cowardice ; more likely, lack of talk, experience & confidence.

As for horrendous days at the office : sadly, we had more than our share under Laidley. We may have a few more under Scott, but hopefully it's short term pain for long term, gain.

 

[boydsno1]

Why isn't the football world up in arms about the cheap shot by Eagleton that put Jack Ziebell down behind play, yet they're prepared to draw and quarter Thompson for a minor bump?

Only cheap shots were Ferrito and Pratt. Did Pratt feel like a tank by getting one kidney punch in that hall seemed to barely feel?

 

[boydsno1]

Petrie is our full forward, Hale is the fill-in full forward.

Johnson, Murphy and Higgins are not full forwards, I would have thought this was a fairly obvious observation or are you fresh on the bandwagon?

Thompson niggles, it is his thing. Some players do it, others do not. Everyone has to deal with it, it is part of football and within the rules. Headlocks are not. Either is headbutting which I do not condone but had the umpires taken control of the situation earlier then the matter wouldn't have escalated.

You are allowed to niggle. Hall has to deal with it, all forwards and people tagged have to deal with it. He doesn't deserve special treatment just because he can't control himself.

They may not be Full Forwards but they are players who all do play forward. So thats 3 options from our forward 50 missing and what was the margin at the end of the game? Oh thats right, Dogs by 70 points.

 

[Long Live the King]

They may not be Full Forwards but they are players who all do play forward. So thats 3 options from our forward 50 missing and what was the margin at the end of the game? Oh thats right, Dogs by 70 points.

Enjoy it princess as everyone knows how this will all play out. The dogs will make the finals and fall short because theyre forward line will fail....again.

Hall is a psycho who will lose it at some point and disappoint all you Dogs supporters who thought he was the answer.

But Dogs supporters should be happy, yep another top 8 finish, unfortunately with no chance of winning a flag.

 

[P-MONEY]

Enjoy it princess as everyone knows how this will all play out. The dogs will make the finals and fall short because theyre forward line will fail....again.

Hall is a psycho who will lose it at some point and disappoint all you Dogs supporters who thought he was the answer.

But Dogs supporters should be happy, yep another top 8 finish, unfortunately with no chance of winning a flag.

Please enlighten us on the winning ingredients?

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Please enlighten us on the winning ingredients?

Just get the videos of the 1996 or 1999 Grand Finals, you'll find them there.

Even better, have a look at the Preliminary Finals of 1996, 1998 and 1999. The ones that North were in, of course, as we have been consistently able to win these games. You might want to give the other 1998 PF a miss, it just shows how not to do it, and the Dogs have obviously got that covered.