Toast How good is Brad Ebert - 250 games

Remove this Banner Ad

He has been sensational this year! So glad he is getting some recognition for our success so far, even though Ollie & SPP are stealing the headlines. LOL
He'd be ok with that, it's the sortta bloke he is. Our younger daughter went out with one of his best friends
and take it from me as gospel Brad Ebert is an honourable and incredibly decent man.
Do they come any better? Well the answer is no, only as good.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Terrific servant of the club. Ability to both win and neutralise contests with strong bodywork and effective tackling combined with his damaging run and carry due to his endurance on the outside is a pretty rare skillset combination.

Outside work suffered a bit in the depression of 15/16, but we've seen plenty of quality work from him in that area this season.
 
What a farce the AFL father-son rule is that we couldn't get Brad as a father-son selection after his father Craig played 112 games for Ports. The rules made up to give newly cobbled together franchises "father-son" selections for the sons of players that never played a game for them should never have been applied to the PAFC.
 
What a farce the AFL father-son rule is that we couldn't get Brad as a father-son selection after his father Craig played 112 games for Ports. The rules made up to give newly cobbled together franchises "father-son" selections for the sons of players that never played a game for them should never have been applied to the PAFC.


The father son rule was brought in originally to give the sons of club legends the chance to continue the family legacy at that club. No name is more synonymous with a club than Ebert is with Port Adelaide.
The fact Ebert had to trade his way to the club of his family via Weat Coast is a massive black eye for the father son rule if ever there was one. No Ebert should EVER have to play for another club while there is a father son rule in place.
 
Last edited:
The father son rule was brought in originally to give the sons of club legends the chance to continue the family legacy at that club. No name is more synonymous with a club than Ebert is with Port Adelaide.
The fact Ebert had to trade his way to the club of his family via Weat Coast is a massive black eye for the father son rule if ever there was one. No Ebert should EVER have to play for another club while there is a father son rule in place.

The bigger farce is still Brett being technically ineligible. Such a fraudulent rule.
 
What a farce the AFL father-son rule is that we couldn't get Brad as a father-son selection after his father Craig played 112 games for Ports. The rules made up to give newly cobbled together franchises "father-son" selections for the sons of players that never played a game for them should never have been applied to the PAFC.

The father son rule was brought in originally to give the sons of club legends the chance to continue the family legacy at that club. No name is more synonymous with a club than Ebert is with Port Adelaide.
The fact Ebert had to trade his way to the club of his family via Weat Coast is a massive black eye for the father son rule if ever there was one. No Ebert should EVER have to play for another club while there is a father son rule in place.

The bigger farce is still Brett being technically ineligible. Such a fraudulent rule.

Hindsight wisdom and all but, IMO, nothing would have strengthened the Port Adelaide in the AFL brand more than saying, "We don't want FS rights based on equal sharing of SA clubs with the Crows, we want Port players only and the games threshold is the same as VFL players." (perhaps with a mild loading due to SNAFL including pre season games, regional lightning carnivals, little league etc in their tally.)
 
Hindsight wisdom and all but, IMO, nothing would have strengthened the Port Adelaide in the AFL brand more than saying, "We don't want FS rights based on equal sharing of SA clubs with the Crows, we want Port players only and the games threshold is the same as VFL players." (perhaps with a mild loading due to SNAFL including pre season games, regional lightning carnivals, little league etc in their tally.)

Have always thought this. But nah, if Roger Luders has a son we want first dibs!!!!
 
for all the success we've had as a club, we don't seem to breed many father/sons apart from the obvious. The 1990 side was my favourite, you'd think there would be one opportunity for us.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

At the risk of pillorying poor FishingRick04 over his Dangermouse v Ebert thread, does Danger have any sons yet that will play for Adelaide?

That has to count, #rickwinsthelonggame :D
 
At the risk of pillorying poor FishingRick04 over his Dangermouse v Ebert thread, does Danger have any sons yet that will play for Adelaide?

That has to count, #rickwinsthelonggame :D

I posted a while ago that Ebert is clearly the better player. Crows are getting nothing out of Dangerfield atm.
 
At the risk of pillorying poor FishingRick04 over his Dangermouse v Ebert thread, does Danger have any sons yet that will play for Adelaide?

That has to count, #rickwinsthelonggame :D

bahahaha

Like the Matt Lobbe versus Warnock comment who got lamblasted
 
Has had a brilliant year. Week in week out clocks up the kms, tackles, kicks, handballs, marks, hard ball gets, plenty of clearances, stops opponents, gets the ball himself and feeds his team mates. I have given him a vote every game this year. About the only thing he isn't doing is kicking goals. Has only kicked 2.2 this year.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top