Lets be realistic

[understudy]

Originally posted by Pred
Are you implying that the MCG is like a home ground for Brisbane and Sydney? That's a bit rich!

Also, if you think this is the same Port as last year, you don't know much about the team or club.

ah have you changed your name and colours again

 

[napsyd]

Originally posted by Pred
Also, if you think this is the same Port as last year, you don't know much about the team or club.

Please enlighten us on the vast differences between the Port 2002 model and the Port 2003 model.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by Pred
Last year Port were not clearly the best H&A team. The minor premiership was decided in the last 10 seconds of the season. And the year before we didn't even finish top.

Brisbane are the best H&A team over the last 2 years. Port are the best in 2003.

Port have more home and away wins 2001-2003 than any other side.

 

[understudy]

Originally posted by Lockyer24
Sydney or Port.

And Collingwood?

Whats going on mate, you've changed!

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by grayham
Hows your form away to
Collingwood, Essendon, Brisbane and Sydney who would all enjoy "home" ground advantage against you?
Not to mention neutral WC and Freo's.

In the past two years, we've beaten them all at their home grounds, except Collingwood because we haven't played them there. Last time we did though was in 1999, and we beat them.

 

[lamby29]

Adelaide or Brisbane.

Port will choke.

 

[ClintEastwood]

Originally posted by napsyd
Please enlighten us on the vast differences between the Port 2002 model and the Port 2003 model.

Given the sarcastic tone of your request, you won't listen anyway, so I'm not going to 'cast pearls before swine'.

 

[napsyd]

Originally posted by Pred
Given the sarcastic tone of your request, you won't listen anyway, so I'm not going to 'cast pearls before swine'.

Whatever.

Like your argument on the Crows board, you are doing this because there is no major difference. Nothing significant has changed from last year.

Port are good enough to win the flag. They were good enough last year also.

Port are already complaining about things like the draw and asking for dates of matches to be moved so that they have a longer break. Whilst I don't disagree that they deserve some say as a result of being the top team, the fact that they are so concerned by what should be trivialities to me reflects a fear of failing unless everything is perfect. Finals footy is not perfect. Port need to put the runs on the board in order to get some real respect.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by napsyd
Whatever.

Like your argument on the Crows board, you are doing this because there is no major difference. Nothing significant has changed from last year.

Same applies to the Swans. But they are better too....

 

[ClintEastwood]

Originally posted by hotpie
Same applies to the Swans. But they are better too....

Correct.

 

[TheMase]

Originally posted by hotpie
Same applies to the Swans. But they are better too....

I wouldn't say that nothing has changed at the Swans.

Nick Davis has given us another option in the midfield and up forward.

Schneider has come into the side giving us a big midfield option for the future, and a handy goalkicker

Jason Ball had returned and was playing fantastic footy.

Have introduced news kids James Meiklejohn, Lewis Roberts-Thomson, Mark Powell and Jarrod Sundqvist, all showing enough to see they're going to be at least solid players.

New Coach.

Different gameplan/style (more exciting for starters)

Fitter

Improvement in fringe players

A bit more depth

Barry Hall at CHF

A lot of run off half back



Just to name a few

 

[understudy]

Originally posted by TheMase
I wouldn't say that nothing has changed at the Swans.

Nick Davis has given us another option in the midfield and up forward.

Schneider has come into the side giving us a big midfield option for the future, and a handy goalkicker

Jason Ball had returned and was playing fantastic footy.

Have introduced news kids James Meiklejohn, Lewis Roberts-Thomson, Mark Powell and Jarrod Sundqvist, all showing enough to see they're going to be at least solid players.

New Coach.

Different gameplan/style (more exciting for starters)

Fitter

Improvement in fringe players

A bit more depth

Barry Hall at CHF

A lot of run off half back



Just to name a few

Apart from that pretty much unchanged though, just like port

 

[napsyd]

Originally posted by hotpie
Same applies to the Swans. But they are better too....

No argument.

But what's that got to do with Port? Are they any better this year?

 

[ClintEastwood]

Originally posted by napsyd
Port are already complaining about things like the draw and asking for dates of matches to be moved so that they have a longer break. ..... the fact that they are so concerned by what should be trivialities to me reflects a fear of failing unless everything is perfect.

There may be something in what you say, but to me it reflects the continuing approach of the club to leave no stone unturned in their quest for a premiership. It's a very thorough approach, and should stand us in good stead.

 

[ClintEastwood]

Originally posted by napsyd
But what's that got to do with Port? Are they any better this year?

Well of course it is always a moot point until the year is truly over. The only objective thing at this stage of the year is the ladder. And that appears to indicate that Port have improved.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by napsyd
Please enlighten us on the vast differences between the Port 2002 model and the Port 2003 model.

I'll give it a go.

1. In 2002, out depth was virtually untested. We didn't have a lot of injuries and when we did the replacements generally hadn't had an AFL game in some time. This year by virtue of a heavy injury count, a large amount of our side has had AFL game time. Should we cop another injury in the finals, the likelihood of a game ready replacement is increased.

2. Play-on football. Port have spent a few games this year playing a high pace, knock-on running game, as opposed to the wait and guarantee possession game of last year. Its another useful tool.

3. Individual excellence. Warren Tredrea can now kick. Wanganeen is enjoying his best season. Byron Pickett is in a side that can allow him to play off his man to devastating effect. Nick Stevens now hunts the ball.

4. Taggers. Last year we had two creditable taggers/run-with players; Josh Carr and Kane Cornes - this saw deeper quality midfields expose us. Now we have the Big Four of taggers should we require them: Cochrane, Carr, Cornes and Cassisi.

5. Finals experience. We have a lot more now, and a lot more motivation because of it.

6. Less ruck dependence. We're not winning centre clearances nearly as much this year, but are still winning games - our rebound from defence has improved noticeably.

7. Exerting more pressure. No other side has played in more physical games of football this year than Port (and none has won more). The pressure typically placed on opposition kickouts is top notch. Kicking a few goals in a row on Port is harder.

 

[dillo_09]

Originally posted by Porthos
In the past two years, we've beaten them all at their home grounds, except Collingwood because we haven't played them there. Last time we did though was in 1999, and we beat them.

Thats not really much to hang your hat on.

1999 we won the spoon.

Its just like been proud of beating Carlton at Optus in either 2002 or 2003.

 

[statman]

Let's be realistic here, Port Adelaide were the favorites at this time of the year last year, and the year before that they were also up there, THEY CAN'T PLAY FINALS .......
They have won one out of 6.......
They couldn't beat a undermanned, not in form, not that great Collingwood side at home last year....

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by dillo_09
Thats not really much to hang your hat on.

I don't think I was, mate.

It was our record against Collingwood away that was the question, so I provided the answer.

 

[ClintEastwood]

Originally posted by statman
THEY CAN'T PLAY FINALS

Nothing is forever, my friend.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by statman
Let's be realistic here, Port Adelaide were the favorites at this time of the year last year

No, they weren't. Brisbane were. Everyone was spouting the same rubbish last year that you are now.

 

[napsyd]

Originally posted by Porthos
I'll give it a go.

1. In 2002, out depth was virtually untested. We didn't have a lot of injuries and when we did the replacements generally hadn't had an AFL game in some time. This year by virtue of a heavy injury count, a large amount of our side has had AFL game time. Should we cop another injury in the finals, the likelihood of a game ready replacement is increased.

2. Play-on football. Port have spent a few games this year playing a high pace, knock-on running game, as opposed to the wait and guarantee possession game of last year. Its another useful tool.

3. Individual excellence. Warren Tredrea can now kick. Wanganeen is enjoying his best season. Byron Pickett is in a side that can allow him to play off his man to devastating effect. Nick Stevens now hunts the ball.

4. Taggers. Last year we had two creditable taggers/run-with players; Josh Carr and Kane Cornes - this saw deeper quality midfields expose us. Now we have the Big Four of taggers should we require them: Cochrane, Carr, Cornes and Cassisi.

5. Finals experience. We have a lot more now, and a lot more motivation because of it.

6. Less ruck dependence. We're not winning centre clearances nearly as much this year, but are still winning games - our rebound from defence has improved noticeably.

7. Exerting more pressure. No other side has played in more physical games of football this year than Port (and none has won more). The pressure typically placed on opposition kickouts is top notch. Kicking a few goals in a row on Port is harder.

An interesting and excellent analysis Porthos. You could probably summarise the majority of it as being Port now have more experience in which to tackle the finals. Certain individual players have gone from great raw talent to refined talent with important experience. Fair enough. There are some significant changes.

The pertinent part to this discussion is 5. Will Port learn from its mistakes or will it repeat them? Time will tell.

 

[brentoncowell]

being realistic it wont be Fremantle,Essendon or West Coast. Its not likely to be Collingwood or Sydney,even Adelaide. Brissie and Port are the front runners but we know what the power are like in the finals.

 

[Mead]

Realistically, Port are a fair bit better than any team going around. There is only one hurdle left for them- Their first round opponent at AAMI will most likely be Adelaide or Collingwood, (both teams traditionally bogey sides for Port)
And if they lost in the first week of the finals, the monkey on their backs will turn into a gorilla- If they throw away the first qualifying final, suddenly I'm very skeptical of their ability to win- the pressure on them in the following week will be absolutely enormous, and suddenly they'll be vulnerable.

By the same token, though, if they can win that first final and get rid of the hoodoo, then nothing will stop them. If Port win in the first week of the finals, you can pretty much give them the cup then- that's their grand final, the rest will be anticlimatic.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Mead
Realistically, Port are a fair bit better than any team going around. There is only one hurdle left for them- Their first round opponent at AAMI will most likely be Adelaide or Collingwood, (both teams traditionally bogey sides for Port)

Can't see how the Crows are a bogey side for Port considering we haven't won a showdown for a few year!