Playing "Unsociable" or "Mongrel" Footy

[johnnypanther]

Noddy; I have a hard job taking you seriously, after looking at your avatar..

Your posts belie your avatar (most of the time). This one is no different and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

i've been dying to say that for years but i didnt wish to offend Noddy

 

[footy4ever]

NO no no no no. Play smart and clean.











Then get 'em at the Ramsgate afterwards

 

[crowsup]

i've been dying to say that for years but i didnt wish to offend Noddy

I don't think it's what you say that offends people. It's How you say it that may make it offensive. At least I hope so.

 

[The Karma Bus]

Playing 'Port Adelaide' or 'Mongrel' football only works when the other team retaliates.

Port played their thuggery gameplan on Sunday. The Crows played football. Result - Crows won.

Port can keep playing like they did Sunday but it'll only be a matter of time before the likes of Brogan and Grave Danger II (Thomas) go one step too far and end up with a lengthy suspension (which we saw with Pickett in 2005).

If teams want to beat Port (that's both Power and Magpies), it's simple - play discliplined football and don't retaliate. Opposing teams will win and Port will have the reports/suspensions.

Totally agree, and this is what port relied on for so many sanfl years.. If losing, play that way to get the other teams mind off the ball, then port redirect the focus at the ball.. No doubt it was brought up during the week to do it and it wouldnt surprise me if some old magpies came down to tell them bout it..

This mighty crows team didnt get distracted like that

 

[Mad Dog]

It used to be a time honoured tradition down at the Port Adelaide Magpies. If the team were down and looking like losing, they'd start a fight. The object of the fight was to distract their opponents, making them lose concentration. The Magpies players would then be able to get back into the game.

Much though I hated them, those Magpie teams were genuinely tough. Sure, they started the fights and they played the man at times, but when their turn came to put their heads over the ball they never hesitated for an instant.

That's the difference.

and that's probably where that kind of footy belongs .....in a distant era and lesser league. As we all know the game has moved on to be almost unrecognisable from the old days. Chad Cornth was on the tele tonight declaring Pt Power intend playing that way for the rest of the year.....great I say....

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

I can't think of one premiership team over the last 20 years that didn't have at least a few intimidators in the team. Who was the last team to win a premiership that didn't have at least 2 dirty players?

Anyone that thinks its no longer one of the pre-requisites to premiership success is kidding themself.

 

[jenny61_99]

I can't think of one premiership team over the last 20 years that didn't have at least a few intimidators in the team. Who was the last team to win a premiership that didn't have at least 2 dirty players?

Anyone that thinks its no longer one of the pre-requisites to premiership success is kidding themself.

Name them.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

Adelaide 97,98...... Surely you dont class Bickley as dirty... Jamo, Please... Pittman couldnt hurt a fly.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Name them.

I'll go back 10 years and just off the top of my head:

1996 - Kangas - Archer, Martin, Carey, Stevens
1997 - Bickley, Jarman ( had Roo for most of the year ),
1998 - Roo, Bickley, Jarman,
1999 - Archer, Martin, Carey, Stevens Mooney, Picket
2000 - Soloman, Hardwick, Fletcher, Long.
2001 - Voss, Brown, Pike, Michael, Lepitsch, Lynch, Johnson.
2002 - As above
2003 - As above
2004 - Hardwick, Pickett, Carr, Brogan, Montgomery.
2005 - Hall
2006 - Kerr, Lynch, Waters, Stenglein, Hunter, Chick
2007 - Johnson, Scarlett, King, Mooney, Chapman,

The Sydney team of 2005 probably had the least amount of hard nuts but then again they had Barry Hall who is probably one of the most intimidating players of the last 10 years.

 

[Mad Dog]

Having hard players is different to playing "Unsociable" or "Mongrel" Footy as a Team.

Yes - most teams have enforcers - but the issue here is whether a team playing this type of footy can be successful or not

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

You've got Roo wrong way around in 1997, 1998, but apart from that, your spot on.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Having hard players is different to playing "Unsociable" or "Mongrel" Footy as a Team.

Yes - most teams have enforcers - but the issue here is whether a team playing this type of footy can be successful or not

I agree when someone said earlier you need to be aggressive at both the contest and the man. The Port Jellybacks were only aggressive at the man. They went weak at the knees when it was their turn to put their head over the ball.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

You've got Roo wrong way around in 1997, 1998, but apart from that, your spot on.

Yeah I noticed that and made the swap hoping no one had noticed.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

no the question is inapplicable, because teams have NOT gained a lot of success with this. if we are talking about the paps at the weekend, that style of footy has not gained anyone success.

you're confusing being second to the contest, and throwing your weight around, versus attacking the ball and the ball carrier. it was lack of attack on the ball that cost them, and that style has rewarded NO ONE.

I'm not actually.

In fact if you read my two posts again you'll see that I simply paraphrased a statement made in a previous post and in my reply disagreed with the premise that an "unsociable" style was required in order to be successful.

So, in other words, the complete opposite of what you're accusing me of here

 

[fentanyl]

I'll go back 10 years and just off the top of my head:

1996 - Kangas - Archer, Martin, Carey, Stevens

i'd add dean laidley to that list even though he's built like a weed.

 

[Messiah]

Just for interest ... You want tough?

Try Billy Wilson 1950's rugby league. The man was insane!

http://www.eraofthebiff.com/p-117.html

 

[TheLeftFist8]

Hmmm.

After that insipid display, maybe Port should revisit their definition of toughness. Must have really missed Thomas after he went off?

I feel sorry for the traditional Port supporters who have to put up with this soft club. Lucky for them they played the limping lions in 04 or their history would be one of failure.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Last weeks tactics have backfired badly, effectively costing them 8 points.

 

[Dogga79]

The rain exposed them. In those conditions you need to fiercely attack the footy.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

The rain exposed them. In those conditions you need to fiercely attack the footy.

gee they must be dreading winter then.

 

[Dogga79]

Last weeks tactics have backfired badly, effectively costing them 8 points.

I think it was a poor coaching effort as well. Why, when you are winning by 47 points would you flood back in your own defensive 50, with a view to play defensive. Chad Cornes loose in defence?????

 

[macca23]

Just on Port's loss, have they set another record??

Their GF loss by 119 points was a record loss in a GF.

Tonight there was a 67 point turnaround in the last 40 minutes of the game.

Is that another record for the Power?

Has there ever been such a large turnaround in such a short time at this level?

 

[johnnypanther]

Just on Port's loss, have they set another record??

Their GF loss by 119 points was a record loss in a GF.

Tonight there was a 67 point turnaround in the last 40 minutes of the game.

Is that another record for the Power?

Has there ever been such a large turnaround in such a short time at this level?

dunno about the turnaround but is it the 1st time a grand finalist has lost their first 4 games in the following year?

 

[Vader]

dunno about the turnaround but is it the 1st time a grand finalist has lost their first 4 games in the following year?

Not the first, no. Read last week that it happened to Richmond in 1983. The year the rot began.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Not the first, no. Read last week that it happened to Richmond in 1983. The year the rot began.

We can only hope can't we.....