Kouta man 43
Senior List
we hit the bloody post 10 times.we shouldve won the game.
-
-
If you are seeing this notice, posts and uploads you make now may be lost when we cut over to the upgraded system. This should only last a few hours.
Post feedback, issues, errors and omissions here. Read the OP first, please.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Stupid square posts?
- Thread starter Kouta man 43
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Funny thing is, they changed them from square to the regular circular posts about two years back.
IIRC, Wayne Carey cut his knee open on a square post.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Fev0lution
Senior List
warren missed some sitters so our posters make up for it..should have been in front in the 3rd qtr that is what killed us
Carlton hit the post 5 times, Port Adelaide 4 times.
Port Adelaide also had 5 more scoring shots - so shouldn't that suggest they should of won?
Port Adelaide also had 5 more scoring shots - so shouldn't that suggest they should of won?
silky-smooth said:
Actually it was Carlton 6 and Port 3.
silky-smooth said:
I suppose it depends on where you are taking your shots from.
I think to say one team or the other "should have" won would be incorrect in this case as the game was clearly up for grabs for most of the night. A pretty evenly fought contest and from Carlton's point of view, given all of the circumstances, a draw is almost as good as a win.
My apologies, I knew it was hit nine times on the night and I swear to God Triple M said Port hit it four times so I just used logic there.Badabing said:
Well true, but you'd think Port leading the inside 50 count 54-49 would suggest that it didn't matter where they took their shots from, because they would of had a greater chance of scoring than Carlton (note: more inside 50s).Badabing said:
You could say Carlton were their worst enemy because Port Adelaide also had 5 of their behinds rushed throughout the night to Carlton's 1. I suppose that goes down to pressure on defenders, which in turn, the Blues buckled under.
Neither team should of won. Both had their chances - Port especially in the last quarter, kicking 2.10 - but neither team could break away.Badabing said:
I'd say it was a fitting result. I wouldn't say if Carlton were offered a draw pre-game that they would take it, but they would certainly come out of the game happy because, for them, it is generally hard to pull the four points away from a contest against Port at AAMI.
Elisha Cuthbert.Badabing said:
- Dec 15, 2002
- 7,849
- 6
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Man Utd :Adelaide United
I wonder if he is getting sick of thst question? I asked the same thing two days ago.Badabing said:
silky-smooth said:
Did you take rushed behinds into account? There was a fair few of those is the last quarter.
Funkalicous said:
silky-smooth said:
Three of their 10 behinds were rushed in the last quarter. But still, seven behinds is a hell of a lot of behinds to score in a quarter. 2.7 is a poor return.
I suppose you could say, if Carlton were more efficient, they would of won.PAFC2004 said:
Effective Disposals:
Port - 264/314 = 84%
Carl - 199/258 = 77%
But as you said - both teams had areas in the game that if they capitalised on, would of won them the game. Port (kicking straighter) and Carlton (more efficient).
Blaming it on square posts that don't exist is laughable as well.PAFC2004 said:
