Forum topic

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
ozybeer
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 30/12/2004 - 00:00
Posts: 498
Port must be happy with all the money they have spent this season,getting real resaults with the money spent,Frankston dont look half bad considering how much money they went out and spent.As Frankston know you can not buy a flag,As for port best you save your $ for the future and build a team over the years like Frankston are doing.And any team in the future you can not buy flags,how are ports books looking after this season?
blackrocker's picture
blackrocker
Last seen: 1 day 2 hours ago
Joined: 16/05/2005 - 00:00
Posts: 756
First time for decades I had to queue at the ticket box for more than 30 seconds
NorthPort's picture
NorthPort
Last seen: 4 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 03/11/2003 - 00:00
Posts: 8688
[quote="ozybeer"]Port must be happy with all the money they have spent this season,getting real resaults with the money spent,Frankston dont look half bad considering how much money they went out and spent.As Frankston know you can not buy a flag,As for port best you save your $ for the future and build a team over the years like Frankston are doing.And any team in the future you can not buy flags,how are ports books looking after this season?[/quote] I think the club did the right thing, going after players to fill key positions. 7 wins for the season (maybe 8 next week who knows) is a big improvement over the 2 last season. This will sound pretty stupid, but I don't think Williamstown are a 20 goal better side than Port Melbourne. Apart from the draw in Round 2, Williamstown had a few very handy inclusions (aside from Buckley) which Port Melbourne failed to match-up well with. Those two 'posters' in the first quarter really set the theme for the day. Early goals to Port may well have settled them down and played to their structure better. Instead they were forced wide a lot. I still reckon there were a few positives on the day (apart from the money from the kiosks). Port Melbourne 0.5 2.10 5.11 7.12 (54) Williamstown 6.4 12.7 20.10 26.13 (169) GOALS: Port Melbourne: Cotchett 2 Langford 2 Bonaddio Dukes Spriggs Williamstown: Williams 5 Dawes 4 Buckley 4 Reid 4 Lockwood 2 Picken 2 Rose 2 Davies Iles Clarke BEST: Port Melbourne: Spriggs Milhuisen Fanning Smith McMahon Livingston Williamstown: Buckley Iles Reid Williams Licuria Clarke REPORTED PLAYERS: Port Melbourne: Nil Williamstown: M. Boyd (Williamstown) for making forceful contact to L. Livingston (Port Melbourne). In the Reserves it was also a big result from Willy, beating ladder leaders Port Melbourne. Port Melbourne 2.6 4.7 5.11 8.14 (62) Williamstown 3.3 8.8 13.13 16.14 (110) GOALS: Port Melbourne: Gilham 2 Carroll 2 Pinwill Nayna Allan Johnstone Williamstown: MacAffer 6 Dick 3 Jenkins 2 Crawford Wellingham Cook Nicholls Grossman BEST: Port Melbourne: Carroll Nixon Debruin Nixon Nayna Allan Williamstown: Crawford Wellingham Dickson Tanner Nicholls Dick






NorthPort's picture
NorthPort
Last seen: 4 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 03/11/2003 - 00:00
Posts: 8688
On a side-note it was one of the biggest crowds seen at the VFL for some time, probably about 4000, up against live TV coverage. The club may have made more money if they had pie-sellers walking through the crowd, as a lot of people elected not to join the long queues. Back on the topic, I thought Spriggs was very good. The loss of Livingston was a massive blow, hopefully he is cleared of damage because we will really need him next week against Prestons forwards. Hmm.. hard to find positives when you get done by 20 goals. I normally don't bag the umpires but I thought we got shafted by them this week. Several frees should have gone Port's way in the forward line. Very frustrating when a similar free gets picked out at the other end.






WasIsAlways
Last seen: 10 years 1 month ago
Joined: 05/04/2007 - 00:00
Posts: 23
Ons, Completely agree with your assessment of the umpiring. Often yesterday a player from Willy was allow to do a 540 degree spin then fire off a handball and this was deemed to be play on, yet if a Port player did a 180 degree spin it was called holding the ball. Duble standards all round. Further, it took Luke Livingston, 40/50 seconds of lying down, before the umpire must have realised that he was seriously injured and consequently got out his book to report the player. This was simply not good enopugh and too long for an umpireto make a decision on whether 'head high contact' has occured. Luciara gave Shooter McMahon the 'don't argue' with a pointed elbow, right in front of the umpire, Shooter went down, but the ump called it played on, as if nothing ever happened. Absolutely bizarre, but the most concerning thing is that these are obvious incidents.
NorthPort's picture
NorthPort
Last seen: 4 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 03/11/2003 - 00:00
Posts: 8688
Yeah that high contact to Shooter was right in front of the ump yet once again it was deemed ok. I've rewatched the game to half-time, and some of them seem even more obvious on the TV coverage. The non-free clear push in the back with both hands, that would have been a free-kick even under the old interpretation was ok by the umps, only to have a soft one plucked out to Williamstown at the other end. Frustrating to note we were beating the Seagulls in inside50's to half-time but couldn't convert that into 'scoreboard pressure'






Pages