Hurting Coach

[Damp Squarie]

....and they call it the AFL

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
How were they even more screwed.......both were screwed by it in the end and both ended up in the same boat

Both were screwed by the MCG contract, I agree, but -

1. Port decided to go for broke in rd 22, they made that choice, whereas Crows had no choice, and

2. Port did not actually have a supposed "home final" game played in Melbourne, whereas Crows did.

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Both were screwed by the MCG contract, I agree, but -

1. Port decided to go for broke in rd 22, they made that choice, whereas Crows had no choice, and

2. Port did not actually have a supposed "home final" game played in Melbourne, whereas Crows did.

True but both ended up missing out on the GF possibly due to the same rule........

 

[understudy]

Oh I feel for all u poor things. So hard done by.
Suffer fools suffer.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
If the MCG contract issue wasn't there the club didn't have to win the last game of the season to ensure home finals.

So what?

In which case tehy wouldn't have tried to win and not secure the minor premiership.

Give me a break

Port tries to win every game equally. Remember Fos' little credo.

Port had no-one to blame but themselves.

The MCG contract is completely irrelevant.

 

[Damp Squarie]

Re: Re: Hurting Coach

Originally posted by grayham
Malthouse would be the one under most pressure because the collingwood fans expect nothing less than a flag, yet most unbiased experts only rate the team as a mid-table finalist (4rd-7th).

Mark Williams is safe for a while. The win against Essendon saved his bacon in last years finals. All he needs is a finals berth anywhere and he's ok.

Neale Daniher is also safe. Any finals birth is an exceptable result, which they should achieve.

Gary Ayres is safe. He can blame the "carey" factor if the team doesnt gell, and claim his coaching ability if carey brings a flag.

I agree with the majority grayham except...

Id suggest Adelaide, Port Power, Collingwood and Brisbane fans will be expecting nothing less than a flag this year- they wouldnt be fans otherwise

Will Williams or Ayres get the flick if the Adelaide teams finish below 4th? hhhmmm

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
If the was no MCG contract the Rd 22 game would not have had so much riding on it. Certainly if Collingwood and Carton f (for example) had finished 1 & 2 and played for top spot in Rd 22, there would not have been a home fPreliminary Final resting on the result.

I believe (and I dont particularly like the PAP's that they wre carried away by the hype of Rd 22, Won top spot and by the time they woke up that Collingwood were a threat it was too late.

I just cant believe that Pie's supporters cannot acknowlege that they were indeed extremly fortunate.

You honestly think the MCG contract had any impact on the result of Port's finals campeign? I can't believe it. Port went hard in round 22 for pride adn for top spot, irrespective of the MCG contract and what was or was not riding on it.

Even if I accept your unbelievable presumption, no matter what the result of round 22 they would have been at home for the first final and their destiny was in their hands from there.

Whether or not Collingwood were lucky is another matter entirely. If you beat every finalist during the year there is a little more than luck involved. Lucky to beat Port in SA after losing by under a goal during the year and winning the prior year. Lucky to beat Adelaide at the G after beating them in SA during the year. Lucky to get within 9 points of Brisbane in the wet after beating them indoors. Lucky to make the top 4. Lucky to....

IF Port took their home final too easy (as opposed to meeting a quality, motivated opponent), then it was an assumption of superiority that was to blame rather than the round 22 perspective on home finals depending on top spot.

I have heard some ***** weak excuses for losing games before but this would take the cake. Not even Mark Williams would claim this one.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by topjars
Call it what you will but if Port had met Brisbane in the GF my money would have been on them

I think you use the term "my money" loosely. You would only have been borrowing it.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by MarkT
I have heard some ***** weak excuses for losing games before but this would take the cake. Not even Mark Williams would claim this one.

Perhaps only Sir Alex Ferguson would even consider such a lame excuse.

I can't believe they have the temerity to suggest it.

 

[adey115]

Port did not get screwed by the MCG rule. Port screwed themselves by losing to Collingwood in the first week of the finals. To blame a hard rnd 22 match with 'everything riding on it' (and thus blaming the MCG prelim final rule) is a crock.

They didn't played their prelim final in Adelaide because they lost to Collingwood, not because they beat the Lions.

In that rnd 22 game with 'everything riding on it', Brisbane lost. Did playing a tough game the week before upset the way they performed the week after - no.....

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
Possibly as if we had won the game against Collingwood it would have meant a weeks break that a few players needed.........I believe it was the Round 22 game that was our biggest killer.

If Port would not have played exactly the same game in round 22 irrespective of the MCG contract, then they are in the wrong competition. Teams do cruise at times but not in round 22 in a top of teh table battle with a likely GF opponent at home. really this is the worst excuse I have ever heard. Trust me I've heard plenty and many of 'em from fellow Pies.

Apart from anything else you lost 2 out of three finals after never having won one. To assume you would or could have been premiers is more than speculative, it is downright illogical. Nothing at all whatsoever point to Port winning any final away from home let alone against the best team of quite some time. You had a chance to give Brisbane some competition and never at any stage looked in their class. If you don't think finals are different than home matches during the season then you really don't understand why you lost at all.

FWIW I think Port gained a lot from the 2002 finals and will be pretty formidable next year. Also FWIW I think they to learn their lessons the hard way. A winning culture or not, in another competition or not, they just were not ready. Of course that is speculation just like yours but at least the results back mine up.

Originally posted by dreamkillers
How were they even more screwed.......both were screwed by it in the end and both ended up in the same boat

rubbish. Adelaide I have some sympathy for. Port were completely uunaffected. Absolutley irrelevant. If they were menatlly or physically affected by that contract during a H&A match in those circumstances then they really are not Port Adelaide and never will be. In fact they will never be an AFL team while that is the case.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
True but both ended up missing out on the GF possibly due to the same rule........

Or losing to opponents who played better. sounds strange I know but Collingwood beat two South Australian teams. There must have been some conspiracy!

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Jars458
So what?

In which case tehy wouldn't have tried to win and not secure the minor premiership.

Give me a break

Port tries to win every game equally. Remember Fos' little credo.

Port had no-one to blame but themselves.

The MCG contract is completely irrelevant.

They would have tried to win of course.....but they may not have risked players carrying injuries or keeping them on the ground in that game if it didn't mean so much more than just being top.


I actually agree that Port can only blame themselves........

I don't believe in any excuses as the best side on the day will win the match when it counts no matter where or when the game is played.

I think Fos sums it up well in the last line of the Port Adelaide creed.........

"Finally, we concede that there can be honour in defeat, but to each of us, honourable defeat of our club and guernsey can come only after human endeavour on the playing field is completely exhausted."

I don't think too many losses meet the criteria........so the blame lies soley with the players and club instead of trying to find other possible excuses......

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by MarkT
If Port would not have played exactly the same game in round 22 irrespective of the MCG contract, then they are in the wrong competition. Teams do cruise at times but not in round 22 in a top of teh table battle with a likely GF opponent at home. really this is the worst excuse I have ever heard. Trust me I've heard plenty and many of 'em from fellow Pies.

Apart from anything else you lost 2 out of three finals after never having won one. To assume you would or could have been premiers is more than speculative, it is downright illogical. Nothing at all whatsoever point to Port winning any final away from home let alone against the best team of quite some time. You had a chance to give Brisbane some competition and never at any stage looked in their class. If you don't think finals are different than home matches during the season then you really don't understand why you lost at all.

FWIW I think Port gained a lot from the 2002 finals and will be pretty formidable next year. Also FWIW I think they to learn their lessons the hard way. A winning culture or not, in another competition or not, they just were not ready. Of course that is speculation just like yours but at least the results back mine up.

note I had the word possibly at the start.........and only due to the playing of injured players in round 22 and injuries from that game..........

But as I posted after that the blame lies solely with the players and club and nothing else...........Port Adelaide wouldn't have it any other way.

Originally posted by MarkT
rubbish. Adelaide I have some sympathy for. Port were completely uunaffected. Absolutley irrelevant. If they were menatlly or physically affected by that contract during a H&A match in those circumstances then they really are not Port Adelaide and never will be. In fact they will never be an AFL team while that is the case.

see above.......

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by MarkT
Or losing to opponents who played better. sounds strange I know but Collingwood beat two South Australian teams. There must have been some conspiracy!

Nope not into conspiracies.......

Both opponents that beat us during the finals were better on the day........I don't have a problem admitting that.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

blaming it on the mcg contract lol. now i,ve heard everything.the one and only side that was hard done by due to the mcg contract was the crows.
besides that if port were good enough they would have been in that last day in sept instead of collingwood.
dream run for port-last game[home],1st final[home],week rest,pelim[home]=GF.how easy of a run did you guys want?

cheers!

 

[noddy]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
Possibly as if we had won the game against Collingwood it would have meant a weeks break that a few players needed.........I believe it was the Round 22 game that was our biggest killer.

Another way to look at this is that Port Power actually cost the Crows another grand final appearance & possibly another flag by not beating Collingwood, because the paps would have had a home prelim final & as it would have worked out that game would have been against the Crows, so in all reality we would of beaten the paps in the prelim as sure as eggs are eggs & gone on to play in the G/F,

Quite simple really: the bloody Paps choking against the Colliwobbles cost us our 3rd premiership!!!!

 

[Eddie Woloschek]

Re: Re: Re: Hurting Coach

Originally posted by afc9798
Thanks for your decisive analysis Eddie Fulo****. Ayres started slowly, but has continually moved the club upwards and will continue to do so. I am extremely happy that he has re-signed as coach and that he'll be around to continue to make people such as you eat their words. Most journos and opposition supporters had the Crows either scaping into the eight and some had us as low as 14th last year. Not a bad return from a bunch of also rans I would have thought. Don't let reality creep into your assesments though, as this would deprive us of another village idiot.

Yes, he did start slowly after 5 years at Geelong. But his temper finally got the better of him and now he's in full stride. "At the end of the day", few will eat their words about Ayres, save of course, people such as you. Remember- "Don't go mistakin' Paradise for that home across the road."

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by adey115
Port did not get screwed by the MCG rule. Port screwed themselves by losing to Collingwood in the first week of the finals. To blame a hard rnd 22 match with 'everything riding on it' (and thus blaming the MCG prelim final rule) is a crock.

They didn't played their prelim final in Adelaide because they lost to Collingwood, not because they beat the Lions.

In that rnd 22 game with 'everything riding on it', Brisbane lost. Did playing a tough game the week before upset the way they performed the week after - no.....

True to a point.
But the point I am tring to make is thatbecause of the MCG Contract they did not have the luxury of "cruising" to the finals A LA Magpies

RD 19
Hawthorn 1.4 7.9 12.12 15.15 (105)
Collingwood 3.3 9.5 10.9 14.13 (97)

RD 20
Essendon 6.3 10.6 14.10 19.12 (126)
Collingwood 2.2 4.4 8.8 10.11 (71)

RD 21
Collingwood 1.1 4.6 8.8 11.11 (77)
St Kilda 1.6 5.7 9.10 9.12 (66)

RD 22

Collingwood 2.4 6.6 9.12 10.13 (73)
Western Bulldogs 4.3 6.5 11.7 17.12 (114)

Also Brisbane played adelaide coming of a Perth Game with a%day break after travel.

MCG Contract certainly helped.

I can't beleive I'm Sticking up for SA sides

 

[Tio_Ray]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
True to a point.
But the point I am tring to make is thatbecause of the MCG Contract they did not have the luxury of "cruising" to the finals A LA Magpies

RD 19
Hawthorn 1.4 7.9 12.12 15.15 (105)
Collingwood 3.3 9.5 10.9 14.13 (97)

RD 20
Essendon 6.3 10.6 14.10 19.12 (126)
Collingwood 2.2 4.4 8.8 10.11 (71)

RD 21
Collingwood 1.1 4.6 8.8 11.11 (77)
St Kilda 1.6 5.7 9.10 9.12 (66)

RD 22

Collingwood 2.4 6.6 9.12 10.13 (73)
Western Bulldogs 4.3 6.5 11.7 17.12 (114)

Also Brisbane played adelaide coming of a Perth Game with a%day break after travel.

MCG Contract certainly helped.

I can't beleive I'm Sticking up for SA sides

Then what was stopping them from "cruising" in round 22, nothing but pride to gain? and how come the Lions could still play well? The crows had a hard run with the MCG...forget the excuses...on the day the Magpies were better prepared in the mind for the finals and thats probably what did it.

 

[Damp Squarie]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
True to a point.
But the point I am tring to make is thatbecause of the MCG Contract they did not have the luxury of "cruising" to the finals A LA Magpies

RD 19
Hawthorn 1.4 7.9 12.12 15.15 (105)
Collingwood 3.3 9.5 10.9 14.13 (97)

RD 20
Essendon 6.3 10.6 14.10 19.12 (126)
Collingwood 2.2 4.4 8.8 10.11 (71)

RD 21
Collingwood 1.1 4.6 8.8 11.11 (77)
St Kilda 1.6 5.7 9.10 9.12 (66)

RD 22

Collingwood 2.4 6.6 9.12 10.13 (73)
Western Bulldogs 4.3 6.5 11.7 17.12 (114)

Also Brisbane played adelaide coming of a Perth Game with a%day break after travel.

MCG Contract certainly helped.

I can't beleive I'm Sticking up for SA sides

LOL - Good one ripper...(The truth is out there

 

[Lockyer24]

RIPPER you are a battler of the highest order.

 

[NICK THE PIE MAN]

Originally posted by topjars
Who is hurtin the most ?

1. Mick Malthouse because the Pies got the wobbles again in a granny that was nearly in the bag
[/I]

Um? In the bag?

When the hell was it ever in the bag?

It was a close match, anyone's game. And Brisbane won becuase they had more endurance and were too profesional at the end of the day.

In my opinion, Mick Malthouse hasn't got the kudos he deserves. He brought a team that was lacking in talent compared to Brisbane and installed in them some heart, guts and determination. He has done INCREDIBLE with the talent he has had at his disposal. To get a team with our seemingly 'no-name' list to come 9 points away from winning a flag against a team where 3 of the 4 in their midfield are Brownlow medalists and including 6 All Australians to none is incredible.

 

[Falchoon]

Here's my take, Malthouse should be happy with the season he had and especially his coaching performance.

Ayres exceeded expectations and now has a legitimate premiership contender, needs a top 4 finish minimum this year.

Daniher will be hurting but only because he lost 2 quality midfielders, which was out of his control.

Williams should be hurting because his setting up for the finals and his surly demeanour seemed to cost Port at the most inopportune time of the year. I would say that if he doesn't make the Granny this year he will be gone, and surely there'd be some coaches licking their lips over the prospect of handling that list.

 

[The Phat Side]

by Falchoon

Williams should be hurting because his setting up for the finals and his surly demeanour seemed to cost Port at the most inopportune time of the year. I would say that if he doesn't make the Granny this year he will be gone, and surely there'd be some coaches licking their lips over the prospect of handling that list

No their style doesnt suit finals footy. Nothing to do with his setting up for the finals or his demeanor. They run forward of the ball and back their teamates to win the 50/50 contests. This works in H&A games but in the extra man on man pressure of finals it doesnt.