@#%*&%# port!

[foxy]

think we should've won tonight. if only it wasn't raining. great first quarter except for the last 5 minutes, we lost the game in the last 5 minutes of the first. have no idea why crosisca was taken off then. burns had a superb game, buckley brilliant, tarrant is really classy. prestas had a shocking first quarter, should never have let chalmers kick 2 goals and get about 7 possies. did the job for the rest of the game though. even showed a bit of a run in the dying moments, backed himself running through the middle. mal played a great game, really covered tredrea well. pebbles had a quiet one though. godden was reliable, except for the wanganeen free kick, but that wasn't his fault. did i hear the magpie supporters behind the punt road goals calling godden a wanker? i REALLY hope not, hope i misheard. wasley was just finding the ball and shawry dragged him in the second, not sure why. betho had a quieter game, laney was better, tuckey did nothing but that was just the rain's fault. great mark by tarrant in the first few minutes. good game by freeborn, 4 goals. browny was great with the second efforts. lockyer showed some poise and class, needs to work on the pickup and first touch, as does raso, needs to slow down, seems a bit rushed. have no idea why sav was off the ground in the last minutes when we could've won. if port didn't have wanganeen we would've won. and that mclaren guy wearing no.11 in the white played well for port. really the umpiring was outrageous. that's my opinion anyway, i'm going to bed disgruntled, going to wake up and wait for next week.

[Broadie]

RE: WANGANEEN COMMENT

Please don't use the old "if [insert team] didn't have [insert their best player] we would've won".

If we didn't have Buckley, would we ever get close? You can only beat the team you're playing, and that must include strategies and player performances to nullify / beat individuals who can "win the game off their own boot".

The umpiring was a disaster - and I don't like to use it as an excuse (the next paragraph explains why we lost), but I hate it when 4-5 opposition goals come from frees. At least 3 of the frees were unwarranted.

We only played 2 1/2 quarters (useless in 3rd and first half of 4th) yet still only went down by a point. A lot of positives, but I'm sick of thinking about that cliche.

Bring on season 2000.

[foxy]

ok, so maybe the wanganeen comment was pretty lame. but it was a heat-of-the-moment-looking-for-a-quick-excuse comment. and well, i still think we would've done well without buckley. if anything footy is about form, more than any other game. how a team molds on a particular day, and if they have confidence in one another; that's the key. on a number of occassions when coming out of the back line buckley could be accused of not having confidence in some of the young guys running out of defence making space - mal sometimes, prestas in particular. if the guy is prepared to run and find space then he needs to be rewarded; bucks can't afford to bomb it down the corridor every time, he should stay forward of centre and get the ball off mal, or anthony, or lockyer - they're all fine kicks. keep godden right in the heart of defence, not rebounding quite as often, because his kicks are never that flash. i'm getting off the subject here. basically i still aspire to the theory that if anthony and sav are in fire in the forward line, then we can beat anyone. but how often does that happen? anyone remember that richmond game in about round 5 last year when we totally destroyed them? THAT was just beautiful footy, especially the first quarter. now i'm reminiscing, woops.

[bokka]

thanks for your description foxy. Looks like the difference may again have been our brilliant coaching moves.... some more were mentioned in the media.
Then again you could say the diff was wanganeen, or Pebbles being beaten, or umpire goals, or the rain, or etc etc....