1 hour ago, spirit of norm smith said:

BBB.  👏👏👏Love it. 👏👏👏

every time they showed Port supporters in the crowd, it was mullets and missing teeth and goatees and tattoos … every time !!! Not just random!!! Port has the most feral supporters and now has passed the Pies for this metric 🤣🤣

The one where BBB was kicking for goal is priceless. No teeth,  one guy was missing a hand (!) And the mother looked like she was from deliverance. 

 

Very quiet after big Benny kicked the goal 🤣

Watching the replay there was one point where Port has 21 out of the last 25 i50s.

For our May-less defence to hold up was incredible

3 hours ago, binman said:

I think there is a risk of a false narrative building around this game.

In particular, that port lost a game they should have won, and that we were lucky to win.

Yes, there were similarities to some of our losses last year in the way port dominated in key stats, in particular inside 50 and time in forward half.

But those numbers are a little misleading in terms of a comparison to our losses last year.

If an opponent had beat us in those areas so comprehensively last season we would have been hammered. Not this season.

That's because our method has  changed and those stats are not as significant as indicators this season.

The other thing is port's supposed  innacracy and the much discussed expected score.

Port won the evexpected score by 34 points, on its face suggesting we were lucky to win and port threw it away.

Last year we lost a number of matches where we were ahead on  expected score. But the differential was usually a result of our woeful inaccuracy.

So, for example in our semi against the blues, using expected score as a metric, we left something like 4-5 goals on the table IIRC.

We should have won that game.

The same is true of our loss to the giants in the Alice, and to a lesser extent our finals loss to the pies.

But that's not true for port last night, as evidenced by their expected score, which was only 11 points more than their actual score.

Meaning they were actually pretty good in terms of their accuracy (expected score is calculated by the percentage of goals from all shots from that spot on the ground from the last 11 seasons).

Port didn't lose because they fluffed their lines like we did in say the giants, pies and blues losses.

It was because OUR kicking for goal, particularly our set shots, was brilliant. That's not lucky, that's skill.

Take three goals as examples.

Browns and maxy's set shot goals from 50 are probably no better than something like 30% under x score.

Fritters set shot from 45 on a 45 degree angle is probably something like 25% of shots from that spot being goals. 

Drilling those, and other goals, was the difference in the game. 

We won the game because our goal kicking was elite. Not because we we were lucky.

We didn't steal the game, we won it

Good kicking is good football.

I'd also add that we clearly ran out the game better. We looked fitter and stronger, and looked the winner from halfway through the last.

As evidence, we got out to a 13 point lead, and had a late chance to make it 19.

We dominated the last 10 minutes and their lucky after the siren goal made it feel a bit more even than it actually was.

What is a ‘steal’ then? 

A lot of internet wasted on an ephemeral question so it doesn’t really matter but the way Port lost was very similar to how we lost some crucial games last year. 

What was the general critique of those losses on here?

Thankfully, we can thank our growing capacity to move the footy from HB, our focus on keeping forwards ahead of the footy, and incredible execution near goals for the win.

2 hours ago, binman said:

I thought so too.

The free against rivers was a pretty big clanger though given the potential impact on the result. 

I'm pretty sure that free was an error because he paid a sling tackle, not say something like a reversal for unduly rough play.

A free had already been paid, so the game was in time on, ie the ball was no longer 'live'. 

Rivers obviously didn't know that, so tackled rozee.

He wouldn't have been awarded a free kick if rozee had dropped the ball - so how could he pinged for one (other than something like a reversal from say unduly rough play)?

I thought the free was wrong too and not only because rozee flopped...

But then you had the free to max when the ump did a dodgy centre bounce and blew the whistle. Play had stopped but Soldo cannoned into Max's back and Max received a free...

21 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Samesies!

The amount of times the dog ran away during that last quarter because we kept losing our mind… he is still mad at me today 😂

3 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

the amount of whinging about the umpires - from both sets of supporters - is pretty extraordinary

And deservedly so.
The umpiring these days as a whole is a disgrace.
Doesn't matter what game you're watching.

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I thought the free was wrong too and not only because rozee flopped...

But then you had the free to max when the ump did a dodgy centre bounce and blew the whistle. Play had stopped but Soldo cannoned into Max's back and Max received a free...

That was a ridiculous free. Nothing in it. Max lucked out then. 

2 hours ago, Fanatique Demon said:

Just watched the replay. Max was huge, but with six seconds to play at the centre bounce, he hit the ball to a Port player giving them the break forward. Surely the obvious play in the ruck is just to drop it to his own feet or take it out of the ruck and absorb a tackle to force another ball up. I noticed he did the same thing in similar circumstances last year too and I can’t understand why the sensible/defensive play isn’t drummed into him for close finishes or end of quarter contests.

Couldn't believe that. Was saying to my mates,  'watch this ball go straight to his feet' and Max hits it to the Port player. [censored]!!

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

That was a ridiculous free. Nothing in it. Max lucked out then. 

No it wasn't he deliberately smashed into Gawn. Free every day

4 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

It's a great post but in some respects, He's right.

Statistically we should not have won.

But we did through sheer determination, straight kicking at goals and a magnificent backline.

Just like Port shouldn't have won the last game against us.

That's the way it goes.

Statistically we should not have won! I say BS

The most important statistic is the score board.

Unless I am very much mistaken we won that one.

Who cares about kicks marks and forward entries? Give me scoreboard superiority any day.

2 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

The amount of times the dog ran away during that last quarter because we kept losing our mind… he is still mad at me today 😂

Our dog puts himself to bed rather than in the same room as me watching the telly 

he just goes not understand how important red and blue is compared to other colours

 

come on Dee’s get rid of the crowd on Thursday 

5points the diff at qtr time.
Scores level at half time.
4pts the diff at 3qtr time.
Any talk or reports of us stealing that game is ....

What is it about advantage and play on that umpires cannot get  consistency on??

8 minutes ago, Fork 'em said:

5points the diff at qtr time.
Scores level at half time.
4pts the diff at 3qtr time.
Any talk or reports of us stealing that game is ....

Insanity insanity insanity insanity..... 

2 hours ago, binman said:

I thought so too.

The free against rivers was a pretty big clanger though given the potential impact on the result. 

I'm pretty sure that free was an error because he paid a sling tackle, not say something like a reversal for unduly rough play.

A free had already been paid, so the game was in time on, ie the ball was no longer 'live'. 

Rivers obviously didn't know that, so tackled rozee.

He wouldn't have been awarded a free kick if rozee had dropped the ball - so how could he pinged for one (other than something like a reversal from say unduly rough play)?

That’s what annoyed me, they’d already blown the whistle to pay us the free (was it Tmac?) and the reversal was unexpected as it rarely happens. 
 

autocorrection.cancel to me Rivers didn’t hear the whistle so kept playing whereas Rozee stopped & made the tackle look worse than it was

Edited March 31, 20241 yr by deegirl

31 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

No it wasn't he deliberately smashed into Gawn. Free every day

If that was the requirement for a free, Gawn would get 100 of them a game. He gets deliberately smashed into at every contest. 

3 hours ago, binman said:

I think there is a risk of a false narrative building around this game.

In particular, that port lost a game they should have won, and that we were lucky to win.

Yes, there were similarities to some of our losses last year in the way port dominated in key stats, in particular inside 50 and time in forward half.

But those numbers are a little misleading in terms of a comparison to our losses last year.

If an opponent had beat us in those areas so comprehensively last season we would have been hammered. Not this season.

That's because our method has  changed and those stats are not as significant as indicators this season.

The other thing is port's supposed  innacracy and the much discussed expected score.

Port won the evexpected score by 34 points, on its face suggesting we were lucky to win and port threw it away.

Last year we lost a number of matches where we were ahead on  expected score. But the differential was usually a result of our woeful inaccuracy.

So, for example in our semi against the blues, using expected score as a metric, we left something like 4-5 goals on the table IIRC.

We should have won that game.

The same is true of our loss to the giants in the Alice, and to a lesser extent our finals loss to the pies.

But that's not true for port last night, as evidenced by their expected score, which was only 11 points more than their actual score.

Meaning they were actually pretty good in terms of their accuracy (expected score is calculated by the percentage of goals from all shots from that spot on the ground from the last 11 seasons).

Port didn't lose because they fluffed their lines like we did in say the giants, pies and blues losses.

It was because OUR kicking for goal, particularly our set shots, was brilliant. That's not lucky, that's skill.

Take three goals as examples.

Browns and maxy's set shot goals from 50 are probably no better than something like 30% under x score.

Fritters set shot from 45 on a 45 degree angle is probably something like 25% of shots from that spot being goals. 

Drilling those, and other goals, was the difference in the game. 

We won the game because our goal kicking was elite. Not because we we were lucky.

We didn't steal the game, we won it

Good kicking is good football.

I'd also add that we clearly ran out the game better. We looked fitter and stronger, and looked the winner from halfway through the last.

As evidence, we got out to a 13 point lead, and had a late chance to make it 19.

We dominated the last 10 minutes and their lucky after the siren goal made it feel a bit more even than it actually was.

Did you take the $2.66 Bin ?

3 hours ago, binman said:

I think there is a risk of a false narrative building around this game.

In particular, that port lost a game they should have won, and that we were lucky to win.

Yes, there were similarities to some of our losses last year in the way port dominated in key stats, in particular inside 50 and time in forward half.

But those numbers are a little misleading in terms of a comparison to our losses last year.

If an opponent had beat us in those areas so comprehensively last season we would have been hammered. Not this season.

That's because our method has  changed and those stats are not as significant as indicators this season.

The other thing is port's supposed  innacracy and the much discussed expected score.

Port won the evexpected score by 34 points, on its face suggesting we were lucky to win and port threw it away.

Last year we lost a number of matches where we were ahead on  expected score. But the differential was usually a result of our woeful inaccuracy.

So, for example in our semi against the blues, using expected score as a metric, we left something like 4-5 goals on the table IIRC.

We should have won that game.

The same is true of our loss to the giants in the Alice, and to a lesser extent our finals loss to the pies.

But that's not true for port last night, as evidenced by their expected score, which was only 11 points more than their actual score.

Meaning they were actually pretty good in terms of their accuracy (expected score is calculated by the percentage of goals from all shots from that spot on the ground from the last 11 seasons).

Port didn't lose because they fluffed their lines like we did in say the giants, pies and blues losses.

It was because OUR kicking for goal, particularly our set shots, was brilliant. That's not lucky, that's skill.

Take three goals as examples.

Browns and maxy's set shot goals from 50 are probably no better than something like 30% under x score.

Fritters set shot from 45 on a 45 degree angle is probably something like 25% of shots from that spot being goals. 

Drilling those, and other goals, was the difference in the game. 

We won the game because our goal kicking was elite. Not because we we were lucky.

We didn't steal the game, we won it

Good kicking is good football.

I'd also add that we clearly ran out the game better. We looked fitter and stronger, and looked the winner from halfway through the last.

As evidence, we got out to a 13 point lead, and had a late chance to make it 19.

We dominated the last 10 minutes and their lucky after the siren goal made it feel a bit more even than it actually was.

We kicked for goal exceptionally poorly in the losses and exceptionally well last night. 

5 minutes ago, Willmoy1947 said:

What is it about advantage and play on that umpires cannot get  consistency on??

Half the problem is that there's 4 of them making decisions.

Was listening to the radio the other day and there was some sketchy decision paid early.
Commentators declared it'd be ok if they umpired the rest of the game the same way.
Well that aint gonna happen when the umpire up the other end of the ground decides his "interpretation" of holding the ball is a 360deg spin instead of a 720 (which is what I saw a carton player allowed to do on the weekend against North.)

A couple of things. 

Umpires, it was obvious to me that they decided to even up the count in the second half. Port benefited from some decision, and our backline stepped it up and repelled them.

Predicted score. Take your chances, work hard to maintain momentum, win the moments and score in time on, makes the predicted look out of kilter.

Feral looking supporters. We are all equal and disparaging others because of appearance says more about the slingers than the derided.

Edited March 31, 20241 yr by kev martin

16 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

If that was the requirement for a free, Gawn would get 100 of them a game. He gets deliberately smashed into at every contest. 

As he should. It is clearly a deliberate tactic that some teams are adopting : to physically attack him at every chance. It was great to see an umpire actually give him the protection the rules call for.

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

The one where BBB was kicking for goal is priceless. No teeth,  one guy was missing a hand (!) And the mother looked like she was from deliverance. 

 

Very quiet after big Benny kicked the goal 🤣

Not sure if this'lll work but here goes..
BBs goal to Titanic with crowd reaction.
Twas a great goal though.
Big 55m bomb from the boundary.
And FWIW I think the woman in white is rather attractive.
Though she's not in Port gear so could just be a neutral which would explain it.

https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=1168501297859279

Edited March 31, 20241 yr by Fork 'em

 

Spot on Goody.

 

AFL MRO MADNESS

The only other charge from Saturday's games was Melbourne defender Trent Rivers copping a fine for a sling tackle on Port Adelaide's Connor Rozee. Rivers has been fined $3750, which can be reduced to $2500 with an early plea.

SHALL WE START THE CROWD FUNDING !?!? It was a ridiculous decision at the time.  Whistle blow amongst screaming crowd noise and 0.0008seconds later, Riv tackles (soft) Butters who flops to the ground.  Reversal.  Port free 20 metres out. Goal. It was wrong. It was a gift to port. This fine just accelerates the confusion.  Ps. Butters hits the ground with his shoulder.  

3 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

AFL MRO MADNESS

The only other charge from Saturday's games was Melbourne defender Trent Rivers copping a fine for a sling tackle on Port Adelaide's Connor Rozee. Rivers has been fined $3750, which can be reduced to $2500 with an early plea.

SHALL WE START THE CROWD FUNDING !?!? It was a ridiculous decision at the time.  Whistle blow amongst screaming crowd noise and 0.0008seconds later, Riv tackles (soft) Butters who flops to the ground.  Reversal.  Port free 20 metres out. Goal. It was wrong. It was a gift to port. This fine just accelerates the confusion.  Ps. Butters hits the ground with his shoulder.  

Meantime you can punch a player in the guts for the same penalty, or better yet, end someone’s career with a thug act and get a premiership medal as a reward 🙄

The free was there, but [censored] the consistency of the MRO is a disgrace.