footy classified

stinger · Post: # 784039Post **stinger** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 1:45pm

nothing much on the saints but look for our ex-coach to stitch dimwit up....

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/video.aspx?t ... 8F512B9132

Moods · Post: # 784085Post **Moods** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 3:24pm

Thought he was a bit rough on Milney. In years gone by, GT's critisism of Milney would have been warranted. IN the past 18 months he has turned himself into a far more consistent player. Don't reckon Milney has anything to prove this week, or the week after. He is doing EXACTLY what we need from a small fwd I reckon. He has played two great games in a row against two top 4 teams - what more can you ask. SChneider and Milne are the perfect 2 promg small attack complementing our two power fwds.

perfectionist · Tue 28 Jul 2009 4:11pm

Yes, it was the nasty Grant Thomas again. This year, Stephen Milne averages more than 2 goals per game, the only small forward to do so. Maybe Thomas hasn't seen too many Saints games this year. Criticising his consistency this year was just silly. Here are his goal tallies so far this year:

3, 1, 4, 1, 3, 0, 4, 1, 3, 1, 0, 1, 4, 4, 5

Equally, it has been has consistent forward pressure when he hasn't got the ball that has been the hallmark of his performance this year. He had a couple of down weeks after his injury, nothing unusual about that.

borderbarry · Tue 28 Jul 2009 4:18pm

Not many forwards of any size have kicked 13 goals in the last 3 weeks.

stinger · Post: # 784133Post **stinger** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 4:29pm

didn't see any comments on milne....

strauchanie · Tue 28 Jul 2009 4:43pm

Anyone hear who Simpson thought his toughest opponent was?

plugger66 · Post: # 784154Post **plugger66** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 4:43pm

strauchanie wrote:Anyone hear who Simpson thought his toughest opponent was?

Brad Howard?

SainterK · Post: # 784164Post **SainterK** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 4:49pm

I was more annoyed that they all thought that had Welsh not had an interchange infringement, the doggies would have been a chance

strauchanie · Tue 28 Jul 2009 4:55pm

plugger66 wrote:
strauchanie wrote:Anyone hear who Simpson thought his toughest opponent was?
Brad Howard?

Actually it was chicken smallhorn

stinger · Post: # 784202Post **stinger** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 5:25pm

ohwhenthesaints! wrote:I was more annoyed that they all thought that had Welsh not had an interchange infringement, the doggies would have been a chance

we had an interchange infringement against the blues...we didn't fall into a hole...

Moods · Post: # 784212Post **Moods** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 5:41pm

stinger wrote:didn't see any comments on milne....

GT was asked directly about Milne's form and he basically stated he'll be interested to see if Milne can back it up this week, and the week after. I reckon Milne has backed it up since mid way through last year, but especially this year.

I didn't get the impression at all that the panel believed that the interchange error affected the result of the game. They spoke it about naturally, but said that the doogies coaches would have been furious as any chance of a comeback was snuffed out. I thought they raved about the saints from that point on.

stinger · Post: # 784217Post **stinger** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 5:45pm

Moods wrote:
stinger wrote:didn't see any comments on milne....
GT was asked directly about Milne's form and he basically stated he'll be interested to see if Milne can back it up this week, and the week after. I reckon Milne has backed it up since mid way through last year, but especially this year.

I didn't get the impression at all that the panel believed that the interchange error affected the result of the game. They spoke it about naturally, but said that the doogies coaches would have been furious as any chance of a comeback was snuffed out. I thought they raved about the saints from that point on.

i only accessed the site online...if you look at the first post..you will see the item i was interested in...there are no articles on the saints online...as i stated....wft does anyone presume i was watching the show ffs.....?

Moods · Post: # 784223Post **Moods** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 5:48pm

[quote="stinger

i only accessed the site online...if you look at the first post..you will see the item i was interested in...there are no articles on the saints online...as i stated....wft does anyone presume i was watching the show ffs.....?[/quote]

May be b/c the heading of the thread was Footy Classified?

I wouldn't even know how you access these shows online.

sainter35 · Post: # 784287Post **sainter35** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 6:41pm

Yes, I would have thought Thomas would have given him a little more credit. Let's face it, he's said himself that if he had remained at the club after 2006 Milney wouldn't have been there. Perhaps he's still judging him on the past rather than his actual output this season.

Stinger, if you don't want people to discuss the program perhaps you should have given your thread a better title.

bob__71 · Post: # 784292Post **bob__71** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 6:44pm

sainter35 wrote:Yes, I would have thought Thomas would have given him a little more credit. Let's face it, he's said himself that if he had remained at the club after 2006 Milney wouldn't have been there. Perhaps he's still judging him on the past rather than his actual output this season.

Stinger, if you don't want people to discuss the program perhaps you should have given your thread a better title.

You expect him to say that maybe he was wrong?

stinger · Post: # 784309Post **stinger** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 6:58pm

Moods wrote:[quote="stinger

i only accessed the site online...if you look at the first post..you will see the item i was interested in...there are no articles on the saints online...as i stated....wft does anyone presume i was watching the show ffs.....?

May be b/c the heading of the thread was Footy Classified?

I wouldn't even know how you access these shows online.[/quote]

go to google....type in....footy classified........you get

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/afl/classified/

stinger · Post: # 784310Post **stinger** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 6:59pm

sainter35 wrote:Yes, I would have thought Thomas would have given him a little more credit. Let's face it, he's said himself that if he had remained at the club after 2006 Milney wouldn't have been there. Perhaps he's still judging him on the past rather than his actual output this season.

Stinger, if you don't want people to discuss the program perhaps you should have given your thread a better title.

yes mum.....

sainter35 · Post: # 784312Post **sainter35** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 7:00pm

bob__71 wrote:
sainter35 wrote:Yes, I would have thought Thomas would have given him a little more credit. Let's face it, he's said himself that if he had remained at the club after 2006 Milney wouldn't have been there. Perhaps he's still judging him on the past rather than his actual output this season.

Stinger, if you don't want people to discuss the program perhaps you should have given your thread a better title.
You expect him to say that maybe he was wrong?

Haha, I'd never expect him to say he was wrong. Just a bit of acknowledgement for his current form would have been nice.

sainter35 · Post: # 784313Post **sainter35** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 7:01pm

stinger wrote:
sainter35 wrote:Yes, I would have thought Thomas would have given him a little more credit. Let's face it, he's said himself that if he had remained at the club after 2006 Milney wouldn't have been there. Perhaps he's still judging him on the past rather than his actual output this season.

Stinger, if you don't want people to discuss the program perhaps you should have given your thread a better title.

yes mum.....

No problem grandpa

stinger · Post: # 784345Post **stinger** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 7:48pm

sainter35 wrote:
stinger wrote:
sainter35 wrote:Yes, I would have thought Thomas would have given him a little more credit. Let's face it, he's said himself that if he had remained at the club after 2006 Milney wouldn't have been there. Perhaps he's still judging him on the past rather than his actual output this season.

Stinger, if you don't want people to discuss the program perhaps you should have given your thread a better title.

yes mum.....
No problem grandpa

well don't give silly advice......

i posted a link to the parts of the show on line...it was captain obvious what i was referring to....and what ele was there.....

and personaly i couldn't give a rats what is discussed....

python · Post: # 784376Post **python** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 8:54pm

i doubt the infringement effected the result, we already had the ball in our 50 and i think riewoldt was having a shot on goal (not 100% sure though)

saintbrat · Post: # 784384Post **saintbrat** » Tue 28 Jul 2009 8:58pm

python wrote:i doubt the infringement effected the result, we already had the ball in our 50 and i think riewoldt was having a shot on goal (not 100% sure though)

correct- Roo made sure the Umpires knew the ball had entered the 50- hence his shot was from the goal square and not around the 50 mtr

the ball had just bounced inside the 50 metre mark when the emergency umpire called the transgression. Roos didn't have it but was leading toward it.