Foxtel mate foxtel, DVD recorders were 2007I've been meaning to buy a HD recorder for months and have been putting it off. Well today I really got stung didn't I.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Sydney Swans vs GWS Giants - 3:20PM Sat - 1st QF
Squiggle tips Swans at 63% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
LIVE: Brisbane Lions vs Carlton - 7:30PM Sat - 1st EF
Squiggle tips Lions at 73% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
AFLW 2024 - Round 2 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Foxtel mate foxtel, DVD recorders were 2007I've been meaning to buy a HD recorder for months and have been putting it off. Well today I really got stung didn't I.
Did he ellaborate why ... or was he shit stirring?
It was the segment where KG asks a tough question for a yes or no answer... they asked Jars if he barracked for Saints in the 97 GF, because he was dirty on them cutting him.
They asked Tredders if he thought Sando was a good coach.. "Nope". Said he's a Monday to Friday coach, and doesn't make the match day moves required to win a game.
Shame the podcast on the website only features an eleven minute selection.
Nah, didn't really go much further as it was apart of the Dead Set Legends 'Under the Pump' segment, where they give short and sharp answers. I don't usually mind Tredders, and actually enjoy listening to his insights, but he surely has to concede he's wrong on this one?Did he ellaborate why ... or was he shit stirring?
Haha, so he did backpedal a little, how surprising.Some superb back peddling today
http://www.triplem.com.au/adelaide/sport/afl/news/tredders-brenton-sanderson-controversy-/
I actually think McKernan offered far more around the ground as a ruckman than Sauce.
It might also be the motivational spur that Sauce needs to get back to his best.
He did on the news too. Kym Dillon gave him a little stick over the comments.Haha, so he did backpedal a little, how surprising.
Hey Tredders.Except our game plan really isn't all that great - we won today because the group has superior fitness, and the Kangaroos have a singular one way game plan in a similar vein to Essendon of 2008, with no ability to change to something else. Petrie had free kicks with 1:30, and 40 seconds left on the clock. They should have won. The reason they didn't was entirely because no Kangaroo was fit enough to run and demand a pass, they stood still and then jogged to the boundary contests they forced him into selecting. Watch the 6th Kerridge goal again - Firrito can't even run anymore, he knows Kerridge is heading to the square to contest the mark or shepherd, and he isn't even able to attempt to keep up with him.
Our zone was pretty consistently cut to shreds again today, seems to be a common occurrence, and it's the reason our insufficient small defense is being so badly exposed all the time, despite our essentially overwhelmingly superior tall defence.
For those not wanting to listen to him, care to summarise how he backpeddaled?Some superb back peddling today
http://www.triplem.com.au/adelaide/sport/afl/news/tredders-brenton-sanderson-controversy-/
For those not wanting to listen to him, care to summarise how he backpeddaled?
Except our game plan really isn't all that great - we won today because the group has superior fitness, and the Kangaroos have a singular one way game plan in a similar vein to Essendon of 2008, with no ability to change to something else. Petrie had free kicks with 1:30, and 40 seconds left on the clock. They should have won. The reason they didn't was entirely because no Kangaroo was fit enough to run and demand a pass, they stood still and then jogged to the boundary contests they forced him into selecting. Watch the 6th Kerridge goal again - Firrito can't even run anymore, he knows Kerridge is heading to the square to contest the mark or shepherd, and he isn't even able to attempt to keep up with him.
Our zone was pretty consistently cut to shreds again today, seems to be a common occurrence, and it's the reason our insufficient small defense is being so badly exposed all the time, despite our essentially overwhelmingly superior tall defence.
Is the assumption here, that the players are doing exactly what is expected of them by the coach for 100% of the game? How can you pass such critique when you really have no idea when the players are playing to the structure and when they aren't?
Why did Bruce say one minute and something? (Sorry to get hung up on this, but Bruce is rarely wrong.....)
if youre a bigpond customer (or know one i guess) you can download the gameI've been meaning to buy a HD recorder for months and have been putting it off. Well today I really got stung didn't I.
I think you have to have a bit of that about you to believe you are good enough to coach an AFL football team.Sanderson is intriguing. He's much more up himself as a coach much more confident than what he was as a player. It's a dynamic you don't see as much. He did love himself when he played, those modelling pics are testament to that. It was never apparent on the field with the aura of his game. The way he played half back, showed he had a lot of knowledge of the game, but again there was nothing I saw that would warn of his egotistical nature as a coach.You would say he's measured and insightful.
He enjoys his coaching, that is a very good thing.
I think you have to have a bit of that about you to believe you are good enough to coach an AFL football team.
and AFC979810 apparentlyCrow-mo had it.
I am happy to see criticism of Sanderson when people are dealing with facts. People like yourself seem to continually raise the game plan and structure to explain everything that happens on the field. There is an expectation that the game plan should cover every eventuality on the field and that if the structure is correct then an opposition team should have no possible way of counteracting you. All great in theory if you are playing against traffic cones. Unfortunately in a game of AFL football your opposition (unless its Melbourne) will also have a game plan and normally its not done with the purpose of accommodating yours.
I just find it highly amusing that certain people are constantly critical of a game plan that they really cant possibly understand unless they are privvy to the team meetings. How can any of us say for sure that its the structure at fault when we have no idea if the players are playing to the structure. We cant, so stop pretending you are Leigh Matthews.
FWIW I think playing Dangerfield at full forward from the start was a mistake. We are a dramatically better side with him on the ball. What you and I don't understand is Sandersons reasons for doing it. Clearly he was trying to manipulate the on ball match ups early in the game.
I am happy to see criticism of Sanderson when people are dealing with facts. People like yourself seem to continually raise the game plan and structure to explain everything that happens on the field. There is an expectation that the game plan should cover every eventuality on the field and that if the structure is correct then an opposition team should have no possible way of counteracting you. All great in theory if you are playing against traffic cones. Unfortunately in a game of AFL football your opposition (unless its Melbourne) will also have a game plan and normally its not done with the purpose of accommodating yours.
If you listen to Sanderson he will happily concede that our structure is high risk and that at times we will get cut to ribbons if the players are not switched on and make errors.
I just find it highly amusing that certain people are constantly critical of a game plan that they really cant possibly understand unless they are privvy to the team meetings. How can any of us say for sure that its the structure at fault when we have no idea if the players are playing to the structure. We cant, so stop pretending you are Leigh Matthews.
FWIW I think playing Dangerfield at full forward from the start was a mistake. We are a dramatically better side with him on the ball. What you and I don't understand is Sandersons reasons for doing it. Clearly he was trying to manipulate the on ball match ups early in the game. On the face of it given our terrible first quarter you would have to say it was unsuccessful. I'm glad Sanderson tries shit like that though. Its just annoying that the minute he tries something and fails, the armchair experts are all over him.