Admin tips for Round 1

Glenelg v Port at Gliderol Stadium (minus grandstand) – Friday night

You always want to start a season at home with a win. That won’t happen here, unless the Bays play out of their skin. Port will probably field about 18 listed players and should be far too good, although the Bays small forwards pulled off a miracle or two last year.
Glenelg will need plenty of supporters to help Bayman create the right atmosphere and there’ll probably be a fair bit of Snout’s Louts’ encouragement as they run out through the South-West pocket.

Port will have a look at their new draftees and rookies. Glenelg will hope McGinty doesn’t get injured.


PORT by 49 points.

West v South at City Mazda Stadium – Friday night

This is the ‘IF’ game. If South maintain the Gotch enthusiasm, they’ll be mighty hard to beat. If West regain the 2015 enthusiasm, they’ll be mighty hard to beat. South should start with a ruck (Bass) and midfield (Cross, Liddle & Company) advantage, but we’ll be the first to use the following statement: ‘South will miss Brett Eddy’. West will miss Schmidt and Porplyzia.

West’s defence will be vastly stronger with Keough and Wilson in the key posts, but might start many centre stoppages from defence after a South clearance.

WEST by 9 points

Norwood v North at the Parade (sorry, Cooper’s Stadium) – Friday night, 10 minutes after the other games.


It’s hard to win at the Parade if you’re visiting. If Norwood are now allowed to move the ball quickly forward, it becomes harder. If North aren’t as quick as they used to be, it’s just about impossible. North aren’t as quick as they used to be, Norwood ARE allowed to move the footy forward quickly and North are visiting the Parade. Leigh Ryswyk has been a great player for the Roosters, well done.

NORWOOD by 86 points

Central v Woodville-West Torrens (henceforth known as the Eagles) – Saturday at My Money House Oval (henceforth known as Elizabeth, or ‘the Ponderosa’, if you’re a Central fan)

Central have been consistently better than average for a while now. They’ll have a massive ruck advantage, because Hannath is massive. Butcher will kick a few and the enthusiasm will be high. The Eagles might be up and about, too, with a few new faces keen to prove a point. Word is that Wundke has contributed to a decline in Vili’s turnover, but he was pretty good with the Vili’s on board, so he could be massive now. Well, not physically, but …. never mind.

Central by 27 points

Sturt v Adelaide at Peter Motley Oval, on Sunday, I think.

Looks a ripper of a game. Sturt, well organised, at home, premiership flag to unfurl (what if it’s already unfurled and just has to be put up the pole?), great coach, versus the Crows. Quite a few young rookies, the Crows, but quite a few fair players. Beech found another level in the finals last year and he’s got some classy mates, but Sturt just look too solid.

Qualification – if ‘premiership hangover’ is mentioned, their season is in trouble.

STURT by either 20 or 21 points.

We think we're pretty spot on. Can't see any othr outcomes, can you?

Irrespective of how it pans out, that's a cracking write up, well played Admin

Admin better back Central now, is $2.90 on UBET, have just taken that & the line of +18.5

Well, by some strange manipulation of logic, it seems we were almost completely spot on, give or take 4 results and 300 points.

Never fear, though, these were deliberate errors just to get things started, so we'll also do a quick review of the games.

Glenelg v Port:  We were pretty much on the ball here, only missing out by about 100 points.  Our more intelligent readers would have noticed the coded 'real' selection in our write-up, though.  As stated, the Bays played out of their skin and their small forwards did produce a miracle, playing deliberately wide so their other small forward, String Bean, could towel up the Maggies.

We always thought Port might play as individuals trying to impress, and not yet gell as a team, so the Snouts were clearly going to get the Bays over the line.

South v West:

Again, we predicted this result, by saying that if South maintained the Gotch enthusiasm, they'd win.  We were accurate about the centre stoppages and everything else.  It was a great fightback by South, recovering from a scoreboard that early on read:

South 1.1.7

West 96.0.576

Records suggest this was the largest first 5 minutes deficit ever overcome in a SANFL game.

Norwood v North:

We were one of the few tipsters to get this right, of course.  Unkind readers would point out our margin was 10 goals too much, but that's splitting hairs, IOO  (In Our Opinion, for the acronym illiterate).

We haven't had much feedback about this one, but Norwood and North were combined during the war years (WW2, for those history illiterate), so we presume there was a cone of silence over the game.  Perhaps it didn't happen.  If a ball is kicked at the Parade........, never mind.

Central v Eagles:

We were misled.  We had been advised on good authority that the Eagles key forward was merely a slip of a lad and would be blown out of the contest by a mere zephyr.  We watched the last quarter and had to switch to a larger TV to still fit him in.  He's still a big lad and he's very effective.  And isn't it nice to see a forward kick goals from an angle without holding the footy like Bill Shorten eating a snag in a hot dog roll?

The last quarter reminded us of Billy Shakespeare's plays 'MacBeth' and 'Much Ado About Nothing'. as far as Centrals were concerned.  Lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing, as their on-ballers got plenty of it for no result.

The Eags, on the other hand, got a lot less of it and put it on a plate, (a Vili's pie plate, presumably), to the big lad, who knows how to kick a footy.

Sturt v Adelaide

At 3 quarter time, we sensed a big 'premiership hangover' and didn't bother to check the final scores until much later.  Obviously Adelaide packed up and went home as well.  Either that, or the SANFL website stuttered into life long enough to post the wrong score.  We're treating it as a 45 point win to the Crows until we have empirical proof otherwise.