Mike Sheahan - sigh

battye · Post: # 769339Post **battye** » Sun 05 Jul 2009 11:18pm

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/spor ... 69,00.html

plugger66 · Post: # 769342Post **plugger66** » Sun 05 Jul 2009 11:20pm

Reads pretty good to me.

Iceman234 · Post: # 769343Post **Iceman234** » Sun 05 Jul 2009 11:21pm

WHAT should we make of all that: an epic battle determined by an old-fashioned pack mark with 90 seconds on the clock?

First line sums it up.

Leo Barry.

Lot to be said for good old fashioned pack marks Mike...

iwantmeseats · Sun 05 Jul 2009 11:21pm

come on Mike!

battye · Post: # 769346Post **battye** » Sun 05 Jul 2009 11:22pm

plugger66 wrote:Reads pretty good to me.

I take it you haven't got to the title yet

I'd say there's at least a goal, plus a few ladder points, plus some percentage.

The_Dud · Post: # 769349Post **The_Dud** » Sun 05 Jul 2009 11:22pm

apparently he remembers the iffy advantage call in the last (we had a few iffy advantage calls too) yet he forgets about the 2 goals the umps GAVE to Geelong in the first

plugger66 · Post: # 769350Post **plugger66** » Sun 05 Jul 2009 11:23pm

battye wrote:
plugger66 wrote:Reads pretty good to me.
I take it you haven't got to the title yet

I'd say there's at least a goal, plus a few ladder points, plus some percentage.

He has nothing to do with the title though.

felixleo · Post: # 769351Post **felixleo** » Sun 05 Jul 2009 11:23pm

Guys a flog trying to flog papers bet the the filth are all over the back page by tuesday and would not surprise me if they have a banner or an inset photo on tomorrows back page.

perfectionist · Sun 05 Jul 2009 11:26pm

Yeah. Just like in a GF when one team wins by a goal - means nothing! The reality is, even a H&A game can mean plenty - just ask a certain team that lost a Round 21 clash and a top 2 possie and then (possibly) the flag!

SteveStevens66 · Sun 05 Jul 2009 11:26pm

Sheehan is a garbage football journo. Writes at third-grade level and seems to see a different game from everyone else. "Geelong were a trifle unlucky." Bulldust.

What a grudging, anti-StKilda piece that is.

No need to respond Plugger66. It'll be as predictable as ever.

Legendary · Post: # 769373Post **Legendary** » Sun 05 Jul 2009 11:33pm

Don't see much bias myself

I thought it was objective, especially the first half, and that it gave a pretty accurate summary from a neutral supporter ...

saint66au · Post: # 769379Post **saint66au** » Sun 05 Jul 2009 11:36pm

Geelong, which trailed by five goals early in the game, steadily retrieved the deficit and looked headed for yet another victory.

Not from where I was sitting buddy.. I never at any stage thought Geelong were going to run away with the game.

Geelong might have been a trifle unlucky in the finish.

The late free kick against Cameron Mooney in a marking contest and the poor application of the advantage rule - again - hurt.

So did the farcicial 50m to Gablett in the first quarter that gifted him a goal..so that squares that up

desertsaint · Sun 05 Jul 2009 11:38pm

Already lost count of the different media reports that harp on about the play on call, and mention ottens and johnson - yet to read of the free kick disparity, and king, dempster, and max in the wings!

Even read in SEN that ling 'clearly' beat dal and mooney beat zac?

Fine - i'm happy if we remain underdogs - but how about a balanced report!

stkfc1 · Post: # 769390Post **stkfc1** » Sun 05 Jul 2009 11:40pm

This from the guy loosing the Huns footy tipping

Those who can do,win!....those who cant write for shite publications!

battye · Post: # 769392Post **battye** » Sun 05 Jul 2009 11:40pm

desertsaint wrote:Already lost count of the different media reports that harp on about the play on call, and mention ottens and johnson - yet to read of the free kick disparity, and king, dempster, and max in the wings!

Even read in SEN that ling 'clearly' beat dal and mooney beat zac?

Fine - i'm happy if we remain underdogs - but how about a balanced report!

I guess the media are firmly in the Geelong camp then. When the game concluded I was wondering whether from now on the Saints would be hyped up to the extent that the Cats have been recently... we are no longer "equal #1", we are four points clear now.

goodie · Post: # 769507Post **goodie** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 12:20am

Lot of excuses there. Of course Geelong are the only team who suffered at the hands of poor umpiring decisions

SainterK · Post: # 769512Post **SainterK** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 12:22am

battye wrote:
desertsaint wrote:Already lost count of the different media reports that harp on about the play on call, and mention ottens and johnson - yet to read of the free kick disparity, and king, dempster, and max in the wings!

Even read in SEN that ling 'clearly' beat dal and mooney beat zac?

Fine - i'm happy if we remain underdogs - but how about a balanced report!
I guess the media are firmly in the Geelong camp then. When the game concluded I was wondering whether from now on the Saints would be hyped up to the extent that the Cats have been recently... we are no longer "equal #1", we are four points clear now.

As I said elsewhere, it seems some don't want to let go of the geelong "era" of dominance.

fonz_#15 · Post: # 769528Post **fonz_#15** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 12:30am

so because he didn't verbally masturate over the saints game, and acknowledged the opposition its shite.

give me a break

St.Damo's Fire · Mon 06 Jul 2009 12:30am

Hate him and anything he writes so I don't care!

degruch · Post: # 769533Post **degruch** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 12:31am

Typical weapy namby pamby crap you'd (sadly) expect from the AFL's top writer...I thought he was jumping back on our bandwagon a couple months back, but now he's siding with the schoolyard bully! Watch him claim he'd identified us as potential Grand Finalists post season if (when) we take out the premiership.

Tool of the week.

degruch · Post: # 769537Post **degruch** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 12:33am

fonz_#15 wrote:so because he didn't verbally masturate over the saints game, and acknowledged the opposition its shite.

give me a break

No, it's because he hasn't got the balls to give credit where its due.

saint75 · Post: # 769539Post **saint75** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 12:34am

ohwhenthesaints! wrote:
battye wrote:
desertsaint wrote:Already lost count of the different media reports that harp on about the play on call, and mention ottens and johnson - yet to read of the free kick disparity, and king, dempster, and max in the wings!

Even read in SEN that ling 'clearly' beat dal and mooney beat zac?

Fine - i'm happy if we remain underdogs - but how about a balanced report!
I guess the media are firmly in the Geelong camp then. When the game concluded I was wondering whether from now on the Saints would be hyped up to the extent that the Cats have been recently... we are no longer "equal #1", we are four points clear now.
As I said elsewhere, it seems some don't want to let go of the geelong "era" of dominance.

I think it is absolutely FAN FREAKIN' TASTIC! Pressure and expectation is still on Geelong and we don't rate as a flag prospect. I just want the team to go about their jobs and keep winning. Just keep level heads and go about their business. No need to worry about opinions or speculation by people that are insignificant and who's opinion does not count.

GO SAINTERS!!!!

fonz_#15 · Post: # 769542Post **fonz_#15** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 12:35am

degruch wrote:
fonz_#15 wrote:so because he didn't verbally masturate over the saints game, and acknowledged the opposition its shite.

give me a break
No, it's because he hasn't got the balls to give credit where its due.

i thought it was ok and i'm not sheehan's biggest fan.

i am satisfied, i don't care what he writes, in fact i am more worried about the next time i will take a dump as it is a major inconvenience for me.

degruch · Post: # 769545Post **degruch** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 12:37am

fonz_#15 wrote:
degruch wrote:
fonz_#15 wrote:so because he didn't verbally masturate over the saints game, and acknowledged the opposition its shite.

give me a break
No, it's because he hasn't got the balls to give credit where its due.
i thought it was ok and i'm not sheehan's biggest fan.

i am satisfied, i don't care what he writes, in fact i am more worried about the next time i will take a dump as it is a major inconvenience for me.

Nice. Well, at least you'll never run out of dunny paper as long as he keeps writing!

fonz_#15 · Post: # 769550Post **fonz_#15** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 12:39am

degruch wrote:
fonz_#15 wrote:
degruch wrote:
fonz_#15 wrote:so because he didn't verbally masturate over the saints game, and acknowledged the opposition its shite.

give me a break
No, it's because he hasn't got the balls to give credit where its due.
i thought it was ok and i'm not sheehan's biggest fan.

i am satisfied, i don't care what he writes, in fact i am more worried about the next time i will take a dump as it is a major inconvenience for me.
Nice. Well, at least you'll never run out of dunny paper as long as he keeps writing!

correct although newspaper may vause me some discomfort whilst applying in that fragile region