Coast Football Ramble Podcast

[Big Al]

Ep: 27
Ivan Necevski joins us for a chat about his lawn of all things...
We discuss the assistant video referee trial game, Sydney away and much more.

Haha definitely not Ai, there is no intelligence here!

Nice work as always, good interview with Ivan, seems to be liking it here.

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

Great interview with Ivan guys! Really enjoyed the podcast as always and can't wait for the next!

 

[Coast Football Ramble]

Episode 28: On this weeks show.
We discuss how we go to where we are on the ladder.
Answer listeners questions and reflect on the Adelaide home game.

 

[Wombat]

Podcast conceading 5 goals in less than 40 mins? Please ask if these people actually get paid for their efforts?

 

[pjennings]

Another question if you can buttonhole Shaun - Can you confirm what restrictions Paul will be under when fashioning his squad for next season. Will we again be at the salary floor or will Paul be able to spend to the cap?

 

[Coast Football Ramble]

Gonna need one of these bad boys.

 

[FFC Mariner]

Must be time for Pikey to fly out and tell everyone more lies.
Full cap? January guest signing?
What will he invent to shut people up this time?

 

[Coast Football Ramble]

Another question if you can buttonhole Shaun - Can you confirm what restrictions Paul will be under when fashioning his squad for next season. Will we again be at the salary floor or will Paul be able to spend to the cap?

Luckily, Shaun decided top drop in and I paraphrased a question similar to this.

 

[Coast Football Ramble]

We talk to the club comunity manager Cheyanne Pay.
Shaun Mielekamp drops by for an update on FFA, W-league, the salary cap and more.
Previews, reviews and much more.

 

[pjennings]

The chances of spending the cap are good, the chances of spending more than the cap ?? Why did you interrupt him Grrrr.

Good interview with Shaun

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Haven't listened to a while, forgot how good this podcast is. Really great for Shaun to give you guys so much support on this with the ad-hoc interviews.
Also, to nitpick. You mentioned that the VAR said they wouldn't have overturned the Diego Dive. That's not the same as saying they think it's the wrong decision - I'd suspect that the VAR approach to dives may well be that if there's contact they won't overturn it (only meant to go against the referee if it's very clear it's wrong). It may be that these are the cases where they refer it back to the referee to view and make a decision.

 

[Big Al]

Haven't listened to a while, forgot how good this podcast is. Really great for Shaun to give you guys so much support on this with the ad-hoc interviews.
Also, to nitpick. You mentioned that the VAR said they wouldn't have overturned the Diego Dive. That's not the same as saying they think it's the wrong decision - I'd suspect that the VAR approach to dives may well be that if there's contact they won't overturn it (only meant to go against the referee if it's very clear it's wrong). It may be that these are the cases where they refer it back to the referee to view and make a decision.

Article i read says it's only for mistakes not interpretation.
If he didn't kick him at all, yes over turn otherwise it's not there problem.

Interesting about Kennedy, basically we have spoken to him maybe even talked about him coming but the agent needed a smack down. Will that blow the deal? Also Shaun saying how many keepers do we go with. We have Pearce whose not ready but cheap. Kennedy would probably be cheap as well so you'd need a third

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Yeah, clear mistakes. But that's why there's the 'ref's call' option - which is basically 'hey ref, you come and have a look at it'. So what I'd be curious about, which I don't think has been made clear, is whether this is a 'no call' or a 'ref's call'. If the former, then I'd worry that having rigid rules will actually undermine the role of the VAR and prevent them from making the very decisions everybody is hoping they'll be able to make. You can't have a blanket rule of 'if there's contact we're not going to say it's a dive', but if you want to say 'if there's contact we'll refer it to the referee' that's acceptable - at least at the trial stage anyway.

 

[Wombat]

Article i read says it's only for mistakes not interpretation.
If he didn't kick him at all, yes over turn otherwise it's not there problem.

Interesting about Kennedy, basically we have spoken to him maybe even talked about him coming but the agent needed a smack down. Will that blow the deal? Also Shaun saying how many keepers do we go with. We have Pearce whose not ready but cheap. Kennedy would probably be cheap as well so you'd need a third

We need a quality keeper.

 

[pjennings]

We need a quality keeper.

Agree - Pearce is nowhere near ready. Kennedy is a solid HAL keeper but if we want to compete we need better. The only times we have competed is with Danny and Maty.

Statistically Maty is the best HAL keeper with Danny just touching out Theo for second. Maty's record was over a relatively short period where in retrospect we had a very good squad.

Given the nearly 400 games between Danny and Theo their average of 3 clean sheets in 10 and averaging just over 1.1 goals per game is exceptional. It is no accident that Danny, Theo and Maty have appeared in so many Grand Finals

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

I don't think that having three keepers directly signed to our first team is a very good idea. We need to use our spend as best as we can and having an extra wage on the books (especially one that has very, very little chance of playing) is not very smart accounting.
Pearce may not be ready right now but after a pre-season he should be ready enough to come off the bench if our first choice gets injured/sent off, he has done it before and done well enough. If our first choice gets injured and Pearce hasn't developed enough to be A-League ready then we can sign someone from the NPL or elsewhere that is. We desperately need to make use of every cent.

 

[Big Al]

I don't think that having three keepers directly signed to our first team is a very good idea. We need to use our spend as best as we can and having an extra wage on the books (especially one that has very, very little chance of playing) is not very smart accounting.
Pearce may not be ready right now but after a pre-season he should be ready enough to come off the bench if our first choice gets injured/sent off, he has done it before and done well enough. If our first choice gets injured and Pearce hasn't developed enough to be A-League ready then we can sign someone from the NPL or elsewhere that is. We desperately need to make use of every cent.

Pearce will be one of the cheapest on the squad in my mind, you have to fill the lower end of the squad with these players. Doesn't matter what position, it's about potential. He is one of the NPL squad with potential.
In my mind that's not a waste of a spot.

Also I reckon he will be part of the system, our better NYL players get a year cheap contract with the senior team. If they don't kick on and show potential they are straight out the door for next years group.

Hopefully in a years time he's better and we don't need a Kennedy and open a spot that way.

Also he will be eligible to play NPL as our 3 over 20 players so has time to develop there

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

Pearce will be one of the cheapest on the squad in my mind, you have to fill the lower end of the squad with these players. Doesn't matter what position, it's about potential. He is one of the NPL squad with potential.
In my mind that's not a waste of a spot.

Also I reckon he will be part of the system, our better NYL players get a year cheap contract with the senior team. If they don't kick on and show potential they are straight out the door for next years group.

Hopefully in a years time he's better and we don't need a Kennedy and open a spot that way.

Also he will be eligible to play NPL as our 3 over 20 players so has time to develop there

I don't think Pearce is a waste of a spot, I'm very happy that we signed him. But I don't think we need three goalkeepers signed to our first team for next year, especially when injury replacement contracts exist. Assuming Paul Izzo goes to Adelaide we will have Adam Pearce and then we will need a starting keeper. I think Pearce is adequate back up in an emergency and for a longer period of time if he isn't up to standard we can find someone from the NPL who is and put him on an injury replacement contract. If we have three keepers signed to professional deals we have less money for each or less money for another player in a different position.

 

[FFC Mariner]

Pearce is absolutely NOT an emergency back up - he is a very young kid with a whole lot of learning to do. We need cheap fillers in the squad but it would be unfair to expect him to be ready to step up

 

[Big Al]

Yeah, clear mistakes. But that's why there's the 'ref's call' option - which is basically 'hey ref, you come and have a look at it'. So what I'd be curious about, which I don't think has been made clear, is whether this is a 'no call' or a 'ref's call'. If the former, then I'd worry that having rigid rules will actually undermine the role of the VAR and prevent them from making the very decisions everybody is hoping they'll be able to make. You can't have a blanket rule of 'if there's contact we're not going to say it's a dive', but if you want to say 'if there's contact we'll refer it to the referee' that's acceptable - at least at the trial stage anyway.

I suppose the problem occurs the other way.

If ref missed the contact, then they would tell the ref there was contact for him to look at

This is where the refs call might come in and he decides is it worthy of a penalty in his opinion not the VAR

Think that's how it will work