Mariners V Bling

[scottmac]

Also all the subs were designed to cover different parts of the park with questions over the fitness of Pedj, Perez and Griffiths.

It will be interesting to see squad make up with MC Breen coming back into the mix. You would think he needs to be on the bench. Therefore who misses out?
Doig , Hutch or Perez?

With Pedj and Griffiths only just coming back from injury you must have defensive cover on the bench. If it was one or the other then no problems, but Griffiths is your cover at the back without Doig on the bench so scrap that.

Perez must be there.

So its either McBreen or Hutch for the 3rd spot. I would give it to Hutch and let McBreen play with Bernie for a week

On this topic, can't wait until this isn't an issue and we can have more that 3 outfielders on the bench.

 

[Roy Law]

I saw Brad Porter at the game against GCU and he is still noticeably limping -will be quite some time before he is back. Defo a handball. Yellow sufficient for McFlynn but the Matthew Breeze of two years ago would have given Red. If we need to look beyond the Budgewoi Academy for a RB then Trent McLenahan is warming the pine (or freezing his nuts off) at Sc**thorpe. A couple of years ago Matty was taking on and embarassing the likes of Craig Moore, Sash Ogmonster, Happy Thwaite and Tony Poppa but seemed to have lost his way, this season he is taking on and going past people. He truly is a leader of the line.

 

[finally retired]

With my most coloured Mariner glasses on all the goals we scored were very soft ... Matty goal in particular, the own goal...

Our problems are a long way from over .... SFC had a real off night ... not saying we did not play well but SFC were crap...

I have to agree......there were a LOT of Sydney fans around me where I was sitting and while they all thought Sydney played sh*t, they were all saying that Sydney had had more shots on goal than the Mariners and Ryan was probably the busier keeper. Having said that, I thought we controlled play for extended periods and made Sydney look sh*t.......but I still think our strikers are a problem for us (I hope that doesn't generate a storm of comments, but I think we still have a way to go to be classed as real top 2 contenders)

 

[Wombat]

Also all the subs were designed to cover different parts of the park with questions over the fitness of Pedj, Perez and Griffiths.

It will be interesting to see squad make up with MC Breen coming back into the mix. You would think he needs to be on the bench. Therefore who misses out?
Doig , Hutch or Perez?

Hutcho.

 

[Wombat]

I would expect Pedj's fitness to allow him to play 90 minutes next game, which probably means Doig will lose his bench spot.

Having said that, you could argue we don't need both Hutch and Perez on the bench. Obviously, they're very different with Perez attacking and Hutch more defensive.

I would be inclined to keep Perez on the bench leaving Hutch to miss out but that would be a big call for a player who you've got to admit has given a lot to the Mariners over the years.

So, it could come down to who has been putting in the effort and who is seen as there for the future; Doig or Hutch?

If its effort, Hutcho wouldn't start again for quite a while. Advantage DOIG.

If its who's here for the future...Hutcho has another couple of years left from overly long contract LM signed him to and although I rate Doig, i'm not sure that he will be here next year. DUECE.


I think Doig and Perez have to start on bench and then take your pick between McBreen and Hutcho. I'd pick McBreen.

For mine Hutcho can only play one position...Defensive Mid and Griffiths is the better player IMHO. Great player to have in the squad because of his experience but until he gets fitter and shows some hunger when he gets a run then he should probably play in Yoof until Griffiths/Perez/Amini get injured or suspended.

 

[style_cafe]

It was ball to hand - but he had no business having his arms out like that in the box. Clear penalty. I'm sure it would have been given at the other end of the field.

I can`t ever remember reading in the laws of the game that a player was restricted in how he could have his arms when the ball hits it.
However ,I found this item which could further fuel the debate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4524354.stm
IMHO I don`t think it was a deliberate handball & I don`t think that the defender deliberately intended to block the ball with his arm.

 

[promdi442]

I have been trying to find the stats for last Saturdays game. The stat that i am interested in is how many times were we adjudged offside and if that figure is broken down as to who were the players infringing. I have a feeling that there wasn't all that many. As I don't remember becoming frustrated with Kwassie or Simon seemingly continually offside when there were promising attacks.

In fact during the game I made some comments that both Kwassie and Simon appeared to be making a real effort to move across the line and staying onside more often than not. So I was interested to know the stats to confirm if that was actually correct or I was just imagining it. I know they have been offside 11 and 10 times respectively for the season but last Saturday night just seemed to be different.

 

[pjennings]

I can`t ever remember reading in the laws of the game that a player was restricted in how he could have his arms when the ball hits it.
However ,I found this item which could further fuel the debate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4524354.stm
IMHO I don`t think it was a deliberate handball & I don`t think that the defender deliberately intended to block the ball with his arm.

"The challenging decisions are if the defending player spreads their arms to make themselves bigger.

"If the ball hits the arm then the referee must decide whether this action was to deliberately block the ball or whether the player has raised their arms to protect themselves - especially if the ball is hit at speed."

Well it certainly wasn't to protect himself - so I read that as the former case.

 

[style_cafe]

"The challenging decisions are if the defending player spreads their arms to make themselves bigger.

"If the ball hits the arm then the referee must decide whether this action was to deliberately block the ball or whether the player has raised their arms to protect themselves - especially if the ball is hit at speed."

Well it certainly wasn't to protect himself - so I read that as the former case.

But read further:
Referees look at two specifics - did the hand or arm go towards the ball or in a manner which would block the ball, or is the hand in a position where it would not normally be?
When you look where the player had his arms they were in a natural stance ie. most defenders adopt that position.
Therefore as much as I hate to admit it" Breeze got it right"

 

[marinermick]

I have been trying to find the stats for last Saturdays game. The stat that i am interested in is how many times were we adjudged offside and if that figure is broken down as to who were the players infringing. I have a feeling that there wasn't all that many. As I don't remember becoming frustrated with Kwassie or Simon seemingly continually offside when there were promising attacks.

In fact during the game I made some comments that both Kwassie and Simon appeared to be making a real effort to move across the line and staying onside more often than not. So I was interested to know the stats to confirm if that was actually correct or I was just imagining it. I know they have been offside 11 and 10 times respectively for the season but last Saturday night just seemed to be different.

http://www.a-league.com.au/Scoreboard_HAL/0000560010/scoreboard.html

 

[finally retired]

looking at those stats, I was actually surprised that Sydney had more possession than us.....sure I remember at the game that they were passing backwards all the time (much to the frustration of the Sydney supporters) but I really thought we'd had more of the ball. I wasn't surprised that they had more shots on goal or that Ryan actully made more saves, but the possesion one was a surprise.

 

[marinermick]

looking at those stats, I was actually surprised that Sydney had more possession than us.....sure I remember at the game that they were passing backwards all the time (much to the frustration of the Sydney supporters) but I really thought we'd had more of the ball. I wasn't surprised that they had more shots on goal or that Ryan actully made more saves, but the possesion one was a surprise.

Saw some more stats in the Newcastle Herald today and Sydney had a higher completed pass rate than us both in percentage and numbers and they actually had an effective tackle rate of 94%, which is massive.

This said a couple of things about us: one that our passing was crisp enough that they couldn't tackle us and two that their missed tackles were in crucial areas for them that cost them goals.

 

[adz]

Saw some more stats in the Newcastle Herald today and Sydney had a higher completed pass rate than us both in percentage and numbers and they actually had an effective tackle rate of 94%, which is massive.

This said a couple of things about us: one that our passing was crisp enough that they couldn't tackle us and two that their missed tackles were in crucial areas for them that cost them goals.

Interesting stuff... would be nice to have this sort of data available on the A-League website

 

[finally retired]

Saw some more stats in the Newcastle Herald today and Sydney had a higher completed pass rate than us both in percentage and numbers and they actually had an effective tackle rate of 94%, which is massive.

This said a couple of things about us: one that our passing was crisp enough that they couldn't tackle us and two that their missed tackles were in crucial areas for them that cost them goals.

I think the higher completed pass rate is most likely because of the number of passes back/across their back third which we didn't need to contest 'cos we were already 4-0 up .... goes to show that stats sometimes don't give a true reflection of the game.

 

[MagpieMariner]

I think the higher completed pass rate is most likely because of the number of passes back/across their back third which we didn't need to contest 'cos we were already 4-0 up .... goes to show that stats sometimes don't give a true reflection of the game.

That's the only stat that has any relevance

 

[marinermick]

That's the only stat that has any relevance

In terms of the ladder this is true but the other stats give you a greater insight into the game and a further understanding of tactics and structure.