Sirslapsalot wrote:By the way, I'm not saying Sunday teams are worse than Saturday teams either - it would be more sporting if all the Sunday posters can recognise that Saturday has some quality players and teams - how about you support the system that supports you..?
Who cares anyways, as long as we get to play, the supporters get to watch and drink beer - IT'S ALL GOOD!!
I'd rather watch an Amateur League game than GAYFL anyday...
The difference between the two leagues would be canteen facilities, clubrooms, crowd sizes and standard of play.
Saturday League is behind in all of these areas.. I have seen it for myself plenty of times, any other talk is rubbish
Yeah the Downs had players out today but that's not an excuse for the scoreline.
Although Bigazz had a blinder in goal, I still reckon the Downs should have taken the game against Stirling a little more seriously.
A few of the Downs lads ran the Bay-City as a warm up.
With Blackwood out, Hulls off after 5 minutes and Hughes and Cockerill watching from the sidelines (4 posiible State players when fit).
Didn't see much on offer from Stirling's State possibilities, maybe a bad day at the office!
Elizabeth Downs - Back to Back Champions 2006-2007
all bar my bajic moment
and too the post about skill level and we only pump the ball long stirling did as well i done more running all year in that first half than i have done all year dont get me wrong tho stirling played alright but should have had a few more shots in the first half with the gale force wind blowing around
Last edited by Azz on Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
was there as a neutral. I play sat league but still think that sunday play a much more physical type of game and to me it is a cut above sat. Still a send off so early in the game was not what the game needed if you want to judge the two leagues. The weather did not help either. Would really like to have seen this game on a calm day. Well done to the downs. The young lad on the wing looks like being a top player for the future.
stirling had a red card and a pen against in the first 5 minutes which made comparing the two teams almost impossible. stirling played well to get the game back to 1-1 at half time, and the second half saw downs take over a tired looking stirling to win comfortably. Neither team seemed to be going hell for leather and it looked like an end of year game.
As for Sat .v. Sun competitons, impossible to tell on the basis of this game. Player for player there didnt seem to be much difference, Downs keeper had a blinder (except for the goal), Stirling hit the post, and Downs finishing was clinical. Horrible conditions for football by the way.
The Roo wrote:Wanderers have beaten Ingle Farm 4 of 3 meetings... Does that mean theyre better? Wanderers gave Comets 7 goals who won the State League.. Does that mean that Wanderers should now play in the premier league?
Its crap, one game doesnt give an accurate reading on whose better.. Just because some Sunday sides pay their players, doesnt make them better players.. Ross Aloisi was getting paid at United!!!
mentioning the state league isnt helping your argument. every user on this forum thinks the state league should be scraped. the standard is shite. i myself thought stirling would of put up a better fight. but they didnt. sunday is stronger than sat. always has been, always will be.
Downs 5 sterling 1. Sterling down to 10 men early last man brought down and penalty given to get the ball rolling. All in all wind blowing a gale to the adelaide end and only a handfull of supporters from both sides. State coaches were there picking up a few players. So the downs go back to back again. It was mentioned before the game that this was a way into the chicko shield but there was no confirmation of this. The cup finalist want to hope the wind stays away this week as it was a joke, Ball going 30 yards forward and 25 backwards.
Another trophy for the cabinet which you can view by appointment only...
There is no I in team, but there is a u in suck...
Difference between leagues is obvious. Stirling a bit soft , they play like a state league team, same as St Pedros last year, pretty but no grunt. Even the supporters (both of them)were in an uproar over some tackles. Downs could have finished with 8 or 9 but for poor finishing. Well refereed by Steve (kaboobi) by far the best ref we have at the moment.
as a player who played in this game i would have to disagree with the ref being good, thought he was pretty ordinary actually, conditions were poor for both sides but the downs made the most of the extra man and played the conditions better hence the 5-1 scoreline
Wind was a joke and we didn't make use of it in the first half. It did ruin what looked like being a really good game.
Steve (ref) was ok. The card? I guess if the last man brings someone down then he has to go. We often see examples where it's only a yellow but it happened. Definately 100% was outside of the box when he got him so should not have been a penalty. Apart from that he didn't really have to do anything. Weren't any bad challenges and not really any niggle. It was a pretty flat game in that respect.
Have to disagree with the Sunday teams being "harder" than Saturday teams. Wasn't the most physical game i've played in.
Funny comments from their supporters. I'm now a Jam farmer from Onkaparinga.
We only had 1 guy run the 12k city to bay in the morning so i guess the downs were a bit hard done by there with 2 of their guys running it.
downs striker was definitely in the box( iwas in line , marooned will back me) .. stirling did knock the ball about but not as well as the downs, and the offside trap with the downs against the wind is only asking for trouble.. thought stirlings keeper had a good game and no. 8 looked sharpe but not sure if eric norman would be putting ticks against 6 stirling players. top 2 in div 1 sat more than competitive with sunday div 1 but starts to fall away a bit after there(maybe jets as well)
I was about 5 metres away from the challenge and can guarantee it was outside. Downs did knock the ball better than us. Koko made some good saves, but so did the downs keeper.
I think thats the point. There is more depth in Sunday league. After the top few in Sat there is a difference in quality.
i was dead in line and the first attempt by your defender was outside the box but he didnt grab his shirt hard enough but the tackle from behind was one step in the box.. i'm not a downs supporter and can guarantee the second challenge of which i'm sure the penalty was given for was inside
So really Downs were the better team and Sunday is a better competition because Stirling had a man sent off early - that's GOLD and the worst argument I've ever heard!!
Sunday teams have a better canteen etc... Veneto Club has paninni's haha
Adelaide Wanderers
2005 COLLEGIATE CUP CHAMPIONS
2006 CHAMPIONS Sat Div 2 A
2006 DIVISIONAL CHAMPIONS
2006 CHAMPIONS Sat Div 2 B
2008 CHAMPIONS Sat Div 1 A
2008 CHAMPIONS OF CHAMPIONS
2013 CHALLENGE CUP QUARTER FINALISTS http://www.adelaidewanderers.com
Sirslapsalot wrote:So really Downs were the better team and Sunday is a better competition because Stirling had a man sent off early - that's GOLD and the worst argument I've ever heard!!
Sunday teams have a better canteen etc... Veneto Club has paninni's haha
Was also at the game, but unfortunately got there 5 mins late and missed the big decision. Apparently it had to be a send-off as he was the last man and it was in the box. A little bit harsh, but they are the rules. Downs didnt really looked too stretched from then on.
Stirling fought well for 60minutes and had a good chance at 2-1 down to make it 2-2, who knows from there. A powerfull header (burt?) made it 3-1 to break Stirlings spirit, then it was just a downs training drill from there on. Reevesy missed a couple of excellent chances to make it more then 5-1.
it was me that got tackled for the penalty and ill be honest with yous it was very close to the 18 yd line. definately felt the shirt getting pulled well outside the box but didnt want to fall over too far out. was just about to shoot when, whooshka, a tiny little clip on the back of me heel. was very close but considering where i landed i would have to say it was a penalty. and in the context of the game a bit rough to send the lad off but he was the last man and had three efforts at my shirt prior to clipping my heels, so............
WHY DO THEY CALL IT OVALTINE? I MEAN ITS ROUND, WHY DONT THEY CALL IT ROUNDTINE.
My last gasp on the issue and thats it. We're never going to agree.
Do an experiment for me. Stand up. Pick a line on the floor to represent the edge of the box. Now imagine you are running at pace with a ball and stand as though the ball is just about to cross that line. Your head is up and you are deciding which stantion to rocket the shot into and you think you are right on the line. Have a look at where you are standing. It's about a metre back from the line.
Clipped just inside the arch, landed just inside the box.
Ace16 wrote:My last gasp on the issue and thats it. We're never going to agree.
Do an experiment for me. Stand up. Pick a line on the floor to represent the edge of the box. Now imagine you are running at pace with a ball and stand as though the ball is just about to cross that line. Your head is up and you are deciding which stantion to rocket the shot into and you think you are right on the line. Have a look at where you are standing. It's about a metre back from the line.
Clipped just inside the arch, landed just inside the box.
I'm done.
Chill out Ace16. No need to start offering me lessons on how to play.In the end of the day some muppet couldnt tackle legitmately, brought me down illegally and got what he deserved. Last man of defence, straight red. Even if it was outside the box it wouldnt have changed the face of the game much cos i still would have put it in the same spot from the free kick. So either way you were gonna be down to ten men and down 1v0.
Nulli suck on that
WHY DO THEY CALL IT OVALTINE? I MEAN ITS ROUND, WHY DONT THEY CALL IT ROUNDTINE.
Do an experiment for me!! Stand 5 metres away from an incident and tell me if you have a better view than someone exactly in line. I was sitting level with the 18 yard box, on the side of the incident. If your lad had done him with the shirt pull it wouldnt have been a penalty but still 10 against 11.But he missed and decided to chop him. I was a couple of feet from the linesman when it happened and he agreed it was also a penalty..
Ace16 wrote:My last gasp on the issue and thats it. We're never going to agree.
Do an experiment for me. Stand up. Pick a line on the floor to represent the edge of the box. Now imagine you are running at pace with a ball and stand as though the ball is just about to cross that line. Your head is up and you are deciding which stantion to rocket the shot into and you think you are right on the line. Have a look at where you are standing. It's about a metre back from the line.
Clipped just inside the arch, landed just inside the box.
I'm done.
Having been a goalkeeper for over 25 years and a referee for a couple more,I discovered an really easy way to determine what was a penalty.
If play stops, and the opposition player puts the ball on a spot 12 yards in front of your goal, and all other players are standing outside the penalty area, and then the opposition player runs in after the referee signals and tries to put the ball in the back of the net. Then my bet would be that it was a penalty. No argument with the referee or forum discussion ever seems to change that fact. Stirling effort by the Downs
And to bigazz
[/quote]all bar my bajic moment
You erased the Bajic with a little magic
haha gold arguments so far! i didnt think it was a penalty but didnt have a good view, so i'll leave that to others to judge. certainly a red tho.
to say that downs could have had 8 or 9 is true of any game, teams miss chances and keepers make saves, to say they could have had 8 or 9 would have meant stirling could have had 7 too (post, several good saves etc...), why not call it 7-9 to the downs and be done with it. Or we could factor in wind and the send off and call it 5-4? agreed?
Randoman wrote:haha gold arguments so far! i didnt think it was a penalty but didnt have a good view, so i'll leave that to others to judge. certainly a red tho.
to say that downs could have had 8 or 9 is true of any game, teams miss chances and keepers make saves, to say they could have had 8 or 9 would have meant stirling could have had 7 too (post, several good saves etc...), why not call it 7-9 to the downs and be done with it. Or we could factor in wind and the send off and call it 5-4? agreed?
dont get me wrong tho stirling played alright but should have had a few more shots in the first half with the gale force wind blowing around
nothing worse than an out of line riverdancer.
