Highlights: Roar end Sky Blues' winning streak with 1-all draw

Nothing wrong with mclaren. It the poor midfield service that's the issue. Keane won't fix that. But id welcome the additional option.

Sell Maclaren and buy Robbie Keane to earn some money. http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2016/11/22/aloisi-friendship-key-brisbane-roar-target-keane http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/football/a-league/teams/brisbane/brisbane-roar-risks-payday-to-keep-star-attacker-jamie-maclaren/news-story/2f36b982bc1668ab000736124f9b3177

Geez Waz no need to be sad!! Especially twice ! Frustrated. Exasperated. Confused. Enraged. Disbelief. But not sad!! Things haven't got that bad and I hope they never do. We toughed it out and got the draw now how do we getting the A team to start reading all our suggestions for the final third?? JA was a striker ffs how can he not be raging about the final third??

I agree Kristensen's was the better of two excellent goals. Fox do like a screamer though (and I dont mean the commentators either LoL)

There wasnt much between these two sides. 1-1 was fair. I've now bet on both for the GF to be hosted in Sydney and BRFC to win. great odds too ;)

TK, of course we see the game from different perspectives. I'm rather sad as I watch the game from The Den and then again on tv, but however we watch it, we're always going to have different takes. Let's agree on the front third piece though, goals and chances created say it's not right, so the Aloisi twins seem to have fixed a problematic defence from last season but at the expense of a fluid, free-scoring attack. All the rest we can agree to disagree on as it doesn't matter now, it was 1-all on the night and no amount of debate changes that ?

I tend to agree with the "luckiness" of Roars. I was surprised to see SFC pressed so hard at the beginning of the match. I thought they would play like in the match against Phoenix. In that match, SFC keep defending and sitting deep. Finally, they got a goal in the 92' because Phoenix players were so exhausted. Also, it is Arnold's style of tactics to play defense and counter-attack. That added more to my surprise. Not only that, they were playing away. Therefore, credit is given to Arnold for his excellent game plan. Had JA prepared for such high pressure at the back or had he had the same thinking like me? As for that first A-league goal of Brillante, all professional football players are supposed to be able to score 5 metre away from the box if no marking is in place. Even high school player can do sometimes. With that goal, he is praised like superstar (http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/11/22/brilliant-brillante-showing-worth-playing-league/). A first goal as a professional football player? By comparison, Kristensen's goal is better. His first touch, his quick decision to strike and his curved shoot make his goal a world class one to my thinking. Therefore, more A-league coaches will alert their players to give more marking and attention to his moves. As such, he can make more space for his teammates to shoot. At the end, I rate SFC higher than MC. Arnold has advanced himself and SFC both.

Again we seem to be watching the same game with different views. I don't watch fox i go to the games. There is pressure from a player directly challenging for the ball and the is the indirect pressure on players when they know the opposition is hustling them. You have to ask why we were fiddling about playing sideways and backwards when those mistakes happened and my view is there was pressure applied by sydney so that the roar defence felt they couldn't safely play the ball forward into midfield, so the mistakes were due to pressure from sydney and the fact that sydney players were so quickly onto those balls further reinforces my view that they were clearly dominant. Shots on target is easily misleading. Sydney killed us in that first half and we spent alot of time going backwards and coughing up possession as a result. Just because they didn't put 4 past us in that time doesn't mean we were evenly matched. I stand by my view based on what i saw...we were lucky to claim the point at home. I can't see the logic in saying maybe if we made less defensive blunders and if our attack was better we would have won or it would have changed the game...you could say that any time a team is outplayed by their opposition. I think sfc deserve any credit they get in the press i have no problem acknowledging we were second best on the night. I continue to worry about our front third.

"Most of the mistakes made in the first half were due to Sydney pressure" - if only that were true, all the mistakes were inexplicable errors and made without pressure from the SFC press. That's worrying for Roar as a normally solid defence returned to some of the errors seen v Jets. It even took until the 54th minute for Sydney to create their first shot on target which came from a free kick (their first created from open play came in the 65th minute) Roar created three on target up to that point, and the three best created chances to that point were all Roars (not that there's anything wrong with creating chances through opponents mistakes but you have less control and if Roar had cut out the mistakes Sydney wouldn't have had any shots on target in the first half just like Adelaide and City) Take out Roars brain implosions and they win, sharpen Roars attack which isn't quite firing as it was last year and maybe the defensive errors matter less. But for this one game this was a closer game than the nsw's media will have you believe, the fox commentators sounded like card carrying Cove members at times which makes analysis a little harder. And I'm not trying to rewrite the game, I was genuinely impressed with Sydney and they look like a cohesive team that should finish in the top 2 - and if sides don't start taking points off them soon the plate will be in the bag early in March as we are approaching a third of the season gone.

I certainly thought sfc dominated us for most of the match and was happy with the point. They monsteted us for most of the game getting to the ball first, and really supporting thier man on the ball with fast movement and multiple options to play to. By contrast i thought roar were second best slower on the ball and not supporting each other or moving the ball forward quickly enough. There were quite a few occasions when we had a break but then put a foot on the ball and the chance was immediately lost. The goal we scored before half time was a cracker but I felt definately against the run of play. The mistakes we made in defence were in my view due to pressure and the omnipresent sydney players who were fast to get to the ball rather than letting brisbane stuff about at the back as we often do. Brisbane are still too slow to get forward in numbers and that puts too much pressure on mclaren or a reliance on trying to score the miracle goal from 20 meters out. When do you ever see a fast break followed by a ground level cross behind the defence for a striker or attacking midfielder to slot home from 6 or 7 yards? We are ponderous in attack and it costs us goals game after game. Yes we spend the last 10 to 15 minutes making breaks but are we really going to use that as our goal scoring strategy? If i was a coach against roar and had a lead id just stack the defence for the last 20 and be pretty comfortable. Sydney looked the goods on sat and brisbane were second best. Just good that Theo was on the job to save our blushes.

No coincidence that oar slipped back to the left to create many of those chances on the left. Despite the controversy Grant played a very strong game.

Couldn't agree more. Roar posed no threat and sydney took the opportunity to set up their tents just on halfway.

Since Pele's time, I seldom see a referee got the card out and did not book. What I had noticed in the 80s was referees putting the hand to the pocket as a gesture to warn. Nowadays, referees used verbal warning to replace gesture. Indeed, this is the first time in decades I have seen a referee showing a yellow card without booking and consulting the assistant referees. Anyhow, this is the first time I hear from journalists and some professional footballers saying "the card out means booking". Logically, the referee has to show to the face of the player receiving the yellow card to make sure the card receiver is acknowledged. Does the referee have to show the player that he is writing on the record (booking) to make the player acknowledged? Have you ever seen a referee asked a player to see he is writing on the book? Also, I forgot to mention that, according to some reports, the assistant referees had the record of the yellow card to Grant about his tackle to Broich. I would really be appreciated if you can show reference to incidents in which the referees have the yellow card or red card out without booking. Whatever, this referee is bad.

Funny you say that about the chants.......for something out of the box my 9 yr old and her friend said at one point how come we can hear the SFC fans over The Den? and we are in the diagonal opposite corner at the other end of the stadium to them. But that was a one off. I thought The Den were fine. It is hard to measure the effect of marketing. It was good to see more of it. I like the Maroon jersey as a special playing strip and if it comes out for home games against SFC that could be ok.....That's for others to decide but I liked the look of it when it came out pre-season. It did feel like there was more than the 17330 or so. I figured that would be about the crowd and happy with that. I think it is a little higher than normal...maybe by about 2000 or so. That's just IMO. There was definitely extra spice in the crowd though. Good to see. I enjoyed it. Roar certainly don't need the motivational speech to never give up.......we're the kings. But it was a good marketing strategy for this game.

a relatively *flat* year.

Don't worry, the supporters are still there. Close to 19K members remember. They just aren't turning up. Why? Any number of reasons, spotless being too far away, poor recruitment, average results, the fact that we've been going hard, as supporters, for 4 straight years now, non-existent marketing . Maybe all these factors are conspiring to give us a relatively year. Maybe one that we need.

Chops - Grant committed 6 fouls on the night. He only made three tackles.

Man, there's some strange observations in there but I love your passion ? On your points: (2) Kristensen was substituted at half time due to injury (hamstring) and not for tactical reasons. (3) you say "the defence of Brisbane Roar is still very weak" which is just a bizzare statement to make this season. The defence has been very good even allowing for some brain fades on Saturday night

Cool and Cold that was a good point you made about the aggressive tactics used by Sydney, 26 fouls to Roar's 9. I would like to see how many of those fouls were made by Grant? For those commentators who reckon on reflection and after seeing a replay that Grant's tackle on Broich was legitimate because he didn't go in studs up, I would say that a two footed tackle (studs up or not) is still illegal and in the referee's own words was "reckless". I also believe that Milliner was swayed in his decision making at that time by Brosque who has a habit of badgering the ref throughout the game. He of course is entitled to do this but I question the temperament of a referee who allows such badgering to reflect in his decision making process. There was no doubt that Grant committed the Broich foul and that Milliner was prepared to show him the yellow card (because he produced it)so what changed his mind? What also stopped him producing more yellow cards to a team that made 26 fouls against a team that made 9?

I have heard it said many times since Saturday night that once the card is out it has to be issued but that's the first I've heard of it, I've seen referees over the years draw cards and not issue them. Anyone got the rule number or text extract?