Sydney FC's finals spot in jeopardy after rule breach sanction

NSD -If what you say is true then surely the 20 (or should it now be 30) players would all have "suffered" and moved to a walking pace by games end, so, despite the drop off in the excitement factor all things would still be equal. No?????? If that is your belief then so be it .Ta ta. Cheers jb.

Dehmie I think is the biggest talent at Roar and the one with potential to make into a bigger league overseas. It looks like a player whoever who is up to something off the field rather than using the full time status and pay cheque to train more and harder. Akbari he would be the next most player from Roar to be able to make it to the next level, performed well in the first match with intensity. From then has never looked the same, sometimes better days than others. Remember the post on this website about the roar manager coming over with a bottle of scotch to someones place on this website for a drinking session. From what I saw Daley pressed his heart out at the start of the match, Parsons,Hore put in . Dehmie, Akhbari , Oshea were lacking. Players should work hard to be in the team not be their automatically because they are better quality . The players are out position Daley should be a box to box midfiielder, Hore Parsons as strikers. Trewin back to center back. Neville is not Moonshines good old boy, its Aldred too slow and you could see that for the the 2nd goal, even the first as well. Neville is the best defender at Roar. The main attacking tactics seemed to be Parsons and Hore go inside , play the ball to their feet facing their own goal and they pass back and repeat. It was only when Brindell South came forward things happened. A team like Macarthur you need to put two players wide in the corners draw them out, and have even a third making a run to the byline just inside them, they deal with crosses well.

No one has retired from sunstroke because players are smart enough to stop running and survive 90 minutes. I am not sure when you last ran out a competitive 90 minutes in summer yourself but it sucks.

Yes....this is the thing that will put Syd FCs finals at risk... Goal Difference....

NSD - When "summer soccer" was first mooted back in the days of the NSL (yes that shows how long ago that was) the main thrust of the idea was that the games (which were played at weekends in those days) would be played in the evenings under floodlights. You see the meteorological people consulted by the proposers informed them that after sundown temperatures all around the country decreased rapidly and would present no problems except in Queensland where the major problem would be summer storms. Needless to say that information was ignored by the football chiefs when SS was introduced some 7 or 8 years after the proposal was first made. In the 35 years the NSL and the A-League have played in summer I do not recollect any player ever having had to retire from a game due to sun-stroke, have you????? jb. SUNSTROKE.

As a summer league we should have 7 subs when it’s over 35 degrees so the fans can see a game of football

Brainstrust- You omitted to tell me of your experience in team situations so I am none the wiser.as to the authenticity of your points of reference. If you keep referring to tiredness in players then you obviously think that the employment of doctors, high-performance specialists and assistant coaches is a total waste of money, as these experts do not know how to measure fitness. When trying to work out what is going on in the mind of a coach you have to observe many aspects of the play. e.g. yesterday the coach elected to play a lone striker up front ,a lad not gifted with height, or for that matter, bulk, that would enable him to take physical punishment and come back for more. This deployment played right into the "slow moving big men of McArthur" who simply gobbled up the almost endless supply of crosses being sent into the box to the aforesaid lone striker. it apparently took till half time for the coach to work this out and make the changes. So lets have a look at the substitutes and what changed in Rpar's play. The left back (who had been having a reasonable game) was taken off, the right back from the start was moved to the left and Hingert was brought on. At the same time Ivanovic was brought on to replace our unfortunate first half lone striker. How the full back moves were supposed to help the attack remains a secret. The youngster Daley ,who had started the game playing up beside the lone striker but quickly dropped back to his normal position in midfield where he joined Hore, OShea, Akbari and Parsons giving Roar a 5 man midfield which no doubt affected the stats figure showing Roar as having 70% possession, more than double the shots and a goal scored by one of the "good old boys" you mention, Neville. Despite their position in the league table Roar have one of the better defensive figures on show ,it is at the other end of the field they have deep problems. All the youngster on show by games end ,none were abject failures but as Brosque pointed out in the wrap up, they are still showing lack of that something that would mean automatic selection in any team. Hore is fast approaching that status but is still being substituted before game's end. Maybe he is tired but the game ,nearing the end, hasn't tired out O'Shea, Neville, or for that matter Akbari, who you describe as "sleepy", hardly a good description for a midfielder. Cheers jb.

Sad but Roberto Bettega is probably correct. Where was Sydney's person responsible to ensure that these quotas were met? And what was the match commissioner doing in not noticing they failed to meet the U23 player quota? Plenty of blame to share here.

Some players are fitter than others, some can last 90 minutes always, if a coach riles up a team they will get tired out sooner. of course it depends how much energy they expend, if you walk for 90 minutes you will have no problem. The second half with the subs was a better than the first half with players able to take on the slow moving macarthur big men, Adams and Lofthouse. Roar didnt have a lot of luck but they also struggled with the parked bus of Macarthur. Roar lost because their defense was asleep, OShea is unreliable , and Akhbari can also be sleepy. If you look at the two goals they conceeded they were quite easy. If Moonshines good old boy is supposed to be the experienced hand guiding the defence it wasn;t on show.

Brainstrust- From where do you dig up your opinions?. The substitution rule was brought in to enable teams to actually have a full team on the field if and when a serious injury is experienced. I don't think anyone who has a history in the game would question that analysis. Since those not so far off days we have seen the rule bastardised in such a way that we now see up to 7 players sitting on a bench even although the rule has only been expanded to 5 being allowed. This is undoubtedly a move supported by the coaching fraternity as it almost allows them to change the run on side in such a way as to be almost farcical. You mention again "tiredness". Have you ever been involved with a team? Today we have high performance specialists ,doctors and assistant trainers ,specialist trainers all included in the coach's staff ,the players are being paid good money and yet you hint that a player should suffer from" tiredness" . Do you agree that under the circumstances described above that the run on team should be perfectly capable of lasting 90 minutes of football. If they are too tired to go 90 minutes they should not have been selected in the first place. To compare expended effort with other codes is ridiculous when one considers the body contact allowed in those other codes, their preparation allows for body, strength. speed and conditioning build up , with basic skills relegated far down the training ladder. Did you watch the game last night between Roar and the Bulls.?Seldom has there been a team so outclassed in almost every facet of the game and yet they finished winners by 2-1. Alex Brosque and his mate were almost struck dumb by the outcome of the game and yet Roar used their 5 subs and it made not one whit of difference to team performance. Any idea why ????? Cheers jb.

The rule was “borrowed” from overseas and was intended to extend the bench for the benefit of junior players not over age journeyman.

Agreed. But it is not as unbelievable as a professional league which has a rule that prevent under 23 y.o players from starting the match because they are required to fill the quota in the bench. Nevertheless, Sydney would not be in top six this season anyway.

The work experience kid didn't know how to use a spreadsheet.

The main reason for substitution should be for tiring players. If a coach is astute, then they take off the players who have tired out. In the case of many of them they take off a youngest bloke first. S Having 5 substitutions is a game changer versus three. Where sports can go down the gurgler and turn into rubbish if they have an interchange, players have a rest come back on in the high workrate positions. NRL and AFL by having the interchange both turned their games into rubbish from what it used to be. They end up with more brain damage because of the interchange effect as well.

They have been getting away with stuff for years, this comes as no surprise. But what about the years before? They should have points deducted or be kicked out of the league all together.

It is these changes to the substitution rules that is going a long way to taking the A-League down the path it has been on for a few years now. For a start we had the establishment of a full time professional competition with coaches/managers meeting with their players at least 4 times a week before matchday and yet from the obvious use of all substitutes in game after game it becomes obvious that these self same coaches don't really know what their best team is well into the season. Enter the rule makers, and in an attempt to make the road, or path, just a little easier for young players we see them try to create a situation where some young players will be sitting on the bench, not guaranteed game time ,but a hoped for feeling of being wanted. So now, come around the hour mark in games we see wholesale changes being made as up to half a run on team is being changed with the lame excuse that this is being done to create a new plan or system that will bring results. Lets be honest, the substitution rule was brought in to ensure that if a serious injury occurred a team would not be severely affected because a replacement could be brought on immediately. Stop right there. Now we have those same rule makers get up to all sorts of tricks to try and make a name for themselves as innovators when in fact they are actually bringing the game into disrepute with their "meddling" in a rule in such a way as to make it almost farcical. The question should be asked, is the young player good enough to be sitting as a substitute for an A-League game, never mind whether he is 15 or 25. That is the only way to maintain a standard, assess a youngsters ability and reward him, not by a stupid ruling, but if he works hard at improving his game at training. Cheers jb.

This makes no sense there were 3 young players in the starting line up against WSW , the bench had one young player so thats 4. So if 2 of the young players were on the bench instead of the starting line up then it would have been ok. Surely this is as dumb a rule as possible.

It’s almost unbelievable that a professional football club could make this mistake not once, but three times. And I wouldn’t think they would do this deliberately, there’s not a lot to gain, but getting it wrong is the height of incompetence on someone’s behalf. Luckily for Sydney it hasn’t cost them any points otherwise their season would be over. And the APL Match Commissioners? Is it any surprise that Greg O’Rourke can’t organise this ….? And after they went to do much trouble to rig the draw for NSW’s sides as well :laughing: