Sydney FC
1
19
Western Sydney Wanderers FC
0
| A. L. Fondre |  | 4' |
| 5 | Shots | 1 | ||
| 3 | On Target | 0 | ||
| 0 | Fouls | 6 | ||
| 0 | Corners | 1 | ||
| 0 | Offsides | 0 | ||
| 0 | Red Cards | 0 | ||
| 0 | Yellow Cards | 0 |
The A-League 2018-19 season continues with yet another derby, as the ever intense and always atmospheric Sydney Derby sees Sydney FC playing host to their cross-town rivals, the Western Sydney Wanderers at the SCG. Join The Roar from 7:50pm for live scores and a blog of the match.
Whatever the state of the A-League is, there are always three guaranteed blockbusters every season, and they are the three regular-season Sydney derbies. Credit to the FFA for the foresight to not only follow up the Round 1 Melbourne derby with the Sydney version, but playing out of the SCG? Big tick of approval, this game representing a first game at the venue in 33 years.
This game is really Sydney’s for the losing. They’re coming off a strong first-up draw with Adelaide, playing solid football, have a killer marksman up front, and are opening their home account for the season before an adoring crowd. The ducks are all in a row for the Sky Blues.
Adam Le Fondre will be keen to keep his goalscoring account ticking over, so expect some pinpoint accurate delivery to him from Sydney’s main man, Milos Ninkovic.
On the back of the ever-solid defence of Alex Wilkinson, and with Andrew Redmayne in good form (one goal last week notwithstanding), Sydney will back themselves here to maintain their derby dominance of late.
That Sydney FC dominance will be something that the Wanderers will be wary of, to the point that it may be turning into something of a cross to bear.
One win in 14 derbies for the Wanderers is pretty glum reading, and very much backs up Graham Arnold’s comments last season that, for the Sky Blues, there is no real rivalry. Ouch.
Markus Babbel will be turning to the likes of Oriol Rieira and Roly Bonevacia to turn on the attack and bring the goals on their way to a much needed, derby drought-breaking win.
Here’s hoping for a massive crowd, a cracking game, and an event to savour.
Prediction
These two teams are coming off Round 1 draws, so each have something to prove. Sydney FC, at home as hosts, should have the bigger following, and the better quality to maintain the rage. But it should be close.
Sydney FC 2-1.
Join The Roar from 7:50pm for live scores and a blog of the match, and don’t forget to leave your comments in the section below.
Franco
Guest
If we didn’t have the VAR people would be complaining about referees decision with people like Bosnich pointing to endless replays about how the referee got it wrong. Seems like either way people are going to be unhappy, but commentators endlessly criticising the VAR is doing more damage than the VAR itself very ironic
Dave
Guest
Sorry for the formatting. It had paragraphs in it when I posted it.
Dave
Guest
Just to help clear things up, this is from the official laws of the game (see link). https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/laws-of-the-game-2018-19.pdf?cloudid=khhloe2xoigyna8juxw3 Under Law 11 - Offside it states the following: In situations where: • a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that the WSW player (Sotirio?) was not 'in the way' of Zullo's movement towards the ball, impacting on Zullo's ability to challenge for the ball. The replay quite clearly shows him moving from an offside position and getting in Zullo's way. Therefore its offside - no goal. As to the second part of that paragraph, in my opinion Sotirio also drops his shoulder a little and does make some attempt to block Zullo. Therefore, the referee is within his rights to call it a 'foul' under Law 12, which appears to be what he did. Not that it really makes any difference if he calls it a 'foul' or just 'offside' in this case. Same outcome.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Attendance: over 30k at the SCG, I think that's a good result. We also have the Fox TV ratings for last night, 70k, which is also good.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Yes, good call.
Kangas
Roar Rookie
The game in Australia is in dire straights You can’t sugarcoat this anymore. We have mediocre ex Middlesbrough players starring , games on cricket pitches . Poorly skilled players, hackers like grant at Sydney ( one at every club) not getting sent off . The A league is dying . Gallop destroyed nrl , and it’s still getting back on its feet . The crowds are terrible and the ratings are terrible. There are a couple of true believers on this site , that can’t see the bigger picture atm Most a league games are generally drab and the var is the final nail in the coffin. First chance get rid of the var .
Punter
Roar Rookie
As I mentioned in another post, football decisions is about opinions. I agree with your last statement. However I do not agree with your first statement, you do not have to foul a player to be deemed offside even if you have not touched the ball. If you are deemed to be interfering with play accidentally or not, you can be called offside. Whether Zullo could've prevented the cross in the opinion of the ref yes. However, my personal view it was harsh & my personal view on VAR is only to be used for those where opinions don't matter & allow the ref to referee the game & let us do the arguing. While writing this I see the Juve penalty, some say it was some say it wasn't. This is football.
Mark
Guest
Either it is a foul or not, and the fact that the player was offside (or not) is irrelevant, or it is offside or not, and whether the contact warranted the calling of a foul (or not) is irrelevant. Beath signalled foul during the game, and is now trying to tell us it was offside. Absolute incompetence.
Punter
Roar Rookie
Stevo, I agree, it's a game of opinions & the VAR should only be used when there is no opinions & we should always stay with referee decision unless it's very clear after 2 replays where an obvious mistake is made. Otherwise leave to all us punters to argue whether it was a goal or not, a penalty or not.
Punter
Roar Rookie
I too think the decision was harsh. However, whether Beath went against his first decision, but interviewed after game he said it was for offside. Sotorio was offside when the ball was played, when Zullo turned to go for ball he ran into Sotorio, so passively offside similar to a player not touching but standing in an offside position preventing the keeper access to the ball. Now whether Zullo could have done something about it was another matter, as Stevo says above a matter of opinions.
Nemesis
Guest
@punter Beath's hand signals suggest he called a foul after reviewing the Video. He signalled for a Direct Free Kick with a horizontal arm signal. Offside results in an Indirect Free Kick & the ref signals this by raising his arm vertically. Even so, just because Sotirio was standing in an offside position doesn't make it an Offside offence. It's only an offside offence if he's deemed to be interfering with play, or interfering with an opponent, or gaining an advantage. The whole football community, including many SydFC fans and the SydFC coach agree the decision was very harsh.
Stevo
Roar Rookie
It”s a game of opinions. Sotirio and Zullo were both tracking out of the SFC defence, heading in the same direction when the ball came back and Zullo decided to turn towards the ball but instead turned directly into the path of Sotirio. It wasn’t a blatant block. The ball wasn’t close to Sotirio or Zullo. Sotirio standing offside is immaterial in this case. It’s either a foul on Zullo for blatantly blocking his path or not. Calling a foul given the circumstances and the position of the ball was harsh. Should have let the goal stand.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
SFC just continues to dominate the wanderers.
Punter
Roar Rookie
Exactly this was not a foul as the player could not just disappear, however, the fact he was in an offside position, he was interfering with the play hence offside call is correct.
Redondo
Roar Rookie
The decision was correct. An offside player blocked a defender in the lead-up to the goal. The VAR spotted a clear infringement and the ref had no choice but to disallow the goal.
M
Guest
We are asking them (VAR) to get it right. They did. True that Suterio cannot disappear but unintentionally or not he interfered in the play from an offside position. I would have liked the goal to stand but it is what it is.
perry cox
Roar Guru
Exactly Nick. The game is being damaged.
perry cox
Roar Guru
That was not a foul. The rants are spot on. The player cannot disappear. Zullo runs into the Wanderers player. Not the other way around. The ref has completely miffed it, he knows it, and he can't backtrack now. He clearly said after the game it was for offside. That wasn't the signal. And he has changed his opinion because he must have realised in hindsight, it wasn't a foul.
M
Guest
I think he said it was a foul committed by a player in an offside position. Technically, an offside player interfering in play. Hope the Fox Sports team are man enough to say their rants and opinions were wrong.
Nick Symonds
Guest
Right now, 3 of the 10 stories in the "Lastest" section have VAR in the title. The A-League was held in the off seasons of the other codes to give it "clean air" but whatever clean air there is, is getting sucked up by VAR.