Starting XI
880
·
2.5K
·
about 12 years

ColeWorld wrote:

OUAFC 0 3 Cashmere Technical - not the accurate result I don't think, Cashmere pulled away with two late goals after being frustrated for a large portion of the game. Varsity had only 5 regular starters on the field, and I think once they're up to full strength they could get a few results, but time will tell. 

7 actually; Catto, Rathbone, Nimmo, B. O'Farrell, Tapp, T. O'Farrell and Scahill all regular starters, and Durkin also is a borderline starter. 

Cashmere the far better team. The stats on Bet365 supported this with Tech having a far larger amount of 'dangerous attacks'. Varsity did ok in patches, but also simply not good enough defensively at times. Both late goals were terrible defending from Nimmo and then O'Farrell

.

Trialist
5
·
85
·
almost 6 years

ColeWorld wrote:

OUAFC 0 3 Cashmere Technical - not the accurate result I don't think, Cashmere pulled away with two late goals after being frustrated for a large portion of the game. Varsity had only 5 regular starters on the field, and I think once they're up to full strength they could get a few results, but time will tell. 

7 actually; Catto, Rathbone, Nimmo, B. O'Farrell, Tapp, T. O'Farrell and Scahill all regular starters, and Durkin also is a borderline starter. 

Cashmere the far better team. The stats on Bet365 supported this with Tech having a far larger amount of 'dangerous attacks'. Varsity did ok in patches, but also simply not good enough defensively at times. Both late goals were terrible defending from Nimmo and then O'Farrell

Rathbone and Durkin are bench players when the side is full strength, so 5 starters. But regardless, I agree that both late goals were poor defending efforts. And the 'dangerous attacks' are determined by a scarfie-aged guy who clicks a button when the ball gets out of the centre circle. So I really don't think that's a brilliant argument.

Put a full strength side in front of sides though (which they will have for the rest of the season), and they'll do some damage. Happy to be called out on this in a few months time, but i'm pretty confident on this :)

Phoenix Academy
18
·
250
·
over 15 years

Uni were full strength v Cavy the other week weren’t they?

Phoenix Academy
110
·
190
·
over 9 years

Kennedy wrote:

Uni were full strength v Cavy the other week weren’t they?

Yep and lost 3-0. Cavy are the best FootballSouth team in this league

Phoenix Academy
110
·
190
·
over 9 years

ColeWorld wrote:

OUAFC 0 3 Cashmere Technical - not the accurate result I don't think, Cashmere pulled away with two late goals after being frustrated for a large portion of the game. Varsity had only 5 regular starters on the field, and I think once they're up to full strength they could get a few results, but time will tell. 

7 actually; Catto, Rathbone, Nimmo, B. O'Farrell, Tapp, T. O'Farrell and Scahill all regular starters, and Durkin also is a borderline starter. 

Cashmere the far better team. The stats on Bet365 supported this with Tech having a far larger amount of 'dangerous attacks'. Varsity did ok in patches, but also simply not good enough defensively at times. Both late goals were terrible defending from Nimmo and then O'Farrell

Rathbone and Durkin are bench players when the side is full strength, so 5 starters. But regardless, I agree that both late goals were poor defending efforts. And the 'dangerous attacks' are determined by a scarfie-aged guy who clicks a button when the ball gets out of the centre circle. So I really don't think that's a brilliant argument.

Put a full strength side in front of sides though (which they will have for the rest of the season), and they'll do some damage. Happy to be called out on this in a few months time, but i'm pretty confident on this :)


Who starts at right back over Rathbone? Every time I have seen Varsity, he has started. Even if not, thats 6 not 5.

Well actually, theres 'attacks', 'dangerous attacks' and 'in possession'. Dangerous attacks indicating a good attacking opportunity. Cashmere had something crazy like 6 or 7x the number of reported dangerous attacks than varsity, so even if they are getting half of them 'wrong' it still is a good indicator of one team being completely dominant. And whats the age of the bookie got to do with it? Do you have to be a certain age to know whats happening in a game of football?

WeeNix
68
·
520
·
almost 11 years

ColeWorld wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

OUAFC 0 3 Cashmere Technical - not the accurate result I don't think, Cashmere pulled away with two late goals after being frustrated for a large portion of the game. Varsity had only 5 regular starters on the field, and I think once they're up to full strength they could get a few results, but time will tell. 

7 actually; Catto, Rathbone, Nimmo, B. O'Farrell, Tapp, T. O'Farrell and Scahill all regular starters, and Durkin also is a borderline starter. 

Cashmere the far better team. The stats on Bet365 supported this with Tech having a far larger amount of 'dangerous attacks'. Varsity did ok in patches, but also simply not good enough defensively at times. Both late goals were terrible defending from Nimmo and then O'Farrell

Rathbone and Durkin are bench players when the side is full strength, so 5 starters. But regardless, I agree that both late goals were poor defending efforts. And the 'dangerous attacks' are determined by a scarfie-aged guy who clicks a button when the ball gets out of the centre circle. So I really don't think that's a brilliant argument.

Put a full strength side in front of sides though (which they will have for the rest of the season), and they'll do some damage. Happy to be called out on this in a few months time, but i'm pretty confident on this :)


Who starts at right back over Rathbone? Every time I have seen Varsity, he has started. Even if not, thats 6 not 5.

Well actually, theres 'attacks', 'dangerous attacks' and 'in possession'. Dangerous attacks indicating a good attacking opportunity. Cashmere had something crazy like 6 or 7x the number of reported dangerous attacks than varsity, so even if they are getting half of them 'wrong' it still is a good indicator of one team being completely dominant. And whats the age of the bookie got to do with it? Do you have to be a certain age to know whats happening in a game of football?

Yes. Over 40, and never having played ever helps as well. ?
Trialist
5
·
85
·
almost 6 years

ColeWorld wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

OUAFC 0 3 Cashmere Technical - not the accurate result I don't think, Cashmere pulled away with two late goals after being frustrated for a large portion of the game. Varsity had only 5 regular starters on the field, and I think once they're up to full strength they could get a few results, but time will tell. 

7 actually; Catto, Rathbone, Nimmo, B. O'Farrell, Tapp, T. O'Farrell and Scahill all regular starters, and Durkin also is a borderline starter. 

Cashmere the far better team. The stats on Bet365 supported this with Tech having a far larger amount of 'dangerous attacks'. Varsity did ok in patches, but also simply not good enough defensively at times. Both late goals were terrible defending from Nimmo and then O'Farrell

Rathbone and Durkin are bench players when the side is full strength, so 5 starters. But regardless, I agree that both late goals were poor defending efforts. And the 'dangerous attacks' are determined by a scarfie-aged guy who clicks a button when the ball gets out of the centre circle. So I really don't think that's a brilliant argument.

Put a full strength side in front of sides though (which they will have for the rest of the season), and they'll do some damage. Happy to be called out on this in a few months time, but i'm pretty confident on this :)


Who starts at right back over Rathbone? Every time I have seen Varsity, he has started. Even if not, thats 6 not 5.

Well actually, theres 'attacks', 'dangerous attacks' and 'in possession'. Dangerous attacks indicating a good attacking opportunity. Cashmere had something crazy like 6 or 7x the number of reported dangerous attacks than varsity, so even if they are getting half of them 'wrong' it still is a good indicator of one team being completely dominant. And whats the age of the bookie got to do with it? Do you have to be a certain age to know whats happening in a game of football?

The guy playing left back today. But really not worth splitting hairs over.

Yes I understand how it works, I just disagree as to how dominant Cashmere were. Not blighting his age at all and I never talked about his game observations, that's not his job. I'm just saying if that is what you're relying on to gauge how a game of football is going, then you won't get the big picture of a game. Take today's Cavvy v Mosgiel game, I was keeping an eye on it and Mosgiel had a vast amount of 'dangerous attacks' comparatively at the start of the second half (that was the only time I checked), but were losing 2 0. 

I just think you're overstating how good that Cashmere team was today, they struggled to stay onside and relied on naive mistakes in possession from Varsity to actually get decent opportunities. This varsity team will learn from that, and their returning players will make a huge difference, but I think they gave it a pretty good go with all the unavailabilities they had. But your opinion is your opinion, so all power to you dude.

Phoenix Academy
110
·
190
·
over 9 years

ColeWorld wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

OUAFC 0 3 Cashmere Technical - not the accurate result I don't think, Cashmere pulled away with two late goals after being frustrated for a large portion of the game. Varsity had only 5 regular starters on the field, and I think once they're up to full strength they could get a few results, but time will tell. 

7 actually; Catto, Rathbone, Nimmo, B. O'Farrell, Tapp, T. O'Farrell and Scahill all regular starters, and Durkin also is a borderline starter. 

Cashmere the far better team. The stats on Bet365 supported this with Tech having a far larger amount of 'dangerous attacks'. Varsity did ok in patches, but also simply not good enough defensively at times. Both late goals were terrible defending from Nimmo and then O'Farrell

Rathbone and Durkin are bench players when the side is full strength, so 5 starters. But regardless, I agree that both late goals were poor defending efforts. And the 'dangerous attacks' are determined by a scarfie-aged guy who clicks a button when the ball gets out of the centre circle. So I really don't think that's a brilliant argument.

Put a full strength side in front of sides though (which they will have for the rest of the season), and they'll do some damage. Happy to be called out on this in a few months time, but i'm pretty confident on this :)


Who starts at right back over Rathbone? Every time I have seen Varsity, he has started. Even if not, thats 6 not 5.

Well actually, theres 'attacks', 'dangerous attacks' and 'in possession'. Dangerous attacks indicating a good attacking opportunity. Cashmere had something crazy like 6 or 7x the number of reported dangerous attacks than varsity, so even if they are getting half of them 'wrong' it still is a good indicator of one team being completely dominant. And whats the age of the bookie got to do with it? Do you have to be a certain age to know whats happening in a game of football?

The guy playing left back today. But really not worth splitting hairs over.

Yes I understand how it works, I just disagree as to how dominant Cashmere were. Not blighting his age at all and I never talked about his game observations, that's not his job. I'm just saying if that is what you're relying on to gauge how a game of football is going, then you won't get the big picture of a game. Take today's Cavvy v Mosgiel game, I was keeping an eye on it and Mosgiel had a vast amount of 'dangerous attacks' comparatively at the start of the second half (that was the only time I checked), but were losing 2 0. 

I just think you're overstating how good that Cashmere team was today, they struggled to stay onside and relied on naive mistakes in possession from Varsity to actually get decent opportunities. This varsity team will learn from that, and their returning players will make a huge difference, but I think they gave it a pretty good go with all the unavailabilities they had. But your opinion is your opinion, so all power to you dude.

Right, not sure who comes in at left back because once again the games I’ve seen Arnon has been left back and Rathbone right back, I believe.

Cavy and Mosgiel were dead even on there with both having a number of dangerous attacks. From what I’ve heard from sources at the game was that Cavy were far more clinical. Which is represented quite well in the stats.

Actually I think Cashmere were rather poor today, which I think is more of a negative reflection on Varsity considering they lost 3-0.

Trialist
5
·
85
·
almost 6 years

ColeWorld wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

OUAFC 0 3 Cashmere Technical - not the accurate result I don't think, Cashmere pulled away with two late goals after being frustrated for a large portion of the game. Varsity had only 5 regular starters on the field, and I think once they're up to full strength they could get a few results, but time will tell. 

7 actually; Catto, Rathbone, Nimmo, B. O'Farrell, Tapp, T. O'Farrell and Scahill all regular starters, and Durkin also is a borderline starter. 

Cashmere the far better team. The stats on Bet365 supported this with Tech having a far larger amount of 'dangerous attacks'. Varsity did ok in patches, but also simply not good enough defensively at times. Both late goals were terrible defending from Nimmo and then O'Farrell

Rathbone and Durkin are bench players when the side is full strength, so 5 starters. But regardless, I agree that both late goals were poor defending efforts. And the 'dangerous attacks' are determined by a scarfie-aged guy who clicks a button when the ball gets out of the centre circle. So I really don't think that's a brilliant argument.

Put a full strength side in front of sides though (which they will have for the rest of the season), and they'll do some damage. Happy to be called out on this in a few months time, but i'm pretty confident on this :)


Who starts at right back over Rathbone? Every time I have seen Varsity, he has started. Even if not, thats 6 not 5.

Well actually, theres 'attacks', 'dangerous attacks' and 'in possession'. Dangerous attacks indicating a good attacking opportunity. Cashmere had something crazy like 6 or 7x the number of reported dangerous attacks than varsity, so even if they are getting half of them 'wrong' it still is a good indicator of one team being completely dominant. And whats the age of the bookie got to do with it? Do you have to be a certain age to know whats happening in a game of football?

The guy playing left back today. But really not worth splitting hairs over.

Yes I understand how it works, I just disagree as to how dominant Cashmere were. Not blighting his age at all and I never talked about his game observations, that's not his job. I'm just saying if that is what you're relying on to gauge how a game of football is going, then you won't get the big picture of a game. Take today's Cavvy v Mosgiel game, I was keeping an eye on it and Mosgiel had a vast amount of 'dangerous attacks' comparatively at the start of the second half (that was the only time I checked), but were losing 2 0. 

I just think you're overstating how good that Cashmere team was today, they struggled to stay onside and relied on naive mistakes in possession from Varsity to actually get decent opportunities. This varsity team will learn from that, and their returning players will make a huge difference, but I think they gave it a pretty good go with all the unavailabilities they had. But your opinion is your opinion, so all power to you dude.

Right, not sure who comes in at left back because once again the games I’ve seen Arnon has been left back and Rathbone right back, I believe.

Cavy and Mosgiel were dead even on there with both having a number of dangerous attacks. From what I’ve heard from sources at the game was that Cavy were far more clinical. Which is represented quite well in the stats.

Actually I think Cashmere were rather poor today, which I think is more of a negative reflection on Varsity considering they lost 3-0.

Well i'm telling you the first choice right back is Arnon and the first choice left back is Conor Spear - but whatever.

Well when I checked at around the 55 minute mark Mosgiel had far, far more dangerous attacks to their name. I'm not trying to break down what happened in the game, i'm just saying it's not an entirely accurate way to judge how a game is going. My point is more related to the fact I think all three Southern sides, once at full strength, will pose problems in ways the three sides last year couldn't. Mosgiel are lethal on the break, Caversham are industrial but very effective and Varsity play possession based football that wears teams down when effective. 

Your views on Cashmere are fair enough, I just don't agree - they went to the long ball early, got constantly caught offside, couldn't get Lyle on the ball and if they weren't so physically imposing defensively I think they would have faced a few more issues. The fact Varsity pushed the boat out in the last 15 minutes and conceded twice was the price you pay for having a positive mindset. I would rather lose 3 0 whilst trying to get back into the game than lose 1 0 and stay compact. If you can't see the positives for Otago football of a side with the average age of 19 who play, at times, gorgeous football then I hope you do soon!

Phoenix Academy
110
·
190
·
over 9 years

ColeWorld wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

OUAFC 0 3 Cashmere Technical - not the accurate result I don't think, Cashmere pulled away with two late goals after being frustrated for a large portion of the game. Varsity had only 5 regular starters on the field, and I think once they're up to full strength they could get a few results, but time will tell. 

7 actually; Catto, Rathbone, Nimmo, B. O'Farrell, Tapp, T. O'Farrell and Scahill all regular starters, and Durkin also is a borderline starter. 

Cashmere the far better team. The stats on Bet365 supported this with Tech having a far larger amount of 'dangerous attacks'. Varsity did ok in patches, but also simply not good enough defensively at times. Both late goals were terrible defending from Nimmo and then O'Farrell

Rathbone and Durkin are bench players when the side is full strength, so 5 starters. But regardless, I agree that both late goals were poor defending efforts. And the 'dangerous attacks' are determined by a scarfie-aged guy who clicks a button when the ball gets out of the centre circle. So I really don't think that's a brilliant argument.

Put a full strength side in front of sides though (which they will have for the rest of the season), and they'll do some damage. Happy to be called out on this in a few months time, but i'm pretty confident on this :)


Who starts at right back over Rathbone? Every time I have seen Varsity, he has started. Even if not, thats 6 not 5.

Well actually, theres 'attacks', 'dangerous attacks' and 'in possession'. Dangerous attacks indicating a good attacking opportunity. Cashmere had something crazy like 6 or 7x the number of reported dangerous attacks than varsity, so even if they are getting half of them 'wrong' it still is a good indicator of one team being completely dominant. And whats the age of the bookie got to do with it? Do you have to be a certain age to know whats happening in a game of football?

The guy playing left back today. But really not worth splitting hairs over.

Yes I understand how it works, I just disagree as to how dominant Cashmere were. Not blighting his age at all and I never talked about his game observations, that's not his job. I'm just saying if that is what you're relying on to gauge how a game of football is going, then you won't get the big picture of a game. Take today's Cavvy v Mosgiel game, I was keeping an eye on it and Mosgiel had a vast amount of 'dangerous attacks' comparatively at the start of the second half (that was the only time I checked), but were losing 2 0. 

I just think you're overstating how good that Cashmere team was today, they struggled to stay onside and relied on naive mistakes in possession from Varsity to actually get decent opportunities. This varsity team will learn from that, and their returning players will make a huge difference, but I think they gave it a pretty good go with all the unavailabilities they had. But your opinion is your opinion, so all power to you dude.

Right, not sure who comes in at left back because once again the games I’ve seen Arnon has been left back and Rathbone right back, I believe.

Cavy and Mosgiel were dead even on there with both having a number of dangerous attacks. From what I’ve heard from sources at the game was that Cavy were far more clinical. Which is represented quite well in the stats.

Actually I think Cashmere were rather poor today, which I think is more of a negative reflection on Varsity considering they lost 3-0.

Well i'm telling you the first choice right back is Arnon and the first choice left back is Conor Spear - but whatever.

Well when I checked at around the 55 minute mark Mosgiel had far, far more dangerous attacks to their name. I'm not trying to break down what happened in the game, i'm just saying it's not an entirely accurate way to judge how a game is going. My point is more related to the fact I think all three Southern sides, once at full strength, will pose problems in ways the three sides last year couldn't. Mosgiel are lethal on the break, Caversham are industrial but very effective and Varsity play possession based football that wears teams down when effective. 

Your views on Cashmere are fair enough, I just don't agree - they went to the long ball early, got constantly caught offside, couldn't get Lyle on the ball and if they weren't so physically imposing defensively I think they would have faced a few more issues. The fact Varsity pushed the boat out in the last 15 minutes and conceded twice was the price you pay for having a positive mindset. I would rather lose 3 0 whilst trying to get back into the game than lose 1 0 and stay compact. If you can't see the positives for Otago football of a side with the average age of 19 who play, at times, gorgeous football then I hope you do soon!

I don't know if that is the truth as I was also following the game and it was pretty much bang on even for the majority of the game. 

I think we both agree that Cashmere weren't brilliant yesterday, however, we disagree in our views on Varsity. They offered next to nothing going forward, and it was always a matter of time until Cashmere scored. I absolutely see the positives IF Varsity can play nice football in this league, but I just feel you are trying to sugar coat their performance. Are you involved with them in some way, perhaps?

And also, Cashmere are physically imposing defensively - that's a fact - so there is no point saying what the case would be otherwise? This league is a step up.

Cavy is the only team I can see improving on Queenstowns performance last season of finishing 5th, including a win away to Ferrymead? and being wrongly disallowed a goal in the last minute away to Cashmere that would've given them a draw. Tech also got two draws against Mainland opposition which I think is something the three teams this year may struggle to achieve.

Trialist
5
·
85
·
almost 6 years

ColeWorld wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

OUAFC 0 3 Cashmere Technical - not the accurate result I don't think, Cashmere pulled away with two late goals after being frustrated for a large portion of the game. Varsity had only 5 regular starters on the field, and I think once they're up to full strength they could get a few results, but time will tell. 

7 actually; Catto, Rathbone, Nimmo, B. O'Farrell, Tapp, T. O'Farrell and Scahill all regular starters, and Durkin also is a borderline starter. 

Cashmere the far better team. The stats on Bet365 supported this with Tech having a far larger amount of 'dangerous attacks'. Varsity did ok in patches, but also simply not good enough defensively at times. Both late goals were terrible defending from Nimmo and then O'Farrell

Rathbone and Durkin are bench players when the side is full strength, so 5 starters. But regardless, I agree that both late goals were poor defending efforts. And the 'dangerous attacks' are determined by a scarfie-aged guy who clicks a button when the ball gets out of the centre circle. So I really don't think that's a brilliant argument.

Put a full strength side in front of sides though (which they will have for the rest of the season), and they'll do some damage. Happy to be called out on this in a few months time, but i'm pretty confident on this :)


Who starts at right back over Rathbone? Every time I have seen Varsity, he has started. Even if not, thats 6 not 5.

Well actually, theres 'attacks', 'dangerous attacks' and 'in possession'. Dangerous attacks indicating a good attacking opportunity. Cashmere had something crazy like 6 or 7x the number of reported dangerous attacks than varsity, so even if they are getting half of them 'wrong' it still is a good indicator of one team being completely dominant. And whats the age of the bookie got to do with it? Do you have to be a certain age to know whats happening in a game of football?

The guy playing left back today. But really not worth splitting hairs over.

Yes I understand how it works, I just disagree as to how dominant Cashmere were. Not blighting his age at all and I never talked about his game observations, that's not his job. I'm just saying if that is what you're relying on to gauge how a game of football is going, then you won't get the big picture of a game. Take today's Cavvy v Mosgiel game, I was keeping an eye on it and Mosgiel had a vast amount of 'dangerous attacks' comparatively at the start of the second half (that was the only time I checked), but were losing 2 0. 

I just think you're overstating how good that Cashmere team was today, they struggled to stay onside and relied on naive mistakes in possession from Varsity to actually get decent opportunities. This varsity team will learn from that, and their returning players will make a huge difference, but I think they gave it a pretty good go with all the unavailabilities they had. But your opinion is your opinion, so all power to you dude.

Right, not sure who comes in at left back because once again the games I’ve seen Arnon has been left back and Rathbone right back, I believe.

Cavy and Mosgiel were dead even on there with both having a number of dangerous attacks. From what I’ve heard from sources at the game was that Cavy were far more clinical. Which is represented quite well in the stats.

Actually I think Cashmere were rather poor today, which I think is more of a negative reflection on Varsity considering they lost 3-0.

Well i'm telling you the first choice right back is Arnon and the first choice left back is Conor Spear - but whatever.

Well when I checked at around the 55 minute mark Mosgiel had far, far more dangerous attacks to their name. I'm not trying to break down what happened in the game, i'm just saying it's not an entirely accurate way to judge how a game is going. My point is more related to the fact I think all three Southern sides, once at full strength, will pose problems in ways the three sides last year couldn't. Mosgiel are lethal on the break, Caversham are industrial but very effective and Varsity play possession based football that wears teams down when effective. 

Your views on Cashmere are fair enough, I just don't agree - they went to the long ball early, got constantly caught offside, couldn't get Lyle on the ball and if they weren't so physically imposing defensively I think they would have faced a few more issues. The fact Varsity pushed the boat out in the last 15 minutes and conceded twice was the price you pay for having a positive mindset. I would rather lose 3 0 whilst trying to get back into the game than lose 1 0 and stay compact. If you can't see the positives for Otago football of a side with the average age of 19 who play, at times, gorgeous football then I hope you do soon!

I don't know if that is the truth as I was also following the game and it was pretty much bang on even for the majority of the game. 

I think we both agree that Cashmere weren't brilliant yesterday, however, we disagree in our views on Varsity. They offered next to nothing going forward, and it was always a matter of time until Cashmere scored. I absolutely see the positives IF Varsity can play nice football in this league, but I just feel you are trying to sugar coat their performance. Are you involved with them in some way, perhaps?

And also, Cashmere are physically imposing defensively - that's a fact - so there is no point saying what the case would be otherwise? This league is a step up.

Cavy is the only team I can see improving on Queenstowns performance last season of finishing 5th, including a win away to Ferrymead? and being wrongly disallowed a goal in the last minute away to Cashmere that would've given them a draw. Tech also got two draws against Mainland opposition which I think is something the three teams this year may struggle to achieve.

I'm not affiliated with any clubs in Dunedin, I have been around the traps for a while and I have been really encouraged by sides trying to play football in the right way - that is why I am plugging them. 

I agree the league is a step up, but I am really confident that all three sides will put up much more of a fight than the Southern sides did last year. Yes there were a couple of positive results, including the Queenstown win, but that was the sole victory against a Mainland side. 

If football in the region is to improve, there need to be more of those 'one-off' victories (like Queenstown v Ferrymead last year), and less of the 10-1, 5-1 scorelines that Queenstown and Tech were on the end of. 

Queenstown were (I think) the only semi-combative side last year, Tech fell away once their squad fell apart and were lucky to sneak a draw with Coastal and Nomads at that (last second equaliser against Coastal, saved a penalty against Nomads), and Southland were totally off the pace. 

I will be interested to see how Cavvy actually get on, they've brought back some old heads but Horner and Henderson aren't getting any younger, and Ferguson has broken a collarbone (for what sounded like an attempted hit job on Ben Deeley). 

Probably not much more to say than that, but i've enjoyed hearing different views on the games, it helps an old bugger like me see football matches in different ways. I like that there is clearly plenty of interest in this league, and long may it continue!

Trialist
2
·
16
·
over 5 years

Coughlan and Gordon getting straight back to work with a brace each i see. If Wellbourn can stay top goalscorer then maybe we can have a chance. Nomads didnt register a shot on target Saturday. Two shots from outside blazed over the bar. And Nomads have scored for fun this season.

Trialist
5
·
85
·
almost 6 years

Have Spirit wrote:

Coughlan and Gordon getting straight back to work with a brace each i see. If Wellbourn can stay top goalscorer then maybe we can have a chance. Nomads didnt register a shot on target Saturday. Two shots from outside blazed over the bar. And Nomads have scored for fun this season.

Out of interest (dont get up to christchurch often), why were Nomads so poor when their MPL position was so positive? Have Coastal just totally underperformed up until this weekend? Will they even need to sign a goalkeeper?

Trialist
22
·
140
·
over 6 years

ColeWorld wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

OUAFC 0 3 Cashmere Technical - not the accurate result I don't think, Cashmere pulled away with two late goals after being frustrated for a large portion of the game. Varsity had only 5 regular starters on the field, and I think once they're up to full strength they could get a few results, but time will tell. 

7 actually; Catto, Rathbone, Nimmo, B. O'Farrell, Tapp, T. O'Farrell and Scahill all regular starters, and Durkin also is a borderline starter. 

Cashmere the far better team. The stats on Bet365 supported this with Tech having a far larger amount of 'dangerous attacks'. Varsity did ok in patches, but also simply not good enough defensively at times. Both late goals were terrible defending from Nimmo and then O'Farrell

Rathbone and Durkin are bench players when the side is full strength, so 5 starters. But regardless, I agree that both late goals were poor defending efforts. And the 'dangerous attacks' are determined by a scarfie-aged guy who clicks a button when the ball gets out of the centre circle. So I really don't think that's a brilliant argument.

Put a full strength side in front of sides though (which they will have for the rest of the season), and they'll do some damage. Happy to be called out on this in a few months time, but i'm pretty confident on this :)


Who starts at right back over Rathbone? Every time I have seen Varsity, he has started. Even if not, thats 6 not 5.

Well actually, theres 'attacks', 'dangerous attacks' and 'in possession'. Dangerous attacks indicating a good attacking opportunity. Cashmere had something crazy like 6 or 7x the number of reported dangerous attacks than varsity, so even if they are getting half of them 'wrong' it still is a good indicator of one team being completely dominant. And whats the age of the bookie got to do with it? Do you have to be a certain age to know whats happening in a game of football?

I think we can all agree that when you enter a competition, you enter to win it. I would be furious as a club with the players going home in the holidays (if that’s why they weren’t available??).  Your basically not giving yourself a chance to win the title if you lose the first game in the one round sprint for the SI league title. If you have just entered for the “experience” then that is an expensive experience ($10k entry fee). This was my first thought upon hearing they have players away. What is everyone else’s thoughts on this?? 

Trialist
8
·
92
·
over 10 years

Have Spirit wrote:

Coughlan and Gordon getting straight back to work with a brace each i see. If Wellbourn can stay top goalscorer then maybe we can have a chance. Nomads didnt register a shot on target Saturday. Two shots from outside blazed over the bar. And Nomads have scored for fun this season.

Out of interest (dont get up to christchurch often), why were Nomads so poor when their MPL position was so positive? Have Coastal just totally underperformed up until this weekend? Will they even need to sign a goalkeeper?

Nomads missing a couple of important players, new ones coming in. Traditionally FAR stronger at home as well, relatively poor record away and especially at English Park. Coastal were up for it, very hungry and were the better side.

Trialist
5
·
85
·
almost 6 years

Delta wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

OUAFC 0 3 Cashmere Technical - not the accurate result I don't think, Cashmere pulled away with two late goals after being frustrated for a large portion of the game. Varsity had only 5 regular starters on the field, and I think once they're up to full strength they could get a few results, but time will tell. 

7 actually; Catto, Rathbone, Nimmo, B. O'Farrell, Tapp, T. O'Farrell and Scahill all regular starters, and Durkin also is a borderline starter. 

Cashmere the far better team. The stats on Bet365 supported this with Tech having a far larger amount of 'dangerous attacks'. Varsity did ok in patches, but also simply not good enough defensively at times. Both late goals were terrible defending from Nimmo and then O'Farrell

Rathbone and Durkin are bench players when the side is full strength, so 5 starters. But regardless, I agree that both late goals were poor defending efforts. And the 'dangerous attacks' are determined by a scarfie-aged guy who clicks a button when the ball gets out of the centre circle. So I really don't think that's a brilliant argument.

Put a full strength side in front of sides though (which they will have for the rest of the season), and they'll do some damage. Happy to be called out on this in a few months time, but i'm pretty confident on this :)


Who starts at right back over Rathbone? Every time I have seen Varsity, he has started. Even if not, thats 6 not 5.

Well actually, theres 'attacks', 'dangerous attacks' and 'in possession'. Dangerous attacks indicating a good attacking opportunity. Cashmere had something crazy like 6 or 7x the number of reported dangerous attacks than varsity, so even if they are getting half of them 'wrong' it still is a good indicator of one team being completely dominant. And whats the age of the bookie got to do with it? Do you have to be a certain age to know whats happening in a game of football?

I think we can all agree that when you enter a competition, you enter to win it. I would be furious as a club with the players going home in the holidays (if that’s why they weren’t available??).  Your basically not giving yourself a chance to win the title if you lose the first game in the one round sprint for the SI league title. If you have just entered for the “experience” then that is an expensive experience ($10k entry fee). This was my first thought upon hearing they have players away. What is everyone else’s thoughts on this?? 

I agree, it is a really bad look. Even if the dates and details were not made available until quite late, you would have thought if you sign up to play football then you know the parameters of how long a season takes. I think from memory Varsity had a similar problem when playing Queenstown during another University break.

Trialist
5
·
85
·
almost 6 years

BrightSpark wrote:

Have Spirit wrote:

Coughlan and Gordon getting straight back to work with a brace each i see. If Wellbourn can stay top goalscorer then maybe we can have a chance. Nomads didnt register a shot on target Saturday. Two shots from outside blazed over the bar. And Nomads have scored for fun this season.

Out of interest (dont get up to christchurch often), why were Nomads so poor when their MPL position was so positive? Have Coastal just totally underperformed up until this weekend? Will they even need to sign a goalkeeper?

Nomads missing a couple of important players, new ones coming in. Traditionally FAR stronger at home as well, relatively poor record away and especially at English Park. Coastal were up for it, very hungry and were the better side.

Who were they missing? And who have they got coming in?

Marquee
470
·
6.4K
·
over 14 years

Have Spirit wrote:

Coughlan and Gordon getting straight back to work with a brace each i see. If Wellbourn can stay top goalscorer then maybe we can have a chance. Nomads didnt register a shot on target Saturday. Two shots from outside blazed over the bar. And Nomads have scored for fun this season.

Out of interest (dont get up to christchurch often), why were Nomads so poor when their MPL position was so positive? Have Coastal just totally underperformed up until this weekend? Will they even need to sign a goalkeeper?

Too late to sign anyone now as 1 July

Trialist
5
·
85
·
almost 6 years

AllWhites82 wrote:

Have Spirit wrote:

Coughlan and Gordon getting straight back to work with a brace each i see. If Wellbourn can stay top goalscorer then maybe we can have a chance. Nomads didnt register a shot on target Saturday. Two shots from outside blazed over the bar. And Nomads have scored for fun this season.

Out of interest (dont get up to christchurch often), why were Nomads so poor when their MPL position was so positive? Have Coastal just totally underperformed up until this weekend? Will they even need to sign a goalkeeper?

Too late to sign anyone now as 1 July

What happened to the three goalkeepers Coastal did have?

Trialist
8
·
100
·
over 7 years

I will be interested to see how Cavvy actually get on, they've brought back some old heads but Horner and Henderson aren't getting any younger, and Ferguson has broken a collarbone (for what sounded like an attempted hit job on Ben Deeley). 

[/quote]

From what i can see Caversham has only conceded in one of the last 7 since Horner has returned, so those old legs must still have it. Still the best defender in Dunedin, and has been for the last 15 years. Looking forward to seeing how they go against stronger opposition. 

Trialist
10
·
76
·
over 10 years

AllWhites82 wrote:

Have Spirit wrote:

Coughlan and Gordon getting straight back to work with a brace each i see. If Wellbourn can stay top goalscorer then maybe we can have a chance. Nomads didnt register a shot on target Saturday. Two shots from outside blazed over the bar. And Nomads have scored for fun this season.

Out of interest (dont get up to christchurch often), why were Nomads so poor when their MPL position was so positive? Have Coastal just totally underperformed up until this weekend? Will they even need to sign a goalkeeper?

Too late to sign anyone now as 1 July

What happened to the three goalkeepers Coastal did have?

Matt - Work & New born 

Chris - Wellignton on/off

Lochie - Spat the dummy and moved 

Trialist
2
·
16
·
over 5 years

You can say Coastal have been unlucky. But really they just havnt been taking their chances. When you look at their goal difference its kind of obvious they are a top 3 team i guess? Nomads seem a good young team. They beat us last time when we had 9 men. 

Crazy we have lost Spain, Liddicoat and Haris Zeb. Plus the goalkeeper dramas. Coastal maybe at their weakest. Even then still a solid outfit

Starting XI
120
·
2.7K
·
almost 17 years

What goalkeeper drama? Personally I think that's an insult to Hughesy :)

Trialist
10
·
76
·
over 10 years

Good build up coverage this week on Southern league FB and this forum.......

Trialist
22
·
140
·
over 6 years

Good build up coverage this week on Southern league FB and this forum.......

I’m pretty sure the clubs have until 11am Friday morning to upload their squads and coaches comments for the offical programme. 

Trialist
5
·
10
·
almost 5 years

Here is our preview of the Southern Football League game (and our other fixtures) http://bit.ly/32n5URm.

We will be live via Facebook from 12:20pm tomorrow for the game.

Marquee
470
·
6.4K
·
over 14 years

Southern Football League

Cashmere Technical 5 (Garbhan Coughlan 3, Finbar Gallaway, Andy Tuckey) Western 2 (Arian Asghari, Daniel Thoms) HT 4 - 0

Marquee
470
·
6.4K
·
over 14 years

Southern Football League

Cavershan 1 (Andrew Ridden) Coastal Spirit 2 (Brett Clifford, Ash Welbourn) HT 0 - 1

Nelson Suburbs 1 (Adam Smith) Nomads 0 HT 1 - 0

Otago University 1 (Santeri Kuivalainen) Mosgiel 3 (Lewis Wall 2, Riley Anderton) HT 1 - 1

Marquee
470
·
6.4K
·
over 14 years

Updated Table

Team P W D L F A GD Pts
Cashmere Technical 2 2 0 0 8 2 6 6
Nelson Suburbs 2 2 0 0 5 0 5 6
Coastal Spirit 2 2 0 0 5 1 4 6
Caversham 2 1 0 1 3 2 1 3
Mosgiel 2 1 0 1 3 3 0 3
Nomads 2 0 0 2 0 4 -4 0
Otago University 2 0 0 2 1 6 -5 0
Western 2 0 0 2 2 9 -7 0

Round 3 Fixtures - all Sunday 21 July at 12:30pm in Christchurch

Cashmere Technical vs Nelson Suburbs

Coastal Spirit vs Mosgiel

Nomads vs Otago University

Western vs Caversham

Starting XI
120
·
2.7K
·
almost 17 years

AllWhites82 wrote:

Southern Football League

Cavershan 1 (Andrew Ridden) Coastal Spirit 2 (Brett Clifford, Ash Welbourn) HT 0 - 1

Nelson Suburbs 1 (Adam Smith) Nomads 0 HT 1 - 0

Otago University 1 (Santeri Kuivalainen) Mosgiel 3 (Lewis Wall 2, Riley Anderton) HT 1 - 1

Any match reports anyone??
Marquee
470
·
6.4K
·
over 14 years

Ronaldoknow wrote:

AllWhites82 wrote:

Southern Football League

Cavershan 1 (Andrew Ridden) Coastal Spirit 2 (Brett Clifford, Ash Welbourn) HT 0 - 1

Nelson Suburbs 1 (Adam Smith) Nomads 0 HT 1 - 0

Otago University 1 (Santeri Kuivalainen) Mosgiel 3 (Lewis Wall 2, Riley Anderton) HT 1 - 1

Any match reports anyone??

From the ODT: 

https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/football/mosgiel-trium...

Marquee
470
·
6.4K
·
over 14 years

Changes to todays fixtures.

Western vs. Caversham now moved to English Park at 11am with Coastal Spirit vs. Mosgiel kick-off pushed back to 1pm at English Park.

Both Nomads vs Otago University at Tulett Park and Cashmere Technical vs. Nelson Suburbs Garrick Memorial Park at 12.30pm

Starting XI
120
·
2.7K
·
almost 17 years

Coastal 1 Mosgiel 0

Suburbs 1 Cashmere 0

Nomads 4 Otago Uni 3

Western 2 Cavvy 0

Marquee
470
·
6.4K
·
over 14 years

Today scorers:

Cashmere Technical 0 Nelson Suburbs 1 (Cameron Gordon) HT 0 - 0

Coastal Spirit 1 (Tristian Nicol) Mosgiel 0 HT 0 - 0

Nomads 4 (Caleb Cottom 2, Declan Hickford, Liam Thompson) Otago University 3 (Dominic Scahill, Santeri Kuivalainen, Benjamin Stanley) HT 3 - 2

Western 2 (Daniel Thoms, Ryan Stanley) Caversham 0 HT 1 - 0

Marquee
470
·
6.4K
·
over 14 years

Updated table:

Team P W D L F A GD Pts
Nelson Suburbs 3 3 0 0 6 0 6 9
Coastal Spirit 3 3 0 0 6 1 5 9
Cashmere Technical 3 2 0 1 8 3 5 6
Caversham 3 1 0 2 3 4 -1 3
Mosgiel 3 1 0 2 3 4 -1 3
Nomads 3 1 0 2 4 7 -3 3
Western 3 1 0 2 4 9 -5 3
Otago University 3 0 0 3 4 10 -6 0

Round 4 fixtures

Caversham vs. Otago University

Mosgiel vs. Nelson Suburbs

Nomads vs. Cashmere Technical

Western vs. Coastal Spirit

Trialist
2
·
18
·
almost 6 years

Far out, the Dunedin teams are terrible. Cant even get a point against Western or Nomads lol 

Seems to me they are so bad that there isnt really much of a point doing a south island league. Champions of Mainland = champions of South Island

Phoenix Academy
25
·
430
·
almost 15 years

grasscutter wrote:

Far out, the Dunedin teams are terrible. Cant even get a point against Western or Nomads lol 

Seems to me they are so bad that there isnt really much of a point doing a south island league. Champions of Mainland = champions of South Island

Hard to argue against that based on this year, or last year, but you don't have to look to far back into the more distant past to find winners from Dunedin.

Starting XI
1.3K
·
2.7K
·
almost 9 years

South Island Champions before the SIFC was introduced 

2008 Caversham

2009 Caversham

2010 No Comp

2011 Dunedin Technical

2012 Ferrymead Bays

2013 Cashmere Tech

2014 Cashmere Tech

2015 Cashmere Tech

2016 Caversham

2017 Caversham

so 5-4 to Southern, with 2 teams from each federation winning

Starting XI
650
·
4.1K
·
almost 17 years

South Island Champions before the SIFC was introduced 

2008 Caversham

2009 Caversham

2010 No Comp

2011 Dunedin Technical

2012 Ferrymead Bays

2013 Cashmere Tech

2014 Cashmere Tech

2015 Cashmere Tech

2016 Caversham

2017 Caversham

so 5-4 to Southern, with 2 teams from each federation winning

Good to note that most of the above were one off games, while the current and previous years are one round comps.... 

Starting XI
120
·
2.7K
·
almost 17 years

grasscutter wrote:

Far out, the Dunedin teams are terrible. Cant even get a point against Western or Nomads lol 

Seems to me they are so bad that there isnt really much of a point doing a south island league. Champions of Mainland = champions of South Island

Only the Mainland Champs may well miss out this year .............. 

You’ll need an account to join the conversation!

Sign in Sign up