National League / OCL

Canterbury United

3563 replies · 775,209 views
about 9 years ago

kiwifan90 wrote:

Global Game wrote:

[quote=kiwifan90]

who is hall that is on bench? He youngster?

Joe Hall? He's part of the coaching team.

so why he on the bench? No one else available? More to the point why the hell is he registered to play?

Joe has been on the bench for most of the 'away' games

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

AllWhites82 wrote:

kiwifan90 wrote:

Global Game wrote:

[quote=kiwifan90]

who is hall that is on bench? He youngster?

Joe Hall? He's part of the coaching team.

so why he on the bench? No one else available? More to the point why the hell is he registered to play?

Joe has been on the bench for most of the 'away' games

Why?

Kotahitanga. We are one.

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

Global Game wrote:

AllWhites82 wrote:

kiwifan90 wrote:

Global Game wrote:

[quote=kiwifan90]

who is hall that is on bench? He youngster?

Joe Hall? He's part of the coaching team.

so why he on the bench? No one else available? More to the point why the hell is he registered to play?

Joe has been on the bench for most of the 'away' games

Why?

I imagine to comply with ther regs about the number of NZ players that must be on the the team list and the number of players and management that Canterbury United fly to away games.. 

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

This season seems to be the 'year for penalties' for the Dragon's.

Up to this season in the Premier League in 198 games the Dragon's scored 320 goals, with 32 coming from the pen spot or 10%.

From this season's 14 games, 27 goals scored with 8 coming from the pen spot - 29.6%      

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago · edited about 9 years ago · History

AllWhites82 wrote:

Global Game wrote:

AllWhites82 wrote:

[quote=kiwifan90]

[quote=Global Game]

[quote=kiwifan90]

who is hall that is on bench? He youngster?

Joe Hall? He's part of the coaching team.

so why he on the bench? No one else available? More to the point why the hell is he registered to play?

Joe has been on the bench for most of the 'away' games

So what does that do to confidence of the nz players that are available? It's totally wrong on every level. Just to accommodate the foreigers

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

kiwifan90 wrote:

So what does that do to confidence of the nz players that are available? It's totally wrong on every level. Just to accommodate the foreigers

WTF are you on about?

As cultured as Che Bunce's left foot and as profilic as John Lammers

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

sawu wrote:

kiwifan90 wrote:

So what does that do to confidence of the nz players that are available? It's totally wrong on every level. Just to accommodate the foreigers

WTF are you on about?

Read the other posts you tool. I'm saying the squad that was named for game yesterday had joe hall the assistant coach in it just to make sure they had the quota of nz players in the match day squad. So do that sound fair on the guys that in the overall squad? But judging by your response you think it's perfectly fine

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

kiwifan90 wrote:

sawu wrote:

kiwifan90 wrote:

So what does that do to confidence of the nz players that are available? It's totally wrong on every level. Just to accommodate the foreigers

WTF are you on about?

Read the other posts you tool. I'm saying the squad that was named for game yesterday had joe hall the assistant coach in it just to make sure they had the quota of nz players in the match day squad. So do that sound fair on the guys that in the overall squad? But judging by your response you think it's perfectly fine


How about you read the other posts more carefully. It is to cut costs, pure and simple. Travelling teams very often don't take their full complement of players to save costs. Teams often don't even take their own physios on away trips. Hardly holding anyone back.

But go on keep blaming those 'foreigers'. And Keep up the insults champ.

As cultured as Che Bunce's left foot and as profilic as John Lammers

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

Good discussion minus the name-calling. The question that isn't answered is whether he is named to fill the bench of players or to counter the NZ players rule. Depending on that, then you guys can start throwing the stones. 


Who are our imports then anyways? PNG at the back, Chang, Tattooed american, the german named american? How many others? It would be an interesting stat to look at to compare against the others. I know the Aucklanders are always in-fighting about the imports vs local argument.

I let my guitar speak for me

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

Firstly apologies for name calling. who's cares about other teams? I watch Canterbury what other teams do is not a concern. They want to try and cut costs you say? Well stop paying money to out of towners. It's ok if they actually make a difference but can't say they do. De Jong had great last season but a shadow of the player that was then. These Americans in the squad well less said the better. Dan terris has produced more this season

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

Hall being 'on the bench' for away games also allows a third staff member to travel with the team, on one of the 18 tickets NZF provides (11+5+2). Not sure who would for Canty, some teams take a physio.

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

VimFuego wrote:

Good discussion minus the name-calling. The question that isn't answered is whether he is named to fill the bench of players or to counter the NZ players rule. Depending on that, then you guys can start throwing the stones. 


Who are our imports then anyways? PNG at the back, Chang, Tattooed american, the german named american? How many others? It would be an interesting stat to look at to compare against the others. I know the Aucklanders are always in-fighting about the imports vs local argument.

Yes, for my mind there is a stupid lack of transparency to the "overseas players" eligibilities. Right at the start of the season, there was a formal complaint made against a team playing too many non-NZers, that was eventually dismissed. And yet there was no official clarification and who did/didn't qualify as a "local", resulting in more questions than answers. I'd prefer a much more transparent approach from NZF.

As cultured as Che Bunce's left foot and as profilic as John Lammers

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago · edited about 9 years ago · History

NZF defines an NZ player as "a player who holds New Zealand citizenship." 

You need 8 in your squad, except in the final where you need 9 (but have 2 extra subs).

Some more up-frontness from NZF around who exactly has NZ citizenship would be cool.

For Canterbury, I think it goes like this - though Tom Schwarz must be bloody close (assuming he wants NZ Citizenship, his choice).

Felix Komolong (Papua New Guinea)

Tom Schwarz (England)

Juan Chang (Guatemala)

Gary Ogilvie (England)
Stephen Hoyle (England)
Matt Wiesenfarth (USA)
Colin van Gool (Netherlands)
Sean Morris (USA)
Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

A rule change needs to have 11 of the 16 match day squad as eleigible to represent NZ

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

What a great rule change that would be Vader, but Martin and his merry men at NZF don't have the balls to make such a change  when the Trillian Trust help fund the league and you no who but what a good thought

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

charger1 wrote:

What a great rule change that would be Vader, but Martin and his merry men at NZF don't have the balls to make such a change  when the Trillian Trust help fund the league and you no who but what a good thought

While this is off topic, I think it does 2 things

1 - it means teams have to sign imports that will be difference makers. With respect to some that are currently playing, I believe they would be squeezed out cause they would not be good enough and I think thats a great thing

2 - it means we are getting more of our own players exposed to a higher/better level of football. They may not be up to it but the old adage of sink or swim would apply.

3 - It may stop some teams over committing themselves financially (why in an amateur league *cough*, I don't know) and stop some of the money going into the players pockets and into better causes around football. An example might mean that while NZF pay for 18 flights, the team can fund 2 themselves and be better prepared on match day with extra support staff..

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

Stop it Vader you are making to much sense for this forum

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

charger1 wrote:

Stop it Vader you are making to much sense for this forum

Not when you say you'll list 2 things then actually list 3...

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

I wouldn't worry Jeff, Trump does it all the time. Imagine if he was running NZF he would ban all imports end of story

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

Jeff Vader wrote:

charger1 wrote:

What a great rule change that would be Vader, but Martin and his merry men at NZF don't have the balls to make such a change  when the Trillian Trust help fund the league and you no who but what a good thought

While this is off topic, I think it does 2 things

1 - it means teams have to sign imports that will be difference makers. With respect to some that are currently playing, I believe they would be squeezed out cause they would not be good enough and I think thats a great thing

2 - it means we are getting more of our own players exposed to a higher/better level of football. They may not be up to it but the old adage of sink or swim would apply.

3 - It may stop some teams over committing themselves financially (why in an amateur league *cough*, I don't know) and stop some of the money going into the players pockets and into better causes around football. An example might mean that while NZF pay for 18 flights, the team can fund 2 themselves and be better prepared on match day with extra support staff..

All great points!! But think could also say if registered or played in New Zealand for 5 more seasons should not be classed as an import? What you think? Tom Schwarz is a prime example

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

kiwifan90 wrote:

Jeff Vader wrote:

charger1 wrote:

What a great rule change that would be Vader, but Martin and his merry men at NZF don't have the balls to make such a change  when the Trillian Trust help fund the league and you no who but what a good thought

While this is off topic, I think it does 2 things

1 - it means teams have to sign imports that will be difference makers. With respect to some that are currently playing, I believe they would be squeezed out cause they would not be good enough and I think thats a great thing

2 - it means we are getting more of our own players exposed to a higher/better level of football. They may not be up to it but the old adage of sink or swim would apply.

3 - It may stop some teams over committing themselves financially (why in an amateur league *cough*, I don't know) and stop some of the money going into the players pockets and into better causes around football. An example might mean that while NZF pay for 18 flights, the team can fund 2 themselves and be better prepared on match day with extra support staff..

All great points!! But think could also say if registered or played in New Zealand for 5 more seasons should not be classed as an import? What you think? Tom Schwarz is a prime example

And maybe Dan Terris as well.

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

I respect that both the Dans are good examples but then where do you draw the line?

If I use ACFC as the example, most of those players that are currently listed as imports have been here 5 years so they would qualify for local status and then be allowed extra. All that would do is allow them to field a team of imports. How does that affect the integrity of the comp?

Perhaps there is a mix there of some kind. 3 imports and 2 long residing non NZ players that have lived here for a while but wont be NZ eligible (Ifill, Riera etc). That way you can select those guys like Terris and Schwarz. 

Either way, I believe for the financial sake of the clubs and the development of the players in NZ, there needs to be an increase of the NZ players in the match day squads and it would also allow players to come through in positions where we are weak (DM - FB)

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago · edited about 9 years ago · History

Just noting that while NZF provides 18 flights, that comes out of the entry fee teams pay, so the teams are basically paying for them. Only really need two staff on a trip (if they hire a local physio), and sac'ing a sub to have three isn't a huge cost.

I'd like to see something like 3+1 OFC player, and an extra rule that says a foreign national becomes a 'local player' after being registered in a squad in 3 seasons - covers off the players who settle here, ie Terris (who I believe is a local anyway), Schwarz, Hoyle.

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

inafoxhole wrote:

Just noting that while NZF provides 18 flights, that comes out of the entry fee teams pay, so the teams are basically paying for them. Only really need two staff on a trip (if they hire a local physio), and sac'ing a sub to have three isn't a huge cost.

I'd like to see something like 3+1 OFC player, and an extra rule that says a foreign national becomes a 'local player' after being registered in a squad in 3 seasons - covers off the players who settle here, ie Terris (who I believe is a local anyway), Schwarz, Hoyle.

Maybe have a rule where it starts counting from the season where introduced, so the Auckland City lot don't get in easy.

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

Though if the catch phrase of the SSP is "where All Whites are made", perhaps there is justification to have the threshold as eligible to be an All White*

* subject to FIFA exceptions for U23 players. 

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

2ndBest wrote:

Though if the catch phrase of the SSP is "where All Whites are made", perhaps there is justification to have the threshold as eligible to be an All White*

* subject to FIFA exceptions for U23 players. 

Given the propensity to dole caps out to players who aren't contracted with a pro club,  change the SSP tag line to "where all whites get paid".

Kotahitanga. We are one.

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

Making 'must be at a pro club' a condition for being an All White would be dumb.

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

inafoxhole wrote:

Making 'must be at a pro club' a condition for being an All White would be dumb a great leap forward

Kotahitanga. We are one.

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

Global Game wrote:

inafoxhole wrote:

Making 'must be at a pro club' a condition for being an All White would be dumb a great leap forward

Might have the side effect of making the Phoenix more Kiwi

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

AllWhites82 wrote:

From The Press: Preview of Hawkes Bays game

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/89170084/do-...

"There will be no shortage of emotion on Sunday with the Dragons eager to put in a memorable performance to honour former All Whites great Steve Sumner, who died on Wednesday.

Canterbury and New Zealand football identity Sumner, who has a stand named after him at English Park, lost his battle with prostate cancer, aged 61.

Sumner was a patron of the Dragons and an ardent supporter, regularly attending home matches.

National league teams will wear blue armbands to recognise the tireless work Sumner did to raise prostate awareness and have a minute's applause before matches.

Gerdsen said Sumner was held in high regard by the team. Many of the players had a close relationship with him and frequently picked his astute football brain.

"I take my hat off. If he couldn't watch the game [live], he'd watch it on the television. He text me before, he text me after [games].

"We still have a letter in the dressing room from him. He was a very nice supporter of the Dragons, even in the latter stage of his illness."

Big Pete 65, Christchurch

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago
Good to see Angell there up in the Mainland tent. I thought you weren't even allowed at the venue?

I let my guitar speak for me

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

VimFuego wrote:
Good to see Angell there up in the Mainland tent. I thought you weren't even allowed at the venue?

Different type of ban, that's a stadium/venue ban which he dosnt have.

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

VimFuego wrote:
Good to see Angell there up in the Mainland tent. I thought you weren't even allowed at the venue?

He wasn't a happy camper either! If he'd have been on the bench he'd have probably earned himself another ban the way he went off when Chang scored. He had fair point mind you with Chang being conservatively 2 metres offside when the ball was played thru to him

"You cannot say that you are happy when you don't win"

Permalink Permalink
about 9 years ago

AllWhites82 wrote:

From The Press: Waitakere wrap

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/89565098/def...

Three great goals in the game with the Dragon's now needing maximum points from their last two games and hope other results go their to make the play offs.

Come on AW but time you actually say what you think instead of sitting on the fence all the time and hiding behind facts. Find this one out!!?? Shots to goals ratio. Won't be very good reading

Permalink Permalink