Negotiations to have the men's and women's cup finals on Sky Sport have come to nothing with NZ Football seemingly not feeling it was worth paying Sky tens of thousands of dollars to screen these matches. A shame that the one hundredth Chatham Cup Final since the first one in 1923 won't be televised. However, at least it's live on You Tube (with the silver lining that it's available to everyone, not just Sky Sport subscribers). Streaming here from 3.50 pm this afternoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PygzWN_Ywg
Christchurch United's first final since 1991. With a win, United ties (University) Mount Wellington for most wins.
Wins Club Years 7| University - Mount Wellington |1973, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1990, 2001, 2003 6 | Christchurch United | 1972, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1989, 1991 Eastern Suburbs | 1951, 1953, 1965, 1968, 1969, 2015 North Shore United | 1952, 1960, 1963, 1967, 1979, 1986 5 | Central United | 1997, 1998, 2005, 2007, 2012
United had a crazy 15 -3 win over Green Island in Dunedin on August 27 in the South Island league but lost last weekend at home to Cashmere Tech in a match on which nothing was resting, having comfortably sewn up first place in the South Island league weeks before. They actually took off some their best players in the second half, rather than trying to chase the game.
Line-up for the 2-1 semi-final win vs. Eastern Suburbs in Christchurch: Melville's likely line-up: Two former Canterbury United players in Panzer and Liddicoat add interest.
Not having it on sky does lose some of the prestige. The Youtube streams however have been good quality and like you say, accessible to absolutely everyone.
NZF think of the domestic game like a red headed step son. For all the good in the leagues they have no interest in being associated with them in any serious way.
100 years is a massive event and TV or live stream aside they have done almost nothing to promote the competition.
Yeah it's rather sad that with both Cup finals being such an obvious opportunity to really create a huge statement of national publicity - Kate Sheppard Cup immediately on the back of the successful WWC, and the centenary year of the Chatham Cup - but it just doesn't seem to have been capitalised on at all - such a shame.
Christchurch United in absolute cruise control so far, was hoping for better from Melville. But they're probably similar quality to a midtable Southern League side the likes of which United have typically beaten with ease this season.
Big ups to Melville for fighting back from 2-0 down at half time.Christchurch should have really put the game well beyond them at that stage. Never been keen on someone in the losing team getting MOM (the Jack Batty Trophy) but he was the outstanding candidate.Without him and the goalposts Christchurch would have been comfortable winners Actually fancied Melville to win the shootout given the form he was in , I felt sorrty for the players.NZ Football stuffed around with the presentation and the players had to stand around for ages waiting for the presentation.By then a lot of the crowd had left.Given the amount of staff NZF have you would think it should only take 5 minutes to organise. Also was the first time I can recall the Bob Smith trophy (for the losing finalist) being presented on the day.Not sure that anyone really wanted to get it Melville support was great and hope they have a safe trip home. And aaron Scott - what a man and sad to see hime go out on a losing side.
Enjoyable game, quality on YT was good, not great. A couple of times I paused the game and the onscreen graphics come up, including viewing number, the largest I saw was 5.1k watching...no idea what that means though, as I have no idea of how YT measures its views...
The commentators were saying that if it went to ET then Melville would be warm favourites because ChCh United looked dead on their feet. But I figured if it went to pennos, ChCh would have the edge precisely because Max Tommy had blown his fuses having the kind of game that he'll brag to his grandchildren about, whereas Scott Morris was rested and ready.
The commentators were saying that if it went to ET then Melville would be warm favourites because ChCh United looked dead on their feet. But I figured if it went to pennos, ChCh would have the edge precisely because Max Tommy had blown his fuses having the kind of game that he'll brag to his grandchildren about, whereas Scott Morris was rested and ready.
In fairness to Max he went the right way for every pen apart from the last 1 and was unlucky not to keep at least 1 more out.
Enjoyable game, quality on YT was good, not great. A couple of times I paused the game and the onscreen graphics come up, including viewing number, the largest I saw was 5.1k watching...no idea what that means though, as I have no idea of how YT measures its views...
Pretty easy for YT to measure who clicks on a link to watch a live stream/video (or are you not aware that the k stands for 1000 so that 5.1k = 5100-5199). Currently sits on 25k so 25000-25999. I hope NZF is getting some cash from the ads I had to sit through every 10 minutes watching afterwards.
Found a lot of the commentary and narrative around the game was all about Melville... I get they were the underdogs and the more likeable team but it would've been nice if the commentators had a bit more to say about Christchurch United... seems to be a theme for South Island teams tbh.
Enjoyable game, quality on YT was good, not great. A couple of times I paused the game and the onscreen graphics come up, including viewing number, the largest I saw was 5.1k watching...no idea what that means though, as I have no idea of how YT measures its views...
Pretty easy for YT to measure who clicks on a link to watch a live stream/video (or are you not aware that the k stands for 1000 so that 5.1k = 5100-5199). Currently sits on 25k so 25000-25999. I hope NZF is getting some cash from the ads I had to sit through every 10 minutes watching afterwards.
Yeah of course, I was more interested of the number of people watching live
Enjoyable game, quality on YT was good, not great. A couple of times I paused the game and the onscreen graphics come up, including viewing number, the largest I saw was 5.1k watching...no idea what that means though, as I have no idea of how YT measures its views...
Pretty easy for YT to measure who clicks on a link to watch a live stream/video (or are you not aware that the k stands for 1000 so that 5.1k = 5100-5199). Currently sits on 25k so 25000-25999. I hope NZF is getting some cash from the ads I had to sit through every 10 minutes watching afterwards.
Yeah of course, I was more interested of the number of people watching live
Enjoyable game, quality on YT was good, not great. A couple of times I paused the game and the onscreen graphics come up, including viewing number, the largest I saw was 5.1k watching...no idea what that means though, as I have no idea of how YT measures its views...
Pretty easy for YT to measure who clicks on a link to watch a live stream/video (or are you not aware that the k stands for 1000 so that 5.1k = 5100-5199). Currently sits on 25k so 25000-25999. I hope NZF is getting some cash from the ads I had to sit through every 10 minutes watching afterwards.
Yeah of course, I was more interested of the number of people watching live
The “5.1k watching” is concurrent viewers. So there would’ve been between 5100-5199 people watching it live on YouTube.
That sounds like a pretty decent audience in all honesty.
Found a lot of the commentary and narrative around the game was all about Melville... I get they were the underdogs and the more likeable team but it would've been nice if the commentators had a bit more to say about Christchurch United... seems to be a theme for South Island teams tbh.
i was thinking something similar. the commentary was melville-centric
over the years i have found that a teams ability is best judged by the amount of players that the auckland-based commentators know personally
Enjoyable game, quality on YT was good, not great. A couple of times I paused the game and the onscreen graphics come up, including viewing number, the largest I saw was 5.1k watching...no idea what that means though, as I have no idea of how YT measures its views...
Pretty easy for YT to measure who clicks on a link to watch a live stream/video (or are you not aware that the k stands for 1000 so that 5.1k = 5100-5199). Currently sits on 25k so 25000-25999. I hope NZF is getting some cash from the ads I had to sit through every 10 minutes watching afterwards.
Yeah of course, I was more interested of the number of people watching live
crowd number at the game was 1289
And so not much atmosphere came across in the broadcast in a mostly empty stadium. To me, that's a good argument for having the final played either in the town of one of the finalists or as a home and away two-legged affair. That would ensure a decent crowd. Some of the best Chatham Cup finals I remember in the 1980's were two-legged affairs with bumper crowds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chatham_Cup_finals#Results The 1986, 87 and 88 finals were played over two legs. 1986 - 4000 crammed into the Links Rd. ground at Mount Maunganui for the second leg. 1987 - 3500 crammed in to Childers Rd Reserve for the first leg in Gisbourne.
The 1972 final between Christchurch United and Mount Wellington went to three games because they would have a replay if a final was drawn in those days - the first replay was also a draw, so it went to a third match. The first match was at a neutral venue, the Basin Reserve, the first replay at English Park in Chch, the second replay which decided it at Newmarket Park in Auckland. Which also shows that a two-legged final would be a good thing.
Enjoyable game, quality on YT was good, not great. A couple of times I paused the game and the onscreen graphics come up, including viewing number, the largest I saw was 5.1k watching...no idea what that means though, as I have no idea of how YT measures its views...
Pretty easy for YT to measure who clicks on a link to watch a live stream/video (or are you not aware that the k stands for 1000 so that 5.1k = 5100-5199). Currently sits on 25k so 25000-25999. I hope NZF is getting some cash from the ads I had to sit through every 10 minutes watching afterwards.
Yeah of course, I was more interested of the number of people watching live
crowd number at the game was 1289
And so not much atmosphere came across in the broadcast in a mostly empty stadium. To me, that's a good argument for having the final played either in the town of one of the finalists or as a home and away two-legged affair. That would ensure a decent crowd. Some of the best Chatham Cup finals I remember in the 1980's were two-legged affairs with bumper crowds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chatham_Cup_finals#Results The 1986, 87 and 88 finals were played over two legs. 1986 - 4000 crammed into the Links Rd. ground at Mount Maunganui for the second leg. 1987 - 3500 crammed in to Childers Rd Reserve for the first leg in Gisbourne.
The 1972 final between Christchurch United and Mount Wellington went to three games because they would have a replay if a final was drawn in those days - the first replay was also a draw, so it went to a third match. The first match was at a neutral venue, the Basin Reserve, the first replay at English Park in Chch, the second replay which decided it at Newmarket Park in Auckland. Which also shows that a two-legged final would be a good thing.
That would require NZF to open the wallet and I'm pretty sure the moths in there have fossilised.
You're trying to make good arguments for major changes like home & away matches or replayed finals - when we've just had the most entertaining football match of the year! Madness!
Bit harsh, little gig on the side for the commentators. They are hardly Martin Tyler who would spend all week preparing!
TBF Andrew Dewhurst did contact the clubs asking for info on their players (for both Chatham Cup and Kate Sheppard Cup finals), if the content ended up more Melville centric it's likely because they supplied him with more information (or even just some) than Christchurch United did
Enjoyable game, quality on YT was good, not great. A couple of times I paused the game and the onscreen graphics come up, including viewing number, the largest I saw was 5.1k watching...no idea what that means though, as I have no idea of how YT measures its views...
Pretty easy for YT to measure who clicks on a link to watch a live stream/video (or are you not aware that the k stands for 1000 so that 5.1k = 5100-5199). Currently sits on 25k so 25000-25999. I hope NZF is getting some cash from the ads I had to sit through every 10 minutes watching afterwards.
Yeah of course, I was more interested of the number of people watching live
crowd number at the game was 1289
And so not much atmosphere came across in the broadcast in a mostly empty stadium. To me, that's a good argument for having the final played either in the town of one of the finalists or as a home and away two-legged affair. That would ensure a decent crowd. Some of the best Chatham Cup finals I remember in the 1980's were two-legged affairs with bumper crowds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chatham_Cup_finals#Results The 1986, 87 and 88 finals were played over two legs. 1986 - 4000 crammed into the Links Rd. ground at Mount Maunganui for the second leg. 1987 - 3500 crammed in to Childers Rd Reserve for the first leg in Gisbourne.
The 1972 final between Christchurch United and Mount Wellington went to three games because they would have a replay if a final was drawn in those days - the first replay was also a draw, so it went to a third match. The first match was at a neutral venue, the Basin Reserve, the first replay at English Park in Chch, the second replay which decided it at Newmarket Park in Auckland. Which also shows that a two-legged final would be a good thing.
The two legged finals weren't great - robbed Mt Maunganui of a classic upset, and then you had Waikato "winning" the cup without actually winning a game (away goals). They should split the Chatham Cup from the Kate Sheppard Cup and in both have a draw (which they do anyway) and whoever gets the home game has the final - doesn't have to be at that teams home ground ie if a Wellington team got in the final could have the game at Newtown or Porirua Park, or Christchurch at English Park still would get a better atmosphere
Nahhh. Why should one team get home advantage by lottery? I reckon a cup final should always be played at a neutral "home of football" stadium - it's just that NHS is a bit shark for purpose.
Wayne Brown is an awful person who occasionally has really good ideas, like "demolish NHS and sell the land"
Yeah, I had a really awful night the other week. Easy drive with hardly any traffic from Grey Lynn to North Harbour Stadium. Took about 20 minutes. Found free carpark amongst hundreds of other free car parks right near the stadium. Ate a nice meal at a nice restaurant just a few minutes walk away with my daughter who had a short trip from Orewa and a couple of friends who bussed from Takapuna(ish). Had some drinks in a bar right nearby and watched the first half of the warriors, then wandered over to the stadium, an easier walk than the concourse at Wellington. After the game, easily back on the motorway for a quick trip back, without having to fight my way through narrow streets blocked with traffic they weren’t designed for. God it was awful. No…wait… now that I come to write it down, it wasn’t so bad. In fact it was quite easy and stress free. Much easier than a number of other games I’ve been to over that last couple years. Certainly the drive from Grey Lynn was easier and quicker than getting to Mt Smart, and the parking was easier, and the bars and restaurants were right there.
Fact is, that stadium was built basically in the country at the time, now it is surrounded by thousands of houses. And more going up all the time. Not saying it is the ideal stadium for an Auckland franchise right now, but knocking it down and replacing it with houses isn’t the right thing to do. Auckland would find itself in Wellington’s situation in 20 years…. needing a bespoke stadium for a North Auckland team, but there’s nowhere suitable to build it except miles away, and people complaining it’s too far to go, got no transport, got no bars nearby, too hard to get to. So yeah, knock it down and cover the area in houses. Give your grandkids the same opportunities to complain about how shortsighted preceding generations have been.
Wayne Brown is an awful person who occasionally has really good ideas, like "demolish NHS and sell the land"
Yeah, I had a really awful night the other week. Easy drive with hardly any traffic from Grey Lynn to North Harbour Stadium. Took about 20 minutes. Found free carpark amongst hundreds of other free car parks right near the stadium. Ate a nice meal at a nice restaurant just a few minutes walk away with my daughter who had a short trip from Orewa and a couple of friends who bussed from Takapuna(ish). Had some drinks in a bar right nearby and watched the first half of the warriors, then wandered over to the stadium, an easier walk than the concourse at Wellington. After the game, easily back on the motorway for a quick trip back, without having to fight my way through narrow streets blocked with traffic they weren’t designed for. God it was awful. No…wait… now that I come to write it down, it wasn’t so bad. In fact it was quite easy and stress free. Much easier than a number of other games I’ve been to over that last couple years. Certainly the drive from Grey Lynn was easier and quicker than getting to Mt Smart, and the parking was easier, and the bars and restaurants were right there.
Fact is, that stadium was built basically in the country at the time, now it is surrounded by thousands of houses. And more going up all the time. Not saying it is the ideal stadium for an Auckland franchise right now, but knocking it down and replacing it with houses isn’t the right thing to do. Auckland would find itself in Wellington’s situation in 20 years…. needing a bespoke stadium for a North Auckland team, but there’s nowhere suitable to build it except miles away, and people complaining it’s too far to go, got no transport, got no bars nearby, too hard to get to. So yeah, knock it down and cover the area in houses. Give your grandkids the same opportunities to complain about how shortsighted preceding generations have been.
Well someone needs to be putting that view forward to the people making decisions about the franchise.
Because I don’t imagine the market research done by Crntral/Auckland FC was kind to NHS. Just a hunch.
Nahhh. Why should one team get home advantage by lottery? I reckon a cup final should always be played at a neutral "home of football" stadium - it's just that NHS is a bit shark for purpose.
Whenever the final is played at a "netural" stadium like NHS and has an Auckland team in it it's hardly a netural venue
I know I'm a woke communist who loves Dylan Mulvaney or whatever, but I don't think "easy access on the motorway/free parking" are things to be promoted in the era of a climate emergency. Eden Park has its problems but it's an absolute perfect location for public transport/walking/cycling. Meanwhile, I hear Mount Smart has the best disabled parking options.
I also want test cricket at Western Springs but the speedway freaks are too organised.
Nahhh. Why should one team get home advantage by lottery? I reckon a cup final should always be played at a neutral "home of football" stadium - it's just that NHS is a bit shark for purpose.
Whenever the final is played at a "netural" stadium like NHS and has an Auckland team in it it's hardly a netural venue
I hope you'd say the same for all the years the Chatham Cup final was at the Basin Reserve. Or to put it another way: do London teams get home advantage because the FA Cup is at Wembley?
