Women's Central League

Unknwn Quantity wrote:

 Southernix wrote:
Points determine your position, which determines your qualification, so it is the same method. Still would be 2 teams with the most points.

In saying that, it doesn't really surprise me they chose to just use position.

Not quite, doing it via points creates a much bigger gap across the past 4 seasons. If it were done via points (and my math is correct); Wellington United would have only needed 4 more points to have qualified for next year, and Waterside Karori would have needed 15 more points to qualify. These figures would take them above Petone, assuming they didn't drop a point here on it.
 
Not that this matters of course as this is not the case!

reubee wrote:
My geekdom had the following (and an excuse to hit the code button to get alignment).
Being by position,  you want the lower number in the Weighted Position column.

What I realised is that if you sum the weighted positions as it stands at the beginning of this season and divide this number by 0.3, you can then simply add this years position to that number and the relative ranking will be maintained.  So a little bit easier to figure out what needs to happen this year as you just need to look at the difference between the two numbers and round up to see how many positions ahead you need to be.

Hence with Waterside (5.5) and Petone (7.8), Petone needs to beat Waterside by 3 positions to overtake them.
Similarly Wellington (3.5) and Petone (7.8), Petone needs to beat Wellington by 5 positions to overtake them.
 


 

Team             |2022|2023|2024|2025|2026|Weighted|Divide
                 | 10%| 15%| 20%| 25%| 30%|Position|by 0.3
-----------------+----+----+----+----+----+--------+-------
Waterside Karori |  1 |  1 |  2 |  4 |  ? |   1.65 |  5.50
Wellington Utd   |  3 |  2 |  1 |  1 |  ? |   1.05 |  3.50
Petone           |  4 |  4 |  3 |  3 |  ? |   2.35 |  7.80
PN Marist        |  2 |  3 |  4 |  5 |  ? |   2.70 |  9.00

Feverish wrote:

 reubee wrote:
My geekdom had the following (and an excuse to hit the code button to get alignment).
Being by position,  you want the lower number in the Weighted Position column.

What I realised is that if you sum the weighted positions as it stands at the beginning of this season and divide this number by 0.3, you can then simply add this years position to that number and the relative ranking will be maintained.  So a little bit easier to figure out what needs to happen this year as you just need to look at the difference between the two numbers and round up to see how many positions ahead you need to be.

Hence with Waterside (5.5) and Petone (7.8), Petone needs to beat Waterside by 3 positions to overtake them.
Similarly Wellington (3.5) and Petone (7.8), Petone needs to beat Wellington by 5 positions to overtake them.
 


 

Team             |2022|2023|2024|2025|2026|Weighted|Divide
                 | 10%| 15%| 20%| 25%| 30%|Position|by 0.3
-----------------+----+----+----+----+----+--------+-------
Waterside Karori |  1 |  1 |  2 |  4 |  ? |   1.65 |  5.50
Wellington Utd   |  3 |  2 |  1 |  1 |  ? |   1.05 |  3.50
Petone           |  4 |  4 |  3 |  3 |  ? |   2.35 |  7.80
PN Marist        |  2 |  3 |  4 |  5 |  ? |   2.70 |  9.00

 

Agree
Not sure how people are calculating and getting high weighted averages as being good

Feverish wrote:

 reubee wrote:
My geekdom had the following (and an excuse to hit the code button to get alignment).
Being by position,  you want the lower number in the Weighted Position column.

What I realised is that if you sum the weighted positions as it stands at the beginning of this season and divide this number by 0.3, you can then simply add this years position to that number and the relative ranking will be maintained.  So a little bit easier to figure out what needs to happen this year as you just need to look at the difference between the two numbers and round up to see how many positions ahead you need to be.

Hence with Waterside (5.5) and Petone (7.8), Petone needs to beat Waterside by 3 positions to overtake them.
Similarly Wellington (3.5) and Petone (7.8), Petone needs to beat Wellington by 5 positions to overtake them.
 


 

Team             |2022|2023|2024|2025|2026|Weighted|Divide
                 | 10%| 15%| 20%| 25%| 30%|Position|by 0.3
-----------------+----+----+----+----+----+--------+-------
Waterside Karori |  1 |  1 |  2 |  4 |  ? |   1.65 |  5.50
Wellington Utd   |  3 |  2 |  1 |  1 |  ? |   1.05 |  3.50
Petone           |  4 |  4 |  3 |  3 |  ? |   2.35 |  7.80
PN Marist        |  2 |  3 |  4 |  5 |  ? |   2.70 |  9.00

 

Agree
Not sure how people are calculating and getting high weighted averages as being good

Feverish wrote:

 Feverish wrote:

 reubee wrote:
My geekdom had the following (and an excuse to hit the code button to get alignment).
Being by position,  you want the lower number in the Weighted Position column.

What I realised is that if you sum the weighted positions as it stands at the beginning of this season and divide this number by 0.3, you can then simply add this years position to that number and the relative ranking will be maintained.  So a little bit easier to figure out what needs to happen this year as you just need to look at the difference between the two numbers and round up to see how many positions ahead you need to be.

Hence with Waterside (5.5) and Petone (7.8), Petone needs to beat Waterside by 3 positions to overtake them.
Similarly Wellington (3.5) and Petone (7.8), Petone needs to beat Wellington by 5 positions to overtake them.
 


 

Team             |2022|2023|2024|2025|2026|Weighted|Divide
                 | 10%| 15%| 20%| 25%| 30%|Position|by 0.3
-----------------+----+----+----+----+----+--------+-------
Waterside Karori |  1 |  1 |  2 |  4 |  ? |   1.65 |  5.50
Wellington Utd   |  3 |  2 |  1 |  1 |  ? |   1.05 |  3.50
Petone           |  4 |  4 |  3 |  3 |  ? |   2.35 |  7.80
PN Marist        |  2 |  3 |  4 |  5 |  ? |   2.70 |  9.00

 

Agree
Not sure how people are calculating and getting high weighted averages as being good

Your 2023 is wrong - petone are 3rd. Thought you had something wrong but didn’t know it was the table 

Team             |2022|2023|2024|2025|2026|Weighted|Divide
                 | 10%| 15%| 20%| 25%| 30%|Position|by 0.3
-----------------+----+----+----+----+----+--------+-------
Waterside Karori |  1 |  1 |  2 |  4 |  ? |   1.65 |  5.50
Wellington Utd   |  3 |  2 |  1 |  1 |  ? |   1.05 |  3.50
Petone           |  4 |  3 |  3 |  3 |  ? |   2.20 |  7.33
PN Marist        |  2 |  4 |  4 |  5 |  ? |   2.85 |  9.50

Unknwn Quantity wrote:

 Feverish wrote:

 reubee wrote:
My geekdom had the following (and an excuse to hit the code button to get alignment).
Being by position,  you want the lower number in the Weighted Position column.

What I realised is that if you sum the weighted positions as it stands at the beginning of this season and divide this number by 0.3, you can then simply add this years position to that number and the relative ranking will be maintained.  So a little bit easier to figure out what needs to happen this year as you just need to look at the difference between the two numbers and round up to see how many positions ahead you need to be.

Hence with Waterside (5.5) and Petone (7.8), Petone needs to beat Waterside by 3 positions to overtake them.
Similarly Wellington (3.5) and Petone (7.8), Petone needs to beat Wellington by 5 positions to overtake them.
 


 

Team             |2022|2023|2024|2025|2026|Weighted|Divide
                 | 10%| 15%| 20%| 25%| 30%|Position|by 0.3
-----------------+----+----+----+----+----+--------+-------
Waterside Karori |  1 |  1 |  2 |  4 |  ? |   1.65 |  5.50
Wellington Utd   |  3 |  2 |  1 |  1 |  ? |   1.05 |  3.50
Petone           |  4 |  4 |  3 |  3 |  ? |   2.35 |  7.80
PN Marist        |  2 |  3 |  4 |  5 |  ? |   2.70 |  9.00

 

Agree
Not sure how people are calculating and getting high weighted averages as being good

It was based on the NZF example (of course!)

Noah4thenix wrote:
So basically what I'm hearing is Petone is very unlikely to qualify for NL27

Southernix wrote:

 Noah4thenix wrote:
So basically what I'm hearing is Petone is very unlikely to qualify for NL27

Petone qualify if they finish first, Wellington United second and Waterside Karori third.

Thankfully Petone don't play Wellington United on the final day.

Unknwn Quantity wrote:

 Southernix wrote:

 Noah4thenix wrote:
So basically what I'm hearing is Petone is very unlikely to qualify for NL27

Petone qualify if they finish first, Wellington United second and Waterside Karori third.

Thankfully Petone don't play Wellington United on the final day.

If they finish in this order, Petone and Karori would actually be on equal points no? And although common sense should prevail - I would hazard a guess that there is nothing in writing should this occur?

Feverish wrote:

 LT01 wrote:
Ella McMillan is playing at Karori as well? Maybe in long offseason they're still looking for minutes?

Dunno she is older, so different I assume
Last place just smoked second last 8-2 away

bigfudge wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people in the Central Football comment section having a go at Napier City Rovers for this fall off from Taradale. I am not a Rovers fan in the absolute slightest, but these comments seem petty and short-sighted. After talking to a mate that plays for Rovers and moved from another HB club, it feels harsh to blame Rovers for this downfall.

If you're a women's player, would you rather be playing at Bluewater Stadium for home games, having access to gyms and Sport HB facilities, hugely experienced coaches, or play for a club that has been neglecting their Women's team more and more each year? Taradale used to be the force in HB, but their drop off has been quick and in turn, has given Rovers the opportunity to become the dominant force in HB women's football.

The same goes for Port Hill, who have also been vocal in the comments. For clubs at this level, a big thing for players at this level is "what is your pitch", or basically, why should I play for this team over this team? I've heard people accusing Rovers of paying women's players and signing them up for multi-year contracts, which is just ridiculous. Clubs should be thinking about what they're offering players at their club that Rovers aren't? It feels like people are a little bit butt-hurt that Rovers are finally stepping up their women's programme, and offering players in the region a level of setup that other club's can't.

mraotxt2 wrote:

 bigfudge wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people in the Central Football comment section having a go at Napier City Rovers for this fall off from Taradale. I am not a Rovers fan in the absolute slightest, but these comments seem petty and short-sighted. After talking to a mate that plays for Rovers and moved from another HB club, it feels harsh to blame Rovers for this downfall.

If you're a women's player, would you rather be playing at Bluewater Stadium for home games, having access to gyms and Sport HB facilities, hugely experienced coaches, or play for a club that has been neglecting their Women's team more and more each year? Taradale used to be the force in HB, but their drop off has been quick and in turn, has given Rovers the opportunity to become the dominant force in HB women's football.

The same goes for Port Hill, who have also been vocal in the comments. For clubs at this level, a big thing for players at this level is "what is your pitch", or basically, why should I play for this team over this team? I've heard people accusing Rovers of paying women's players and signing them up for multi-year contracts, which is just ridiculous. Clubs should be thinking about what they're offering players at their club that Rovers aren't? It feels like people are a little bit butt-hurt that Rovers are finally stepping up their women's programme, and offering players in the region a level of setup that other club's can't.

I’ll preface my comment in saying that I am not a huge fan of NCR, more for historical issues and some of their decisions around junior football. So my views might be a bit one sided. My knowledge of the situation is from rumours, so I’m happy to be corrected by someone with actual facts. 

I think a bit of the saltiness wasn’t so much that players are attracted to Rovers. More that (allegedly) 5 players transferred from Taradale to Rovers less than a week before the season started. If true, that’s pretty unethical from the Rovers leadership. Considering they are all about developing talent in Hawke’s Bay. I don’t see how encouraging 5 core players leaving the top women’s team in the region helps them. NCR are going to cruise the fed league and I assume they will be in the W-league next season. 

In saying that, Taradale should certainly take a look in the mirror and ask why these players left. I didn’t realise they were neglectful of their women’s programme, from the outside it appeared they had set up a decent women’s pathway. 

Regardless of whatever has happened, NCR doesn’t tend to have that many admirers around Hawke’s Bay football and I often hear comments in after match speeches that are quite pointedly against them. (I recall a reserve league men’s team after match speech Rangers v Havelock saying congrats to havelock for being the ‘true’ league champions for coming second, this was after that rovers team won without losing a game and scoring over 100 goals for the second or third season in a row). 

The women’s fed team would already compete in the W league and I imagine with the right investment they could challenge for the title. Which surely can only be good for women in Hawke’s Bay. 


I suppose the question is, If you are successful, does it actually matter  what other people/clubs think?  

mraotxt2 wrote:

 bigfudge wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of people in the Central Football comment section having a go at Napier City Rovers for this fall off from Taradale. I am not a Rovers fan in the absolute slightest, but these comments seem petty and short-sighted. After talking to a mate that plays for Rovers and moved from another HB club, it feels harsh to blame Rovers for this downfall.

If you're a women's player, would you rather be playing at Bluewater Stadium for home games, having access to gyms and Sport HB facilities, hugely experienced coaches, or play for a club that has been neglecting their Women's team more and more each year? Taradale used to be the force in HB, but their drop off has been quick and in turn, has given Rovers the opportunity to become the dominant force in HB women's football.

The same goes for Port Hill, who have also been vocal in the comments. For clubs at this level, a big thing for players at this level is "what is your pitch", or basically, why should I play for this team over this team? I've heard people accusing Rovers of paying women's players and signing them up for multi-year contracts, which is just ridiculous. Clubs should be thinking about what they're offering players at their club that Rovers aren't? It feels like people are a little bit butt-hurt that Rovers are finally stepping up their women's programme, and offering players in the region a level of setup that other club's can't.

I’ll preface my comment in saying that I am not a huge fan of NCR, more for historical issues and some of their decisions around junior football. So my views might be a bit one sided. My knowledge of the situation is from rumours, so I’m happy to be corrected by someone with actual facts. 

I think a bit of the saltiness wasn’t so much that players are attracted to Rovers. More that (allegedly) 5 players transferred from Taradale to Rovers less than a week before the season started. If true, that’s pretty unethical from the Rovers leadership. Considering they are all about developing talent in Hawke’s Bay. I don’t see how encouraging 5 core players leaving the top women’s team in the region helps them. NCR are going to cruise the fed league and I assume they will be in the W-league next season. 

In saying that, Taradale should certainly take a look in the mirror and ask why these players left. I didn’t realise they were neglectful of their women’s programme, from the outside it appeared they had set up a decent women’s pathway. 

Regardless of whatever has happened, NCR doesn’t tend to have that many admirers around Hawke’s Bay football and I often hear comments in after match speeches that are quite pointedly against them. (I recall a reserve league men’s team after match speech Rangers v Havelock saying congrats to havelock for being the ‘true’ league champions for coming second, this was after that rovers team won without losing a game and scoring over 100 goals for the second or third season in a row). 

The women’s fed team would already compete in the W league and I imagine with the right investment they could challenge for the title. Which surely can only be good for women in Hawke’s Bay. 


I suppose the question is, If you are successful, does it actually matter  what other people/clubs think?  

Feverish wrote:
I don’t recall NCR being in women’s central league in the past 15-20’years at least?

mraotxt2 wrote:

 Feverish wrote:
I don’t recall NCR being in women’s central league in the past 15-20’years at least?

Considering they are running away with the Central Fed League, I imagine they are aiming to be in the WCL next year.

They are well coached and play some really good football. They just aren’t really tested in the Fed league and as far as I know they didn’t enter the Kate Sheppard cup, so it’s hard to know how they would compete at the level above.

Feverish wrote:

 mraotxt2 wrote:

 Feverish wrote:
I don’t recall NCR being in women’s central league in the past 15-20’years at least?

Considering they are running away with the Central Fed League, I imagine they are aiming to be in the WCL next year.

They are well coached and play some really good football. They just aren’t really tested in the Fed league and as far as I know they didn’t enter the Kate Sheppard cup, so it’s hard to know how they would compete at the level above.



 

So after thirty years of treating women’s football as second class. they are giving it a fraction of their men’s resources. I guess we will see. 

mraotxt2 wrote:

 Feverish wrote:

 mraotxt2 wrote:

 Feverish wrote:
I don’t recall NCR being in women’s central league in the past 15-20’years at least?

Considering they are running away with the Central Fed League, I imagine they are aiming to be in the WCL next year.

They are well coached and play some really good football. They just aren’t really tested in the Fed league and as far as I know they didn’t enter the Kate Sheppard cup, so it’s hard to know how they would compete at the level above.



 

So after thirty years of treating women’s football as second class. they are giving it a fraction of their men’s resources. I guess we will see. 

They didn’t even have a women’s team 3 years ago. 

I wonder if they’ll get accomodation before every Wellington game? 

Feverish wrote:

 mraotxt2 wrote:

 Feverish wrote:
I don’t recall NCR being in women’s central league in the past 15-20’years at least?

Considering they are running away with the Central Fed League, I imagine they are aiming to be in the WCL next year.

They are well coached and play some really good football. They just aren’t really tested in the Fed league and as far as I know they didn’t enter the Kate Sheppard cup, so it’s hard to know how they would compete at the level above.



 

So after thirty years of treating women’s football as second class. they are giving it a fraction of their men’s resources. I guess we will see. 

whatever-11456-1 wrote:

 Feverish wrote:

 mraotxt2 wrote:

 Feverish wrote:
I don’t recall NCR being in women’s central league in the past 15-20’years at least?

Considering they are running away with the Central Fed League, I imagine they are aiming to be in the WCL next year.

They are well coached and play some really good football. They just aren’t really tested in the Fed league and as far as I know they didn’t enter the Kate Sheppard cup, so it’s hard to know how they would compete at the level above.



 

So after thirty years of treating women’s football as second class. they are giving it a fraction of their men’s resources. I guess we will see. 

I see that Napier now have three womens' teams. Maybe after the success of the Womens World Cup this has seen a surge in the Hawkes Bay as in other parts of the country. 
As far as resources go there are many clubs in Wellington that give a fraction of resources to Womens Football as oppossed to the men.

Bigboot wrote:
I managed to get down to watch this one. I think questions need to be asked about the Coaching at Petone, some interesting tactics and selections. They set deep and allowed United‘s talented ball players to play.

Feverish wrote:
Apart from golden boot Pillay, WU seem to have a decent sprinkling of other goal scorers in their games. Something that would have contributed to the scoreline if Petone played to not lose.