Waitakere United

Fair comment - Milne was quality.

Bale is Welsh but whether he has residency is a different story. I think he would have been here long enough. Not sure how I would feel about him at the Phoenix. He has shown he is a better footballer playing at ACFC this year than at any other time in a Waitakere or TW shirt.

Milne would not lace up Hoggs boots. Not competition yet (and I suspect never will be)

Didn't Milne used to be a striker? How did he transition to LB?

I agree with everything Hawk said except the Milne comment, although he has improved ever since about the Club World Cup, half a season doesn't make you Hoog/Phoenix standard. Plus he's definitely a Leo-like forced defender rather than an actual wingback.

Allan Pearce has to be the best domestic player never to make a big call-up, only one cap for New Zealand? With some of the rubbish we put out at times I'm surprised he didn't get a run, but that was slightly before my game-attending time so maybe I'm wrong.

Except this year and then ...EVERYONE IS !!!

 I agree with Hawk especially about Milne.Jeff Vader you know shit

Don't agree that Milne is as good as Hogg, he's still seems to be a forward who is trying to adjust to being a back.

I've always liked Pearce but don't think he has that final touch. It probably would have helped his game if he'd come to ACFC two seasons ago because of the possession style they try to play. However Krishna is looking the best I've seen him and maybe the Nix should give him another look.

Yeah he was pretty awful for TW but then that whole team had 'talent' and just never clicked. Classic case of paying for talent but getting egos.

Bit like Bertos I think, City lost Hogg and Berlanga and needed to pull someone back.I'm surprised at how often Milne passes back and square because I thought he'd be more inclined to bolt forward, like Hoggy used to do. Still think Milne's a better forward.

milne backed up for hogg last season too, so this whole left back thing is obviously a bit of a long term plan.  do you reckon this is of his own doing or the coach's?

 I think he has to play where the coach puts him

Didn't he play there a little (LB) bit in the UK before coming back??

I think it's Ramon's choice but I'd prefer a specialist LB is brought in rather than try and adapt a forward to that role.

Personally the worst decision by Ramon this season was forcing out Chad Coombes (I gather their personalities clashed) and losing him to WU where he has had a good season. We've missed his driving forward. Mulligan I wasn't so bothered about. I'm also surprised we let Nicolic go too, which was another gain for WU.

I agree on the Coombes call. Milos however.... I just do not see what everyone else sees in him

Milos always played well for Waikato, but that really is a big fish-small pond situation, he's nowhere near the Pearce/Krishna/DeVries trio, he definitely wasn't a big player in the title race swinging.

Title of Thread needs to be changed to Waitakere 2013 ASBP Champions, in honour of their achievement this year!

I don't think Milos would have figured at City as well.... Dickinson, Exposito, Tade, Corrales and the new fella just to start with....

 Highlights.

Nice one Sanday. Great replays. Cheers.

Thanks for the highlights Sanday - thought it was a crap red card by O'Leary. Both Arms and Krishna were waving their arms about and it was barely a tug on the Fijian's sleeve. It didn't interfere with his progress because he kept on going only to make a meal of it. I thought a red card required the player to be brought down? 

Around 13 and a half minutes in on the video

I would consider it on the harsh side for a straight red, but can see why it was given. Arms was last man, Krishna had the jump on him and was definitely pulled back. He was however 30 yards or so out at the time.

As I say, probably harsh, but understandable. O'Leary also took some time and consulted with Assistant first so was no "snap" decision

Thats a red card all day. Had Krishna not been pulled back, what was he going to do next?

If your answer is 'have a shot at goal' then you have just answered exactly why its a red card and why Arms got a red card. (Denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity)

Agree.. Rules of the game... Red card... 

Just watched it. Harsh, but was definitely a red card based on the rules.

Sorry I was listening to Gordy and he was saying just outside. Correct as your were.

Look on Youtube. There are ones given for being even further away. Its not harsh at all. Its just in this country, we expect to see players scythed down. He wasn't - in this case he was goal side of Arms with plenty of gas, he would have regathered comfortably and probably hit it first time.  I'd also add the Williams was well in his 6 yard box and would not have gotten close to it.

There is nothing harsh about that at all.

I guess in a different context, this is why this was bought in. The 'last man' or 'professional' foul. Arms reached out and grabbed him because he knew what was going to happen. They've just dressed it up as a different name in stopping a goal.

I suppose my point is Krishna stayed on his feet and the tug on his shirt sleeve didn't seem to stop him going forward with the ball. Krishna is notorious for going down under any pressure so it can't have been much. Technically a red card but I still say harsh given the reality. Had Arms grabbed him and pulled him back as he was taking a shot then an obvious red card.

 A stupid thing for Arms to do I grant you but in my view it didn't impede Krishna from taking a shot. More niggly than foul. Dicko's penalty shout was probably just as valid but not given.

In my opinion straight red cards should be for serious fouls, not 50-50 decisions. I've seen both these teams get away with a hell of a lot worse. A yellow certainly. Ivan Vicelich, not one to protest unnecessarily, thought so too and got booked. The pity is it changed the game.  

Ivan not one to protest unnecessarily? Hmmm we shall agree to disagree.

Krishna might be notorious but so was Corales, Exposito and the penalty that Souto got, most forum goers through was a dive (oddly I thought is was a foul)

At the risk of starting an argument I am going to disagree that the decision changed the game. There are a few posters who have said 'Thats the rules' which is basically an acceptance that the decision is the correct one. Arms may or may not have known that but that is the rules. If you are the last defender and you take a crack at the striker, you are playing Russian roulette and that is quite common knowledge (how many players yell out 'last man ref'). If he does not know that, then what the hell is he being coached especially for the position he plays? The simple thing - he could have left him well alone, but I suspect I think we know what would happened next, right? I really do not think your argument holds water and its not really a 50-50 decision. Had Arms not grabbed him, Krishna would have definitely and clearly beaten him to the ball and then what does he do? Jag referees, what would he have done? There must be a few others around here that post.

You have also said you were in California so how is Dicko's shout just as valid? I don't really think you are being as objective with your posts as you think you are.

In answer to your other point, what defines a serious foul? Does the guy have to go to hospital? What do you do with the guy that gets stretchered off in agony to get the other guy sent off, gets to the side line and 'oh look magic water has cured me' and comes back on. Do you then reverse the red card. Game changing decision.....

Def red. no question. While Krishna still had a (small) chance to score, the opporunity he would have had if he wasn't pulled back would have been signicantly greater.

Of course it impeded him.  Arms stuffed up the header, Krishna got the jump on him and was away - only to be slowed down in that first critical breakaway moment.  This, in reality, meant he wasn't even given the opportunity to shoot.  Arms cheated, got found out, and paid the price.  Justice was done.  Sheesh we should be celebrating the fact the ref actually did something about a player cheating for once.

Exactly - the defender doesn't have to foul him, it's absolutely deliberate so not unlucky.  If he wanted to he could have let him go on and shoot, which is what the rule tries to encourage, instead he pulls him back.  It's a poor decision by the defender and that's what should be focused on, not the referee's decision.