Home > Uncategorized > Another Monday, Another Win For George, Kin, Mark, Raj And Bobby

Another Monday, Another Win For George, Kin, Mark, Raj And Bobby

The teams lined up as follows on Monday night. KO 9pm, final whistle 10.15pm (as I had in-law duty)

  • REDS: Clement, Damian, Gilbert, Rajesh, Tom (anti-thesis of C), Yaseen.
  • BLACKS: Bobby, George (C), Kin, Mark C, Raj, Sushil.

Reds lost 13-15 (or was it 12-15?) as Blacks pirouetted, pouted and passed their way to a fully deserved victory.

Any volunteers for the match report? I’d love a little bit of analysis, too, as to how Reds lost the game and/or how Blacks won.

Postscript 1:

Any chance of a re-match next week?

Postscript 2:

By the way, Rajesh our resident pundit was again spot-on with his predictions.

Tonight’s game will be a diff one. You have all the strikers with Blacks. This could be a high scoring game. The odds are Black giving -0.25 won $86 to the Reds.

Postscript 3:

I found a new gadget! If no-one objects we can include it in all subsequent match reports.

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. rajiv
    Tue 21 October 2008 at 9:06 am

    Any chance of a re-match next week?

    You’ll need the same 12 to confirm first when the schedule comes out tomorrow. However, if we go by the rankings again, the two captains next week will in all likelihood be George and Raj.

    You have all the strikers with Blacks.

    I thought the aim of having two captains selecting teams was to get a better spread of attacking and defensive players. How did all the attackers end up on one side?

    Any volunteers for the match report? I’d love a little bit of analysis, too, as to how Reds lost the game and/or how Blacks won.

    Raj hasn’t done one for ages. Of course, there’s always room for someone to do their first.

  2. Raj
    Tue 21 October 2008 at 10:10 am

    I’ll pass on this report. It seems that every part of my body including my fingers had been kicked last night. My only suggestion is that we should consider having referees.

  3. rajiv
    Tue 21 October 2008 at 10:23 am

    Who was doing the kicking?

  4. Tue 21 October 2008 at 11:26 am

    @ Jiv: I’m not sure that all the strikers were with Blacks.

    Injury update: Yassem has a bruised toe and gashed shin to go along with my usual cuts and such. I’m not sure it was an especially physical game, though.

    @ All: Please vote in the poll! If you have trouble voting (i.e. if you are in Florida), let me know and I will use a different configuration.

  5. rajiv
    Tue 21 October 2008 at 12:48 pm

    “… my usual cuts and such. ….”

    Is it just you Tom?

    I don’t think anyone has picked up an injury from the Tuesday to Thursday sessions for quite a while. Whatever injuries there are (and there are quite a few about), seem to have been picked up from non-FIOFAFI activities.

  6. rajesh
    Tue 21 October 2008 at 1:43 pm

    Tom was it due to your cuts and such that you ended up lying downinfront of the goal post ( reminded me of Cindy Crawford doing the Pin up Magazine) and Sushil having the easiest task of scoring from at least 80m away .

    Anyway the team last night was not balanced as the Blacks had more stikers and we had more defenders . I even did mention before the game started that we had too many defenders in our team. Anyway we could have done better last night but i guess there were some injuries to our players and i was running out of breath last night , must be the Hangover i had from Sunday Night Wedding Dinner .

  7. Tue 21 October 2008 at 2:22 pm

    Hangover? Should have made it BLACKS giving 1.5.

    Re. why I was lying down in front of goal: who knows? Needless to say, I take issue with Sushil’s ungentlemanly conduct, based on whatever excuse you can think of. By the way, how can you mistake me for Cindy Crawford? Don’t insult me: I think I am at least a Jenny McCarthy.

    Re. strikers / defenders: the only 2 recognised strikers were George and Raj, and given that we had enough defenders (in theory), REDS should have contained BLACKS. Usual excuses aside – lack of fitness, hangover, injuries, loss of form etc., – I’m still unsure how REDS lost last night. Was it the lack of familiarity between players?

  8. Gilbert
    Tue 21 October 2008 at 2:48 pm

    Too many easy goals were given away. Yes, Reds had defenders but not a solid goalie. Upfront, Reds had loads of chances but lacked the finishing touch of a regular striker. My take is that everyone worked very hard but Blacks just had the talent and moved the ball better than Reds.

  9. rajiv
    Tue 21 October 2008 at 5:29 pm

    Speaking of Jenny McCarthy, Dirty Love won 4 Razzies.

  10. rajiv
    Wed 22 October 2008 at 12:16 pm

    As Rajesh’s account is the most colourful, and he was “again spot-on with his predictions”, I’ve attributed the match report to him, his first.

  11. Clement
    Wed 22 October 2008 at 2:18 pm

    I was one of the culprit that missed a couple of good chances. What can I say…first game after a few months, I was out of breath.

    The Blacks movement off the ball was much better than the Reds. The Reds didn’t do too badly, it was 10-10 before a couple of easy goals in the last 15mins.

  12. dennis
    Wed 22 October 2008 at 3:26 pm

    did someone mention “imbalanced”…? thot that rang a bell…hehehe…but I am sure you guys had fun…since you can deal wif the “imbalance” better than some others..but I do agree wif tom that if you have all defenders and all strikers on either side respectively, there should not be an issue – it then becomes like a training match where defenders play against the strikers – and in theory if we can take reference from premiership standards, the defenders should win because strikers cant defend for nuts…but defenders can make good scorers!! I am surprised Reds din have a solid goalie…you mean Tom was that bad? he can be quite decent at times?!!

  13. rajesh
    Wed 22 October 2008 at 3:35 pm

    YEs Tom can be decent at times in goalie but he did one indecent proposal by lying down and inviting Guys Like Sushil .” Come and get me Baby ” something like that and Sushil wasted no time doing that .

    Tom u might need to do an Inplant you know where if you want to consider your self as Jenny :).

  14. Damian
    Wed 22 October 2008 at 4:02 pm

    I concur with the comments that Blacks had much better movement which was basically also because they had more “runners” than Reds who were more static in their positions. But I have to give kudos to those who tried to rise to the challenge like Gilbert who made some very timely, excellent and clean tackles towards the end) and Tom (who tried to make amends of his Cindy/Jenny impersonation by scoring a few redeeming goals 🙂 On my part I willingly take the blame for some of those horrendous missed passes and innocuous goals 😦

  15. Thu 23 October 2008 at 1:22 pm

    Here’s my rational for picking the team. I figured that I’d pick the “all rounders”, instead of the “specialist” strikers, or defenders. After all, in a 5 or 6 a side game, everyone has to do pretty much everything.

    That said, I think the reasons why Reds lost are due to (as stated above) (a) lack of movement (due to smoking?), (b) poor finishing, (c) lack of team shape, (d) defending too deep, (e) and allowing the opposition too much time on the ball without closing them down.

    Blacks had their fair share of missed chances and conceded silly goals, but played more as a unit. Each player performed their role better than Reds’ players and in the end, the game was quite close with the scores tied at 10-10 or 11-11 before Blacks pulled away.

    By the way, I propose a new “rule” and an extra guideline. The guideline is that a foul is a foul when ONLY the Captain of the fouled player’s team calls it. Sure, there will be debatable calls, but I’m sure the FAFI honour system will root out the frivolous claims. This makes only one person accountable and it is up to the Captain to be fair. His word is final: no arguments.

    The proposed rule is that if a free kick is awarded for a foul, the free kick cannot be obstructed by a wall; that team has a “free shot” on goal if they so choose (from whatever distance).

    Postscript: Also, we should play to the goal-lines and sidelines – for both the small and large pitches; this playing the ball against the nets along the side-lines caused a few unnecessary entanglements and isn’t really football.

  16. rajiv
    Fri 24 October 2008 at 10:11 am

    The poll results:

    • George and Gilbert – 33% each.
    • Bobby and Mark C – 17% each.

    That just about adds up to 100%.

  17. rajiv
    Sat 25 October 2008 at 5:20 pm

    By the way, I propose a new “rule” and an extra guideline. The guideline is that a foul is a foul when ONLY the Captain of the fouled player’s team calls it.

    George and Raj are the highest ranked players next Monday.

    I wouldn’t trust Raj to call a foul honestly (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) even if it were just him playing with himself.

  1. Thu 23 October 2008 at 7:11 pm
  2. Mon 27 October 2008 at 3:07 pm
  3. Tue 28 October 2008 at 5:16 pm
  4. Mon 29 December 2008 at 10:17 am
  5. Sun 2 August 2009 at 9:48 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: