Saturday, 12 May 2007

Round 5, 2007 – Altona East 2 Altona City 3

A bit late, but what the hey... Entertaining, but nevertheless very average game standard wise. East were horrible in the first half, City at least put a lot off effort into their defending, and created a few chances as opposed to their hosts who could only manage one underhit shot for the first half. City went ahead about 13 minutes in I think, very slack marking from East, City player had about 5 years to put it away and he did. After about 20 minutes, 2-0, bizarre mix up in the East defence, players including the keeper all out of position, and the ball eventually went in.

East coach chucked a wobbly at half time, but City got the goal on about 55 minutes, a nice counter attacking move with a good finish to boot. Game over one would have thought, but City fell away as the game went on, and East pulled a goal back in controversial circumstances with the incoming cross appearing to be knocked out of the keeper's hands for a headed goal, but i was too far away to make that judgement, maybe he hadn't hadn't caught it cleanly? Later what some said was a foul about metre inside the box was given as a free kick which East hit into the wall. City player got sent off late for a second yellow card. Goal for East with about five to play, and all of a sudden it was on, but City held on for a deserved win. East improved markedly in the 2nd half, but one shouldn't expect miracles once you're 3-0 down, but at least they've broken their goal drought. City are the hardest working side I've seen so far in VPL or State 2, but can they run out games? Finally, refereeing was shocking for both sides more so for City, some perplexing decisions and non-decisions.

No comments:

Post a Comment

A few notes on comments.

We've had a lot of fun over the years with my freewheeling comments policy, but all good things must come to an end. Therefore I will no longer be approving comments that contain personal abuse of any sort.

Still, if your post doesn't get approved straight away, it's probably because I haven't seen it yet.

As usual, publication of a comment does not mean endorsement of its content.