Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: [NT] Friendlies
A good result. :)
First couple of goals came off the same freekick (mirrored) that featured a free striker in the 6 yard box. Always hate it when a tactical mistake is exploited multiple times. :P (Actually had a third crack at the same play - Atkinson made a poor pass).
Not a great game for the New Zealand defense. Osvold absolutely gave Edwards fits, and embarrassed him in pretty much every way possible. Home side was fortunate this wasn't parlayed into some goals. Beyond that, Williams had a tendency to lag the line. He put Rørvik on-side for the lone Norway goal, and narrowly escaped repeating the mistake a few other times. Defense also had a nasty habit of passing to each other - not usually a problem with 4 at the back, especially with open midfielders in front of them. Weird.
New Zealand midfield seemed to lose the tech-tackle battles on a fairly regular basis, but made up for it with some sharp passing. Thought Petherick had a nice match, and Atkinson obviously played well. Root had more influence on the match once he shifted into the middle. Irvine had no impact.
The strikers looked good. B Gilbert had a bit of a form rise this past week, and it was reflected in his play. Root may have to give Morcombe spot kick lessons, but both strikers finished the ball fairly well.
Lastly, Taylor had a nice match. He did have to make a number of saves (largely due to Edwards struggles). He looked sharp. Hopefully will bring the same mojo next week.
Speaking of next week, that would be the annual New Zealand - Australia challenge. ;)
First couple of goals came off the same freekick (mirrored) that featured a free striker in the 6 yard box. Always hate it when a tactical mistake is exploited multiple times. :P (Actually had a third crack at the same play - Atkinson made a poor pass).
Not a great game for the New Zealand defense. Osvold absolutely gave Edwards fits, and embarrassed him in pretty much every way possible. Home side was fortunate this wasn't parlayed into some goals. Beyond that, Williams had a tendency to lag the line. He put Rørvik on-side for the lone Norway goal, and narrowly escaped repeating the mistake a few other times. Defense also had a nasty habit of passing to each other - not usually a problem with 4 at the back, especially with open midfielders in front of them. Weird.
New Zealand midfield seemed to lose the tech-tackle battles on a fairly regular basis, but made up for it with some sharp passing. Thought Petherick had a nice match, and Atkinson obviously played well. Root had more influence on the match once he shifted into the middle. Irvine had no impact.
The strikers looked good. B Gilbert had a bit of a form rise this past week, and it was reflected in his play. Root may have to give Morcombe spot kick lessons, but both strikers finished the ball fairly well.
Lastly, Taylor had a nice match. He did have to make a number of saves (largely due to Edwards struggles). He looked sharp. Hopefully will bring the same mojo next week.
Speaking of next week, that would be the annual New Zealand - Australia challenge. ;)
Yeah, that was a pretty good conversion rate. Taylor did have an amazing game. Reckon we should play 2nd XI against aussie next week, should be easy enough.
you really want to get thrashed don't you :p. I think it will be quite a close game myself ;).
As long as we play Hirons we can't lose ;)
Lets look back through the games...
23/02/08 NZ 2-1 AUS _ No Hirons
09/02/08 NZ 1-3 AUS _ Hirons plays 62 mins
27/10/07 AUS 1-2 NZ _ No Hirons
07/07/07 NZ 2-1 AUS _ No Hirons
03/03/07 AUS 1-1 NZ _ Hirons plays 45 mins, scores the Australian goal
25/11/06 AUS 2-3 NZ _ Hirons scores 2 goals in 7 minutes to start the game, leaves the field after 55 mins with Australia up 2-1.
01/07/06 NZ 2-3 AUS _ Last win or draw by Australia without Hirons on the pitch.
Lets look back through the games...
23/02/08 NZ 2-1 AUS _ No Hirons
09/02/08 NZ 1-3 AUS _ Hirons plays 62 mins
27/10/07 AUS 1-2 NZ _ No Hirons
07/07/07 NZ 2-1 AUS _ No Hirons
03/03/07 AUS 1-1 NZ _ Hirons plays 45 mins, scores the Australian goal
25/11/06 AUS 2-3 NZ _ Hirons scores 2 goals in 7 minutes to start the game, leaves the field after 55 mins with Australia up 2-1.
01/07/06 NZ 2-3 AUS _ Last win or draw by Australia without Hirons on the pitch.
Interesting analysis. ;)
Despite being a bit of an outsider, this is a match I really look forward to. It's great to take on a fairly even adversary in a match of some importance - especially when they have such skillful management. Makes for a real challenge. (I've always made a point of playing USA when I've coached Canada, but it's not quite the same. I think in part because USA has a clearly better team.)
It's hard to know what Australia will do. Cometer et al are very creative, and will try things I would never attempt (mind you, these things don't always work :P). About the only thing that's certain is that Willis will be scooting down one wing or the other. Besides that, Australia shows great diversity in defensive, midfield & striker deployment.
I've got a good record in this match up (2-0), but that has to be considered in light of my horrible record during elections. My squads perform very poorly during these two weeks (I believe the players hate me and do what they can to get me sacked).
The match will be treated like any official match. Best 11. Go for the throat... Hold nothing back... Leave it all on the field... Win one for the kipper...
Despite being a bit of an outsider, this is a match I really look forward to. It's great to take on a fairly even adversary in a match of some importance - especially when they have such skillful management. Makes for a real challenge. (I've always made a point of playing USA when I've coached Canada, but it's not quite the same. I think in part because USA has a clearly better team.)
It's hard to know what Australia will do. Cometer et al are very creative, and will try things I would never attempt (mind you, these things don't always work :P). About the only thing that's certain is that Willis will be scooting down one wing or the other. Besides that, Australia shows great diversity in defensive, midfield & striker deployment.
I've got a good record in this match up (2-0), but that has to be considered in light of my horrible record during elections. My squads perform very poorly during these two weeks (I believe the players hate me and do what they can to get me sacked).
The match will be treated like any official match. Best 11. Go for the throat... Hold nothing back... Leave it all on the field... Win one for the kipper...
good luck, the tactic chosen might backfire as a few have but surely I'm due one where it sticks against you :p.
Underway against Australia.
Willis is the kind of guy the compels one to play 5 at the back. I didn’t really feel like playing 5 at the back this match, which is why I made the remark about Willis in the previous post. Hope is that might plant a seed and get them to try something different with Willis - which I think would be to New Zealand’s advantage. If Willis is in his usual role I’m hoping he’s on the left - Watts is the preferred marker. 4 in the back may do alright against him if the half tackles go out of play and the throw-ins are covered ok.
Trying a 451 this week. Not as defensive as it sounds. Bodger again features in central midfield. Hoping he’ll rip some shots, and that Gilbert will make a general nuisance of himself in front. I’m optimistic the extra body in midfield will help tip possession a little New Zealand’s way.
The lone striker generally sticks to the left. Should mean through-ball attacks from the left side, and crosses from the right. Ideally, when the right mid is out wide (pulling the defense over) he’ll make a quick pass to the left mid who’ll relay the ball to the striker going end-around the defense. Ideally. :P Won’t be there is Australia stacks the middle.
Throws are a mix of square and line. Bodger takes spot kicks, Atkinson freebies. Bodger covers Gilbert in case of red card, Kelly covers the back-line (tho Kelly may be the most prone given his poor form).
Line-Up
Taylor
Edwards, Kilkenny, Harris, Watts
Kelly, Petherick, Root, Bodger, Atkinson
B Gilbert
Bench
Alves
Williams
Tomlinson (55 - Petherick)
Irvine
Morcombe
Willis is the kind of guy the compels one to play 5 at the back. I didn’t really feel like playing 5 at the back this match, which is why I made the remark about Willis in the previous post. Hope is that might plant a seed and get them to try something different with Willis - which I think would be to New Zealand’s advantage. If Willis is in his usual role I’m hoping he’s on the left - Watts is the preferred marker. 4 in the back may do alright against him if the half tackles go out of play and the throw-ins are covered ok.
Trying a 451 this week. Not as defensive as it sounds. Bodger again features in central midfield. Hoping he’ll rip some shots, and that Gilbert will make a general nuisance of himself in front. I’m optimistic the extra body in midfield will help tip possession a little New Zealand’s way.
The lone striker generally sticks to the left. Should mean through-ball attacks from the left side, and crosses from the right. Ideally, when the right mid is out wide (pulling the defense over) he’ll make a quick pass to the left mid who’ll relay the ball to the striker going end-around the defense. Ideally. :P Won’t be there is Australia stacks the middle.
Throws are a mix of square and line. Bodger takes spot kicks, Atkinson freebies. Bodger covers Gilbert in case of red card, Kelly covers the back-line (tho Kelly may be the most prone given his poor form).
Line-Up
Taylor
Edwards, Kilkenny, Harris, Watts
Kelly, Petherick, Root, Bodger, Atkinson
B Gilbert
Bench
Alves
Williams
Tomlinson (55 - Petherick)
Irvine
Morcombe
Aussie Aussie Aussie!!! Oi Oi Oi!
Hirons played => we win, was as naph said ;).
Looks like the only booting you kiwis will be doing is on yourselves :).
Barhilo to sack Byers now :p.
Hirons played => we win, was as naph said ;).
Looks like the only booting you kiwis will be doing is on yourselves :).
Barhilo to sack Byers now :p.
Nice close game, but in the end, a couple of nice strikes proved the difference.
Congrats to Australia on the win. They were clearly the better side.
Bit of a disappointing match for New Zealand. Typical election week match for me really. :P I felt most players had a sub-par game. I thought Australia won the majority of the 1 vs. 1 battles. Exception was Watts - Willis. Watts had a very nice game.
Root and Atkinson were the biggest disappointments for me. Neither was very accurate. Both held the ball too long and turned down good passing opportunities. Neither had the horsepower to round a rather narrow Australia defense (I realize they were both positioned a little conservatively, but I still expected a few more broken tackles). When those two both have a poor match, there really isn't a lot of creativity left out there.
I expected Gilbert to have a better match. He broke very few tackles. I didn't have his depth set all that well - Australia's defense was deeper then I expected. Meant Gilbert was tangling with the defensive midfield much of the time. Even more reason to expect him to break a few more.
That may also but an end to the great Bodger midfield experiment. He didn't play that well in midfield, and didn't take any shots (the second Byers goal was the kind of thing I was hoping for using Bodger in midfield). Back to the drawing board. :P
That's a lot of player blame. Really not their fault. I'm nitpicking. The tactic needed more width given how Australia jammed the middle of the pitch. Tactical loss on my part. :)
Bit of a disappointing match for New Zealand. Typical election week match for me really. :P I felt most players had a sub-par game. I thought Australia won the majority of the 1 vs. 1 battles. Exception was Watts - Willis. Watts had a very nice game.
Root and Atkinson were the biggest disappointments for me. Neither was very accurate. Both held the ball too long and turned down good passing opportunities. Neither had the horsepower to round a rather narrow Australia defense (I realize they were both positioned a little conservatively, but I still expected a few more broken tackles). When those two both have a poor match, there really isn't a lot of creativity left out there.
I expected Gilbert to have a better match. He broke very few tackles. I didn't have his depth set all that well - Australia's defense was deeper then I expected. Meant Gilbert was tangling with the defensive midfield much of the time. Even more reason to expect him to break a few more.
That may also but an end to the great Bodger midfield experiment. He didn't play that well in midfield, and didn't take any shots (the second Byers goal was the kind of thing I was hoping for using Bodger in midfield). Back to the drawing board. :P
That's a lot of player blame. Really not their fault. I'm nitpicking. The tactic needed more width given how Australia jammed the middle of the pitch. Tactical loss on my part. :)
Came down to I figured you normally like to be conservative in these types of games, figured you'd either go 5 across the back or a back 4 with 2 dm's. That meant 2 players upfield other than strikers, so I took the punt you'd play some kind of winger of the right side, and hammered it home with 2 of our better defending players. Since I figured you'd play a winger on the right, it meant the ball was on our left, so I wanted to attack down that left side, and guessing you'd mark Willis tried to have him come inside the wing back to get some space.
Really wanted to cramp you in your defensive half and by so doing 2 of our 3 midfielders at the back row are by nature defenders who have midfield skills, which meant that I could sit my back 3 right back knowing that unless you put players more offensively we had every chance of keeping you out.
I was never going to not play Willis on one of the wings, I kind of deduced that from reading your remark about Willis usually is on a wing and thinking to myself if that were me and I was worried about a player I'd try to throw them off playing them there by stating that's where I expect them to play and make up some jumble about why I'm going to target that area. So I didn't switch and yeah I didn't think you'd guess the left, and Willis wasn't super effective but took away a defender with him leaving Byers with a bit of room to move.
Really wanted to cramp you in your defensive half and by so doing 2 of our 3 midfielders at the back row are by nature defenders who have midfield skills, which meant that I could sit my back 3 right back knowing that unless you put players more offensively we had every chance of keeping you out.
I was never going to not play Willis on one of the wings, I kind of deduced that from reading your remark about Willis usually is on a wing and thinking to myself if that were me and I was worried about a player I'd try to throw them off playing them there by stating that's where I expect them to play and make up some jumble about why I'm going to target that area. So I didn't switch and yeah I didn't think you'd guess the left, and Willis wasn't super effective but took away a defender with him leaving Byers with a bit of room to move.
Heehee. In the previous two meetings when I've been in charge I've used (IMO) attacking 442 formations. This is the first time I've played it (overly) defensive. I think you did pretty well to call that one. :D I hadn't really planned this kind of approach until the Australia - Uruguay game. Before that match I figured there was no way for NZ's midfield to compete with Australia's. But after that match I got thinking an extra body might be enough, and that perhaps NZ didn't have to play counter-attack but could take the match to Australia. Wrong. :P I felt Australia's midfield was clearly better in this one.
Although our right middie was wider (implying more offense), I really expected-hoped the bulk of the offense would come from the left side. I'm more disappointed about how NZ did hearing your best defenders were on our right. :)
You might be surprised how often comments like the one about Willis work. ;) My favourite example was a couple of seasons ago in qualifying I chewed and moaned most of the week about Lithuania's wingers, and then completely abandoned wing defense to fill up the box. Lithuania obliged by playing no wingers and attacking down the middle (Canada still lost :D). Admittedly, the "tactic" is more likely to be effective when the opposing manager thinks I don't know he's there.
As much as I view Australia's predictable use of Willis as a weakness, New Zealand's predictable non-use of a winger in these types of matches is a greater one. Atkinson and Root are both very nice attacking middies, but I don't see either as a true winger. Closest thing to a true winger is probably Irvine, and he is more "weapon of desperation" then "weapon of choice" at this stage in his career. Perhaps by the next time these two meet Irvine will have developed to the point where NZ has a real wing threat to compliment it's strikers.
PS - I didn't guess the left for Willis. One of my informants assured me it would be the left this week. ;)
Although our right middie was wider (implying more offense), I really expected-hoped the bulk of the offense would come from the left side. I'm more disappointed about how NZ did hearing your best defenders were on our right. :)
You might be surprised how often comments like the one about Willis work. ;) My favourite example was a couple of seasons ago in qualifying I chewed and moaned most of the week about Lithuania's wingers, and then completely abandoned wing defense to fill up the box. Lithuania obliged by playing no wingers and attacking down the middle (Canada still lost :D). Admittedly, the "tactic" is more likely to be effective when the opposing manager thinks I don't know he's there.
As much as I view Australia's predictable use of Willis as a weakness, New Zealand's predictable non-use of a winger in these types of matches is a greater one. Atkinson and Root are both very nice attacking middies, but I don't see either as a true winger. Closest thing to a true winger is probably Irvine, and he is more "weapon of desperation" then "weapon of choice" at this stage in his career. Perhaps by the next time these two meet Irvine will have developed to the point where NZ has a real wing threat to compliment it's strikers.
PS - I didn't guess the left for Willis. One of my informants assured me it would be the left this week. ;)
You've gotten a lot better tactically across the seasons, thats for sure!
Heehee. In the previous two meetings when I've been in charge I've used (IMO) attacking 442 formations. This is the first time I've played it (overly) defensive. I think you did pretty well to call that one. :D
Guessing tactics when the opposition manager can change without any indication is like playing poker. Take a few risks, it either pays off or it doesn't. Yesterday certainly payed off as I just had that feeling all week, it would be what I thought was your usual back 4 2 dm role as it's ratio of execution is pretty successful. At the same time, I had a lot of confidence with the tactic I selected as I'd used it to hold Croatia to a 0 - 0 score and held Brazil to a 4-4 draw and a 7-3 loss (3-3 at half time). On the basis that figured Brazil's midfield was stronger I felt safe that if I could drop the backline a bit further back, I could cut out a lot of the through balls, if any, and it could be as successful as against Croatia.
You might be surprised how often comments like the one about Willis work. ;)
No I'm not at all surprised, I use that same tactic every so often myself, hence why I was able to read it this time at least. The reason it works is it suddenly throws doubt back on the opposition manager as to whether or not the other manager knows what they're going to play and have made a tactic to counter that, which in turn gets the manager thinking of changing up and falling for the trap. Has a good success rate if the opposition manager believes what you say as what's happening.
As much as I view Australia's predictable use of Willis as a weakness, New Zealand's predictable non-use of a winger in these types of matches is a greater one.
We're very fortunate to have Willis, and it is our weakness in that it is predictable but it's also our greatest strength, so sometimes it's better to take that risk and force them to have to guess first which side he's on and then second sacrifice either 1 or 2 players to protect the area. What I have been trying to do lately though is to give us that 2nd route to goal if Willis gets taken out, and I'm still trying to fiddle to find that right combination.
Atkinson and Root have a lot of technique and pace but from watching their games they seem to lack in passing/playmaking to consistently hit the head of strikers as Willis so often does for us.
PS - I didn't guess the left for Willis. One of my informants assured me it would be the left this week. ;)
Whoever did was a lucky guess :p. I was going to play it right until I decided to tactically use him on the same side as I expected your main midfield attacker to be on so our defense was already shifted across to cover it and as a result kept the ball on the same side , so you didn't have too many options to attack from.
Guessing tactics when the opposition manager can change without any indication is like playing poker. Take a few risks, it either pays off or it doesn't. Yesterday certainly payed off as I just had that feeling all week, it would be what I thought was your usual back 4 2 dm role as it's ratio of execution is pretty successful. At the same time, I had a lot of confidence with the tactic I selected as I'd used it to hold Croatia to a 0 - 0 score and held Brazil to a 4-4 draw and a 7-3 loss (3-3 at half time). On the basis that figured Brazil's midfield was stronger I felt safe that if I could drop the backline a bit further back, I could cut out a lot of the through balls, if any, and it could be as successful as against Croatia.
You might be surprised how often comments like the one about Willis work. ;)
No I'm not at all surprised, I use that same tactic every so often myself, hence why I was able to read it this time at least. The reason it works is it suddenly throws doubt back on the opposition manager as to whether or not the other manager knows what they're going to play and have made a tactic to counter that, which in turn gets the manager thinking of changing up and falling for the trap. Has a good success rate if the opposition manager believes what you say as what's happening.
As much as I view Australia's predictable use of Willis as a weakness, New Zealand's predictable non-use of a winger in these types of matches is a greater one.
We're very fortunate to have Willis, and it is our weakness in that it is predictable but it's also our greatest strength, so sometimes it's better to take that risk and force them to have to guess first which side he's on and then second sacrifice either 1 or 2 players to protect the area. What I have been trying to do lately though is to give us that 2nd route to goal if Willis gets taken out, and I'm still trying to fiddle to find that right combination.
Atkinson and Root have a lot of technique and pace but from watching their games they seem to lack in passing/playmaking to consistently hit the head of strikers as Willis so often does for us.
PS - I didn't guess the left for Willis. One of my informants assured me it would be the left this week. ;)
Whoever did was a lucky guess :p. I was going to play it right until I decided to tactically use him on the same side as I expected your main midfield attacker to be on so our defense was already shifted across to cover it and as a result kept the ball on the same side , so you didn't have too many options to attack from.
You've gotten a lot better tactically across the seasons, thats for sure!
You learn something from every match, particularly when your tactics don't work. One thing that has significantly sped up my tactical decisions is getting the confidence to not always create defensive tactics. 9 times out of 10 a side that heavily defends gets at best a draw, most time goes down. With the assistance of Achmid (although not as much this season as in others) I've been able to convert from being an extremely defensive tactician to being able to play a little more aggressively to create chances.
Also helps when you look at our squad's skills and realize you actually are able to take it to higher opposition, even if you end up getting flogged I think most people prefer to see an attacking game then losing by 1-2 goals by simply defending the entire time and not troubling their defense.
Losing (and for a large part, having these hard qualification runs) has been the most valuable part I've found as it highlights all the weaknesses in your tactical ability. I still get caught out a bit from time to time, but over the past 5 seasons I've learnt so much from each and every loss I've suffered that you learn where to fix things whilst learning what your team can and can't do.
You learn something from every match, particularly when your tactics don't work. One thing that has significantly sped up my tactical decisions is getting the confidence to not always create defensive tactics. 9 times out of 10 a side that heavily defends gets at best a draw, most time goes down. With the assistance of Achmid (although not as much this season as in others) I've been able to convert from being an extremely defensive tactician to being able to play a little more aggressively to create chances.
Also helps when you look at our squad's skills and realize you actually are able to take it to higher opposition, even if you end up getting flogged I think most people prefer to see an attacking game then losing by 1-2 goals by simply defending the entire time and not troubling their defense.
Losing (and for a large part, having these hard qualification runs) has been the most valuable part I've found as it highlights all the weaknesses in your tactical ability. I still get caught out a bit from time to time, but over the past 5 seasons I've learnt so much from each and every loss I've suffered that you learn where to fix things whilst learning what your team can and can't do.
Yesterday certainly payed off as I just had that feeling all week, it would be what I thought was your usual back 4 2 dm role as it's ratio of execution is pretty successful.
I'll have to take another look at the tactics I've used this season. I thought I'd used 1 DM far more then 2 DMs (especially with my club team). I had made a conscious effort to switch that up this season. Perhaps I didn't do a very good job. :)
I was pretty happy with the defense in this match. Thought Australia only had a handful of good scoring chances (3, maybe 4 - I don't count the second Byers goal as a good scoring chance). None were from tactical breakdowns, but in each case multiple tackles were missed. Surrendering 2 against a good offensive team like Australia is a pretty good day.
Anyway, I think it's misleading to suggest Australia played attacking football while New Zealand sat back (you seem to be saying this ... maybe I'm wrong). Both teams played 6 behind the ball and attacked with 4. Australia has better technical players and better passing on their defenders (if Broxton is any indication). So it makes sense for them to challenge the NZ defense directly by placing the attacking players further upfield (the better passing allows them to stretch the gap between midfield and defense). Aside from Gilbert, NZ did not have any strong technical players in this match, so it makes more sense for them to sit a little off the defense and try and find holes, rather then engaging directly. With less passing skill at the back, it's more difficult to stretch the between defense and midfield without conceding a lot of possession due to poor passes.
Both teams played to their perceived strength. New Zealand just didn't execute very well offensively.
Congrats again on the victory. :) You do seem more talkative when you win this encounter then when you lose. :D
I'll have to take another look at the tactics I've used this season. I thought I'd used 1 DM far more then 2 DMs (especially with my club team). I had made a conscious effort to switch that up this season. Perhaps I didn't do a very good job. :)
I was pretty happy with the defense in this match. Thought Australia only had a handful of good scoring chances (3, maybe 4 - I don't count the second Byers goal as a good scoring chance). None were from tactical breakdowns, but in each case multiple tackles were missed. Surrendering 2 against a good offensive team like Australia is a pretty good day.
Anyway, I think it's misleading to suggest Australia played attacking football while New Zealand sat back (you seem to be saying this ... maybe I'm wrong). Both teams played 6 behind the ball and attacked with 4. Australia has better technical players and better passing on their defenders (if Broxton is any indication). So it makes sense for them to challenge the NZ defense directly by placing the attacking players further upfield (the better passing allows them to stretch the gap between midfield and defense). Aside from Gilbert, NZ did not have any strong technical players in this match, so it makes more sense for them to sit a little off the defense and try and find holes, rather then engaging directly. With less passing skill at the back, it's more difficult to stretch the between defense and midfield without conceding a lot of possession due to poor passes.
Both teams played to their perceived strength. New Zealand just didn't execute very well offensively.
Congrats again on the victory. :) You do seem more talkative when you win this encounter then when you lose. :D