Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: [NT] Friendlies
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
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).
Wasn't actually attacking as such, but it wasn't extremely defensive either. Had 6 players pushed into our attacking half (although 2 of them dropped back to form part of the 6 at the back when pushed back towards our defensive half). I was more or less saying that since I started 5 seasons ago, I've become a bit more attacking minded, I still rate the win against Colombia as my best tactical win.
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.
Yeah, but you've (NZ) always been quite strong at the back, at least from the games I've watched. Even though we scored from a fortunate penalty and long range you kept most of our options out, although Storey opened you up a bit in that 2nd half and missed a few ideal chances, and Byers missed the 1 from the long through ball.
Congrats again on the victory. :) You do seem more talkative when you win this encounter then when you lose. :D
That's probably true but particularly this season as I'd had a few messages from people about how much you'd beat us by etc throughout the season ;) so it's good to get a result, I was hopeful but I wasn't expecting it. That's another thing I can cross off my to do list. Always a close game between Australia and New Zealand and this was another one of those.
Wasn't actually attacking as such, but it wasn't extremely defensive either. Had 6 players pushed into our attacking half (although 2 of them dropped back to form part of the 6 at the back when pushed back towards our defensive half). I was more or less saying that since I started 5 seasons ago, I've become a bit more attacking minded, I still rate the win against Colombia as my best tactical win.
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.
Yeah, but you've (NZ) always been quite strong at the back, at least from the games I've watched. Even though we scored from a fortunate penalty and long range you kept most of our options out, although Storey opened you up a bit in that 2nd half and missed a few ideal chances, and Byers missed the 1 from the long through ball.
Congrats again on the victory. :) You do seem more talkative when you win this encounter then when you lose. :D
That's probably true but particularly this season as I'd had a few messages from people about how much you'd beat us by etc throughout the season ;) so it's good to get a result, I was hopeful but I wasn't expecting it. That's another thing I can cross off my to do list. Always a close game between Australia and New Zealand and this was another one of those.
Storey was great. Well, until it came to shooting. (Eeek, did that go out the touch line?) :) Other then that he was great. He didn't embarrass a defender, he embarrassed the whole left side (twice I think).
Had 6 players pushed into our attacking half (although 2 of them dropped back to form part of the 6 at the back when pushed back towards our defensive half)
Well if that's how we're counting, then NZ attacked with 7. :P The two DMs and the strongside fullback all ventured into enemy territory.
I do reiterate my responsibility for the loss. I was guilty of a common NT manager sin - over managing. Most of the time I think one is best off with a proven concept meticulously executed. But when you're in the NT seat it's hard to fight the urge to do something different ... interesting ... innovative. As an experienced manager normally I'm able to fight that urge, but I failed this week. Putting a player with an ATT order in the middle of the formation defeated much of the purpose of the 451. It restricted ball movement in what was intended to be a flowing approach. It would have been much more effective to play Bodger up front where he is supposed to be.
The team should have done better. New Zealand voters may wish to check out some other options. :D
Had 6 players pushed into our attacking half (although 2 of them dropped back to form part of the 6 at the back when pushed back towards our defensive half)
Well if that's how we're counting, then NZ attacked with 7. :P The two DMs and the strongside fullback all ventured into enemy territory.
I do reiterate my responsibility for the loss. I was guilty of a common NT manager sin - over managing. Most of the time I think one is best off with a proven concept meticulously executed. But when you're in the NT seat it's hard to fight the urge to do something different ... interesting ... innovative. As an experienced manager normally I'm able to fight that urge, but I failed this week. Putting a player with an ATT order in the middle of the formation defeated much of the purpose of the 451. It restricted ball movement in what was intended to be a flowing approach. It would have been much more effective to play Bodger up front where he is supposed to be.
The team should have done better. New Zealand voters may wish to check out some other options. :D
Btw - this week was the second of two that I was not able to arrange an opponent for. Like the last time, this morning I sent invitations to all the teams I'd like to play (no bites yet). Tomorrow I'll send invitations to anyone without a booked match.
The team should have done better. New Zealand voters may wish to check out some other options. :D
I think you'll be forgiven for the loss, it really wasn't a bad tactic (was a very tough defense to breach with the exception of Storey), just on the day it wasn't enough. You could probably re-sim that match with the same tactics and players and the result could have been different. On the other hand you're still 2-1 up against Australia with NZ and are into yet another WC.
I think you'll be forgiven for the loss, it really wasn't a bad tactic (was a very tough defense to breach with the exception of Storey), just on the day it wasn't enough. You could probably re-sim that match with the same tactics and players and the result could have been different. On the other hand you're still 2-1 up against Australia with NZ and are into yet another WC.
I meant that as a bit of a joke. But thanks for the support. :D
(edited)
(edited)
No takers on the first round of invitations. Have cast a broad net this time. :)
Match set for this weekend. A rematch vs. Slovenia.
The last match was a good one. I thought New Zealand really dictated the play - but had trouble translating that into quality scoring chances, and ended up on the wrong end. This is an opportunity to try another approach. :)
The last match was a good one. I thought New Zealand really dictated the play - but had trouble translating that into quality scoring chances, and ended up on the wrong end. This is an opportunity to try another approach. :)
I thought both of Byers' goals were soft! =p
He has it drilled not to miss at penalties and he stole some of my brilliance for the long shot!
He will be duely docked a couple of week's wages.
(edited)
He has it drilled not to miss at penalties and he stole some of my brilliance for the long shot!
He will be duely docked a couple of week's wages.
(edited)
I should have let him run wild on Wednesday. Maybe wear him out. Or perhaps had one of the defenders bust him up. That would have been even better. ;)
Rematch with Slovenia this weekend. They feature Adamovic, one of the (if not the) best non-Polish striker in Sokker. Last meeting he was a real handful, and scored both Slovenia goals in the win.
Last match most of the stronger offensive players were held out due to a WC qualifier the following week (they used their A-squad). Obviously more freedom with New Zealand's selection this week.
After looking at the average age of New Zealand players last week, I was determined to field a young line-up this week. But this is the season where rankings matter, so players like B Gilbert, Kilkenny, and Kelly have snuck back into the line-up. Besides them it is more of a "prime" squad, with most everyone else in the 23-25 yr range.
Dressing for New Zealand
Matthew Alves - Portugal (Deathstrike youth)
Gary Edwards - Poland (AC Cikini youth)
Duncan Findlay - N_Z
Brent Gilbert - Fiery Tigers
Greg Irvine - Bosna i Hercegovina (Deathstrike youth)
Mark Kelly - Poland (11 Wisemen youth)
John Kilkenny - Poland (AC Cikini youth)
Rob Morcombe - Fiery Tigers
William Murray - Czech Republic (11 Wise Men youth)
Rob Petherick - One
Nigel Pollock - One
John Root - Cashmere
Sam Sansom - Invincibles (Deathstrike youth)
Kaz Taylor - Poland (11 Wise Men youth)
David Watts - Denmark (Deathstrike youth)
Simon Williams - Belgium (Unbelievers youth)
At this point, everyone except Findlay and Alves are expected to see some action.
(edited)
Last match most of the stronger offensive players were held out due to a WC qualifier the following week (they used their A-squad). Obviously more freedom with New Zealand's selection this week.
After looking at the average age of New Zealand players last week, I was determined to field a young line-up this week. But this is the season where rankings matter, so players like B Gilbert, Kilkenny, and Kelly have snuck back into the line-up. Besides them it is more of a "prime" squad, with most everyone else in the 23-25 yr range.
Dressing for New Zealand
Matthew Alves - Portugal (Deathstrike youth)
Gary Edwards - Poland (AC Cikini youth)
Duncan Findlay - N_Z
Brent Gilbert - Fiery Tigers
Greg Irvine - Bosna i Hercegovina (Deathstrike youth)
Mark Kelly - Poland (11 Wisemen youth)
John Kilkenny - Poland (AC Cikini youth)
Rob Morcombe - Fiery Tigers
William Murray - Czech Republic (11 Wise Men youth)
Rob Petherick - One
Nigel Pollock - One
John Root - Cashmere
Sam Sansom - Invincibles (Deathstrike youth)
Kaz Taylor - Poland (11 Wise Men youth)
David Watts - Denmark (Deathstrike youth)
Simon Williams - Belgium (Unbelievers youth)
At this point, everyone except Findlay and Alves are expected to see some action.
(edited)
Have arranged a match with Canada for next week (contingent on both incumbents being re-elected - should someone else assume the role they would be free to accept or decline the match).
Underway against Slovenia.
Not expecting anything new from Slovenia. Seem to be playing out the string this season. Still have Adamovic though, so any game can be a win despite the lack of much tactical diversity.
Using a winger this week. One of the things I took from last week's match is that I simply have to get more comfortable with Irvine. So although I don't see this as the perfect place to use a winger, Irvine gets another chance to bust down the flanks and impress.
One of the things that held New Zealand back in the last match was some of the striker placement. Think I have it better this time. (I was trying to elicit more "angled runs" last match. Just looking for space this go round.)
Watts and Kilkenny get the unenviable task of marking Adamovic. It won't be cool if he isn't where I think he is - don't really want young Williams and out-of-form Edwards to be left that task. The line still plays aggressive (as it did last time). Will mean some inevitable breaks for their big guy, but I'm judging the extra pressure to be worth the risk.
Line-Up
Taylor
Kilkenny, Watts, Williams, Edwards
Root, Kelly, Turner, Irvine
B Gilbert, Morcombe
Bench
Alves
Findlay
Petherick (55 - Turner)
Sansom (75 - Irvine)
Pollock (65 - Morcombe)
Not expecting anything new from Slovenia. Seem to be playing out the string this season. Still have Adamovic though, so any game can be a win despite the lack of much tactical diversity.
Using a winger this week. One of the things I took from last week's match is that I simply have to get more comfortable with Irvine. So although I don't see this as the perfect place to use a winger, Irvine gets another chance to bust down the flanks and impress.
One of the things that held New Zealand back in the last match was some of the striker placement. Think I have it better this time. (I was trying to elicit more "angled runs" last match. Just looking for space this go round.)
Watts and Kilkenny get the unenviable task of marking Adamovic. It won't be cool if he isn't where I think he is - don't really want young Williams and out-of-form Edwards to be left that task. The line still plays aggressive (as it did last time). Will mean some inevitable breaks for their big guy, but I'm judging the extra pressure to be worth the risk.
Line-Up
Taylor
Kilkenny, Watts, Williams, Edwards
Root, Kelly, Turner, Irvine
B Gilbert, Morcombe
Bench
Alves
Findlay
Petherick (55 - Turner)
Sansom (75 - Irvine)
Pollock (65 - Morcombe)
Another bloody loss. This time to a team that never changes it's line-up or tactics, and has only 1 strong player. More then a little discouraging.
I need some feedback about Irvine. For me, he's next to useless. It doesn't matter if you gain the corner 15 times a match if you can't provide any kind of service. It's a real issue in Sokker, for as soon as you use a winger, the ME directs essentially all of the offense through there. That's what happened this game. A 69% territorial advantage, and almost no quality scoring chances due to Irvine's deficiencies.
Before this match I'd told myself whatever happened this week I would keep trotting Irvine out there until I was comfortable with him. But each time I use him it's the same story. In fact, it's an old story - this is the same issue faced when Gilbert was a winger-striker (though Irvine's midfield skills are better then Gilbert's were). I don't see his performance changing anytime soon.
In the aftermath of this debacle (unless anyone can convince me otherwise), I'm putting Irvine back on the shelf. Root can play wing if we need a winger. Better to achieve the corner 5 times a match and get 3 good crosses then 15 times with 1 good cross.
Guess I should comment on this match. Strikers were average - didn't get much for service, and created very little on their own. Midfield was also average. Struggled some with ball recovery (thought Turner would do better - he has nice defending). All three repeatedly turned down possible runs from strikers to feed the dreadful winger. Defense was good. As expected, lost some 1 vs. 1 battles against Adamovic, but only 1 was parlayed into a goal. Findlay held up well as a replacement for Watts. Taylor was decent - don't really know how the second goal got through. :P
I need some feedback about Irvine. For me, he's next to useless. It doesn't matter if you gain the corner 15 times a match if you can't provide any kind of service. It's a real issue in Sokker, for as soon as you use a winger, the ME directs essentially all of the offense through there. That's what happened this game. A 69% territorial advantage, and almost no quality scoring chances due to Irvine's deficiencies.
Before this match I'd told myself whatever happened this week I would keep trotting Irvine out there until I was comfortable with him. But each time I use him it's the same story. In fact, it's an old story - this is the same issue faced when Gilbert was a winger-striker (though Irvine's midfield skills are better then Gilbert's were). I don't see his performance changing anytime soon.
In the aftermath of this debacle (unless anyone can convince me otherwise), I'm putting Irvine back on the shelf. Root can play wing if we need a winger. Better to achieve the corner 5 times a match and get 3 good crosses then 15 times with 1 good cross.
Guess I should comment on this match. Strikers were average - didn't get much for service, and created very little on their own. Midfield was also average. Struggled some with ball recovery (thought Turner would do better - he has nice defending). All three repeatedly turned down possible runs from strikers to feed the dreadful winger. Defense was good. As expected, lost some 1 vs. 1 battles against Adamovic, but only 1 was parlayed into a goal. Findlay held up well as a replacement for Watts. Taylor was decent - don't really know how the second goal got through. :P
Canada this week. A strong opponent, and one I know well. :) New Zealand is on a poor run of form lately, though thankfully the election is over. That alone may help right the ship.
Independent of form, New Zealand would have an advantage up front and in goal. Canada has a clear advantage in midfield and on defense. Considering form, the strikers are more even.
Canada has 3 strikers out injured (Biron, Manohar and Wang) but has good depth at the position. Amado, W Lavrynenko and Broussard are all available and in strong form. Otherwise Canada's roster is in good shape.
New Zealand's defense is really hurting this week with Watts out and Kilkenny suspended. They are the two rocks that usually secure the back-line. Will certainly be a chance for someone to step up with those two missing.
Normally I'd be trying to get all potential WC players with 2 yellow cards into this match hoping to induce a 3rd to clean their slate. But the current card situation is really good. D Chadwick and Herbert are the only ones with 2 yellows, and neither is expected to feature in the WC.
So the line-up will once again be mostly "prime" players - 22-26 who are still getting training.
Independent of form, New Zealand would have an advantage up front and in goal. Canada has a clear advantage in midfield and on defense. Considering form, the strikers are more even.
Canada has 3 strikers out injured (Biron, Manohar and Wang) but has good depth at the position. Amado, W Lavrynenko and Broussard are all available and in strong form. Otherwise Canada's roster is in good shape.
New Zealand's defense is really hurting this week with Watts out and Kilkenny suspended. They are the two rocks that usually secure the back-line. Will certainly be a chance for someone to step up with those two missing.
Normally I'd be trying to get all potential WC players with 2 yellow cards into this match hoping to induce a 3rd to clean their slate. But the current card situation is really good. D Chadwick and Herbert are the only ones with 2 yellows, and neither is expected to feature in the WC.
So the line-up will once again be mostly "prime" players - 22-26 who are still getting training.