Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: [NT] Friendlies
that's indeed the way to do it, tweaking and more tweaking, i must say it was an intresting game to watch :)
I never give up on matches early. :) I was very disgusted that I didn't play 5 at the back. I out-thought myself again in this match-up. I often watch Australia matches and think to myself "only a fool would play against Willis with 4". And what do I do? :P Actually, I think I did the very same thing LAST season.
5 at the back press would have been exactly what was needed against the deep Australia defense, and it's what I've been using for the past month or too. Very silly to change.
With the comments about a late Gilbert miss, I don't think I want to watch the rest of the match. :D I've lost enough hair already this season.
5 at the back press would have been exactly what was needed against the deep Australia defense, and it's what I've been using for the past month or too. Very silly to change.
With the comments about a late Gilbert miss, I don't think I want to watch the rest of the match. :D I've lost enough hair already this season.
5 at the back press would have been exactly what was needed against the deep Australia defense, and it's what I've been using for the past month or too. Very silly to change.
Don't think 5 would have made much difference considering that's what I tried to build the tactic on. Might have stopped Willis getting to the wing to fire crosses across though.
Probably was a fair miss if any simple miss is fair, because it was a horrible build up to it. Howarth tried to belt the ball away, rebounded off Beauchamp just outside the goalbox in the middle of the field, then fell to your winger, who got past a SI Mangos tackle to set up the chance to begin with. At the time I wasn't too impressed thinking you gotta be kidding me.
I was very disgusted that I didn't play 5 at the back. I out-thought myself again in this match-up. I often watch Australia matches and think to myself "only a fool would play against Willis with 4".
Hehe, I have a habit of doing that in other situations too. I try to stick to my initial gut feeling rather than try to think too much because usually the 1st decision is the correct one to take. Even when it doesn't work at least you know that's what you wanted to do, rather than think of what could have been.
Don't think 5 would have made much difference considering that's what I tried to build the tactic on. Might have stopped Willis getting to the wing to fire crosses across though.
Probably was a fair miss if any simple miss is fair, because it was a horrible build up to it. Howarth tried to belt the ball away, rebounded off Beauchamp just outside the goalbox in the middle of the field, then fell to your winger, who got past a SI Mangos tackle to set up the chance to begin with. At the time I wasn't too impressed thinking you gotta be kidding me.
I was very disgusted that I didn't play 5 at the back. I out-thought myself again in this match-up. I often watch Australia matches and think to myself "only a fool would play against Willis with 4".
Hehe, I have a habit of doing that in other situations too. I try to stick to my initial gut feeling rather than try to think too much because usually the 1st decision is the correct one to take. Even when it doesn't work at least you know that's what you wanted to do, rather than think of what could have been.
Don't think 5 would have made much difference considering that's what I tried to build the tactic on. Might have stopped Willis getting to the wing to fire crosses across though.
Well, since you built the tactic to face 5, clearly 5 wouldn't have worked. :P What would have made a difference? 6? 3? Or is my decision irrelevant when you have a good winger?
From my perspective, 5 would have had Willis running straight at Watts. He wouldn't have had near as many long runs. He would have been more inclined to feed balls into the middle, which weren't as dangerous as him lighting down the sideline. 5 at the back would have meant more Australia turnovers, leading to more play in Australia's end (like the first 20 or so minutes). All my (biased) opinion.
When I see a goal like Australia's first, I know it's going to be a long night. Perhaps you're right and it didn't matter what I did in this one.
Well, since you built the tactic to face 5, clearly 5 wouldn't have worked. :P What would have made a difference? 6? 3? Or is my decision irrelevant when you have a good winger?
From my perspective, 5 would have had Willis running straight at Watts. He wouldn't have had near as many long runs. He would have been more inclined to feed balls into the middle, which weren't as dangerous as him lighting down the sideline. 5 at the back would have meant more Australia turnovers, leading to more play in Australia's end (like the first 20 or so minutes). All my (biased) opinion.
When I see a goal like Australia's first, I know it's going to be a long night. Perhaps you're right and it didn't matter what I did in this one.
This weekend's match will be U23. Not endangering any potential WC players.
Line-up is all set for Venezuala. A few lads playing out of position to fill in the line-up, but I'm hoping all with play well. :)
Well, last match at the helm.
Going with a 442. Venezuela does use width in it's tactical arsenal, but hopefully the fullbacks can deal with it. Harding in particular is likely to have a hard time if there is a winger on his flank, as his pace is comparable to that of a senior citizen in an electric wheelchair. The 442 selected as much due to Lanev as any other reason - OCM is his best position IMO, and this tactic should give him a chance to perform well.
If we don't get an early lead, we probably won't be coming back. Some kids getting a run off the bench in the second half.
Going with a 442. Venezuela does use width in it's tactical arsenal, but hopefully the fullbacks can deal with it. Harding in particular is likely to have a hard time if there is a winger on his flank, as his pace is comparable to that of a senior citizen in an electric wheelchair. The 442 selected as much due to Lanev as any other reason - OCM is his best position IMO, and this tactic should give him a chance to perform well.
If we don't get an early lead, we probably won't be coming back. Some kids getting a run off the bench in the second half.
Pretty fitting end to the last two seasons. Both teams with 2 quality chances to score. But New Zealand on the wrong end of the stick.
Some ragged play. Neither team with any creativity. Chances were the result of mistakes. Got the sense we didn't fare well in the tech vs. tackling duels most of the time. Priorie was the great hope in this match, but he couldn't break free and did not take his chances well. Hobbs had trouble breaking midfield tackles, let alone defender tackles (the knock didn't help). Any missed tackle by New Zealand was very bad news, as the defense had a distinct lack of pace.
So, a discouraging loss to finish two discouraging seasons. Hopefully the next manager will bring the team better fortune. :)
Some ragged play. Neither team with any creativity. Chances were the result of mistakes. Got the sense we didn't fare well in the tech vs. tackling duels most of the time. Priorie was the great hope in this match, but he couldn't break free and did not take his chances well. Hobbs had trouble breaking midfield tackles, let alone defender tackles (the knock didn't help). Any missed tackle by New Zealand was very bad news, as the defense had a distinct lack of pace.
So, a discouraging loss to finish two discouraging seasons. Hopefully the next manager will bring the team better fortune. :)
Neither team came out of that looking good. New Zealand looked better first half but your strikers never looked like scoring, no matter how many chances they got.
Would be nice to get some posts from the NT manager eh?
