Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: [NT] Canada
Thanks guys. :)
The tactic worked much as I had hoped. Weathered their assaults, and sprung some quality chances on the counter attack.
I was a little surprised with the Canadian tactic. Considering they used an aggressive 3-4-3 against Croatia, this tactic seemed quite defensive.
I was really pleased with the play of Hird and Richards. Both played better then their form would suggest.
Got the guys I wanted on Iginla. :) One match-up I anticipated and was worried about was the Omar - Watts match-up. Wouldn't say Watts outplayed him, but he did manage to hold his own - very pleased with that.
@ Barhilo - I think you are being too hard on Bodger. Made a very nice individual effort for his goal. :) Very close a couple of other times.
About Harris - perhaps his colour vision should be checked?
You are right - there was some odd movement by the central midfielder when the ball moved up the sides. This was due to throw-in positioning. Without flank midfielders, throw-ins are tougher to arrange. I'm not sure it could be avoided.
The tactic worked much as I had hoped. Weathered their assaults, and sprung some quality chances on the counter attack.
I was a little surprised with the Canadian tactic. Considering they used an aggressive 3-4-3 against Croatia, this tactic seemed quite defensive.
I was really pleased with the play of Hird and Richards. Both played better then their form would suggest.
Got the guys I wanted on Iginla. :) One match-up I anticipated and was worried about was the Omar - Watts match-up. Wouldn't say Watts outplayed him, but he did manage to hold his own - very pleased with that.
@ Barhilo - I think you are being too hard on Bodger. Made a very nice individual effort for his goal. :) Very close a couple of other times.
About Harris - perhaps his colour vision should be checked?
You are right - there was some odd movement by the central midfielder when the ball moved up the sides. This was due to throw-in positioning. Without flank midfielders, throw-ins are tougher to arrange. I'm not sure it could be avoided.
Yeah, i was a bit surprised to see a relatively defensive formation.. relied too much on the one striker.
1 goal and an attempt or two does not mean he played a good match, the attempts were shocking and the goal was expected. It was a nice defending-on-striker goal but he seemed to be really sluggish all round.
(edited)
1 goal and an attempt or two does not mean he played a good match, the attempts were shocking and the goal was expected. It was a nice defending-on-striker goal but he seemed to be really sluggish all round.
(edited)
I can kinda see what you mean. There were a couple of times Bodger and Laforest were both chasing the same ball, and Laforest showed a little more giddy-up, even tho his pace is several steps down from Bodger.
The only time I was disappointed in Bodger was minute 7. If he'd controlled that rebound, it would have been an easy tap in.
I think you've set pretty high standards for the lad. :)
The only time I was disappointed in Bodger was minute 7. If he'd controlled that rebound, it would have been an easy tap in.
I think you've set pretty high standards for the lad. :)
With what appears to be the best strike force outside of Poland, you would expect most of those strikers to put their chances away.
If all the NZ strikers were in divine form, they could be very dangerous.
If all the NZ strikers were in divine form, they could be very dangerous.
As a group, the striker corps looked better today then against either India or Moldova. Very encouraging. :)
NZ sokker breeds strikers like NZ rugby breeds Fly Half's :P
Set a tactic Monday, and have been tweaking all week long. May still be a few adjustments.
Kind of slow sending notices to managers. More a sign of reticence (in case of a change in plan) then negligence. Will send them out shortly.
This is a match I've been looking forward to most of the season. Unfortunately, the squad is not in top shape. Missing 4 regular starters (Bodger, Richards, Kelly, Kilkenny), while several other key players continue to struggle with form (Hird, Edwards).
Canada is in good shape - better then the last time round. Only missing Moreau (back-up striker) and Laforest (a nice defender, but one who hasn't been in Slavko's rotation). They have a couple of form casualties (keeper Parker and striker Giacomi), but most others are at the top end of the form spectrum.
Last time round Canada played a rather conservative 4-5-1. I think we can expect a more aggressive stance this time (since a draw most likely doesn't help them).
I'm not terribly optimistic. Not to make excuses :D but we've got alot of quality sitting on the sidelines. A call or bounce (or two or three) may be needed to get through this one.
Kind of slow sending notices to managers. More a sign of reticence (in case of a change in plan) then negligence. Will send them out shortly.
This is a match I've been looking forward to most of the season. Unfortunately, the squad is not in top shape. Missing 4 regular starters (Bodger, Richards, Kelly, Kilkenny), while several other key players continue to struggle with form (Hird, Edwards).
Canada is in good shape - better then the last time round. Only missing Moreau (back-up striker) and Laforest (a nice defender, but one who hasn't been in Slavko's rotation). They have a couple of form casualties (keeper Parker and striker Giacomi), but most others are at the top end of the form spectrum.
Last time round Canada played a rather conservative 4-5-1. I think we can expect a more aggressive stance this time (since a draw most likely doesn't help them).
I'm not terribly optimistic. Not to make excuses :D but we've got alot of quality sitting on the sidelines. A call or bounce (or two or three) may be needed to get through this one.
nah we'd have to be pretty lucky to snatch a win here, no matter what tactic is used. Definitely at a disadvantage with our injuries and cards.
I wouldn't be overly surprised if they tried 4-5-1 again though, kinda a reverse psychology thing?
I wouldn't be overly surprised if they tried 4-5-1 again though, kinda a reverse psychology thing?
I don't mean to sound negative, and shouldn't be making excuses before the match. :P Just a little disappointed not to be able to put the best team out there.
Had a very similar situation in the last WC with Canada. Needed a draw against France to advance, but was missing 4 regular defenders (cards, injuries) as well as 2 of the better replacement defenders. (It didn't turn out so good :P). At least in this situation the absences are spread around a few different positions.
Had a very similar situation in the last WC with Canada. Needed a draw against France to advance, but was missing 4 regular defenders (cards, injuries) as well as 2 of the better replacement defenders. (It didn't turn out so good :P). At least in this situation the absences are spread around a few different positions.
Finally get a game I don't need to set my alarm for, and I don't expect to be around. :P Today is my nephew's birthday party.
So here's hoping things go well. :)
So here's hoping things go well. :)
Apologies for the loss. I really feel 4-1 was harsh. IMO New Zealand was clearly the better team for the first 70 minutes of the match.
May sound strange after losing by 3 - but I was really pleased with the tactic. I was expecting Canada to push the middle of the park, and felt all their offensive players were well covered. At the other end, the right winger and left forward had space to operate, and generated some good opportunities. So many times it seemed we were just a hair away from connecting ...
For whatever reason, the New Zealand strikers were very reticent to shoot today. Several times they were in excellent shooting positions, but chose not to release the ball. :S
If we'd had either of Kelly or Kilkenny, I think this is a different result. Dawkins just doesn't have the stamina to play defensive midfield. He was good the first 50-60, but quite obviously ran out of gas. I just didn't see any other options .... With Kelly or Kilkenny, Dawkins could have shifted to right back and Edwards (crippled by form) could have stayed on the bench.
May sound strange after losing by 3 - but I was really pleased with the tactic. I was expecting Canada to push the middle of the park, and felt all their offensive players were well covered. At the other end, the right winger and left forward had space to operate, and generated some good opportunities. So many times it seemed we were just a hair away from connecting ...
For whatever reason, the New Zealand strikers were very reticent to shoot today. Several times they were in excellent shooting positions, but chose not to release the ball. :S
If we'd had either of Kelly or Kilkenny, I think this is a different result. Dawkins just doesn't have the stamina to play defensive midfield. He was good the first 50-60, but quite obviously ran out of gas. I just didn't see any other options .... With Kelly or Kilkenny, Dawkins could have shifted to right back and Edwards (crippled by form) could have stayed on the bench.
Almost totally agree there, we totally dominated the first 70 minutes, the last 20 turned into a bit of a farce.. I thought the canadian tactic was definitely one of a madman/desperate man!!
I have to say too, damn that Amado player and the person that trained him!!
striker Chadwick was definitely the loser of the day, spoiling many shots. If Bodger was up and able to play in his position i feel the scoreline would've been a draw/win.
Defence kinda capitulated near the end, they were basically running around in circles and i think Taylor had a bit of a bad day too :/
Definitely a good tactic though, its just the players weren't up to it on the day :(
I have to say too, damn that Amado player and the person that trained him!!
striker Chadwick was definitely the loser of the day, spoiling many shots. If Bodger was up and able to play in his position i feel the scoreline would've been a draw/win.
Defence kinda capitulated near the end, they were basically running around in circles and i think Taylor had a bit of a bad day too :/
Definitely a good tactic though, its just the players weren't up to it on the day :(
If Bodger was up and able to play in his position i feel the scoreline would've been a draw/win.
Bodger was sorely missed. He would have been the CF. There were at least 4 balls Chadwick just missed by a whisker. Bodger's superior pace would have reeled them in, and being Bodger he would have capitalized on at least 50% of them.
Richards was also missed. He is the ideal player for the 6 role in this formation. In his absence, I rotated 3 players through that spot (Atkinson, Gilbert, Hird). I'd be curious to hear who people thought played best there.
I have to say too, damn that Amado player and the person that trained him!!
Lol. All 3 Canadian strikers had very good games. All 3 trained by me. :P
I thought the canadian tactic was definitely one of a madman/desperate man!!
My guess is that he expected to see the 4-3-3 again. One of my tendancies as a manager is to reuse tactics if they are effective. I was kind of counting on this - expected narrow defence (got it), and hoped the winger and wide forward would be really effective.
(I found the tightly packed Canadian back-line a little comical - solid straight across, except for a gap where the NZ CF stood. :P)
I'm not sure what he was trying to achieve by that tightly packed midfield. Iginla is their best middie, and pace is his best asset. I would have been much more concerned had he been split out wide. Playing him in a herd obscured his strengths (IMO).
Definitely a good tactic though, its just the players weren't up to it on the day :(
If I'd seen the Canadian tactic beforehand, this is still the tactic I would have played. I was happy with most everything - forward positioning, defence positioning, throw-ins. If the dice-rolls had been a little kinder, a result was absolutely possible.
It's not my intent to blame any New Zealand players - I appreciate the job New Zealand managers are doing training these stars. Most everyone played up to my expectations (perhaps not Chadwick). I knew I was asking too much of Dawkins (had little choice IMO). All week I actually had De Bruin in as the other DM, and Dawkins at right back - just changed that this morning. Perhaps I should have left it.
They are a quality side. Without 4 key players we were in tough. Even so, I really thought the team was going to bring it home - it wasn't until the Roza injury that I considered New Zealand might lose.
Bodger was sorely missed. He would have been the CF. There were at least 4 balls Chadwick just missed by a whisker. Bodger's superior pace would have reeled them in, and being Bodger he would have capitalized on at least 50% of them.
Richards was also missed. He is the ideal player for the 6 role in this formation. In his absence, I rotated 3 players through that spot (Atkinson, Gilbert, Hird). I'd be curious to hear who people thought played best there.
I have to say too, damn that Amado player and the person that trained him!!
Lol. All 3 Canadian strikers had very good games. All 3 trained by me. :P
I thought the canadian tactic was definitely one of a madman/desperate man!!
My guess is that he expected to see the 4-3-3 again. One of my tendancies as a manager is to reuse tactics if they are effective. I was kind of counting on this - expected narrow defence (got it), and hoped the winger and wide forward would be really effective.
(I found the tightly packed Canadian back-line a little comical - solid straight across, except for a gap where the NZ CF stood. :P)
I'm not sure what he was trying to achieve by that tightly packed midfield. Iginla is their best middie, and pace is his best asset. I would have been much more concerned had he been split out wide. Playing him in a herd obscured his strengths (IMO).
Definitely a good tactic though, its just the players weren't up to it on the day :(
If I'd seen the Canadian tactic beforehand, this is still the tactic I would have played. I was happy with most everything - forward positioning, defence positioning, throw-ins. If the dice-rolls had been a little kinder, a result was absolutely possible.
It's not my intent to blame any New Zealand players - I appreciate the job New Zealand managers are doing training these stars. Most everyone played up to my expectations (perhaps not Chadwick). I knew I was asking too much of Dawkins (had little choice IMO). All week I actually had De Bruin in as the other DM, and Dawkins at right back - just changed that this morning. Perhaps I should have left it.
They are a quality side. Without 4 key players we were in tough. Even so, I really thought the team was going to bring it home - it wasn't until the Roza injury that I considered New Zealand might lose.