Subject: [NT] Canada

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.

i thought the same before the Roza injury, pretty bad luck that he got that :/ Its good that there is a bye next week for all teams though. I thought Dawkins eded up making some pretty sweet passes though, considering all the ball he had.

Also what spot did you place Richards in? i noticed Hird in a kind of attacking midfield role towards the end (if that was the place) and he had some chance to do some damage there.
At one point in the game i was looking at the positions the canadian players were running to when the ball was being passed back and forth and it did indeed look like it defined comical well :P

I didn’t mean to dis Dawkins. He played very well. But IMO the DM position is very demanding and requires full stamina - which he doesn’t remotely have. By minute 50 he wasn’t closing defensively very well anymore. By minute 70 he wasn’t closing at all.

Putting Dawkins at DM was the final decision I made. All week I had De Bruin at DM and Dawkins at RB (I really liked the idea of that - visualized some beauty passes up the right side to the winger). But the form update some De Bruin crash and Edwards make a slight improvement - so I changed the plan. Perhaps the original plan was better...

Richards would have been in the top midfield position (6). IMO that player needs pace (lots of ground to cover), and PM (to distribute the ball quickly), enough passing to hit his targets, and enough tackling to strip the opposing defensive mid. Describes Richards really well.

Perhaps the next closest to that criteria is Matthews. Maybe I should have tried him there. Probably would have meant sitting Gilbert (liked having him in - think he really improves the chances of the opposition getting carded).

Hird did play that spot the last 30 minutes (was conditional on NZ being behind). He fits the criteria pretty well too. I also hoped he might find more space there and rip some long shots - but he wasn’t keen to pull the trigger.

what does IMO mean?

In My Opinion

Another similar one is IMHO,

In My Humble Opinion

thats true. How far down did De Bruin go? Reckon dawkin's trainer can be convinced to train it in the offseason? persuasion could be handy :P. I remember the good ol days when snowy used to rave about Dawkins...

In the past when i've played Matthews in around that position, he has done damn fine (except for recently) and it works especially well when there are two different strikers to pass to. Long shot ability is probably another quality that position would ideally have and i dunno about Richards having that, Matthews doesn't (but to some degree does..)

Gilbert is really warming on me though. I can't really imagine a game without him, especially considering he scored our only goal today :/ Annoyed that Hird didn't choose to fire any long shots, when he has been in good form for the Tigers he used to do them all the time!

Im hoping to have Root come in off the wing and use him as a offensive middie by the end of next season. I think he would be a nice player to have as backup :)

I've watched a number of Matthews games, and I've always been really impressed when he's played centrally. Sometimes he's not as sharp out wider (not sure why). I regret not finding a little room for him today.

Gilbert is without a doubt the greatest challenge of the New Zealand NT job. He is such an amazing asset ... but how best to use him? It's a weekly quandry.

(TBH, this season I think he's been most effective as a striker - would be curious to hear other peoples opinions.)

he is used as a winger/striker for the tigers, but i am unsure of his current striking ability? thats probably the make or break situation for me... mind we already have an abundance of quality strikers, LoL.

Long term, Root could be a cracker offensive middie. Right now, the wing emphasizes his strengths and hides a few of his weaknesses.

Could you do something about his form? Change his diet, get him off the X-box ...

He always had good form till I started training playmaking. Ill be glad when I change and his form comes right again. I hope to change next week

It's not super. He's a "crash-the-net" kind of guy.

I really liked him as the middle of a 3 striker front (to scoot around and clean up rebounds). But you make a good point about striker depth - if you're only playing two strikers, can you really sit a Hird to play a grinder?

errrm is that last bit some canadian colloquial language? :P

Grinder? lol. That's hockey talk (a player who is valuable for effort and enthusiasm rather then skill).

A grinder could also be a pelvic oriented dancer, but I don't really know how Gilbert cuts the rug. Does the term have any other connotation over there? :)

i merely thought of grinding meat into mince...

which could be thought of as a metaphor for pulverising a defence (ba-dum..)

Ahhh. Very good! I think that is actually the origin of the hockey term.

Btw - any feedback on the kits today? I changed the away kits when I took over, and this is the first time they've been used. How'd they look?