Subject: [NT] Lithuania WC

RL Lithuania

Situated in northern Europe on the Baltic sea. Poland is amoung its neighbours. Quite an old country, it’s first historical mention was back in 1009. It’s been occupied 3 times by Russia-Soviet Union, achieving it’s most recent independence in 1990.

Lithuania has an area of 65k square kilometers (1/4 that of New Zealand) and a population of
3.6 million people (88% of New Zealand). It boasts a relatively strong economy with low unemployment. The primary religion is Catholicism.

Sokker Lithuania

With 200 managers, Lithuania is a small-medium sized Sokker Nation. It is relatively mature, into it’s 10th season (New Zealand, slightly older, into it’s 11th). I cannot remember a time when Lithuania was not amoungst the Sokker top 10 - they have performed very well relative to their user base. Lithuania was in Group B (Australia’s group) for qualifying, and after a stumble against Norway in round 1, cruised through the rest of their matches. Their manager was re-elected, and is experienced.

Head to Head

Lithuania’s keeper situation is a little confusing to an outsider. Their manager seems to favour Jokûbas Putrinskas, tho there seem to be better options available (perhaps these other options are all keep - no pace). Putrinskas’ present form makes it even more of a head scratcher. New Zealand appears to have an advantage in goal with Taylor.

But that’s about the only good news. :) Their defense is well-rounded and deep, led by the likes of Jaunius Kisielius and team cap leader Jaunutis Vaitmonas. New Zealand’s defense would be a step behind with everyone available and in good form. It’s that much worse with the absence of Watts and Dawkins.

Wilyjackel has some pretty slick midfielders at his disposal. Jovydas Kaknevièius who is extremely quick, often patrols central midfield for both country and his #2 ranked Ekstraklasa club side. He also looks sharp when played out on the wing. Venerable Eladijus Zopelis is nearing 50 caps and leads the team in assists. I’ve seen several uncapped Lithuanian midfielders on the TL that would be automatic starters for New Zealand. Midfield is going to be a struggle.

New Zealand usually has the advantage up front, but Lithuania is one of those few teams that may have a leg up. Emilijus Kuèinskas is a force to be reckoned with. There is lots of depth behind him. Independent of form, the scales were tipped a little Lithuania’s way. The form struggles New Zealand’s strikers have exacerbated any disparity up front.

Things to Watch For

- the most important thing to watch for is the score of the Peru-Chile match. Peru must win or New Zealand is out.
- Kilkenny and Taylor both played poorly last week. Look for both to be better this time.
- Lithuania is a tremendous technical team. If their forwards can beat the New Zealand defense head-on with the ball (a possibility), it’s going to be a long game.
- last week New Zealand took 2 straight red cards against a decent technical side in Chile. Lord knows what will happen against a super technical team this week. :P

3rd and 4th goal... Now thats what I call divine passing and team play [=

wow, i was impressed by Gilbert...

Another week, another fiasco. :P When their defensive midfielder passed the ball into the net for the 2nd goal, it was pretty certain the team wasn't going to get the breaks it needed. :)

The plan in this one was to try and deny their forwards the ball (through jamming passing lanes and holding the ball), as the New Zealand defense just isn't up to marking those forwards. At times it seemed to work well, but there were break downs, and the Lithuanian forwards finished their chances very well.

The winger was intended more to help possession then to provide offense - I was pleasantly surprised that Gilbert managed to get a couple of balls into the box. :)

Team had a tough time with 50-50 balls - my impression was the Lithuania got the lion's share. I was really struck by how quickly the Lithuanian forwards followed their headers through - had never seen that. I always thought the defender had the advantage in those plays, but the New Zealand defender was left in the dust on each occassion. Perhaps due in part to form.

I had planned for a little more offside trapping. I think it may have helped. But I left a few defensive tweaks for the last minute. I started trying to log in to Sokker 6 hours before game time, but wasn't able to get in until 10 minutes before the match. My bad - shouldn't count on access.

Only 1 red card. :) Heading into the World Cup, New Zealand had 3 straight reds in it's history. 2 games later, up to 6. :P

Regardless of the Peru-Chile result, the -5 (-8 cummulative) goal differential is going to be far too poor to win any tiebreakers. Next week's match looks to be for pride. :)

A 3-man defence against them seemed suicidal. You cant do that against teams that are better than you.
I think your best bet would have been setting up a 4 or 5-man defence and trying to keep the GD down. We managed to keep them to 2-0 last season with that.

It was inevitable you would score some "muscle" goals (like the 1st and 5th).

I was actually trying to mitigate goals like the 4th with this tactic. Unfortunately on that play, instead of letting Matthews engage, Edwards engaged and vacated the passing lane.

The 3rd goal was nice. On the re-watch the pass to the striker's head him in stride just as the defensive line dug in, which is why he shot through like a cannon.

Looks like you could really have done with Watts not being suspended this week though.

4 or 5 in the back is no silver bullet. You also played 4 in the back in your 7-0 loss against them last season. :)

I think it's overly simplistic to say that "since they are better, you must play 4 or 5 at the back". Peru played 4 at the back against them last week, and surrended 24 shots. With 3 at the back this week, New Zealand cut that number almost in half. Granted, there were pretty high percentage shots. ;) But as I said, I had hoped to make better use of the off-side trap. You can read above about the oversight above. I tend not to trap with 4, as the extra defender makes it that much more probable things go wrong.

The biggest problem against Chile last week was the play of the New Zealand defense in its own half. I made a conscious decision to get the play out of New Zealand's half as much as possible. This meant more midfielders. Given that two of New Zealand's best defenders were out, it made the decision much easier to sacrifice a defender, and keep all 3 of Bodger, Hird and Gilbert in the game.

Easy to second guess. :) I imagine most managers would agree with you. I felt this approach gave New Zealand the best chance of competing given the personnel available this week. With shots 14-9, the score could have been a little kinder. :) Had I tried to turtle with back-ups and scurbs, I really don't think it would have been any prettier.

Lietuva is just one of those teams that there isn't a lot you can do. You just have to play to your own strengths and hope for the best. I didn't see any problems with using 3 defenders, but thought that you had them a bit too far up to allow Lietuvian strikers to create chances.

Bad luck this week, Lietuva were too powerful on the day.
(edited)

Would've made a big difference if you could adjust the defense properly i think, a few of the goals were marginal offside ones, the passing goal was just ridiculous.. i didn't know it was actually a goal til i heard the traitorous crowd cheering.

As for what Nin says about the 3 man defense being worse than 4 man, for this case i totally disagree. With 2 defensive midfielders (IIRC, slightly drunk right now) then it was far sufficient considering Lithuania's lack of wingers in the past, and in this match.

The only really bad luck was the second goal. Other then that, there were some things that could have gone better, but were certainly fair.

well yeah, but 14 shots to 9, one could argue to end with a 6 - 1 result is a bit unlucky, so that's why I mentioned it.

Hard to say about the trap. I would hope it would have gone better. :) But (IMO) more aggressive "jumps" would not have prevented the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 6th goal, and may very well have caused some additional ones.

The sixth goal actually was the result by a bad trap. Kilkenny and Kelly pulled, but Chadwick was ~10 yards behind. It might have been better not trapping once Harris was sent off, as Chadwick has very different pace from the other 2 (probably should have used Edwards as the red card cover - he was a late addition to the line-up with a big form jump - to average - on Thursday).

Agreed. :) 4-2 wouldn't have been an outrageous result given the play (IMO), and would have looked alot better.

Caught the Australia - Slovensko match. Australia could also have been treated more kindly. Some nice opportunities that weren't completed. Rough World Cup for current & former Oceanic representatives. :P

Been a rough ride for both of our nt's, so hopefully we can end the cup with some pride.
(edited)

Indeed. :)

An interesting game today was Portugal - England. Partly because it's a good match-up, and partly because Portugal used a similar formation (at least in the defense and midfield) to what New Zealand tried today.