Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: [NT] Peru
- 1
Seca [del] to
All
Sorry for the delay this week. I had a 2 day trip that turned into a 5 day adventure, so the normal pre-amble has been overlooked.
Lithuania defeated Chile 2-1. Chile's midfield clearly outplayed Lithuania's, and Chile could easily have gotten a result.
The wasn't what New Zealand needed, as now a 9-0 victory against Peru is required to advance. Even if the ME decided to pay back all the bad breaks, that kind of margin is a little tough.
I had quite an aggressive formation planned. Given the Lithuania-Chile result, that may change. Peru could still advance with a draw or better.
Lithuania defeated Chile 2-1. Chile's midfield clearly outplayed Lithuania's, and Chile could easily have gotten a result.
The wasn't what New Zealand needed, as now a 9-0 victory against Peru is required to advance. Even if the ME decided to pay back all the bad breaks, that kind of margin is a little tough.
I had quite an aggressive formation planned. Given the Lithuania-Chile result, that may change. Peru could still advance with a draw or better.
Put The Real Watts up front and you are guaranteed victory ;).
Underway.
Had initially planned a very aggressive 3-4-3, but the Chile-Lithuania result has doused all but mathematical hopes of advancing. So instead I’ve decided to try a 4-3-3. Requires accurate forward placement, as there isn’t much offensive midfield to hold the ball up and allow the strikers back on-side (Hird does drop back a little from time to time).
Peru doesn’t change things up much. Front is always essentially the same. At the back he alternates between a 2-3 and a 1-4. I’d kind of prefer the 2-3, but think the 1-4 is more likely.
IMO Peru’s best player in qualifying was their keeper Saco Vertiz. They tend to play counter-attacking football, and (from my observations) score the bulk of their goals by through balls. That’s partly why the 3-4-3 appealed to me - thought an extra body clogging things up might go a long way. The 4-3-3 means more through balls will get through, but hopefully the extra man back will make the defense better able to cope.
Things to watch:
- New Zealand defense. If they fumble and bumble and panic kick then it’s going to be the same story as the past few weeks. If they settle down, the whole team concept will flow better.
- the referee. Surely New Zealand can get through one World Cup match without a red card?
Had initially planned a very aggressive 3-4-3, but the Chile-Lithuania result has doused all but mathematical hopes of advancing. So instead I’ve decided to try a 4-3-3. Requires accurate forward placement, as there isn’t much offensive midfield to hold the ball up and allow the strikers back on-side (Hird does drop back a little from time to time).
Peru doesn’t change things up much. Front is always essentially the same. At the back he alternates between a 2-3 and a 1-4. I’d kind of prefer the 2-3, but think the 1-4 is more likely.
IMO Peru’s best player in qualifying was their keeper Saco Vertiz. They tend to play counter-attacking football, and (from my observations) score the bulk of their goals by through balls. That’s partly why the 3-4-3 appealed to me - thought an extra body clogging things up might go a long way. The 4-3-3 means more through balls will get through, but hopefully the extra man back will make the defense better able to cope.
Things to watch:
- New Zealand defense. If they fumble and bumble and panic kick then it’s going to be the same story as the past few weeks. If they settle down, the whole team concept will flow better.
- the referee. Surely New Zealand can get through one World Cup match without a red card?
A bit unfortunate from my biased seat. :) Thought New Zealand had a clear advantage in quality scoring opportunities, but couldn't finish (too many fell to Gilbert).
All-in-all, I was happy with the tactic. It had an Achilles heel tho - there was one throw-in that left an uncovered man, and Peru exploited it for both their goals. Worst part is, I think the open player was actually intended to be the thrower (the intended target was covered). :P Oh, well. That's how it goes sometimes.
Panic kick-outs were still a huge problem. But the referee left the team alone, which was a nice change. :)
All-in-all, I was happy with the tactic. It had an Achilles heel tho - there was one throw-in that left an uncovered man, and Peru exploited it for both their goals. Worst part is, I think the open player was actually intended to be the thrower (the intended target was covered). :P Oh, well. That's how it goes sometimes.
Panic kick-outs were still a huge problem. But the referee left the team alone, which was a nice change. :)
Both of their goals were um... very... 'quick'?
I've always thought those goals are a bit lucky. I can't remember the last time i've scored one of those (excluding the keeper kick to byers, byers head into goal =p) I agree with you that NZ had more quality chances but Bodger couldn't get that nuisance defender off his back which screwed him up a lot and Gilbert couldn't shoot if his life depended on it! A few very nice passes came through and i definitely felt we should've scored more than two, but at least we didn't lose again!
I've always thought those goals are a bit lucky. I can't remember the last time i've scored one of those (excluding the keeper kick to byers, byers head into goal =p) I agree with you that NZ had more quality chances but Bodger couldn't get that nuisance defender off his back which screwed him up a lot and Gilbert couldn't shoot if his life depended on it! A few very nice passes came through and i definitely felt we should've scored more than two, but at least we didn't lose again!
- 1