Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: [NT] Copa América
Underway against Canada. :)
442 with a winger for New Zealand. Haven’t used a winger in a while - may surprise them a little. Defense plays off for the most part - one line pull, this week in my favoured spot (the 3rd zone as opposed to the 4th zone that was ineffective last week). Hird is the “safety” striker. Gilbert more likely to go offside.
I see Matthews as a key - his decision making will drive the offense. He will be determining whether to use the wing, feed the forwards, or toss it over to Sansom-Root (who really only has one good option - Gilbert).
Not really sure what Canada will do. Best guess is something similar to last week (fairly narrow 442). Earlier in the season Canada had a few poor matches where they were under-manned in central midfield. Putting more focus on that part of the field has led to some better results for them - no reason to think they’d change this game. Will be interesting to see if Slavko changes where he puts his defensive line in his own end - the past two weeks it’s retreated a little deep - has led to a lot of 15-18 yarders from the opponent. Sadly Bodger would be the player best able to punish that placement. :)
I’m a little worried about through balls - New Zealand’s 1 defensive mid isn’t all that defensive. But the opponent isn’t usually that aggressive with striker placement. I’m also worried the referee will be a talking point. Guess we’ll see.
Line-up
Taylor
De Bruin, Watts, Kilkenny, Edwards
Atkinson (Herbert-70), Matthews, Kelly, Sansom (Root-40)
Hird, Gilbert
Bench
Welford
M Gilbert
Roza (115 for Herbert)
442 with a winger for New Zealand. Haven’t used a winger in a while - may surprise them a little. Defense plays off for the most part - one line pull, this week in my favoured spot (the 3rd zone as opposed to the 4th zone that was ineffective last week). Hird is the “safety” striker. Gilbert more likely to go offside.
I see Matthews as a key - his decision making will drive the offense. He will be determining whether to use the wing, feed the forwards, or toss it over to Sansom-Root (who really only has one good option - Gilbert).
Not really sure what Canada will do. Best guess is something similar to last week (fairly narrow 442). Earlier in the season Canada had a few poor matches where they were under-manned in central midfield. Putting more focus on that part of the field has led to some better results for them - no reason to think they’d change this game. Will be interesting to see if Slavko changes where he puts his defensive line in his own end - the past two weeks it’s retreated a little deep - has led to a lot of 15-18 yarders from the opponent. Sadly Bodger would be the player best able to punish that placement. :)
I’m a little worried about through balls - New Zealand’s 1 defensive mid isn’t all that defensive. But the opponent isn’t usually that aggressive with striker placement. I’m also worried the referee will be a talking point. Guess we’ll see.
Line-up
Taylor
De Bruin, Watts, Kilkenny, Edwards
Atkinson (Herbert-70), Matthews, Kelly, Sansom (Root-40)
Hird, Gilbert
Bench
Welford
M Gilbert
Roza (115 for Herbert)
Argh. Another early red card. How many matches is that this season? It's discouraging investing time scouting and building a tactic to have it blown apart right from the start. New Zealand has had more then it's fair share of that this season. :(
Using Kelly for red card coverage was a Catch 22, as his original position was probably the most important on the pitch. From then on hopes weren't for the win, but to avoid the blow-out.
Hard to comment on the tactic because it was crippled from minute 15 onward. :S Kelly was to receive many of the throw-ins, so they looked poor. Canada had an easy time feeding their strikers with no defensive midfielder.
I was surprised with how ineffective the winger was. I thought Atkinson's positioning was good, and that he would have an easy time. But he had difficulty getting past Abbas Musa.
New Zealand passing was poor throughout the match. Canada's was much slicker. Matthews didn't have a good match. Was a little slow moving the ball, and was stripped several times by Caron (who isn't known for his defending). Hird looked slow compared to the opposition defense. Sansom-Root had little to no impact.
Losing to my own players and to a tactic I inspired should make it less disappointing. But it still sucks. :) Two weeks ago New Zealand hit (what I think was) a high-water mark with 1840 ranking points - but now will be back in the 1700s. Still a firm 3rd seed for qualifying - that's what's really important.
Turkey next week.
Using Kelly for red card coverage was a Catch 22, as his original position was probably the most important on the pitch. From then on hopes weren't for the win, but to avoid the blow-out.
Hard to comment on the tactic because it was crippled from minute 15 onward. :S Kelly was to receive many of the throw-ins, so they looked poor. Canada had an easy time feeding their strikers with no defensive midfielder.
I was surprised with how ineffective the winger was. I thought Atkinson's positioning was good, and that he would have an easy time. But he had difficulty getting past Abbas Musa.
New Zealand passing was poor throughout the match. Canada's was much slicker. Matthews didn't have a good match. Was a little slow moving the ball, and was stripped several times by Caron (who isn't known for his defending). Hird looked slow compared to the opposition defense. Sansom-Root had little to no impact.
Losing to my own players and to a tactic I inspired should make it less disappointing. But it still sucks. :) Two weeks ago New Zealand hit (what I think was) a high-water mark with 1840 ranking points - but now will be back in the 1700s. Still a firm 3rd seed for qualifying - that's what's really important.
Turkey next week.
Yeah not having Kelly really screwed the throw ins.. Thought the 4-0 score was a bit too generous to them and the side decided they didn't want to use Gilbert as much which was the first mistake.
First thing i wonder though, did your mega awesome luck with injuries and cards start when you ascended to moddomness or after/before? quaca may be responsible for this if my theory is correct!
I do wonder why Matthews has so much variance in his ability though.. Atkinson appeared to have almost no playmaking when i know thats not true and was dominated for most of the match.
One of the disputes about player selection was Hird taking the penalties, i probably would've preferred Taylor to take them considering the huge impact form has on penalties.
Otherwise, an annoying loss, amazing how many cards were accumulated though!
First thing i wonder though, did your mega awesome luck with injuries and cards start when you ascended to moddomness or after/before? quaca may be responsible for this if my theory is correct!
I do wonder why Matthews has so much variance in his ability though.. Atkinson appeared to have almost no playmaking when i know thats not true and was dominated for most of the match.
One of the disputes about player selection was Hird taking the penalties, i probably would've preferred Taylor to take them considering the huge impact form has on penalties.
Otherwise, an annoying loss, amazing how many cards were accumulated though!
not a bad result against Canada, they won simply most of the duels... And your player have made a lot of bad passes, but the tactic was really very good and the strikers have had their chances. But I've seen too some things in the tactic that weren't very good. By the throw-ins on the right site, there was nobody to throw to. And the central middelfielders were to wide outside, I think.
As mentioned above, there was no one to throw to on the right side because of the red card. :) The player (Kelly) who would have been receiving many of the throws replaced the defender who was sent off.
This was the 3rd match against Canada in the past two seasons, and the first time (IMO) New Zealand did not have a tactical advantage. The 2-2 top of the opposition formation works well against a 1-4 back (even better against a 0-4 back :D). The opposition defense took away the center of the park and forced the attack wide. The New Zealand attack did have width, but it wasn't effective. :) Had New Zealand not gone a man down I suspect the game still would have been a loss - but it would have been far more interesting.
This was the 3rd match against Canada in the past two seasons, and the first time (IMO) New Zealand did not have a tactical advantage. The 2-2 top of the opposition formation works well against a 1-4 back (even better against a 0-4 back :D). The opposition defense took away the center of the park and forced the attack wide. The New Zealand attack did have width, but it wasn't effective. :) Had New Zealand not gone a man down I suspect the game still would have been a loss - but it would have been far more interesting.
I do try to blame as much as possible on Guacamole. You think I have a defective mod button? Interesting theory. :P
I'll be putting together some end-of-season stats shortly. Team finished with an unremarkable 8-2-6 mark. Interesting to note that in 4 of the 6 losses New Zealand played a man down thanks to the referee. :)
I do appreciate form is an important factor when selecting the PK taker (along with striking and luck). IMO I would rank them:
1. Luck
2. Striking
3. Form
Hird literally has 3X the striking of any other player in the New Zealand line-up today, so I thought he gave the best chance despite his form. I appreciate others may see it differently. :)
I'll be putting together some end-of-season stats shortly. Team finished with an unremarkable 8-2-6 mark. Interesting to note that in 4 of the 6 losses New Zealand played a man down thanks to the referee. :)
I do appreciate form is an important factor when selecting the PK taker (along with striking and luck). IMO I would rank them:
1. Luck
2. Striking
3. Form
Hird literally has 3X the striking of any other player in the New Zealand line-up today, so I thought he gave the best chance despite his form. I appreciate others may see it differently. :)
Arguably form is more important (or at least just as) striker skill with penalties.
I appreciate others may see it differently. :) In this case we are talking about ~3X (not 3 levels, ~3X) the striking. The starter with the second best striking was actually Kelly - and his form is worse then Hird's.
A more accurate description of my take on penalties would be:
1. Luck
2. Luck
3. Luck
4. Striking
5. Form
A more accurate description of my take on penalties would be:
1. Luck
2. Luck
3. Luck
4. Striking
5. Form
Canada Results
1. Fiery Tiger players will score more goals than Valiant FC players. No.
Amado & Wang = 4, Hird & Gilbert = 0. The Valiant boys received far better service, but also seemed to have a little more jump - especially compared to Hird (form). Hird’s day was summarized succinctly in minute 40 when he fumbled a nearly stopped ball in the slot. Actually, his only shot was the PK. :S
2. Canada will win possession. Yes
3. New Zealand will win territory. No
Canada played a possession oriented tactic and would have won possession and territory without the red card. But with the red card midfield became 5 vs. 2 and was utterly dominated by the Canucks.
4. Canada will be leading at half time. Yes
1-0 at half time. Looked like I might preserve a little pride despite being a man down.
5. New Zealand will receive more cards (any colour) then Canada. Yes
New Zealand 7 fouls - 4 cards to Canada’s 2 fouls - 0 cards. Not surprising - Amado’s tech is superior to most New Zealand defenders tackling. Wang also caught the ref’s eye a few times.
6. Canada will have a longer successive string of passes than New Zealand. Yes
Canada had a lovely 5 pass play in minute 17. New Zealand’s best was a 3 pass play in minute 45.
7. Canada will have more panic kick-outs than New Zealand. No
New Zealand had 14 (Watts led the way with 5) to Canada’s 4. Losing a short pass option with the red card did not help matters.
8. Atkinson will have at least 1 assist. No
When I saw the two teams take the field, I thought Atkinson was going to have a good day. :/
9. Taylor will make more saves than the Canadian keeper. Yes
4 saves for Taylor. Parker didn’t have any shots to stop at the other end.
10. Canada's defense will have more assists than New Zealand's strikers. No
Canada’s only assist was from Wagenaar whom I would classify as a midfielder in this formation.
1. Fiery Tiger players will score more goals than Valiant FC players. No.
Amado & Wang = 4, Hird & Gilbert = 0. The Valiant boys received far better service, but also seemed to have a little more jump - especially compared to Hird (form). Hird’s day was summarized succinctly in minute 40 when he fumbled a nearly stopped ball in the slot. Actually, his only shot was the PK. :S
2. Canada will win possession. Yes
3. New Zealand will win territory. No
Canada played a possession oriented tactic and would have won possession and territory without the red card. But with the red card midfield became 5 vs. 2 and was utterly dominated by the Canucks.
4. Canada will be leading at half time. Yes
1-0 at half time. Looked like I might preserve a little pride despite being a man down.
5. New Zealand will receive more cards (any colour) then Canada. Yes
New Zealand 7 fouls - 4 cards to Canada’s 2 fouls - 0 cards. Not surprising - Amado’s tech is superior to most New Zealand defenders tackling. Wang also caught the ref’s eye a few times.
6. Canada will have a longer successive string of passes than New Zealand. Yes
Canada had a lovely 5 pass play in minute 17. New Zealand’s best was a 3 pass play in minute 45.
7. Canada will have more panic kick-outs than New Zealand. No
New Zealand had 14 (Watts led the way with 5) to Canada’s 4. Losing a short pass option with the red card did not help matters.
8. Atkinson will have at least 1 assist. No
When I saw the two teams take the field, I thought Atkinson was going to have a good day. :/
9. Taylor will make more saves than the Canadian keeper. Yes
4 saves for Taylor. Parker didn’t have any shots to stop at the other end.
10. Canada's defense will have more assists than New Zealand's strikers. No
Canada’s only assist was from Wagenaar whom I would classify as a midfielder in this formation.
Player Results:
Jermster69 - 9 - this week's winner!
BBall - 8
Barhilo - 7
Cerb - 7
Wivak - 6
Overall
Wivak - 3 legs - Champion!
Barhilo - 2 legs
Lilryan - 1 leg
Jermster69 - 1 leg
Thanks to all who participated. :D I enjoyed this little contest. Wivak's prize (1 outfield position reserved for his lad(s)) will be presented in the Turkey match next week.
Jermster69 - 9 - this week's winner!
BBall - 8
Barhilo - 7
Cerb - 7
Wivak - 6
Overall
Wivak - 3 legs - Champion!
Barhilo - 2 legs
Lilryan - 1 leg
Jermster69 - 1 leg
Thanks to all who participated. :D I enjoyed this little contest. Wivak's prize (1 outfield position reserved for his lad(s)) will be presented in the Turkey match next week.
Yes, praise be to our new overlord guesser, the one who is auto-promoting to Premier again =]
too true,i never thought bout it,might be a possibility
Thanks. I think I was lucky to win this competition.
I am looking forward to be playing in premier again next season, hopefully it will give a little extra money and some more interesting games. With a goal score 101-2 and 16 shots against my team in a season it has been very boring.
I will not run for election as coach, I don't have the time to give as I think it will take to do a proper job.
I am looking forward to be playing in premier again next season, hopefully it will give a little extra money and some more interesting games. With a goal score 101-2 and 16 shots against my team in a season it has been very boring.
I will not run for election as coach, I don't have the time to give as I think it will take to do a proper job.