Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: [NT] World Cup Qualifying
Congrats, great game. Especially the last 10 minutes.
:)
:)
Congratulations Seca and Canada on gettin the job done today.
Poor Dehere had it all to do in the left wingback position. He was left, in this tactic, with no support defensively or counterattacking. In the end it was completely overwhelming for him and he exited with a red card. Foster replaced him at left back and was exposed; lacking defensively. Foster had played great in the supporting attack role, with a stunning 30+ yard free kick off of the cross member and in!
NZ, with their empty midfield allowed the cross passes from Dehere through to Caron, on several occasions, but would'nt getting a player forward on the left wing create more chances?
NZ, with their empty midfield allowed the cross passes from Dehere through to Caron, on several occasions, but would'nt getting a player forward on the left wing create more chances?
Apologies for not paying much attn to this thread the past 2 weeks. There were a couple of reasons. Vilpu is a good manager, but a great self-promoter. I wasn't really up to a couple of weeks of that dialogue. Also, I didn't really want to say much about the first game. Vilpu plays essentially the same tactic each week, so I didn't want to air much analysis. I was happy with the tactic in the first game, and felt just a few changes would make the play more decisive in our favour.
The baby had a feeding @ game time, so I caught it quite fresh. But wasn't able to type feedback with the whee lad in my arms.
I felt Canada was dominate in the first half. Run of play, lion's share of shots, and deserved goals. The red card allowed New Zealand back into the game. Foster was a poor choice for red card coverage, and essentially every ball New Zealand managed to get to the right side of the pitch became a scoring chance.
Tactically, the biggest change was pushing the defense up. I had intentionally played them back in the first match out of respect for the fabulous New Zealand strikers. Also, since Vilpu plays his defense relatively aggressive, playing ours back lengthened midfield which I thought would allow Canada's midfield - the part of our team better then NZ's - more space to work. It meant surrendering more long shots which Madden usually handles. However, he struggled, made a hash of 1 20+ yarder for a rebound goal on the first, and got beat from 20+ on the second. So, moving the defense up in this match was intended to eliminate the long shot from NZ's arsenal, and it worked fairly well. It did mean some more tackles from behind, and tbh, we didn't get a great deal of rng love on these tackles given the two penalty shots and cards. Generally you don't pay that steeply for this positioning.
On our side, Caron notably stepped up his play. He couldn't break any tackles last time. I actually pulled him back in this match, hoping for more through balls and less wing penetration attempts. But he was still far enough upfield to make a go, and did a really good job gaining the wing.
The win was essential - anything less would have cooked us. Finland is going to be tougher on the back end.
The baby had a feeding @ game time, so I caught it quite fresh. But wasn't able to type feedback with the whee lad in my arms.
I felt Canada was dominate in the first half. Run of play, lion's share of shots, and deserved goals. The red card allowed New Zealand back into the game. Foster was a poor choice for red card coverage, and essentially every ball New Zealand managed to get to the right side of the pitch became a scoring chance.
Tactically, the biggest change was pushing the defense up. I had intentionally played them back in the first match out of respect for the fabulous New Zealand strikers. Also, since Vilpu plays his defense relatively aggressive, playing ours back lengthened midfield which I thought would allow Canada's midfield - the part of our team better then NZ's - more space to work. It meant surrendering more long shots which Madden usually handles. However, he struggled, made a hash of 1 20+ yarder for a rebound goal on the first, and got beat from 20+ on the second. So, moving the defense up in this match was intended to eliminate the long shot from NZ's arsenal, and it worked fairly well. It did mean some more tackles from behind, and tbh, we didn't get a great deal of rng love on these tackles given the two penalty shots and cards. Generally you don't pay that steeply for this positioning.
On our side, Caron notably stepped up his play. He couldn't break any tackles last time. I actually pulled him back in this match, hoping for more through balls and less wing penetration attempts. But he was still far enough upfield to make a go, and did a really good job gaining the wing.
The win was essential - anything less would have cooked us. Finland is going to be tougher on the back end.
Poor Dehere had it all to do in the left wingback position. He was left, in this tactic, with no support defensively or counterattacking.
I did ask alot of Dehere. Pushing our defense up turned the NZ flank midfielder into a winger, increasing the difficulty of his tackles. The strength of NZ is their strikers, so I couldn't support him much defensively, and had to cheat him towards the middle much of the time (making his job more difficult). That said, I did expect a little better play from him.
Offensively it was tougher on him to due to the more aggressive defense. Lemieux was supposed to be his outlet, but with the shorter midfield there was a fairly brief window of oportunity to get him the ball. I also thought he had a few chances to get the ball to Verville that he declined. I acknowledge I made it hard on him, but I still expected a little better. :)
Foster replaced him at left back and was exposed; lacking defensively.
Foster's bigger problem is a lack of pace. Besides Madden, he is the slowest player on the pitch. Originally, I had Broussard as the red card coverage. But in a must win game I knew I would be kicking myself if we were even or behind and a striker was sacrificed to cover a red card.
When I look at red card coverage I look for the position I can most do without. In this tactic, that's the offensive mid (or one of the strikers ... already addressed :) ). I then consider what kind of job the person in that position will do. I knew I was taking a chance with Foster. Ideally we'd have a more robust substitution system that would allow say Foster sliding back into that position, and Holden coming in off the bench for Foster.
An interesting wrinkle of this was that Foster was the designated FK taker in this match. I usually try to avoid the FK taker being the red card guy. There was an FK on the right-ish side of the field that took him waaaaay out of position. I can't remember if NZ scored on that occasion.
but would'nt getting a player forward on the left wing create more chances?
That's a great question. It would be nice, but where does that player come from? Who would you sacrifice in this tactic for a left side flank?
Defense in Sokker is all zone. Beating a zone often means "loading" one area at the expense of another. That was the intent in the tactic. The grouped strikers and right side flank player are intended to draw the play to that side of the field (NZ's approach was similar). You put your best PM players on the opposite side (Lemieux in mid, Dehere on def) and hope they realise everyone is on the other side of the field and switch the ball.
I did ask alot of Dehere. Pushing our defense up turned the NZ flank midfielder into a winger, increasing the difficulty of his tackles. The strength of NZ is their strikers, so I couldn't support him much defensively, and had to cheat him towards the middle much of the time (making his job more difficult). That said, I did expect a little better play from him.
Offensively it was tougher on him to due to the more aggressive defense. Lemieux was supposed to be his outlet, but with the shorter midfield there was a fairly brief window of oportunity to get him the ball. I also thought he had a few chances to get the ball to Verville that he declined. I acknowledge I made it hard on him, but I still expected a little better. :)
Foster replaced him at left back and was exposed; lacking defensively.
Foster's bigger problem is a lack of pace. Besides Madden, he is the slowest player on the pitch. Originally, I had Broussard as the red card coverage. But in a must win game I knew I would be kicking myself if we were even or behind and a striker was sacrificed to cover a red card.
When I look at red card coverage I look for the position I can most do without. In this tactic, that's the offensive mid (or one of the strikers ... already addressed :) ). I then consider what kind of job the person in that position will do. I knew I was taking a chance with Foster. Ideally we'd have a more robust substitution system that would allow say Foster sliding back into that position, and Holden coming in off the bench for Foster.
An interesting wrinkle of this was that Foster was the designated FK taker in this match. I usually try to avoid the FK taker being the red card guy. There was an FK on the right-ish side of the field that took him waaaaay out of position. I can't remember if NZ scored on that occasion.
but would'nt getting a player forward on the left wing create more chances?
That's a great question. It would be nice, but where does that player come from? Who would you sacrifice in this tactic for a left side flank?
Defense in Sokker is all zone. Beating a zone often means "loading" one area at the expense of another. That was the intent in the tactic. The grouped strikers and right side flank player are intended to draw the play to that side of the field (NZ's approach was similar). You put your best PM players on the opposite side (Lemieux in mid, Dehere on def) and hope they realise everyone is on the other side of the field and switch the ball.
There were a couple of reasons. Vilpu is a good manager, but a great self-promoter. I wasn't really up to a couple of weeks of that dialogue.
No offense but, I had no plans having a dialogue with you. There is nothing to talk about.
Vilpu plays essentially the same tactic each week, so I didn't want to air much analysis.
It´s difficult to use something else against stronger teams, that´s why 5 defenders. Works best on high level imo. Midfield is relatively weak, thatś another reason of maximum 2-3 players on midfield. Don`t have a big choice in that section unfortunately.
I was happy with the tactic in the first game, and felt just a few changes would make the play more decisive in our favour.
I thought you were and I was hoping you are coming with the same tactic. That´s why I used high winger, worked fine imo - satisfied with that.
The only thing I did wrong I didn`t attempt to block the free space between your mids and high winger (caron was the name I guess). Your mids always passed the ball from the space between my mids and defenders. Won`t do that mistake again, just came up with a good idea for that.
Tactically, the biggest change was pushing the defense up. I had intentionally played them back in the first match out of respect for the fabulous New Zealand strikers.
Just to let you know I always play my strikers quite high, don`t care how high the opponent defenders are. I rather see them being in the offside, than too low.
And our strikers are as fabulous as yours, you are being too modest.
The win was essential - anything less would have cooked us. Finland is going to be tougher on the back end.
If I don`t start scoring more goals, we won`t play in the World Cup.
If we both lose to Finland, then we have the same amount of points and the qualifier will be deiced by the goal difference.
Either way if you we both lose to Finland or you will win I´ll lose - second place gets the team who has better GD. at the moment I highly doubt I can beat Finns. But the games so far have shown that anything is possible.
No offense but, I had no plans having a dialogue with you. There is nothing to talk about.
Vilpu plays essentially the same tactic each week, so I didn't want to air much analysis.
It´s difficult to use something else against stronger teams, that´s why 5 defenders. Works best on high level imo. Midfield is relatively weak, thatś another reason of maximum 2-3 players on midfield. Don`t have a big choice in that section unfortunately.
I was happy with the tactic in the first game, and felt just a few changes would make the play more decisive in our favour.
I thought you were and I was hoping you are coming with the same tactic. That´s why I used high winger, worked fine imo - satisfied with that.
The only thing I did wrong I didn`t attempt to block the free space between your mids and high winger (caron was the name I guess). Your mids always passed the ball from the space between my mids and defenders. Won`t do that mistake again, just came up with a good idea for that.
Tactically, the biggest change was pushing the defense up. I had intentionally played them back in the first match out of respect for the fabulous New Zealand strikers.
Just to let you know I always play my strikers quite high, don`t care how high the opponent defenders are. I rather see them being in the offside, than too low.
And our strikers are as fabulous as yours, you are being too modest.
The win was essential - anything less would have cooked us. Finland is going to be tougher on the back end.
If I don`t start scoring more goals, we won`t play in the World Cup.
If we both lose to Finland, then we have the same amount of points and the qualifier will be deiced by the goal difference.
Either way if you we both lose to Finland or you will win I´ll lose - second place gets the team who has better GD. at the moment I highly doubt I can beat Finns. But the games so far have shown that anything is possible.
No offense but, I had no plans having a dialogue with you. There is nothing to talk about.
Heehee. If you say so. :) You made 3 posts in the interval between games, all of which seem to be trying to ilict a response from me. And now a point by point analysis of my post game comment. Either you were/are trying to talk to me, or it's just more posturing in case you pulled off Another miracle?. :P
Heehee. If you say so. :) You made 3 posts in the interval between games, all of which seem to be trying to ilict a response from me. And now a point by point analysis of my post game comment. Either you were/are trying to talk to me, or it's just more posturing in case you pulled off Another miracle?. :P
In my 1st post I was just answering to another manager´s question.
2nd and 3rd post were purely formality before and after the match, was trying to be polite as always:)
PS! Don`t answer me, otherwise it will become a never ending dialogue between us. And you definitely don`t want that:)
(edited)
2nd and 3rd post were purely formality before and after the match, was trying to be polite as always:)
PS! Don`t answer me, otherwise it will become a never ending dialogue between us. And you definitely don`t want that:)
(edited)
Indeed. It totally doesn't prove my point that you must have the last word even in a thread created by me in my home forum about the team I'm coaching. :)
Last word is yours Vilpu. As I did the past two weeks I will stop reading my own thread for while.
Last word is yours Vilpu. As I did the past two weeks I will stop reading my own thread for while.
Omg what an ending to this match, a must watch!!
p.s. Paraguay's GK is friggin crazy
p.s. Paraguay's GK is friggin crazy
I watched it - Hilarious mistake from Canada´s keeper and what a goal. There was 5 minutes to go after that equalizer, but I was sure and probably was Seca, that Canada is still going to win. Fully deserved 3 points, but unbelievable game from Paraguay.
Well, we didnt run up the score, but a win is always nice. I like that Foster as an attacking midfielder. I like that Canada had a young team - still lots of potential to keep improving. And I liked seeing the diamond midfield formation - a staple in real life.
Apologies for the blank spot on the bench. A couple of minutes before match time I decided to switch Zanardi and DeGuzman. I'm guessing I confused Sebrango and Zanardi when I did this (Sebrango was suspended).
We had some pretty good luck early on in qualifying against Wales and Finland. Since then our luck has been poor to awful. It's going to be hard to win a goal differential race if the random number generator doesn't start picking it up a little.
We had some pretty good luck early on in qualifying against Wales and Finland. Since then our luck has been poor to awful. It's going to be hard to win a goal differential race if the random number generator doesn't start picking it up a little.