Subject: [NT]vs Lietuva

Slight change of plans...:)

Please visit the Belgie Association topic for further information and discussion :)

Click

game starts in 10 minutes, squad is already posted on the Belgie Association forum :)

rotfl@goal of Tambour

of course...why score a penalty? let's shoot the gk :P

brilliant pass from Siau and we have 3:2 :)

3:4 :/

finishing is terrible as always :/

too bad :(

Nice game ! But what about our "top" strikers :s

I don't know what's the problem in finishing...the worst situation was when Deroo was in front of an empty goal and lost the ball. Lietuva got some pretty lucky goals, I mean not all of them but...for example the goal after red card, when Weber didn't clear the ball, just got tackled in the penalty area :/

anyway, the high-low-high defence isn't really working, right? It was better than against Eesti but it's pretty problematic at times...the red card didn't help as well

theyre top
but they dont have brains to know they should control pass and run to the gk. They prefer heading it back to a mid who is then tackled :p

Yeah :/ Deroo/Tambour got tackled all the time during 1st half :/

yeah, that's their way of thinking :p when I told them to try to pass more, I wasn't expecting THAT :p

what is the point of a high-low-high defence exactly? You get less offsides, but you tackle strikers head on, I know. But is there anything else? Besides looking cool and sofisticated?

edit: and why no high winger? Trying to get all the attacks through te middle seems awfully optimistic..
(edited)

The main point is to attack the strikers head on, as you've mentioned :) It's also a way to get your opponents strikers on offside a lot if they are place high. But it doesn't work really well so I guess it would be pointless to keep on upgrading this one :/

as for the high winger - I though that it would be better to have 3 midfielders in the centre, 2 might've been not enough...

Time to try other tactics :)

They only had two. When midfield is crowded (high defence adds to that, btw), more midfielders means less, because they're going to work less efficient (short passes keep the ball near the same opposing midfielder, IMO), so a third one is a waste.
Second, a lot of the time, the mids were behind the other mids, so too high: out of reach for the defs, useless for ball recuperation. So another waste of manpower.

If Belgium wants to play with 3 mids, wouldn't it make more sense to spread them out, to take advantage of the numerical advantage? More spread = better, IMO.
Until short passes become really reliable and high technique something to count on, trying to play football on a hankerchief, is waiting to lose the ball. Again, IMO.

Also, low passes through the middle aren't as reliable as high crosses, aren't they?