All Whites, Ferns, and other international teams

All Whites v Spain at Confeds Cup

328 replies · 11,162 views
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
royal - you are 14 days older than me. unless you've been watching the tapes recently, I tend to have doubts about your recollection of the detail of individual midfield performances at Espana '82. My own memories are very sketchy and nowadays tend to be dominated by scenes from Gole. I agree Elliott was good today though.

So inspired, watching gole ... Again

sh*te its magnificent



Does one have to be of a certain age to watch the games from our greatest part of football history? Of course I've seen the games.
Our team today still looks better in IMO. The ability to hold the ball and short passing, although not up to these top teams, stills seems to be miles better.

I don't want to compare these sides, just note how well I think these guys are doing. I rate their chances in one or both of the next two games.
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Frankie Mac wrote:

* A really hungover James Dean drinks shandies.� I mean proper shandies, not even lager tops.� In the 2.5 hours he was round at my place last night, he managed to get through 1 can of beer (Fosters, no less) and half a bottle of lemonade.� I actually blame his performance for the loss.

* Spain are really f**king good.

* We WILL get something from at least one of the other games.� The Iraq keeper seemed a shambles on crosses and corners, so big Killie will score against them.



In my defence, I haven't been that hungover for several years.. I had to have a half day on Monday, and I was nearly run over twice on the way there.

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I do think we learned some important thing, for example Boyens defending for the first goal. He would have gotten away with tht at just about every level that he's played at. Now he and the other players that you can't give players time and space at this level. If we learn from it, good, then taking that beating will almost be a positive. The problem will be if we defend with that naivity in other matches.

I do think we need t work harder off the ball, on the odd occasion hat a spain player miscontrolled we weren't first to the loose ball, we need to be snapping at them not laying off, no mater how intimidating their individual skill levels are. Brownie definitely needs to work harder, just to get involved in closing down the space outside our box where dangerous players love to operate.

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Thought Ivsn was at fault as much as Boyens for the first goal - both defenders simply marking too loosely allowing players of genius the room to strut their stuff.

The fifth goal was horrific for Boyens and as somebody said elsewhere, he's performed alright outwith concentration lapses at key moments.

Perspective

Let's face it - it's Spain. Outwith the fifth goal debacle, we attempted to play the game as it should be - Spain have and will continue to rip other teams to peices, we're not alone in that regard.

Future

Iraq and South Africa won't be straight-forward affairs. South Africa looked dangerous going forward against a rather streaky Iraqi outfit. For me, South Africa look good for at least one goal against New Zealand.

I believe we can get something from either match, but as Brian Turner says, we'll need to hit the heights of our performance against Italy - and Italy, let's be realistic, treated that match like a pre-season friendly.

South Africa and Iraq will be playing for their survival in a competitive environment and that changes the dynamic - all that's gone before doesn't count.

They may look beatable when they play each other, but it's a different chemistry when they face us. I remain optimistic we can get a point but it is far from a done deal.

AM
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Guys, you do realise we are talking about playing professional soccer players who can probably run 100 meters in about 10.6 seconds as a team average.

Torres is known to run just under 10.2 seconds, so really people don't realise what a shock to the system when opposing players are dribbling with such natural agility. They find that they suddenly have less time to react.

Thought I should say something about that to get some perspective.


I seriously doubt Torres could run under 10.2 for a 100, that time would more than likely put him in the Spanish Olympic sprint team. I can just believe 10.6 at a pinch but even that is unlikely , he is quick though.

 Football players are more around the high 10s low 11s with the odd player around the 10.7ish max
The fast players forte is more around their acceleration over 10-20 metres even then they are slower than the majority of sprinters
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Buffon II wrote:
Well. That was fairly bad. Scarily could of been alot worse.

I still believe we can get something from the Saffa and Iraq games. But we must tighten up at the back and utilise our set pieces to the fullest.

CMON YOU WHITES!!! (Looked brilliant in White too btw)
 
but if we'd played in black (and here's the important point- turned on the rain machine) we would have won you know that Buffy


Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
LondonChris wrote:
my obervations otherwise ...
- did Brown touch the ball? I almost cant remember him making a pass - in fact i cant
- Lochhead didnt seem to do too bad defensively, but didnt offer anything getting forward


Brown:
I thought that about Brown, didn't even hear his name get mentioned and hardly saw him, yet Elliott was all over the game. I know there is strong support for Brown on this forum, I live in London so don't get to see him play much in the A-league etc. I would rather have Chris James in the midfield with Elliott. I think they would link up well there with their short passing game.

Lochead:
Didn't seem to do much wrong on defense....lucky for him though that the attack was all down the other side hitting mulligan and Brockie/Christie. When Lochead did get the ball further up the park, I think I saw him twice and from memory both times he lost possesion or couldn't get a cross in. Isn't that what he is supposed to be good at.
To me it kind of looked like he was trying to have a quiet game, do his job and kind of hope that if ignored the fact that we were being walked over and leave our CB's to look bad no one would notice.

Sorry bit harsh...just heard a lot about Lochead and again dont get to see him much and when i do, he seems pretty average and doesn't put in that extra effort or performance that would help lift the teams performance....


 
They seemed to deliberately target Mulligan because they were getting a lot of change out of him. I watched them try to go down the right a couple of times and get shut down.
martinb2009-06-16 11:01:41


Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
martinb wrote:
Buffon II wrote:
Well. That was fairly bad. Scarily could of been alot worse.

I still believe we can get something from the Saffa and Iraq games. But we must tighten up at the back and utilise our set pieces to the fullest.

CMON YOU WHITES!!! (Looked brilliant in White too btw)
 
but if we'd played in black (and here's the important point- turned on the rain machine) we would have won you know that Buffy


IMO black makes it seem like you have more players on the field

a.haak

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Martinb - I thought I was the only one that realised it bucketed down the whole Italian game. 
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Embarrassing result, Oceania shouldn't be given a spot in the Confederations Cup anymore all the nations there are a joke.
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Tonigol wrote:
Embarrassing result, Oceania shouldn't be given a spot in the Confederations Cup anymore all the nations there are a joke.
Worst. Troll. Evah.
Salmon072009-06-16 14:38:26

Salmon swim upstream

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Sorry but how is that a joke?

No nation in Oceania deserves a spot in any FIFA tournament.
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
This isn't the World Game... trolls as lame as this aren't likely to get fifty pages, now run back to your playpen.

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Hard News wrote:
This isn't the World Game... trolls as lame as this aren't likely to get fifty pages, now run back to your playpen.


It's not a troll, if New Zealand are the best Oceania has got the confederation has no hope.

Might as well dissolve it and join Asia.

Why don't you come on TWGF anymore anyway? We don't have any Phoenix fans on there.
Tonigol2009-06-16 15:04:12
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Tonigol wrote:
Sorry but how is that a joke?

No nation in Oceania deserves a spot in any FIFA tournament.
No my friend, you are the joke.
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Too much stupid.

If it was as simple as dissolving OFC don't you think it would have happened ?  AFC don't want the OFC nations they need to fund and prop up, the Island nations can't afford it, and the OFC officials would lose the power and influence they have.

On top of that Sepp isn't going to give up the 11+ votes in Oceania by letting them become part of any Asian block voting so FIFA aren't going to back it in a hurry.  No doubt it almost certainly should happen but unless a whole lot of people put aside personal gain (when has that ever happened in football politics) it won't happen.


How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Royal wrote:
Martinb - I thought I was the only one that realised it bucketed down the whole Italian game. 
 
It was like a home game for our NZ, English and Scottish based players...just like we grew up playing in...
 
yesterday was like playing on a billiard table, not something we do around here...


Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
btw - i agree with troll's proposition around dissolving oceania. i think lots of us do. its a football wasteland.
 
as for being an embarrassment, we really need to wait for next two games to evaluate that propsoition
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Teza wrote:

Guys, you do realise we are talking about playing professional soccer players who can probably run 100 meters in about 10.6 seconds as a team average.

Torres is known to run just under 10.2 seconds, so really people don't realise what a shock to the system when opposing players are dribbling with such natural agility. They find that they suddenly have less time to react.

Thought I should say something about that to get some perspective.
I seriously doubt Torres could run under 10.2 for a 100, that time would more than likely put him in the Spanish Olympic sprint team. I can just believe 10.6 at a pinch but even that is unlikely , he is quick though.�Football players are more around the high 10s low 11s with the odd player around the 10.7ish maxThe fast players forte is more around their acceleration over 10-20 metres even then they are slower than the majority of sprinters


Firstly, you get paid in the millions when playing football than specialising in olympic sprinting. eg. Theo Walcott is the fastest U21 (10.20s) in the EPL and had the choice of sprinting or soccer at a earlier age. The fastest white player in Europe Dennis Rommendahl has been clocked under 10s at 9.97 and is in the Denmark national team.

Secondly, Torres has a reputation as being fastest in the Spanish team and other people does gloat about it. When ask by the newspaper how fast he runs in 100 metres, he says "oh about 10 seconds" with a grin. So I was conservative when I said 10.2.

Thirdly, your understanding about the speed of professional players running at high 10s and low 11s (excluding GK) is roughly correct for most top european soccer leagues but we are talking about the best players from the best clubs of the best league in the best national team at the moment.

Maybe I put 10.6 a bit too low but considering that about 4 players (including Torres) in that team are running under just that mark while the others are running in just under 11s, I'll say I'm fairly correct to insist that is a OK estimate.

It hard to believe that in the 1950s Hungarian team had 5 players were running just about 11.5 seconds and it was unheard of then but now today we find that most of the top 30 ranked nations have about 5 players in their squad under 11 seconds. It's kind of crazy.AllWhitebelievr2009-06-16 17:13:31
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Tonigol wrote:
Sorry but how is that a joke?No nation in Oceania deserves a spot in any FIFA tournament.

How do you neglect a child and get away with it? Send it to Disneyland = Same thought as FIFA with OFC, And OFC with its members.

convict2009-06-16 17:31:34
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Teza wrote:

Guys, you do realise we are talking about playing professional soccer players who can probably run 100 meters in about 10.6 seconds as a team average.

Torres is known to run just under 10.2 seconds, so really people don't realise what a shock to the system when opposing players are dribbling with such natural agility. They find that they suddenly have less time to react.

Thought I should say something about that to get some perspective.
I seriously doubt Torres could run under 10.2 for a 100, that time would more than likely put him in the Spanish Olympic sprint team. I can just believe 10.6 at a pinch but even that is unlikely , he is quick though. Football players are more around the high 10s low 11s with the odd player around the 10.7ish maxThe fast players forte is more around their acceleration over 10-20 metres even then they are slower than the majority of sprinters


Firstly, you get paid in the millions when playing football than specialising in olympic sprinting. eg. Theo Walcott is the fastest U21 (10.20s) in the EPL and had the choice of sprinting or soccer at a earlier age. The fastest white player in Europe Dennis Rommendahl has been clocked under 10s at 9.97 and is in the Denmark national team.

Secondly, Torres has a reputation as being fastest in the Spanish team and other people does gloat about it. When ask by the newspaper how fast he runs in 100 metres, he says "oh about 10 seconds" with a grin. So I was conservative when I said 10.2.

Thirdly, your understanding about the speed of professional players running at high 10s and low 11s (excluding GK) is roughly correct for most top european soccer leagues but we are talking about the best players from the best clubs of the best league in the best national team at the moment.

Maybe I put 10.6 a bit too low but considering that about 4 players (including Torres) in that team are running under just that mark while the others are running in just under 11s, I'll say I'm fairly correct to insist that is a OK estimate.

It hard to believe that in the 1950s Hungarian team had 5 players were running just about 11.5 seconds and it was unheard of then but now today we find that most of the top 30 ranked nations have about 5 players in their squad under 11 seconds. It's kind of crazy.

No white man has ever run under 10s for the 100m. So your reference to Rommendahl is extremely incorrect.

Here is a list of the top white sprinters ever and their 100m times:
1. Marian Woronin, Poland, 10,00
2. Pietro Mennea, Italy, 10,01
3. Matthew Shirvington, Australia 10,03
=3. Nicolas Macrozonaris, Canada 10,03
5. Frank Emmelmann, Germany (GDR) 10,06
6. Johan Rossouw, South Africa 10,06
7. Valeriy Borzov, Ukraine 10,07

These guys would have/do trained/train just about every day focussing on one thing, to get faster. Football requires aerobic and anaerobic energy systems, fast and slow twitch muscles to be successful so it would be hard for a footballer to focus purely on their speed.  I would think that a footballer running under 11sec is seriously quick, and some of the figures you quoted for Torres, "So I was conservative when I said 10.2" ... conservative? Overestimating maybe, and your source for his quote "oh about 10 seconds" is?
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
[QUOTE=Teza]
[Firstly, you get paid in the millions when playing football than specialising in olympic sprinting. eg. Theo Walcott is the fastest U21 (10.20s) in the EPL and had the choice of sprinting or soccer at a earlier age. The fastest white player in Europe Dennis Rommendahl has been clocked under 10s at 9.97 and is in the Denmark national team.

Secondly, Torres has a reputation as being fastest in the Spanish team and other people does gloat about it. When ask by the newspaper how fast he runs in 100 metres, he says "oh about 10 seconds" with a grin. So I was conservative when I said 10.2.

Thirdly, your understanding about the speed of professional players running at high 10s and low 11s (excluding GK) is roughly correct for most top european soccer leagues but we are talking about the best players from the best clubs of the best league in the best national team at the moment.

Maybe I put 10.6 a bit too low but considering that about 4 players (including Torres) in that team are running under just that mark while the others are running in just under 11s, I'll say I'm fairly correct to insist that is a OK estimate.

It hard to believe that in the 1950s Hungarian team had 5 players were running just about 11.5 seconds and it was unheard of then but now today we find that most of the top 30 ranked nations have about 5 players in their squad under 11 seconds. It's kind of crazy.
 
 
Sorry to say but your information is incorrect, Theo Walcott does not run 10.2 and neither does Torres run 10.0 for 100 metres or even 10.2. The Danes time is also a fable, if true  it would make him the fastest white man on the planet over 100 metres, as of 2008 the fastest 100 metres (from what I have been able to gather) is a time of 10.00s  by Marian Woronin from Poland in 84 (and he would have been on the juice). If true the Danes time would have placed him 6th in last years Olympic final. These guys are quick (maybe high 10s) but do not come close to the times of world class sprinters and as we know people do tend to exagerate, especially sportsman.
 
As an aside I do enjoy reading your tactical and coaching posts on here.
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
You probably right about Rommendahl, I have heard 9.97 but others have said just over 10 seconds.

Maybe they all look fast to me. When it comes to speed I tend to overestimate.

I can't find the source about Torres, but I have read before in the past.

If I look about on the net, I may find some official statistics.

So add 0.5 or 1.0 seconds to what I have said if you like. They all faster than we are able to cope with. Just harder to attack against with the ball if they move to close you down. So we really need to move that ball about quicker than we would comfortable with. Also they get into position to attack quicker than you would cope with to.

So hard to face a team that moves so quick. Anyway are we a bit harsh on the players who was ball watching and out of position?
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
....................So add 0.5 or 1.0 seconds to what I have said if you like. They all faster than we are able to cope with. Just harder to attack against with the ball if they move to close you down. So we really need to move that ball about quicker than we would comfortable with. Also they get into position to attack quicker than you would cope with to.

So hard to face a team that moves so quick. Anyway are we a bit harsh on the players who was ball watching and out of position?
 
 
Your right, even when we knock the ball around it's in a slower more methodical manner than the top teams and not facing players that quick day in day out means you can't adjust to the pace straight away.
 
 Looking at the big picture it's just how our players have been coached, the amount of time our players spent training with the ball, the grounds we have to train on and the ability of our coaches.
 
I think it is getting better but  we need to examine our coaching infrastructure and how we train to improve our overall playing stocks.  To improve over the long term we have to start looking at our coaching from a more professional viewpoint at all levels.
 
 
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Hey I just found some speed times on the net as quoted from an official source. But that makes things a bit more in perspective and context.

They are for the top 15 fastest EPL players around early 2008, but honestly it makes you wet thinking how fast they are going at.

1- Theo Walcott: 21.2mph

2- Shaun Wright-Philips: 21mph

3- Andrew Johnson: 20.9mph

4- Emmanuel Adebayor: 20.8mph

5- Gabriel Agbonlahor: 20.7mph

6=- Kenwyn Jones: 20.6mph
6=- Aaron Lennon: 20.6mph

8=- Alfonso Alves: 20.5mph
8=- Fernando Torres: 20.5mph

10=- Jermaine Defoe: 20.4mph
10=- Wayne Rooney: 20.4mph
10=- Michael Owen: 20.4mph

13=- Cristiano Ronaldo: 20.3mph
13=- David Bentley: 20.3mph
13=- Cameron Jerome: 20.3mph

I wonder how Owen was before his knee injury? I kind of figure he would be 20.6 at least if it wasn't for the injury.

Considering that Asafa Powell's time of 9.74 seconds during the 100m AVERAGES at 22.9664mph. And peak speed during a 100m is at 26mph. e.g.Donovan Bailey was peaking about 27 mph during his world record in Atlanta 1996.

1 mile - 1609.344 metres
1 hour =3600 seconds

21.2mph is equal to 34118.0928 m in 3600s = 9.477248 m in a second

So Walcott runs 100m in just under 10.6 seconds.

Torres would be 32991.552m in 3600s = 9.16432m in a second

So Torres runs 100m in just under 11 seconds.

So yeah, I was working from really bad info before. Anyway, I haven't really done much on the sport speed research, there are so much other stuff to research on, like coaching. LOL.
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Teza wrote:
....................So add 0.5 or 1.0 seconds to what I have said if you like. They all faster than we are able to cope with. Just harder to attack against with the ball if they move to close you down. So we really need to move that ball about quicker than we would comfortable with. Also they get into position to attack quicker than you would cope with to. So hard to face a team that moves so quick. Anyway are we a bit harsh on the players who was ball watching and out of position?

�

�

Your right, even when we knock the ball around it's in a slower more methodical manner than the top teams and not facing players that quick day in day out means you can't adjust to the pace straight away.

�

�Looking at the big picture it's just how our players have been coached, the amount of time our�players spent training with the ball, the grounds we have to train on and the ability of our coaches.

�

I�think it is getting better but� we need to examine our coaching infrastructure and how we train to improve our overall playing stocks.��To improve over the long term we have to start looking at our coaching from a more professional viewpoint at all levels.

�

�


Yeah we have to look at that. Honestly we are the tallest team in the competition and thats something they can't improve on unless they replace their players with less skilled one. LOL.

We have improved quite a bit but having like only 25 professionals from 350 clubs to choose from compare to their 12,000 professionals, we are a bit limited.

By the time we get a decent number of players who run about 11.3 seconds, we will still be behind.

Sort of reminds me of Japan Rugby coach who said that they now have a couple of guys standing over 6.2' so they could contest the line-ups competitively in the World Cup only to find that there are teams that have about 4 players at 6'5 and above. It kind of make you laugh.
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Honestly, we just let the ball do the talking and maybe have to string a few more passes and we be competitive enough. The ball moves faster than a person. We have to learn to be tricky by changing directions a bit more as well.

Anyway a game against the best team helps exposure and highlights the strength and weakness of the team. That sort of knowledge does not come by too often.AllWhitebelievr2009-06-16 18:59:39
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Bullion wrote:

Here is a list of the top white sprinters ever and their 100m times:
1. Marian Woronin, Poland, 10,00
2. Pietro Mennea, Italy, 10,01
3. Matthew Shirvington, Australia 10,03
=3. Nicolas Macrozonaris, Canada 10,03
5. Frank Emmelmann, Germany (GDR) 10,06
6. Johan Rossouw, South Africa 10,06
7. Valeriy Borzov, Ukraine 10,07

 
man, honkees so slow

All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago


... So Walcott runs 100m in just under 10.6 seconds.

Torres would be 32991.552m in 3600s = 9.16432m in a second

So Torres runs 100m in just under 11 seconds.

Mate, sorry but thats nonsense.
Things can be over ANALized.
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
auskiwi wrote:


... So Walcott runs 100m in just under 10.6 seconds.

Torres would be 32991.552m in 3600s = 9.16432m in a second

So Torres runs 100m in just under 11 seconds.

Mate, sorry but thats nonsense.
Things can be over ANALized.
 
Thing is we do need to analyse things like this, think, if you could increase the acceleration & the reactions times of our players by even small amounts then they could get to the ball quicker or get away from  an opponent.
 
We have to be smarter by utilising the world class  sports scientists that we have here in NZ, it dosen't mean that its the be all and end all, we still need to train to get better on the ball.
 
All the top nations are doing things like this and its something we can do here for reasonable cost that may make us a bit more competitive.
 
Probably this conversation needs to move ot the coaches forum
 
Ps just got the pun....doh!! I must be slow tonight.
 
 
 
Teza2009-06-16 20:21:50
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
 Last time I looked at this thread it was about NZ v Spain...
now its like mad scientists have taken over and...and ...today it's this thread,
tomorrow the whole bloody forum!
We must be vigilant...
RedGed2009-06-16 22:07:59

  Improving,,on the up, a work in progress from Italiano and the Nix. Bring on the bathroom bling in '24! COYN!

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Well there is a difference between speed without the ball and speed with the ball.

About 8 years ago I was playing a causal game of soccer and a pal of mine who played against me was the second fasted White Australian at 10.12 in 100m. He was like 65kg, 6'1' really light as a feather for his weight.

Well in the game he had the ball and I was defending. So he slips the ball pass me and took off, lucky I was ready for it on the half turn and knew that all I have to do is stay on his shoulder for at least a few seconds until he will make a slight error on his dribbling. (He was a newbie soccer player). He was half surprised that I was there and I just gave him a little nudge him shoulder to shoulder to throw him off and then made him to knocked the ball slightly to my side. So I knew that was when to lunge for the ball and turn at the same time. I got the ball but unfortunately unknown to me, he clipped my shoulder and flew to the ground. He was very light. But it was called as a tackle from behind (inexperienced ref) but it was a clear challenge. Anyway, I knew the longer I was shoulder to shoulder to him, the less likely I was able to keep up with him.

To be honest stop him, it took my technical experience to set him up (he had to run down only one way in a small space) because I was 15 kg overweight and probably running at 13s-13.5s in 100m then and also some little hassle on the ball.

Anyway, there is more to the game then just speed/agility. It includes experience, technical knowhow, tactics and anticipation.

However that was the difference between the All Whites and Spanish team. And like people said, we need experience in playing against top teams. Can't rely on confederation cup every four years to get that experience.
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Teza wrote:
[
 
Thing is we do need to analyse things like this, think, if you could increase the acceleration & the reactions times of our players by even small amounts then they could get to the ball quicker or get away from  an opponent.
 
We have to be smarter by utilising the world class  sports scientists that we have here in NZ, it dosen't mean that its the be all and end all, we still need to train to get better on the ball.
 
All the top nations are doing things like this and its something we can do here for reasonable cost that may make us a bit more competitive.
 
Probably this conversation needs to move ot the coaches forum
 
Ps just got the pun....doh!! I must be slow tonight.
 
 
 
My response was towards the relevance of the calculations.
Of course, we do have to increase accelerartion, reaction times, pretty much the whole works.
I would agree and it starts at the grass roots of the game. In the meantime yes we do need a higher level of skill in coaching and management. We need to be able to get everything we can out of what weve got, now. Right now we can't. But we will give it a bloody good crack anyway.
p.s. lol, action over analysis, anyday, though the action can't be without vision
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
you may have read this story from the front page - some worthy thoughts ...
 
How not to combat Spain Tuesday, 16 June 2009 19:16    | Print |

360 Football's Nigel Sampson picks apart New Zealand's naive tactics against Spain.

Sunday showed us Spain in all of their glory.  Currently undisputed as the world�s best, they tore New Zealand apart at will.
 
But for all of the outstanding virtues on display; the smart positional interchanges, the lightning quick pass and move game and prolonged ball possession, one peculiar feature of the match stood out for me; New Zealand played with two strikers.

Presumably New Zealand coach Ricki Herbert selected a side based on his team�s strengths.  After all, Christopher Killen and Shane Smeltz appear to be two of his more capable players.  However, pushing them both up the park to mix it with the Spanish back four only served to create extra space for the Spanish to easily exploit in the New Zealand defensive third.

The 4-4-2 formation deployed by New Zealand required that the two front men �hold� all four of the Spanish defenders.  This was never likely to be an easy task considering the pace and mobility that all four possess.  A common approach to this problem is, when without possession, to station each of the two forwards on a full back and allow the centre backs to play out.  This is all well and good when one of those centre backs is Gary Pallister, but Carles Puyol and Raul Albiol are both capable ball players and would easily counter such a measure.

As it went, the New Zealand forwards were neither here nor there and, seemingly lacking a clear defensive game plan, the New Zealand front line was frequently pierced by whoever felt like moving forward whenever they felt like doing so.  Most often this movement came from the full backs, Sergio Ramos and Joan Capdevilla, who permanently occupied attacking wide space; Capdevilla was regularly seen in the area between the 18 and six yard boxes; one such foray setting Fernando Torres up for a simple tap in. 

Because of the two up policy, the New Zealand defenders and midfielders were asked to defend man on man against the world�s hottest side.  Spain�s movement and ball speed completed the disintegration of New Zealand�s defensive plan.

4-5-1 is, as much as anything, an acknowledgement of your inferiority to your opposition.  We have witnessed a string of decidedly average Premiership teams deploy it with the effect of allowing poor sides, assembled on a shoe string budget, to avoid relegation and often sneak a European spot.  When a premiership coach sits down at the start of the season, he looks at his resources, his opposition and picks a formation to suit.  It didn�t take big Sam Allardyce at Bolton Wanderers long to figure out that his best chance of success was to baton down the hatches, flood the midfield and hit the opposition in a direct manner on the counter attack.  Following from Allardyce�s departure, Sammy Lee�s disastrous attempts to open things up and introduce 4-4-2 exposed average players as just that.  Lee lasted barely half a season in charge.

You can call it bold or you could call it na�ve.  Either way, I�m sure that this outstanding Spanish side could hardly believe their luck at the space they were afforded in front of the New Zealand back four.  Spain�s 4-1-3-2 formation allowed midfielders to move into this crucially-creative space at will.  Front men Torres and David Villa were also keen to drop back and leave gaps for midfielders to run beyond them.  It was classic Spainish football. 

With two comparatively easy games to come, against Iraq and South Africa, New Zealand�s goal in this game was to limit the damage and pick up points in their remaining two games.  4-4-2 did nothing to achieve this.  4-5-1, with Smeltz playing wide and an extra defensive midfielder would have given New Zealand a better chance.  The spare man could close the space in front of the back four and free up New Zealand�s most capable ball-player, Simon Elliott, to retain possession; the wide players would have the mandate to follow the Spanish full backs, thus ensuring that their own full backs were not over-run.  The one striker would then be left with the more manageable defensive task of holding the two centre backs and providing an outlet for the long ball.

As it went, New Zealand was mauled by a classy Spanish side that looked well and truly capable of hitting double figures.  Iraq and South Africa can be regarded as also being international lightweights, so would be well advised to close down space in these key areas and deny this classy Spanish side the space to flourish.

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Do you know what the real difference was? Spain are better at kicking a round ball into a rectangle shaped goal than we are.

End of.

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Would be interesting whether Ricki was more interested in damage control or possibly sneaking a goal and/or giving the strike partnership time up front together.
You know we belong together...

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Frankie Mac wrote:
Bullion wrote:
Here is a list of the top white sprinters ever and their 100m times:1. Marian Woronin, Poland, 10,002. Pietro Mennea, Italy, 10,013. Matthew Shirvington, Australia 10,03=3. Nicolas Macrozonaris, Canada 10,035. Frank Emmelmann, Germany (GDR) 10,066. Johan Rossouw, South Africa 10,067. Valeriy Borzov, Ukraine 10,07

�

man, honkees so slow


Never see a thread that is such a load of crap. When has anyone ever seen a player run a 100 metres in football.It does not happen? Sure you need to be sharp,but when did any of these so called quick players in the EPL ever have to make that kind of sprint. Do any of these stupid comments have anything to do with football?

If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid

Permalink Permalink