Haven't been following this as much as others to be fair, but what separates Heraf from Hudson's dire tactics, especially when Huddo was playing far worse sides? Why did Hudson get nowhere near the uproar over four years that Heraf is getting after one game?
Of course Heraf did come out and say that we don't have the same quality that Japan has but to be honest I don't have much of a problem with that because it's true. I have a problem with playing horrible negative football, but we can't forget that's something we endured for four years and not a single person in the media spoke up about it.
Also the 8-0 comments are pretty offensive but I'm willing to take the benefit of the doubt and assume he got lost in translation/didn't mean to be so harsh/used a more European approach that we're not used to in NZ as someone in another thread mentioned. Can't help but feel this is a big overreaction. Not to mention having players literally retire because they don't like tactics. Where's the pride? If he's really not willing to change his mindset and shark tactics just sack him and move on
Heraf has forced players to retire, with Hudson players came out of retirement to play for him.
Once Hudson left he was universally praised by the playing group.
Can say what you like about Hudson, but his AWs players were behind his tactics - and he was not as negative as Heraf.
