http://www.yellowfever.co.nz/about
New Zealand Men's U-20s
This is the 5% right?
All aboard.
Kind of hoping one of the Nix boys can slot one,but a goal from anyone would be cool
Crocombe has some great reflexes but his positioning and distribution are so suspect. We played a nice 5 minutes at the end, when we actually tried to keep possesion rather than hoof it up the park.
1-0 HT.Much better game from us so far
Yeah Crocombe indecisive & it cost us unfortunately.
Fenton on the bench?
wooohoooo
Crocombe - good shop stopper, but his positioning is very poor.
Higgins was better today, although I think his crossing could have been better. Defensively did well today.
Roux, grew into the tournament and looked good today and got forward well. Was happy with how he went.
Tuiloma and Adams played really well together and looked far more solid than the Arms and Adams combo. Tuiloma just looks to have time everytime he touches the ball and can play anywhere along the back line. Sign him up please Nix.
Jordan i thought did well screening in front on the backline with Howieson. Tried one or two too many miracle balls, but looked like he should of started from the get go.
Thomas and Payne went missing too often for my liking, little impact.
Elia, looked good, made some nice touches and had a decent chance. Was busy.
Boyd looked good and seems to have a decent touch, although he does still take one too many touches occassionally. Works hard and sees to be getting better and keeping the ball and finding options.
Howieson was a class act as a defensive midfielder and I hope Ricki was watching because he looks to have a real future there. His passing and distribution was very good and he can beat a man comfortably as well. Was really impressed by him.
Fenton, tries to much, not normally a bad thing, but his decisions can be a little so so.
Could to see we put more pressure on up top and as a result had more possession.
Everyone got game time except Edge... was he injured??
Well as least we didn't get violated.
Much much better from the kiwi boys. At least they are improving from game to game. Against Uruguay they just parked the bus and hoofed any possession down field. At this game they tried to play through midfield and actually created well....especially in the second half. Had 14?? shots on goal too...some of them where OK chances. The best a nice curling dipping shot from Howieson...who looks more and more classy.
I watched all three games and in two of them we have given up goals early to crap goal keeping. For some reason Milicich dropped Basalaj who looked sound against Ur and played Crocombe again. And again Crocombe was at error for the first goal. A regulation cross in met by their tall striker. Crocombe rushed forward, changed his mind and tried to get back. The ball lobbed off the head of the striker and went over a stranded Crocombe into the net. If he had stayed it would have dropped into his hands. Regulation stuff for keepers....if you a going to go for it F**ken go for it. So in two games NZ let in soft goals early and had to chase the game. Crocombe made a couple of good regulation saves but flapped at a few crosses and sliced a few kick out on the full. Beats me why Basalaj was not playing......my granny is a better keeper than Crocombe.
There second goal was a quality strike on the 75th minute....striker bent it in nicely from 15 metres.
But until then the kiwis where in the match. Croatia dominated possession 60 40. They were a big physical team with an excellent passing game. As the game progressed the kiwis passed more and more confidently. Howieson dropped deeper to pick up the ball and created nicely. I think this team selection had the best balance out of the three starting lineups. Elia had some nice touches and helped Boyd out up top. Boyd was excellent. His quick feet got him out of tight situations and he bought others into play well. He had 4 shots on goal and caused the Croatian back four problems. He's really coming on well.....good for the Nix. Payne and Thomas were quiet in midfield but worked hard.
Tuiloma played CB. He is class. Good vision, good in the air and distributes well. You can tell a good player as they seem to have more time on the ball. Tuiloma must be a good option for the Nix. At 18 he is a hot prospect. Plays RB, LB and CB. I would not be surprised if some other club picks him up...and at a decent level.
Roux had another good game. He is still developing and makes the occasional error but he also does lots of good stuff as well. Gets up and down the line well, has OK pace and defends very well. Nix Academy at the very least. If he goes to CCM as rumoured I will spew..he looks like he could develop into a good A-League RB
The kiwis goal was well deserved. Good leadup play and a scramble in the box and Fenton?? was hacked down. Fenton took the penalty...well struck down the middle. We had chances late but the final ball just let us down.
After watching all three games you could see that NZ across the board were quite a bit inferior to the opposition. Technically we struggled with passing in tight situations and often the final deliver let us down after some good buildup play. We were always dominated in the middle of the park. We have a core of good enough players but there were some in the squad who were out of their depth. Tactically we were a bit all over the place. We seem to mix longball and possession football and if it was confusing to watch it must have been confusing to play for the players. The good news is we got better from game to game. By the third game we looked to have the right combination on the field and the right tactics. The lads would have got plenty out of the experiance. You do wonder how they would have done with a proper hard buildup...but thats another story.
Its interesting that just because a player is considered to be playing 'professionally' overseas, does this make him better than other players playing at home.I was under the impression that they were streaks better than what we have.
After watching all 3 games, the so called professionals did not impress at all. Some of the home based players are much better.
Maybe NZF has to take stock and get rid of the mentality that if you have managed to get into a team overseas you MUST be better than ones who have not!
Maybe take players on their actual merits not who you are, where you play and what you may have done in the past. All players evolve and change and not always for the best and they shouldn't be allowed to rest on past " I have played for this and that in the past'.
Its interesting that just because a player is considered to be playing 'professionally' overseas, does this make him better than other players playing at home.I was under the impression that they were streaks better than what we have.
After watching all 3 games, the so called professionals did not impress at all. Some of the home based players are much better.
Maybe NZF has to take stock and get rid of the mentality that if you have managed to get into a team overseas you MUST be better than ones who have not!
Maybe take players on their actual merits not who you are, where you play and what you may have done in the past. All players evolve and change and not always for the best and they shouldn't be allowed to rest on past " I have played for this and that in the past'.
your absolutely right, I/we could mention alot of players 'missing' from this tour as some were definately out of their depth and to concur with someone else here that we mixed 'long ball' with 'possession ball' wrapped it up for me. Then to pick 'pro' players over others because they 'live and breathe' it - I didnt see it [3 pro players were helping other positions so didnt see their full potential] 4 goals for and 17 against in 6 games is not pretty reading especially when there was 10 in 2 games, the defence was................................
But bottom line is their was poor preparation on this tour, I mean they played 3 international games warmup on a plane trip to a World Cup? and none last few months? Logistics? Could have had fill-in local players [NZ based] for others do a home and away with Oz which is 3 hrs from here at $400 return each [same day trip] a few times last 3 mths instead of getting embarressed 5 nil for everyone to see but if money is an issue wheres the millions we got from last WC 3yrs ago? We didnt need millions for few trips to Sydney for development games.
Rant over
Ah. I googled El Grapadura and it came back with a Mexican wrestler from some kids cartoon. My assumption was Hispanic of some sort.
Angry Beavers ftw.
On topic, a fairly average game of football, but good effort put in by the Kiwi lads. Rode their luck a bit, but fought hard, and the goal in the end was well deserved. Boyd and Howieson the best for me, Crocombe just doesn't inspire confidence, surprised he even got to play in this game.
I thought Roux was fairly average in the first half, Croatia had the freedom of his flank the entire first half. He improved in the second half, but as a whole piece of work I didn't think he was that great.
Everyone got game time except Edge... was he injured??
And Solomon. And Clarke (3rd GK)
Its interesting that just because a player is considered to be playing 'professionally' overseas, does this make him better than other players playing at home.I was under the impression that they were streaks better than what we have.
After watching all 3 games, the so called professionals did not impress at all. Some of the home based players are much better.
Maybe NZF has to take stock and get rid of the mentality that if you have managed to get into a team overseas you MUST be better than ones who have not!
Maybe take players on their actual merits not who you are, where you play and what you may have done in the past. All players evolve and change and not always for the best and they shouldn't be allowed to rest on past " I have played for this and that in the past'.
your absolutely right, I/we could mention alot of players 'missing' from this tour as some were definately out of their depth and to concur with someone else here that we mixed 'long ball' with 'possession ball' wrapped it up for me. Then to pick 'pro' players over others because they 'live and breathe' it - I didnt see it [3 pro players were helping other positions so didnt see their full potential] 4 goals for and 17 against in 6 games is not pretty reading especially when there was 10 in 2 games, the defence was................................
But bottom line is their was poor preparation on this tour, I mean they played 3 international games warmup on a plane trip to a World Cup? and none last few months? Logistics? Could have had fill-in local players [NZ based] for others do a home and away with Oz which is 3 hrs from here at $400 return each [same day trip] a few times last 3 mths instead of getting embarressed 5 nil for everyone to see but if money is an issue wheres the millions we got from last WC 3yrs ago? We didnt need millions for few trips to Sydney for development games.
Rant over
Name them?
You wouldnt leave out 'pros' like crocombe payne howieson fenton or boyd
Ah. I googled El Grapadura and it came back with a Mexican wrestler from some kids cartoon. My assumption was Hispanic of some sort.
Angry Beavers ftw.
On topic, a fairly average game of football, but good effort put in by the Kiwi lads. Rode their luck a bit, but fought hard, and the goal in the end was well deserved. Boyd and Howieson the best for me, Crocombe just doesn't inspire confidence, surprised he even got to play in this game.
I thought Roux was fairly average in the first half, Croatia had the freedom of his flank the entire first half. He improved in the second half, but as a whole piece of work I didn't think he was that great.
Agree on Roux.
Yes; howieson, tuiloma, boyd, van elia, fenton, payne
No; crocombe, higgins, arms, adams
Maybe; roux, gulley, thomas, basalaj, jordan
You age group sides are only as good as/or reflect on our current nation football league.
Sorry I simply disagree. Look at England. Arguably best league in the world yet their U21s were absolutly atrocious.
Ditto Under-20's. England 1 Egypt 2. Both go home. England extend their winless Under 20's run to 17 games in last 16 years!
Correction: England 0 Egypt 2. Worse.
The name of the country roughly meant South Slavs. if im wrong by all means educate me...
Yugoslavia/Yugoslav is a meaningless compound word - strictly speaking it means nothing in any of the Southern Slavic languages (although it was envisaged to allude to Southern Slavs). But that's not to mention that not all Southern Slavs lived in that country, while quite a few non-Slavs did, and that none of them used that term to describe their belonging to a specific ethno-linguistic sub-group, which is hardly a common identifier for most peoples around the world at any rate.
Gawd. When I was introduced to Mr Brocic I was 15 years old and didn't know all that. He may have done. Possibly. Thanks.
There are couple of reasons why not:
As you heard the commentator Croatia played "B" team (9 players replaced, with 4 who weren't even on the bench in previous games, got an opportunity to play).
Croatia didn't need to chase up the game (result).
They played smartly to avoid injuries and get result.
Our youngsters:
Bad tactical decisions by Milichich, playing long ball on one lonely striker who had no support most of the time? Talking about Boyd, too much individual display, on some occasions to selfish. Midfielders played mostly defensive roles with very little to show for in the opposition half.
No desire to play and win from most of the players. Disappointing game for Tim Payne.
Too many poor first touches and decisions, some of our lads are technically not good enough, can't even cross the ball...
Agree. We can't keep the ball. There were players picked that are not technical players but may run past a couple of players in our youth league! Milicich is not good tactically. I think people are a bit harsh on Payne. He would be frustrated bcoz everytime he passed it to a player they couldn't keep it. Boyd is a good player but he is not a centre forward. He is a wide player. How many goals did he score in qualifiers, warm up and WC? Howieson did ok. None of our players were a cut above and I suspect none will get picked up unless maybe the Nix give Bill a position in the school of excellence.
Its interesting that just because a player is considered to be playing 'professionally' overseas, does this make him better than other players playing at home.I was under the impression that they were streaks better than what we have.
After watching all 3 games, the so called professionals did not impress at all. Some of the home based players are much better.
Maybe NZF has to take stock and get rid of the mentality that if you have managed to get into a team overseas you MUST be better than ones who have not!
Maybe take players on their actual merits not who you are, where you play and what you may have done in the past. All players evolve and change and not always for the best and they shouldn't be allowed to rest on past " I have played for this and that in the past'.
your absolutely right, I/we could mention alot of players 'missing' from this tour as some were definately out of their depth and to concur with someone else here that we mixed 'long ball' with 'possession ball' wrapped it up for me. Then to pick 'pro' players over others because they 'live and breathe' it - I didnt see it [3 pro players were helping other positions so didnt see their full potential] 4 goals for and 17 against in 6 games is not pretty reading especially when there was 10 in 2 games, the defence was................................
But bottom line is their was poor preparation on this tour, I mean they played 3 international games warmup on a plane trip to a World Cup? and none last few months? Logistics? Could have had fill-in local players [NZ based] for others do a home and away with Oz which is 3 hrs from here at $400 return each [same day trip] a few times last 3 mths instead of getting embarressed 5 nil for everyone to see but if money is an issue wheres the millions we got from last WC 3yrs ago? We didnt need millions for few trips to Sydney for development games.
Rant over
Name them?
You wouldnt leave out 'pros' like crocombe payne howieson fenton or boyd
Name the pros who I think helped other positions so we didnt see their full potential? Payne, Adams and Howieson- they were 'defending' down the middle as best they could but notice 2 of those are key attackers hence lack of creativity in attack [cause busy covering other weaknesses] and Adams was working his butt off more than normal in central defence but to be honest he had no 'stablemate' as witness the constant team start changes.
Fenton and Boyd? - they didnt cover for other weaknesses cause busy dealing with their own.
All in all there seemed to be not enough possession which is no secret by the stats but weather you play netball,rugby,hockey - the principle is the same - whoever controls the ball, controls the game and when we did string 4 passes it was easily lost. The long ball is still amoungst us..............
I didn't see the games, only the highlights so the question I have is who at the tournament improved or declined in the eyes of the fans. For example I read that Howieson was pretty much one of our best players. Did he perform at the level expected or higher than that? I think more than a few people had Crocombe rated highly prior to the tournament but has really come away stink of shit.
Did Milicich deliver on what was expected of him as a coach?
The way I read it is that the build up was under done and this group really performed poorly with poor tactics on was was viewed as a team that had some talent.
There are couple of reasons why not:
As you heard the commentator Croatia played "B" team (9 players replaced, with 4 who weren't even on the bench in previous games, got an opportunity to play).
Without wishing to sound too churlish, this whole Croatian squad is really a B team - 6-7 (a couple of them already full internationals) of the best eligible players at this level weren't released by their clubs and never made it to the tournament. Not to mention that they played fewer build-up games than the NZ U20s. So I guess that in itself is indicative of the gap that needs to be bridged.
I don't think it's fair to criticise Milicich and his tactics - he did try to transition play through midfield and knock the ball around, but there was just not enough quality across the team at this level to do it very effectively. So at times they had to resort to long-balls just to try to get the ball in the more attacking areas occasionally. Overall, the team is what it is - the reality is we have lots of hard graft over an extended period of time to get to the level where we want to be. And even then the outcome is by no means assured. But these guys fought hard, and improved in every game, and I guess that's the most we can realistically ask from them.
A very positive slant on a very disappointing showing at an international competition. Cannot understand why Basalaj was dropped for the last game????
A very positive slant on a very disappointing showing at a uefa competition. Cannot understand why Basalaj was dropped for the last game????
Uefa?
Watched all 3 games - must say i think the lack of preparation showed more than anything.
Lots of talk about Crocombe - definitely seems he is being made into a bit of a scapegoat for his 2 mistakes, which are highlighted because they lead to goals. Crocomb made some very impressive saves (he looks a great shot stopper) in both his games. Saying that I'm surprised he played in the last one because Basalaj played ok, albeit pretty much without being tested, i cant understand changing the goalkeepers back and forth for each game - stick to one or the other surely?
Anyway, I dont particularly have a strong opinion on him as a player because I (like most of you) have only seen him play in 2 games where we can safely assume he wasnt at his best. There's just something that doesnt feel comfortable about over criticising these boys when realistically most of our future All Whites will be coming from this bunch. There's a reason we were the lowest seed in this competition and the rushed prep we had in the build up really didn't help us one bit. I felt we only started playing with any cohesion in the 3rd game. We really need to sort that out for future tournaments if we want to keep improving as a nation.
There were definitely positives in the form of Boyd, Fenton, Howieson and Thomas, who impressed. I found the campaign very intriguing and really don't see why the immediate response to it is so negative - it's not like we're England who were actually expected to get good results and have also left their group without a win.
Yes i agree with you and would add Big Bill to your list.With a better run in we may have been much more competitive.
Watched all 3 games - must say i think the lack of preparation showed more than anything.
Lots of talk about Crocombe - definitely seems he is being made into a bit of a scapegoat for his 2 mistakes, which are highlighted because they lead to goals. Crocomb made some very impressive saves (he looks a great shot stopper) in both his games. Saying that I'm surprised he played in the last one because Basalaj played ok, albeit pretty much without being tested, i cant understand changing the goalkeepers back and forth for each game - stick to one or the other surely?
Anyway, I dont particularly have a strong opinion on him as a player because I (like most of you) have only seen him play in 2 games where we can safely assume he wasnt at his best. There's just something that doesnt feel comfortable about over criticising these boys when realistically most of our future All Whites will be coming from this bunch. There's a reason we were the lowest seed in this competition and the rushed prep we had in the build up really didn't help us one bit. I felt we only started playing with any cohesion in the 3rd game. We really need to sort that out for future tournaments if we want to keep improving as a nation.
There were definitely positives in the form of Boyd, Fenton, Howieson and Thomas, who impressed. I found the campaign very intriguing and really don't see why the immediate response to it is so negative - it's not like we're England who were actually expected to get good results and have also left their group without a win.
Any student of the game can see that Crocombe has terrible positioning in goal. Long story short he is a nightmare!
Agree about the lack of prep and I think that 0-5 loss to Australia was incredibly damaging. Milicich can take a lot of blame for the way we played in the tournament though. Long balls to isolated strikers just one example. Nice guy but very limited. Emblem could've perhaps got much better out of the players. Positive approach.
I'd go ahead and say Fenton really didn't do much. Same for Thomas
Only real highlights were Howieson and Tuiloma. Payne and Boyd needed to be up front and we probably needed to be playing a 4-4-2 to get any cohesion going.
Also found it odd Gulley was our best player in Fiji yet he was sub here. Should've been partnering Howieson in midfield. When he came on against Croatia he looked a tad lost thought but they all did.
Geez TV, be careful with your critiscm, there were some excellent saves and keepers do mature at different rates to outfield players.
Agree with tv.
Agree with tv.
Yeah but you're a miserable bastard at the best of times.
I think El_Grap sums things up nicely. We are what we are, and we put in a performance that really we all should have expected.
I was very critical of the coaching team after the last U20s campaign, but I don't have those same criticisms this time. As El_Grap says, they tried to play, but we just didn't have the ability to do it.
Some glimmers of hope from a handful of players.
Interested in whether those decrying the performance thought that the last U20s were better, considering they hacked their way to third in their group?
This tournament has highlighted exactly where we are at in the international footballing world: kind of competitive at U17 level on a good day, but then the professional football world accelerates away and our lads play social football for amateur clubs. By U20 we aren't competitive even against B-grade or C-grade players from established footballing nations. The Aussies are significantly ahead, but have more playing and financial resource than we do to work with. We have fewer registered male players in NZ than there are in central Sydney.
Reality check.
Not worth beating ourselves up over though. It is what it is.
Agree Smithy.
Agree with tv.
Yeah but you're a miserable bastard at the best of times.
I think El_Grap sums things up nicely. We are what we are, and we put in a performance that really we all should have expected.
I was very critical of the coaching team after the last U20s campaign, but I don't have those same criticisms this time. As El_Grap says, they tried to play, but we just didn't have the ability to do it.
Some glimmers of hope from a handful of players.
Interested in whether those decrying the performance thought that the last U20s were better, considering they hacked their way to third in their group?
This tournament has highlighted exactly where we are at in the international footballing world: kind of competitive at U17 level on a good day, but then the professional football world accelerates away and our lads play social football for amateur clubs. By U20 we aren't competitive even against B-grade or C-grade players from established footballing nations. The Aussies are significantly ahead, but have more playing and financial resource than we do to work with. We have fewer registered male players in NZ than there are in central Sydney.
Reality check.
Not worth beating ourselves up over though. It is what it is.
So what business do we have in holding a World Under-20 Cup if we're not competetive against B & C - grade players from established football nations? If you accept that as a given then there's quite a few risks here. 1. We stop trying. 2. We're going to be humiliated on the pitch in our own backyard. 2. We're going to be humiliated by the pro rugby/rowing/cycling NZ media. 4. We establish an international reputation as enthusiastic but lousy amateurs that will linger for years to come.
We can't accept it. Same as why should we accept defeat against our next World Cup opponents? We just have to keep on looking for ways of raising our game. I believe some people are presently busy doing this, thank god.
Agree with tv.
Yeah but you're a miserable bastard at the best of times.
I think El_Grap sums things up nicely. We are what we are, and we put in a performance that really we all should have expected.
I was very critical of the coaching team after the last U20s campaign, but I don't have those same criticisms this time. As El_Grap says, they tried to play, but we just didn't have the ability to do it.
Some glimmers of hope from a handful of players.
Interested in whether those decrying the performance thought that the last U20s were better, considering they hacked their way to third in their group?
This tournament has highlighted exactly where we are at in the international footballing world: kind of competitive at U17 level on a good day, but then the professional football world accelerates away and our lads play social football for amateur clubs. By U20 we aren't competitive even against B-grade or C-grade players from established footballing nations. The Aussies are significantly ahead, but have more playing and financial resource than we do to work with. We have fewer registered male players in NZ than there are in central Sydney.
Reality check.
Not worth beating ourselves up over though. It is what it is.
With respect Smithy I think thats a bit of a cop out. The team didn't get a chance to play let alone try. They were incredibly disconnected and disorganised and that came down to a) a lack of prep b) negative tactics and coaching. I do wonder if people watch the games or just check the results in the morning and we ho hum oh well to be expected.
They were a few surprising results at this tournament no more than El Salvador 2-1 Australia. El Salvador are made of like us reserve team players at pro clubs, amateurs and youth team players at pro clubs but a team that were playing their 29th game since the start of the year. NZ had just 8 including the Oceania tournament prior to Turkey. Their overall population is only about a million or so more than Sydney. If we looked at the number of registered players in other countries compared to us I don't think you would see a massive gulf. Against Australia, El Salvador showed liked us they had ability and good individual players but above all looked very organised and that you can put down to the prep.
Ability - the team had/have it across the board - no question!
The side did a far better job two years ago and playing in the Suwon Cup in Korea prior to Colombia, achieving a 4-3 victory over Nigeria, who went on to top their group and make the quarter-finals showed well what prep and keeping a side together can do.
I don't want to have a go at Milicich too much because he achieved good results in 2011 but the one example i made about the long ball to the lone striker was never going to work and he had to have known that?
Agree with tv.
Yeah but you're a miserable bastard at the best of times.
I think El_Grap sums things up nicely. We are what we are, and we put in a performance that really we all should have expected.
I was very critical of the coaching team after the last U20s campaign, but I don't have those same criticisms this time. As El_Grap says, they tried to play, but we just didn't have the ability to do it.
Some glimmers of hope from a handful of players.
Interested in whether those decrying the performance thought that the last U20s were better, considering they hacked their way to third in their group?
This tournament has highlighted exactly where we are at in the international footballing world: kind of competitive at U17 level on a good day, but then the professional football world accelerates away and our lads play social football for amateur clubs. By U20 we aren't competitive even against B-grade or C-grade players from established footballing nations. The Aussies are significantly ahead, but have more playing and financial resource than we do to work with. We have fewer registered male players in NZ than there are in central Sydney.
Reality check.
Not worth beating ourselves up over though. It is what it is.
With respect Smithy I think thats a bit of a cop out. The team didn't get a chance to play let alone try. They were incredibly disconnected and disorganised and that came down to a) a lack of prep b) negative tactics and coaching. I do wonder if people watch the games or just check the results in the morning and we ho hum oh well to be expected.
They were a few surprising results at this tournament no more than El Salvador 2-1 Australia. El Salvador are made of like us reserve team players at pro clubs, amateurs and youth team players at pro clubs but a team that were playing their 29th game since the start of the year. NZ had just 8 including the Oceania tournament prior to Turkey. Their overall population is only about a million or so more than Sydney. If we looked at the number of registered players in other countries compared to us I don't think you would see a massive gulf. Against Australia, El Salvador showed liked us they had ability and good individual players but above all looked very organised and that you can put down to the prep.
Ability - the team had/have it across the board - no question!
The side did a far better job two years ago and playing in the Suwon Cup in Korea prior to Colombia, achieving a 4-3 victory over Nigeria, who went on to top their group and make the quarter-finals showed well what prep and keeping a side together can do.
I don't want to have a go at Milicich too much because he achieved good results in 2011 but the one example i made about the long ball to the lone striker was never going to work and he had to have known that?
So maybe with more time and prep in May like 2011 we could've and Milicich could've showed/proved we can be and should be competitive at this level.
But given the small amount of prep i didn't expect such a disorganised mess with basically no tactics apart from relics like the long ball etc
The only thing we agree on then is that the lack of meaningful build up hamstrung this group from achieving their best.
Oh, and I watched all three games but thanks for wondering.
The only thing we agree on then is that the lack of meaningful build up hamstrung this group from achieving their best.
Oh, and I watched all three games but thanks for wondering.
That wasn't actually a dig at you honest. Sorry if it looked that way. I know you would've watched the games.
Yes we can agree on build up but we definitely disagree on ability, competitiveness at this level given 2011 results etc.
We didn't get smashed last time with a similar warm up.
This is a supposedly better side too
Open to debate !!!
In my view the 2011 team have proven they were are strong team man for man. What are those players doing today ??
We didn't get smashed last time with a similar warm up.
This is a supposedly better side too
Open to debate !!!
In my view the 2011 team have proven they were are strong team man for man. What are those players doing today ??
The line up for the first game in 2011:
New Zealand
Line-up
[1] Stefan MARINOVIC (GK)
[2] Andrew BEVIN
[3] Nick BRANCH (C)
[4] Ryan CAIN (-66')
[10] Anthony HOBBS
[11] Dakota LUCAS (-92')
[12] Andrew MILNE (-48')
[13] Colin MURPHY
[14] James MUSA
[16] Luke ROWE
[18] Adam THOMAS
Substitute(s)
[20] Scott BASALAJ (GK)
[21] Coey TURIPA (GK)
[5] Sean LOVEMORE (+66')
[6] Nikko BOXALL
[7] Cameron LINDSAY
[8] Ethan GALBRAITH (+92')
[9] Tim PAYNE (+48')
[15] Marco ROJAS
[17] Mikey KRAMER
[19] Liam HIGGINS
Coach
Chris MILICICH (NZL)
I have no doubt that a better prepared team might have gotten better results.
However, junior sides are not about developing teams, they are about developing players. Would two weeks playing games in Europe have made these guys better individuals? I doubt it. When we have limited resources I'm not sure international tours are really the way to go at U20 level - if you're not playing pro football by then I'm not sure this is going to change anything.
Yes, we need our guys to get international exposure. But previous tournaments at this age group have shown that the majority of this team won't go on to pro football (who aren't there already) let alone the All Whites so is it really worth spending a load of money on preparing them for 3 matches which we are likely to lose anyway?
In the end I think it comes back to the same old story, spend the money where it is likely to improve our overall playing stocks - improve coaching standards and methods across the board, focus on younger players (like the 17s) who still have time to improve and try and get guys into professional football where we can.