NZ 17s (General display discussion)

NZ 17s (General display discussion)

I'm sorry, I know i am from AKL, but this team is dredful.... the only player(s) trying to do anything is the Keeper and Jacob Mathews....everyone else is not even intrested. Hard News2007-08-22 10:56:33

I don't think it's the lack of trying, it's just that they're clearly far from being good enough to compete at this level and at this point in time. Costa has been poor in the tournament so far, I don't think many people would disagree on that point.

Outplayed, out-thought, out-coached - Outclassed! Auckland Jag2007-08-22 12:43:47

to be fair, this lot don't look a shadow of kevin fallon's side of a few years back.  they were good to watch, competed physically and dominated long periods of their games. 

De selekta, having spoken to guys who played under Fallon at that age they are all of the view that he completely over did it with them.  Don't forget that we didn't have to qualify for that tournament and were playing at home in front of willing crowds.  Coaching at junior level is partly about results but it is also about producing senior representatives.  Out of that under 17s team not only are many of the guys not all whites, but a lot aren't even playing the game any more.  And don't forget that we got beat 5-0 by Uruguay also and our only win came in a game that meant a lot more to us than our opposition...

to be fair to Costa, like a lot of people who have seen him play, he is fantastic playing high, receiving and turning to attack (unlike the Brazil game) - he showed glimpes of this in the England game and I am sure he will get better in the Korean game....his confidence will be down but the experience he has had will make him a better player...

Agree. He is only 17 so give him time. He will develope and being at the Phoenix with great players can only make him better. Looking forward to seeing him in A League.

But that was like the under 20s as well. Our teams look like lil kids compared to all the others. But in Rugby the other teams look like kids. Not beiing racist one bit but that england team had alot of black dudes and that striker Moses im sure is about 33. Even Nigerians an that look old when they young. That why the kiwi side looks so big becuase there all from the islands and eat Taro. I dont think the little white guyes can compete with black guyes strength its just in the blood haha sounds dum but i swear. Even speed. All the runners and long distant runners E.g Ethiopians. Maby they should be fed Taro 18 months before the wolrd cup?

I think to say they are not trying might be valid a little bit. I was working and missed the first half against England, but I thought the 2nd half was a huge improvement from the Brazil game. Being defensively naive or just plain not good enough is one thing, but the amount of times where there could have been a last gasp challenge put in, or just digging in that little bit extra to track their man and there wasn't I thought was dissapointing. Nobody was expecting the world from these guys...they are only young and their is alot of pressure on them. But asking them to be committed give it their all should be a given. I think particularly in the Brazil game some of the players especially the defenders were too quick to give up and at times I got the impression that the lads thought they had already lost before they walked on the pitch, and were going through the motions. The under 20's proved it's not out of the equation for New Zealand to produce semi-competitive age group teams. Just because this particular team hasn't performed doesn't mean that others like the under 20's won't as well. Hopefully they play better against the Koreans.

The one thing you can do no matter what country you come from to prepare for these tournaments is be fit and strong! I agree some cultures especailly the african ones where the Kids seem to develop quicker have a slight advantage but if you do things right and start early enough there is no reason why we couldnt have been the most fit team at the tournament and combined that with some strength and speed training we would perhaps been able to compete. Did you even watch the Under 20s pavos they hardly got pushed off the ball at all they lost due to the fact they were not technically as good as the other sides,  they lost 2-0 to portugal after missing about 3 guilt edge chances and both of portugals goals were a free kick and a pen and overall they were more physical than portugal and were all over them the last 20 min due to there fitness. Against Gambia they had a poor first half due to there technical deficientcy but in the 2nd half created enough good chances to get a draw or win. Then against a Very technically good mexico side who were arguably the 3rd best team in the tournament behind Argentina and Chile and went out 1-0 to Argentina in 1/4 Finals they started off slowly first 30 min but did enough to stay in the game then they played a very good second half and created and forced a number of saves from the mexican gk and eventually scored a goal after conceeding a sloppy second goal. They out muscled Mexico overall and there fitness was superior all they were missing was the fact that they were playing against professional players already playing for top clubs who are extremely good technically plus with a some clinical finishing should have made it out of the group stage. I think were the under 17s have dissapointed me is they have not shown the heart and desire and the physical side of the game that the under 20s showed hence they Under 20s were 1-5 overall were the Under 17s are 0-12 after 2 games. We should be alot more competitive in the Under 17 world cup as were are playing players who are in clubs academys not pros I think only 1 or 2 of the England team have actual pro deals were the rest were on the books of clubs but no were near the 1st teams were at the Under 20 world cup the majority of the players are starting or at least in 1st team squads at there clubs. just my 2 cents but the big thing NZ soccer has to work on is getting more players in a pro environment as thats they only way as a nation we can technically get better.
uptheeverton2007-08-22 15:28:23

Great post uptheeverton.

having been personally involved with the 17s in the camp before the tour to south america, i have to say that there are some players who ae not in the team that should have been. i feel that physically the guys are ok, certainly not the same as the likes of brazil or england, but still strong enuf to compete with them. i feel the problem has come definately with the commitment of the players. When last ditch tackles are required to be ade, they just srant. the tracking has also been horrible, guys who are fit enuf to track have simply been letting themselves, their teammates and also the people who have spent thousands of dollars on them in the year. they seem like a team who are not really interested in playing, more just enjoying the experience. they certainly don't seem like they want to play for their country. i hope to see them be more commited and wanting to play on friday night.

It's also decisions like making Darkwa who has been a forward his whole life a back, do we really have no school age left backs in this country ?

I don't really think that this is a commitment issue they clearly aren't enjoying being hammered in these games. The main problem in my eyes is tactical naivety, especially in defence. The understanding of tactical demands of the game, and adjusting in game to counter the opponent's strengths, is virtually non-existant.

Costa has looked very poor this tournament. he has qulality but he's failed to step up.

Tactically, the U17s were v poor relative to the U20s

whilst we may have been slightly weaker individually - if the team were well organised they should have been capable of restricting the scoring opportunities of the Brazilians and English to way less than what they had.

Here is a question then Darren AhKuoi and Tommy Smith.

Would that centre back pairing have made a difference ?

i dont think the u17s fitness is questionable, at that age playing several games in a weekend isnt unheard of. perhaps the top 2 inches has something to do with the performances. player for player we're physically fit, talented and as aggressive as the oppostion they're up against, maybe its the perception of we're up against "BRAZIL" or "ENGLAND" which got inside our heads and reduced them to spectators instead of getting amongst it. (personally i didnt care who i played against, i usually just went out and kicked something or someone!) id like to see the squad pull together for the next game and come away with a result. costa may be going through a temporary patch of bad form, no doubt he'll be his own harshest critic but tough times dont last, tough people do. it'll make him a better player plus it cant hurt having the greek fever boys behind ya cheering u on

Fletty I agree with your post. Too often they seemed to lack commitment when tracking their man and when it comes to putting their bodies on the line to make an important tackle. el grapadura... nobody likes losing mate, I think the point Fletty was making is that at times these lads show they have talent, but have almost resigned themselves to the fact they have lost and therefore just maybe lost the will to get really stuck in. Lets face it we were on the back foot to start with, but conceding a goal after 9 seconds must be a hard thing for a bunch of under 17's to recover from. However they just have not shown the same fight and spirit of the under 20s and that is the dissapointing thing for me. Maybe with a few years experience these guys will be all the better for this and will be a strong under 20's team...

Well I have to disagree with quite a bit Im seeing here.
Firstly for those of you lauding the under 20 efforts I wonder what planet you are on. That team for me was simply the most abysmal side I have ever seen wearing a NZ strip. Sure the goal stats look favourable compared to the under 17's but stats alone dont tell the entire story. Here are a couple of more pertinent stats for you all. In the first game for example, the under 20's never got more than 3 consecutive passes in the first half and they did that only twice and they never made 4 passes. What does that tell you? It tells you they gave away posession in a manner which on the international stage is nothing short of embarassing. Jeremy Brockie in that game never once completed a single pass. Never once did he retain possession and he also never made a single shot on target. Every single time he touched the ball he lost it. that is a 100% failure rate for a player in a complete game. That 1st half was simply a short picture of the rest of the tournament. The under 20's simply banged the ball long everytime they got it. Chances were few and far between and in no way even comes close to some of the build up play this under 17 side put together.

The thing that really bugs me is the "muscle up views" This is what holds NZ back, lower league english style thinking. We absolutely have got to take the longer path to success by developing more skillful players and also encourage more possession football, even if in the short term it hurts us. Long term that ethos will win through. After 25 years of long ball lower league english style football that hasnt worked its time to persevere with a new approach. it cant do any worse than our track record.

The under 17's achilles heal in this tournament has been its inability to defend against counter attacks. Elsewhere we havent looked too bad. We have a few players out there who have the ability to evade opposition players and then make passes.

Im not saying this is a great team or anything like that but its a sh*tload better than the embarrassing bullsh*t the under 20's served up. Quite simply the most abysmal nz team i have ever seen. I would rather we go through the painful process of learning how to play possession football than revert back to the long ball pressure bullsh*t that the rest of the world abandoned in the 70's.

I wonder what the prognosis would have been if this team had been able to defend effectively against counter attacks?.

One last little fact to think about and how it would look if we could handle the counter attack issue. The under 20's were typically playing with 35% possession stats, the under 17's at times were getting close to the 50% mark. The under 17's aside from the counter attack issue look more like a football team to me than the under 20's ever did.

Stuff "muscle up" etc and that sort of antiquated thinking. More trying to learn to play the rest of the successful nations do and one day we might just progress further than the last 25 years of failed style.

I know of a few of these players. I have coached Jacob Mathews. I have watched Godwin Darqwa when he was a young player and have seen his progress over a number of years. cant work out why he is a defender, he was always an attacking player when I watched him. Jason Hicks and Colin Murphy are both players I have had teams play against and I have also watched them train on regular occasions with their clubs and in wynrs etc. These are all decent players, not world class but a sh*t load better than the rubbish in the under 20's.

Lets be honest... the keepers a flapper, the defenders make me remember how easy it was to score hattricks when I was 15 (absentminded NZ defending) and if Chris Wood is one of our best up and coming strikers my place is secure in a 1st team until I'm 60. It was disgraceful to watch and surely there are better players in development in NZ. I have always been sceptical of selection processes... 

Firstly: i like what im hearing from you Stack and agree with you on alot of levels.

Teza,
its an interesting thing the Brazilian approach. there is a dvd I have that came with a magazine early this year. Its a series of short documentaries following 6 or 7 young Brazilian hopefuls. it was produced by Nike.
One of the scouts for one of the clubs at one point was talking about what they were looking for in a player. What was interesting was that he was looking for the physically strongest and most robust. However he also made a point of saying that the exceptionally skillfull were very abundant and so they had the luxury of picking the most physically robust of the extremely skillful.

Sadly we dont have that luxury yet but the more our coaches start to attempt to promote technique over the physical the faster we will get to that luxury of picking strength and technique in one package.

A little input is an understatement.

Stack You have no idea do you. International football is not about playing pretty its about winning! If you can play pretty along the way then thats great. The last 2 (Euro 04 & WC 06) major championships have been won by teams who have been defensive strong and put away there chances when they come. Whats the point of the under 17s putting 4 passes together when your stikers are rubbish and just lose it as soon as it gets to them. I mean Wood is decent in the air but he has done nothing and your giving Brockie a hard time he was alot better than Costa has been against alot better defenses as well. Also the Under 20s had mainly chances created from using some nice build up getting it wide and whipping balls in especially against Mexico and they also created some chances with build up against Portugal and Mexico they only 2 clear cut chances from long balls were in the 1st game where brockie missed that open goal and those came from good lofted balls. The under 20s had 51& of the possession vs Gambia. So trying to say that the Under 17s playing good football justifies them losing 7-0 and 5-0 is a shocking call mate you have no idea what your talking about. I find it really emabarrasing considering they have had 20 months preparations and loads of overseas trips and it looks like they have learnt abolutely nothing I dont know weather this is the coaches fault the players fault or a combination of both. They physical side of the game that you seem to dismiss also is vital in Football its not like the olden days when there were loads of skinny white men plaing the game now all over the world players are extremely well built. This also helps with Speed which we severly lack and when I see us just getting bounced off the ball it makes me wonder. I dont like seeing NZ teams do so poorly so I hope they can beat Korea but frankly watching them so far has been embarrassing.
uptheeverton2007-08-23 08:06:37

Teza2007-08-23 10:54:17

I think the Under 20's played with more commitment and were up for the challenge alot more than the 17s, but whether the under 20s were a better team or not is a different matter. To say that the under 20s team was the worst NZ team ever is a bit unfair, they never capitulated in the same manner as the under 17s have, I'm not saying they were better but I think they deserve some credit for the results they picked up. Stack for a team like the under 17s, who appear to have some players with individual skills that should allow them to compete better than the under 20s...they just haven't performed at all. I think the reason is because they are losing to many 50/50 opportunities through a lack of commitment. I agree with you we should be trying to play the right brand of football but we also have to be commited as well. I really hate to admit it, but especially after the Brazil game I was embarrassed watching it, I think they can be proud of the effort made in the 2nd half of the England game, but at International level to only compete for a quarter of the time you spend on the field isn't good enough...45 mins out of 180 is not going to cut it. I hate losing I always have...but I could handle NZ losing to teams like Brazil if I felt they gave it all they had and left nothing on the field, but I just don't get that from watching these lads. The one good thing is that they have another chance to prove themselves, lets hope they can turn it around.

I also think you cant say the Under 20s cant play either cause I watched game in masterton against the Phoenix where they played some super football in their 2-1 win, Im not saying that they would beat the phoenix now far from it but on a whole both teams played some good football that day in fact it was one of the best matches I have seen in NZ for ages and it was obviously the Under 20s fitness and match fitness which gave them the edge over the phoenix who were in early pre season. The under 20s could play. Also how many of the the Under 17s play regularly in the NZFC? Costa did and hardly any of the rest are even in the squads. I remember watching the first NZFC season in 2004 and I watched the Likes of Henderson, Jenkins, Keat, Brockie (when he was good!) etc playing most weeks and even scoring goals and excelling. That was were they were 16/17 year olds so why arent more of this Under 17 team playing? Maybe thats another thing we could look at to the fact there not playing tough senior football to harden them up cause the NZFC isnt a top league but its still decent and miles better than the garbage that is played in the winter! uptheeverton2007-08-23 12:21:19

so i wake up one morning... my f**kin comment is deleted just because its the f**kin truth. yeah thats right bitches

How can anyone say Costa is not much!!!!! How about the service is Absolutely POOR!!!!!!!!!! You could play rooney upfront for Nz and still wouldnt look that great.

That's because Rooney's an overrated pillock.

My two cents:

Let's be realistic if your any good even at 16, 17 you wouldn't be playing in NZ

If you are any good at 16, 17 and you only have New Zealand patriality you can't play anywhere else.

Guys like Tommy Smith and previously Chris James can only do so due to family from the UK or being born there.
Hard News2007-08-23 21:53:35