All Whites, Ferns, and other international teams

Player ratings vs Mexico (home leg)

18 replies · 2,954 views
over 12 years ago

Surprised nobody has posted this yet .. here's some half-approximations:


Moss    5    Not as spectacular as at the Azteca. Mexico seemed to have worked out his weaknesses

Roux    7    Was this a debut? Wow, we have found our solution for right-back. Only saw him make one mistake all night.

Durante   5   Can't remember anything notable, seemed too slow

Smith     6    Great block on the goal line, got himself about, but beaten for pace

Tuiloma    5   Reasonable debut; shame we didn't see his long throw.

James     7  Good game. Was it his cross for the second goal?

McGlinchey    6  Nothing memorable.

Barbarouses    6  Meh

Rojas          6     Made one good run, but was often in the wrong position to receive the ball.

Smeltz       5     Anonymous.

Brockie      5    Didn't see enough of the ball. Shame the keeper guessed the right way for the penalty.


Subs:

Fenton      6     Reasonable game, did nothing wrong, but not as solid as Roux was on the right.

Fallon       7     Nice goal - got one chance and took it.

Henderson     Not enough time to make an impact. Nice to see him on the park after so long.

Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago
Bevan wrote:

Surprised nobody has posted this yet .. here's some half-approximations:


Moss    5    Not as spectacular as at the Azteca. Mexico seemed to have worked out his weaknesses

Roux    7    Was this a debut? Wow, we have found our solution for right-back. Only saw him make one mistake all night.

Durante   5   Can't remember anything notable, seemed too slow

Smith     6    Great block on the goal line, got himself about, but beaten for pace

Tuiloma    5   Reasonable debut; shame we didn't see his long throw.

James     7  Good game. Was it his cross for the second goal?

McGlinchey    6  Nothing memorable.

Barbarouses    6  Meh

Rojas          6     Made one good run, but was often in the wrong position to receive the ball.

Smeltz       5     Anonymous.

Brockie      5    Didn't see enough of the ball. Shame the keeper guessed the right way for the penalty.


Subs:

Fenton      6     Reasonable game, did nothing wrong, but not as solid as Roux was on the right.

Fallon       7     Nice goal - got one chance and took it.

Henderson     Not enough time to make an impact. Nice to see him on the park after so long.



Moss a 5? Which game were you watching.

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

Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago

Still not seeing where the Roux love is coming from. Was decent going forward, but was very suspect at the back. One of the goals came from a simply chest that he stuffed up and then forgot to track back after losing possession.

Thought Kosta was probably one of our best. And Brockie has one of his best games for the AW. Fenton also did very well at the back.

Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago

Moss 6    in the 3rd goal he could have tried to anticipate that play daisycrossing center, but he did what he thought best.. Nothing to do in the rest of goals they were one one 

Roux 6 great going forward a la Javier Zanetti, but got exposed defending in 1st half, little details that got anticipated, but he made a solid debut for a rookie as a whole.

Durante 4  if the man you are marking scores 3 it tells you

Smith     4  the same should have work together more one more because he saved a goal but you expect that from a international player

Tuiloma   5  got hit hard by a mexican that could have been a red, if the ref was not german, the nasty mexican punched him hard. hot and cold competitive debut but better than the most experienced central duo

Barbarouses 7  he was one of the best, and showed his best place is wide left 

McG   6 played ok, but got cought in the 4 goal i think

James 6 linked well with mcg they need to play more together with an extra man there as holding like Keat or Clapham, is a leader

Rojas 5 showed a bit of spark but he seems out of game time

Brockie 6 Linked ok and he is very versatile and his running is a nuissance for rivals

Smeltz 4  showed out of game time and got booked for a non foul,


Fenton  7 looked like a veteran  with panache great game and great going forward

Fallon 7  showed class and a big tactic presence to hold shield the ball and play as a pivot , scored a beauty

Henderson 6 played 20 minutes he is a tidy player and showed class , covered Fenton's runnings and linked well wth the other mids







Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago
2ndBest wrote:

Still not seeing where the Roux love is coming from. Was decent going forward, but was very suspect at the back. One of the goals came from a simply chest that he stuffed up and then forgot to track back after losing possession.

Thought Kosta was probably one of our best. And Brockie has one of his best games for the AW. Fenton also did very well at the back.



If that was one of Brockies  best games for the AW then how has he managed to get a start in the past?

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

Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago

well considering the opposition and the lack of attacking opportunities we had. Despite that he: won a penalty, help set up Fallon's goal, put in a very dangerous cross in the first half, made 3 or 4 other good runs where the final ball to him was lacking.

Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago
2ndBest wrote:

Still not seeing where the Roux love is coming from. Was decent going forward, but was very suspect at the back. One of the goals came from a simply chest that he stuffed up and then forgot to track back after losing possession.

Thought Kosta was probably one of our best. And Brockie has one of his best games for the AW. Fenton also did very well at the back.


Were we watching the same game..?
Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago

Tell me what he did wrong then? Maybe he was made to look better because of how bad Smeltz was.

Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago

I think Brockie played as well as you could expect for a side that lost 2-4. Not a lot of service to him but he worked hard. I didn't think anyone played badly. The Mexicanos were very quick and clinical up front and did a good job of beating the offside trap, maybe even sneaking an offside goal in there. Thought Bill and Storm had good debuts, Roux looked like he'd be in the national team for ages, very assured performance. I can't pick a man of the match, too many too close without anyone sticking out. Best moment was when Rojas did that little run in the first half - ball on a string. Thought the refs were average.

Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago
2ndBest wrote:

Tell me what he did wrong then? Maybe he was made to look better because of how bad Smeltz was.

I asked the same question as well in the match thread and only a couple of people took the debate on. I think a few people are blinded by the pen miss. One guy rightfully said that Brockie makes dumb runs, stays offside and disappears. Well on Wednesday, he stayed on side, harrowed the opposition when they had the ball and made a couple of telling run (bearing in mind we had fuck all possession in the front third that was not aerial from Roux and Brockie is not an aerial player)

I though Roux did ok for his debut. I've watched the tape again and can see exactly what people say about him defensively. All the good stuff he does going forward (and even Harry Ngata got pissed off with him constantly launching the aerial ball into the box and I think that cut out a lot of Marco opportunities) he does get exposed at the back. He needs work on body position, tracking back and switching on when we don't have the ball. From a defender, he has to bring that side of the game to the table first - the attacking stuff is a bonus and Fenton could provide the same. In fact Fenton probably did better on the right but by then Mexico had sat off us so it's not a fair comparison.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago · edited over 12 years ago · History
Bevan wrote:

Surprised nobody has posted this yet .. here's some half-approximations:


Moss    5    Not as spectacular as at the Azteca. Mexico seemed to have worked out his weaknesses

Roux    7    Was this a debut? Wow, we have found our solution for right-back. Only saw him make one mistake all night.

Durante   5   Can't remember anything notable, seemed too slow

Smith     6    Great block on the goal line, got himself about, but beaten for pace

Tuiloma    5   Reasonable debut; shame we didn't see his long throw.

James     7  Good game. Was it his cross for the second goal?

McGlinchey    6  Nothing memorable.

Barbarouses    6  Meh

Rojas          6     Made one good run, but was often in the wrong position to receive the ball.

Smeltz       5     Anonymous.

Brockie      5    Didn't see enough of the ball. Shame the keeper guessed the right way for the penalty.


Subs:

Fenton      6     Reasonable game, did nothing wrong, but not as solid as Roux was on the right.

Fallon       7     Nice goal - got one chance and took it.

Henderson     Not enough time to make an impact. Nice to see him on the park after so long.

hmmm

These are relative to their performance as well as others in the team.

Moss 7

Roux 5.5

Durante 4

Smith 4.5

Tuiloma 6

Marco 5.5

James 7

McGlinchy 5.5

Kosta 7

Smeltz 4.5

Brockie 6

Fenton 6

Fallon 6

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago

Yeah Jeffs are what id go with.

Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago

The 3 first half goals all came from our right hand side. To blame this  all on Roux is pretty harsh, he had Rojas in front of him who doesn't naturally track back and Durante who was struggling especially with the pace of the Mexicans. The Mexicans had obviously planned to attack us there, and did so very effectively.

Brockie I felt also out in a whole hearted shift, I've always felt he is at his best out wide rather than up top.

For me in hindsight we would have been better suited with either  a 4-3-3/4-5-1 with Fallon starting instead of Smeltz. As noted above Rojas was often in a good position to receive the ball, often because when they had the ball hetucked inside to help our centre midfield, so when we won the ball and wanted to get it to his feet he was too narrow and by the time he got wide we been pressed back and way opened out.

Overall though I was very happy with the performance, we played our part in a highly entertaining game and showed in patches we could put them under pressure. Reid and Killen would have made a massive difference, Smeltz and Rojas were not 100% but along with the rest of the team showed skill, passion and commitment, given the circumstances that is more than enough to make me happy.

Achieve by Unity

Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago

That's probably the key Yeovil. Despite our own thoughts on who did what, this team showed us a glimpse of the future and that they can play. They need some tweaking but the future looks good Ricki does get kudos for leaving the team in good shape

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago · edited over 12 years ago · History
Jeff Vader wrote:
2ndBest wrote:

Tell me what he did wrong then? Maybe he was made to look better because of how bad Smeltz was.

I asked the same question as well in the match thread and only a couple of people took the debate on. I think a few people are blinded by the pen miss. One guy rightfully said that Brockie makes dumb runs, stays offside and disappears. Well on Wednesday, he stayed on side, harrowed the opposition when they had the ball and made a couple of telling run (bearing in mind we had fuck all possession in the front third that was not aerial from Roux and Brockie is not an aerial player)


I though Roux did ok for his debut. I've watched the tape again and can see exactly what people say about him defensively. All the good stuff he does going forward (and even Harry Ngata got pissed off with him constantly launching the aerial ball into the box and I think that cut out a lot of Marco opportunities) he does get exposed at the back. He needs work on body position, tracking back and switching on when we don't have the ball. From a defender, he has to bring that side of the game to the table first - the attacking stuff is a bonus and Fenton could provide the same. In fact Fenton probably did better on the right but by then Mexico had sat off us so it's not a fair comparison.



you've pointed out some positional issues with storm roux and rightfully so

however, i don't think it's fair to judge him at all because most of these issues would not be there...
1. had he been properly integrated to the squad
2. had the team been cohesive with a back 4 - i.e. played a couple of years with this formation

the lack of defensive cover in front of him is also a mitigating factor - rojas was playing as a winger, not a wide midfielder and offered no protection

also, who in their right mind plays with attacking full backs and no holding midfielder these days?  i understand that we were chasing the game, but one of those central midfielders needed to be played as a deep pivot and the wingers needed to drop centrally without the ball


360footballnews.com

Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago

I agree that Roux did not have the best game on defense. However pre match many of us said that our 442 against their 343 meant that we would always be a man short in midfield. Thats how it panned out. They streamed players through midfield, we were out manned and the back four had to face a group of attackers moving toward them at high pace. Our back four contained two newbies and Durante who has been a great A-League player but is past his prime and not international quality. I think most defenders in that position would have struggled to contain players of the quality of Mexico, especially given the lack of cover they had from midfield.


Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago
reg22 wrote:
Jeff Vader wrote:
2ndBest wrote:

Tell me what he did wrong then? Maybe he was made to look better because of how bad Smeltz was.

I asked the same question as well in the match thread and only a couple of people took the debate on. I think a few people are blinded by the pen miss. One guy rightfully said that Brockie makes dumb runs, stays offside and disappears. Well on Wednesday, he stayed on side, harrowed the opposition when they had the ball and made a couple of telling run (bearing in mind we had fuck all possession in the front third that was not aerial from Roux and Brockie is not an aerial player)


I though Roux did ok for his debut. I've watched the tape again and can see exactly what people say about him defensively. All the good stuff he does going forward (and even Harry Ngata got pissed off with him constantly launching the aerial ball into the box and I think that cut out a lot of Marco opportunities) he does get exposed at the back. He needs work on body position, tracking back and switching on when we don't have the ball. From a defender, he has to bring that side of the game to the table first - the attacking stuff is a bonus and Fenton could provide the same. In fact Fenton probably did better on the right but by then Mexico had sat off us so it's not a fair comparison.



you've pointed out some positional issues with storm roux and rightfully so

however, i don't think it's fair to judge him at all because most of these issues would not be there...
1. had he been properly integrated to the squad
2. had the team been cohesive with a back 4 - i.e. played a couple of years with this formation

the lack of defensive cover in front of him is also a mitigating factor - rojas was playing as a winger, not a wide midfielder and offered no protection

also, who in their right mind plays with attacking full backs and no holding midfielder these days?  i understand that we were chasing the game, but one of those central midfielders needed to be played as a deep pivot and the wingers needed to drop centrally without the ball


great points reg

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago
austin10 wrote:

I agree that Roux did not have the best game on defense. However pre match many of us said that our 442 against their 343 meant that we would always be a man short in midfield. Thats how it panned out. They streamed players through midfield, we were out manned and the back four had to face a group of attackers moving toward them at high pace. Our back four contained two newbies and Durante who has been a great A-League player but is past his prime and not international quality. I think most defenders in that position would have struggled to contain players of the quality of Mexico, especially given the lack of cover they had from midfield.




i'm just not sure about durante.  i think he may well be of international quality.  it's just that we've seen him play centre back agaisnt mexico and out of position against UAE annd saudi.

360footballnews.com

Permalink Permalink
over 12 years ago
Jeff Vader wrote:
reg22 wrote:
Jeff Vader wrote:
2ndBest wrote:

Tell me what he did wrong then? Maybe he was made to look better because of how bad Smeltz was.

I asked the same question as well in the match thread and only a couple of people took the debate on. I think a few people are blinded by the pen miss. One guy rightfully said that Brockie makes dumb runs, stays offside and disappears. Well on Wednesday, he stayed on side, harrowed the opposition when they had the ball and made a couple of telling run (bearing in mind we had fuck all possession in the front third that was not aerial from Roux and Brockie is not an aerial player)


I though Roux did ok for his debut. I've watched the tape again and can see exactly what people say about him defensively. All the good stuff he does going forward (and even Harry Ngata got pissed off with him constantly launching the aerial ball into the box and I think that cut out a lot of Marco opportunities) he does get exposed at the back. He needs work on body position, tracking back and switching on when we don't have the ball. From a defender, he has to bring that side of the game to the table first - the attacking stuff is a bonus and Fenton could provide the same. In fact Fenton probably did better on the right but by then Mexico had sat off us so it's not a fair comparison.



you've pointed out some positional issues with storm roux and rightfully so

however, i don't think it's fair to judge him at all because most of these issues would not be there...
1. had he been properly integrated to the squad
2. had the team been cohesive with a back 4 - i.e. played a couple of years with this formation

the lack of defensive cover in front of him is also a mitigating factor - rojas was playing as a winger, not a wide midfielder and offered no protection

also, who in their right mind plays with attacking full backs and no holding midfielder these days?  i understand that we were chasing the game, but one of those central midfielders needed to be played as a deep pivot and the wingers needed to drop centrally without the ball


great points reg


cheers mate

i'm just cutting all of the back 4 quite a bit of slack because of these points.  i actually think they did well considering

360footballnews.com

Permalink Permalink