AucklandPhoenix wrote:
And this guy may be involved in coaching the Nix next year?
Jesus.
Disappointing that he doesn't see any of our players as starters, guess he doesn't rate them much. Picking Elliot over Payne is diabolical.
AucklandPhoenix wrote:
And this guy may be involved in coaching the Nix next year?
Jesus.
Procrastinixing wrote:AucklandPhoenix wrote:Disappointing that he doesn't see any of our players as starters, guess he doesn't rate them much. Picking Elliot over Payne is diabolical.
And this guy may be involved in coaching the Nix next year?
Jesus.
imanixsupporter wrote:
Funnily enough in TUS this week he said contrary to media reports he was only invited down to have a look at training this week and played no role in coaching or even speaking to the group. Certainly on the basis of those comments I wouldn't think it was likely he will be part of the coaching group next year.
Anyway back on topic. Pijnaker shoulder injury. They can take a while to heal. I think if the All Whites were a meritocracy (we know they aren't due to Tommy Smith being a chance of making the squad) then this would put him even further behind Hughes in the CB pecking order. But won't be surprised to see him walk onto the plane even if he doesnt get back to his best/fittest, ahead of the likes of Isaac and Bill
Rock Hopper wrote:
I dont watch many Auckland FC games, how has Nando been this season? I remember he was one of Danny Hay's favourites back at the start of the decade but don't recall him offering anything particularly worthwhile in the all whites jersey during that period.
Does he offer anything you wouldn't be getting from someone like Hughes or Stanger in that 5th choice CB spot.
MetalLegNZ wrote:
Posted this in Woods thread...
Great to see, but a couple interesting chats at footy on Saturday around how the team (All Whites) play better without him. With him on the field the team looks too him too much, as if he is the only option.
I don't see us playing the way we did against Chile with Wood in the team - Interesting conundrum, does our best player suit our best system?
djtim3000 wrote:MetalLegNZ wrote:
Posted this in Woods thread...
Great to see, but a couple interesting chats at footy on Saturday around how the team (All Whites) play better without him. With him on the field the team looks too him too much, as if he is the only option.
I don't see us playing the way we did against Chile with Wood in the team - Interesting conundrum, does our best player suit our best system?
I think the answer is that we 'can' definitely be a better team with Wood on the field. Problem seems to be how we utilise him, as a central target striker its too easy for the opposition defence to mark him out of the game, and as a team we've only really used Woodsey as a target man. Get him dropping deeper in transition, holding up play, creating space for our fast and skillful wide players, and then get Wood popping up in the box rather than just wasteful balls played in to his head. Plus he's always a massive problem for oppositions at set pieces which will be important against stronger teams; you'd want him on the field whenever we can.
martinb wrote:djtim3000 wrote:Sorry if this gets covered, but we have some troops for effective set pieces now. Both in delivery and getting on the end of the ball.MetalLegNZ wrote:
Posted this in Woods thread...
Great to see, but a couple interesting chats at footy on Saturday around how the team (All Whites) play better without him. With him on the field the team looks too him too much, as if he is the only option.
I don't see us playing the way we did against Chile with Wood in the team - Interesting conundrum, does our best player suit our best system?
I think the answer is that we 'can' definitely be a better team with Wood on the field. Problem seems to be how we utilise him, as a central target striker its too easy for the opposition defence to mark him out of the game, and as a team we've only really used Woodsey as a target man. Get him dropping deeper in transition, holding up play, creating space for our fast and skillful wide players, and then get Wood popping up in the box rather than just wasteful balls played in to his head. Plus he's always a massive problem for oppositions at set pieces which will be important against stronger teams; you'd want him on the field whenever we can.
Consider: Bindon, Boxall, Surman, Stamenic, Tuiloma, (Hughes), (De Jong), (Tommy Smith), Waine, Garbett all as potential beneficiaries of a Wood decoy run.
And delivering Payne has been good, Bell, De Vries, Thomas, (Parker-Price), Singh, McCowatt, Just, Rufer.
And McCowatt, Singh, Just, Wood, Randall, Garbett, et al mopping up or crumbing in the box, if you will
Stamenic, Rufer, Thomas and Bell volleying or driving shots from the top of the box.
If we can win corners and free kicks, these are areas where we have a bit of control, and hopefully further results.
coochiee wrote:
Based on current club form, and injury updates I'd go -
Paulsen
Payne, Surman, Boxall/Bindon, Cacace/Old
Bell, Thomas, Stamenic
McCowatt, Wood, Just
hepatitis wrote:
Based on current club form, Payne isn’t in.
He had an ok game last time out for the All Whites but this year he has been poor.
I see him as our weakest link and reckon our opponents will see that.
MetalLegNZ wrote:
McCowatt is not a wide player now. He plays more centrally at club level.
I would almost call him a defensive 10 in the sense his job is to put a lot pressure on the opposition to win the ball and start quick counters higher up.
His goals are generally from turnovers and when they're not, it's when hes picking the ball up in the middle of the park or making a run through the center.
Great that he is scoring goals, but you need to look at what type they are and how they're scored.
coochiee wrote:
As others have opined picking the potential WC starting 11, is now more interesting than the final 26 man squad
Based on current club form, and injury updates I'd go -
Paulsen
Payne, Surman, Boxall/Bindon, Cacace/Old
Bell, Thomas, Stamenic
McCowatt, Wood, Just
Hopefully Libby gets some mins in Wrexham big game this weekend, and then more mins in the promotion playoffs if Wrexham are top 6.
Then 6 weeks to build up his fitness before Iran June 15th.
Likewise we want Boxy starting at the WC. Sounds like he should return for Minnesota soon.
I'm less convinced that we need Singh also coming back from injury starting. The dream if more conservative triangle of Bell, Stamenic & Thomas for me.
Just and McCowatt are both in form. Randall on the other hand struggling a little at AFC currently.
Rusty Dunks wrote:coochiee wrote:Paulsen
As others have opined picking the potential WC starting 11, is now more interesting than the final 26 man squad
Based on current club form, and injury updates I'd go -
Paulsen
Payne, Surman, Boxall/Bindon, Cacace/Old
Bell, Thomas, Stamenic
McCowatt, Wood, Just
Hopefully Libby gets some mins in Wrexham big game this weekend, and then more mins in the promotion playoffs if Wrexham are top 6.
Then 6 weeks to build up his fitness before Iran June 15th.
Likewise we want Boxy starting at the WC. Sounds like he should return for Minnesota soon.
I'm less convinced that we need Singh also coming back from injury starting. The dream if more conservative triangle of Bell, Stamenic & Thomas for me.
Just and McCowatt are both in form. Randall on the other hand struggling a little at AFC currently.
Roux Surman Bindon McGarry
Bell Stamenic
Just McCowatt Cacace
Wood
Bench:
Crocombe, Gray, Payne, Old, Boxall, Pijnaker, Stanger, Thomas, OPP, Garbett, Singh, Rogerson, Randall, Waine, Kosta
Queenslander 3x a year.
Smith can be hired to go as a staff member, the amount teams can carry with them is probably as high as players!!
durandurante wrote:martinb wrote:We have more options for set pieces these days, but also the ability to score outside of free kicks and corners. Of the AW's last 10 goals against non-OFC opposition (going back to the 1:1 draw against USA), only half of them have come from dead ball situations.djtim3000 wrote:Sorry if this gets covered, but we have some troops for effective set pieces now. Both in delivery and getting on the end of the ball.MetalLegNZ wrote:
Posted this in Woods thread...
Great to see, but a couple interesting chats at footy on Saturday around how the team (All Whites) play better without him. With him on the field the team looks too him too much, as if he is the only option.
I don't see us playing the way we did against Chile with Wood in the team - Interesting conundrum, does our best player suit our best system?
I think the answer is that we 'can' definitely be a better team with Wood on the field. Problem seems to be how we utilise him, as a central target striker its too easy for the opposition defence to mark him out of the game, and as a team we've only really used Woodsey as a target man. Get him dropping deeper in transition, holding up play, creating space for our fast and skillful wide players, and then get Wood popping up in the box rather than just wasteful balls played in to his head. Plus he's always a massive problem for oppositions at set pieces which will be important against stronger teams; you'd want him on the field whenever we can.
Consider: Bindon, Boxall, Surman, Stamenic, Tuiloma, (Hughes), (De Jong), (Tommy Smith), Waine, Garbett all as potential beneficiaries of a Wood decoy run.
And delivering Payne has been good, Bell, De Vries, Thomas, (Parker-Price), Singh, McCowatt, Just, Rufer.
And McCowatt, Singh, Just, Wood, Randall, Garbett, et al mopping up or crumbing in the box, if you will
Stamenic, Rufer, Thomas and Bell volleying or driving shots from the top of the box.
If we can win corners and free kicks, these are areas where we have a bit of control, and hopefully further results.
Interestingly, of those 5 goals from open play, only one has occurred with Wood on the field - the one he scored against Australia at Mt Smart last year. Which might feed into the theory 'we play better without Wood'
martinb wrote:
Who would miss out if we took both Parker-Price and Bayliss?
I feel like we absolutely have to take Parker-Price considering where he’s playing and the respect he’s getting.
And Bayliss has had a great season. Could he play RB? Or at least cover it? But then he’s not keeping Singh out. Or Thomas or Stamenic!
Compare to us taking a crocked Vicelich and Andy Barron in 2010 for our 2nd and 3rd midfield spots. Oh and Christie.
We might have less depth than others, but it feels like we are still doing much better than our own previous high water marks.