Zonal Marking looks at NZ's tactics

Zonal Marking looks at NZ's tactics

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/06/01/new-zealands-world-cup-2010-tactics/

Analysis is based on the Australian game.

Thanks for the link.  It's a good analysis generally - does it do justice to the Serbia game?

I'd say its a fairly accurate read of the way things will be, maybe a little harsh on our so called deficiencies...I mean were not world class but most of are players are better than the average guy kicking around the lower European divs.

To be honest, thought it was a rather superficial overview masquerading as serious analysis.

it was meant to get us caned by Bahrain, then Mexico, then Aussie, then Serbia. I think it goes ok. Nonsense that our forwards do no defending. all of them are asked to do lots of it.

One thing that they mention is the fact that the three strikers do little defending which as indicated in one of their photos leaves ther wide backs with "acres of space".
What they forget is if that wide back goes forward in to that space and attacks what happens when possession is lost and NZ counter attack.... there is a free striker in forward positions and we have a 3 v 3 attack v defence situation. 3 strikers up front has become a very standard way of reducing over lapping wing backs. There are plusses and minuses for the formation, these guys have missed an important positive in their analysis.

I liked the part where they drew pink lines on the players.

Yep, agree with Marius and El G

Any one can take a couple seconds of images and turn into any story they want. Doesn't make it true.

Love Zonal Marking (the site not the tactic).

Yeah the sites class, very good analysis for european leagues.

I'm pretty sure it's just one guy, and his not knowing about Brown's injury (as evidenced by the comments section) probably means he doesn't have exactly the same amount of knowledge about our players and tactics.

Good on him for putting up an attempt at least though, some of the previews of teams from other sites has just said stuff like: NZ, unlikely to get a point, let alone score. At least this one makes some comments about our formation and players, even if some points may not be always be entirely correct.

Who is this Nelson bloke?

james dean2010-06-03 03:31:27

I think we do have ball playing strikers, the trouble is we dont vary the delivery to them as much as I would like. We have big strikers who also happen to be able to handle the ball at their feet. Speed isnt just a function of how fast someone can move, its also a function of positioning, body position and ball control.
I used the 3 up front recently when i took an Auckland under 15 boys side in a friendly against the NZ womens under 17 side. I was asked to look after the team a day or so before the game, we never got to train together and so on the day of the game I sent the boys out in a bog standard 4-4-2 as I knew they would be familiar with it. The womens under 17 side spent the first half bombing their wide backs forward every chance they got, looking for overlaps etc. We went in at halftime 1-0 down. I changed the boys to 4-3-3 with the wide strikers asked to use the width and push higher. Their wing backs bombing forward stopped, they didnt dare get higher as it left gaps at the back out wide which the boys exploited. Final score 3-1 to the boys.
The point I was making is that the zonal marking website missed that point with respect to 3 up front.
Too often people and coaches look for all the reason things wont work rather that all the reasons things can work. Zonal marking have done exactly that with respect to the 3 up front thing.
Sometimes the best form of defense is attack.

JD I was just making the point that it was fairly superficial.

It had some misleading generalities in it too.  We in fact do not play a lot of diagonal balls.  We do bang it long to Rory Fallon a lot and look for him to flick it on.  And we do play it wide to Leo Bertos and look for him to beat his man.  But in the entire Serbia game I don't recall the left centre back (Smith) playing a a great number of long diagonal balls to Bertos at wide right, which is what zm.net has said we do.

On the other hand he is right about our forwards not being called upon much to defend, and right about our fitness being crucial (under the pump late in the second half ring any bells from last two games!?).

But overall his point is: 3-4-3 is pretty risky if you don't recover to 5-4-1 when you're defending.  Which is a fact, but a pretty superficial one.

Exactly.

its Elliott who plays the diagonal balls not wide backs. Smtih/Reid play balls down the middle- badly sometimes

Its good that someone takes us serious enough to warrant an analysis of our tactics. Usually it is "NZ is useless and will get dicked big time by everyone".

We couldn't really contain Serbia's pace down the wings except by falling on them especially in the second half. So how come they didn't score?

Because Zigic and Pantelic are two massively overrated donkeys?

I thought we lost 5-1.  I'm sure I read that somewhere.

Pantelic was the girly-haired one, right? The one who for the life of him couldn't do anything with all the brilliant crosses that were floated to him?