Of course if he was truly injured then I can understand him not starting, but from what I saw from Wood he did not seem hampered by injury when on the field
Anthony Hudson - Technical advisor
Hudson did well. Two shark house goals decided it. Did well in Wellington, reacted well in Peru.
He's stepped on some toes in his time, but to be honest I think he has delivered some hard truths to numerous players.
A lot has been learnt in the last four years. Now we need serious games regularly, and that's on New Zealand Football.
Like he picked 18 year old Ingham who is not up to A league and 35 year old Fallon who has only played a few games this year.
Then to add insult to everything else he does not start Wood but has three other strikers on the bench, knowing that we have to score to stand any chance. Please.
Yes - Wood is constrained to 60 minutes a match given injuries. And it worked perfectly well in Wellington.
You can't look back at hindsight you need to consider what actually happened. Peru, a much better team, scored two very average goals. One I reckon would've been saved if not for a deflection, the other from a scrapy corner.
New Zealand missed three prime opportunities and probably had a penalty shout 20 seconds in. (We'll never know because the broadcast was such a crock of shark)
Would we have been in a better position given a different manager; considering the potential managers that would've signed for us absolutely not.
Yeah I’m in Peru. At the game and then watched a replay. Endless replays of Reid’s handball and no penalty given, but not one replay of blatant tug on Kosta. Peruvian TV fudgeers!! To be fair it would have been a very brave ref to give us a pen after 20 secs. It was lack of replays and any local acknowledgement that was a pen that pissed me off
Though in all other respects they have been brilliant hosts. So yes disappointed. But genuinely happy for them.
Hudson did a good job overall, and we are in a much better place than post Mexico playoffs in 2013. If we drew Honduras or even Socceroos as playoff opponents who knows.
Not sure I would call that brilliant hosting but agree with the rest
I read this morning (NZ Herald article I think) that NZ only scored 4 goals in 11 games against non OFC teams under Hudson. Considering we had a striker who is in the Premier league playing lots of those games that's pretty terrible.
he claims to be a Bielsa disciple but his offensive strategies are anything like Bielsa. The problem with parking the bus is that your essentially telling your team that your only chance is to hold on for dear life and try and sneak something.
If you have a player like Wood its up to you to try and bring him into the game constantly. Of course if he was truly injured then I can understand him not starting, but from what I saw from Wood he did not seem hampered by injury when on the field
Wood was genuinely injured/restricted. He was shaking his head to trainer when trying to sprint out with warmups at the Caketin. Niggly hammies can take weeks to heal. I don’t think he stretched out fully in either game, maybe aside from his near miss in Lima - but need to see replay of that
This is the issue. If we had a coach who was trustworthy - who didn't massage his Wikipedia page and try to bullshark the media - we would take him at his word that Wood couldn't have played 90 minutes at a stretch.
Hudson did well. Two shark house goals decided it. Did well in Wellington, reacted well in Peru.
He's stepped on some toes in his time, but to be honest I think he has delivered some hard truths to numerous players.
A lot has been learnt in the last four years. Now we need serious games regularly, and that's on New Zealand Football.
Like he picked 18 year old Ingham who is not up to A league and 35 year old Fallon who has only played a few games this year.
Then to add insult to everything else he does not start Wood but has three other strikers on the bench, knowing that we have to score to stand any chance. Please.
Yes - Wood is constrained to 60 minutes a match given injuries. And it worked perfectly well in Wellington.
You can't look back at hindsight you need to consider what actually happened. Peru, a much better team, scored two very average goals. One I reckon would've been saved if not for a deflection, the other from a scrapy corner.
New Zealand missed three prime opportunities and probably had a penalty shout 20 seconds in. (We'll never know because the broadcast was such a crock of shark)
Would we have been in a better position given a different manager; considering the potential managers that would've signed for us absolutely not.
To be fair it would have been a very brave ref to give us a pen after 20 secs.
They knew that and took the corner wrestling to another level. On that note there was a definite penalty on Reid from at least one of the corners.
This is the issue. If we had a coach who was trustworthy - who didn't massage his Wikipedia page and try to bullshark the media - we would take him at his word that Wood couldn't have played 90 minutes at a stretch.
Am I dreaming? It was pretty obvious Wood was cumbersome and looked slow.
Even so the I think the reality is that Burnley probably restricted him to 60 minutes. Is that legal or fair given the magnitude of the game? Absolutely not. But by respecting that Hudson increases exponentially the chances of being trusted with players further down the line.
Of course if he was truly injured then I can understand him not starting, but from what I saw from Wood he did not seem hampered by injury when on the field
fair enough
Durante very complementary of Hudson on TV3 news.
Suggested
a) we've improved a lot since the Mexico playoff
b) much of that is down to the work of Hudson
If the players had a beef with him and wanted to do a hatchet job, a retiring senior player would have been the one, you'd think.
I'm picking that Moss has been the one handed the hatchet
Newspaper this morning quotes Martin saying they wanted to keep Hudson. My reading between the lines says they would be happy with a job share with someone like Colorado.
Newspaper this morning quotes Martin saying they wanted to keep Hudson. My reading between the lines says they would be happy with a job share with someone like Colorado.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that's a terrible idea. I thought Hudson was in overall charge of NZ football teams re dictating a consistent style of play, and certainly involved in some way with all Kiwi national sides below the AWs level. How could he do that while splitting his time between the US and NZ? Maybe Martin would let him just coach the AWs, and hand that over-arching roles to someone else. Personally, I'd prefer to let Hudson go and get in a new AWs coach. A new CEO as well might be useful.
Newspaper this morning quotes Martin saying they wanted to keep Hudson. My reading between the lines says they would be happy with a job share with someone like Colorado.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
Hudson has had his shot. He got hired to get us too the WC and he failed. End of the WC cycle.....give someone else a shot.
Also Hudson is super ambitious. If he takes on another WC cycle he would end up coaching the AWs for nearly 8 years...i can't see that happening. Also no WC qualification = no FIFA money = no money for AW games. Why would Hudson want to stick around.
IMO he already has something else sorted out...he will be gone by Christmas
Newspaper this morning quotes Martin saying they wanted to keep Hudson. My reading between the lines says they would be happy with a job share with someone like Colorado.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
Hudson has had his shot. He got hired to get us too the WC and he failed. End of the WC cycle.....give someone else a shot.
Also Hudson is super ambitious. If he takes on another WC cycle he would end up coaching the AWs for nearly 8 years...i can't see that happening. Also no WC qualification = no FIFA money = no money for AW games. Why would Hudson want to stick around.
IMO he already has something else sorted out...he will be gone by Christmas
I can't wait to see what happens if he coaches a team week in, week out.
I hope if he lands a pro gig and signs a couple young kiwis.
Newspaper this morning quotes Martin saying they wanted to keep Hudson. My reading between the lines says they would be happy with a job share with someone like Colorado.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that's a terrible idea. I thought Hudson was in overall charge of NZ football teams re dictating a consistent style of play, and certainly involved in some way with all Kiwi national sides below the AWs level. How could he do that while splitting his time between the US and NZ? Maybe Martin would let him just coach the AWs, and hand that over-arching roles to someone else. Personally, I'd prefer to let Hudson go and get in a new AWs coach. A new CEO as well might be useful.
I think Hudson has done a good job. But to let him split his time between a MLS team & AWs (if rumour is true) would be madness. Doubt seriously any MLS team would even consider it.
He's a young coach who has ambitions to coach week in/week out - and yes be interesting to see how he goes.
Give the AWs job to that Austrian guy (Andreas Heraf) - who currently has Technical Director role. He's had over 6 months to get to know scene in NZ, and is an older coach with international experience. If he can't improve results of AWs (not that they will be playing much for next 12 mths) - maybe it's just because we are not good enough (esp when they better players like Reid are so seldom available). This is the reality Heraf or whoever will face.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/99...
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/99...
Speaking of games for the AWs. Some NZF staffer should attend the World Cup draw in December.
Once draw is made, get in the ear of officials from the 3 countries that are drawn as pool opponents of Australia.
Spread myth that AWs are a like for like practice opponent, for pool game v Socceroos, and offer AWs as available to play pre World Cup friendlies next May-June in Europe. Or even earlier in some of the FIFA windows between now and Russia.
On a side note I see that Estonia (FIFA ranking 80) of all teams, is currently touring the OFC Islands. First game Fiji today, followed by Vanuatu and New Caledonia.
I presume an Estonian team solely made up of players who ply their trade in the Baltic/Scandinavian leagues - those leagues having stopped over northern winters.
NZF should have invited them to NZ also. Good chance for NZ based 'AWs' side to get a win and give rankings a boost.
I would just make a point - a lot of the praise for Hudson is to compare how much better we are now than we were against Mexico. The games against mexico were probably the lowest point for NZ football in 15 years.
I think a far more interesting comparison is to compare against where we "should" be given our players and resources. I personally don't think that Hudson has overachieved, he's probably got us to about par. We've defended pretty well against non-Oceania sides, but then we have some decent defenders. We've struggled to score goals against non-Oceania sides which isn't great given our forward line is about as good as it's been for a long time.
But all the stuff like, "look how much we've improved since Mexico", and "he had us 90 minutes away from a World Cup" is bluster. After Mexico, literally the only way was up. We would have improved with anyone at the helm. And when we start our 4 year cycle we are in practice 180 minutes away from a World Cup so I really don't see that as a massive achievement.
I agree - the improvements and changes are what should be expected from an international coach as a minimum. Sure, the picture he inherited wasn't great, but I would expect anyne appointed to his job to fix that - that's the job.
I'm sure the players do like him, and I'm sure he's improved the team culture, and all the other things mentioned on here - but again, minimum expectations from a modern international coach... people rave that he uses video analysis etc, but shouldn't that just be automitically expected in this role?? it's not like in the days of Jack Charlton writing lineups on the back of his cigarette packet...
In the end it's results, or failing that, a team with a style that engages loyal fans. Achieved?
In the end it's results, or failing that, a team with a style that engages loyal fans. Achieved?
not really in his 27 games in charge he has won 10 drawn 6 and lost 11
looks ok until you break it down into OFC \ non OFC
v OFC nations Won 9 drawn 2 lost 0
v Non OFC nations Won 1 Drawn 4 Lost 11
I agree - the improvements and changes are what should be expected from an international coach as a minimum. Sure, the picture he inherited wasn't great, but I would expect anyne appointed to his job to fix that - that's the job.
I'm sure the players do like him, and I'm sure he's improved the team culture, and all the other things mentioned on here - but again, minimum expectations from a modern international coach... people rave that he uses video analysis etc, but shouldn't that just be automitically expected in this role?? it's not like in the days of Jack Charlton writing lineups on the back of his cigarette packet...
In the end it's results, or failing that, a team with a style that engages loyal fans. Achieved?
My big question is what is he going to do different in this next 4 year cycle, and how is he going to achieve that. It's obvious we need to score more goals, what is his plan to do that? And why hasn't he done that over the last 4 years?
How much do you put it on Hudson vs NZF? When we haven't got a pool of talent that are playing at least A-League level regularly or a regular fixture list against teams outside of Oceania will anyone achieve what we'd love to achieve?
Our lack or depth and quality is a by product of a failed developments system from over a decade ago that we are only now beginning to change... players in reps were always big and strong as opposed t technical etc.
I expect future teams to play with the ball at feet more as this feeds through from junior levels and up... then we might see a coach more willing to / able to play a passing game.
As Dyche says, you can't play like Barcelona if you do not have Barcelona players.
I would just make a point - a lot of the praise for Hudson is to compare how much better we are now than we were against Mexico. The games against mexico were probably the lowest point for NZ football in 15 years.
I think a far more interesting comparison is to compare against where we "should" be given our players and resources. I personally don't think that Hudson has overachieved, he's probably got us to about par. We've defended pretty well against non-Oceania sides, but then we have some decent defenders. We've struggled to score goals against non-Oceania sides which isn't great given our forward line is about as good as it's been for a long time.
But all the stuff like, "look how much we've improved since Mexico", and "he had us 90 minutes away from a World Cup" is bluster. After Mexico, literally the only way was up. We would have improved with anyone at the helm. And when we start our 4 year cycle we are in practice 180 minutes away from a World Cup so I really don't see that as a massive achievement.
Sure a strong forward line by NZ standards, but a weak forward line by say the standards of a top 50 international team. Yet again Rojas was a bit player against a non Oceania side. He should be having a serious look, at why Thomas's career is starting to take off, and what he can take from that.
A couple of feet each the other way and we score two goals - Thomas in Wellington & Wood in Lima. Hudson will be having some sleepless nights as to whether he played it right with a half mobile Wood over the 2 legs. Who knows, but be interesting to see how much he plays for Burnley over next few weeks.
In article below Brockie offers some praise of Hudson (of course biased as he was belatedly recalled by the gaffer), but again continues a pretty constant theme from the playing group. As someone else mentioned above, be interesting to see what someone like Moss says (if he ever offers an insight), as he virtually never played under AH - so a completely unbiased view of his coaching abilities you'd say.
How is Moss' view any less bias than other players?
How is Moss' view any less bias than other players?
Some people on here are saying that the published praise of Hudson from the likes of Durante, is biased or worthless as he was a favourite of Hudson or regularly played for AWs under Hudson. Of course alot of this praise was also published leading into AWs games, when yes you would expect your players to speak well of the coaching regime.
With Moss you have someone who barely played under AH (Marinovic played 15-20 games in a row from memory). So if anything Moss may have an axe to grind with Hudson, never having been given a chance to play.
However if someone ever asks Moss for his opinion on Hudson, and GM publicly rates him - then just maybe AH has been a competent AWs coach!
After all surely the AWs players who have spent many many hours together training and playing under AH the last few years (esp those who also featured in Herbert's days, so can compare), are in a better position to judge him than any of us keyboard warriors?????????
I would just make a point - a lot of the praise for Hudson is to compare how much better we are now than we were against Mexico. The games against mexico were probably the lowest point for NZ football in 15 years.
I think a far more interesting comparison is to compare against where we "should" be given our players and resources. I personally don't think that Hudson has overachieved, he's probably got us to about par. We've defended pretty well against non-Oceania sides, but then we have some decent defenders. We've struggled to score goals against non-Oceania sides which isn't great given our forward line is about as good as it's been for a long time.
But all the stuff like, "look how much we've improved since Mexico", and "he had us 90 minutes away from a World Cup" is bluster. After Mexico, literally the only way was up. We would have improved with anyone at the helm. And when we start our 4 year cycle we are in practice 180 minutes away from a World Cup so I really don't see that as a massive achievement.
Sure a strong forward line by NZ standards, but a weak forward line by say the standards of a top 50 international team. Yet again Rojas was a bit player against a non Oceania side. He should be having a serious look, at why Thomas's career is starting to take off, and what he can take from that.
A couple of feet each the other way and we score two goals - Thomas in Wellington & Wood in Lima. Hudson will be having some sleepless nights as to whether he played it right with a half mobile Wood over the 2 legs. Who knows, but be interesting to see how much he plays for Burnley over next few weeks.
In article below Brockie offers some praise of Hudson (of course biased as he was belatedly recalled by the gaffer), but again continues a pretty constant theme from the playing group. As someone else mentioned above, be interesting to see what someone like Moss says (if he ever offers an insight), as he virtually never played under AH - so a completely unbiased view of his coaching abilities you'd say.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/98...
I'm sure he's a competent coach. I'm interested in what he is going to be able to do over the next 4 year cycle to take us to the next level. It's an obvious problem that we struggle to score goals against even moderate opposition.
He picked a team in the second leg, which I think we all knew we had to score in to qualify, with basically no goal scorers. I personally think that has to come under some scrutiny, was the actual plan to just wait until Wood cam on to try and score? That's an odd tactic I think
I would just make a point - a lot of the praise for Hudson is to compare how much better we are now than we were against Mexico. The games against mexico were probably the lowest point for NZ football in 15 years.
I think a far more interesting comparison is to compare against where we "should" be given our players and resources. I personally don't think that Hudson has overachieved, he's probably got us to about par. We've defended pretty well against non-Oceania sides, but then we have some decent defenders. We've struggled to score goals against non-Oceania sides which isn't great given our forward line is about as good as it's been for a long time.
But all the stuff like, "look how much we've improved since Mexico", and "he had us 90 minutes away from a World Cup" is bluster. After Mexico, literally the only way was up. We would have improved with anyone at the helm. And when we start our 4 year cycle we are in practice 180 minutes away from a World Cup so I really don't see that as a massive achievement.
Sure a strong forward line by NZ standards, but a weak forward line by say the standards of a top 50 international team. Yet again Rojas was a bit player against a non Oceania side. He should be having a serious look, at why Thomas's career is starting to take off, and what he can take from that.
A couple of feet each the other way and we score two goals - Thomas in Wellington & Wood in Lima. Hudson will be having some sleepless nights as to whether he played it right with a half mobile Wood over the 2 legs. Who knows, but be interesting to see how much he plays for Burnley over next few weeks.
In article below Brockie offers some praise of Hudson (of course biased as he was belatedly recalled by the gaffer), but again continues a pretty constant theme from the playing group. As someone else mentioned above, be interesting to see what someone like Moss says (if he ever offers an insight), as he virtually never played under AH - so a completely unbiased view of his coaching abilities you'd say.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/98...
I'm sure he's a competent coach. I'm interested in what he is going to be able to do over the next 4 year cycle to take us to the next level. It's an obvious problem that we struggle to score goals against even moderate opposition.
He picked a team in the second leg, which I think we all knew we had to score in to qualify, with basically no goal scorers. I personally think that has to come under some scrutiny, was the actual plan to just wait until Wood cam on to try and score? That's an odd tactic I think
Hudson explained it (well my interpretation) as the coaching/medico staff thought Wood was good for 45 mins (or maybe it was 75 mins if game went to ET??). Maybe there is some medical science behind likely timeframe someone can play, without further aggravating an existing hammie twinge??
Anyway his call was that if Wood started and aggravated his hammie and came off, would be a massive blow to the confidence/morale of rest of the team. Yes I can see his point somewhat if as a team mate you see one of your 3 major players limp to sideline after only say 10 mins - as could have happened. Not a great morale boost when you already feel the world is against you, in a packed Lima stadia, and you still have 80 mins to go without your main scoring source. You feel like you already have no chance after only 10 mins.
Better to feel that if you are still in the game at HT, and you have your trump card still to join the fight. So they took the view that better Wood came on in the 2nd half. Of course still no gtee Wood wouldn't worsen his injury after say only 10 mins of the 2nd half, and limp off.
Who knows if Hudson got it right. I'd say as much a decision of Wood and the AWs medicos as Hudson.
However I firmly believe Wood wasn't 100%. I was in Lima. He barely stretched out or sprinted, did virtually no pressing and was just there to use his big body as a target man, create anxiety amongst the Peruvians - which he did.
I'd be very surprised if he played 90 mins for Burnley at full tilt in their next game.
I saw Chris Wood after the Wellington game in the team hotel, he seemed a bit dejected, if that was because he didn't get a full game due to tactics by Hudson or he was injured who knows.
Wood was unable to train the entire week leading up to the home game, because of injury. Not sure what Sean Dyche is up to.
I would just make a point - a lot of the praise for Hudson is to compare how much better we are now than we were against Mexico. The games against mexico were probably the lowest point for NZ football in 15 years.
I think a far more interesting comparison is to compare against where we "should" be given our players and resources. I personally don't think that Hudson has overachieved, he's probably got us to about par. We've defended pretty well against non-Oceania sides, but then we have some decent defenders. We've struggled to score goals against non-Oceania sides which isn't great given our forward line is about as good as it's been for a long time.
But all the stuff like, "look how much we've improved since Mexico", and "he had us 90 minutes away from a World Cup" is bluster. After Mexico, literally the only way was up. We would have improved with anyone at the helm. And when we start our 4 year cycle we are in practice 180 minutes away from a World Cup so I really don't see that as a massive achievement.
Agreed. Yes, he sent the team out with a defensive plan and it was executed well. Yes, he made us hard to beat. But that's been done before. Herbert did it (forget Mexico, think WC 2010), as have others before him. Hudson doesn't seem to have made much headway with our attack. We started in the home leg without a proper striker on the pitch, and despite Wood showing in Wellington how different we were with a player who could hold the ball up for his midfielders, Hudson did the same thing in Lima.
I would just make a point - a lot of the praise for Hudson is to compare how much better we are now than we were against Mexico. The games against mexico were probably the lowest point for NZ football in 15 years.
I think a far more interesting comparison is to compare against where we "should" be given our players and resources. I personally don't think that Hudson has overachieved, he's probably got us to about par. We've defended pretty well against non-Oceania sides, but then we have some decent defenders. We've struggled to score goals against non-Oceania sides which isn't great given our forward line is about as good as it's been for a long time.
But all the stuff like, "look how much we've improved since Mexico", and "he had us 90 minutes away from a World Cup" is bluster. After Mexico, literally the only way was up. We would have improved with anyone at the helm. And when we start our 4 year cycle we are in practice 180 minutes away from a World Cup so I really don't see that as a massive achievement.
Agreed. Yes, he sent the team out with a defensive plan and it was executed well. Yes, he made us hard to beat. But that's been done before. Herbert did it (forget Mexico, think WC 2010), as have others before him. Hudson doesn't seem to have made much headway with our attack. We started in the home leg without a proper striker on the pitch, and despite Wood showing in Wellington how different we were with a player who could hold the ball up for his midfielders, Hudson did the same thing in Lima.
That's a really good point - are we any better than we were around the World Cup 2010 under Herbert? Arguably no, it's much the same stylistically and tactically
I would just make a point - a lot of the praise for Hudson is to compare how much better we are now than we were against Mexico. The games against mexico were probably the lowest point for NZ football in 15 years.
I think a far more interesting comparison is to compare against where we "should" be given our players and resources. I personally don't think that Hudson has overachieved, he's probably got us to about par. We've defended pretty well against non-Oceania sides, but then we have some decent defenders. We've struggled to score goals against non-Oceania sides which isn't great given our forward line is about as good as it's been for a long time.
But all the stuff like, "look how much we've improved since Mexico", and "he had us 90 minutes away from a World Cup" is bluster. After Mexico, literally the only way was up. We would have improved with anyone at the helm. And when we start our 4 year cycle we are in practice 180 minutes away from a World Cup so I really don't see that as a massive achievement.
Sure a strong forward line by NZ standards, but a weak forward line by say the standards of a top 50 international team. Yet again Rojas was a bit player against a non Oceania side. He should be having a serious look, at why Thomas's career is starting to take off, and what he can take from that.
A couple of feet each the other way and we score two goals - Thomas in Wellington & Wood in Lima. Hudson will be having some sleepless nights as to whether he played it right with a half mobile Wood over the 2 legs. Who knows, but be interesting to see how much he plays for Burnley over next few weeks.
In article below Brockie offers some praise of Hudson (of course biased as he was belatedly recalled by the gaffer), but again continues a pretty constant theme from the playing group. As someone else mentioned above, be interesting to see what someone like Moss says (if he ever offers an insight), as he virtually never played under AH - so a completely unbiased view of his coaching abilities you'd say.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/98...
I'm sure he's a competent coach. I'm interested in what he is going to be able to do over the next 4 year cycle to take us to the next level. It's an obvious problem that we struggle to score goals against even moderate opposition.
He picked a team in the second leg, which I think we all knew we had to score in to qualify, with basically no goal scorers. I personally think that has to come under some scrutiny, was the actual plan to just wait until Wood cam on to try and score? That's an odd tactic I think
Hudson explained it (well my interpretation) as the coaching/medico staff thought Wood was good for 45 mins (or maybe it was 75 mins if game went to ET??). Maybe there is some medical science behind likely timeframe someone can play, without further aggravating an existing hammie twinge??
Anyway his call was that if Wood started and aggravated his hammie and came off, would be a massive blow to the confidence/morale of rest of the team. Yes I can see his point somewhat if as a team mate you see one of your 3 major players limp to sideline after only say 10 mins - as could have happened. Not a great morale boost when you already feel the world is against you, in a packed Lima stadia, and you still have 80 mins to go without your main scoring source. You feel like you already have no chance after only 10 mins.
Better to feel that if you are still in the game at HT, and you have your trump card still to join the fight. So they took the view that better Wood came on in the 2nd half. Of course still no gtee Wood wouldn't worsen his injury after say only 10 mins of the 2nd half, and limp off.
Who knows if Hudson got it right. I'd say as much a decision of Wood and the AWs medicos as Hudson.
However I firmly believe Wood wasn't 100%. I was in Lima. He barely stretched out or sprinted, did virtually no pressing and was just there to use his big body as a target man, create anxiety amongst the Peruvians - which he did.
I'd be very surprised if he played 90 mins for Burnley at full tilt in their next game.
Yeah but that basically says to me that after 4 years he didn't have a plan for how we could score a goal without Chris Wood on the pitch. That side he put out in the first half in Peru wouldn't score in 5 halves (other than maybe from a corner)
I would just make a point - a lot of the praise for Hudson is to compare how much better we are now than we were against Mexico. The games against mexico were probably the lowest point for NZ football in 15 years.
I think a far more interesting comparison is to compare against where we "should" be given our players and resources. I personally don't think that Hudson has overachieved, he's probably got us to about par. We've defended pretty well against non-Oceania sides, but then we have some decent defenders. We've struggled to score goals against non-Oceania sides which isn't great given our forward line is about as good as it's been for a long time.
But all the stuff like, "look how much we've improved since Mexico", and "he had us 90 minutes away from a World Cup" is bluster. After Mexico, literally the only way was up. We would have improved with anyone at the helm. And when we start our 4 year cycle we are in practice 180 minutes away from a World Cup so I really don't see that as a massive achievement.
Agreed. Yes, he sent the team out with a defensive plan and it was executed well. Yes, he made us hard to beat. But that's been done before. Herbert did it (forget Mexico, think WC 2010), as have others before him. Hudson doesn't seem to have made much headway with our attack. We started in the home leg without a proper striker on the pitch, and despite Wood showing in Wellington how different we were with a player who could hold the ball up for his midfielders, Hudson did the same thing in Lima.
That's a really good point - are we any better than we were around the World Cup 2010 under Herbert? Arguably no, it's much the same stylistically and tactically
I would argue tactically it was worse - at least with Herbert, having a few strong guys up top to knock it long to gave us an outlet, and some scoring options. I have no idea what our plan to score a goal was for 105 of the 180 minutes we were out there against Peru.
Yeah but that basically says to me that after 4 years he didn't have a plan for how we could score a goal without Chris Wood on the pitch. That side he put out in the first half in Peru wouldn't score in 5 halves (other than maybe from a corner)
Yep - agree completely.
Pretty much concur with what JD has said.
When Hudson came in he claimed “Our team will have a real emphasis on being positive going forward and makes the most of the qualities of the players available for selection”. But playing Wood as a target man really blunted up attacking wise. Almost all of his goals at club level are him poaching 6-9 yards from goals with balls coming in from wingers. Yet we played mostly with two up front with Rojas running off his shoulder. You could argue we were more defensive than Herbert was, and he was publicly panned for that at times. At least under Herbert’s team we create one or two shots a game. Arguably our attacking stocks his cycle are better than the 2010 cycle. Yet we look far worse.
Even looking back at Hudson’s record pre-All Whites, there is a pretty similar pattern. Defensively strongly, but poor attacking.
Real Maryland 2008 – 24 goals in 23 games
Real Maryland 2009 – 19 goals in 22 games
Newport 2010/11 – 18 goals in 6 games
Newport 2011/12 – 13 goals in 12 games
Bahrain U23s – 14 goals in 10 games
Bahrain – 6 goals in 12 games
NZ U23s – 8 goals in 4 games
NZ – 32 goals in 27 games
And off those 32 goals, 20 of them were scored against OFC nations either at home or at a neutral ground. We only scored 4 goals against OFC at their home ground (and only one once in those 4 games).
We never scored more than one goal against a non-OFC nation, and while sure we played some good sides, we should have been doing better against teams like Uzbekistan, China, Thailand, Myanmar, Oman and Belarus. We probably should have lost our only away win against a non-OFC.
So while on the face of it, he got us within 90 minutes from the WC, that really should be a par mark. 2-0 loss looks ok on the books (and wiki), but once you look at the entire circle, it’s all be pretty average. My real question is did he get more than you’d expect from the players at hand with the resources at hand. I don’t think he did.
I'd be open to the idea. Be interested to hear from others re Hay's suitability, and who else might step into Hudson's shoes, assuming he's not reappointed, which I think would be a mistake.
If you are looking at coaches in New Zealand, Danny Hay would be one of the top candidates. Is it too early for Jose Figueria?