Anthony Hudson - Technical advisor

I think the issue is that Veitch appears to have lost nothing at all

Yeah still confused...

I think he's just scrwwed up the name and all refernces to "Andy" should be "Anfony"

so we're talking about Anfony Martin and Andrew Hudson right? :-)

As interviewed, or not by Tony Wretch

Sorry, I'm completely out of the loop and a little bit wasted - what happened here to whom?

mods take control what the fudge has Vietch's history got to do with football? I come to this threat to read about whats in the title

Ddis fred 'urts me 'ed.

Anthony has just joined Colorado

just scrolled through the new coaching thread on the Rapids forum. Many have drunk the Kool-Aid and think hes the messiah. They will be very disappointed when they find out he's just a naughty boy.

https://www.burgundywave.com/2017/11/28/16707996/3-reasons-why-anthony-hudson-is-not-the-best-choice-for-the-rapids

This line from the article sounds familiar.

...conducting a global search and had 100+ applicants leads us (or at least me) to believe that we’re going to end up with an exciting name.

 It will be very interesting to watch him week in week out in the grind of a league season. he did get prickly with the NZ media from time to time. Which is surprising because coaching the AW's means that for most of the year you get ignored by the sports media. He will be under the football media blowtorch on a weekly basis in the MLS...if things don't go well he will be under huge pressure.

I do wish him well though....I was disappointed by his AW tenure.....the buildup was not matched by what we saw on the field but he is passionate and ambitious about football and will be better for his AW experiance

Would be good if he signs Kip Colvey, but we all know at the top of the list it will be Dyer.

Dyer would be an interesting signing! He also was a bit of a fan of Alex Rufer? 

If he signed some young Kiwis up, even to their USL feeder side that’s a good thing. Gets them out of the NZ football bubble. 

Vancouver and Portland have formed little Kiwi clusters, helped by NZers on their staff.

Still Hudson will of course be focused on a getting strong team together and results. We can’t really expect any freebies to NZ.

And yes interesting to see how he goes.

His first press conference. Lots of talk of "philosophy" and "alignment". As is being an attacking team. Plenty of stuff we got spun in 2014. 

Anthony Hudson dictionary:

"Attacking" - Keeping your EPL striker on the bench, defend like fudge and try pinch a goal away

Let it go mate, he's gone for ever.

Someone close this thread and burn it to the ground or move it to the scrap heap sub-forum. He's a shark talking coach, he's not a kiwi and he's no longer an All Whites coach anymore. I rest my case

Jog on mate

He played 65 the weekend before, in his first game back after first hurting his hamstring.

He then played 0 three days after Lima, where Dyche says he didn't consider him due to travel; 12 a week after that; and finally 90 a couple of days ago.

I get the distinct impression that you either don't like him or don't rate him. Perhaps both. :)

People still seem to care about the bloke even though he has literally nothing to do with us anymore.

Maybe just let it go, guys.

The dislike of Anfony is personal more than it is to do with football, so no wonder it persists when he's gone. It's the woman scorned warning her ex's new gf about what a bastard he is.

Oops big mistake to Endorse your silly comments above. My fat fingers

And yes FFS Wood was injured for both Peru legs. That’s life sometimes

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/world-game/99431935/all-whites-on-former-coach-anthony-hudsons-radar-as-he-gets-going-in-colorado

I should go for a jog though.

I think he was an All White coach, as much as some of you dislike that. I wouldn't mind keeping up with his progress. Something to do. Interesting if he plays Gleeson or Marinovic etc etc.

I get a strong impression that you've lost the plot or are very close to doing so. Jeez you spin some nonsense

Yes have been told the exact same. Have a good mate from school who was in the squad for the qualifiers who has said Wood was 100% injured throughout the week and not capable of playing 90. In Peru the travel didn't help with the niggle and he was only good for about an hours worth of football. 

In my opinion it makes far more sense to bring on an injured player at HT against a far superior team who have already played 45 minutes of football. Without doubt having him on chasing shadows for the first 45 wouldve been the wrong move - he wouldve tired quicker, had a greater chance of aggravating the answer and bringing him on when we started to gain more of a foothold in the match (= more opportunities) was the right idea. Bringing him off with the match still in the balance would have had a huge impact on the team's confidence. Once again my mate within the squad shared these thoughts. 

Regardless of the facts some idiots still try to criticize Hudson for something that was out of his control. If Wood wasn't injured he would have been involved in Burnley's first game back after the Intl window and involved from the start the week after - which he wasnt. Its laughable that you have no doubt's about whether Dyche is being honest but will not believe Hudson at all. Players in the team have literally confirmed it and you still wont believe it? Lol you really are one of the more pathetic posters on this forum

I'm in no doubt that Chris was injured but we NEEDED A GOAL.  END OF.

If Wood had started both games without our starting XI having been run ragged after 45 minutes of shadow chasing, we would have had a better chance to score.  An early goal for us in either game would have given Peru the sharks and quite possibly have sent us through to Russia.  Instead we played the chasing game we did, too little too late.  Totally negative tactics.

Chris was never going to play the full 90 but I'd have had him start both games, play  20 plus mins, pinch a goal and then brought on Brocks to irritate their defence.

As to Brocks, he was again handed a hospital pass starting off the bench.  So many of us have been hard on him and his piss poor scoring record, but if he only gets 10 mins, once a year, how is he going to achieve that understanding with the other players on the park or score at all with so little game time?

CW your dig at Doloras above is a bit too harsh in my opinion, but yes your comments re Hudson's tactics are on the money. Again feel doctor/physio and Wood himself would have had as much or even more input, into how many mins Wood got as opposed to the coach. 

Hudson & coaching staff's decision would have been how do we use his limited mins. I feel they got it right. If he started always risk he tore hammie early, and team shell shocked/morale blown up.

Conceding the soft 2nd goal from the corner was the big problem, not the tactics. If it's still only 1-0, when Wood gets that late chance - and he converts - fudge it's all on!

Anyway overall we should be proud of the team. They did better than expected, against huge odds. Half team playing in poor quality/low level leagues (USL, A League), not a quality home game in 3 years, captain hardly played for team in 4 years, no charter jet to South America, agruably best player only half fit, hostile environment in Lima etc etc

Sure but if he was good for 60 why did he only play 45?

If he can play 60 at a push then surely he can give 45 slightly more intense minutes? I'm not sure why you're taking this "60 minutes" as gospel, when it isn't an exact science by any means.

Hudson made a tactical decision to not start him and bring him on later. The other option was to start him and sub him. You can disagree with the choice Hudson made, but I don't. Can you imagine being 2-0 down and subbing off our PL striker? That would be the most demoralising thing for a team. 

Not sure if this is something I should be coming out and saying, but Wood had a huge input into what role he played in both legs. After all only the person with an injury can determine how it feels. He wasn't comfortable starting in Wellington and had let Hudson know this. Also in Lima they were hoping the niggle would come right so he could play from the start but in reality that was always a bit hopeful. And after the long haul travel it was decided it was best he was on the bench again.

If you were at the stadium watching his warm up (or lack of) in Wellington, you would've seen that he was certainly not good to start

Follow up question - why select Smeltz and Brockie in the squad and then not start one of them in the second leg if Wood was out? In the first leg Rojas was advanced enough to help Kosta out and it worked ok but with Rojas dropped for Tuiloma Kosta may as well have not been playing for all the use he was as an isolated sole striker. At least Smeltz or Brockie could have had more physical presence to win aerial balls or hold possession long enough for support to arrive.

So even accepting the Wood decision, I think you can still seriously question how we set up in that second leg.

I can't think of a way I would have preferred to set up in Lima, bar selecting Wood. Kosta was supposed to be isolated and to press the ball wide to the fullbacks where we could try to trap them or the wingers, which was a pretty clear defensive tactic over the two legs. We set up to not concede, not to try and score and I genuinely don't believe we had any other options. Starting Brockie/Smeltz hurts our defensive effort more than it helps with our attacking one.

Bottom line for me is I hope Hudson goes on and coaches successfully overseas. And he gives a few young Kiwi footballers a chance to break into professional football internationally.