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.
Ok so if you take that view, which is pretty reasonable, you come back to the issue that over 4 years what progress did we actually make when we went into the second leg picking a team that did not actually have a plan to score a goal...did we really make much progress under him?
I agree with a lot of the comments about how we set up in Lima. We were too defensive, starting Tuiloma was the wrong call and we never really looked like we'd hold them out. But in reality there was not much more we could do with the players we had. I believe starting the same XI as Wellington (excluding Smith) was what we needed to do and continue where we left off from there. Despite this, I do not blame Hudson for taking a more defensive approach over there.
However, CT do you honestly believe we shouldve started one of Smeltz or Brockie?? Both old attackers who have lost a lot of their quality on the ball and due to their age aren't very good at pressing anymore. If you do, well then I dont even know if its worth my time even having a debate with you. Did you see Smeltz last time he played? He was terrible and looked completely out of touch with what was going on. This isnt 2008 Smeltz, its almost 10 years later..
Our whole campaign relied on Wood being fit. The fact that he wasn't near 100% was IMO the worst possible news we could've received - we were never winning that tie with him at that level of fitness.
And also secondly JD about progress, you realise we were playing Peru right?
I think that Brockie should have started, but I also think Brockie should have been in every squad since the OFCNC. Because you're right, our whole campaign did rely on Wood being fit but that's partly because Hudson never developed a plan for if he wasn't. Yeah, I bag Brockie's goalscoring record for NZ but he is still the second best goalscorer we have now Smeltz is over the hill. If Hudson had talked for so long about building to this game why the hell was Brockie brought back for it after a year in the wilderness? That's terrible planning. Hudson had 3 years to work out a backup plan if Wood wasn't available.
Anyway, I only think you needed a genuine striker if they were going to be isolated like Kosta was in the second leg. If the formation was unchanged from the first leg it wouldn't have bothered me because Rojas was often stepping up into the second striker role to support Kosta and it actually worked pretty well. As I said in that original comment.
As for your "not worth my time debating you" comment, lolz. Welcome to the interwebz.