Anthony Hudson - Technical advisor

New Reply
55
james dean
·
Marquee
2.1K
·
8.2K
·
over 17 years

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

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?

December 04, 2017 12:11
ConanTroutman
Marquee
5.3K
·
9.5K
·
almost 13 years

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

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.

Disagree. I think it worked in the first leg because Kosta wasn't so isolated and we could press higher up with Rojas and to a lesser extent Thomas as well, as well as being able to move the ball quickly to counter more easily. In Lima Kosta was a lot more isolated and pressing doesn't work if you have no teammates within 25 yards to help close down passing channels etc. We may as well have had 10 men with that tactical setup. We invited far too much pressure by playing so defensively and gave ourselves no way to release that pressure. That's exhausting both physically and mentally
December 04, 2017 12:20 · Edited December 04, 2017 12:23
Nelfoos
·
Starting XI
2.7K
·
2.5K
·
over 8 years

james dean wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

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?

We played Peru, not Bahrain. And we improved a metric shark ton from Mexico 4 years ago.
December 04, 2017 12:27 · Edited December 04, 2017 12:27
Nelfoos
·
Starting XI
2.7K
·
2.5K
·
over 8 years

ConanTroutman wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

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.

Disagree. I think it worked in the first leg because Kosta wasn't so isolated and we could press higher up with Rojas and to a lesser extent Thomas as well, as well as being able to move the ball quickly to counter more easily. In Lima Kosta was a lot more isolated and pressing doesn't work if you have no teammates within 25 yards to help close down passing channels etc. We may as well have had 10 men with that tactical setup. We invited far too much pressure by playing so defensively and gave ourselves no way to release that pressure. That's exhausting both physically and mentally

We didn't execute it well and we did end up sitting too deep, but that's also because of how good Peru were in Lima. It was the right approach to take though, imo.
December 04, 2017 12:28 · Edited December 04, 2017 12:29
ConanTroutman
Marquee
5.3K
·
9.5K
·
almost 13 years

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

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.

Disagree. I think it worked in the first leg because Kosta wasn't so isolated and we could press higher up with Rojas and to a lesser extent Thomas as well, as well as being able to move the ball quickly to counter more easily. In Lima Kosta was a lot more isolated and pressing doesn't work if you have no teammates within 25 yards to help close down passing channels etc. We may as well have had 10 men with that tactical setup. We invited far too much pressure by playing so defensively and gave ourselves no way to release that pressure. That's exhausting both physically and mentally

We didn't execute it well and we did end up sitting too deep, but that's also because of how good Peru were in Lima. It was the right approach to take though, imo.

I think we sat too deep because of that Rojas for Tuiloma switch. That effectively pinned us back. Yeah Peru were better but after the first two minutes or so we pretty much let them have the ball anywhere outside our goalbox for 45 minutes. There's nothing inherently wrong with that and it can come off but it did have the effect of letting Peru settle into a groove and of removing any pressure they might have felt about needing to win. 

Without a time machine to go back and try different tactics we'll obviously never know but it felt like a let down to me after Hudson got his tactics spot on in the first leg IMO.

December 04, 2017 13:13
aitkenmike
·
Marquee
1.7K
·
7.5K
·
about 17 years

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

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.

That's fine defensively, but that gives them the ball for almost all of the half.  You can't defend that much without conceding.  It was terrible setup.  That isn't 20/20 hindsight, as soon as the lineup came out on twitter, I had said the only questions will we be 1-0 or 4-0 down at half time, and how long can we hold off the torrent of attack that Peru will be able to amass with us being no threat to keep the ball for any time.

December 04, 2017 14:16
ColeWorld
Phoenix Academy
110
·
190
·
almost 10 years

james dean wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

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? 

December 04, 2017 15:20
ConanTroutman
Marquee
5.3K
·
9.5K
·
almost 13 years

ColeWorld wrote:

james dean wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

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.

December 04, 2017 15:44 · Edited December 04, 2017 15:45
james dean
·
Marquee
2.1K
·
8.2K
·
over 17 years

Nelfoos wrote:

james dean wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

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?

We played Peru, not Bahrain. And we improved a metric shark ton from Mexico 4 years ago.

Mexico was as low as we could get, realistically anyone with the budget and resources Hudson had at his disposal could have improved us from there.  I don't put much store in that.

Anyway, what's the over/under on Hudson's time at Colorado, I'm going to say under 215 days

December 04, 2017 15:58
2ndBest
·
Appiah without the pace
6.7K
·
19K
·
almost 17 years

Reid also wasn't around for Mexico. 

December 04, 2017 16:03
Nelfoos
·
Starting XI
2.7K
·
2.5K
·
over 8 years

james dean wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

james dean wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

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?

We played Peru, not Bahrain. And we improved a metric shark ton from Mexico 4 years ago.

Mexico was as low as we could get, realistically anyone with the budget and resources Hudson had at his disposal could have improved us from there.  I don't put much store in that.

Anyway, what's the over/under on Hudson's time at Colorado, I'm going to say under 215 days

Just move the goalposts then rofl
December 04, 2017 16:30
martinb
Legend
7.5K
·
15K
·
almost 17 years

Nelfoos wrote:

james dean wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

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?

We played Peru, not Bahrain. And we improved a metric shark ton from Mexico 4 years ago.

We played without Reid against Mexico and we scored in the second leg. Did we also play without Wood?

December 04, 2017 20:09
martinb
Legend
7.5K
·
15K
·
almost 17 years

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

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.

Disagree. I think it worked in the first leg because Kosta wasn't so isolated and we could press higher up with Rojas and to a lesser extent Thomas as well, as well as being able to move the ball quickly to counter more easily. In Lima Kosta was a lot more isolated and pressing doesn't work if you have no teammates within 25 yards to help close down passing channels etc. We may as well have had 10 men with that tactical setup. We invited far too much pressure by playing so defensively and gave ourselves no way to release that pressure. That's exhausting both physically and mentally

We didn't execute it well and we did end up sitting too deep, but that's also because of how good Peru were in Lima. It was the right approach to take though, imo.

It worked in the first leg, because they weren't expecting it. I think Wood should have started or we should have played someone else up front. Most likely against Peru in that mood it wouldn't have made much difference and Kosta gave his all, but it was a set up that cause them a moment's worry.

December 04, 2017 20:12
Leggy
tradition and history
1.5K
·
9.9K
·
about 17 years

martinb wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

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.

Disagree. I think it worked in the first leg because Kosta wasn't so isolated and we could press higher up with Rojas and to a lesser extent Thomas as well, as well as being able to move the ball quickly to counter more easily. In Lima Kosta was a lot more isolated and pressing doesn't work if you have no teammates within 25 yards to help close down passing channels etc. We may as well have had 10 men with that tactical setup. We invited far too much pressure by playing so defensively and gave ourselves no way to release that pressure. That's exhausting both physically and mentally

We didn't execute it well and we did end up sitting too deep, but that's also because of how good Peru were in Lima. It was the right approach to take though, imo.

It worked in the first leg, because they weren't expecting it. I think Wood should have started or we should have played someone else up front. Most likely against Peru in that mood it wouldn't have made much difference and Kosta gave his all, but it was a set up that cause them a moment's worry.

Fact is, Wood or no Wood, we were not good enough.

December 04, 2017 20:35
ColeWorld
Phoenix Academy
110
·
190
·
almost 10 years

martinb wrote:

It worked in the first leg, because they weren't expecting it. I think Wood should have started or we should have played someone else up front. 

Wood himself was not comfortable with starting. There is no way he should have started, stop with this idea that it was a tactical decision - he was legitimately not fit. Do not disagree that someone else, or someone a bit further forward, would've been a better approach, however.

Agree with the above post as well. Peru are a far far better footballing side than us - simple. If we were to win that tie over two legs it would've been one of the more remarkable World Cup (qualifying and finals) results ever; and thats with a fit Wood and Smith. Peru would've been in turmoil and the footballing world would be genuinely shocked. 

I think Peru are heavily underrated on this forum. As is the magnitude of the challenge that the All Whites faced. Peru have lost 2 games out of 12 in the last 2 years against South American nations. They have genuinely quality footballers right throughout their squad and we have players who are barely at a professional level. Yet we hold them to 2-0 over two legs. I think that in itself is pretty bloody impressive. The fact that we even got a draw, which could have easily been a win, in Wellington is something to stand up and be proud of rather than moaning about what could have been. Yes we could've done one or two things better in Lima but the reality is I still don't see us winning that tie if we had 10 attempts at it.

December 04, 2017 22:21
martinb
Legend
7.5K
·
15K
·
almost 17 years

Leggy wrote:

martinb wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

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.

Disagree. I think it worked in the first leg because Kosta wasn't so isolated and we could press higher up with Rojas and to a lesser extent Thomas as well, as well as being able to move the ball quickly to counter more easily. In Lima Kosta was a lot more isolated and pressing doesn't work if you have no teammates within 25 yards to help close down passing channels etc. We may as well have had 10 men with that tactical setup. We invited far too much pressure by playing so defensively and gave ourselves no way to release that pressure. That's exhausting both physically and mentally

We didn't execute it well and we did end up sitting too deep, but that's also because of how good Peru were in Lima. It was the right approach to take though, imo.

It worked in the first leg, because they weren't expecting it. I think Wood should have started or we should have played someone else up front. Most likely against Peru in that mood it wouldn't have made much difference and Kosta gave his all, but it was a set up that cause them a moment's worry.

Fact is, Wood or no Wood, we were not good enough.

probably true. It would have been nice to go down punching rather than just invite them to attack.

December 04, 2017 22:36
coochiee
Legend
12K
·
23K
·
about 9 years

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/99491371/michael-boxall-looking-forward-to-facing-former-all-whites-coach-in-mls

December 05, 2017 02:03
ConanTroutman
Marquee
5.3K
·
9.5K
·
almost 13 years

ColeWorld wrote:

martinb wrote:

It worked in the first leg, because they weren't expecting it. I think Wood should have started or we should have played someone else up front. 

Wood himself was not comfortable with starting. There is no way he should have started, stop with this idea that it was a tactical decision - he was legitimately not fit. Do not disagree that someone else, or someone a bit further forward, would've been a better approach, however.

Agree with the above post as well. Peru are a far far better footballing side than us - simple. If we were to win that tie over two legs it would've been one of the more remarkable World Cup (qualifying and finals) results ever; and thats with a fit Wood and Smith. Peru would've been in turmoil and the footballing world would be genuinely shocked. 

I think Peru are heavily underrated on this forum. As is the magnitude of the challenge that the All Whites faced. Peru have lost 2 games out of 12 in the last 2 years against South American nations. They have genuinely quality footballers right throughout their squad and we have players who are barely at a professional level. Yet we hold them to 2-0 over two legs. I think that in itself is pretty bloody impressive. The fact that we even got a draw, which could have easily been a win, in Wellington is something to stand up and be proud of rather than moaning about what could have been. Yes we could've done one or two things better in Lima but the reality is I still don't see us winning that tie if we had 10 attempts at it.

No one is saying we should have won it. Just that our line up and tactics in the second leg weren't giving us the best possible chance of a massive upset
December 05, 2017 09:04
ColeWorld
Phoenix Academy
110
·
190
·
almost 10 years

ConanTroutman wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

martinb wrote:

It worked in the first leg, because they weren't expecting it. I think Wood should have started or we should have played someone else up front. 

Wood himself was not comfortable with starting. There is no way he should have started, stop with this idea that it was a tactical decision - he was legitimately not fit. Do not disagree that someone else, or someone a bit further forward, would've been a better approach, however.

Agree with the above post as well. Peru are a far far better footballing side than us - simple. If we were to win that tie over two legs it would've been one of the more remarkable World Cup (qualifying and finals) results ever; and thats with a fit Wood and Smith. Peru would've been in turmoil and the footballing world would be genuinely shocked. 

I think Peru are heavily underrated on this forum. As is the magnitude of the challenge that the All Whites faced. Peru have lost 2 games out of 12 in the last 2 years against South American nations. They have genuinely quality footballers right throughout their squad and we have players who are barely at a professional level. Yet we hold them to 2-0 over two legs. I think that in itself is pretty bloody impressive. The fact that we even got a draw, which could have easily been a win, in Wellington is something to stand up and be proud of rather than moaning about what could have been. Yes we could've done one or two things better in Lima but the reality is I still don't see us winning that tie if we had 10 attempts at it.

No one is saying we should have won it. Just that our line up and tactics in the second leg weren't giving us the best possible chance of a massive upset

Which I agree with (see bold). I still 100% stick to my point about how underrated Peru were. This is evident in the criticisms of Hudson. The only reason we were still in that tie in Lima was cause of how well we played in Wellington. We shouldve never won this tie and no manager ever really gets an entire two legged tie completely right. Hudson got Wellington 100% right IMO. Defended well, stayed in the game long enough that we realistically had a chance to win that game and then let Wood cause havoc. He didnt get Lima completely right but some of the criticisms directed towards him are a bit pathetic. Shouldnt we be thanking him for getting us so close, after all one of the threads was called "Dead end road to Russia". Indicating we wouldnt even get close. In reality we got far closer than any of us ever dreamed. "Anthony Hudson - Not our problem", really? I didnt see Ricki getting as much stick as this and he was 10x less of a coach. The guy literally took a backseat to his Captain - what manager does that? thats actually any good

December 05, 2017 11:48
james dean
·
Marquee
2.1K
·
8.2K
·
over 17 years

Ricki gets much less stick because he took us to the World Cup and we were unbeaten.  Also he didn't tell us how he was going to revolutionise NZ Football.  And actually despite that he gets heaps of stick.

December 05, 2017 12:19
Buffon II
Legend
2.5K
·
17K
·
over 17 years

ColeWorld wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

martinb wrote:

It worked in the first leg, because they weren't expecting it. I think Wood should have started or we should have played someone else up front. 

Wood himself was not comfortable with starting. There is no way he should have started, stop with this idea that it was a tactical decision - he was legitimately not fit. Do not disagree that someone else, or someone a bit further forward, would've been a better approach, however.

Agree with the above post as well. Peru are a far far better footballing side than us - simple. If we were to win that tie over two legs it would've been one of the more remarkable World Cup (qualifying and finals) results ever; and thats with a fit Wood and Smith. Peru would've been in turmoil and the footballing world would be genuinely shocked. 

I think Peru are heavily underrated on this forum. As is the magnitude of the challenge that the All Whites faced. Peru have lost 2 games out of 12 in the last 2 years against South American nations. They have genuinely quality footballers right throughout their squad and we have players who are barely at a professional level. Yet we hold them to 2-0 over two legs. I think that in itself is pretty bloody impressive. The fact that we even got a draw, which could have easily been a win, in Wellington is something to stand up and be proud of rather than moaning about what could have been. Yes we could've done one or two things better in Lima but the reality is I still don't see us winning that tie if we had 10 attempts at it.

No one is saying we should have won it. Just that our line up and tactics in the second leg weren't giving us the best possible chance of a massive upset

Which I agree with (see bold). I still 100% stick to my point about how underrated Peru were. This is evident in the criticisms of Hudson. The only reason we were still in that tie in Lima was cause of how well we played in Wellington. We shouldve never won this tie and no manager ever really gets an entire two legged tie completely right. Hudson got Wellington 100% right IMO. Defended well, stayed in the game long enough that we realistically had a chance to win that game and then let Wood cause havoc. He didnt get Lima completely right but some of the criticisms directed towards him are a bit pathetic. Shouldnt we be thanking him for getting us so close, after all one of the threads was called "Dead end road to Russia". Indicating we wouldnt even get close. In reality we got far closer than any of us ever dreamed. "Anthony Hudson - Not our problem", really? I didnt see Ricki getting as much stick as this and he was 10x less of a coach. The guy literally took a backseat to his Captain - what manager does that? thats actually any good

You didn't see Ricki get much stick? You're talking about Ricki Herbert, the ex Phoenix and All Whites manager. You didn't see him get much stick?

You must have done some very selective reading on here then.

December 05, 2017 12:34
coochiee
Legend
12K
·
23K
·
about 9 years

james dean wrote:

Ricki gets much less stick because he took us to the World Cup and we were unbeaten.  Also he didn't tell us how he was going to revolutionise NZ Football.  And actually despite that he gets heaps of stick.

Sure Hudson said some silly things when he got the AWs job over 3 years ago - but that is a long time ago. We've all said some things we've regretted, or maybe talked ourselves up before starting a new job. Let it go!

Herbert deserves massive credit for the AWs being unbeaten at 2010 WC, but to qualify all he had to do FFS was beat Bahrain. They were sharkhouse compared to Peru.

There were AWs 'fans' on this forum that for over 12 mths were spouting we were absolutely no chance against the 5th South American side, the AWs were going to get smashed etc etc, and these same 'fans' were openly hoping the South American side would be Argentina so they could be treated to some Messi style exhibition match in Wellington, for their own selfish enjoyment. 

If I was an AWs player/coach I would give the same 'fans' two fingers, for any harsh criticisms levelled re tactics/performances against Peru. Hudson & the team exceded expectations and until that soft 2nd goal, were still a big chance of stealing a massive upset result.

December 05, 2017 12:42 · Edited December 05, 2017 13:07
coochiee
Legend
12K
·
23K
·
about 9 years

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/99514144/all-whites-defender-michael-boxall-wants-new-coach-hired-asap

December 05, 2017 15:42
ColeWorld
Phoenix Academy
110
·
190
·
almost 10 years

Buffon II wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

martinb wrote:

It worked in the first leg, because they weren't expecting it. I think Wood should have started or we should have played someone else up front. 

Wood himself was not comfortable with starting. There is no way he should have started, stop with this idea that it was a tactical decision - he was legitimately not fit. Do not disagree that someone else, or someone a bit further forward, would've been a better approach, however.

Agree with the above post as well. Peru are a far far better footballing side than us - simple. If we were to win that tie over two legs it would've been one of the more remarkable World Cup (qualifying and finals) results ever; and thats with a fit Wood and Smith. Peru would've been in turmoil and the footballing world would be genuinely shocked. 

I think Peru are heavily underrated on this forum. As is the magnitude of the challenge that the All Whites faced. Peru have lost 2 games out of 12 in the last 2 years against South American nations. They have genuinely quality footballers right throughout their squad and we have players who are barely at a professional level. Yet we hold them to 2-0 over two legs. I think that in itself is pretty bloody impressive. The fact that we even got a draw, which could have easily been a win, in Wellington is something to stand up and be proud of rather than moaning about what could have been. Yes we could've done one or two things better in Lima but the reality is I still don't see us winning that tie if we had 10 attempts at it.

No one is saying we should have won it. Just that our line up and tactics in the second leg weren't giving us the best possible chance of a massive upset

Which I agree with (see bold). I still 100% stick to my point about how underrated Peru were. This is evident in the criticisms of Hudson. The only reason we were still in that tie in Lima was cause of how well we played in Wellington. We shouldve never won this tie and no manager ever really gets an entire two legged tie completely right. Hudson got Wellington 100% right IMO. Defended well, stayed in the game long enough that we realistically had a chance to win that game and then let Wood cause havoc. He didnt get Lima completely right but some of the criticisms directed towards him are a bit pathetic. Shouldnt we be thanking him for getting us so close, after all one of the threads was called "Dead end road to Russia". Indicating we wouldnt even get close. In reality we got far closer than any of us ever dreamed. "Anthony Hudson - Not our problem", really? I didnt see Ricki getting as much stick as this and he was 10x less of a coach. The guy literally took a backseat to his Captain - what manager does that? thats actually any good

You didn't see Ricki get much stick? You're talking about Ricki Herbert, the ex Phoenix and All Whites manager. You didn't see him get much stick?

You must have done some very selective reading on here then.

Certainly did see him get a lot of stick. But your own selective reading must've excluded the point where I said "as much" stick. Ricki's critics were simply because of his inadequate coaching ability. Hudsons is personal where many just generally dislike him and try to make it out as if he's the worst manager we've ever had. I 100% believe Hudson has gotten more stick, as well as much more underserved stick, but each to their own

December 05, 2017 17:19
clowns
Trialist
62
·
86
·
about 10 years

ConanTroutman wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

james dean wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

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.

I think developing Patterson might have been the backup plan, seeing as he's been in the side for several years despite minimal first team football

December 05, 2017 17:49
AucklandPhoenix
Lawyerish
2K
·
5K
·
over 13 years

coochiee wrote:

james dean wrote:

Ricki gets much less stick because he took us to the World Cup and we were unbeaten.  Also he didn't tell us how he was going to revolutionise NZ Football.  And actually despite that he gets heaps of stick.

Sure Hudson said some silly things when he got the AWs job over 3 years ago - but that is a long time ago. We've all said some things we've regretted, or maybe talked ourselves up before starting a new job. Let it go!

Herbert deserves massive credit for the AWs being unbeaten at 2010 WC, but to qualify all he had to do FFS was beat Bahrain. They were sharkhouse compared to Peru.

There were AWs 'fans' on this forum that for over 12 mths were spouting we were absolutely no chance against the 5th South American side, the AWs were going to get smashed etc etc, and these same 'fans' were openly hoping the South American side would be Argentina so they could be treated to some Messi style exhibition match in Wellington, for their own selfish enjoyment. 

If I was an AWs player/coach I would give the same 'fans' two fingers, for any harsh criticisms levelled re tactics/performances against Peru. Hudson & the team exceded expectations and until that soft 2nd goal, were still a big chance of stealing a massive upset result.

Coochie, I can't help but think reading your posts, that you were previously employed as part of the Wikipedia gang. 

And possibly angling in the future for employment in Colarado.

Is your real name really Andrew Penfold?

December 05, 2017 18:50
coochiee
Legend
12K
·
23K
·
about 9 years

AP I’m sure Colorado is nice, and I find West Coast Americans generally the best sort of Americans. Entrepreneurial but laid back. However I’m no Wiki editor. Can barely use technology, and don’t really overly care for it.

Hudson did a good job. Great to see others on here also expousing that view. Doesn’t mean I thought he was a faultless human being.

Si re the name. As a side note accidentally stood on the toes of your mate Marinovic, in a Buenos Aires airport toilet. He’s a big human

December 06, 2017 01:59 · Edited December 06, 2017 02:57
Doloras
·
Opinion Privileges revoked
4.9K
·
9.9K
·
over 14 years

coochiee wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/99514144/all-whites-defender-michael-boxall-wants-new-coach-hired-asap

"Boxall, who is already excited by the prospect of lining up against Hudson in Major League Soccer next season, said every player in the All Whites squad "loved" working with Hudson and was sad to see him move on after three years at the helm."

December 06, 2017 09:16
Doloras
·
Opinion Privileges revoked
4.9K
·
9.9K
·
over 14 years

ConanTroutman wrote:

No one is saying we should have won it. Just that our line up and tactics in the second leg weren't giving us the best possible chance of a massive upset

You know what this whole line of argument reminds me of? The Möbius strip of a conversation re: Ricki's tactics against Paraguay in SA 2010.

December 06, 2017 09:18
Nelfoos
·
Starting XI
2.7K
·
2.5K
·
over 8 years

Doloras wrote:

coochiee wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/99514144/all-whites-defender-michael-boxall-wants-new-coach-hired-asap

"Boxall, who is already excited by the prospect of lining up against Hudson in Major League Soccer next season, said every player in the All Whites squad "loved" working with Hudson and was sad to see him move on after three years at the helm."

No Doloras, don't you see? The players know nothing, the posters on the Fever forums know far, far better.
December 06, 2017 10:21
Buffon II
Legend
2.5K
·
17K
·
over 17 years

Hudson fans coming across as right insufferable cods yet again.

December 06, 2017 11:35
Nelfoos
·
Starting XI
2.7K
·
2.5K
·
over 8 years

Buffon II wrote:

Hudson fans coming across as right insufferable cods yet again.

Boxall comes off alright there I think
December 06, 2017 12:47
AucklandPhoenix
Lawyerish
2K
·
5K
·
over 13 years

coochiee wrote:

AP I’m sure Colorado is nice, and I find West Coast Americans generally the best sort of Americans. Entrepreneurial but laid back. However I’m no Wiki editor. Can barely use technology, and don’t really overly care for it.

Hudson did a good job. Great to see others on here also expousing that view. Doesn’t mean I thought he was a faultless human being.

Si re the name. As a side note accidentally stood on the toes of your mate Marinovic, in a Buenos Aires airport toilet. He’s a big human

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1079052/Bogus-MI5-officer-got-engaged-women-time-fleece-60-000.html

December 06, 2017 19:38
Buffon II
Legend
2.5K
·
17K
·
over 17 years

Nelfoos wrote:

Buffon II wrote:

Hudson fans coming across as right insufferable cods yet again.

Boxall comes off alright there I think

Nah meant the likes of yourself and coochie who suck him off at any attempt.

December 06, 2017 21:30
coochiee
Legend
12K
·
23K
·
about 9 years

AucklandPhoenix wrote:

coochiee wrote:

AP I’m sure Colorado is nice, and I find West Coast Americans generally the best sort of Americans. Entrepreneurial but laid back. However I’m no Wiki editor. Can barely use technology, and don’t really overly care for it.

Hudson did a good job. Great to see others on here also expousing that view. Doesn’t mean I thought he was a faultless human being.

Si re the name. As a side note accidentally stood on the toes of your mate Marinovic, in a Buenos Aires airport toilet. He’s a big human

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1079052/Bo...

A rotund James Bond living in a caravan park. An amusing tale. Sadly my life ain’t been that interesting. 

Happy to google search your name if you’d like.

Alternatively you could just ask big Stefan want he thinks of Hudson. You are a close mate of his? 

Heaven forbid he might even rate the ex AWs coach also. Or maybe he doesn’t. But unlike any of us I’d say his actual opinion matters 

December 07, 2017 01:57 · Edited December 07, 2017 02:34
coochiee
Legend
12K
·
23K
·
about 9 years

coochiee wrote:

AucklandPhoenix wrote:

coochiee wrote:

AP I’m sure Colorado is nice, and I find West Coast Americans generally the best sort of Americans. Entrepreneurial but laid back. However I’m no Wiki editor. Can barely use technology, and don’t really overly care for it.

Hudson did a good job. Great to see others on here also expousing that view. Doesn’t mean I thought he was a faultless human being.

Si re the name. As a side note accidentally stood on the toes of your mate Marinovic, in a Buenos Aires airport toilet. He’s a big human

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1079052/Bo...

A rotund James Bond living in a caravan park. An amusing tale. Sadly my life ain’t been that interesting.

Happy to google search your name if you’d like.

Alternatively you could ask big Stefan want he thinks of Hudson. You are a close mate of his? Heaven forbid he might even rate the ex AWs coach also. Or maybe he doesn’t. But unlike any of us I’d say his actual opinion matters 

December 07, 2017 02:17 · Edited December 07, 2017 02:32
ConanTroutman
Marquee
5.3K
·
9.5K
·
almost 13 years

clowns wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

james dean wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

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.

I think developing Patterson might have been the backup plan, seeing as he's been in the side for several years despite minimal first team football

That explains all the game time Patterson got in these matches while Wood was injured....
December 07, 2017 03:39
Nelfoos
·
Starting XI
2.7K
·
2.5K
·
over 8 years

Buffon II wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

Buffon II wrote:

Hudson fans coming across as right insufferable cods yet again.

Boxall comes off alright there I think

Nah meant the likes of yourself and coochie who suck him off at any attempt.

Well no shark, I just wasn't gonna stoop to your level. Although it is a hilarious overreaction to someone holding a different point of view to you.
December 07, 2017 08:37 · Edited December 07, 2017 08:39
2ndBest
·
Appiah without the pace
6.7K
·
19K
·
almost 17 years

People seems to be talking in extremes here. Things don't have to be mutually exclusive. From what I can tell, Hudson:

  • is knowledgeable of the game
  • is thorough in his preparation 
  • struggles to get the team playing how he says he wants to play
  • can use powerpoint
  • doesn't like criticism 
  • is a confirmed liar
  • makes odd selection choices
December 07, 2017 08:46
and 3 others
james dean
·
Marquee
2.1K
·
8.2K
·
over 17 years

2ndBest wrote:

People seems to be talking in extremes here. Things don't have to be mutually exclusive. From what I can tell, Hudson:

  • is knowledgeable of the game
  • is thorough in his preparation 
  • struggles to get the team playing how he says he wants to play
  • can use powerpoint
  • doesn't like criticism 
  • is a confirmed liar
  • makes odd selection choices

Generally these would make it difficult for you to be a top level coach, I am absolutely fascinated to see how he goes at Colorado

December 07, 2017 09:29
New Reply
55

Back to top

You’ll need an account to join the conversation!

Sign in Sign up