I am absolutely fascinated to see how he goes at Colorado
Anthony Hudson - Technical advisor
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?
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
I see Patterson as a project player who showed some promise (scrambled goal against USA), but didn't kick on as much as Hudson & Co hoped. With hindsight definitely a mistake not to bring Brockie into the AWs squad earlier (I'd say Hudson did a good job coaching AWs but far from perfect), to see where he was at - as a potential back up to Wood.
Brockie should have come in for the Japan match squad, as a minimum if they were starting to have doubts on the likes of Patterson & Bevan to do a job in the playoffs.
Still the Nelsonian from memory was pretty piss poor at the ONC in PNG, when he last got a chance - and there are always questions on his workrate and willingness to work his butt aka Kosta (who almost forced a penalty at the start of 2nd leg).
Lets face it, it's Wood then about 7 rotations of the earth around the sun. Without him we look barely better than the Island nations up front.
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
Yes will be very interesting. I have absolutely no idea on general lifespan of MLS coaches, but I'm happy to wager $100 with someone that he lasts the full season with Colorado. Proceeds to charity of winner's choosing.
As long as he doesn't have an owner/CEO talking about offense & defence formations, my hunch is he will do okay. Can only do better than Nellie at Toronto.
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
Yes will be very interesting. I have absolutely no idea on general lifespan of MLS coaches, but I'm happy to wager $100 with someone that he lasts the full season with Colorado. Proceeds to charity of winner's choosing.
As long as he doesn't have an owner/CEO talking about offense & defence formations, my hunch is he will do okay. Can only do better than Nellie at Toronto.
I'll take that bet.
Cool. All going well chat about October next year, if not prior!
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?
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
I see Patterson as a project player who showed some promise (scrambled goal against USA), but didn't kick on as much as Hudson & Co hoped. With hindsight definitely a mistake not to bring Brockie into the AWs squad earlier (I'd say Hudson did a good job coaching AWs but far from perfect), to see where he was at - as a potential back up to Wood.
Brockie should have come in for the Japan match squad, as a minimum if they were starting to have doubts on the likes of Patterson & Bevan to do a job in the playoffs.
Still the Nelsonian from memory was pretty piss poor at the ONC in PNG, when he last got a chance - and there are always questions on his workrate and willingness to work his butt aka Kosta (who almost forced a penalty at the start of 2nd leg).
Lets face it, it's Wood then about 7 rotations of the earth around the sun. Without him we look barely better than the Island nations up front.
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?
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
I see Patterson as a project player who showed some promise (scrambled goal against USA), but didn't kick on as much as Hudson & Co hoped. With hindsight definitely a mistake not to bring Brockie into the AWs squad earlier (I'd say Hudson did a good job coaching AWs but far from perfect), to see where he was at - as a potential back up to Wood.
Brockie should have come in for the Japan match squad, as a minimum if they were starting to have doubts on the likes of Patterson & Bevan to do a job in the playoffs.
Still the Nelsonian from memory was pretty piss poor at the ONC in PNG, when he last got a chance - and there are always questions on his workrate and willingness to work his butt aka Kosta (who almost forced a penalty at the start of 2nd leg).
Lets face it, it's Wood then about 7 rotations of the earth around the sun. Without him we look barely better than the Island nations up front.
I actually thought Brockie looked alright (air swing excepted) in tandem with a half fit Wood, 2nd half in Lima. I think it was him who played Wood in for his late near miss??
Like to see new AWs coach, give that combination a go together, next few friendlies whenever they happen. Absolutely nothing to lose.
Brockie isn't the answer to us aiming higher in international football
Please everyone, watch Auckland City's game from this morning.
Then ask yourself whether you think the football delivered by Hudson was acceptable.
Please everyone, watch Auckland City's game from this morning.
Then ask yourself whether you think the football delivered by Hudson was acceptable.
Please everyone, watch Auckland City's game from this morning.
Then ask yourself whether you think the football delivered by Hudson was acceptable.
There are mitigations in either direction for each team and their opponents. The point is ACFC cherished the ball and set themselves up to use it properly.
Please everyone, watch Auckland City's game from this morning.
Then ask yourself whether you think the football delivered by Hudson was acceptable.
I know which looked more pear-shaped.
Similar result though was it not? No goals scored, a mark in loss column.
Anthony Hudson dictionary:
"Attacking" - Keeping your EPL striker on the bench, defend like fudge and try pinch a goal away
Jog on mate
Check your facts before posting so aggressively mate.
Played 65 and got dragged with tightness in the game before the AWs, didn't make Burnley squad the game after AWs, played 12 mins the game after that, then finally played 90 three games later.
Off jogging you go.
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.
Pattern?
F*ck being the next AWs coach with this fanbase.
He'd be on a hiding to nothing to begin with, with no games on the horizon, no funds to support him, and a basically incompetent FA above him. And then he will have to win everything, playing like Barcelona while he does it, otherwise we'll tear him a new one.
Please form an orderly queue for applications please!
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
Great comment.
As long as he doesn't have an owner/CEO talking about offense & defence formations, my hunch is he will do okay.
Not sure about the CEO but he won't get that from the owner.
Stan Kroenke, owns Arsenal as well, famously quiet, never comments, only goes to the odd game, usually timed in with board meetings etc, otherwise he wouldn't even go at all I think. The fans have nicknamed him "Silent Stan". He also owns the Denver Nuggets, LA Rams and the Colorado Avalanche.
I believe all his teams are considered as under-performing by their fans, and the general feeling is that Kroenke really doesn't care about winning at all, only the financial bottom line.
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
Sounds like me. I think most importantly you missed Hudson is a geezer and knows a good con
Similar result though was it not? No goals scored, a mark in loss column.
I'd rather have one poor area in our game (poor finishing in Auckland's case) than a whole cluster fudge of problems left, right and centre
Similar result though was it not? No goals scored, a mark in loss column.
yeah, dreadful really
maybe they should have hoofed to the corners
Sounds like me. I think most importantly you missed Hudson is a geezer and knows a good con
the end
As long as he doesn't have an owner/CEO talking about offense & defence formations, my hunch is he will do okay.
Not sure about the CEO but he won't get that from the owner.
Stan Kroenke, owns Arsenal as well, famously quiet, never comments, only goes to the odd game, usually timed in with board meetings etc, otherwise he wouldn't even go at all I think. The fans have nicknamed him "Silent Stan". He also owns the Denver Nuggets, LA Rams and the Colorado Avalanche.
I believe all his teams are considered as under-performing by their fans, and the general feeling is that Kroenke really doesn't care about winning at all, only the financial bottom line.
Hudson just needs to focus then on the MLS Cup rather than MLS League, to keep his job for next 10 odd years. Being one of the worlds most promising young managers he’s probably being groomed by Kroenke, to be Wenger’s replacement.
That maybe a facetious comment.
Fudge, don't start them off Coochie.....
As long as he doesn't have an owner/CEO talking about offense & defence formations, my hunch is he will do okay.
Not sure about the CEO but he won't get that from the owner.
Stan Kroenke, owns Arsenal as well, famously quiet, never comments, only goes to the odd game, usually timed in with board meetings etc, otherwise he wouldn't even go at all I think. The fans have nicknamed him "Silent Stan". He also owns the Denver Nuggets, LA Rams and the Colorado Avalanche.
I believe all his teams are considered as under-performing by their fans, and the general feeling is that Kroenke really doesn't care about winning at all, only the financial bottom line.
Hudson just needs to focus then on the MLS Cup rather than MLS League, to keep his job for next 10 odd years. Being one of the worlds most promising young managers he’s probably being groomed by Kroenke, to be Wenger’s replacement.
That maybe a facetious comment.
Who do you support pal?
In EPL Buffon? No one with any passion.
Just wherever there a Kiwi. Hammers if anyone having in resided in the East End for awhile, and been to Upton Park a few times.
What a depressing stink hole though - no offence to its residents.
Don't worry if you are a Gunners supporter - you won't have Coach Hudson anytime soon.
Similar result though was it not? No goals scored, a mark in loss column.
yeah, dreadful really
maybe they should have hoofed to the corners
... or played 60 mins with one midget up front.
Open letter from Hudson to the fans of Colorado Rapids:
My sides hurt
Hudson, who deployed an attack-minded, three in the back system while with New Zealand, will look to maintain a stout defensive structure, while maintaining robust attacking options on offense.
https://www.coloradorapids.com/post/2018/01/30/three-questions-colorado-rapids-face-during-2018-preseason-camp
I'm just so interested to see how this works out
There is not enough popcorn in the world.
Good test for Hudson and the Rapids tonight.A game against TFC in the concocaf champions league.
Wynne and Smith both start. No Colvey
Seems like he's getting off to a great start
2-0 loss. Absolutely abysmal in the second half, played okay in the first. Wynne was a bit faulty at CB but Smith did well for himself. Hudson not so much, that was absolutely shocking and apparently worse than the last coach
Which subreddit is that? I'll go warm up some popcorn.
r/Rapids. Hudson hasn't recieved the warmest reception
MEitniear11, welcome to our world for the past 3 years.
He's already spinning complete arse. Suspect there will be less compliant media and management blinded by Powerpoint.
Had a look at the lineups, Toronto's was a Who's who, Colorado's was a Who?
What are the expectations for Colorado this season? Their roster seems very underwhelming.