Post history

History for Nelfoos

Anthony Hudson (FAT Technical Director | Thailand)

Back to topic

Current version

Posted November 22, 2017 20:08 · last edited November 22, 2017 20:08

Ricardo wrote:

andrewvoerman wrote:

Ricardo wrote:

james dean wrote:

Nelfoos wrote:

james dean wrote:

coochiee wrote:

With Wood we have a quality forward line. Without him we seriously don’t. Yes I think Hudson deserves criticism for only picking Brockie at the last minute in these playoff games, and not earlier against say Japan. If AH didn’t have faith in the likes of Bevan, Patterson, Smeltz to do a job in Woods absence he should have given Brockie a go earlier. He should have had a plan for a Wood injury. Though we are talking about a guy in Brocks with one AWs goal in 50 games.

All of these players are miles below Woods ability at the moment. You can add to that mix Kosta and Rojas. No combination of these players was seriously going to trouble Peru away. So yes Hudson had no plan B, but it’s also hard to polish a turd when playing a true quality side like the Peruvians.

Sure, but the question is has Hudson brought the team forwards?  And I question his approach in the away leg when I can't see how the team that he picked could actually score a goal

We were inches from scoring a couple of times. Wood should have and we should have had a penalty early on. The team Hudson put out had a couple of good chances, which is all we were ever going to get against a side like Peru. I have 0 qualms with how he set up, because I don't think there was any other option with a half fit Wood.

We had no shots on target in 180 minutes?

That is misreporting. What about Thomas shot that hit the post in the first leg. If it hits a post it has to be on target....... unless its the corner flag.

The post is, quite literally, not the target. A shot on target is either a goal, or is saved. There none of those from the All Whites in this match (though, as others have noted, Wood did have two that were ruled out for fouls).

Well I would argue that the Thomas shot had the goalkeeper beaten and but for the goalside of the post it would have been a goal. Saved ..... by the post.

Well you'd be wrong. Shots on target has an established definition.

Previous versions

1 version
Unknown editor edited November 22, 2017 20:08
Ricardo wrote:
andrewvoerman wrote:
Ricardo wrote:
james dean wrote:
Nelfoos wrote:
james dean wrote:
coochiee wrote:

With Wood we have a quality forward line. Without him we seriously don’t. Yes I think Hudson deserves criticism for only picking Brockie at the last minute in these playoff games, and not earlier against say Japan. If AH didn’t have faith in the likes of Bevan, Patterson, Smeltz to do a job in Woods absence he should have given Brockie a go earlier. He should have had a plan for a Wood injury. Though we are talking about a guy in Brocks with one AWs goal in 50 games.

All of these players are miles below Woods ability at the moment. You can add to that mix Kosta and Rojas. No combination of these players was seriously going to trouble Peru away. So yes Hudson had no plan B, but it’s also hard to polish a turd when playing a true quality side like the Peruvians.

Sure, but the question is has Hudson brought the team forwards?  And I question his approach in the away leg when I can't see how the team that he picked could actually score a goal

We were inches from scoring a couple of times. Wood should have and we should have had a penalty early on. The team Hudson put out had a couple of good chances, which is all we were ever going to get against a side like Peru. I have 0 qualms with how he set up, because I don't think there was any other option with a half fit Wood.

We had no shots on target in 180 minutes?

That is misreporting. What about Thomas shot that hit the post in the first leg. If it hits a post it has to be on target....... unless its the corner flag.

The post is, quite literally, not the target. A shot on target is either a goal, or is saved. There none of those from the All Whites in this match (though, as others have noted, Wood did have two that were ruled out for fouls).

Well I would argue that the Thomas shot had the goalkeeper beaten and but for the goalside of the post it would have been a goal. Saved ..... by the post.
Well you'd be wrong. Shots on target has a defined definition.