I would just make a point - a lot of the praise for Hudson is to compare how much better we are now than we were against Mexico. The games against mexico were probably the lowest point for NZ football in 15 years.
I think a far more interesting comparison is to compare against where we "should" be given our players and resources. I personally don't think that Hudson has overachieved, he's probably got us to about par. We've defended pretty well against non-Oceania sides, but then we have some decent defenders. We've struggled to score goals against non-Oceania sides which isn't great given our forward line is about as good as it's been for a long time.
But all the stuff like, "look how much we've improved since Mexico", and "he had us 90 minutes away from a World Cup" is bluster. After Mexico, literally the only way was up. We would have improved with anyone at the helm. And when we start our 4 year cycle we are in practice 180 minutes away from a World Cup so I really don't see that as a massive achievement.
Sure a strong forward line by NZ standards, but a weak forward line by say the standards of a top 50 international team. Yet again Rojas was a bit player against a non Oceania side. He should be having a serious look, at why Thomas's career is starting to take off, and what he can take from that.
A couple of feet each the other way and we score two goals - Thomas in Wellington & Wood in Lima. Hudson will be having some sleepless nights as to whether he played it right with a half mobile Wood over the 2 legs. Who knows, but be interesting to see how much he plays for Burnley over next few weeks.
In article below Brockie offers some praise of Hudson (of course biased as he was belatedly recalled by the gaffer), but again continues a pretty constant theme from the playing group. As someone else mentioned above, be interesting to see what someone like Moss says (if he ever offers an insight), as he virtually never played under AH - so a completely unbiased view of his coaching abilities you'd say.