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.