Post history

History for Nelfoos

Anthony Hudson (FAT Technical Director | Thailand)

Back to topic

Current version

Posted December 03, 2017 23:28 · last edited December 03, 2017 23:29

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.

Previous versions

1 version
Unknown editor edited December 03, 2017 23:29
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 to deep, but that's also because of how good Peru were in Lima. It was the right approach to take though, imo.