Post history

History for coochiee

Anthony Hudson (FAT Technical Director | Thailand)

Back to topic

Current version

Posted December 06, 2017 23:33 · last edited December 06, 2017 23:36

ConanTroutman wrote:

coochiee wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

clowns wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

ColeWorld wrote:

james dean 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.

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? 

I think that Brockie should have started, but I also think Brockie should have been in every squad since the OFCNC. Because you're right, our whole campaign did rely on Wood being fit but that's partly because Hudson never developed a plan for if he wasn't. Yeah, I bag Brockie's goalscoring record for NZ but he is still the second best goalscorer we have now Smeltz is over the hill. If Hudson had talked for so long about building to this game why the hell was Brockie brought back for it after a year in the wilderness? That's terrible planning. Hudson had 3 years to work out a backup plan if Wood wasn't available.

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

That explains all the game time Patterson got in these matches while Wood was injured....

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.

Fair comments. I guess for me the one thing that works in Brockie's favour for a game like the second leg is that he has a knack of scoring goals out of nowhere and against the run of play, and he almost does better feeding off scrappy second balls than as part of a slick passing team. That season where he banged them in from everywhere for the Nix is what I'm thinking. So yeah he might not press well but with 9 teammates sitting deep behind anyway pressing from the front doesn't work. But he seems more likely (Terrible international scoring record aside) to do something like hit a volley in from 30 yards out of nowhere than a player like Kosta.

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.

Previous versions

1 version
Unknown editor edited December 06, 2017 23:36
ConanTroutman wrote:
coochiee wrote:
ConanTroutman wrote:
clowns wrote:
ConanTroutman wrote:
ColeWorld wrote:
james dean 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.

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? 

I think that Brockie should have started, but I also think Brockie should have been in every squad since the OFCNC. Because you're right, our whole campaign did rely on Wood being fit but that's partly because Hudson never developed a plan for if he wasn't. Yeah, I bag Brockie's goalscoring record for NZ but he is still the second best goalscorer we have now Smeltz is over the hill. If Hudson had talked for so long about building to this game why the hell was Brockie brought back for it after a year in the wilderness? That's terrible planning. Hudson had 3 years to work out a backup plan if Wood wasn't available.

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

That explains all the game time Patterson got in these matches while Wood was injured....

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.

Fair comments. I guess for me the one thing that works in Brockie's favour for a game like the second leg is that he has a knack of scoring goals out of nowhere and against the run of play, and he almost does better feeding off scrappy second balls than as part of a slick passing team. That season where he banged them in from everywhere for the Nix is what I'm thinking. So yeah he might not press well but with 9 teammates sitting deep behind anyway pressing from the front doesn't work. But he seems more likely (Terrible international scoring record aside) to do something like hit a volley in from 30 yards out of nowhere than a player like Kosta.

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 few games together, next few friendlies whenever they happen. Absolutely nothing to lose.