Anthony Hudson (FAT Technical Director | Thailand)

It can sometimes seem like a lonely old business to espouse the belief that Huddon is doing an okay coaching job. Much easier to just label him a buffon, or worse.

Anyone not asking for his blood has obviously been planted on this forum by NZF, because they have nuthfink better to do.

Third hand gossip for sure, but the musings of an actual AWs player's wife is near the top of the reliable source tree. Let's face it no one knows better, your feelings towards your workplace boss, than your wife/life partner. Pillow talk.

And yes the Nippon is going to be a real good test. AH has his best player back, so we need to show improvement from the Confeds Cup. I think we will do okay, from about 20 mins in once we settle. See a 1-2 or 2-3 loss. Maybe better if Japan don't pick their top side, though their 2nd string/fringe players are probably more motivated to perform and push for places in their 2018 WC squad.

So you are so smart that the only possible reason we could disagree with you is because we're paid to do so? Get off your high horse. People have different opinions.

...I wish I was getting paid for this

Choose unwatchable football

Choose bizarre selections

Choose embarrassing results in Oceania

Choose even worse results outside

Choose a losing record

Choose double standards

Choose polishing your own record

Choose PR

Choose Moses Dyer

Choose BMI

Choose Dane Ingham then don't

Choose Dane Ingham

Choose Hudson

...but it's okay because the players enjoy being in camp.

This sums up the entire Hudson regime perfectly. (Could you have worked in Peter Taylor and/or PowerPoint? Maybe eligibility?)

Choose unwatchable football - your opinion I guess. I've had no issue with it.

Choose bizarre selections - which have had the overall effect of strengthening NZ football. Not all of them have worked out (which is to be expected), but good on him. I can't fault a new coach with no history in the region for exploring his options. He has also admitted he went too far with his initial selection policies above and apologised to the team as a whole for it.

Choose embarrassing results in Oceania - We've won what we needed to

Choose even worse results outside - Maybe initially, but recent times have been better

Choose a losing record - So would any other manager

Choose double standards - You'll have to elaborate

Choose polishing your own record - Plenty of people lie on their CV

Choose PR - Would you rather he had no PR? What a dumb comment

Choose Moses Dyer - I can't defend this one

Choose BMI - Good decision from Hudson

Choose Dane Ingham then don't - Good decision from Hudson

Choose Dane Ingham - Good decision from Hudson

Choose Hudson - I will

...but it's okay because the players enjoy being in camp - Well the comment was more to the effect of "This regime far outstrips anything Herbert or Merrick have done and the standard of football and professionalism have increased out of sight", but you twist it however you want if you need to marginalise it.

Hudson's reign has been far, far from perfect and I wouldn't even class myself as a fan of him as NZ coach. I just think the criticism here is often completely unfair and out of context. 

Way to live up to your username as well!

Choose Alan Armstrong then don't choose Alan Armstrong then do choose Alan Armstrong.

I'd dearly love to know the real facts on that one.

On my mother's life, someone could generate such a list for all previous AW's managers. The tide will always be high in NZ football, the love of the game keeps us persisting.

Well summed up above Nelfoos. And yes I have played around with my CV. Christ on my UK OE all my mates were doing the same to get jobs. A Kiwi farm girl I knew lied her way into a merchant banking job! Real sink or swim stuff.

Still can't defend Hudson if he altered his Wiki page as alleged. That's going too far.

Re Moses Dyer. Every national team football coach is going to pick someone, the fans think is rubbish. Happens all the time

We said the same thing about Lewis... turns out he was right!

No kiwi coach i going to have a winning percentage beyond Oceania, at least in the foreseeable future. Under Ricki, we made the WC, but failed to make the Confed Cup, strange things happen in football, from results to selections.

Hoping for a good game tonight!

It definitely isn't.

Calling someone out for being a lying fudgeer is not unfair. If he doesn't want to be criticised for embellishing his own achievements, editing his Wikipedia, or lying on his CV then he shouldn't fudgeing do it.

Lying cod can do one.

Sounds like a constant barrage. (I don't think anyone asked then, I think at least one person asked last October during the US tour).

I think a lot of the negativity has come from actions the man has taken himself, rather than any pre-agenda.  As far as I can remember, there wasn't an overwhelmingly anti-reaction when he first came on board... understandably there was a bit of "who?", and a few questions over his previous track record. But early on he spoke well, seemed very clear in his plans, and most people seemed fairly keen on giving him a go...

It was understandable he wanted to try out some new players, create some depth, search for eligible talent abroad etc - again, most on here seemed prepared to let that happen and see how it went.  I don't remember anyone being angry or negative when he found Themi et al, because it was seen as a good thing.

Where it began to get niggly was down to three main things as far as I can tell:

1) when results didn't come.  Some of the performances in early matches were a bit ropey, but there were new combos so people were like "oh well, that happens"... but then there were times when performances were reasonably expected to be good, but fell far short (ie. Nations Cup).  Fans were p*ssed, and rightly so - they're fans, they invest there passion and energy into supporting the team, and didn't deserve the dross that was served up... likewise that opening match at Confeds, or the game in Belarus - just not acceptable...

2) weird selections.  Yes, every coach is entitled to their opinion, and will have their favourites that many don't understand - but with Hudson it was more of the case whereby grown adults playing in fulltime professional leagues overseas were overlooked, or not even tried, in favour of teenagers playing in amateur local domestic comps.  Someone like Moses Dyer should be seen as a promising youngster, not the poster boy for a coach's stubborness - and I feel sorry for him being stuck in an out-of-his-depth scenario that's not his fault... yes, there were young guys who were given a chance, shone, and have become established - zero problem with that... but all the talk of depth etc - are there not guys being consistently overlooked who could actually genuinely add to that?

3) reactions.  When the above 2 scenarios play out, Hudson's reactions have generally done him no favours.  Sure, some of the criticism on here may be out of proportion - but surely that indicates that most of the people on this forum actually care about the team and want it to be successful?  if the team was performing well, to its actual potential, do you think most people would give a toss what the coach was saying?  I mean, Ricki had a big anti-brigade, but they were happy enough when the team beat Bahrain and went to South Africa... but instead, Hudson has often responded to questions or critique with a prickly, "you don't know what you're talking about" tone - seemingly unable to realise that this would be about 10% of what he'd face in any country with a genuine football culture and/or tabloid press... 

I feel these three aspects are what has fuelled the "anti-feeling".  I have no doubt at all that squad players have seen an improvement in professionalsim etc.  But surely this should be a standard expectation??  He's a professional football coach, running a squad of mostly pro-footballers - would anything less than professional be evenly vaguely acceptable??  the previous regime may have been pants in that regard, but that still doesn't, to my mind, mean you should be praised for doing what your actual job is... if a bank manager wasn't stealing money, but his predecessor had been, would that be seen as a vast improvement, or simply establishing an expected minimum norm??

New Zealand is a small country, and it's genuine football culture is very small.  But also remarkably loyal, especially if you look at some of what we've had to put up with over the last few decades... and, on the whole, AWs fans can accept realistic assessments of where our team sits in the scheme of things - meaning that any coach has a fairly decent dose of goodwill to start with... keeping it is up to them... most fans would have expected and accepted a 4-0 loss to Portugal, even if our team had played the best it could - but no one should have to be told that what happened v Belarus or Russia was anything other than appalling...

Leadership positions in any walk of life will attract a degree of negativity and divide opinions - that's normal and human...but for whatever reason, this guy has managed to antagonise a group of people who are generally glass-half-full types - or rather, people conditioned to accept the worst from their team and thus being really positive when they get relatively positive performances! so to have alienated a bunch of them - well, you have to ask yourself some questions.  Can't blame the media, or even this forum, if the goodwill has been consistently eroded by your own actions...

And to be clear, this is purely an assessment of his professional performance - have no knowledge of him personally and no interest in any personal character assassination... I just believe many people in other jobs would have had their performance seriously quesitoned up to this point in complarable scenarios...

But I seriously hope we play well tonight.

A big deal of the criticism is around how he coaches the team? Not using Wood's strengths, trying to press in international football, a tactic all but the craziest managers (and Chile) have long since abandoned, long balls to nowhere. And selections are a big deal, when the country only has so many players. Some of his selections get praised - I've seen no one go on about Myer Bevan not deserving a callup, for example? And most people agree re: him introducing professionalism, etc? The idea that people just bash him and there's no grey area is rubbish. He has his +s and his -s. 

And yes the Nippon is going to be a real good test. AH has his best player back, so we need to show improvement from the Confeds Cup. I think we will do okay, from about 20 mins in once we settle. See a 1-2 or 2-3 loss. Maybe better if Japan don't pick their top side, though their 2nd string/fringe players are probably more motivated to perform and push for places in their 2018 WC squad.

[/quote]

Not far off, but was hardly surprising.

I agree with large amounts of what you have said. But this paragraph is exactly my point. Its obvious that a international football side should have a very professional approach and culture, like you have said. So why does he get ridiculed for introducing this needed professionalism by dropping players for being unprofessional by either not maintaining the required level of fitness, or turning up to camp below the required level? I agree he shouldnt be getting praised for it but why should he be getting criticised?

Look im not Hudsons biggest fan, like many people on this forum. I feel we've been unconvincing against Island sides and less competitive than desired against other nations. I just find it ridiculous some of the stuff Hudson gets criticised for. I understand these 'anti-feeling's' put him in a negative light but your bordering on stupidity when people start criticising him for trying to raise the standard of professionalism in the camp - something we can all admit was pants under previous regimes.

Khalil's wordsmith tools are impressive. Just go back to the start of this thread and have a look at the postings when his appointment was announced. Not quite like Khalil recalls it to be, still nothing too vitrolic over the first 3 or 4 pages, although some did describe some of the reaction as angst. 

Agree with a fair amount of what Khalil states, but his description of people on this forum as generally half full types raised a chuckle. 

There a lot of posts on here are along lines of 'Hudson is a cod he needs to fudge off' or 'we going to get slaughtered by 5th SA side and it's all Hudson's fault'. Those are not posts of cheerful, optimistic folks.

I expect once Hudson's gone the new coach will just get the same abuse, because in all likelihood the results won't be any better. Esp if he also has a funny voice/pointy shoes/keeps company with Tony Veitch or some other sin. Actually the last one is a sin

Literally never seen that. I’d like to think people are being more constructive in their criticism than that. We’d also expect to get thumped by the 5th SA side no matter who is in charge. 

I don't think that anyone has said that ever.  It's been said a lot that it's not about the results - we will likely almost always beat the island nations, and depending on the draw, lose in the playoffs.  If results are all we judge the manager on then we would judge Sir Alex Fergusson and Mike Basset as equally competent managers were they in charge of New Zealand.  What most judge him on are the performances put out by the team, and how the tactics matches the talk he puts out of how we theoretically should be playing (and also on his mastery of self promotion).

People have definitely spouted those comments on here. Often admittedly during an AWs actual game when things have not been going well, and keyboard passions can run high. But still said all the same

Having just had a reread of the first 10 or so pages, a number of us thought he was talking porkies then, myself included.  It’s nice to see that in the whole we have been vindicated by performances, results and his narcissism, so evident in his British media dealings and wiki page.

We all know that the class of ‘82 left the AWs and NZF in general in a bit of a state which needed cleaning up which Hudson, and quite likely Emblen too, have carried out.  But have our results improved, has our style improved, did he find anyone out there who was a complete unknown apart from Van Den Broek who was not a youngster?  No.

Ricki and a few others knew about Themi and Marinovic but chose to ignore them and there doesn’t seem to have been any major attempt at returning Fitzgerald to the side.

Cameron who can hopefully reignite his career at some point. Poor kid has really struggled since doing his knee on debut.

I think Hudson also deserves some of the credit for Smith and Durante recommitting to AWs.

In Smith's case, (I assume we're talking about recommitting in 2014, not recommitting in 2016 after not committing earlier in 2016), any new coach w/o ties to the previous one would have brought him back, you have to think. 

Durante decommitted under Hudson, when he was part of the 'skip experienced guys, try new guys' thing; didn't recommit when he was really needed (ONC last year), and then did so after, and is a liability to say the least. Not sure where Hudson deserves credit there?

Smith made himself available again, once he found out things had marketedly improved, from the Herbert days. Whatever folks opinion of Smith's committment to AWs, he made no secret of his frustration with the lack of professionalism with Herbert's regime at the end, or NZF in general.

Apologies have Durante situation wrong. He actually went pretty well against Japan, and with Smith unavailable who else is there?? Yes no-one. Themi is no real improvement. 

Until we get say 10-15 players who are getting regular starts at high level European clubs, never expect too much from the AWs even with a top drawer coach in charge. 

Wouldn't expect much if the coach didn't go talking a big game and promising plenty.

You've proved my point re: Smith - for him it was about 'not Herbert' ie whoever it was that got the job, so to give Hudson credit is wrong. 

We can disagree on Durante v Themi. 

Think Hudson can take a bit of credit for appointing a guy in England to manage the talent there. 

On his Northern Ireland performance Smith should be nowhere near the starting line up in the play off. He played as well as he could, but just seemed a yard or so short of pace. Would be deadly in the play off. 

I think his idea to play Thomas deeper and find a place for Marco, Kosta and him may work. It seems like it leaves us a bit short of defensive bite, but it perhaps allows us to get our best team on the park. 

I think though questions are still there about how cohesive a unit the team is and how well they would respond in a situation where there is no space in the midfield. 

I think Martin you’ve forgotten how he played in Russia.  Yes he was short of fitness but was one of the standouts there for me.

Hudson's dog is named Dyer!

Dier* - That dog was with him before he came to NZ. 

Yeh? I don't remember that...

Dier is the Dutch word for "animal". Imaginative!

Listening to Hudson on Radio sport makes me a little less concerned about how useless he is. Aware of the mistakes we made v Japan and other nations recently. Realises the affect this game will have and how important having a loud vocal crowd.

If it was not so serious it would be laughable. 

I'd say since USA tour last year (Mexico & USA friendlies) the squad has been pretty much the same. Only recent experimentation comes to mind is Ingham, and Bevan plus reserve keepers Sail/Woud (who never played). Happy to be corrected.

The actual 1st eleven will always change somewhat, subject to player availability/injury and form. To not experiment to a point, and build depth would be plain stupid.

More important thing is that core of squad, have been playing together for awhile now, and nearly all have 10 plus caps. This alone is an improvement on the same stage in 2013, when Herbert was making all sorts of last minute changes/weird decisions.

Dyche's views on the 'long ball'

Good to get a view from someone with a bit of credibility on the place of the long ball game.

The squad has hardly changed recently. There have been one or two players coming and go in the last year 18 months but the bulk of it is the same. Hudson built depth where we needed it. Agree about Ingham playing in these bigger games but its good to have depth there. A few years ago we had no cover for our wing backs. We now have a plethora. Same goes for centre backs and DM. Quality isn't great but we have options. 

You would be mad as a national team coach not to test players in your squad.