Wasn't a great watch but jeez that was a shockingly bad surface. A bit of a leveller when you are up against a lower league outfit who play and probably practice on that kind of pitch week in week out. First half I think we were trying to be over-elaborate with a ball that was barely controllable; 2nd half we were much better and NC had to sit deeper. Credit to the home team, they defended brilliantly even if there is a hint of the pop gun about our attack.
Good to see some of the younger players get some more valuable experience. Loke looks promising. I can understand the angst about the upcoming season. We look short of a quality playmaker, an experienced CB, a reliable goalkeeper and another robust screening mid to compliment Rufer. Apart from that we are fine!
Good to see some of the younger players get some more valuable experience. Loke looks promising. I can understand the angst about the upcoming season. We look short of a quality playmaker, an experienced CB, a reliable goalkeeper and another robust screening mid to compliment Rufer. Apart from that we are fine!
Theoretically, superior technique kicks in on a bad surface.
The pitch was a step down in standard for both teams. Furthermore, it was wide, usually an underdog will decrease dimensions is they want to level things.
Not making an excuse for a garbage performance, but I really disagree with this. And football would be better in NZ if we accepted that bad pitches = bad football.
A bad pitch is the ultimate leveler. When you're on a bobbly pitch things you could do in one touch now take three. You can't hit firm passes to each other. You have to follow balls all the way to your feet (harder to get your head up earlier). Etc. Etc. These are things that make a good player good. Lesser players just do the same.
Bad pitches make good technique less useful.