Wellington Phoenix Men

Coaching Angst - ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

2374 replies · 72,193 views Locked
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Torne wrote:
The fact that Ifill was subbed maybe Steve-O.
 
I'm not blaming Herbert for taking him off, it's obvious he was injured.
 
I don't think having to take off one player suddenly gets Herbert off the hook! We should be able to cope without Ifill, although it's looking like we will struggle if he is ever missing which is not good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Any team is going to not play as well when their best attacking player is taken off..
 
Thought we turned sh*t about 10 mins before he went off anyway
 
Nothing wrong with Ricki's coaching this game - I doubt he told them to sit back and invite them on for most of that half. The blame has to go on the players for me. Did Ricki tell them to keep panicking and booting long balls?
 
If the chances went in you would be hailing him as a genius.
valeo2009-09-20 19:44:05

a.haak

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
valeo wrote:
Any team is going to not play as well when their best attacking player is taken off..
 
Thought we turned sh*t about 10 mins before he went off anyway
 
Nothing wrong with Ricki's coaching this game - I doubt he told them to sit back and invite them on for most of that half. The blame has to go on the players for me. Did Ricki tell them to keep panicking and booting long balls?
 
If the chances went in you would be hailing him as a genius.
 
Well it seems to be happening constantly in the second half, so you tell me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Oh seriously, f**k off you old angry c**t. Ricki is not the man to finish chances, its not him that brings players down on the edge of the box. What is he supposed to do about that?

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Steve-O wrote:
valeo wrote:
Any team is going to not play as well when their best attacking player is taken off..
 
Thought we turned sh*t about 10 mins before he went off anyway
 
Nothing wrong with Ricki's coaching this game - I doubt he told them to sit back and invite them on for most of that half. The blame has to go on the players for me. Did Ricki tell them to keep panicking and booting long balls?
 
If the chances went in you would be hailing him as a genius.
 
Well it seems to be happening constantly in the second half, so you tell me?
 
For me , if his intent was to be defensive he never would've brought Caceres on for Daniel - would've gone with Ferrante instead.
 

a.haak

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
valeo wrote:
Steve-O wrote:
valeo wrote:
Any team is going to not play as well when their best attacking player is taken off..
�

Thought we turned sh*t about 10 mins before he went off anyway

�

Nothing wrong with Ricki's coaching this game - I doubt he told them to sit back and invite them on for most of that half. The blame has to go�on the players for me. Did Ricki tell them to keep panicking and booting long balls?

�

If the chances went in you would be hailing him as a genius.


�

Well it seems to be happening constantly in the second half, so you tell me?


�

For me , if his intent was to be defensive he never would've brought Caceres on for Daniel - would've gone with Ferrante instead.

�


But with your key playmaker going off in Ifill why would you not bring on a playmaker Caceres? Hearfield is not a playmaker. Couldn't figure that one out?
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Good call whitby fever. Ricki seems to be pretty conservative with giving new players game time, so that might have come into it. Anyway, I think we should have had a striker on the bench instead of Hearfield.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Colvinator wrote:
Good call whitby fever. Ricki seems to be pretty conservative with giving new players game time, so that might have come into it. Anyway, I think we should have had a striker on the bench instead of Hearfield.


Fury were there for the taking, they would be one of the worst sides to visit the Stadium, have a limited game and really just rely on pressing. Would have liked to see us play a more attacking game in second half but the stikers part of the bench was empty.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
valeo wrote:
Steve-O wrote:
valeo wrote:
Any team is going to not play as well when their best attacking player is taken off..
 
Thought we turned sh*t about 10 mins before he went off anyway
 
Nothing wrong with Ricki's coaching this game - I doubt he told them to sit back and invite them on for most of that half. The blame has to go on the players for me. Did Ricki tell them to keep panicking and booting long balls?
 
If the chances went in you would be hailing him as a genius.
 
Well it seems to be happening constantly in the second half, so you tell me?
 
For me , if his intent was to be defensive he never would've brought Caceres on for Daniel - would've gone with Ferrante instead.
 
 
That was just an easy sub, a straight swap really, neither defensive nor attacking.
 
He changed the personnel but did nothing to change how the game was going.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
stev - how is it the manager/coach's responsibility to change the game, at the end of the day he makes the subs call, which he made as most of us would have expected, he then gives the instructions to his men, if they don't follow them or follow them poorly he can't do diddly sh*te!

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
theprof wrote:
stev - how is it the manager/coach's responsibility to change the game, at the end of the day he makes the subs call, which he made as most of us would have expected, he then gives the instructions to his men, if they don't follow them or follow them poorly he can't do diddly sh*te!
 
How ISN'T it?? I'm amazed that you would ask the question.
 
2nd half tactics not working. Did he change it? No, he just left it as it was and hoped for the best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
bopman wrote:
Oh seriously, f**k off you old angry c**t. Ricki is not the man to finish chances, its not him that brings players down on the edge of the box. What is he supposed to do about that?
 
Hmm, seems like there's only one angry person around here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Rikki needs to have a striker option on the bench at least, personally I would prefer to see two out and out strikers start the game instead of thinking that our midfield can score lots of goals  which they cant and they havent

" If you only have a hammer you tend to see every problem as a nail" - maslow

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
At the end of the day A-League needs 5 subs.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Michael wrote:
At the end of the day A-League needs 5 subs.
 
I'll agree with you on that one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Steve-O wrote:
Michael wrote:
At the end of the day A-League needs 5 subs.


�

I'll agree with you on that one.


I think we could manage to squeeze another midfielder onto the bench to make five, I'm surprised we have Crowther there as surely a midfielder could cover in goal as well.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I'll be very interested to read your opinions of Ricki if the All Whites qualify for the World Cup.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
DKP22 wrote:
I'll be very interested to read your opinions of Ricki if the All Whites qualify for the World Cup.


Intense Back Tracking.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
 
DKP22 wrote:
I'll be very interested to read your opinions of Ricki if the All Whites qualify for the World Cup.
 
I would imagine that the A league is a more demanding job, not exactly got the hardest of qualification groups have they, and 2 one of games against Bahrain to navigate...not quite playing Brazil either is it...
 
And he can call on Moss for the All Whites!
irnbru142009-09-20 23:27:58
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
er no he cant. suspended

2ndBest2009-09-20 23:33:04
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
2ndBest wrote:
er no he cant. suspended

 
What, forever???
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I think that the two of you (or is it one of you with two logins, I suspect it may be) who are all anti-Ricki and angsty are f*cking hilarious.
 
We didn't really sit back in the second half, or it certainly didn't look like the message had gone out not to go forward.  Of course you're going to get NQ pushing for an equaliser as the end of the game they're losing gets closer, so you're going to have to weather a period of pressure mid to late in the second half.  Don't forget in that period we created chances, including a gilt-edged one for Ferrante (or should that be guilt-edged given the end result?).
 
As for two strikers versus one what you're really saying is you'd like Ifill to play closer to Greenacre, but then you'd lose all the work that Ifill does outside of the central channels, and I don't think we'd want that.  He's creating goals and freeing midfielders, and that is essential second-striker work.  Think what we'd lose if we had him stay more central and higher.  The alternative is to sacrifice a midfielder to play Chen alongside Greenacre but that's probably not the best use of Chen anyway, and who from the midfield would you axe - Bertos? Brown? Daniel? - to allow for that extra man to stand high up the pitch.
 
I don't really think you've thought this through.
 
We are attacking with a fluidity and consistency that we have never done before.  We're creating chances throughout the 90 minutes.  I wouldn't change much if I was Ricki, and as fans if we're calling for Ricki's head, or major on-field changes, when this is the best Phoenix we've ever seen then I think we might be a little retarded.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Well reasoned and logical Smithy, completely unlike the swearathon responses I keep writing and deleting.

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
We are attacking with a fluidity and consistency that we have never done before.  We're creating chances throughout the 90 minutes.  I wouldn't change much if I was Ricki, and as fans if we're calling for Ricki's head, or major on-field changes, when this is the best Phoenix we've ever seen then I think we might be a little retarded.

I've nothing to say, just wanted to spread this quote around a bit because I liked it. It feels good, I might do it again.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
We are attacking with a fluidity and consistency that we have never done before.  We're creating chances throughout the 90 minutes.  I wouldn't change much if I was Ricki, and as fans if we're calling for Ricki's head, or major on-field changes, when this is the best Phoenix we've ever seen then I think we might be a little retarded.

Yeah that felt so good I did do it again.
stevenivan2009-09-21 09:40:50
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I'd like to point out that stevenivan is not my using another username.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
I think that the two of you (or is it one of you with two logins, I suspect it may be) who are all anti-Ricki and angsty are f*cking hilarious.
 
We didn't really sit back in the second half, or it certainly didn't look like the message had gone out not to go forward.  Of course you're going to get NQ pushing for an equaliser as the end of the game they're losing gets closer, so you're going to have to weather a period of pressure mid to late in the second half.  Don't forget in that period we created chances, including a gilt-edged one for Ferrante (or should that be guilt-edged given the end result?).
 
As for two strikers versus one what you're really saying is you'd like Ifill to play closer to Greenacre, but then you'd lose all the work that Ifill does outside of the central channels, and I don't think we'd want that.  He's creating goals and freeing midfielders, and that is essential second-striker work.  Think what we'd lose if we had him stay more central and higher.  The alternative is to sacrifice a midfielder to play Chen alongside Greenacre but that's probably not the best use of Chen anyway, and who from the midfield would you axe - Bertos? Brown? Daniel? - to allow for that extra man to stand high up the pitch.
 
I don't really think you've thought this through.
 
We are attacking with a fluidity and consistency that we have never done before.  We're creating chances throughout the 90 minutes.  I wouldn't change much if I was Ricki, and as fans if we're calling for Ricki's head, or major on-field changes, when this is the best Phoenix we've ever seen then I think we might be a little retarded.
 
That's the wisest post in this thread so far. Well done sir.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
I'd like to point out that stevenivan is not my using another username.
 

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
SiNZ wrote:
  That's the wisest post in this thread so far. Well done sir.
 
No disrespect meant to Smithy, cos I agree with him, but to be the wisest post in this thread is hardly a compliment is it! 

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Jag wrote:
SiNZ wrote:
  That's the wisest post in this thread so far. Well done sir.
 
No disrespect meant to Smithy, cos I agree with him, but to be the wisest post in this thread is hardly a compliment is it! 
True, but this thread had really lowered my expectations.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
I think that the two of you (or is it one of you with two logins, I suspect it may be) who are all anti-Ricki and angsty are f*cking hilarious.
�

We didn't really sit back in the second half, or it certainly didn't look like the message had gone out not to go forward.� Of course you're going to get NQ pushing for an equaliser as the end of the game they're losing gets closer, so you're going to have to weather a period of pressure mid to late in the second half.� Don't forget in that period we created chances, including a gilt-edged one for Ferrante (or should that be guilt-edged given the end result?).

�

As for two strikers versus one what you're really saying is you'd like Ifill to play closer to Greenacre, but then you'd lose all the work that Ifill does outside of the central channels, and I don't think we'd want that.� He's creating goals and freeing midfielders, and that is essential second-striker work.� Think what we'd lose if we had him stay more central and higher.� The alternative is to sacrifice a midfielder to play Chen alongside Greenacre but that's probably not the best use of Chen anyway, and who from the midfield would you axe - Bertos? Brown? Daniel? - to allow for that extra man to stand high up the pitch.

�

I don't really think you've thought this through.

�

We are attacking with a fluidity and consistency that we have never done before.� We're creating chances throughout the 90 minutes.� I wouldn't change much if I was Ricki, and as fans if we're calling for Ricki's head, or major�on-field changes,�when this is the best Phoenix we've ever seen then I think we might be a little retarded.



you get my vote to smithy we are making more chances per game than we have in the last 2 years why change at this stage. We are certainly getting our monies worth from Ifill as has been said in another thread I also think he is getting very frustated not only from being targeted for challanges [legal shoulder to shoulder] going for ball but also from other team mates failings
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
I think that the two of you (or is it one of you with two logins, I suspect it may be) who are all anti-Ricki and angsty are f*cking hilarious.
 
We didn't really sit back in the second half, or it certainly didn't look like the message had gone out not to go forward.  Of course you're going to get NQ pushing for an equaliser as the end of the game they're losing gets closer, so you're going to have to weather a period of pressure mid to late in the second half.  Don't forget in that period we created chances, including a gilt-edged one for Ferrante (or should that be guilt-edged given the end result?).
 
As for two strikers versus one what you're really saying is you'd like Ifill to play closer to Greenacre, but then you'd lose all the work that Ifill does outside of the central channels, and I don't think we'd want that.  He's creating goals and freeing midfielders, and that is essential second-striker work.  Think what we'd lose if we had him stay more central and higher.  The alternative is to sacrifice a midfielder to play Chen alongside Greenacre but that's probably not the best use of Chen anyway, and who from the midfield would you axe - Bertos? Brown? Daniel? - to allow for that extra man to stand high up the pitch.
 
I don't really think you've thought this through.
 
We are attacking with a fluidity and consistency that we have never done before.  We're creating chances throughout the 90 minutes.  I wouldn't change much if I was Ricki, and as fans if we're calling for Ricki's head, or major on-field changes, when this is the best Phoenix we've ever seen then I think we might be a little retarded.
 
Yes and No
 
We are play with a fluidity, but not with a consistency, first half vs second half on Sunday demonstrates that easily enough, even taking into account the Fury stepping it up a gear from halftime we looked out of sorts at the start of that second half and lost all attacking cohesion when Ifill departed the field.
 
It is fine enough creating chances but we aren't taking them which is why we didn't take the 3 points again yesterday.
 
I can see a few ways to solve/improve this:
 
1) We need to dominate games and play our fluid passing football for more than one half of a game, if we create enough chances then we should (hopefully) score, though at current rate we are taking one out of what, 7 or 8 chances?
 
2) We need the midfield to weigh in with more goals...so we need Brown to get onto the end of more chances and add attacking support to the forwards.
 
3) We need to add to the firepower we have upfront, now that doesn't mean a chance of formation, but maybe we need to play Chen or Rojas whoever up nearer to Greenacre than any of Daniel or Bertos did yesterday, when Ifill went off (who was playing a lot of the game as an auxiliary striker) we had nobody getting right up beside Greenacre who ended up playing on his own.
 
4) Having another striking option on the bench, especially at home, is needed to give Ricki the option to add to or change things up front if we need goals!
 
We are getting there, but we need to be more clinical in front of goal, and if it's not happening we need our coach to have the option to change things during a match.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
irnbru14 wrote:
 
We are getting there, but we need to be more clinical in front of goal, and if it's not happening we need our coach to have the option to change things during a match.
 
 
If the chances are being created then why make changes to the formation or system? It's if the chances aren't being created that changes are required.
 
Re: the subs bench, having one each of a defender, midfielder and forward would make sense. I guess the conundrum is whether to carry a defensive or attacking midfielder, or central versus wide.
 
Being only allowed to name three outfield players on the bench is huge constraint on tactical flexibility during the match.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
For those saying we didnt play as well in the second half and "waaaa long balls are bad" were you at the game? Did you see the awful state of the pitch on that side?

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
whitby fever wrote:
Steve-O wrote:
Michael wrote:
At the end of the day A-League needs 5 subs.

I'll agree with you on that one.


I think we could manage to squeeze another midfielder onto the bench to make five, I'm surprised we have Crowther there as surely a midfielder could cover in goal as well.
 
As remarked elsewhere, it's A-League rules for a goalkeeper to be on the bench.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Steve-O wrote:
theprof wrote:
stev - how is it the manager/coach's responsibility to change the game, at the end of the day he makes the subs call, which he made as most of us would have expected, he then gives the instructions to his men, if they don't follow them or follow them poorly he can't do diddly sh*te!
 
How ISN'T it?? I'm amazed that you would ask the question.
 
2nd half tactics not working. Did he change it? No, he just left it as it was and hoped for the best.
 
from what i can tell steve - you don't have a direct line into what the coach actually says or does at half time, so your angst is based on what you see or don't see at game time, I highly doubt, and I'm prepared to be proven wrong, that the coaches are telling our boys to sit back on a 1 - 0 lead and let NQ run all over us, clearly its the player's interpretation of what Ricki wants that is not working. whether that is down to insufficient bench space, poor selections on the bench or just plain poor play fomr us in the second half I don't know, personlly I think its the latter!

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
SiNZ wrote:
irnbru14 wrote:
 
We are getting there, but we need to be more clinical in front of goal, and if it's not happening we need our coach to have the option to change things during a match.
 
 
If the chances are being created then why make changes to the formation or system? It's if the chances aren't being created that changes are required.
 
 
 
But we aren't taking them, thats where the problem is.  If we continue to not take our chances then we will need to change things around so we can improve on Sundays 1 in 8 average...
irnbru142009-09-21 14:33:43
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
If people are missing chances, then how is changing the formation going to make any difference? You think Daniel would have taken that open goal, or Ferrante would have buried his header, or Brown would have got his shot past the keeper and so on if we'd been in a 4-4-2?
 
If the chances are being created - and we had a lot yesterday - it means the system is working.
 
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
SiNZ wrote:
If people are missing chances, then how is changing the formation going to make any difference? You think Daniel would have taken that open goal, or Ferrante would have buried his header, or Brown would have got his shot past the keeper and so on if we'd been in a 4-4-2?
 
If the chances are being created - and we had a lot yesterday - it means the system is working.
 

Sure - a taller Chen up there with Greenacre might have finished a couple of crosses (instead of Daniel needing a step ladder and not instinctively reacting as a striker to a ball 0.5m infront of goal).  And Ifill out at Daniels position would have lost nothing.  Then if we lost Ifill to injury you can bring Daniel on fresh.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

But that's the crux of the argument isn't it? If Chen is up there with Greenacre and you're in a 4-4-2 then those chances aren't appearing - the argument is whether you get alternate or even more chances.

But if you're the manager and your team are creating chances then why would you change the formation? Change the line-up inside that formation so that more clinical finishers are on the receiving end, but the system itself would not be changed unless it was failing to create.
SiNZ2009-09-21 16:55:26
Permalink Permalink

This topic is locked.