Did we get the Tactics Wrong?

Did we get the Tactics Wrong?

I know it's after the game and therefore very easy to comment but I can't help but think that maybe in that first half if we had had 2 strikers we might have finished off one of those first half chances that we created.  In the second half it proved that Cov's is not gonna be an impact player as I thought he did very little, maybe he should either start or rest not come on as a sub.  Just my thoughts.

I thought we played better in 451 than 442. Just a lack of finish imo.

I actually thought Coveny did fairly well when he came on. We played in plenty of balls to him and he always managed to use his frame and hold it up waiting for support. Pity that support never came quick enough or with enough numbers. I thought Smeltz wasn't the greatest as a lone striker - the majority of our first half chances were created and taken by the midfielders, never saw Smeltz there when we broke. I didn't think much of Coveny in previous games, but think he may be a better choice than Smeltz when we play 4-5-1...

And I agree with Arsenal that i thought we looked better with a 4-5-1 than a 4-4-2. All in all we actually played extremely well. Could have been so different really. Wouldn't have been surprised to go home home with a 2-0 win, both goals to Ferrante. That's the nature of the beast with football i guess...

I certainly thought we played better in the first half and yes we probably should have scored. ( will ferrante ever score?)  I just thought that if we had started without say johnson and played either covs or brownlie up front with smeltz then maybe one of those many chances may have fallen to a striker instead of our workhorse midfielders who aren't known for their finishing.  My theory and thats all it is, is that after taking the lead we could then remove a striker in the second half and bring on our midfielder to play 4 5 1.

Sweltz looked like he was playing like a wing than a striker. Good breaks down the flanks but no one to cross to. In a close game chances must be taken; there seemed to be a timidity up front when it came to taking the chances that were created.

I think we had the right tactics, we just always took that eatra touch, extra pass. I think it's a pressure thing and something that RH can work on with the team. 3 games in and looking like we SHOULD'VE won is not bad, some fans will drop off with each loss but a win is not far away and a respectable mid table finsih not that much of a dream. Up the Phoenix!

Im hoping Tim Brown will make a difference in midfield. He'll create more and allow Daniel and Filepe to play further forward and assist the strikers. Toffeeman2007-09-10 09:59:11

The change of formation changed the game. 451 we were dominating but perhaps needed another man upfront and then 442 we had much less of the ball and the phoenix players looked like they had a bit less confidence/belief towards the end of the game except for the last few minutes where we resorted to rushed lobs into the box.

It very rare that a home team plays a 4-5-1. Most coaches will tell you that you play at least 2 strikers up front at home generally because you capitalize on the your home ground and surroundings/spectators...

They did look better in a 4-5-1 formation but I think maybe the way Smeltz was used was not right. He played with his back to goal a bit. Generally you want players (or a 2nd striker) running off of him if he is going to play back to goal and hold the ball up (and he does it well to be fair to Shane). They didn't really have many players running off of him so I question if he was used in the right manner. If Felipe was the man to be running off of him, I didn't see it much as I thought Felipe was a little deep for that. I'm not sure what the answer here is, just an analogy.

The midfield looked a little crowded on occasions too but you are going to get that with 3 in the middle.
DrQuack322007-09-10 10:57:36

The game should have been over by half time, with all the chances that we created. The defence is working well, however in this league, you have to take every chance given. Score line should have read at 35 mins in, Phoenix 3 Jets 0

Nope tactics were spot on and any other day we'd have won. Just one of those days where we played all the football, and no matter what we did it seemed like the ball was never gonna end up in the back of the goal. They get a luicky deflection and head home with an undeserved 3 points. It happens in football

AGREE, tacties were fine. We created enough 1st half chances to win, finishing not good enough and that is what lost us the game.Our composure or lack of it in front of goal has costs us 3 points, Hit the target and things will happen, Also with only one up front other players need to get into good supporting positions way sooner. Winning at Sydney this week is still a not impossible. Also  Moss in goal had a top game, player of the day.

Tactics were spot on. Its missing the chances early on and the ones that came us to us later that screwd us.

Sometimes I think we needed someone in the middle of the box. We did some great passing around the box to make space but in the end noone was really there to finish it

yeah we needed a 2nd target man up front to play just off the main striker, the gap between smeltz and the centre pack was too big.

clinical finishing is proving the key factor, i suppose on other days they would of gone in, it was just a unlucky day for the boys also with the deflected goal too.

Just watching the replay we had so many ball put across into the box that went to no one-pickout a player instead of hitting it randomly. Also put 2 strikers up front, we had the distribution but not the numbers to finish it. Smeltz is not suied to 451. Also he needs to play less with his back to goal and more like he did in pre season.Dave572007-09-10 17:39:55

Wrong tactics - you don't play one striker at home - full stop and end of story. It cost up on several times over as well so it's not as if the 4 - 5 -1 worked. Proof if needed is failure to score!!

If we'd turned up and played 5 defensive midfielders maybe, but with George and Daniel it was almost close to 4-3-3 than 4-5-1.

The way some talk you'd think we played with 9 behind the ball and Smeltz on halfway, and that is about as far from the truth as possible.

the tactics were right.

I would have liked to see two strikers up there - sometimes our attack looked horribly isolated. But as Wolfben said you can't blame a loss on the formation at the end of the day we just failed to put the ball in the back of the net. Untill we manage to do that maybe 4:5:1 is a better formation because then at least we can control the midfield

As soon as Daniel went off and the formation changed the Jets began to pile on pressure a lot more easily. In my view, the 4-5-1 worked but it just needs some tweaking.

Who's George? (!)

George is the 4th Brazilian signed by Ricki. Yet to play for us.

It's hard to believe that the crowd was 3,000 less than for the first game - it didn't look like it.  Are we sure about the official figures?  If you're out there Tony P, keep the marketing/PR/events momentum going.  The clubs got to get out there and make Wellingtonians want to keep coming.  Hope the loss doesn't have an impact because, despite the loss, the football is actually very entertaing. 

My opinion matches yours Rastus, I thought the free kick was dubious to the power of !@#$99

when chances like that fall to professional footballers and they don't put them away, there are no excuses. Tactics were fine, first half held the ball well and comfortably created 2-3 good chances, just need to be more clinical in front of goal. I thought it was an exciting display though, hopefully one that gets a big crowd to next home game. Go on you nix

I thought the tactics were spot on..... two attacking midfielder in behind, gives them freedom and offers questions to the defence on how they are going to pick them up, if they had put one of those chances away then the game would have been very different...... but its in the past time to look forward to the next game

IMO Not much wrong with the tactics, the team looked tired second half but should have won the game by halftime.  As the game went on the Jets were taking no chances pushing bodies forward and the goal was undeserved but the Pheonix were not exactly throwing men into the box either.

Hi Big Al, right on the button mate - every attack MUST finish with a strike on goal, otherwise we are back on defence - so simple, yet for some reason in NZ, we try to 'walk' the damn ball into the keepers hands!!

True, we have to be clinical in front of goal, nowt wrong with the tactics just finishing, need bigger balls, no choking

Surely a FIFA regulation ball should be big enough for players at this level ,what do you want to give them  a beach ball    ????
Kiwi Jambo2007-09-11 16:28:16