The morning after the night before... and I still have no idea why on earth Ernesto put Roly up front thereby removing one of our midfield lynch pins and replacing him with Vinvisible. Nor why he chose not to play a striker (or even a pale imitation).
Baffled (not to mention the Louis of Tawa/Moosecat/Major Tom decision).
Oddly enough, Brockie actually worried their defence, he was annoying the shit out of them.
For the stats guys what are our results over the years v Victory in Melbourne.
Supporter For Ever - Keep The Faith - Foundation Member - Never Lets FAX Get In The Way Of A Good Yarn
Just hoping Ernie realises he got it wrong and puts Roly and Doyle back where they should have been.Back where it has worked so far,would love to hear his reasoning for it.
Agreed but Melbourne have highlighted a weakness which other clubs will focus on.
I can't recall that they had that many shots on target, but made the best out of it. We should, could, eventually have played in another starting line-up, less defensive, but we don't know, they may trashed us. They where the better side, it's fine, I'll move on to round 5
Ernie's press conference.
http://www.a-league.com.au/video/wellington-phoenix-press-conference/1033386
I can't recall that they had that many shots on target, but made the best out of it. We should, could, eventually have played in another starting line-up, less defensive, but we don't know, they may trashed us. They where the better side, it's fine, I'll move on to round 5
Come on....don't you know the fans' rule that the alternative would have always done better.
This game was always going to be a great measure of where we are at. Seems our spot in the middle of the pack is justified and about where we should be sitting based on how we have played thus far.
If Burns has one fault it is that he has managed to hit the keeper on all his one on ones so far - even the one he scored on his arse.
Brockie coming on made a difference and for all his faults, we looked better. To not score against a leaky Victory defence - disappointing. To not look even close to scoring for most of the game, even more disappointing.
Still, a win against WSW as they bask in their Asian glory is a must see on Friday
Our fullbacks had a rough time, sure, but let's not ignore the fact that they had two 12 year old fullbacks, up against two of the most in-form forwards in the league in Burns and McGlinchey. Shouldn't we also be asking questions about why we weren't supplying those two with enough ball, in space, to have a run at their rookies?
We're meant to be a team that presses, but last night I saw them pressing us hard and fast, and we panicked and either gave the ball up or resorted to the most route one I have seen from us for a long time. Perth did similar to us in game one now that I think of it. Ernie could be right in that there is still a bit of improvement needed from our mids.
I can't recall that they had that many shots on target, but made the best out of it. We should, could, eventually have played in another starting line-up, less defensive, but we don't know, they may trashed us. They where the better side, it's fine, I'll move on to round 5
Come on....don't you know the fans' rule that the alternative would have always done better.
Did you like our tactics? I think we showed some class in bits but thought the tactics were baffling.
Well Kosta and Finkler will still turn out against us.
Spooky.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Our fullbacks had a rough time, sure, but let's not ignore the fact that they had two 12 year old fullbacks, up against two of the most in-form forwards in the league in Burns and McGlinchey. Shouldn't we also be asking questions about why we weren't supplying those two with enough ball, in space, to have a run at their rookies?
I thought Murnane did a fantastic job on Boooourns. Murnane was born in January 1995 when this was #1 in New Zealand:
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Our fullbacks had a rough time, sure, but let's not ignore the fact that they had two 12 year old fullbacks, up against two of the most in-form forwards in the league in Burns and McGlinchey. Shouldn't we also be asking questions about why we weren't supplying those two with enough ball, in space, to have a run at their rookies?
I thought Murnane did a fantastic job on Boooourns. Murnane was born in January 1995 when this was #1 in New Zealand:
Meaning Mr and Mrs Murnane might have been bumping uglies to this March 1994 #1
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Ah Smith. Trying to disarm the angst with lols.
I don't know why we bother with these Melbourne Cup day games. We should just default them, the club would save money, I'd get to bed at a reasonable time on a schoolnight, and Victory still get their three points. Win for everyone.
I like this...
I can understand why Ernie started Lia. Going away to the Victory, where we have never won, he was being a little cautious. I have no issue with that. However, when this wasn't working, as was plainly evident by half time, swapping him out for Brockie would have made much more sense. A-Rod was doing a good job, the more I see him on TV the more I like (not sure why I feel differently when watching him live)
Was good to see Brockie causing the Victory defense problems, but this should be tempered by the fact he still only got that one real chance on goal (quality effort though) and that they were missing some key personnel. We played better with him in the team, but that is probably because it freed Burns up a bit more.
The Fenton/Doyle/Muscat issue has been discussed a lot on this page, however I feel more credit should be given to Kosta who played a blinder. I don't think any of our defensive options would have been able to handle him last night, he was excellent.
My biggest disappointment was Krishna. He was plain awful and offered nothing. His constant efforts at running through people then flinging his arms up for a foul which was never there started to get very tiresome. His pace is his key attribute, but he doesn't seem to be able to get behind the defense. Perhaps trying him at the point to run in behind would work, but I am probably cluthcing at straws. It does appear that all the noise about him starting (on Twitter and the Nix Facebook) has died down rather quickly.
Angrier but more cuddly than a Honey Badger
If Victory were at full strength the defensive mindset (aka Lia for Brockie) would have got the thumbs up from me but they weren't, we were playing against half their reserve side.
As I said last night, we have a proud history of losing to significantly understrength opposition teams because instead of getting into them early and rattling the youngsters confidence we go defensive and let them play. I was hoping that after 8 seasons we might have learnt our lesson but clearly not.
All angst, arguments and critique is null and void due to a universal law where the Wellington Phoenix will never defeat Melbourne Victory away.
But seriously, good opportunity fluffed. Bring back Dadi.
We will never fully decide who has won the football.
I can't recall that they had that many shots on target, but made the best out of it. We should, could, eventually have played in another starting line-up, less defensive, but we don't know, they may trashed us. They where the better side, it's fine, I'll move on to round 5
Come on....don't you know the fans' rule that the alternative would have always done better.
Did you like our tactics? I think we showed some class in bits but thought the tactics were baffling.
I didn't mind them actually. For people to say that if we started with our same XI that we would have done better or never change a losing side to pure speculation (yes I know that is 99% of post here). Why do people think the alternative is always better? Why is the alternative never worse?
Think it’s clear that Ernie wanted to pack the midfield to nullify Finkler in there. For a good part of the first half it worked and we won some good ball in the front 60% of the field. I count 10 or so in that first half.Our problem was utilising those turnovers and creating chances. One obviously lead to Burns’ chance and if he takes that, it certainly changes the complexions of the game.
Other than that, we got into their third with ease at times, but didn’t seem to have enough creativity to generate chances. McGlinchey had an off game and looked pretty isolated, quite often turning out and playing back. One time which ended up leading to the second goal.
From the image below it seems we were trying to get Fenton to do a lot of the work on that right side. Both in attack, and in defence by trying to counter Kosta/Archie down the wings. He was the one who was going to give us width on the right and I assume try cause trouble to their left back who was the most inexperienced of the two fullbacks.He tried a couple of times to beat this man, but for whatever reason it didn’t quite work. Maybe on another day he skips past his man and set a goal up. Who know?
Successful passes and unsuccessful dribbles average position
If we hadn’t conceded that freekick, if Manny hadn’t played their strikers on, and if Durante actually tired to head the ball, then we would have gone into that half at 0-0.
Into the second half I thought we started the strongest, but again both side struggled to create anything meaningful up front. As we started to press for an equalizer, the counter was going to be on.
Not surprised he didn't want Doyle to get ripped apart by Kosta, having Muscat there instead seemed like a reasonably safe move. Kosta is way too good though.
surprised the drums haven't started beating for Kosta and another crack at Europe.
It was a substandard performance by the coach and half the players against a depleted team.
Not good enough and not to be repeated.
We dust ourselves off and make bloody sure we've got our shit back together for what should be a jaded WSW.
It was a substandard performance by the coach and half the players against a depleted team.
Not good enough and not to be repeated.
We dust ourselves off and make bloody sure we've got our shit back together for what should be a jaded WSW.
You gotta be joking.
"At the end of the drive the lawmen arrive...
I'll take my chance because luck is on my side or something...
Her name is Rio, she don't need to understand...
Oh Rio, Rio, hear them shout across the land..."
I can't recall that they had that many shots on target, but made the best out of it. We should, could, eventually have played in another starting line-up, less defensive, but we don't know, they may trashed us. They where the better side, it's fine, I'll move on to round 5
Come on....don't you know the fans' rule that the alternative would have always done better.
Did you like our tactics? I think we showed some class in bits but thought the tactics were baffling.
I didn't mind them actually. For people to say that if we started with our same XI that we would have done better or never change a losing side to pure speculation (yes I know that is 99% of post here). Why do people think the alternative is always better? Why is the alternative never worse?
Think it’s clear that Ernie wanted to pack the midfield to nullify Finkler in there. For a good part of the first half it worked and we won some good ball in the front 60% of the field. I count 10 or so in that first half.Our problem was utilising those turnovers and creating chances. One obviously lead to Burns’ chance and if he takes that, it certainly changes the complexions of the game.
Other than that, we got into their third with ease at times, but didn’t seem to have enough creativity to generate chances. McGlinchey had an off game and looked pretty isolated, quite often turning out and playing back. One time which ended up leading to the second goal.
From the image below it seems we were trying to get Fenton to do a lot of the work on that right side. Both in attack, and in defence by trying to counter Kosta/Archie down the wings. He was the one who was going to give us width on the right and I assume try cause trouble to their left back who was the most inexperienced of the two fullbacks.He tried a couple of times to beat this man, but for whatever reason it didn’t quite work. Maybe on another day he skips past his man and set a goal up. Who know?
If we hadn’t conceded that freekick, if Manny hadn’t played their strikers on, and if Durante actually tired to head the ball, then we would have gone into that half at 0-0.
Into the second half I thought we started the strongest, but again both side struggled to create anything meaningful up front. As we started to press for an equalizer, the counter was going to be on.
Good stuff 2B, agree with you to a very large extent. Ernie wanted to stack the middle of the park to slow down their transition game, and nullify Finkler, and not allow them to isolate Kosta and Khalfallah in 1 on 1 situations with our fullbacks in a lot of space. It was a bit dicey in the first 10-15 minutes, because our midfield, and in particular Riera, were too far up the field, and Kosta and Khlafallah got 1 on1s which led to a couple of half-chance for them. But we tightened it up - look at A-Rod and Lia working hard to double-up on the flanks, and Riera cleaning up a lot of ball 25-30 metres in front of our goal. This meant Victory really struggled to get in behind us, and after the first 10 mins of the first half they were pretty toothless. What burst the plan was a stupid set-piece goal, and Burns' inability to convert the one chance we had the whole game. This forced Ernie to go to Plan B in the second half - he moved the game about 20-30m up the field so that we were pressing and winning the ball 30-35 metres away from their goal.
This is what made our first ten minutes of the second half look good, but we really couldn't create anything with it, and really opened ourselves to the counter, which was playing right into Victory's hands. The moment we turned to Plan B the writing was on the wall - we really needed an equaliser straight away for it to work, and it never came. Victory then had a field day counter-attacking us, playing into spaces behind our backline and using their speed to get us into trouble. Riera was probably lucky to stay on the field given the number of professional fouls he had to commit at the half-way line to stop their counters.
The really disappointing aspect of the game was our attack - somewhat understandable in the first half, given that Ernie consciously sacrifaced an attacking option to nullify Victory's strengths, but you would still hope for more than 'just give the ball to Burns and hope for the best'. Second half was even worse, given the complement of attacking players we had, the amount of possession we were winning in their half, and the fact that their back seven consisted of Comedy Coe, two midfielders disguised as CBs, two 12-year olds disguised as fullbacks, and two 13-year olds disguised as DMs.
I can't recall that they had that many shots on target, but made the best out of it. We should, could, eventually have played in another starting line-up, less defensive, but we don't know, they may trashed us. They where the better side, it's fine, I'll move on to round 5
Come on....don't you know the fans' rule that the alternative would have always done better.
Did you like our tactics? I think we showed some class in bits but thought the tactics were baffling.
I didn't mind them actually. For people to say that if we started with our same XI that we would have done better or never change a losing side to pure speculation (yes I know that is 99% of post here). Why do people think the alternative is always better? Why is the alternative never worse?
Think it’s clear that Ernie wanted to pack the midfield to nullify Finkler in there. For a good part of the first half it worked and we won some good ball in the front 60% of the field. I count 10 or so in that first half.Our problem was utilising those turnovers and creating chances. One obviously lead to Burns’ chance and if he takes that, it certainly changes the complexions of the game.
Other than that, we got into their third with ease at times, but didn’t seem to have enough creativity to generate chances. McGlinchey had an off game and looked pretty isolated, quite often turning out and playing back. One time which ended up leading to the second goal.
From the image below it seems we were trying to get Fenton to do a lot of the work on that right side. Both in attack, and in defence by trying to counter Kosta/Archie down the wings. He was the one who was going to give us width on the right and I assume try cause trouble to their left back who was the most inexperienced of the two fullbacks.He tried a couple of times to beat this man, but for whatever reason it didn’t quite work. Maybe on another day he skips past his man and set a goal up. Who know?
Successful passes and unsuccessful dribbles average position
If we hadn’t conceded that freekick, if Manny hadn’t played their strikers on, and if Durante actually tired to head the ball, then we would have gone into that half at 0-0.
Into the second half I thought we started the strongest, but again both side struggled to create anything meaningful up front. As we started to press for an equalizer, the counter was going to be on.
Yeah, our pressing in the first half was probably the best all season due to the extra man in midfield. With the ball, we still tried to play through the middle quite quickly - it was very congested - lots of turnovers from both sides. In hindsight, maybe play a bit deeper and slower in that first half and try and control the game better.
I can't recall that they had that many shots on target, but made the best out of it. We should, could, eventually have played in another starting line-up, less defensive, but we don't know, they may trashed us. They where the better side, it's fine, I'll move on to round 5
Come on....don't you know the fans' rule that the alternative would have always done better.
Did you like our tactics? I think we showed some class in bits but thought the tactics were baffling.
I didn't mind them actually. For people to say that if we started with our same XI that we would have done better or never change a losing side to pure speculation (yes I know that is 99% of post here). Why do people think the alternative is always better? Why is the alternative never worse?
Think it’s clear that Ernie wanted to pack the midfield to nullify Finkler in there. For a good part of the first half it worked and we won some good ball in the front 60% of the field. I count 10 or so in that first half.Our problem was utilising those turnovers and creating chances. One obviously lead to Burns’ chance and if he takes that, it certainly changes the complexions of the game.
Other than that, we got into their third with ease at times, but didn’t seem to have enough creativity to generate chances. McGlinchey had an off game and looked pretty isolated, quite often turning out and playing back. One time which ended up leading to the second goal.
From the image below it seems we were trying to get Fenton to do a lot of the work on that right side. Both in attack, and in defence by trying to counter Kosta/Archie down the wings. He was the one who was going to give us width on the right and I assume try cause trouble to their left back who was the most inexperienced of the two fullbacks.He tried a couple of times to beat this man, but for whatever reason it didn’t quite work. Maybe on another day he skips past his man and set a goal up. Who know?
Successful passes and unsuccessful dribbles average position
If we hadn’t conceded that freekick, if Manny hadn’t played their strikers on, and if Durante actually tired to head the ball, then we would have gone into that half at 0-0.
Into the second half I thought we started the strongest, but again both side struggled to create anything meaningful up front. As we started to press for an equalizer, the counter was going to be on.
I agree with this. That why I meant I like to move on, nothing was really wrong or particularly bad in our play. It just did not really clicked for us, all attempts for a through ball got intercepted and Burns runs into three players. A stupid first goal, and if McGlinchy did loose the ball to Kosta it could have been a draw. I did not look at the stats, but it was not that we had to hang on for 90 min and they had 100 shots on target, I guess this could credited to Ernies tactics. And after conceding we did not fall apart, credit to the boys. I'm not to worried.
The thing I like about Merrick's Phoenix vs Ricki's is that we have adaptable tactics.
The thing (one of them) I dislike is the lack of depth in the squad.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Time to reignite the not a striker meme?
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.
I think Ernie overreacted to the Melbourne threats- did having Manny there really make a difference, would it have been worse with Doyle?
It did upset the combinations that we have been building and so we were not transitioning the ball well into attack.
Didnt think much of the goal keeping for the first goal
I think Ernie overreacted to the Melbourne threats- did having Manny there really make a difference, would it have been worse with Doyle?
It did upset the combinations that we have been building and so we were not transitioning the ball well into attack.
Didnt think much of the goal keeping for the first goal
Think having two inexperienced fullbacks would be disastrous. Trying to block up on side with Manny and leaving the other side to do more leg work was probably the best option. Fenton probably didn't have his best game, but either did many others.
On the first goal. Plenty of blame to go around. Sure it was a decent ball in, but all goals are defendable.
Manny played their strikers onside. Ball was just over Riera as the first defender, but Dura didn't make an effort to jump. This lead to Archie (?) to go up for a header, miss it, Milligan (?) to stick a leg out, miss it. At that point a goalkeeper is guessing who is getting a touch, if any. Flight of the ball prevent Moss from coming forward to collect. Needed one of our defenders to take charge in there. They didn't.
For me, if you were going to play a less experienced fullback, I'd have played the one who has played most of pre-season and the opening 3 games of the season rather than one who hasn't played any meaningful time since his injury 9-10 months ago. Fenton was on a hiding to nothing.
I think what people are overlooking in criticising Ernie's choices in the starting line-up is how terribly exposed to the counter we were in the second-half, once our formation was re-adjusted. Yes, we had a lot of ball in their half, but they were having a field day countering us, and if Kosta and Archie had a bit more composure, that could have easily ended up 4/5-0 to them.
For me, if you were going to play a less experienced fullback, I'd have played the one who has played most of pre-season and the opening 3 games of the season rather than one who hasn't played any meaningful time since his injury 9-10 months ago. Fenton was on a hiding to nothing.
Unless you think that one possesses a different skill set than the other.
I think what people are overlooking in criticising Ernie's choices in the starting line-up is how terribly exposed to the counter we were in the second-half, once our formation was re-adjusted. Yes, we had a lot of ball in their half, but they were having a field day countering us, and if Kosta and Archie had a bit more composure, that could have easily ended up 4/5-0 to them.
Hard to tell though because by that stage their rookie players had had 45 minutes under no pressure to get confidence and believe in themselves. If we had started by putting pressure on them and forcing Milligan to play as a defender instead of an extra midfielder would they have had the confidence to get on the front foot?
It's all conjecture but just because something looked dodgy at that point may not reflect how it might have worked had we started that way.
I think Ernie overreacted to the Melbourne threats- did having Manny there really make a difference, would it have been worse with Doyle?
It did upset the combinations that we have been building and so we were not transitioning the ball well into attack.
Didnt think much of the goal keeping for the first goal
Think having two inexperienced fullbacks would be disastrous. Trying to block up on side with Manny and leaving the other side to do more leg work was probably the best option. Fenton probably didn't have his best game, but either did many others.
On the first goal. Plenty of blame to go around. Sure it was a decent ball in, but all goals are defendable.
Manny played their strikers onside. Ball was just over Riera as the first defender, but Dura didn't make an effort to jump. This lead to Archie (?) to go up for a header, miss it, Milligan (?) to stick a leg out, miss it. At that point a goalkeeper is guessing who is getting a touch, if any. Flight of the ball prevent Moss from coming forward to collect. Needed one of our defenders to take charge in there. They didn't.
This post is sponsored by the GK Union.
I'd have defended Moss if he had done, well, anything. But he didn't.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
I think what people are overlooking in criticising Ernie's choices in the starting line-up is how terribly exposed to the counter we were in the second-half, once our formation was re-adjusted. Yes, we had a lot of ball in their half, but they were having a field day countering us, and if Kosta and Archie had a bit more composure, that could have easily ended up 4/5-0 to them.
Hard to tell though because by that stage their rookie players had had 45 minutes under no pressure to get confidence and believe in themselves. If we had started by putting pressure on them and forcing Milligan to play as a defender instead of an extra midfielder would they have had the confidence to get on the front foot?
It's all conjecture but just because something looked dodgy at that point may not reflect how it might have worked had we started that way.
Hmm, I think you're playing on the confidence card too much. Our first half went largely to plan save for a stupid set-piece goal. The one time we looked dicey in the first half was in the first 10 mins when our midfield didn't sit deep enough. The issue is regardless of who was at fullback, or whether we had an extra attacker on or Lia, is that quick transition to their wide attacking players was always going to kill us. This has nothing to do with who they had at the back - and we were quite successful in nullifying their main strength in the first half. If we'd gone at them in the first half, all the problems at the back we had in the second-half would just have happened sooner.
Awful.
I disagree. Before you start dissing your own team, remember this is the same Nix team that beat CCM and the Jets, OK with a few changes (like Fenton and Lia starting). Victory today had much better man-on-man marking, athleticism and their passing quality was exceptional.
If the opposition is reasonably good, as they were today, we should have done better: score at least one against them. A draw was never on the cards. If they had Berisha on the park, we would have been demolished and demoralised.
What is with this attitude? Completely defeatist and the main reason we always lose there. Comparing both starting sides today, there is not a huge difference between the two in terms of quality . It's a salary capped league Ffs.
I truly do not understand why you criticise my "defeatist attitude" as the reason we "always lose there". I simply commented on what I saw on the park on the day. If we actually controlled the ball better and did not give it away under slightest pressure, we might have had a look in. Their passing game was superb, and anyone with any brains could see after the first 10-15 minutes that that will win them that game, on that day, unless something dramatic happens to change it. Nothing happened to change that, and that includes our substitutions.
If, as you say, "there is not a huge difference between the two of them in terms of quality", then I would have to accept that Kevin Muscat is a better coach than Ernie Merrick. I have a real problem believing that; I'd rather accept that Ernie will need a few more games with this pretty much new team (including Burns, WeeMac, A-Rod, Roly, Doyle, return of Riera, return of Fenton) to develop better cohesion.
Have you even noticed how well Kosta Barbarouses, a Phoenix reject, developed and matured? Victory is a good team with good cohesion, and they are hard to beat at home. Always have. That is not being defeatist, that is the reality.
Actually, getting outplayed quite a bit these days
I think Ernie overreacted to the Melbourne threats- did having Manny there really make a difference, would it have been worse with Doyle?
It did upset the combinations that we have been building and so we were not transitioning the ball well into attack.
Didnt think much of the goal keeping for the first goal
Think having two inexperienced fullbacks would be disastrous. Trying to block up on side with Manny and leaving the other side to do more leg work was probably the best option. Fenton probably didn't have his best game, but either did many others.
On the first goal. Plenty of blame to go around. Sure it was a decent ball in, but all goals are defendable.
Manny played their strikers onside. Ball was just over Riera as the first defender, but Dura didn't make an effort to jump. This lead to Archie (?) to go up for a header, miss it, Milligan (?) to stick a leg out, miss it. At that point a goalkeeper is guessing who is getting a touch, if any. Flight of the ball prevent Moss from coming forward to collect. Needed one of our defenders to take charge in there. They didn't.
This post is sponsored by the GK Union.
I'd have defended Moss if he had done, well, anything. But he didn't.
Well he was playing for a header/shot from the two victory players that got into better positions than our defensive line. Dura didn't do anything either, why no blame there?
