Guus WTF??

[Fluffy]

[quote author=Fluffy]
[quote author=Daniel]
lol its not Rugby league mate. That is the worst soccer analysis I have read

Dont see any better from you

i stand by it - 1 striker for 78 minutes. Seemed scared that if he attacked too much they might counter attack and win - guess what, they did it anyway. No reason not to give it our all and we didnt.

we hardly pushed italy's defence in quick attacks, just went at it slowly - should have had Kennedy on there at least for the crosses since that was our main attack
[/quote]


no you dont see any from me.

There are many reasons why you would play only 1 striker.

In a game against a team of solid defenders you dont want strikers you want midfielders and ball players. They are better at getting the ball in the right spot and are also generally good players. Many strikers are usually the lazier players who don't come back and help and or dont have the puff to do the work.

Guss obviously made the right choice as we were looking at a draw until an unlucky mistake cost us.

Having another striker on the field would have likely resulted in a loss.

Now do you need further explanation?

Also who has scored most of our goals in this tournamount?
Strikers?

no a midfielder known as Harry Kewell, a defender and a midfielder......now is there more value in having a striker on the field....

stick to league you can somewhat grasp its basic concepts
[/quote]

Champ its good to see your poor arguements arnt restricted to league.

I understood the plan but it wasnt being executed. Blind freddy could have seen that. And i am not talking about the first 50 minutes - which is what you seem to be implying, Im takling about the 10 man period. Our midfielders did not pla balls in too often, a lot of the time they were restricted to putting in a low percentage cross to cahill, the only target. Had we chucked on JK then at least we would have had two options.

And just to correct you - Harry scored 1 goal and is not a defending midfielder. Played as a striker for a lot of game 3 too. But in typical Dan style you wouldnt want to let facts get in the way of a good story.

We lost and thats obviously the right choice :lie: :lie: :lie:

Mate the game we played for a draw was Croatia, we needed to win against Italy

Having another striker on the field woould have likely resulted in a loss?? WTF whos ass did you pull that from?? That like me saying having Monas at half this year would have likely meant manly would have been unbeaten. There is absolutly no basis to that comment at all.

This isnt old mans soccer like you play, these guys have skill - I am not the only one who feels that way, but hey you seem to know more than a former Marconi coach who had a young Lucas Neil in his team.

Just keep telling yourself you know the most about soccer

 

[Dan]

Fluffy Kewell is a midfielder and played as a midfielder.....

the most effective soccer formations is 1 at the front 5 in the midfield and 4 at the back.

Putting in another striker would have done nothing but made us weak defensivly

Dear lord Fluffy your analysis is terrible and getting worse.

Old man soccer or none. putting another striker in would have weakened us defensively, Italy are a better and stronger team. Even with 10 men on the field they could match it with us. Guus made the right choice had he made the choice your are proferring we would have lost by our own merits rather than by a bit of bad luck, acting and a poor decision.

I deefinately dont know the most about soccer but clearly know more than you.

former marconi coach....oooohhhh unlike league all your work in soccer is done through the midfield.

Their job is to defend, attack and move the ball into attacking positions. The strikers job is to essentially get the ball in the net. A lot of the time a striker is like a decoy runner in league he will draw the attention of the defense whilst your midfielders come throught o score the goals.

I stick by my commetns that you have come up with the two worst analysis of the game I have seen!

*feeds out another hook*

 

[Fluffy]

How can you feed out a hook when your already in the water being drawn in

you have simply shown you dont know anything as we came far closer to winning with aloisi on than before hand

 

[Dan]

far closer to winning yeah mate close is still not a win is it?

You have shown your brand of intelligence elsewhere and i can rest on that quite happily

 

[Fluffy]

sounds like you need a rest.

far closer is not a win true, had we had him or others on for longer would indicate we would have had more chance again then we did.

And getting a loss is not a win either, but for some reason you think it meant we were closer?

 

[Dan]

no you have failed to grasp the cusp of the entire argument even though you started the topic in debate.

You feel that an extra striker on the field would have meant we were more likely to win.

However this is not true. Our strikers didn't score any goals in this tournement. They were scored by defenders and midfielders.
This says to me that having an extra striker on the field means that we are weaker defensively and maybe on par if not behind in attack.

You are wrong, have been for a the entire thread but I will admit I made at least one mistake.....I gave you more credit than you deserved.

I cant tell you how to get to sesame street mate but you can catch it on the ABC

 

[Fluffy]

"Our strikers didn't score any goals in this tournement"

Keep em coming champ

 

[Dan]

Fluffy.....

Our scorers and their positions

Aloisi – Forward (not a striker)
Moore – Left Back
Cahill – Center Mid
Kewell – Center Mid/Wing (starts at kick off in striker and moves to a midfield position)

Now where did most of our goals come from?

 

[Garts]

Agree that all the goals were scored by midfielders but didnt all but 1 (penalty) get scored at the end of games when we had additional strikers on the field? Could have they been a good foil for the others?

In hindsight I wish Guus had put on some more strikers as the result could not have been any worse (as in a loss is a loss no matter the scoreline) . However I can see what Guus was trying to do, no doubt changes would have been made had it gone to extra time as he probably expected it to.

 

[Matabele]

Why do you waste your time with someone that doesn't know a striker from a forward Dan?

 

[Canteen Worker]

Be careful lads - I am not taking sides but it is important to speak with knowledge on the matter.

The formation played by Australia was to use Viduka up front and for him to get ball to the feet and knock it back to his halves and wing backs or nod it on. That's what they did fairly successfully in the pool games. The Italians worked out our style, crowded the box and were too hard to penetrate. Our lads did not effectively use the flanks as well as they should have and the plan to run them off their feet in extra time was cut short by a sad dive in the box.

Talk to genuine soccer fans and they will say Viduka was effective and that the way we scored our goals and created chances was well planned.

Nuff said - I am not going to argue with those who say that the game is a joke and then argue fine points!! :lol:

 

[Matabele]

So what you're saying CW is that Viduka was like Monaghan at half back.

A one-dimensional player who was unable to come up with a Plan B to create doubt in the minds of an opposition that had worked his game out?

 

[Canteen Worker]

No - I m saying he played the role as demanded by his coach and did it okay.

 

[Matabele]

You're easily pleased.

 

[Dan]

Matas that makes him far from a one dimensional player. That is not how he usually plays the game, it shows he has massive ability and control to be able to do that

 

[clontaago]

Why do you waste your time with someone that doesn't know a striker from a forward Dan?

Sorry to weigh in here but Striker isnt really a position.

Taken from the FIFA website
Striker – Generally the same as a forward, though it sometimes refers to a forward that is his team’s primary scoring threat.

And as per the FIFA World Cup squad list:

Forwards

VIDUKA Mark
Date of Birth:
9 October 1975
Caps: 37 Goals: 6 10

KEWELL Harry
Date of Birth:
22 September 1978
Caps: 23 Goals: 7
15

ALOISI John
Date of Birth:
5 February 1976
Caps: 45 Goals: 24 17

THOMPSON Archie
Date of Birth:
23 October 1978
Caps: 20 Goals: 21
19

KENNEDY Joshua
Date of Birth:
20 August 1982
Caps: 3 Goals: 1

 

[Canteen Worker]

You're easily pleased.

Didn't say I was pleased - but I don't pretend to be an expert on something I detest and basically know nothing about!!!!

Italy are champions at defensive, boring soccer in which they slow down, crowd, foul and do anything to win. (Would we be complaining if we won every game of league 10 - 4 or so with a lot of bash and barge footy - if we were good at it???)

 

[Dan]

It is not a position but a role as FIFA says, generally these are your centre forwards, however everyone refers to them as Strikers.

CW summed up the role that our "striker" actually played

 

[Matabele]

Who'd have thought such a simple, third world game could be made to sound so complicated?

 

[Canteen Worker]

Hey Mata - what sport do you kids play - in third world Central West????? :lol: