JamesW Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 In Show 53 (download) we over analysis a few things about the Canada vs South Africa game with Max Bell and Ben Knight. And I'm sorry its late! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soju Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 I disagree with Ben Knight, Radz has come back into the midfield and defence to help out in past. Watch Spain, Portugal, Jamaica series, etc. Dobson commented on the amount of work he was putting in marking/tackling before (can't recall which game) and that's the one aspect of his game I think his time at Fulham improved. Edit: RE Hume playing every minute of every match. Humey isn't going to win any knock downs because he's short, nor can he play with his back to the goal because that's not how he rolls. He's also not a an experienced midfielder whereas DeRo and Radz actually are so scratch that. Because Hume isn't a targetman, the team would essentially have to undo what's been done and rebuild around Hume in order to make him work up front, likely having to partner him with someone and flip the formation that our boys are getting used to. Hume is a class player but we've gone in another direction and it worked well against Austria, stumbled against Iceland/Hungary, and shone in the Gold Cup. Have Gerba or Friend really played themselves out of this team to the point we scrap them and rebuild our attack around a new player? With what looks to be few friendly matches leading up to qualifiers should we start screwing around with a 4-4-2 to accommodate Hume's strengths? The 4-5-1 will deliver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatSA Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Soju Watch Spain, Portugal, Jamaica series, etc. Dobson commented on the amount of work he was putting in marking/tackling before (can't recall which game) and that's the one aspect of his game I think his time at Fulham improved. Overall, I would agree but there was one incident in particular that stood out (43rd minute), where he was really slow in reacting to an overlapping attacker, allowing an unchallenged cross which we were able to defend successfully. Also worth noting that the same thing happened against Issey in the 52nd minute, though in that case it looked like Issey didn't have the wheels to stay with his opponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonovision Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Soju Edit: RE Hume playing every minute of every match. Humey isn't going to win any knock downs because he's short, nor can he play with his back to the goal because that's not how he rolls. He's also not a an experienced midfielder whereas DeRo and Radz actually are so scratch that. Because Hume isn't a targetman, the team would essentially have to undo what's been done and rebuild around Hume in order to make him work up front, likely having to partner him with someone and flip the formation that our boys are getting used to. Hume is a class player but we've gone in another direction and it worked well against Austria, stumbled against Iceland/Hungary, and shone in the Gold Cup. Have Gerba or Friend really played themselves out of this team to the point we scrap them and rebuild our attack around a new player? With what looks to be few friendly matches leading up to qualifiers should we start screwing around with a 4-4-2 to accommodate Hume's strengths? So true. Hume is a fine player, but in all his performances for Canada, has he ever showed enough to be considered a first-choice, stand alone, striker? He of the 2 goals from 25 or so matches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soju Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 I just don't understand how a player with Hume's skill set can thrive alone up front, it takes a different player. People have commented before that DeRo and Radz aren't the best crossers of the ball, but we've seen that as those two cut in towards goal players like Jazic/Kluko/Stalteri are able to overlap and swing balls in and they've resulted in a few of our goals this year. Those crosses need a head on them and Friend is the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesW Posted November 28, 2007 Author Share Posted November 28, 2007 I don't think Ben was suggesting that Hume be used up front. But on the other hand he seemed to suggest that having Hume up front could have worked against South Africa. Which I think is totally wrong. I still am shocked he was put in that position and that, more then anything, scares me about Dale Mitchell. If he can not see that Hume was a bad choice alone up front in a friendly, what will he do in the real thing when it matters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soju Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Jamit I don't think Ben was suggesting that Hume be used up front. But on the other hand he seemed to suggest that having Hume up front could have worked against South Africa. Which I think is totally wrong. I still am shocked he was put in that position and that, more then anything, scares me about Dale Mitchell. If he can not see that Hume was a bad choice alone up front in a friendly, what will he do in the real thing when it matters? Exactly, and that's what's got me worried. Why would a team like Canada that's going to need as many available weapons as possible essentially eliminate it's crossing game by playing Hume up top? Playing armchair coach is fun but I really really want to know what Mitchell's reasoning was. Dale drop us a line babe let's do lunch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonovision Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Soju Exactly, and that's what's got me worried. Why would a team like Canada that's going to need as many available weapons as possible essentially eliminate it's crossing game by playing Hume up top? Playing armchair coach is fun but I really really want to know what Mitchell's reasoning was. Dale drop us a line babe let's do lunch... I think squad selection was part of the problem. Without Friend and Gerba, the type of game we played at the Gold Cup doesn't work. Occean is a pure striker, sure, but he doesn't have the same physical tools. That why it is of utmost importance that: 1. We don't have any availability issues with Friend during the next qualifying cycle, and 2. Gerba gets himself into a club situation where he actually plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronto MB Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 I, like all of you, just wish we had interview access to Dale Mitchell. Should we chose to keep growing the site as a news source, we should be making formalised bids for a "canadian-soccer.com" media pass to future matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatSA Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Toronto MB I, like all of you, just wish we had interview access to Dale Mitchell. Should we chose to keep growing the site as a news source, we should be making formalised bids for a "canadian-soccer.com" media pass to future matches. Why doesn't Ben Knight ask Mitchell for an interview about this match? The one comment that really stood out for me during the podcast was when he said, "We weren't down there for the last four days . . .", talking about how little anyone knows about how the training went, for instance. Since Ben's a journalist, he should be able to use those press credentials to some effect in order get some more feedback about the match (apart from those CSA press releases), if not from Mitchell then maybe from the playing participants themselves. Which players were interviewed after the match? I guess there must have been a few, but the only player I read about in the media who discussed this match was DeRosario, and he watched it on TV like the rest of us here. Perhaps Ben or Neil Davidson could phone London and ask Stalteri about the match in general and about what he said or didn't say to get the red card: if he refuses to comment about anything, then that speaks volumes about whether he should have the captaincy, IMO. Since a number of observers here have been speculating about using Klukowski as a centre back for the MNT, maybe a phone call to Belgium with a few questions would provide some insight for the fans about how he feels about playing there. I wouldn't consider asking questions such as these as being examples of British tabloid disease and over-analyzing and over-stepping any bounds. They're reasonable questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesW Posted November 28, 2007 Author Share Posted November 28, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Toronto MB Should we chose to keep growing the site as a news source, we should be making formalised bids for a "canadian-soccer.com" media pass to future matches. Good idea there, but I can't image that any of us would have wanted to go all the way down to South Africa. But for home games and World Cup Qualifying that does make a lot of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBird Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Soju I disagree with Ben Knight, Radz has come back into the midfield and defence to help out in past. Watch Spain, Portugal, Jamaica series, etc. Dobson commented on the amount of work he was putting in marking/tackling before (can't recall which game) and that's the one aspect of his game I think his time at Fulham improved. Edit: RE Hume playing every minute of every match. Humey isn't going to win any knock downs because he's short, nor can he play with his back to the goal because that's not how he rolls. He's also not a an experienced midfielder whereas DeRo and Radz actually are so scratch that. Because Hume isn't a targetman, the team would essentially have to undo what's been done and rebuild around Hume in order to make him work up front, likely having to partner him with someone and flip the formation that our boys are getting used to. Hume is a class player but we've gone in another direction and it worked well against Austria, stumbled against Iceland/Hungary, and shone in the Gold Cup. Have Gerba or Friend really played themselves out of this team to the point we scrap them and rebuild our attack around a new player? With what looks to be few friendly matches leading up to qualifiers should we start screwing around with a 4-4-2 to accommodate Hume's strengths? The 4-5-1 will deliver. Well let me see if I can offer some stats on this loan Striker everyone is so high on, but of course these are very limited to what is available to me plus some personal accountability too. So do not use these numbers too seriously, other then maybe looking a bigger picture. As they may not be at the best and optimum figures that I would like them to be. but I guess it may have no harm in sharing them with you in making a choice of 4-3-2-1 or a 4-4-2. Using three strikers including Little bird’s, that I have all of the stats on. That are currently playing or have played in games this year only. This is what I have Using three Strikers I have totals of, of course Littlebird is one of them, playing in 17 of these games this year no goal to account for the lone striker roles in 3 games, and 14 goals in as many games in a 4-4-2 3 - Strikers 26 games - 5 goals scored - using a lone striker up front. 56 games same 3 strikers 28 goals this year alone......in a 4-4-2. Now, please keep in mind that aside from what I know are correct plus some numbers of others that I happen to have on my computer I do not intend to argue or prove them wrong or right it just what I have and forward them to you....for you to criticize or agree For me I have expressed that ideal situtution is a 4-4-2 and the most experienced should and be given to Friend, and Hume as the logical choice and easy to make....but if need be Uccello on the bench is not a bad player to come in with if a sub is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soju Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Sorry I can't make sense of what you posted. Who is little bird and what games are those stats from? I think you'll find Canada has scored more goals per game with the current system than we did in last qualifying cycle where we used a 4-4-2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Soju, find the translation for the word 'bird' into Italian. It should make more sense afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soju Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Thanks M.A. for anyone else confused/interested bird = Uccello. I still can't make heads or tails of those stats or how they show 4-4-2 is better for Canada. Those are the goals Uccello, Hume and Friend scored in 4-4-2 with their clubs, or those are the total goals their teams scored? Do their clubs have midfielders who score in the 4-5-1 like we do? One system won't fit all teams, must play to strengths. Our strength is our depth in midfield, not our forwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Well I am bewildered about the comments here. We have Hume useless as a target man and it turns out Friend is the man for that. But he does not score with his head in Germany. So Friend the target that can't head and Hume ruled out because of that? If anyone thinks Hume can't help this team they have not watched him play carefully. He is one of our only long shot options, his free kicks are good, he in fact does play quite well with his back to a defender if the ball is not played in the air, he passes out better to his wings and oncoming mids better than any other striker we have. He can make a cut and change direction running at a defender, something Gerba-Friend-Occean do worse. He is objectively better than any of them in many areas. He comes back to help in the midfield, he is feisty and hard-working. He's been dedicated to Canada longer than any of those guys, despite his age. But if you want to change to a 4-4-2 and put Hume in there with Occean or Friend, I like it. Play only one of Radz or DeRo, as you need a more classic holder behind Atiba and Julian, who have to have some creative freedom. By the way, having watched a few of Radz's games where supposedly he worked on defence: he does not work half as hard as DeRo does, and does not have the committment defending either. He has improved, yes, but given he is not dedicated to defending and going forwards he is less effective than ever, I see him as a useful player on the team, an intelligent player. But not an automatic starter. Let's try a 4-4-2 for St. Vicent just to get the option working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soju Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 When will Occean and Hume or Friend and Hume develop the familiarity and partnership strikers require? Edit: I disagree I think Friend can be dangerous as an aerial threat. Haven't seen him in Germany yet but here's Friend scoring with his head in Norway at 1:10: Here's Rob scoring for us against Jamaica, with his head: Here's Rob against Austria heading and getting cleared off the line early in the clip, then later heading on goal and getting tipped over the bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Little bird=Italian 5th division. I can`t remember the how many lower division strikers we have had in our lineup who have failed to score over the years. Yes, their friends/supporters/relatives always have excuses available. Hume has not shown very much as a striker for Canada. I like Hume's spirit and energy but so far the occassional long distance strike every 10 or 15 games has not convinced me he should be a starter. I don't think one can blame this on our tactics. DeRo also gets an A for effort. For most of Yallop's reign he produced nothing offensively and was terrible defensively even though he made a lot of effort. Recently his offensive play has improved and while he makes the effort to come back his defensive skills are very lacking. Radz usually made a lot of effort to come back and could be quite effective defensively. This was maybe not completely appartent against SA but usually he has been the most complete player to play this position for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Just want to say about Radz. I like him because he is intelligent, he is getting to that wise old fox stage. He can do interesting things that the younger ones can't yet, like read a game, or read his defender. You see that he is intelligent on the field. He also happens to not get into stupid discipline problems. A veteran like that is a huge asset. Only he is not a great striker anymore, is not a great wing, is not that dedicated defending. So there could be times he is more a liability than a help, though I sure would like to see him on the squad for qualifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. Well I am bewildered about the comments here. We have Hume useless as a target man and it turns out Friend is the man for that. But he does not score with his head in Germany. So Friend the target that can't head and Hume ruled out because of that? If anyone thinks Hume can't help this team they have not watched him play carefully. He is one of our only long shot options, his free kicks are good, he in fact does play quite well with his back to a defender if the ball is not played in the air, he passes out better to his wings and oncoming mids better than any other striker we have. He can make a cut and change direction running at a defender, something Gerba-Friend-Occean do worse. He is objectively better than any of them in many areas. He comes back to help in the midfield, he is feisty and hard-working. He's been dedicated to Canada longer than any of those guys, despite his age. But if you want to change to a 4-4-2 and put Hume in there with Occean or Friend, I like it. Play only one of Radz or DeRo, as you need a more classic holder behind Atiba and Julian, who have to have some creative freedom. By the way, having watched a few of Radz's games where supposedly he worked on defence: he does not work half as hard as DeRo does, and does not have the committment defending either. He has improved, yes, but given he is not dedicated to defending and going forwards he is less effective than ever, I see him as a useful player on the team, an intelligent player. But not an automatic starter. Let's try a 4-4-2 for St. Vicent just to get the option working. Jeffrey, Rob Friend was signed for his heading ability, something they wanted up front from a target man. And he has indeed scored that way this season. What was remarked upon in the press in Germany was although his reputation is for being great with his head, he in fact has scored most of his goals this season with his feet. One doesn't take away from the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 I'm amazed that some are still talking about Uccello as a potential member of our MNT at the moment....First, let him prove what he can do with the U-23's and we'll work from there. No way a 5th division guy in Italy is what we need right now. Hume, Radz, Friend, Occean and Gerba are all playing at higher levels right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronto MB Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 To all the Radz nay-sayers, I pose to you the you the same question that I posed to Ben: Who replaces Radz on the right wing? Potentially Hume could do so in a 4-5-1, but while Hume does have an accurate cross, it does not really suit him out wide as he is far too dangerous in front of goal to be playing the wing. And I certainly would not want Hume on the wing in a 4-4-2 as in that case he should be playing as the dropped-back striker. So that leaves us with Nakijima-Farran, and who else? Let's think realistically here, Radz may not be the perfect solution, but he offers a lot of skill and pace going forward. If Mitchell has an issue with the way he participates in the marking and his play in midfield than he should have that discussion with him. And Uccello as a striker for the MNT team? Really? Seriously? I strongly disagree. Does he deserve a shot at the U23 level? Maybe, but that is by no means a guarantee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. If anyone thinks Hume can't help this team they have not watched him play carefully. He is one of our only long shot options, his free kicks are good, he in fact does play quite well with his back to a defender if the ball is not played in the air, he passes out better to his wings and oncoming mids better than any other striker we have. He can make a cut and change direction running at a defender, something Gerba-Friend-Occean do worse. He is objectively better than any of them in many areas. He comes back to help in the midfield, he is feisty and hard-working. He's been dedicated to Canada longer than any of those guys, despite his age. In the game against SA, I thought that was one of the problem with Hume. He often came back to help the midfield...Of course, that was very nice from him but in a 4-5-1 when your only striker find himself between your defense and the midfield it will cause you some problems once you get the ball back and you have no option up front. I have no problem with him doing that in a 4-4-2 but I think we need a real target man in a 4-5-1. I also like the idea of Hume on the side in the 4-5-1 but I think so far he's a back up to Radz and DeRo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 quote:Originally posted by loyola In the game against SA, I thought that was one of the problem with Hume. He often came back to help the midfield...Of course, that was very nice from him but in a 4-5-1 when your only striker find himself between your defense and the midfield it will cause you some problems once you get the ball back and you have no option up front. But when he does that it's up to the midfielders to make the runs up front in his stead to give him options. They weren't doing that, with Atiba & Simpson the biggest culprits in that regard. To be fair to Josh, he was playing a 4-3-3 (or 4-5-1) as though he was in a 4-4-2, because that is what he is used to (and it's been a while since he had played that style with Canada, over a year). It takes some time to adjust when you aren't used to the system, which is one of the reasons we looked more out of sync than usual against South Africa (though under the circumstances I don't see how it could be avoided for this friendly, unless we change Canada's system that works so well in Concacaf for the sake of a friendly against an African team, which doesn't make sense). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 quote:Originally posted by loyola In the game against SA, I thought that was one of the problem with Hume. He often came back to help the midfield...Of course, that was very nice from him but in a 4-5-1 when your only striker find himself between your defense and the midfield it will cause you some problems once you get the ball back and you have no option up front. But when he does that it's up to the midfielders to make the runs up front in his stead to give him options. They weren't doing that, with Atiba & Simpson the biggest culprits in that regard. To be fair to Josh, he was playing a 4-3-3 (or 4-5-1) as though he was in a 4-4-2, because that is what he is used to (and it's been a while since he had played that style with Canada, over a year). It takes some time to adjust when you aren't used to the system, which is one of the reasons we looked more out of sync than usual against South Africa (though under the circumstances I don't see how it could be avoided for this friendly, unless we change Canada's system that works so well in Concacaf for the sake of a friendly against an African team, which doesn't make sense). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.