Herdman new head coach

[gator]

I was impressed with most of our WCQ campaign, losing 2 out of 3 in the last window dropped us to pot 4 and in hindsight the "group of death", his mistakes vs Haiti in the Gold Cup cost us big in Fifa points and if not for a revamped Octo we would have been on the outside looking in for the Hex! I don't think Herdman should be automatically given the keys for 26, there are some concerns after this WC but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I think the CSA is going to stick with him regardless of what happens!

[The Beaver 2.0]

2 hours ago, Bigandy said:

He could have very well identified that we were getting killed in the middle but his hands were tied. Staq and hutch couldnt go 90 and he rode them as hard as he could. Imagine Oso, MAK and Kone vs croatias midfield. That would for sure be a massacre. At least with playing 3-4-3 we get another attacking player on the field who is at a higher quality than our midfield options. We can then take a risk to try and win by being aggressive up front even though we would lose the midfield battle. It clearly didnt work out, but i think its naive to think the reason we lost is because we didnt start a midfield 3 of low quality players. We lost because croatia is soooo much better than us. Would a midfield 3 have helped, probably.... but we still would have been smashed. 

Do you think its possible he could know the tactical solutions but doesnt have the players to implement it? He was able to do it against teams that are equal or slightly better than us. Is he able to make canada tactically good enough to win a WC - Absolutely not.... neither is any other coach in the world if they had the time, money and resources that the CSA/our team is given. 

We as fans had next to zero hope that our squad would make the world cup. Herdman preforms miracles in recruitment, motivation, team selection and tactics and we manage to come first in qualifying.... against all odds. However because herdman has worked wonders, some people move the goal post, expecting us to compete and beat 2 semi finalists and the #2 team in the world. Now people say hes not good enough to coach canada anymore. The changing of expectations is ludicrous and without herdman, we would not be in Qatar and our outlook on results in 26 would be bleak.


 

Not quite sure why you're stumping for him so hard. Would I have taken MAK, Kone, and Piette (or Fraser) in a midfield of three against Croatia knowing that Hutch was spent and Staq injured? Hell, yeah? What a silly question!  Let's boil down what you are saying just so we can all see how silly it really is, tactically:  Play two in the midfield, one injured, the other too slow to keep up INSTEAD of playing THREE players in the midfield who are fully fit and ready to go.  Against an opposition whom every pundit in the world knows has the best midfield at the WC?!  Come on, this isn't that difficult. What about next man up?  Sure, we might have still lost against Croatia, but three healthy players of lesser quality trump two higher quality players who can't even run.  I'm not a tactical genius, but even I can see how a healthy player is a better option than a pilon.

As for moving the goal posts, hell yeah, we've moved them. Hell, Herdman and the players moved them. Which, to be clear, was their stated goal from the outset.  They wanted to put our Men's NT on the map, to create a "New Canada", to not just accomplish a bunch of "firsts", but to really start to establish ourselves as a legit footballing program. Are you suggesting that we--fans, media, players, coaches, CSA--revert to the earlier goal posts? Are you saying that we don't really deserve to be where we are at at the moment? That it was a fluke? Of course, you don't. But here's the real shitty thing for Herdman: he may not have the chops to get us to the next level. I'm not saying he doesn't have the chops, let's be clear. I want him to stick with this team. He's clearly earned it, and I am optimistic he can still grow as a manager and tactician. He's still quite young, and there's much to learn.  But past success is not a guarantee of future success. Moses got his people to the Promised Land (Happy Channukah!) but he himself never set foot on that territory.  The program is bigger than Herdman. He knows this.  He also knows he has some learning to do, especially in the area of tactics. And, yeah, we need a deeper squad. No doubt about it. But the teams who achieve great things without amazing talent make sure they've got their tactics right.  We needed to do the same.

 

[Unnamed Trialist]

Good posts above, @The Beaver 2.0 @gator 

I agree that he helped move the goalposts. Also am very pleased that the specialised Canadian soccer press, which has grown in number and prestige and following in Canada, has also been critical. Which means we wanted to win, believe in analysing errors and learning from them, and have ambition going forward.

I get that it is complex. We can't really complain about Belgium, except for their goal, which you can't receive so close to the half and not that way, since it resembled how Japan scored against us.

Having to beat Croatia do or die in that 2nd game was a far greater task than Argentina faced their second game vs Mexico.

Croatia, yes, the midfield needed help. I honestly thought that Eustaquio went down to give us a time out and nothing more, and that we would adjust after. We didn't. If Herdman had known for sure he could not continue, he might have made a more sensible midfield adjustment then and there, m. 30 1st half. And that could have saved us. But I admit that is reaching. I don't think these mistakes are outrageous, crazy, a sign of bad coaching, but they are not good indicators that he was not up to the task. 

We need to see some strong indications of improvement going forward, in 2023.

 

[The Beaver 2.0]

Oh, and FWIW, I am not questioning Herdman's tactical acuity because we failed to win the WC or beat a bunch of top ranked sides: I am questioning his tactical acuity because of the tactics themselves. The evidence is on the pitch.

Listen, we've taken enormous strides under Herdman since he came on board with the men, and I applaud what he's done. I read a recent interview with him where he said that making this WC has advanced our program substantially, and so quickly. It will likely prove the TSN Turning Point for the Men's NT, and should be something from which our program benefits (and grows) for years to come.  Herdman is the architect of this inflexion point. He deserves full credit.

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by The Beaver 2.0

[VinceA]

For the Ancelotti hopefuls, media in Brazil are reporting they're pushing hard for him to take over the team. So uhh yeah. 

Edited December 15, 2022 by VinceA

[costarg]

21 hours ago, gator said:

I find it interesting that Argentina changed their formation to a 4 man midfield vs Croatia's obvious strength in that area, we tried to play 2 and it didn't go well, perhaps Argentina learned from us?

Argentina didn't need us for that.  Anyone that's seen Croatia play the past 6 years was saying to play with one striker and load the midfield. 

[costarg]

12 hours ago, The Pessimist said:

Herdman used motivation to get us to the World Cup. The World Cup is over for us. To keep Canada competitive in Concacaf we will now need a more tactictical approach. Let's hope Herdman is up to the task.

It's possible to do both. As critical as i've been of Herdman when i noticed he kept playing Larin/David up top in the warmups to WC and at the WC, he's still an amazing motivator and had us beating the odds in WCQ.  I'm convinced some of his staff must've suggested he play more conservatively.  I just wonder if Herdman over-rules them all or if its a democratic vote thing?  Either way, I say keep Herdman as the man manager and review the tactical side of things.

[costarg]

11 hours ago, Bigandy said:

Did you watch the qualifying journey? There was alot more to our team than just motivation. We swapped from a back 4 and 3 pretty seamlessly to cover our weakness at the back, we played mid to low blocks with counters, we high press, we had games where David didnt start (iceteca) for tactical reasons etc. 

Look at each qualifying window and you can see that herdman often tailored his game plans to the opponent for each of the 3 games.  Players talk about how much homework they did on tactics between windows because there just is not enough time in a window to work on everything.

When you look at the fact that we finished first in qualifying, theres no way that happens if we do not have any tactical approaches. 

Lets also acknowledge the difficulties in being tactical when you have such a huge gap in quality between players. Davies, staq and david obviously have a way higher IQ than the frasers, piettes, cavallinis etc. Therefore, the tactical demands can be higher for some players compared to others. We saw it vs uruguay with piette. We could never have a tactical approach of pressing vs elite competition with piette in our midfield as he doesnt read the game quick enough which results in us getting played through. 

I think its ludicrous that many are saying that herdman is not tactical just because we lost every game at the world cup. Did he make mistakes as a coach? yes! Is the tactical approach the reason we didnt win the world cup? Absolutely not! It wouldnt have mattered if we had guardiola as a coach, our squads quality, depth, form and fitness were no where good enough for us to expect to be competing. 

Where were the missing tactics in our WCQ journey that you are alluding to? Which games did we only have motivation rather than a clear tactical game plan?  

Yes, he made great decisions at WCQ, but the coaches at WCQ were nowhere near the level of what we faced at the WC.  I posted at least 10 times about the insanity required to keep playing Larin/David together up top in the pre-WC cup games.  A bunch of others on here were saying the same.  It was naive, arrogant and a little crazy if not disrespectful.  Best and only way for me to describe it is Herdman at the WC struck me as someone who may have started a bad cocaine habit after qualifying and was just disconnected with reality.  I don't know how else to explain it.  The system just went off the rails after we qualified.  So many obvious mistakes.  He made very few mistakes prior to qualifying.

[Shway]

17 minutes ago, costarg said:

Yes, he made great decisions at WCQ, but the coaches at WCQ were nowhere near the level of what we faced at the WC.  I posted at least 10 times about the insanity required to keep playing Larin/David together up top in the pre-WC cup games.  A bunch of others on here were saying the same.  It was naive, arrogant and a little crazy if not disrespectful.  Best and only way for me to describe it is Herdman at the WC struck me as someone who may have started a bad cocaine habit after qualifying and was just disconnected with reality.  I don't know how else to explain it.  The system just went off the rails after we qualified.  So many obvious mistakes.  He made very few mistakes prior to qualifying.

Accurate.

In layman’s term, he got away from what worked. We became this Concacaf giant overnight, disregarding that we won a lot of qualifying games off of the absorb and attack. ALOT. 

The two up front wasn’t as bad as the two in the middle for me. There was soooo many 🤔with the line ups.

- 2 man midfield considering Hutch just returned and barely played a 90. 
- Having Davies behind Hoilett in a WB position. considering he just came back from injury and was most likely short match fitness.

Adekugbe needed to start more than he did, he might be a hidden gem. He allows Davies to be free from defensive expectancy while offering something going forward. 

Davies is great going forward with pace, running at a back 4 that has no one behind them. Not in a WB position and has to take on 2 guys with another 4 behind them.

[Shway]

All in all, I hope we get back to what worked for us. Which was a 3511 hybrid. Until we develop or unearth some additional attacking options, we need to same some guys and have them come off the bench…because we had absolutely no sparks. 

Junior - super sub
Larin - super sub

[gator]

1 hour ago, costarg said:

Argentina didn't need us for that.  Anyone that's seen Croatia play the past 6 years was saying to play with one striker and load the midfield. 

There was a hint of sarcasm in that post!😀

[An Observer]

10 hours ago, The Beaver 2.0 said:

Just some clarity on the recent-ish spate of criticism here wrt Herdman's tactics at the WC.  I, for one, feel that Herdman got his tactics all wrong versus Croatia, and I'm not sure how such criticism can be considered unfair or unfounded. It isn't just that he got them wrong to start the game, but he never adjusted the tactics once it was amply clear we were getting killed down the middle, especially down Hutch's side.  So, yes, based on this, I feel that Herdman is not as strong tactically as we need him to be.  I think he is improving, but he still comes across as naive in places, and this part of his job remains a worry for me.  Can he improve?  Perhaps. I am optimistic, and I certainly feel he deserves to continue managing our NT. But it would be foolish of us--and the CSA, and Herdman himself--to pretend he's the finished product in this area.  I DO feel he got caught up in the hype of our excellent performance vs. Belgium, and that he let emotions (and over confidence) influence how he set us up for Croatia. We need him to be smarter, plain and simple. 

I 100% agree with this.  

[Unnamed Trialist]

If Herdman's tactical team, not sure who but De Vos, Biello, Tenllado, were calling for something different and were overruled, I think they should probably resign to go coach elsewhere already. Or ask to take one of the youth NTs.

Depends on the relationship and what Herdman wants of course, but they too might think about leveraging the WC for career moves.

[ensco]

The Herdman debate is very similar to one that rages in the halls of venture capital firms.

Does the “founder”, the inspirational leader, without whom we would not be here today, have the right skill set to take the company to glory? Or do you need a professional manager to build out on the back of early success?

For what it is worth, the answer generally is that, in start up land, for all the Mark Zuckerbergs that get the press out there, mostly, venture capital owners change out the CEO when they see signs of problems, even with the record of early success. The guys who build businesses at scale don’t believe in the “great man” theory of leadership. They believe in “horses for courses”. For what it is worth.

Edited December 15, 2022 by ensco

[Free kick]

The tactics was part of it.  But it was equally (if not more so) about the performance of one of two of the veterans who showed their age.  And showed why they're not as highly touted (at the club level) as they use to be if you look at their performance at the clubs and minutes they are getting.   

You might say that this too is on Herdman, since it was he who relied on them for big minutes.    One example:  There are, by my rough count, four goals (out of the seven conceded)  that were  preventable or stoppable by a keeper. Especially a world class keeper.     We just didn't get a good (or great) performance in goal and if we would have,  we probably wouldn't be talking about tactics (or needing a three man midfield) because we have advanced.  That's just one example.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Free kick

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

With a couple weeks on to reflect, not much has changed in my head actually.

Like a bunch of players, I believe he had a poor tournament.

That said he took those players somewhere they had never been through a lot of adversity.  He along with them need to now show it was not a one off and we need the whole program (not just a small group of players) to mature.

We need to win something in the next few years to show that has occured.  But he certainly deserves the chance to be the guy that makes that happens.  

[Bigandy]

14 hours ago, The Beaver 2.0 said:

Not quite sure why you're stumping for him so hard. Would I have taken MAK, Kone, and Piette (or Fraser) in a midfield of three against Croatia knowing that Hutch was spent and Staq injured? Hell, yeah? What a silly question!  Let's boil down what you are saying just so we can all see how silly it really is, tactically:  Play two in the midfield, one injured, the other too slow to keep up INSTEAD of playing THREE players in the midfield who are fully fit and ready to go.  Against an opposition whom every pundit in the world knows has the best midfield at the WC?!  Come on, this isn't that difficult. What about next man up?  Sure, we might have still lost against Croatia, but three healthy players of lesser quality trump two higher quality players who can't even run.  I'm not a tactical genius, but even I can see how a healthy player is a better option than a pilon.

As for moving the goal posts, hell yeah, we've moved them. Hell, Herdman and the players moved them. Which, to be clear, was their stated goal from the outset.  They wanted to put our Men's NT on the map, to create a "New Canada", to not just accomplish a bunch of "firsts", but to really start to establish ourselves as a legit footballing program. Are you suggesting that we--fans, media, players, coaches, CSA--revert to the earlier goal posts? Are you saying that we don't really deserve to be where we are at at the moment? That it was a fluke? Of course, you don't. But here's the real shitty thing for Herdman: he may not have the chops to get us to the next level. I'm not saying he doesn't have the chops, let's be clear. I want him to stick with this team. He's clearly earned it, and I am optimistic he can still grow as a manager and tactician. He's still quite young, and there's much to learn.  But past success is not a guarantee of future success. Moses got his people to the Promised Land (Happy Channukah!) but he himself never set foot on that territory.  The program is bigger than Herdman. He knows this.  He also knows he has some learning to do, especially in the area of tactics. And, yeah, we need a deeper squad. No doubt about it. But the teams who achieve great things without amazing talent make sure they've got their tactics right.  We needed to do the same.

 

I think you didn't read my post. You just completely disregarded everything i said and then implied I was advocating for 2 mids instead of 3. Thats such a lazy analysis.  I will retype what I actually said.

1. I explained that our player depth and quality is shallow. Herdman chose a different strategy than to try and win the midfield battle. I said a 3 would have helped. HOWEVER, the reason we lost is not due to a duo of staq and hutch instead of a trio of oso mak and kone. The reason we lost is because croatia is so much better. 
-I supported a trio in my initial post. 
2. I acknowledged the challenge of having a choice between getting your best 11 players on the field (which would be in a 3-4-3) or trying to match up to croatia in a 3-5-2 or 4-3-3. If we went with 3 in the middle, I dont believe we would have a chance at winning. Our attack would be weakened, and our midfield would have been strengthened. This would basically have been a risk averse strategy where we are focusing on damage limitations. If you want to make a statement about who canada is and our ability, you dont go with a damage limitation approach, you go in with guns blazing. 
-Basically I am saying that Herdman may have chosen against a 3 man midfield because he wanted a high risk/high reward strategy vs a med to high risk/ low reward strategy. 
-Doesnt the criticism of Herdman change if the teams objectives are articulated that they wanted to go out swinging rather than being pragmatic? 
3. I talked about the lack of players to play in a trio. Our team collapsed once staq got hurt. Until then, it wasnt horrible. Atiba then has to do extra running. Herdman than brings on OSO and kone on at half and we get absolutly dismantled. 3 CM and it was ugly.  id say we played better in a 2 man midfield with staq compared to a 3 man midfield in the  second half. We are not talking about a small drop off. After staq, our midfield quality drops HUGE! Why are we not talking about how this 3 man midfield didnt work? Sure we couldve started with 3 in the middle, but we got dismantled when we did adjust. 

As for moving the goal posts, you are again framing the situation a certain way as if that is the only outcome (It is not a dichotomous situation of moving goal posts forwards or backwards - Its about how often and how far forward do we push the goal posts forward). I am saying that based on the current squad, we moved the goal posts from hopefully qualifying to coming first in qualifying, with the aim that this is experience for 2026. This cycle we moved the goal posts significantly to challenging in concacaf. So with arguably a weaker squad than what we had in qualifying, why did our goal post now become to compete with 2 of the best 4 teams in the world and belguim. What realistic reason is there for us to assume we can compete at this level. Of course, as players and manager you have to say you can compete, but realistically we cant...yet. Moreover, why would we roast herdman for losing against some of the best teams on the planet. It is 100% not a tactical reason we lost. It is 100% that they are just 3 teams who are way way way way better than us.  

Next, whats so wrong with losing the midfield battle to croatia. Lets look at the goals.
1. Johnston is dragged out, miller is somehow on the right side and vitoria on the left. Atiba, miller, and vitoria do not cover the gap created by johnston leaving. This isnt a midfield issue, its an issue on our back line. Atiba can certainly do better, but if you want to blame him, its not because of a midfield duo, its because he doesnt see the runner. Our players wont magically see blind side runs and stop individual errors just because we have  a 3 man midfield. Plus, its incredibly weak from borjan
-borjan should save this and we should see this run.
2. We have johnston, davies, hutch, vitoria, miller, buchanan all within 5 meters of the ball with staq and laryea not far behind. We have an insane amount of numbers clogging the midfield at the top of our box. They still suck our back line out of positions so the striker can roll AJ and shoot. This isnt a numbers in midfield issue either, what would a 3 midfielder do to prevent this. We already have 8 of our guys in a 10 meter circle. 
-We cant have 8 guys getting beat by one pass and a player rolling his defender to score.
3. Cross comes in and both miller and buchanan do not see the far post player. A 3rd midfielder wouldnt change the fact that our players lost their man. 
-We cant have 2 players forget to mark
4. Miller cant control a ball.... clearly not an issue as a result of a 2 man midfield.  
-We cant miscontrol a ball as the last man.

None of these goals is us directly getting burned through build up play where we do not have numbers in midfield. They capitalized on individual mistakes on all 4 of them. 

Whats wrong with conceding one area of the pitch to try and win in another area. Our strength is our attackers which is arguably the weakest part of croatia (from a player perspective - not how they defend as a team). Our weakest spot is arguably CM for this game which is croatias strength. Why do we not respect the tactical choice to lean into our strengths more than our weaknesses. If theres an extremely low probability of winning either way, is it so terrible to be bold?

The criticism of a 3 man midfield is implying that it would have made a huge difference. All I am saying is that I highly doubt it makes any difference at all. Tactics help and can get you places, but you need the players who can execute those tactics and we have an extremely limited player pool. 

 

[Bigandy]

1 hour ago, Free kick said:

The tactics was part of it.  But it was equally (if not more so) about the performance of one of two of the veterans who showed their age.  And showed why they're not as highly touted (at the club level) as they use to be if you look at their performance at the clubs and minutes they are getting.   

You might say that this too is on Herdman, since it was he who relied on them for big minutes.    One example:  There are, by my rough count, four goals (out of the seven conceded)  that were  preventable or stoppable by a keeper. Especially a world class keeper.     We just didn't get a good (or great) performance in goal and if we would have,  we probably wouldn't be talking about tactics because we have advanced.  That's just one example.

I agree! 

1. Belguim goal - This is not a tactical issue. We need to be able to deal with a simple long ball....borjan can do better
2-5 croatias goals - I went through these in the above post. Most of these issues are individual errors. 
6. Morocco goal - 100% Borjan error - not a tactical issue
7. Morrocco goal 2 - Long ball similar to belguims goal. We have to be able to deal with this. Borjan again poor.

1 and 7 you could argue that we shouldnt play a high line, but i think we sacrifice more than we gain by playing a low line when we are chasing a game against morroco and clearly on top of belguim. 

Edited December 15, 2022 by Bigandy

[EJsens1]

1 hour ago, Bigandy said:

I think you didn't read my post. You just completely disregarded everything i said and then implied I was advocating for 2 mids instead of 3. Thats such a lazy analysis.  I will retype what I actually said.

1. I explained that our player depth and quality is shallow. Herdman chose a different strategy than to try and win the midfield battle. I said a 3 would have helped. HOWEVER, the reason we lost is not due to a duo of staq and hutch instead of a trio of oso mak and kone. The reason we lost is because croatia is so much better. 
-I supported a trio in my initial post. 
2. I acknowledged the challenge of having a choice between getting your best 11 players on the field (which would be in a 3-4-3) or trying to match up to croatia in a 3-5-2 or 4-3-3. If we went with 3 in the middle, I dont believe we would have a chance at winning. Our attack would be weakened, and our midfield would have been strengthened. This would basically have been a risk averse strategy where we are focusing on damage limitations. If you want to make a statement about who canada is and our ability, you dont go with a damage limitation approach, you go in with guns blazing. 
-Basically I am saying that Herdman may have chosen against a 3 man midfield because he wanted a high risk/high reward strategy vs a med to high risk/ low reward strategy. 
-Doesnt the criticism of Herdman change if the teams objectives are articulated that they wanted to go out swinging rather than being pragmatic? 
3. I talked about the lack of players to play in a trio. Our team collapsed once staq got hurt. Until then, it wasnt horrible. Atiba then has to do extra running. Herdman than brings on OSO and kone on at half and we get absolutly dismantled. 3 CM and it was ugly.  id say we played better in a 2 man midfield with staq compared to a 3 man midfield in the  second half. We are not talking about a small drop off. After staq, our midfield quality drops HUGE! Why are we not talking about how this 3 man midfield didnt work? Sure we couldve started with 3 in the middle, but we got dismantled when we did adjust. 

As for moving the goal posts, you are again framing the situation a certain way as if that is the only outcome (It is not a dichotomous situation of moving goal posts forwards or backwards - Its about how often and how far forward do we push the goal posts forward). I am saying that based on the current squad, we moved the goal posts from hopefully qualifying to coming first in qualifying, with the aim that this is experience for 2026. This cycle we moved the goal posts significantly to challenging in concacaf. So with arguably a weaker squad than what we had in qualifying, why did our goal post now become to compete with 2 of the best 4 teams in the world and belguim. What realistic reason is there for us to assume we can compete at this level. Of course, as players and manager you have to say you can compete, but realistically we cant...yet. Moreover, why would we roast herdman for losing against some of the best teams on the planet. It is 100% not a tactical reason we lost. It is 100% that they are just 3 teams who are way way way way better than us.  

Next, whats so wrong with losing the midfield battle to croatia. Lets look at the goals.
1. Johnston is dragged out, miller is somehow on the right side and vitoria on the left. Atiba, miller, and vitoria do not cover the gap created by johnston leaving. This isnt a midfield issue, its an issue on our back line. Atiba can certainly do better, but if you want to blame him, its not because of a midfield duo, its because he doesnt see the runner. Our players wont magically see blind side runs and stop individual errors just because we have  a 3 man midfield. Plus, its incredibly weak from borjan
-borjan should save this and we should see this run.
2. We have johnston, davies, hutch, vitoria, miller, buchanan all within 5 meters of the ball with staq and laryea not far behind. We have an insane amount of numbers clogging the midfield at the top of our box. They still suck our back line out of positions so the striker can roll AJ and shoot. This isnt a numbers in midfield issue either, what would a 3 midfielder do to prevent this. We already have 8 of our guys in a 10 meter circle. 
-We cant have 8 guys getting beat by one pass and a player rolling his defender to score.
3. Cross comes in and both miller and buchanan do not see the far post player. A 3rd midfielder wouldnt change the fact that our players lost their man. 
-We cant have 2 players forget to mark
4. Miller cant control a ball.... clearly not an issue as a result of a 2 man midfield.  
-We cant miscontrol a ball as the last man.

None of these goals is us directly getting burned through build up play where we do not have numbers in midfield. They capitalized on individual mistakes on all 4 of them. 

Whats wrong with conceding one area of the pitch to try and win in another area. Our strength is our attackers which is arguably the weakest part of croatia (from a player perspective - not how they defend as a team). Our weakest spot is arguably CM for this game which is croatias strength. Why do we not respect the tactical choice to lean into our strengths more than our weaknesses. If theres an extremely low probability of winning either way, is it so terrible to be bold?

The criticism of a 3 man midfield is implying that it would have made a huge difference. All I am saying is that I highly doubt it makes any difference at all. Tactics help and can get you places, but you need the players who can execute those tactics and we have an extremely limited player pool. 

 

Couple things I don’t get what you’re saying 

1) You’ve said a couple times that a 2 man midfield of Hutchinson and Eustaqiuo is superior to a 3 man unit of Kone, Kaye and Osorio. Who is saying otherwise? You keep hinting like it was one or the other. We could and should have had a 3 man unit in there against Croatia and it could have been a mixture of all those guys, which leads to my second point..

2) You acknowledge that Croatia won because they are a much better team. We can all agree on that but this is the heart of the argument on the tactics. You say our approach was proper by going guns blazing in an up tempo manner but clearly that was wrong. We tried that and it was a failure.  Isn’t it fair to say that we should have gone with a more defensive approach than what we did? We know your style didn’t work. Isn’t it plausible playing more defensively might have given a better chance to succeed? It’s not like Croatia were blowing teams off of the park. Outside of us and the game they just lost, every game they played was a tie (pk’s aside) and that includes a Belgium team we should have beaten and a Morocco team we could have gotten a result against. I still think we lose regardless, but our tactics were wrong. The result and Croatia’s other results bear that out

Edited December 15, 2022 by EJsens1

[Bigandy]

55 minutes ago, EJsens1 said:

Couple things I don’t get what you’re saying 

1) You’ve said a couple times that a 2 man midfield of Hutchinson and Eustaqiuo is superior to a 3 man unit of Kone, Kaye and Osorio. Who is saying otherwise? You keep hinting like it was one or the other. We could and should have had a 3 man unit in there against Croatia and it could have been a mixture of all those guys, which leads to my second point..

2) You acknowledge that Croatia won because they are a much better team. We can all agree on that but this is the heart of the argument on the tactics. You say our approach was proper by going guns blazing in an up tempo manner but clearly that was wrong. We tried that and it was a failure.  Isn’t it fair to say that we should have gone with a more defensive approach than what we did? We know your style didn’t work. Isn’t it plausible playing more defensively might have given a better chance to succeed? It’s not like Croatia were blowing teams off of the park. Outside of us and the game they just lost, every game they played was a tie (pk’s aside) and that includes a Belgium team we should have beaten and a Morocco team we could have gotten a result against. I still think we lose regardless, but our tactics were wrong. The result and Croatia’s other results bear that out

Good points but i'd like to clarify 
1. There is alot of complaints that we started an unfit hutch and an injured staq. I agree that we can add a kone or oso into the midfield 3. However, I was responding to the complaints about hutch and staq. I also agree that a 3 man midfield is probably the way to go, but i see the logic in going with 2. If staq and hutch were able to play normally, i think its a different conversation. 

2. I should clarify. I do not think that guns blazing was proper per se, but it is the correct choice if your goal is to make a statement about canada being able to play. Obviously it is proved that we cant play with them, but parking the bus and hoping is not going to be a statement.  Again, i fully agree that going with a midfield 3 vs croatia is what i would have done. However, I am trying to look at herdmans point of view as to why he went with 2 and I can see his logic. 

His logic ( i think): 
1. lets be brave and put on a show.... We would rather be bold and lose than be cautious and hope. We are screwed either way and no amount of tactics is going to change that. Lets go out swinging. 
2. We have 8ish- 11ish guys who are WC quality. I'd rather get those guys on the field rather than guys who we know are not WC quality. Player selection options can dictate formation. 

If you look at this logic (assuming it is what herdman was doing), you cant say he isnt tactically sound. You cant say he is tactically sound. What you can say is that, 1. He may be naive for prefering boldness to caution. 2. His hands were tied by the lack of quality in the squad. 

If my assumptions on his logic are incorrect, then its easier to criticize his tactical acumen. However, he is known to be meticulous and therefore i think he 100% has a reason for his player selection and tactics. What else would his reasons be if not the ones i outlined. Surely hes not so inept that he believes staq and hutch can outplay croatias 3. 

What do you think his logic for his choices are?

Edited December 15, 2022 by Bigandy

[jonovision]

2 hours ago, Bigandy said:

I agree! 

1. Belguim goal - This is not a tactical issue. We need to be able to deal with a simple long ball....borjan can do better
2-5 croatias goals - I went through these in the above post. Most of these issues are individual errors. 
6. Morocco goal - 100% Borjan error - not a tactical issue
7. Morrocco goal 2 - Long ball similar to belguims goal. We have to be able to deal with this. Borjan again poor.

1 and 7 you could argue that we shouldnt play a high line, but i think we sacrifice more than we gain by playing a low line when we are chasing a game against morroco and clearly on top of belguim. 

The point of tactics is to account for individual errors. You'll be hard pressed to find a goal scored at Qatar, by any team, that didn't involve an individual error by someone. 

[Bigandy]

44 minutes ago, jonovision said:

The point of tactics is to account for individual errors. You'll be hard pressed to find a goal scored at Qatar, by any team, that didn't involve an individual error by someone. 

Hollands goal vs usa is certainly an example. 

I think the point of tactics is to create a strategy to get the most out of your players and nullify the opposition. It accounts for players strengths and weaknesses. Tactics do not account for borjan passing the ball to the oppositions feet.

The definition of individual errors should be clarified as i see your point. Its hard to articulate but i think theres a very clear difference in a team having good movement to pull a player out of position and then attacking that gap - compared to someone forgetting to mark a player, miscontrolling a pass, unforced turnovers etc. One is more of a forced mistake and the other is a lapse in concentration. 

Tactics can help deal with forced mistakes. Where does our CB go when their attacker does this movement. Does he follow the runner or hold his position when the opposition is trying to force our hand. 

However, I do not see the goals conceded as poor tactical choices by herdman. I see the mistakes as occuring under any tactical set up. Borjan and millers mistakes are 100% unrelated to tactics. Then dealing with simple long balls is elementary defending, not a long ball issue.  Thats at least 4 of the 7 goals conceded. the other 3 can be debated but i still think its not a tactical mistake. Its our guys not up to the level. 

[An Observer]

8 hours ago, jonovision said:

The point of tactics is to account for individual errors. You'll be hard pressed to find a goal scored at Qatar, by any team, that didn't involve an individual error by someone. 

This is exactly right.  You take into consideration your strengths and weaknesses.  Our strength was our speed, togetherness, and attacking on the counter.  It certainly wasn’t our central midfield or defense.  So you create a strategy to cover for your mistakes there by playing a 4-5-1 like Japan did so that if their midfield plays through you or around you there is someone behind to stop the attack.  Croatia’s strength was that midfield trio and the short intricate passing that you saw in all their matches including for long periods against Argentina.  It certainly wasn’t their ability to score as they were not lethal against anyone in the tournament other than us.  

If we put men behind the ball and frustrated them by making them need to beat 2 or 3 or more of our players to score, they really didn’t have the players to do that like France or England.  And then you wait to turn the ball over and counter quickly.  We have the players to threaten anyone in the tournament on the counter.  That is our strength.  And while I agree with others analysis that we are not as strong as Morocco player for player, we have something that few teams have and that is 3 players at the top in Davies, David and Buchanan who can beat players one on one and have the speed to cause problems and finish, especially on the counter.  Would we have beaten Croatia? Probably not but these tactics would have given us the best chance.  And even a point kept us in with a shout of qualifying.  And especially after we went up 1-0 and it became painfully obvious we were out matched in the midfield, we should have taken off Larin and put on Kone and played 4-5-1.  They have to come at us and we could have taken the pressure and then hit them on the counter.

And to be clear, I am not calling for Herdman’s head.  I think he got the tactics right for the most part in World Cup qualifying (the only big mistake I thought he made there was taking off our speed up front in Edmonton against Mexico that allowed them to attack us in the last 10 minutes and almost come away with a result). Indeed, he played like I am suggesting for Croatia for the most part against the US in Hamilton. A side that is similar in many ways to Croatia in that it has a very good midfield but no real finishers.  He also got it right against Belgium.  They were old and prone to be pressed so our physicality and speed matched up well against them.  If you replayed that match 10 times with each team playing the way they did, we probably win 5, draw 3 and lose 2 so we were just a bit unlucky.  But I do think that after that performance, the occasion got to him, he panicked a bit, got carried away with his emotions, and he set up too aggressively against Croatia and never adjusted when it was clear his tactics were wrong.  Considering our budget and his record and relationship with the players, I still think he is the man for 2026.  He has also shown an ability to learn from his mistakes.  I suspect this experience was a bit humbling for him especially as he was almost being treated like a saint by the press, and so will come back better for it going forward.

Edited December 16, 2022 by An Observer

[Cheeta]

9 hours ago, jonovision said:

The point of tactics is to account for individual errors. You'll be hard pressed to find a goal scored at Qatar, by any team, that didn't involve an individual error by someone. 

To a degree of course.  A foundation to provide understanding and predictability amongst a group of players within a variety of circumstances which they can expect to encounter. 

I don't think much has changed over the years but I came up, very early on as a defender, that the art lay in being able to correctly choose the lesser evil.  Because you will be put in that position.  Where there is no right answer to what you should do, because there is no right answer, only a less wrong one.

Point being?  Plan for what you want, shit happens.  Individual quality matters.  And a lot was working against Canada this winter tourney on that "individual quality" front.  Shrug.  Don't think Herdman wasn't blind to that.  

   

[Bigandy]

11 hours ago, An Observer said:

This is exactly right.  You take into consideration your strengths and weaknesses.  Our strength was our speed, togetherness, and attacking on the counter.  It certainly wasn’t our central midfield or defense.  So you create a strategy to cover for your mistakes there by playing a 4-5-1 like Japan did so that if their midfield plays through you or around you there is someone behind to stop the attack.  Croatia’s strength was that midfield trio and the short intricate passing that you saw in all their matches including for long periods against Argentina.  It certainly wasn’t their ability to score as they were not lethal against anyone in the tournament other than us.  

If we put men behind the ball and frustrated them by making them need to beat 2 or 3 or more of our players to score, they really didn’t have the players to do that like France or England.  And then you wait to turn the ball over and counter quickly.  We have the players to threaten anyone in the tournament on the counter.  That is our strength.  And while I agree with others analysis that we are not as strong as Morocco player for player, we have something that few teams have and that is 3 players at the top in Davies, David and Buchanan who can beat players one on one and have the speed to cause problems and finish, especially on the counter.  Would we have beaten Croatia? Probably not but these tactics would have given us the best chance.  And even a point kept us in with a shout of qualifying.  And especially after we went up 1-0 and it became painfully obvious we were out matched in the midfield, we should have taken off Larin and put on Kone and played 4-5-1.  They have to come at us and we could have taken the pressure and then hit them on the counter.

And to be clear, I am not calling for Herdman’s head.  I think he got the tactics right for the most part in World Cup qualifying (the only big mistake I thought he made there was taking off our speed up front in Edmonton against Mexico that allowed them to attack us in the last 10 minutes and almost come away with a result). Indeed, he played like I am suggesting for Croatia for the most part against the US in Hamilton. A side that is similar in many ways to Croatia in that it has a very good midfield but no real finishers.  He also got it right against Belgium.  They were old and prone to be pressed so our physicality and speed matched up well against them.  If you replayed that match 10 times with each team playing the way they did, we probably win 5, draw 3 and lose 2 so we were just a bit unlucky.  But I do think that after that performance, the occasion got to him, he panicked a bit, got carried away with his emotions, and he set up too aggressively against Croatia and never adjusted when it was clear his tactics were wrong.  Considering our budget and his record and relationship with the players, I still think he is the man for 2026.  He has also shown an ability to learn from his mistakes.  I suspect this experience was a bit humbling for him especially as he was almost being treated like a saint by the press, and so will come back better for it going forward.

I 100% agree with tactics taking into account strengths and weaknesses but disagree that they made for individual errors.  For example, slow defenders should not play a high line. Being slow is a weakness, not an error (of course, a weakness may or may not increase the liklihood of an error occuring). Tactics do not take into account individual errors. It is not an error to be slow. It is an error to miscontrol a pass.  

I agree with the counter attack strategy but I dont think these teams really allowed us to do this. None of them played a high line. There simply was not space to run in behind them. You can say that if we bunkered down that maybe we could suck them upfield, but I doubt it. Surely teams with much better managers wouldnt have exposed themselves to our only real threat we have and most of these teams weakness (counterattack).

 also think its strange that we claim croatia has the best midfield in the tournament, yet claim they dont have players to break down a low block. Against a low block, you need to have fast ball circulation and passes into gaps created by movement. This is way more effective than having one player trying to dribble through many players. If the low block is done correctly, there is such low spacing that you will constantly have to beat 3+ players. 

Look at molina's goal vs the dutch. Not a single player was dribbled past. It was a clever pass from messi that broke down the dutchs low block. Other than that, the argentines didnt ever dribble through the dutch's low block. 

I don't think its fair to think a low block would have stifled croatias brilliance in midfield (a low block made of CMNT quality players, with very little experience using this tactic against top opposition, with 2 CB's who are extremely vulnerable to crosses). 

Basically, I think its wishful thinking that we can preform a low block to the standards required and that other nations would simply allow themselves to be exposed to the counter attack.