Herdman new head coach

[Obinna]

I very much dislike that Herdman picks his starting line-ups well in advance.

I'm sure you heard him say it was his plan from the beginning to rotate heavily for the away fixture. 

I appreciate what he is trying to do, but this approach makes me very nervous because things change. Circumstances change.

Cuba got blasted by us in the home match. In the away match they parked the bus. Do they still park the bus if we only dropped 2 or 3 on them at home? Probably not. Was the team set up to break down a compact Cuba away from home? No. 

Could it have been? Yes.

In my humble opinion, Herdman should leave room for more flexibility. If not for Davies goal out of nothing, we drop points yesterday...

This is strike 2 for me. Strike 1 was his approach to Mexico. The same issue. It is the "tournament planner"in him.

Overall I am very happy with Herdman, but this is one of the few concerns I have.

 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Obinna

[SthMelbRed]

2 hours ago, Obinna said:

I very much dislike that Herdman picks his starting line-ups well in advance.

I'm sure you heard him say it was his plan from the beginning to rotate heavily for the away fixture. 

I appreciate what he is trying to do, but this approach makes me very nervous because things change. Circumstances change.

Cuba got blasted by us in the home match. In the away match they parked the bus. Do they still park the bus if we only dropped 2 or 3 on them at home? Probably not. Was the team set up to break down a compact Cuba away from home? No. 

Could it have been? Yes.

In my humble opinion, Herdman should leave room for more flexibility. If not for Davies goal out of nothing, we drop points yesterday...

This is strike 2 for me. Strike 1 was his approach to Mexico. The same issue. It is the "tournament planner"in him.

Overall I am very happy with Herdman, but this is one of the few concerns I have.

 

Davies scored pretty early in the match. At that point, with Cuba packing many men behind the ball at all times, we were able to revert to a risk-averse approach to the match, even before Henry's red card. I'm not convinced that we couldn't have moved up a gear, or two, had the match remained scoreless deeper into the game.

[Obinna]

1 hour ago, SthMelbRed said:

Davies scored pretty early in the match. At that point, with Cuba packing many men behind the ball at all times, we were able to revert to a risk-averse approach to the match, even before Henry's red card. I'm not convinced that we couldn't have moved up a gear, or two, had the match remained scoreless deeper into the game.

I dunno. We managed the game well, especially when we went down to 10, but we didn't have the personnel out there to break them down. That's how I saw it anyways...

[Bison44]

But if no red, I think he would have brought on Akindele, maybe cordova and they would have been hungry to show what they could do, and it it would have endde up 2-0 or 3-0 and nobody would be saying anything.  The red put us on the back foot, but herdman and co managed it well from there and got points.  Strangely enough I was going to give Herdman a plus for this one as we could have folded like the Haiti game and they didnt.  

[Obinna]

9 hours ago, Bison44 said:

But if no red, I think he would have brought on Akindele, maybe cordova and they would have been hungry to show what they could do, and it it would have endde up 2-0 or 3-0 and nobody would be saying anything.  The red put us on the back foot, but herdman and co managed it well from there and got points.  Strangely enough I was going to give Herdman a plus for this one as we could have folded like the Haiti game and they didnt.  

Yes, kudos for how Herdman managed this one. He learned from the Haiti match, as did the team. They did not let anxiety get the best of them. This is good.

What is not good is making 5 changes to the team ahead of this one. We never had the same rhythm, surprise? Of course we were going to struggle generating chances.

I understand we lost Hoilett, but maybe starting Osorio over Wotherspoon at minimum would have opened them up some more and/or playing David as the 9 and starting Millar (or even Tesho) on the wing.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Obinna

[Stryker911]

I was never a big fan of Herdman, but people need to get over that we didnt win by enough. If before both games we knew we would get 6 points, 2 clean sheets, and a +7 goal difference not too many people would complain. Would everyone be happier if we had won 4-0 and 3-0? The US basketball team, albeit their G/H? team isn't even goin to medal at the World Cup. Just because you are better on paper you will not dominate every game at international level.

[Obinna]

30 minutes ago, Stryker911 said:

I was never a big fan of Herdman, but people need to get over that we didnt win by enough. If before both games we knew we would get 6 points, 2 clean sheets, and a +7 goal difference not too many people would complain. Would everyone be happier if we had won 4-0 and 3-0? The US basketball team, albeit their G/H? team isn't even goin to medal at the World Cup. Just because you are better on paper you will not dominate every game at international level.

I don't see anyone complaining we never won by enough, but I haven't read through the entirety of these threads.

I wish we had won by more, I am sure you do too, but in the grand scheme of things we walk away with full points and +7 GD, which is mission accomplished.

As fans, we always want a little more, don't we? That shouldn't be interpreted as not getting over the 1-0 scoreline. Or complaining about not enough goals.

I am venting my concerns about his line up choices though. That's what I am doing here. Just pointing out that we could have perhaps gotten more had Herdman not made the changes he had. Plus these changes were premeditated, if not predetermined. That's the crux of the matter for me.

We did the job this time, but I am afraid this strategy will bite us in the backside eventually

Edited September 12, 2019 by Obinna

[Kent]

54 minutes ago, Obinna said:

I don't see anyone complaining we never won by enough, but I haven't read through the entirety of these threads.

I wish we had won by more, I am sure you do too, but in the grand scheme of things we walk away with full points and +7 GD, which is mission accomplished.

As fans, we always want a little more, don't we? That shouldn't be interpreted as not getting over the 1-0 scoreline. Or complaining about not enough goals.

I am venting my concerns about his line up choices though. That's what I am doing here. Just pointing out that we could have perhaps gotten more had Herdman not made the changes he had. Plus these changes were premeditated, if not predetermined. That's the crux of the matter for me.

We did the job this time, but I am afraid this strategy will bite us in the backside eventually

I'm not understanding how the last bold part isn't contradicting the earlier bold parts.

As for the premeditated lineup, I haven't listened to post match interviews or whatever you must have heard, but I just want to point out that just because you have a Plan A doesn't mean you don't also have a Plan B if things don't go the way you would like.

[costarg]

13 hours ago, SthMelbRed said:

Davies scored pretty early in the match. At that point, with Cuba packing many men behind the ball at all times, we were able to revert to a risk-averse approach to the match, even before Henry's red card. I'm not convinced that we couldn't have moved up a gear, or two, had the match remained scoreless deeper into the game.

Having Johnson, Wotherspoon and Larin in there also didn't help with out attacking either.

[Obinna]

55 minutes ago, Kent said:

I'm not understanding how the last bold part isn't contradicting the earlier bold parts.

As for the premeditated lineup, I haven't listened to post match interviews or whatever you must have heard, but I just want to point out that just because you have a Plan A doesn't mean you don't also have a Plan B if things don't go the way you would like.

Very true.

I was actually presently surprised with Herdman's in-game management, once we went to 10 men. Even before, he pulled the plug early on Wotherspoon, brought on Osorio, which was the right call.

Then, Johnson slotted into RB, Layrea pushed up, Larin came off and Cornelius came on. Good on Herdman for recognizing the versatility of Johnson/Layrea. We established a healthy balance with Cornelius.

Finally, bringing on Millar for Davies is as close to a like-for-like as we have. Millar provided the same pace and athleticism.

[Obinna]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

I'm not understanding how the last bold part isn't contradicting the earlier bold parts.

As for the premeditated lineup, I haven't listened to post match interviews or whatever you must have heard, but I just want to point out that just because you have a Plan A doesn't mean you don't also have a Plan B if things don't go the way you would like.

Perhaps it is just a difference in semantics.

Others may see it as a complaint over the scoreline, but I don't feel I am complaining. Just pointing out that we could have gotten more had Herdman set us up differently (in my humble opinion, of course). A win is a win.

I am though complaining, very much, about our approach to this one. Not about the scoreline per se, but about the approach, if that makes sense...

Again, I fully appreciate that we got the result. I fully appreciate that Herdman wants to give patient players a chance. I am even happy some players got their chance, but I personally think it was too much change.

If you're going to radically change the front 6 and start Larin, Wotherspoon and Johnson, your going to lose the attacking rhythm from the prior game. Was Herdman fine with that? Maybe, I don't know. But perhaps this would have balanced his objectives better:

Davies------David----- Millar

Osorio-----Johnson----Kaye

- David is not isolated

- Millar can use his pace and 1v1 ability and is rewarded for being patient.

- Johnson is rewarded for being patient.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Obinna

[El Hombre]

2 hours ago, Stryker911 said:

I was never a big fan of Herdman, but people need to get over that we didnt win by enough. If before both games we knew we would get 6 points, 2 clean sheets, and a +7 goal difference not too many people would complain. Would everyone be happier if we had won 4-0 and 3-0? The US basketball team, albeit their G/H? team isn't even goin to medal at the World Cup. Just because you are better on paper you will not dominate every game at international level.

There were four home and away series last week in Nations League Group A.

Only one team came away with six points.

[Unnamed Trialist]

2 hours ago, Stryker911 said:

I was never a big fan of Herdman, but people need to get over that we didnt win by enough. If before both games we knew we would get 6 points, 2 clean sheets, and a +7 goal difference not too many people would complain. Would everyone be happier if we had won 4-0 and 3-0? The US basketball team, albeit their G/H? team isn't even goin to medal at the World Cup. Just because you are better on paper you will not dominate every game at international level.

Point taken, but that US team was not the best on paper: Serbia, who beat them today, probably was.

I say that was the USA A-team, because it was the top players they could select. Every other nation has players who do not show up, don't see why that should not count as well. For my money, all of the US basketball system failed, including and especially the players who did not go. Same goes for Canada, which is the most flagrant case of all, and the biggest screw up of the entire tournament. Then other teams, like Spain, are missing key players (Mirotic, Ibaka) and made semis. France is missing at least two key players, Heurtel and Moerman, made semis. Australia, also in semis, without Simmons and Bolden (who had some late personal problems). Only the Argentines are unconditional, which also seems to reflect their committed soccer culture.

PS. So happy the US was knocked out, and then again, and is now playing for 7th place. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

Back to the topic. If we can win our series vs. the US we top our group.

If we match them, and they do not get the results we did vs. Cuba, also. That is a good place to be in I would say.

Because we play them at home just after their first Cuba match, more rested than they are and likely with them resting players vs. Cuba to prep for us; and then the same in November, us at home and then away to Cuba, their scheduling  is not overly conducive to running up the score vs. Cuba or having it easy against us.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Unnamed Trialist

[Unnamed Trialist]

I was just editing my previous post (one word error) and thinking, does anyone else ever want to do this: after you get a few likes change your post into something obviously stupid and totally brainless, the opposite of what you first said?

Since you can keep the likes you already have, you make everyone liking you look ridiculous and confuse those who come to read  your post later on. 

Now no one is going to like anything I post in case I change it into a defense of child-snatching or something like that.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Unnamed Trialist

[Bison44]

30 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I was just editing my previous post (one word error) and thinking, does anyone else ever want to do this: after you get a few likes change your post into something obviously stupid and totally brainless, the opposite of what you first said?

Since you can keep the likes you already have, you make everyone liking you look ridiculous and confuse those who come to read  your post later on. 

Now no one is going to like anything I post in case I change it into a defense of child-snatching or something like that.

I think maybe Mr Parrot does that.  Except he does it too quick and I never get to see the original post, I only see the changed version.  

[Unnamed Trialist]

Just now, Bison44 said:

I think maybe Mr Parrot does that.  Except he does it too quick and I never get to see the original post, I only see the changed version.  

I have him blocked but I do occasionally look at his posts, as he does often just post links. 

I am much happier having blocked a few people and I am sure other posters feel the same about me.

[shermanator]

"Hate me cause they ain't me"

- John Herdman, probably.

Edited October 16, 2019 by shermanator

[Norrin Radd]

His reputation as a motivator was on display tonight. The best game in the Canadian Kit for a number of players. The work rate was phenomenal and they really look like they believe in themselves.

[Kadenge]

Take a bow John Herdman. You earned it today

[dyslexic nam]

The crazy thing - and I am probably stretching it a bit - but that brutal GC loss against Haiti may have been a massive and timely lesson for the boys and for Herdman.  Still painful, but it could be the kind of harsh lesson that ultimately makes us a better team.  

[SthMelbRed]

10 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

The crazy thing - and I am probably stretching it a bit - but that brutal GC loss against Haiti may have been a massive and timely lesson for the boys and for Herdman.  Still painful, but it could be the kind of harsh lesson that ultimately makes us a better team.  

What? Are you suggesting that people can make mistakes, take stock of those mistakes, learn from the experience, and move forward as a stronger version of themselves? Even the ones who occasionally say cringe-worthy things? Crazy!

[narduch]

I was wrong....

[SirBobsaget]

I ranted about him being a snake oil salesman always talking but never delivering the goods. Well tonight he had the team play with incredible intensity and passion. I have never seen anything like that. He's learned and adapted from the Haiti loss and so have the players. Kudos to Herdman he managed perfectly.

[Shortdutchcanuck]

'Blood, guts, and thunder,' he said.  He wasn't lying.