PDA

View Full Version : What we could learn from the Kiwis...


Triggerfish
24 Jun 2003, 01:18 PM
I saw pretty much all of the first round matches here in Paris (only missed the first half of Japan v NW), including all of France/NZ. There were two things that impressed me about that match, in particular. (1) France is a lot better than NZ (no duh). (2) Notwithstanding No. 1, NZ appeared to have made an intentional decision to try to play "real" soccer against les Bleus.

There were many, many, many points at which either the Kiwi keeper, or Nelsen or one of their other backline players could have just booted the ball upfield in order to relieve pressure (and hope to catch a break), but instead they tried to play the ball out of the back on the ground to the midfielders, including off of goal kicks.

You may be tempted to say that the result in itself is an indictment of those tactics, to which I would respond with a couple of observations. First, if they had player "bunker and boot" (also known as Bora-ball) they almost certainly would have lost anyway, although probably by a more respectable amount. Second, their weakness (and the reason they lost) generally was not that they couldn't get the ball out of the back on the ground, it was that the midfielders couldn't do anything with it once they got it.

While NZ may have been a little extreme in this respect (and I am sure that they knew it was not their best choice tactically), I noticed that each of the teams that I saw (NZ, Turkey, Brazil, Cameroon, France and Japan) in the first instance would attempt to play the ball out of the back even under pressure and only rarely resorted to Route 1 style play.

I don't know much about coaching techniques, but I am guessing that one of the ways that your backline guys learn to do this is to actually try to do it in game situations, even if the results aren't always pretty...

dawgpound2
24 Jun 2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Triggerfish
Second, their weakness (and the reason they lost) generally was not that they couldn't get the ball out of the back on the ground, it was that the midfielders couldn't do anything with it once they got it.



Let me have a guess. Simon Elliott played in the mid that game?!?!

QuakeAttack
24 Jun 2003, 01:37 PM
I agree to a certain extent. I looked at the Confed Cup as an opportunity to test players in a tournamnet environment and to develop an understanding on "how to play together". As far as our defense working with the midfield, the Cup was a complete failure. However, our team is not necessarily designed for this type of play (which I believe may be your point). Our outside midfielders are not possession players. They are good a quick passes and direct attacks, not a build-up. Hopefully, you can have midfielders that can do both.

In our friendly with NZ, I was impressed by their style of play. Maybe in the future, the US can support both a direct and possession (I.e. build up) style of attack! Against discipline teams, a direct style will not get consistant results...