|
aok
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xDid Moon have us playing too defensively for the first half hour? I can understand needing to lock out the quality of Macarthur's attack, but at the same time it came at the expense of control of the midfield and gave Macarthur the opportunity to dictate play. We had played in heat three days before so perhaps saving legs and protecting players. Just did not look like we could find our form for a long time into the first half and we were unsettled like we were against Victory in the first half of our first game against them. We sat back and let them play their safe possession football when a higher press might have yielded better results and helped us breakdown a very tall, strong defensive setup. For some reason we have always struggled against structured and set defensive teams (like our traditional challenge team Jets), especially when they are tall. More high balls crossed in to a set defensive line than the clever creative play we have been developing lately, and most of our promising attacks were rushed due to congestion in the box. Even with that there were plenty of good chances throughout the game that we just didn't manage to convert. On another day a couple will go in so not that bad really. This was a game where the 5 sub rule made a difference. With 3 subs Milicic could not have altered the way his team was playing so significantly. Clever use of the subs by him to play out his game plan. Pressured us early without offering much in attack then changing up to better attacking players later. Danzaki continues to shine. DWH took advantage of a great through ball and had the composure to at least hit the post - that deserved him a goal. Macca burned some energy late in the game trying to force turnovers; that was quite impressive for him late in a game. Corey was less effective than usual in my eyes. A few times long cross balls were just too far ahead of him (or he did not anticipate them in the wind), then gave the ball away cheaply a few times as well. I think I would have preferred Jesse Daley starting over Akbari this week. We needed something more in midfield and better composure playing out of the back and I think he might be able to do that better. Kudo still yet to have any significant involvement although I did see him touch the ball last night. Odd how little time he is getting with the ball at his feet. I cannot recall any other player who has subbed on like him over a few games and just not had the ball come to him. A last chance to practice breaking down defences against Jets next week then a challenging road trip of SFC, City and Glory. Going to be good to see how we go. Next game... A very good assessment of the the game last night, spot on. I may be a bit harsh, but I think bringing Jack on was an error. His defensive mistake led to the goal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keeper66
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThats pretty spot on RIMB. Yes, I think we were too defensive, like 5 at the back. Also correct we let them play their game and we did not play our usual game to pressure and break down their backs. Noticable player performance: 1. Young seems out of form since returning 2. Gillespie’s and Aldred remain consistently solid 3. Not sure why Hingert came on. The young ginger haired bloke was playing quite well. 4. Brown, well what can you say we haven’t said before. By far our weakest link. 5. DWH still has a first touch major problem. We lack a midfielder that can control the game, take it by the scruff and dictate it’s tempo. When DWH doesn’t fire or is substituted, we have negligible strike power. A good back up is required. Finally Moon. A set back for him but unlucky to lose. I thought that we lost a lot of attacking threat when DWH and Danzaki came off. Kudo hardly touched the ball and Champness did very little. Roar seemed to resort to high crosses into the box after DWH and Danzaki came off, even more so after going behind. I was amazed that they kept doing this, given the size and heading aerial ability of the Macarthur defence. It seemed to me that DWH and Danzaki offered more in terms of constructive combination play when attacking.
|
|
|
|
|
Keeper66
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xDid Moon have us playing too defensively for the first half hour? I can understand needing to lock out the quality of Macarthur's attack, but at the same time it came at the expense of control of the midfield and gave Macarthur the opportunity to dictate play. We had played in heat three days before so perhaps saving legs and protecting players. Just did not look like we could find our form for a long time into the first half and we were unsettled like we were against Victory in the first half of our first game against them. We sat back and let them play their safe possession football when a higher press might have yielded better results and helped us breakdown a very tall, strong defensive setup. For some reason we have always struggled against structured and set defensive teams (like our traditional challenge team Jets), especially when they are tall. More high balls crossed in to a set defensive line than the clever creative play we have been developing lately, and most of our promising attacks were rushed due to congestion in the box. Even with that there were plenty of good chances throughout the game that we just didn't manage to convert. On another day a couple will go in so not that bad really. This was a game where the 5 sub rule made a difference. With 3 subs Milicic could not have altered the way his team was playing so significantly. Clever use of the subs by him to play out his game plan. Pressured us early without offering much in attack then changing up to better attacking players later. Danzaki continues to shine. DWH took advantage of a great through ball and had the composure to at least hit the post - that deserved him a goal. Macca burned some energy late in the game trying to force turnovers; that was quite impressive for him late in a game. Corey was less effective than usual in my eyes. A few times long cross balls were just too far ahead of him (or he did not anticipate them in the wind), then gave the ball away cheaply a few times as well. I think I would have preferred Jesse Daley starting over Akbari this week. We needed something more in midfield and better composure playing out of the back and I think he might be able to do that better. Kudo still yet to have any significant involvement although I did see him touch the ball last night. Odd how little time he is getting with the ball at his feet. I cannot recall any other player who has subbed on like him over a few games and just not had the ball come to him. A last chance to practice breaking down defences against Jets next week then a challenging road trip of SFC, City and Glory. Going to be good to see how we go. Next game... A very good assessment of the the game last night, spot on. I may be a bit harsh, but I think bringing Jack on was an error. His defensive mistake led to the goal. Yep, I thought that Brindell-South looked good, both in defence and attack.
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThats pretty spot on RIMB. Yes, I think we were too defensive, like 5 at the back. Also correct we let them play their game and we did not play our usual game to pressure and break down their backs. Noticable player performance: 1. Young seems out of form since returning 2. Gillespie’s and Aldred remain consistently solid 3. Not sure why Hingert came on. The young ginger haired bloke was playing quite well. 4. Brown, well what can you say we haven’t said before. By far our weakest link. 5. DWH still has a first touch major problem. We lack a midfielder that can control the game, take it by the scruff and dictate it’s tempo. When DWH doesn’t fire or is substituted, we have negligible strike power. A good back up is required. Finally Moon. A set back for him but unlucky to lose. I thought that we lost a lot of attacking threat when DWH and Danzaki came off. Kudo hardly touched the ball and Champness did very little. Roar seemed to resort to high crosses into the box after DWH and Danzaki came off, even more so after going behind. I was amazed that they kept doing this, given the size and heading aerial ability of the Macarthur defence. It seemed to me that DWH and Danzaki offered more in terms of constructive combination play when attacking. What amazed me, we too often passed the ball high under turbulence conditions. Gosh we made hard for ourselves. It’s something to learn from. Quality teams play it on the deck. Danzaki is a hard worker, gets around a lot. I thought he played well given the situation. Still something missing but can’t put my finger on it (yet).
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
sirhcdobo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 666,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xDid Moon have us playing too defensively for the first half hour? I can understand needing to lock out the quality of Macarthur's attack, but at the same time it came at the expense of control of the midfield and gave Macarthur the opportunity to dictate play. We had played in heat three days before so perhaps saving legs and protecting players. Just did not look like we could find our form for a long time into the first half and we were unsettled like we were against Victory in the first half of our first game against them. We sat back and let them play their safe possession football when a higher press might have yielded better results and helped us breakdown a very tall, strong defensive setup. For some reason we have always struggled against structured and set defensive teams (like our traditional challenge team Jets), especially when they are tall. More high balls crossed in to a set defensive line than the clever creative play we have been developing lately, and most of our promising attacks were rushed due to congestion in the box. Even with that there were plenty of good chances throughout the game that we just didn't manage to convert. On another day a couple will go in so not that bad really. This was a game where the 5 sub rule made a difference. With 3 subs Milicic could not have altered the way his team was playing so significantly. Clever use of the subs by him to play out his game plan. Pressured us early without offering much in attack then changing up to better attacking players later. Danzaki continues to shine. DWH took advantage of a great through ball and had the composure to at least hit the post - that deserved him a goal. Macca burned some energy late in the game trying to force turnovers; that was quite impressive for him late in a game. Corey was less effective than usual in my eyes. A few times long cross balls were just too far ahead of him (or he did not anticipate them in the wind), then gave the ball away cheaply a few times as well. I think I would have preferred Jesse Daley starting over Akbari this week. We needed something more in midfield and better composure playing out of the back and I think he might be able to do that better. Kudo still yet to have any significant involvement although I did see him touch the ball last night. Odd how little time he is getting with the ball at his feet. I cannot recall any other player who has subbed on like him over a few games and just not had the ball come to him. A last chance to practice breaking down defences against Jets next week then a challenging road trip of SFC, City and Glory. Going to be good to see how we go. Next game... A very good assessment of the the game last night, spot on. I may be a bit harsh, but I think bringing Jack on was an error. His defensive mistake led to the goal. Although I thought Brindel South was better overall tonight compared to Hingert. that goal was not Jacks fault. he could have been a bit closer for the cross but he stopped the attacker from attacking the goal and turned him backwards giving our defence time to set themselves, but they left Genereau completely free in the centre of the box. in my mind that was Aldreds man. trewin was second defender behind Jack and rightfully wasnt marking, aldred was between 2 players and not marking either, gillesphie should have told him to push on to Genereau. Aldred was ropeable at Oshea for not picking him up but i think it was his responsibility. We have not defended well when we have a sliding defence as we are a little slow to figure out who marks who and who covers where. We have looked much better with simpler defensive responsibilities of man-to-man marking, as in the first half of the adl game, and second half of the city game. one thing is for sure neither of our right backs can cross a ball. I think Brindel south was worse than hingert at delivering the final ball.
|
|
|
|
|
aok
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xDid Moon have us playing too defensively for the first half hour? I can understand needing to lock out the quality of Macarthur's attack, but at the same time it came at the expense of control of the midfield and gave Macarthur the opportunity to dictate play. We had played in heat three days before so perhaps saving legs and protecting players. Just did not look like we could find our form for a long time into the first half and we were unsettled like we were against Victory in the first half of our first game against them. We sat back and let them play their safe possession football when a higher press might have yielded better results and helped us breakdown a very tall, strong defensive setup. For some reason we have always struggled against structured and set defensive teams (like our traditional challenge team Jets), especially when they are tall. More high balls crossed in to a set defensive line than the clever creative play we have been developing lately, and most of our promising attacks were rushed due to congestion in the box. Even with that there were plenty of good chances throughout the game that we just didn't manage to convert. On another day a couple will go in so not that bad really. This was a game where the 5 sub rule made a difference. With 3 subs Milicic could not have altered the way his team was playing so significantly. Clever use of the subs by him to play out his game plan. Pressured us early without offering much in attack then changing up to better attacking players later. Danzaki continues to shine. DWH took advantage of a great through ball and had the composure to at least hit the post - that deserved him a goal. Macca burned some energy late in the game trying to force turnovers; that was quite impressive for him late in a game. Corey was less effective than usual in my eyes. A few times long cross balls were just too far ahead of him (or he did not anticipate them in the wind), then gave the ball away cheaply a few times as well. I think I would have preferred Jesse Daley starting over Akbari this week. We needed something more in midfield and better composure playing out of the back and I think he might be able to do that better. Kudo still yet to have any significant involvement although I did see him touch the ball last night. Odd how little time he is getting with the ball at his feet. I cannot recall any other player who has subbed on like him over a few games and just not had the ball come to him. A last chance to practice breaking down defences against Jets next week then a challenging road trip of SFC, City and Glory. Going to be good to see how we go. Next game... A very good assessment of the the game last night, spot on. I may be a bit harsh, but I think bringing Jack on was an error. His defensive mistake led to the goal. Although I thought Brindel South was better overall tonight compared to Hingert. that goal was not Jacks fault. he could have been a bit closer for the cross but he stopped the attacker from attacking the goal and turned him backwards giving our defence time to set themselves, but they left Genereau completely free in the centre of the box. in my mind that was Aldreds man. trewin was second defender behind Jack and rightfully wasnt marking, aldred was between 2 players and not marking either, gillesphie should have told him to push on to Genereau. Aldred was ropeable at Oshea for not picking him up but i think it was his responsibility. We have not defended well when we have a sliding defence as we are a little slow to figure out who marks who and who covers where. We have looked much better with simpler defensive responsibilities of man-to-man marking, as in the first half of the adl game, and second half of the city game. one thing is for sure neither of our right backs can cross a ball. I think Brindel south was worse than hingert at delivering the final ball. :D:D Very true. The service from them has been very ordinary. Our defense has looked shaky at times. Hopefully Moon can shore this up.
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xDid Moon have us playing too defensively for the first half hour? I can understand needing to lock out the quality of Macarthur's attack, but at the same time it came at the expense of control of the midfield and gave Macarthur the opportunity to dictate play. We had played in heat three days before so perhaps saving legs and protecting players. Just did not look like we could find our form for a long time into the first half and we were unsettled like we were against Victory in the first half of our first game against them. We sat back and let them play their safe possession football when a higher press might have yielded better results and helped us breakdown a very tall, strong defensive setup. For some reason we have always struggled against structured and set defensive teams (like our traditional challenge team Jets), especially when they are tall. More high balls crossed in to a set defensive line than the clever creative play we have been developing lately, and most of our promising attacks were rushed due to congestion in the box. Even with that there were plenty of good chances throughout the game that we just didn't manage to convert. On another day a couple will go in so not that bad really. This was a game where the 5 sub rule made a difference. With 3 subs Milicic could not have altered the way his team was playing so significantly. Clever use of the subs by him to play out his game plan. Pressured us early without offering much in attack then changing up to better attacking players later. Danzaki continues to shine. DWH took advantage of a great through ball and had the composure to at least hit the post - that deserved him a goal. Macca burned some energy late in the game trying to force turnovers; that was quite impressive for him late in a game. Corey was less effective than usual in my eyes. A few times long cross balls were just too far ahead of him (or he did not anticipate them in the wind), then gave the ball away cheaply a few times as well. I think I would have preferred Jesse Daley starting over Akbari this week. We needed something more in midfield and better composure playing out of the back and I think he might be able to do that better. Kudo still yet to have any significant involvement although I did see him touch the ball last night. Odd how little time he is getting with the ball at his feet. I cannot recall any other player who has subbed on like him over a few games and just not had the ball come to him. A last chance to practice breaking down defences against Jets next week then a challenging road trip of SFC, City and Glory. Going to be good to see how we go. Next game... A very good assessment of the the game last night, spot on. I may be a bit harsh, but I think bringing Jack on was an error. His defensive mistake led to the goal. Although I thought Brindel South was better overall tonight compared to Hingert. that goal was not Jacks fault. he could have been a bit closer for the cross but he stopped the attacker from attacking the goal and turned him backwards giving our defence time to set themselves, but they left Genereau completely free in the centre of the box. in my mind that was Aldreds man. trewin was second defender behind Jack and rightfully wasnt marking, aldred was between 2 players and not marking either, gillesphie should have told him to push on to Genereau. Aldred was ropeable at Oshea for not picking him up but i think it was his responsibility. We have not defended well when we have a sliding defence as we are a little slow to figure out who marks who and who covers where. We have looked much better with simpler defensive responsibilities of man-to-man marking, as in the first half of the adl game, and second half of the city game. one thing is for sure neither of our right backs can cross a ball. I think Brindel south was worse than hingert at delivering the final ball. Interesting you see Hingert as a better crosser, really? Agree Brindel South played better. He has even more potential to improve given his age whilst Hingerts performances are in decline. Experience is s the only thing Hingert is ahead in. It’s a good time this season to expose these younger players. Next season we can fine tune the team with the addition of a class act or two.
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
sirhcdobo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 666,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xDid Moon have us playing too defensively for the first half hour? I can understand needing to lock out the quality of Macarthur's attack, but at the same time it came at the expense of control of the midfield and gave Macarthur the opportunity to dictate play. We had played in heat three days before so perhaps saving legs and protecting players. Just did not look like we could find our form for a long time into the first half and we were unsettled like we were against Victory in the first half of our first game against them. We sat back and let them play their safe possession football when a higher press might have yielded better results and helped us breakdown a very tall, strong defensive setup. For some reason we have always struggled against structured and set defensive teams (like our traditional challenge team Jets), especially when they are tall. More high balls crossed in to a set defensive line than the clever creative play we have been developing lately, and most of our promising attacks were rushed due to congestion in the box. Even with that there were plenty of good chances throughout the game that we just didn't manage to convert. On another day a couple will go in so not that bad really. This was a game where the 5 sub rule made a difference. With 3 subs Milicic could not have altered the way his team was playing so significantly. Clever use of the subs by him to play out his game plan. Pressured us early without offering much in attack then changing up to better attacking players later. Danzaki continues to shine. DWH took advantage of a great through ball and had the composure to at least hit the post - that deserved him a goal. Macca burned some energy late in the game trying to force turnovers; that was quite impressive for him late in a game. Corey was less effective than usual in my eyes. A few times long cross balls were just too far ahead of him (or he did not anticipate them in the wind), then gave the ball away cheaply a few times as well. I think I would have preferred Jesse Daley starting over Akbari this week. We needed something more in midfield and better composure playing out of the back and I think he might be able to do that better. Kudo still yet to have any significant involvement although I did see him touch the ball last night. Odd how little time he is getting with the ball at his feet. I cannot recall any other player who has subbed on like him over a few games and just not had the ball come to him. A last chance to practice breaking down defences against Jets next week then a challenging road trip of SFC, City and Glory. Going to be good to see how we go. Next game... A very good assessment of the the game last night, spot on. I may be a bit harsh, but I think bringing Jack on was an error. His defensive mistake led to the goal. Although I thought Brindel South was better overall tonight compared to Hingert. that goal was not Jacks fault. he could have been a bit closer for the cross but he stopped the attacker from attacking the goal and turned him backwards giving our defence time to set themselves, but they left Genereau completely free in the centre of the box. in my mind that was Aldreds man. trewin was second defender behind Jack and rightfully wasnt marking, aldred was between 2 players and not marking either, gillesphie should have told him to push on to Genereau. Aldred was ropeable at Oshea for not picking him up but i think it was his responsibility. We have not defended well when we have a sliding defence as we are a little slow to figure out who marks who and who covers where. We have looked much better with simpler defensive responsibilities of man-to-man marking, as in the first half of the adl game, and second half of the city game. one thing is for sure neither of our right backs can cross a ball. I think Brindel south was worse than hingert at delivering the final ball. Interesting you see Hingert as a better crosser, really? Agree Brindel South played better. He has even more potential to improve given his age whilst Hingerts performances are in decline. Experience is s the only thing Hingert is ahead in. It’s a good time this season to expose these younger players. Next season we can fine tune the team with the addition of a class act or two. brindel south is 28 he is not a young player might as well say it is great giving the youngster corey brown so much game time as corey is a year younger
|
|
|
|
|
sirhcdobo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 666,
Visits: 0
|
the only real youngsters we had out there is trewin (19) and akbari (20). Champness, DWH and Daley are 23 so really are not that young anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xthe only real youngsters we had out there is trewin (19) and akbari (20). Champness, DWH and Daley are 23 so really are not that young anymore. Yeah, Trewin is young and a great find. Didn't realize Brindel South was that age. Only seen him play twice. Looks so young. Good player IMO and is the choice RB. Needs more A League experience irrespective.
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
crimsoncrusoe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.9K,
Visits: 0
|
The short turnaround after a hot afternoon took the edge off Roar and was the difference between DWH scoring and hitting the post.
Its still early days and plenty of time for teams like Bulls to build momentum.
Roar will get a real test over the next four weeks .No MV or AU games.
Same for CCM when they play away games.
I just hope that pestulant SFC dont end up on top.😀
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Where is Waz? I’m concerned after that loss.
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWhere is Waz? I’m concerned after that loss. still in therapy :)
Love Football
|
|
|
|
|
Roar in me Blood
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
I would not be concerned about Waz - from memory he picked the result and hard lessons we were likely to learn. Probably just does not want to appear too smug so is concentrating on the rest of his life ;)
When I wear their colours, I am the club.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI would not be concerned about Waz - from memory he picked the result and hard lessons we were likely to learn. Probably just does not want to appear too smug so is concentrating on the rest of his life ;) Exactly. Called the result just not the score line.
Im now coaching Academy twice a week and have the first preseason game on Saturday vs Samford.
From this game Hingert showed his liability - two defeats with winning goals coming from a Hingert mistake. Brown not far behind.
(We get our Indian loaner back next month which takes Hingert out and likely Trewin will pop to the left side taking Brown out, so problem solved)
Overall I thought it was a good game between two good sides. Moon probably got his bench wrong but who knows?
Worryingly the new Japanese strikers looks a dud.
Other than that the next four games will likely bring 2 wins, a draw, and a defeat ... 16 points after 10 games puts us on track for a 3/4 finish, which is what most of us expected but playing good football again. A lot to like about Roar and Moon will have them getting better week to week.
|
|
|
|
|
Jimo8
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 927,
Visits: 11
|
Strikes me that the new Japanese striker with some decent history hasn't had much time so must be a problem.
Guessing its fitness, but anyone else with a guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xStrikes me that the new Japanese striker with some decent history hasn't had much time so must be a problem. Guessing its fitness, but anyone else with a guess. Fitness, confidence, ability to understand/play in the Roar system?
Could be many things but with three games in 8 days he could have started yesterday just to give one of the forwards a rest who could then have come on at half time fresh.
Mind you, if your game plan is to knock high balls in to the box against two of the tallest CB’s in the Comp I don’t think it mattered who you had on the pitch - flawed tactics!
|
|
|
|
|
Mello-D
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 705,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xStrikes me that the new Japanese striker with some decent history hasn't had much time so must be a problem. Guessing its fitness, but anyone else with a guess. Fitness, confidence, ability to understand/play in the Roar system?
Could be many things but with three games in 8 days he could have started yesterday just to give one of the forwards a rest who could then have come on at half time fresh.
Mind you, if your game plan is to knock high balls in to the box against two of the tallest CB’s in the Comp I don’t think it mattered who you had on the pitch - flawed tactics! Yeah, tactics seemed off to me. DWH seemed very isolated, and against Boogard and Topor, he was rarely going to win. I was expecting Moon to make a big tactical shift soon after half time as things really didn't seem to be working. And to only make one sub? Very interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
AnthonyC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 611,
Visits: 0
|
2 reasons. 1st your inability to deal with half decent defences and 2ndly NJ are not the team you played earlier, they're more cohesive.
|
|
|
|
|
aok
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
We looked disjointed in the opening half, reminiscent of last game. I hope this isn't a trend that will continue. We really need to bury our chances. A point is still a point.
|
|
|
|
|
Roar in me Blood
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
We have always had trouble breaking down Newcastle with Boogard and Topor-Stanley. They have been our biggest bogey team for as many seasons as I can remember. You can tell a long term Roar fan by saying Griffiths and watching for a shiver to go up their spine. This result was not great for us, and we struggled to gain any control in the game for long periods of time - but we got a point out of the game and we were coming home pretty strong from 70 minutes or so. As one of us said in the match thread - it is not as though we did not have any chances and they needed Duncan to be sharp in goals to keep us out. Macca had an off game I thought. Not as constructive or crafty as he has been and not as clinical passing or shooting. Certainly not a waste of space though. O'Shea looked to be setting up shop more at the base of defence this game so we missed a bit if his drive out wide and at the front. Katroumbis running up the middle was left alone for a ridiculous amount of time when he made that scary run. More work needed on our central spine defensively please Mr Moon. As Waz pointed out, putting the high ball to Boogard and Topor-Stanley with a little DWH trying to win over them is bloody stupid and something we have done a few times now against tall, strong defenders. We are so much better across the turf with the ball at our feet yet we bomb it in. Used to do that with Henrique too so we don't learn. Would be great to know how much of our playing style was deliberate and how much Newcastle forced us to play. We have seemed to be playing very defensively for the first half hour or so of a few games this season and are not the only club to be doing that. We are not then accelerating away once we get through the first period though. Have not done a high press against Jets and Macarthur which slowed the game down and allowed them more control over the state of play than I personally like to see. Managing bodies? Avoiding attack at the expense of solid defence? It is a 90+ minute game so silly to go all out from the start if we don't have the physical resources to last a game or multiple games. Injuries have hurt a few clubs but maybe Moon and the club are marshalling our players well enough to develop their fitness without crippling them. Jets were unlucky not to have more points from their earlier games. It is not as though they were crap last time; just didn't capitalise on their chances much the same as we are missing ours at the moment. Either of our teams could have taken points in the two games against them this season but I would say we had the better of both games overall. The lack of subs makes some sense to me in that we do not have a set first team yet (thought yesterday's team looked about as good a line up as we can have for now) so the longer players can be on the pitch the sooner they can build the confidence in each other that we need. Not a lot of times where our players were doing different things so we are coming together well. Wayward passing was an unusual sight - maybe Dolphin has one very big disadvantage with the swirling wind and strong unpredictable gusts. Games on the road will show us if that is an unexpected challenge we face with our home games. When we have the ball, Kudo holds a very high, central position from the few minutes we have seen of him. Our playing style is more wide and crossing than feeding a central forward (noting that a well executed through ball to DWH is always an option). Not sure how he is going to fit in, but would like to see him get some decent game time so we can at least form a real opinion. I am looking forward to the SFC game. Moon will have a chance to plan and execute against a known entity with structure, speed and skill. Our team will be primed for a big challenge and maybe we will lift again like we tend to against them. A game to look forward to!
When I wear their colours, I am the club.
|
|
|
|
|
sirhcdobo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 666,
Visits: 0
|
the 5 at the back really is not working against teams that play a 4-3-3. at times last night there were 3 defenders not doing anything while the midfield 2 tried to contain 3-5 opposition players running through and DWH often was trying to close down 4 by himself. it was the wrong tactics again. After a very bright start for moon, switching up formations on the fly to bring about change on the field the last 2 games he has stuck with the same formations even when it was clear they were not working.
2 very poor performances.
|
|
|
|
|
Roar in me Blood
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Just read the article on Kudo on main page.. Moon said Kudo, who has featured for a total of just 25 minutes across three substitute appearances during his time at the Roar, is still developing his fitness following the completion of his hotel quarantine at the end of December. Difficult one with Masato. We desperately want to get him involved. He's not quite ready," Moon said
Fair enough.
When I wear their colours, I am the club.
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
I’ve seen enough of the season to balance Roars performances out and I have to say with a few exceptions we are short in quality across the park. In no way are we serious title contenders.
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
Roar in me Blood
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI’ve seen enough of the season to balance Roars performances out and I have to say with a few exceptions we are short in quality across the park. In no way are we serious title contenders. I rate Neville and hope he returns into the starting squad (not that Trewin has done a bad job). His experience helps create a backline we don't have to worry about. Kudo is an impossible one for us to gauge yet - but let's say he works out as a genuine quality forward - that's the difference between winning and not winning in the games we have dropped points on this season. We do not have the flash and drive of a number of clubs at the moment, but while it is easy to see the quality in attack of others teams we have to keep in mind the less flashy, mostly solid defensiveness of our team to offset what other teams do have. I know you are talking about performance rather than simply results in your assessment - but we are not losing games by a large margin. We could be serious title contenders if we can keep playing the style of play we are now but convert a couple of chances that we should be scoring. Does not make us the strongest in every position across the park, or in games like Jets and Bulls the most entertaining to watch, but we can be serious title contenders for all that without much more than the composure to finish what we are still creating. Room for improvement - definitely. Serious top four team possible - definitely. Learn a lot from our next game - shit yeah.
When I wear their colours, I am the club.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xthe 5 at the back really is not working against teams that play a 4-3-3. at times last night there were 3 defenders not doing anything while the midfield 2 tried to contain 3-5 opposition players running through and DWH often was trying to close down 4 by himself. it was the wrong tactics again. After a very bright start for moon, switching up formations on the fly to bring about change on the field the last 2 games he has stuck with the same formations even when it was clear they were not working. 2 very poor performances. Jets played 5-4-1
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI’ve seen enough of the season to balance Roars performances out and I have to say with a few exceptions we are short in quality across the park. In no way are we serious title contenders. I rate Neville and hope he returns into the starting squad (not that Trewin has done a bad job). His experience helps create a backline we don't have to worry about. Kudo is an impossible one for us to gauge yet - but let's say he works out as a genuine quality forward - that's the difference between winning and not winning in the games we have dropped points on this season. We do not have the flash and drive of a number of clubs at the moment, but while it is easy to see the quality in attack of others teams we have to keep in mind the less flashy, mostly solid defensiveness of our team to offset what other teams do have. I know you are talking about performance rather than simply results in your assessment - but we are not losing games by a large margin. We could be serious title contenders if we can keep playing the style of play we are now but convert a couple of chances that we should be scoring. Does not make us the strongest in every position across the park, or in games like Jets and Bulls the most entertaining to watch, but we can be serious title contenders for all that without much more than the composure to finish what we are still creating. Room for improvement - definitely. Serious top four team possible - definitely. Learn a lot from our next game - shit yeah. Trewin has been a godsend. A solid competent player with a great future. Not sure Neville will add to the back that much more unless he replaces Hingert (hell, any half decent AL quality RB will do). Our defence (apart from our two wingbacks) has been solid and competent with Young coming good and Aldred and Gillespy are excellent. We are toothless in the attack without DWH firing on all cylinders and too much hope is being placed on Kudo is an unproven gamble. Our mid needs someone who can take a grip of the situation and dictate play. Couple these deficiencies with an ordinary playing stock, a top 4 position is ambitious at best. Dreaming about what might happen by doing little or nothing, is not realistic. Just look at the overall and the indifferent performances to date.
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
sirhcdobo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 666,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xthe 5 at the back really is not working against teams that play a 4-3-3. at times last night there were 3 defenders not doing anything while the midfield 2 tried to contain 3-5 opposition players running through and DWH often was trying to close down 4 by himself. it was the wrong tactics again. After a very bright start for moon, switching up formations on the fly to bring about change on the field the last 2 games he has stuck with the same formations even when it was clear they were not working. 2 very poor performances. Jets played 5-4-1 On paper it was a 5-4-1 but it was effectively a 4-3-3 with the positions the players took up (particularly in the first half, where we struggled a lot). Just look at the average positions data for the game. Yuel, odonavan, petratos were playing high (with odonavan as a false 9/deep lying striker), with Ugarkovic, thurgate and Prso though the central areas. Katroumbas played more as a conventional RFB and O'toole as a LWB. It changed a bit in the second with Petratos and Prso off but that is were we started to look a bit better. In any case we were outnumbered in the centre of the park with Daley and oshae struggling to pick up players as we always had 2 defenders doing nothing. I have no doubt that changing to 3 in the middle would have allowed us to dictate the game more. We simply look better when we can go man to man defensively, it looks like we dont quite have the organisation needed at the moment to pass players on.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xthe 5 at the back really is not working against teams that play a 4-3-3. at times last night there were 3 defenders not doing anything while the midfield 2 tried to contain 3-5 opposition players running through and DWH often was trying to close down 4 by himself. it was the wrong tactics again. After a very bright start for moon, switching up formations on the fly to bring about change on the field the last 2 games he has stuck with the same formations even when it was clear they were not working. 2 very poor performances. Jets played 5-4-1 On paper it was a 5-4-1 but it was effectively a 4-3-3 with the positions the players took up (particularly in the first half, where we struggled a lot). Just look at the average positions data for the game. Yuel, odonavan, petratos were playing high (with odonavan as a false 9/deep lying striker), with Ugarkovic, thurgate and Prso though the central areas. Katroumbas played more as a conventional RFB and O'toole as a LWB. It changed a bit in the second with Petratos and Prso off but that is were we started to look a bit better. In any case we were outnumbered in the centre of the park with Daley and oshae struggling to pick up players as we always had 2 defenders doing nothing. I have no doubt that changing to 3 in the middle would have allowed us to dictate the game more. We simply look better when we can go man to man defensively, it looks like we dont quite have the organisation needed at the moment to pass players on. To my eye it was a classic 5-4-1 ... Jets held five at the back and blocked midfield with four players. Roar were very slow to switch the play yesterday so never got around it.
|
|
|
|
|
sirhcdobo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 666,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xthe 5 at the back really is not working against teams that play a 4-3-3. at times last night there were 3 defenders not doing anything while the midfield 2 tried to contain 3-5 opposition players running through and DWH often was trying to close down 4 by himself. it was the wrong tactics again. After a very bright start for moon, switching up formations on the fly to bring about change on the field the last 2 games he has stuck with the same formations even when it was clear they were not working. 2 very poor performances. Jets played 5-4-1 On paper it was a 5-4-1 but it was effectively a 4-3-3 with the positions the players took up (particularly in the first half, where we struggled a lot). Just look at the average positions data for the game. Yuel, odonavan, petratos were playing high (with odonavan as a false 9/deep lying striker), with Ugarkovic, thurgate and Prso though the central areas. Katroumbas played more as a conventional RFB and O'toole as a LWB. It changed a bit in the second with Petratos and Prso off but that is were we started to look a bit better. In any case we were outnumbered in the centre of the park with Daley and oshae struggling to pick up players as we always had 2 defenders doing nothing. I have no doubt that changing to 3 in the middle would have allowed us to dictate the game more. We simply look better when we can go man to man defensively, it looks like we dont quite have the organisation needed at the moment to pass players on. To my eye it was a classic 5-4-1 ... Jets held five at the back and blocked midfield with four players. Roar were very slow to switch the play yesterday so never got around it. I was going off what I saw and the average position stats seems to back that up https://www.a-league.com.au/match/brisbane-roar-fc-v-newcastle-jets-a-league-14-02-2021/2176911#!/stats In any case the result is still the same our 5 at the back did not work particularly defensively where we were too slow to pass players on letting them dictate the play. i maintain if we played with 433 we would have been much more effective at winning the ball back and dictating play.
|
|
|
|