Asunto: National Team

cause borkos has a ban, he asked me to paste it to this forum :>

--------------------------------
oh... who unbanned you? :p
(editado)

1) They weren't wingers, they were wing-backs set to prevent Sweden playing wide and exploiting our previous defence's weakness, narrowness.

2) No they weren't.

3) No they weren't, they were just wide strikers placed wide enough so that they could get around the DMs that they had. No idea why Amien was running to the wing when he wasn't supposed to.

4) Find me a match where the tactic was the same. It's funny how my subconscious mind created a tactic from a default one last night that I'd already created before.

5) Go have a cry. Oh I'm sorry, you already did. If you'd watched the Sweden's previous matches, you'd know that their DMs were always higher up the pitch. I pulled the strikers back just enough so that they could receive early balls and run behind the DMs. They have like 7 defenders cramming the box, the heck are our players supposed to do? Don't forget we aren't the Poles, Dutch or the Azzuri that we can break open even defences that have brought in a bus in front of goal.

6) That was because while attacking, the wingbacks went a fair bit forward, and the defence would be really exposed if they were three men and narrow. Hence the four man defence.

1) They weren't wingers, they were wing-backs set to prevent Sweden playing wide and exploiting our previous defence's weakness, narrowness.

So you prefer playing without wingers? Nice...especially because they are our best weapon and withouth them our striker pla bad!

2) No they weren't.

Yes, they were going to centre line of field. You want me to make a screen or what?

3) No they weren't, they were just wide strikers placed wide enough so that they could get around the DMs that they had. No idea why Amien was running to the wing when he wasn't supposed to.

Cause you placed him like that in tactic?

4) Find me a match where the tactic was the same. It's funny how my subconscious mind created a tactic from a default one last night that I'd already created before.

Not the same, but similiar. I'm talking about forwards formation.

5) Go have a cry. Oh I'm sorry, you already did. If you'd watched the Sweden's previous matches, you'd know that their DMs were always higher up the pitch. I pulled the strikers back just enough so that they could receive early balls and run behind the DMs. They have like 7 defenders cramming the box, the heck are our players supposed to do? Don't forget we aren't the Poles, Dutch or the Azzuri that we can break open even defences that have brought in a bus in front of goal.

Eh...and do you know about air passes by wingers? Or you haven't heard about it? Cause if we played with wings it would be a totally other match! And the forwards were placed bad - wide, and to much down. They were getting the ball at least 10-15 meters from penalty box, and you know that they don't had enough technique to dribble to the goal.

6) That was because while attacking, the wingbacks went a fair bit forward, and the defence would be really exposed if they were three men and narrow. Hence the four man defence.

For me it has just no sense, to play defensive when attacking, and offensive when defending.

And don't say "if Sweden played like that then..." etc, cause Sweden could even play with 10 forwards, so with your logic we should play with 10 defs in case of this possibility...we have better players, it was obvious that Sweden will play defensive so I really don't know why you played defensive, not offensive...

It's my last post now, getting banned again.

My 5 cents worth. I can't see why it was a 'bad' tactic. At least we kept them to 1 shot whilst having 6 of our own. One thing you should consider before running your mouth (which appears to still be because of the loss of the NT election) is that its very hard to stop 6 defenders all crammed in to prevent opportunities, as for your winger theory it doesnt always work as you say it does either. Tbh i'd strongly suggest if you are going to criticize, make it constructive rather then destructive as you seem to have always done. As for the ethical point if 6 players cant be played in normal league matches without penalty i feel same should apply in NT matches but that's just my opinion, otherwise whats to stop you from playing 10 defenders and only trainign defenders so they hardly ever lose.

One thing you should consider before running your mouth (which appears to still be because of the loss of the NT election) is that its very hard to stop 6 defenders all crammed in to prevent opportunities, as for your winger theory it doesnt always work as you say it does either.

When playing with one normal attacker and one mid against 6 defs - yes it really is hard too shot a goal. And wingers work very well when placed correctly - you've seen how good were Veart and Murphy passing?

Tbh i'd strongly suggest if you are going to criticize, make it constructive rather then destructive as you seem to have always done.

Hm? I've told what was wrong, what should I do? "Omg Sriram, how great that you haven't lost a goal against a team which was playing defensive?" :/

As for the ethical point if 6 players cant be played in normal league matches without penalty i feel same should apply in NT matches but that's just my opinion, otherwise whats to stop you from playing 10 defenders and only trainign defenders so they hardly ever lose.

You can place even 10 players in penalty box...just give 5 def, and 5mid to players and it'll work correct and you won't loose your training...

One thing you should consider before running your mouth (which appears to still be because of the loss of the NT election)

Oh...so I should write only positive posts? No own feelings? Lol, great.

This tactic SUCKED!!!! It was TRAGIC!!!

thats not destructive?

Man...you have NO IDEA about making tactics...and btw it wasn`t new tactic, you played it before...it sucked then too...

thats not criticizing anyone now is it?

If you don`t have time for NT, then why do you stand in elections?! To be famous?! For fun?!

Hmm i don't know what you were saying about not being critical at anyone

1) Agreed, but I was giving Dusse way more credit than I should've, and thought he would try to exploit our defence's weakness.

2) So half-way is defence for you. Great.

3) What part of "he wasn't supposed to" do you not understand?

4) Maybe it's my fault for thinking three strikers was the way to go so we could score goals.

5) They had eight defenders in the box, wingers would've made no difference at all. There's nothing you can do when the opponent doesn't care to win, unless you're an extremely strong side.

The forwards weren't set wide, it's only that your wonderful playmakers with fairly low passing were passing it to the wings. Great through balls they were. Geez. It doesn't mean I set them wide if they ran to retrieve the ball. If they were any higher, we wouldn't have gotten the six shots we did.

6) Some argument you have there. You're just saying stuff for the heck of it.

And I don't know why there has to be extremes. Does offensive only mean having five strikers? This tactic was a normal one, neither defensive nor offensive. It's obvious by the amount of time we spent attacking, and in the opponents' half.
(editado)

im also nto saying you can't say negative things just that the negative needs to not launch yourself off with as many destructive comments AT people.

2) So half-way is defence for you. Great.

Yest, it's defensive playing with forwards - useful when opponents defs go to line when attacking, and you have very fast forward...but Swedens defs were playing almost all time near penalty box...


3) What part of "he wasn't supposed to" do you not understand?

And what part of "you placed him like that" you don't understand? That haven't come from nothing...

5) They had eight defenders in the box, wingers would've made no difference at all. There's nothing you can do when the opponent doesn't care to win, unless you're an extremely strong side.

:/ I won't agree - if we played more with mids, then we would won for 100%. But they wre passing from own half to forwards when they were far from penalty box.

The forwards weren't set wide, it's only that your wonderful playmakers with fairly low passing were passing it to the wings. Great through balls they were. Geez. It doesn't mean I set them wide if they ran to retrieve the ball. If they were any higher, we wouldn't have gotten the six shots we did.

Odd...I play with 3 atts in league, with Ishida and other Mid and they pass very well, there are no passes like that...so I guess it was forwards placing fault, and mid placing fault.

[i]And I don't know why there has to be extremes. Does offensive only mean having five strikers? This tactic was a normal one, neither defensive nor offensive. It's obvious by the amount of time we spent attacking, and in the opponents' half./i]

Lol...when you play with one mid, and 2 DMs that doesn't cross centre line, then you can't say it's normal tactic...

@cometer
It was my opinion. Later I gaved arguments, so what do you want from me?

you should not criticize in that form that is saying things like you cant make a tactic. How is that HELPFUL in anyway?

There is destructive and constructive criticism. Perhaps a constructive criticism might have been something along the lines of well, not a bad effort but you could improve in the following ways etc.

as for your opinions, there is a line where it crosses that it is best to keep to yourself rather then posting it in a public environment.

1) So you say I should've placed the forwards near them, where they wouldn't have had the chance to do anything at all.

2) He wasn't supposed to = he wasn't placed there. I really don't care now.

3) How do you suppose you would've found space for our strikers to get off a shot inside and outside the box? Don't give me the aerial cross crap, all wingers do in the final third is shoot. Even if they did cross, there was no time for our strikers to shoot. I'm not even sure if they had enough technique to control the ball before they lost it.

4) The wingbacks were ordered to go far enough into the opponents' half. It's just that they passed the ball before getting there. Don't tell me you think the players play exactly as I order them to. When attacking, it was a 4-3-3, and I don't think defensive 4-3-3s exist.

I'm thinking whatever I do, I'm always gonna get criticized. It's just getting on my nerves now, I didn't mean to draw the match, Dusse did, and when you have eight defenders in the box, you have the bargaining power. It's as simple as that, and you have to learn to accept that you can't break down a bus in front of the goal, no matter how hard you try, unless your team is uber-strong. And we are not.

And I didn't even lose the match, geez.

EDIT: This is my last reply to you about this match, anyone else can still ask, though.

It's just that I don't appreciate it when someone accuses me of not being dedicated enough to the craft without visible proof. I spent hours studying the tactic, am replying to you on here, and you say I don't have the time for it on here.

It's personal vendetta, that's evident, but look at how dead this forum has become. A few pages ago you said you wanted more participation out here. Now just look at yourself in the mirror and think long and hard at the cause for it all.

I don't care if I sounded rude or whatever other crap, but you've gotten on my nerves far too long with your insults, and I just can't take it any longer, even though I've been the nice guy all this while.

I really don't care anymore, and if enough users on here sk-mail me about doubting my ability, I'll gladly resign, and you can do whatever shit you want to do with this team.

Even then, I won't be a juvenile and whine on here about what happened, like you do.
(editado)

I was just in bad humour after the match...forgive me..but it was I guess only possible 3point match in this World Cup...:/

@Sriram
1) So you say I should've placed the forwards near them, where they wouldn't have had the chance to do anything at all.

Lol...pass - shot - do you understand?


2) He wasn't supposed to = he wasn't placed there. I really don't care now.


Yes, he was running there because he wanted to. Great ;)

3) How do you suppose you would've found space for our strikers to get off a shot inside and outside the box? Don't give me the aerial cross crap, all wingers do in the final third is shoot. Even if they did cross, there was no time for our strikers to shoot. I'm not even sure if they had enough technique to control the ball before they lost it.

:/ watch last minutes of todays Danmark - Norge...mids are quite similiar, forwards too.

4) The wingbacks were ordered to go far enough into the opponents' half. It's just that they passed the ball before getting there. Don't tell me you think the players play exactly as I order them to. When attacking, it was a 4-3-3, and I don't think defensive 4-3-3s exist.

Lol - sorry, but this is a lie, and I can proove it - when the ball was near ppenalty box they were standind on centre line, so don't tell me that it was their fault that they weren't playing more offensive..

I'm thinking whatever I do, I'm always gonna get criticized.

Bullsh**! Have I criticized you after last match?

It's just getting on my nerves now, I didn't mean to draw the match, Dusse did, and when you have eight defenders in the box, you have the bargaining power. It's as simple as that, and you have to learn to accept that you can't break down a bus in front of the goal, no matter how hard you try, unless your team is uber-strong. And we are not.

Eh...yeah, you can't win that kind of match when playing with 4 offensive palyers and 2 of them play on wings when they are forwards...I guess you just can't take any critic, eh?

Well from watching the match, what i kept thinking was, why arent these forwards being pushed forward more? the only time we appeared to be in a scoring position was off the corners and even tho stats say otherwise, i felt that throughout the match, sverige had more chance of scoring then us

The thing is, I wanted them to shoot from long range because their goalie is really slow. However, their DMs just foiled that plan totally.

Huh? What has being fast to say about long range shots?

Que?