Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Asunto: National Team
This is my first visit to the Aussie forums, and at face value, it seems that you are just grumpy because you weren't elected as NT coach. Your posts ARE destructive, as somebody in this thread has said. If you continue to act the way you are now, nobody will listen to you. Your childish behaviour has almost certainly cemented your inability to get even close to being elected as the next NT coach.
Yep...but look, that I gave arguments, and told what was bad in tactic. I wasn't saying "bad tactic, you suck". I've told mistakes in that tactic, and I have right to do that, mr I Will Judge You. :p
@Sriram
The forwards were placed after analyzing Sweden's past formations where there always was quite a distance between the DMs and the defenders. I can safely say they would have worked well if the DMs hadn't been brought right back to the defence.
I can't agree with that...their defs couldn't get dribbled by our forwards, so I see no point in what are you trying to say...
I figured it would be safer if I tried to stop the most obvious and dangerous thing the opponents could do, and try to build on it and create a counter-attack.
Counter attack when Swedens defs were waiting near penalty box, and our forwards got the ball in half of their half? I don't think it had any chance to work...
@Cloete
Trouble is I don't think anyone thought Sweden would create a tactic like that. I thought they'd come out and try and win rather than resign themselves to a draw
I can't say it was unpredictable, cause Sweden played similiar tactic week before...:p
@Sriram again
Hence the wing-backs. If you notice, they're two of our best midfielders, and not defenders.
Lol...of course they are mids, not defs. But you made them def wingers with no offensive goals...:/
Yep...but look, that I gave arguments, and told what was bad in tactic. I wasn't saying "bad tactic, you suck". I've told mistakes in that tactic, and I have right to do that, mr I Will Judge You. :p
@Sriram
The forwards were placed after analyzing Sweden's past formations where there always was quite a distance between the DMs and the defenders. I can safely say they would have worked well if the DMs hadn't been brought right back to the defence.
I can't agree with that...their defs couldn't get dribbled by our forwards, so I see no point in what are you trying to say...
I figured it would be safer if I tried to stop the most obvious and dangerous thing the opponents could do, and try to build on it and create a counter-attack.
Counter attack when Swedens defs were waiting near penalty box, and our forwards got the ball in half of their half? I don't think it had any chance to work...
@Cloete
Trouble is I don't think anyone thought Sweden would create a tactic like that. I thought they'd come out and try and win rather than resign themselves to a draw
I can't say it was unpredictable, cause Sweden played similiar tactic week before...:p
@Sriram again
Hence the wing-backs. If you notice, they're two of our best midfielders, and not defenders.
Lol...of course they are mids, not defs. But you made them def wingers with no offensive goals...:/
naphtali [del] para
borkos007
I dub thee Monday's Expert.
Nobody is saying you can't point out flaws and weaknesses. People (not just Sriram) are saying they don't appreciate the way you are doing it. Maybe its a cultural thing, but Australians just don't do it the way you are doing it at the moment.
Regardless, you've had your say, belabouring the point serves no purpose.
Nobody is saying you can't point out flaws and weaknesses. People (not just Sriram) are saying they don't appreciate the way you are doing it. Maybe its a cultural thing, but Australians just don't do it the way you are doing it at the moment.
Regardless, you've had your say, belabouring the point serves no purpose.
I disagree with this. People are taking way to much offense to what he is saying. Maybe its just the use of words like "you're tactics suck" maybe something like "the tactics for the forwards was rubbish". Im not really sure, because the true Aussies that i know will tell you quite blantently that if you do something bad they will say it, but in person it doesnt come across as bad, it still either sounds kinda lighthearted or inspiring.
The only thing making what borkos says sound bad is its over the net. If somebody is bad at something, tell them. If you say, well good try, you'll do better next time, just do this, they think to themselves, well, that wasnt so bad, I didnt get an earful, I can get away with it next time.
If you dont like the way he says it, dont read the words you dont like, some people are more blunt then others and just accept that, use some of your own maturity by ignoring the you suck bits and concentrate mroe on the bits that are telling improvements even if it means re-wording them in your own politically correct mind so that you like it.
P.S. Before anyone miscontrues this into thinking im saying Sriram will think, i can get away with it next time, im not, im just commenting on people in general, not at anyone in particular
(editado)
The only thing making what borkos says sound bad is its over the net. If somebody is bad at something, tell them. If you say, well good try, you'll do better next time, just do this, they think to themselves, well, that wasnt so bad, I didnt get an earful, I can get away with it next time.
If you dont like the way he says it, dont read the words you dont like, some people are more blunt then others and just accept that, use some of your own maturity by ignoring the you suck bits and concentrate mroe on the bits that are telling improvements even if it means re-wording them in your own politically correct mind so that you like it.
P.S. Before anyone miscontrues this into thinking im saying Sriram will think, i can get away with it next time, im not, im just commenting on people in general, not at anyone in particular
(editado)
Cloete [del] para
Achmid [del]
What so you're saying Sriram thinks he can get away with it next time? :P
(editado)
(editado)
As I've said, I didn't wanted to attack Sriram, but tactic. I've used some, as you said, offensive language...but it was due to my bad humour after the match, cause it was sure 3points in my opinion, and propably only 3points...ok - France can be beaten, but France is the favorite...and Italy - draw whem having very big luck. I really don't see why I should use "it could have been worse" to "this tactic sucked". In real I would say it the same way, I prefer saying what I really think. That's all. :p
I watched the match today, and I noticed a few things that should be sorted.
1. Murphy - he was running around far, far too much. As the match went on, you could see him getting visibly tired and slow as he hardly ever stopped moving. If you are going to move him around like that, do so only in your own half, keep him relatively still (ie not moving left and right, but running up and down with the defenders) when he is in your opponents.
2. Throw in positions were fairly poor (from both sides actually). When you take a throw in, always, always try to get it to go forward. If it goes backwards, chances are you can catch yourself out.
3. You were generally unlucky. Some of the striker positions could have been a bit more forward (but that is a difficult thing to judge).
4. You need better defenders. The back line should be a lot more difficult to skim than it was.
5. Leaving nothing in the middle meant they dominated the midfield and you were quite prone to counter attacks. I would have only used a tactic like that against a team I was near certain of beating.
6. The defenders broke their line too often. Don't start moving defenders behind each other until the furthest square back, otherwise you'll not get many offside calls.
(editado)
(editado)
1. Murphy - he was running around far, far too much. As the match went on, you could see him getting visibly tired and slow as he hardly ever stopped moving. If you are going to move him around like that, do so only in your own half, keep him relatively still (ie not moving left and right, but running up and down with the defenders) when he is in your opponents.
2. Throw in positions were fairly poor (from both sides actually). When you take a throw in, always, always try to get it to go forward. If it goes backwards, chances are you can catch yourself out.
3. You were generally unlucky. Some of the striker positions could have been a bit more forward (but that is a difficult thing to judge).
4. You need better defenders. The back line should be a lot more difficult to skim than it was.
5. Leaving nothing in the middle meant they dominated the midfield and you were quite prone to counter attacks. I would have only used a tactic like that against a team I was near certain of beating.
6. The defenders broke their line too often. Don't start moving defenders behind each other until the furthest square back, otherwise you'll not get many offside calls.
(editado)
(editado)
Never been a fan of abandoning the midfield. Makes it harder to defend and harder to keep the pressure on your oppoenents.
The defenders breaking the line was incredible. The tactic had them in a line in all the squares except in the last row, which means it's a re-occurance of that bug which was happening in the old engine.
I played the midfielders as wide as I did because France favoured wingers. Otherwise those two are almost always a central midfield pairing.
We need better defenders, definitely. One of our best is always in tragic form, which is a huge blow.
Sigh, I'm really disappointed, because I thought we had a chance against them.
I played the midfielders as wide as I did because France favoured wingers. Otherwise those two are almost always a central midfield pairing.
We need better defenders, definitely. One of our best is always in tragic form, which is a huge blow.
Sigh, I'm really disappointed, because I thought we had a chance against them.
Sriram [del] para
Sriram [del]
On a side note, I've lost all respect for playmaking. One on one with the keeper in the box, clear goalscoring opportunity, and an unearthly playmaker decides to pass it backwards. How is that good decision-making? Pfft.
PM is a waste of time if the player doesn't have any other sidestats.
Personally, I've not really seen it be much of a benefit past v good.
Personally, I've not really seen it be much of a benefit past v good.
I've definitely seen it of benefit past v. good, but a player needs at least v good passing as well. Brilliant pm and excellent passing makes a great mid.
Yep :]
And what would be the point of of shooting by this mid? He has no shooting...so there wouldn't been a goal...
And what would be the point of of shooting by this mid? He has no shooting...so there wouldn't been a goal...
Sriram [del] para
borkos007
Very good shooting is definitely not considered no shooting! You never know if it would've gone in or not, but you can't say it wouldn't have been a goal.
Either way, it's not enough to justify passing backwards.
Either way, it's not enough to justify passing backwards.
If our strikers with much higher shooting haven't scored, then I don't think that v. good shooter would make it...