Asunto: National Team

I’d usually sub a defender off if the opposition use a winger and I’d sub the defender that was marking that winger as wingers attract a lot of ball and defenders marking the winger do a lot of chasing and tackling.

In this scenario they didn’t use a winger but I’d have been tempted to sub off the 2nd and 4th defender given that’s where their strikers were set up to attack through

Actually, for def wings, i usually invert those 2 defs at midtime as i did for last game.

Doesn’t work if they flip their winger though. Subs do :)

Indonesia - Australia 4:2
Well another nightmare !! :-(
I never saw 2 freekick scored in one game since now :-). Before, we got our red card (the sub couldn't enter consequently), Indonesia scored 3 times (2 freekicks and one center with goal) and nothing else. We scored 2 times with few other attempts stopped by the GK.
After that, our central defense was too opened to be efficient and the opponent strikers managed to score again and hit the post too.
Finally, a fair result but a bad feeling... Our subs did not put our team stronger as hoped.

Where to start. The 2nd and 4th goals we conceded could have easily been prevented (and should have). The 2nd from the fk was because your tactic had defenders back in the goal box. Gives them that fk and a header by the striker. That’s just poor defensive tactics.

The 4th from the fk was because you failed to have a red card order for the defender who got sent off. That is beginner level stuff there and unacceptable at an NT level. You have to protect defenders and expect a red. Yes it makes it tough for orders when you lose 5 to protecting red card orders but you just have to do it. The alternative is play a back 4 and it frees up a conditional order at the expense of getting burnt by wingers.

2 goals from rookie errors. Good thing is both those can be fixed quickly but it’s a shame it even needs to be fixed as it really isn’t difficult to stop that.


1st goal conceded yeah just unlucky. FK from range not much you can do there. Annoying.
3rd goal likely a tactical mistake with their mid getting chance to line it up but was the only through ball they had so again they happen and not too annoyed there.

Really take the blunders away and it’s 2-2. So not terrible.

Few things.

1) Strikers far too shallow and one dimensional. Really should have killed Indonesia when they got an early red and didn’t use a red card order. However, our striker was too close to halfway so gave them time to come across and make a tackle and also stopped us getting a through ball. That’s a shame as you got given a get out of jail free card when they got an early red to a defender and didn’t have a red card order set. You need to kill those mistakes.

2) Defenders too deep. Gave them fks in dangerous positions and gave away fouls and shots on the edge of the box as defenders were basically all inside the penalty box. I don’t believe defenders should drop to the penalty box until the very last moment possible. You just have to cut out crosses/fks/shots from the edge of the box etc to minimise the quality chances the opposition get.

I thought Indonesia made the same mistakes so both sides sort of got away with it except from fks and Indonesia got more of those in dangerous areas. Probably the difference in the end.

I think if you had placed strikers in a more aggressive position and defenders were a little (not a lot) further forward in the back third of the field then that result swings from a 4-2 loss to a 4-2 or better win.

Always hard though. You push too hard and get burnt by high pressing defenses, yet the whole depth is probably the most important aspect to get right if you’re not using a high winger.

This is all from the current game. Haven’t assessed Indonesia to see if they use this tactic a lot or if they use other tactics but yeah definitely made some unfortunate choices today.

You were a little unlucky with the end result but you continue to put yourself into those positions by tactical mistakes that are mostly avoidable.

Anyway always another game to work on :)

I really do not get your point about the 2nd goal from Indonesia. Nothing wrong with the tactic. Only his lonely ATT was able to take the headshot. Already happened some minutes before.
About the red card. I again do not agree with your point of view. I think that the n°6 is the less usefull DEF in a 5-DEF line and in case of red card, usually, the 2 other central DEF can be enough good to control the ATT line. Once we got the red card, they got more chances to score than anytime before but scored only once. A normal ratin goal as we got with all our chances.
The thing is that they managed to score with their 2nd attempts with a really nice freekick whereas usually, freekicks are really rare to score (really low rating). They managed to score twice with freekick, even more unpredictable. The 2nd goal is a headshot and our DEF was not so good at thisa against those strikers.
What i can say, is that our ATT line was too low compared to their DEF line. I can readjust this but it could give less chances for our MID to find our ATTs and only make passing to other MIDs or even worse to our DEFs...

Well, i must say i'm a bit upset by your behaviour against me with your words : "it is a shame" or "this is a beginner stuff"...
I really appreciate that you come to analyse but this childish behaviour is not good to get a fair exchange.
Then, if you want to have fair exchange with different points of view, i completely agree to answer and communicate with you but if you come again with this haughty tone, i'll stop discussion.

I really do not get your point about the 2nd goal from Indonesia. Nothing wrong with the tactic. Only his lonely ATT was able to take the headshot.
That could have been prevented from the striker even getting the headshot. That's entirely tactical. If you don't know happy to discuss privately.

About the red card. I again do not agree with your point of view. I think that the n°6 is the less usefull DEF in a 5-DEF line and in case of red card, usually, the 2 other central DEF can be enough good to control the ATT line. Once we got the red card, they got more chances to score than anytime before but scored only once. A normal ratin goal as we got with all our chances.

Disagree, it is super common for a striker to play down the centre. Any 1 striker formation will, any side expecting the standard 4 man defense will. Most times against a 5 man defense with the standard 2 DM's will as that's the gap. In any case why even take the risk?

The only reason it wasn't punished more was because Indonesia made similar mistakes with strikers being too shallow. Most would take advantage of that. Anyway your decision to make, I'm just telling you why I believe you lost.

Well, i must say i'm a bit upset by your behaviour against me with your words : "it is a shame" or "this is a beginner stuff"...
I really appreciate that you come to analyse but this childish behaviour is not good to get a fair exchange.
Then, if you want to have fair exchange with different points of view, i completely agree to answer and communicate with you but if you come again with this haughty tone, i'll stop discussion.

I don't hide from the fact it ruffles people's feathers for those that don't understand where I'm coming from. The fact is it was a shame that in this match there were some tactical choices that worked against us because had they not been there I believe we would have won the game. Most of your tactic was fine - that's what the disappointing thing was. That isn't a childish attack on you, that's simply saying that the game was there to be won and we didn't take advantage of that. I don't see how this even offended you unless your understanding of the word used in this context is way different to mine.

Also I'll stand by basic tactical knowledge of using your subs, protecting against red card orders as "basic stuff" that any NT manager should know to do. Yes we have limited tactical orders but with the way the ME works, you can't leave a hole anywhere in the back row. That's why most teams use 5 defenders for a start - to limit the space to get in behind.

Most of my comments on NT's will focus on things that didn't work or things that could be improved. I don't see much value in saying hey that worked really well today in a game where you are defeated or goign super soft like bad luck better luck next time. I just don't think that offers anything to build on.

Yes, I am aware my comments may come across hard and sting the ego a bit. They are not personal insults though. They are designed to drive the performance we should be getting. I'm alnot always right and everyone has different opinions and I respect that so long as you can give a good justification as to why you went that way. Like the first week where I was surprised we played UAE and didn't play Crampton. That was all on me for not checking before commenting that the MWC had started and Crampton was suspended. I also admitted that afterwards.

I will back up, cometers words are never a personal attack.
Don't worry, I get my fair share of comments too, some of which I don't agree with, via messenger (as we know one another in real life), so definitely don't think you are the only one who sees it

Thx a lot for this explanation, i prefer that.
I never wanted too to have only answers that butter me up. I also prefer see different points of view as i said and i really appreciate yours. But these are some words that are really useless in such adult discussion and do not help in anything such as those i underlined. If you pay attention next time, everything will be OK.
To come back with some divergent points :
- about the headshot, as you only said it was a tactical fault and as i saw it again and again and did not see any problem, i would appreciate you'd detail this part to understand, please.
- about the red card, once again, i can understand your point but i totally disagree with you. As i said, the n°6 DEF is the central DEF of the 5-DEF line. In an extreme case, i'd have a MID that can replace him, i'd have put this order but we have no MID even close to play at that position in DEF and if i'd do that sub, i'd totally disorganized my MID-line and the MID would be useless faced to ATT's technique skills. That's why i did not make any order like this. As i say, if it happens like it happened yesterday, i take account on my 2 other central DEF (n°3 and 4) to adapt to control ATT side. I prevent red card for all other DEF position with moving the central DEF (n°6) to the free spot.
And on the contrary as you said, i think that the indonesian ATT were at best position to bother us because my DEF were not as closer as hoped. If the indonesian ATT were higher, they will be totally controlled by our DEF. The only thing i just discover (i did not know that point before) is that i can change tactic in case of red card. Then i will prepare that for next games to have my DEF line more high and close to the opponent ATT-line in case of red card of the n°6 DEF.
- As you can see, i listened to your last points about using subs (excepted last DEF that could not come in because of red card happened 2 min before change) and i must say that our subs were not more efficient than the main ones. And as i repeat, i'm not in favour of doing subs just because "it is a NT habit" as our DEF subs are clearly not as good in 2daries skills as main ones and give more risk of fail (control of the ball or act fast (high PM skill) in case of danger). And the same for our ATT subs that are quite lower than main ones. The only line that would give same answer is MID-line as we have the chance to have more than 6 MID with quite same level and form. But they are quite twins thus it is difficult to use very different tactics here.
(editado)

In most cases, I'm willing to accept difference of opinions. I mean sometimes that results in myself learning something I wasn't previously aware of. My only two gripes which I'll never agree with anyone on is not using as many subs as possible (club level and for NT's with no depth are the exceptions) and then not protecting defenders with red card orders or in the event you are using a single striker a red card order there too. As for who is replaced in which position I'm flexible on, as long as that position is covered. I'd also rather have players beat me on the outside then through the centre (I'd rather they didn't do either).

Most of my other comments/complaints I can be convinced that the intention was right if there is a good enough reason explained as to why that choice was made. So that includes depth of players, throw positions, players selected to play/use, general tactical formation etc. Again none of those are my decisions to make since I'm not the NT manager. Won't stop me making the comments unless I know the reason prior to making the comment but I feel like if I don't say these things, there's a good chance the same mistakes will be made impacting another match.

Whether we win or lose to me is irrelevant. Winning is the goal obviously but usually winning comes from the thing I care more about. Continuous improvement. That includes training of players but it also comes from improving tactically (which includes others being able to successfully justify why they chose a certain aspect when I call it into question. That then forms discussion and things are learnt from both sides of the discussion).

But these are some words that are really useless in such adult discussion and do not help in anything such as those i underlined. If you pay attention next time, everything will be OK.

Nothing wrong with it was a shame that we didn't do better. It's effectively the equivalent in that context of it was disappointing or it was unfortunate.

They also were rookie/beginner tactical mistakes at an NT level. I call and say things as I see them. If you were teaching people about making a tutorial of tactics as a basic lesson on how to design a tactic you would tell them about substitutions and why you'd make substitutions. You'd also tell them about the red card conditional order and why it's useful. Same reason why you'd tell them the defense line should be mostly in line and not like in the default tactics.

You'd be less likely at a first go of getting the basics of tactics to discuss things like throw positions, depth positioning and the fact that the tactical editor isn't simply ball is in square X, this is where all players will be in square X. That isn't how it works but you wouldn't say that to someone new at tactics. They're more advanced concepts.

- about the headshot, as you only said it was a tactical fault and as i saw it again and again and did not see any problem, i would appreciate you'd detail this part to understand, please.
Yep will do so. Just want to rewatch to ensure the information I give is correct and I'm not mis-remembering the play.

about the red card, once again, i can understand your point but i totally disagree with you. As i said, the n°6 DEF is the central DEF of the 5-DEF line. In an extreme case, i'd have a MID that can replace him, i'd have put this order but we have no MID even close to play at that position in DEF and if i'd do that sub, i'd totally disorganized my MID-line and the MID would be useless faced to ATT's technique skills. That's why i did not make any order like this. As i say, if it happens like it happened yesterday, i take account on my 2 other central DEF (n°3 and 4) to adapt to control ATT side. I prevent red card for all other DEF position with moving the central DEF (n°6) to the free spot.

So, again haven't seen Indonesia's previous matches but they didn't seem to use a wing against us last night, so if you didn't want to bring a midfielder back to cover the hole (and you could have used Renaud/Myers to do so, though you subbed Myers on for Renaud which complicates things a bit), you could have had one of the outside 5 defs cover the centre position. I think but it's been a while and haven't really refreshed my own knowledge that you could have moved an outside defender to centre and moved a midfielder to the outside defender's original position. Even if that's not true you have 3 options:

1. Leave a hole in the centre
2. Bring a midfielder back which at least covers the hole. Better than having a hole.
3. Bring a defender off the outside of defense into the centre position. You give up a wing but if you're not willing to bring a midfielder back then this is the next best option. Again this option depends if you expect an opposition to use a wing or not. If they use a wing, it is less likely your central defender in a row of 5 is red carded as most balls would go to the winger not the striker.

The safest option is to bring the midfielder back. Yes they'll miss a tackle or two but they might slow the striker or have the ball bounce away. They at least reduce the chance of midfielders pumping balls through that gap all day long. A direct hole just asks for trouble.

A red card is never ideal, something in your tactic breaks. You just have to choose what's the best outcome and I'd almost never recommend leaving the central defender exposed, it's just too risky. It's why I often sacrifice midfielder skills for defender skills when picking midfielders. That then gives me flexibility for red card orders but again that's a personal preference that I know others have different thoughts.

I think if they had their striker in line with where the hole was it would have been game over much sooner. The gap would attract midfielders to direct passes through that space the striker would run onto it whilst the defenders sit around and watch and the striker is then 1 on 1 with the GK. With the strikers being shallow, they got the pass but then had to move forward to just get to the gap by which time your defense would have had a chance to close that gap down and tackle them from at worst side on.
(editado)

OK, as we said we do not have the same points of view about subs and red card uses. But here, with my explanations, you understand better my choices or not ? Was i clear enough (my english should be very low level compared to yours obviously thus my explanations could be not clear as expected) ?
As i asked for in my last comment, could it be possible to detail the fault tactic with headshot action ? please. Becase as i said, form my pont of view, i did not see anything to do best. I'll appreciate to improve my aknowledge.
More you comment the games by viewing them, more you understand my choices (tactically, notably with subs and red cards now). After that, as you can see, sometimes i change my point of view : changes in tactical position (more DEF pressure, low MID-line to be closer to DEF-line) or add subs but some others, i'll never change (red card) because i consider my explanation more efficient than yours (even if i understand your choice).

For me, i clearly prefer to leave the hole but only in the case of the central DEF as happened yesterday. From my experience, the 2 other central DEF can cover the zone quite efficiently.
In this action, you can see that our 2 central DEF are going to cover the hole :
[url=https://zupimages.net/viewer.php?id=24/42/vijn.jpg][/url]
because just before they were close to the ATT line.
As i said before, i never used (never know i can do this) a positioning change in tactic while a red card happen. I could change the positioning (the height) of the DEF line if a red card happen to give more cover to our DEF-line.
I already had red card with my own team for central DEF but my DEF-line is already quite higher than here with Australian team due to the higher level of b-skills of my DEF that offer me more comfort to be more agressive against opponent ATT. Here, our DEF-line is not as good in b-skills to be too agressive and lose control against ATT-line (moreover, we missed our 2 best DEF, one for red card before the game and other for injury). Thus with my DEF-line with 1 DEF miss do not bother me a lot if it is a central DEF.

I mean sure. If those strikers were pushed up in line with our def line, that def of ours would be back in the line not ahead of it and would shift either left or right to mark a striker. The hole then still exists to whatever side the def doesn't pick.

Edit: Perhaps even better push the striker on the right up to the line, bring a midfielder to the right. Have the defender pop out of line like it is to mark the shallow striker. Mid one pass to the right to another mid. That mid then has an absolute truckload of space to set up the high striker and because the defender is out of the line you are left with 1 of the central 3 defs left.
(editado)

Anyway I've said what I needed to. If you don't agree then I'm happy to leave it at that and move on. Different opinions are fine. It didn't hurt us too much this game defensively but it hurt us more offensively by not forcing their defender to make the same choice.

Ouch, our best DEFs are out :
- Loyd Turner, age: 28 : red card
- Nick Haddrill, age: 24 : red card
- Noel Wilkin, age: 27 : injured
- John Brown, age: 26 : injured