Queiroz selects the roster for the Maldives game

[maij]

I don't know whether coaches select players for a certain strategy or game plan or vice versa (i.e. Plan according to the capabilities of the players). I suspect it is some compromise but I very much doubt if the coaches will tell us such a fact.

To me , it is very important for a manager of a team ( even outside sport) to know the capabilities of the team members and ensure they are given the task within their abilities as individuals or as a group.

There is where a coach can excel or flop. Knowing the capabilities of the players takes time and effort. It is a myth if you believe that CQ had a couple of looks on these players and decided that is it...It does not work that way. His selection work was based on what is referred to a process of elimination.

At the end of the day , like always , I respect the coach's choice in selecting his players , after all , he is going to be working with them. That is not to say that we cannot air some views as there are always one or two odd ones who crop up in every list.

What do people see and admire in Hadi Norouzi , that I cannot ?

With the absence of flair and intelligence of Mojtaba Jabbari , thanks God Karimi is in the list , although he is far from the ideal candidate.

I support CQ exclusion of Nouri. I have seen enough shortcomings in the guy to be convinced that he is NOT cut for top level football.

Good call on selecting Ouladi. This lad is hot and for once in his career , he is injury free. He can run havoc on the field.

[Doctor DOOM]

^ That's why there are constant fights between Barca/ManU/ACMilan/Bayern agents over signing our talents.

maybe I watch too much international football and when I come back to watch a few vatani games, I see 35 years old Majidi still rules and the only one can sign a Euro contract is still Karimi.

I encourage you watching a few games of Turkey, Russia, Swiss, France, .... more often and see where soccer is going. I didn't mention Spain, Germany, Brazil and Argentina.

It's no secret that currently we are the bottom of our last 20 years of our soccer. I hope we have already hit the bottom and there will be no lower than that though.

Let's see what those "beautiful mont-blanc fountain pens" can do. We got the best coach we could get. if no outcome comes out of it, it's most likely we have "stick" than "pen". Hope we wont come back of our old trick "blaming the poor coach".

As I stated in my previous post, we have 4 years commitment. I keep myself optimistic, it's hard though.

Cheers,

this shows you have a very simplified view of such issues.
for example, the matter of transfer of IRANIAN players is not so simple. certainly cannot be compared with majority of the countries, since Iran has its own characteristics that limit and restrict matters of exposure to a large extent that would hamper our players' chances of being picked up by european clubs.
for ANY country, there are plenty of factors involved. for Iran, there are twice that many that make it difficult.
from social and political factors, to money matters, to exposure in major tourneys to TV coverage and ... etc. there are plenty of factors, many of which arent available to iranian players.

secondly, I dont have to look at switzerland or russia or france .... to know where IRAN stands.
we must be compared to those we are grouped with and our regional teams.
why I bring the factor of region is the constant interaction and exposure to a region defines the general qualities of a team. that's why kazakhistan fought so hard to leave asia and be included in uefa.

so compared to the asian teams, I still maintain our teams usually pack quite a lot of talent. it is usually the way they are used which determines our fortunes

from coach X sticking to one line up for 3 years, therefore stifling any hope of betterment or freshness, to coach Y subbing tactics in the most crucial game in a tourney, to coach Z's rigidity in using only one formation no matter if his team is 2 goals up or 2 goals down, to coach mouse who lost his guts and lunch the moment he faced a decent team and became totally spineless, to ...

this is not saying players had nothing to do with those screw ups. but the larger portion of the blame shd fall on HOW they were used

[Babak agha]

I don't know whether coaches select players for a certain strategy or game plan or vice versa (i.e. Plan according to the capabilities of the players). I suspect it is some compromise but I very much doubt if the coaches will tell us such a fact.

Well if you read/watch enough interviews with coaches and watch football programs, you'll see that more often than not they exactly tell you that!!!

They may not go and shout it from roof tops but they always will answer this question as this question is always asked.

But perhaps as the Iranian sport journalism and per/after game analysis (where they read e-mails from fans.........) is a joke and I guess most people don't pay attention to these stuff anyways, you haven't noticed this yet.

Some coaches are actually very vocal about this fact and don't shy away from saying it. And almost all coaches become vocal about it after they are fired/have resigned.

[Hajagha]

...

this is not saying players had nothing to do with those screw ups. but the larger portion of the blame shd fall on HOW they were used

... and if this team won't deliver it, who's fault? Coach or players?

I am almost sure what would be your answer though.

[Doctor DOOM]

getting into the other debate going on here, I must say I think coaches' selections tell a lot about their philosophy and strategies.

for example, when a coach mainly picks tough, physical players with great stamina (most english coaches), you know he is going to base his strategy and tactics on a physical performance.

or when a coach decides to sacrifice height and physicality in favor of technique and pace (guardiola), then you can expect his team to be highly technical but short (pun intended) on brute force

But seeing CQ's list I see both technical set of players as well as pace and speedy ones. not to mention a few tough guys who could deliver in physical battles.
that's why I said this is a very comprehensive team that leaves CQ's hands open in employing various tactics

[Babak agha]

getting into the other debate going on here, I must say I think coaches' selections tell a lot about their philosophy and strategies.

for example, when a coach mainly picks tough, physical players with great stamina (most english coaches), you know he is going to base his strategy and tactics on a physical performance.

or when a coach decides to sacrifice height and physicality in favor of technique and pace (guardiola), then you can expect his team to be highly technical but short (pun intended) on brute force

But seeing CQ's list I see both technical set of players as well as pace and speedy ones. not to mention a few tough guys who could deliver in physical battles.
that's why I said this is a very comprehensive team that leaves CQ's hands open in employing various tactics

Well like I said before, what you are saying applies to clubs and not so much to national teams.

For example if you are the coach of Thailand or Korea you would have a hard time to have a physical strategy/mindset and choosing your teams accordingly.

Or when you're the head coach of Nigeria the chances are that most of your players are strong, big and athletic instead of tactically gifted. So you cannot have an Barcelona-ish idea and choose the players accordingly.

Sure there are countries that (Brazil, US, Itally, England, Germany, France, etc.) have so many inhabitants and good players that you can select (some of) your players according to your strategy.

But in case of "small" countries or countries with not so many good players to choose from, the coach has not so many options. Any coach, despite their favorite game plans, have to choose the same players. And adjust your tactics accordingly.

In a country like Iran you have to pick the best players (whom are usually the "names"). You can not ignore the best players and choose the ones that you like or fit your game plan.

Sure if you have to select a NT for Brazil or the attacking players of Argentina, you can skip the first 3-4 players per position and choose he ones that you like or the ones that fit your strategy (Pace vs Vision, tactics vs stamina, etc).

But this is Iran we are talking about. Despite the fact that there are 70+ mln people living there, you have just a hand full players who could play on international level and just 20-30 players that are good by Asian standards. The rest are just "useful" players (if even that).

[Doctor DOOM]

^ how would you assess a coach's strategy if we see a line up like:

montazeri, hosseini, aghili, nosrati

ando, nekounam, M. zareh, P nouri


as compared to:

Md. Hosseini - hosseini - aghili - mahini

Baou - nekounam - karimi - ghazi

R. nowroozi - Oladi

or one with:

heidari - hosseini - aghili - mahini

Gh. rezaei - ando - hadadifar - zeniedpour

H. nowroozi - khalatbari


is there no difference between the above line ups in terms of strategy and tactics?

[Babak agha]

Sure you can switch things around, field different players, or hell even have different game tactics with the same players.....that's the whole reason of having a coach and strategy

But a coach can't do wonders either: he can't make an African team play like Spain and he can't make Spain play physical like a African team, despite which eleven he chooses.

But you can't deny that from the selected 30 players on a roster 15 players are the best and at least 7 are the fixed starters. and you can play around with the remaining 4 spots depending on the game ahead and the tactic in mind.

And you can't deny either that there is ONE best formation/strategy/game plan that fits your (best) players and deviating from that is alway compromising for something else. you have to weigh in the pros and cons when you change that formation/line up/tactic before you do it. And most coaches don't (dare to) do it.

If you want a long technical example of this (with Holland as a team and Cruijff/Van Basten & Van Marwijk as coaches) feel free to ask. Otherwise I won't bore you guys with it :P

Any non-biased person with a logical sense can see whether a formation or a tactic fits a team or not, despite what some members here claim (you're not a coach so you don't know).

[Ali Chicago]

I don't know whether coaches select players for a certain strategy or game plan or vice versa (i.e. Plan according to the capabilities of the players). I suspect it is some compromise but I very much doubt if the coaches will tell us such a fact.

Usually in club level, a coach can choose a system and based on the financial strength of the club can acquire players that fit that system.

In National team usually it works the other way. Coaches choose the system based on what they see as available talent.

Of course there is exception always. But generally this is how it works.

[Kavian]

Frankly for the match with Maldives, you need not to worry too much about who is invited to the team.

CQ needs more time to be able to evaluate his players and arraive at what works for his formation and tactics. There are only 11 sposts on the field and not every good player can play. So, we just have to wait and see what comes next. He needs some good friendlies to be able to do this. I don't see anyone at IFF even thinking about this!

[Kavian]

Usually in club level, a coach can choose a system and based on the financial strength of the club can acquire players that fit that system.
In National team usually it works the other way. Coaches choose the system based on what they see as available talent. Of course there is exception always. But generally this is how it works.

That is not so true! There is no so called the "usual way". It all depends on the coach and the depth of players pool.

Even in Iran, you saw how Branko choose his system first and then found the players who can carry on the orders. Many of those players weren't able to keep their name on the roaster when the next guy arrived.

[BacheLot]

[quote]

.
The roster has physical players, highly technical players with great ball skills, creative ones, speed & pace as well as wide players to provide the width.

& off course it includes Mighty AK8 who is master @ all those Skills & aspects of the game..!
sadly He is Still The Best overall Footballer in that Enire list..! In fact, pick any two from that list & still, their combined skills falls short of that of The Mighty AK8..!!

[St_Mark]

مدافعان:
خسرو حيدري، حسين ماهيني ، سيد جلال حسيني،هادي عقيلي ،
محمد نصرتي ، پژمان منتظري ، قاسم دهنوي و مهرداد پولادي

I don't care who is the coach, just Dahnavi & Pouladi as TM defenders is not right. These two they have never played as defender, perhaps only in Q's imagination.

TM selection is crazy, from the time (Qutbi) they never acknowledged Mahini to the time (Queiroz) he is only LB in the squad.

[Ali Chicago]

That is not so true! There is no so called the "usual way". It all depends on the coach and the depth of players pool.
Even in Iran, you saw how Branko choose his system first and then found the players who can carry on the orders. Many of those players weren't able to keep their name on the roaster when the next guy arrived.

I never meant to imply always. I even start the post with the word "usually", as you yourself said "usual way".

[yashar_fasihnia]

مدافعان:
خسرو حيدري، حسين ماهيني ، سيد جلال حسيني،هادي عقيلي ،
محمد نصرتي ، پژمان منتظري ، قاسم دهنوي و مهرداد پولادي
I don't care who is the coach, just Dahnavi & Pouladi as TM defenders is not right. These two they have never played as defender, perhaps only in Q's imagination.
TM selection is crazy, from the time (Qutbi) they never acknowledged Mahini to the time (Queiroz) he is only LB in the squad.

lets give quieroz and pouladi a chance hejaz jan.
if nosrati, sattar zare and ehsan hajisafi were all tried as LBs under different coaches, why not pouladi?

he surely is left footed, has a strong physique and is relatively young and has time to adapt to a different position.
he has played DM before or atleast CM before and many times, DMs and/or CMs are used as fullbacks.

in iran, hossein kazemi used to play as a fullback in saipa. even kaebi was not a fullback.

we have also worldknow players like ze roberto who have played LB and DM/CMs. ofcourse,a braziliam international's caliber is much higher than pouladi's but then again, we are so short and poor in fullbacks in iran, that i think its good to give others a chance.

if pouladi works out to be as good as hajisafi, then that is a success in my opinion cos now we have more than 2 realistic options we can consider for long run and wat better opportunity than start against easier teams like maldvies and friend matches?