FIRST HALF:
Pretty good first half.
The team played a very organized game and the defense looked in pretty good control of their zones. Montazeri was just awesome.
Contrary to what majority of us thought, Mohamad Nouri did have a good game (even if we don’t count his legitimate goal).
Ando doesn’t seem to be at his best though and I wouldn’t be surprised to see Dehnavi or someone else taking his place midway through second half. Otherwise I would say do more of the same and continue to do what you’re doing to all the players … except take more shots. With the ball being slippery (as was shown in RGN’s shot that the keeper failed to control), it provides an edge to the shooters.
You could see the uzbeks had done their homework on us and our weaknesses too, as in set pieces and corners, they really OVER-crowded Rahmati’s 6 yard box, hoping for an unforced error or miss or ricochet. Thankfully our defense held.
As for the goal, I think now we are even and square with the uzbeks. Our legitimate goal ruled offside effectively takes out any reference to their legitimate goal in Tashkent.
******************
SECOND HALF
This half was a total opposite of the first half. But what stands out above everything else is how absolutely WOEFUL substitution decisions were done!! Woeful, horrible, disastrous subs.
Dehnavi (or Milad Nouri) instead of Pejman Nouri would have helped our cause far far better as he would have added to the team’s offense (lets not forget this is the team that has scored only two goals in 5 games. Meaning our offense needs more help than our defense. Especially AT HOME and when we NEED TO WIN. So why remove our superiority from the first half by reducing our offense with a defensive minded player?
Hell, if you love Pejman Nouri’s game, then at least sub him for Ando. He is in the same mold at least.
2. The second clue to this spineless defensive mindset was when Heidari was kept back and was told to be far more defensive than his usual self/game. Granted, he did well in defense. But it is evident the Uzbeks didn’t plan their goal chances for during the game and had based any hope ONLY ON SET PIECES & DEAD BALLS. So it’s not as if they were attacking in waves (like in Tashkent) and Heidari was put under tremendous pressure.
So keeping him too far from Dejagah (especially in the second half, up to the goal) meant poor Dejagah had to go it alone against 2 or 3 physical defenders and he lost quite a few balls in the process.
So once again we lose (at home) because we behave like spineless mice and don’t cease on our opportunities just because we (the coaches) are too scared of losing … even when playing at home and even when we are in control of the game!!
We have to blame how we approached the game. It has nothing to do with infrastructure or foundation or … etc. and like it or not, CQ has a lot to answer for such abysmal handling of a football game.
Pretty good first half.
The team played a very organized game and the defense looked in pretty good control of their zones. Montazeri was just awesome.
Contrary to what majority of us thought, Mohamad Nouri did have a good game (even if we don’t count his legitimate goal).
Ando doesn’t seem to be at his best though and I wouldn’t be surprised to see Dehnavi or someone else taking his place midway through second half. Otherwise I would say do more of the same and continue to do what you’re doing to all the players … except take more shots. With the ball being slippery (as was shown in RGN’s shot that the keeper failed to control), it provides an edge to the shooters.
You could see the uzbeks had done their homework on us and our weaknesses too, as in set pieces and corners, they really OVER-crowded Rahmati’s 6 yard box, hoping for an unforced error or miss or ricochet. Thankfully our defense held.
As for the goal, I think now we are even and square with the uzbeks. Our legitimate goal ruled offside effectively takes out any reference to their legitimate goal in Tashkent.
******************
SECOND HALF
This half was a total opposite of the first half. But what stands out above everything else is how absolutely WOEFUL substitution decisions were done!! Woeful, horrible, disastrous subs.
- To start with, having seen Ando was not at his best. Add to this our need to win the game and finally put distance between ourselves and the rest. And most importantly, in a game that we were in control of. Why should we lose our spine and behave so gutless to replace Mohamad Nouri (who was having a decent game), an offensive minded player with a defensive player (Pejman Nouri)? What are you scared of? What did you see in the first half to scare you into behaving like a freaking bloody mouse? That too when there is a better candidate to remove from the game (Ando)!!!
Dehnavi (or Milad Nouri) instead of Pejman Nouri would have helped our cause far far better as he would have added to the team’s offense (lets not forget this is the team that has scored only two goals in 5 games. Meaning our offense needs more help than our defense. Especially AT HOME and when we NEED TO WIN. So why remove our superiority from the first half by reducing our offense with a defensive minded player?
Hell, if you love Pejman Nouri’s game, then at least sub him for Ando. He is in the same mold at least.
2. The second clue to this spineless defensive mindset was when Heidari was kept back and was told to be far more defensive than his usual self/game. Granted, he did well in defense. But it is evident the Uzbeks didn’t plan their goal chances for during the game and had based any hope ONLY ON SET PIECES & DEAD BALLS. So it’s not as if they were attacking in waves (like in Tashkent) and Heidari was put under tremendous pressure.
So keeping him too far from Dejagah (especially in the second half, up to the goal) meant poor Dejagah had to go it alone against 2 or 3 physical defenders and he lost quite a few balls in the process.
- The other horrible, wasteful sub was ballerina. The bugger had one weak shot AND NOTHING ELSE! He became invisible (no surprises here as he had NOTHING to offer against the physical opponents) and we ended up playing with 10 men.
- The goal: We had already seen Ando not at his best. And lo & behold as it was HIS MARK who escaped him and scored the goal easily. I don’t know if Ando was really ready as he WAS injured mid-week and there was talk of him missing the game. If so, it is yet another horrible decision by the coaching staff to play him. And then keeping him beyond the first half.
- I am shocked how we are so bloody poor in taking shots and shooting! This is something that any kid would notice. So how come an international coach asking for $2 million fees doesn’t reach the same conclusion? Absolutely horrible and unacceptable.
- I’m tempted to include the issue of Khalatbari and how we used him too. I think he would have been far more useful if he was a second half sub coming in to push and pressure the tiring uzbek defenders, instead of starting with him against tough and rough uzbek defenders who (we should have expected) man-handled him and being fresh and ready, were easy to nullify Khalatbari’s pace and impact on games.
So once again we lose (at home) because we behave like spineless mice and don’t cease on our opportunities just because we (the coaches) are too scared of losing … even when playing at home and even when we are in control of the game!!
We have to blame how we approached the game. It has nothing to do with infrastructure or foundation or … etc. and like it or not, CQ has a lot to answer for such abysmal handling of a football game.
Comment