Iran - Chile: Post match discussion

[MR.S]

Its the same tactics as before, the diffrense is just that the players has adapted to the tactics, they dont need to think twice before making a decision, soon it will be in every players spine . We are just starting to see the fruits of Cq's tactics.

[Bi-honar]

...

[xerexes]

again and again it all goes back to their lack of intuition my friend, dont get upset over bunch of losers turning into keyboard champion in a football thread , your input is always valuable to all of us, always looking forward to read your posts

Oh Yes! I always look forward to the posts of a bigotted dolt who can't stop obsessing with the coach's race AND wants Mayeli Kohan in charge instead! He's like a guy who thinks he's a car expert and keeps telling you that not only is Peykan better than a BMW but calls you a foreign worshipper if you disgree!

Here's your buddy's preferred choice to CQ according to himself Make sure you don't overdose on all that wisdom oozing off his posts.

[xerexes]

Not sure if I should mention a pathological liar who made up an imaginary resume and became a laughing stock behind the scenes on another board.

[BacheLot]

i thought that was one of the better after game assessments from DD..!
i dont buy into his Shojaee slacking though..! I though Massoud certainly had an above average game..!
if he was a bit more deliberate in front of the goal and didnt hold the ball so much he coulda scored himself a couple of real sweet, headline grabbing goals too..!!
for a guy who often touts more offense, im surprised you want him to retire already..?? considering his creative attacking flair especially considering how shallow we currently are internationally in his CAM position...!!??

[Lorestani]

LMAO. Roo keh nist sange paaye ghazvine!

So overall possession was 26% and 1st half possession was 38% - making 2nd half possession 14%, but I am the one who should admit I was wrong for saying that we had much more possession in the 1st 45 to 50 minutes?!

And you think having 40% possession in the 1st half against a top 15 team in the world is being as "defensively minded" as having 30% possession against UAE, or after the 1st half of the Iraq game?!

Khob halaa ghabool keh khengi, koor ham hasti?! These are two snapshots from minute 3:47 on the UAE and Chile matches, both with the opponent in possession. They look the same to you?! Do they show the same sense of "urgency" or pressing?!

Aslan forget about all this and what I'm saying, didn't CQ say the same thing in his post match interview, that this match gave us an opportunity to improve in "team movement, passing and pressing?" But what the hell does he know?!

There are two problems with your argument:

1) You are right that TM possession in the Chile game was higher than in the game against UAE. Your "evidence", however, comparing two randomly picked game situations and implying that they are comparable just because they are from the same moment during the two games, is self-defeating and raises doubts about the standards of evidence you use for factually wrong statements when you use faulty "evidence" even in cases where your argument is actually right.

2) Even though possession in this game was higher than in the games before, the actual result is diametrically opposed to your pre-match prediction. You said that if we tried to play a bit more offensively, which is inter alia achieved through pressing further up the field, we would still lose 3-1 or something. So don't try to save your ass now by saying that we won because there was a radical change in CQ's game plan. First of all, it wasn't that radical, and secondly and more importantly, you still predicted a loss despite any change in game plan.

[Bi-honar]

1) You are right that TM possession in the Chile game was higher than in the game against UAE. Your "evidence", however, comparing two randomly picked game situations and implying that they are comparable just because they are from the same moment during the two games, is self-defeating and raises doubts about the standards of evidence you use for factually wrong statements when you use faulty "evidence" even in cases where your argument is actually right.

Okay, we're finally beginning to have a quasi-mature discussion.

First of all, the only provision of evidence that can be self-defeating is one that opposes a hypothesis. This one didn't and is therefore not "self-defeating". If you're saying that's "not enough evidence", it's a valid but different argument. You are of course welcome to provide your own analysis and evidence at any point, but there's some more from my side in the next post.

2) Even though possession in this game was higher than in the games before, the actual result is diametrically opposed to your pre-match prediction. You said that if we tried to play a bit more offensively, which is inter alia achieved through pressing further up the field, we would still lose 3-1 or something. So don't try to save your ass now by saying that we won because there was a radical change in CQ's game plan. First of all, it wasn't that radical, and secondly and more importantly, you still predicted a loss despite any change in game plan.

I don't understand why you guys are struggling with this simple concept: I don't need to save my ass, it was a prediction and it turned out to be wrong. If predictions were supposed to be right 100% of the time, bookies would all be broke, wouldn't they?

Have all your predictions about TM been correct and on the optimistic side every single time?! If they have, I would like to know. If they haven't isn't it VERY hypocritical to expect someone else to be right and optimistic about a TM prediction 100% of the time?!

Does it make me a BIG man or a LITTLE man to splatter one of those predictions all over the forum and start ridiculing you or someone else?! Not a rhetorical question.

[Lorestani]

Okay, we're finally beginning to have a quasi-mature discussion.

First of all, the only provision of evidence that can be self-defeating is one that opposes a hypothesis. This one didn't and is therefore not "self-defeating". If you're saying that's "not enough evidence", it's a valid but different argument. You are of course welcome to provide your own analysis and evidence at any point, but there's some more from my side in the next post.




I don't understand why you guys are struggling with this simple concept: I don't need to save my ass, it was a prediction and it turned out to be wrong. If predictions were supposed to be right 100% of the time, bookies would all be broke, wouldn't they?

Have all your predictions about TM been correct and on the optimistic side every single time?! If they have, I would like to know. If they haven't isn't it VERY hypocritical to expect someone else to be right and optimistic about a TM prediction 100% of the time?!

Does it make me a BIG man or a LITTLE man to splatter one of those predictions all over the forum and start ridiculing you or someone else?! Not a rhetorical question.

1) I am not sure why you are trying to police the discourse here and I certainly don't wanna get bogged down in semantics, but no matter how you want me to use the term "self-defeating", your "evidence" in this very particular case is weak, to put it very mildly, for the reasons mentioned in my previous post. I call it self-defeating because by supporting a right statement with what amounts to nothing more than a caricature of evidence, you raise doubts about your ability to provide evidence in the first place, hence the self-defeat. So in a way, it is much more severe than what you define as self-defeating, because what is defeated is not your argument, but the person who makes it. Again, your statement was right, that was not the point.

2) Predictions can go wrong, sure, no problem with that. And yes, I tend to agree with you that splattering predictions on a board does not make you a "LITTLE man" per se. The problem here lies somewhere else: you said that if we pressed more and higher up field, we would still lose, essentially implying that the problem is not the game plan, tactics, or whatever, but rather the very presence of CQ himself. That, my friend, is far more than a prediction. It is borderline bad faith.

[xerexes]

I don't understand why you guys are struggling with this simple concept: I don't need to save my ass, it was a prediction and it turned out to be wrong.

YOU are the one who has always struggled with this concept! If it wasn't for this obsessive need to save your ass every time you're incorrect, you wouldn't make an ass out of yourself every time by flailing about and trying to save face.

[Doctor DOOM]

I believe had we lost this match or played to the dissatisfactory, he would have been the first to open his usual "Post-Match" thread after the first half.

!

Well buddy, you can believe whatever you want to believe. It's a free country.
But as unbelievable and strange as it may sound to some, some of us have lives outside pfdc and even football. We have jobs, work matters , home stuff, ... etc etc etc. which may take precedence over sitting down and writing about football.

But, as I said, it's a free country. I'm not responsible for anyone having illogical and silly ideas in their heads. It's for them to sit quietly in a corner and solve their problem

[Bi-honar]

As far as more evidence... These two snapshots are from the 1st free kick for Iran in the opponent's half in the UAE and Chile games. I hope you agree that's not a random situation.

It took Iran roughly 1 minute to get a free-kick in the opponent's half and 22 minutes to get one in the UAE game. The reason for that is that aside from pressing more when the opponent had the ball, we were also attempting to hold in the opponent's half when we had the ball to allow more of the team to move up as a unit.

Please compare the two free kicks and tell me if you don't see any difference - granted they are in different positions, but still provide a good indication of the offensive mindedness of the play. Just count the number of white shirts in front of the ball in the Chile game vs. the UAE game.

And please keep in mind that one game was a must-win against UAE and one was just a friendly where the result did not really matter. If you're going to argue the position of the free kick, I included the 1st free kick of the match in the UAE game from a dangerous position (that one took us 46 minutes to get and it's hard to argue it's from a less dangerous position that in the Chile game). Again count the number of white shirts and compare:

[Bi-honar]

... essentially implying that the problem is not the game plan, tactics, or whatever, but rather the very presence of CQ himself. That, my friend, is far more than a prediction. It is borderline bad faith.

Answer to 1st paragraph in previous post.

And NO, it's NOT implying that at all. If you're taking things out of context, that's your problem. I've never said I have a problem with the presence of CQ and I've said MANY MANY times, I supported him before and at the WC and I supported him before and at the Asian Cup and I will support him for as long as he's TM's coach.

I do NOT support overly defensive tactics and game plans, under CQ or anyone else, particularly against teams that are ranked much lower than us. I hope you understand the difference.

[vatanparast]

Answer to 1st paragraph in previous post.

And NO, it's NOT implying that at all. If you're taking things out of context, that's your problem. I've never said I have a problem with the presence of CQ and I've said MANY MANY times, I supported him before and at the WC and I supported him before and at the Asian Cup and I will support him for as long as he's TM's coach.

I do NOT support overly defensive tactics and game plans, under CQ or anyone else, particularly against teams that are ranked much lower than us. I hope you understand the difference.

Guys quit already and kiss and make up.

My two cents even though nobody asked!

Uae game was a tournament game and cq didnt want to take risks and we didnt have any real friendlies to prep before uae game.
Chile game was a friendly and an opportunity to actually practice tactics and prep for wcq especially for youngters like amiri ghafouri.
We also had two penlties denied in chile game. Cq is da king and we were very priviliged to have him as our coach. God bless him and teammelli. If cq leaves this is a great way for him to leave with him giving his all and having something to show for it and a very good experience for our players.

[Lorestani]

Answer to 1st paragraph in previous post.

And NO, it's NOT implying that at all. If you're taking things out of context, that's your problem. I've never said I have a problem with the presence of CQ and I've said MANY MANY times, I supported him before and at the WC and I supported him before and at the Asian Cup and I will support him for as long as he's TM's coach.

I do NOT support overly defensive tactics and game plans, under CQ or anyone else, particularly against teams that are ranked much lower than us. I hope you understand the difference.

There is a logical fallacy in your argument. If it was really the case that your only problem with CQ was his allegedly defensive game plan, then why did you predict a loss EVEN under the assumption that we would play more offensively? Therein lies the problem. If the defensive game plan was your main problem, you should have concluded that with a more offensive game plan, we would stand a better chance against Chile. Instead, you argued that we would still lose 3-1 even with a change in game plan.

With regard to your first point, I have already told you that your argument was correct. Yes, we pressed much more and much earlier. I only criticized your use of "evidence". That you cannot make up by providing other types of evidence, as my point of criticism was solely focused on the first type of "evidence" you used.

[Doctor DOOM]

i thought that was one of the better after game assessments from DD..!
i dont buy into his Shojaee slacking though..! I though Massoud certainly had an above average game..!
if he was a bit more deliberate in front of the goal and didnt hold the ball so much he coulda scored himself a couple of real sweet, headline grabbing goals too..!!
for a guy who often touts more offense, im surprised you want him to retire already..?? considering his creative attacking flair especially considering how shallow we currently are internationally in his CAM position...!!??

Well, I guess my expectations from a CAM is more than one good pass every one and half YEAR. I expect more running, more pace, quicker decision making, less turn overs and better shooting from such an IMPORTANT & KEY OFFENSIVE POST.

Besides he is 30-31 and by the WC he'll be 33-34. If he's this slow and error prone now, how much more slower and error prone would he be by then? So why not invest in a couple of younger players who WILL be available for the WC.