Ric. Hopefully this article will further highlight JA's folly in the GC game against the USA (playing a formation they had no business playing)and we can put it to rest once and for all. Everytime I think the game was put in context and put to bed(it was primarily the formation) you repackage it and put yet another spin on it to whatever serves your purpose at the moment.
FC Barcelona: From current predictability to unpredictable possibilities. by Jose A. on Aug 20, 2011 1:23 PM CEST in Editorials
...Barcelona have achieved their current run of success playing a standard 4-3-3 formation that produces fluid football, excellent passing lanes, and retention of the ball. The opinion is really divided on whether this is the ideal formation Barcelona should play.
Many would argue that Barcelona have only been able to achieve their current style of play in a formation of this nature because it creates space on the field and this causes Barcelona's current game to thrive...However, this formation does have it's drawbacks... Teams such as Inter Milan and Real Madrid have exposed Barcelona's vulnerabilities to counter-attacks in this formation as well as used a defensive approach to render it ineffective. The 4-3-3 relies heavily on defensive backs to join the attack and pressure the enemy with overwhelming numbers to achieve a breakthrough. When opposing teams defend deep, if they can regain possession and send a long ball into the spaces left by the defensive backs, they find that they can easily get into 3 on 2 or even 1-on-1 situations with Barcelona's central defenders. This usually leads to situations that Barcelona would like to avoid. In the recent Clasico's this tactic proved effective for Madrid's initial goal when Benzema moved into the gap left by Adriano to feed Mesut Ozil the pass to score the opener. What was also plain to see was how Barcelona suffered in the midfield when their backs could not support the attackers due to being pressed into defensive duties. Therefore without support Guardiola was forced to do something which he has done in the past to win matches based on the situation at hand, he changed formation. But he could only due this because of the depth added to his squad by Fabregas, Adriano, and Keita. With the addition of Mascherano, Adriano, Fabregas, Alexis, Afellay, and Thiago, Guardiola now has the flexibility to change the shape of the squad to meet the on-field challenges.
CONCACAF sides do not play defensive football...it is not in their culture...that both the USA and Jamaica have seen where they needed to strengthen the defensive side of their game since the GC is evident in the wins that both teams achieved on Wednesday...neither Jamaica or the USA played DEFENSIVE football in either match...both teams have improved their defense...and Jamaica still has a whole lot to do in that area.
Go back and search all my posts and see how many times I've said that this is where Jamaica needed and still needs to improve tremendously to be a strong CONCACAF contender...and those posts were made after the Digicel Cup.
You are always trying fi find ways to go around arguments.
There was nothing for JA to take away from the USA game or for the USA to take away from the Mexico game in the GC except that the formation they elected to play left their defensive end exposed and they got what the duck gets and rightfully so.
Just because they both won on Wednesday you are trying to link it to defensive improvements based on their analysis of the GC games. How come you weren't linking defensive improvement when JA lost 5 straight following that USA game or when the USA was losing those consecutive games after the GC? You are such an opportunist.
Did JA or the USA played with 3 forwards on Wednesday like they did in the GC? If not, then what is your point? Whether either teams improved defensively is debatable as they are still tinkering with their team. A win does not necessarily point to defensive improvement because you think it strenghten your argument. What is not debatable is that neither team will play against a better side with 3 forwards and expect to win. That has always been my point, and only point. As far as DEFENSIVE football I don't know what you are trying to say there because nobody is advocating that.
I will not go back and search your posts because I know all I am going to find are contradictions from one post to the next.
You're not watching these football games before you respond to my posts, are you ?
If you watched New Zealand and did not see Jamaica's overall TEAM defensive improvement, plus improvement in their defense(the central defense),along with the change in tactical formation that you keep harping on about, you certainly did not watch the game that the rest of us did.
If Jamaica had played this game with the exact same team that played against the USA and only changed the formation and got the same result as they did against New Zealand, your argument would be proven; obviously Tappa's seen where he also needed a change in personnell in his central defense, but you haven't.
Are you the only one ites on this entire site who hasn't seen this ?
Why do you think Tappa recalled Claude Davis and Damion Stewart into the team...shall I tell you ?
Because he considers them better central defenders than who he's been using so far that lost him 5 matches on the trot.
Did they let him down and prove him wrong against New Zealand ?
You're not watching these football games before you respond to my posts, are you ?
If you watched New Zealand and did not see Jamaica's overall TEAM defensive improvement, plus improvement in their defense(the central defense),along with the change in tactical formation that you keep harping on about, you certainly did not watch the game that the rest of us did.
If Jamaica had played this game with the exact same team that played against the USA and only changed the formation and got the same result as they did against New Zealand, your argument would be proven; obviously Tappa's seen where he also needed a change in personnell in his central defense, but you haven't.
Are you the only one ites on this entire site who hasn't seen this ?
Why do you think Tappa recalled Claude Davis and Damion Stewart into the team...shall I tell you ?
Because he considers them better central defenders than who he's been using so far that lost him 5 matches on the trot.
Did they let him down and prove him wrong against New Zealand ?
Watch the game again, and decide for yourself.
Again mi affi ask you what the hell you talking bout.
Again you are stating the obvious. Once I heard JA was playing a 4-5-1 or a 3-5-2 I didn't need to see one second of the game to know that the overall TEAM defense would improve. Obviously you needed to see the game a couple of times to come to that conclusion . I wonder if you also break down the tape in segments, slow-motion, rewinds etc. to come to your conclusion . If JA had played against the KIWIS with the same players that played in the USA game in the 4-5-1 or 3-5-2 the overall TEAM defense would've also improved, therefore your reasoning doesn't make sense.
I will go even further and say that if JA had played the same players against KIWI and deployed a 4-3-3 formation the TEAM would have looked better defensively as well just based on the difference in quality between the USA and New Zealand. Now if Tappa found better individual defenders to go along with the change in formation then that's what the process is about...isn't it? Nobody was claiming that the defenders who played in the USA games were untouchables. Mi no understand how you reason.
In Summary:
JA played a weaker opponent in New Zealand and employed a more defensive formation in the 3-5-2 and you are foaming at the mouth that the TEAM defense improved. Wouldn't logic tell you that the TEAM should look better defensively? I don't need to look at the game to draw that conclusion.
As for individual improvement, until these defenders play against the USA in the 3-4-3 and keep their shape I will reserve my judgement. Even though one can assume whether there was individual improvement just based on what one knows about the quality of each player.
To play in a 3-5-2 against a weak KIWI team and still have many ites being critical about the defense tells me that this defense would've gotten killed also playing the 3-4-3 formation against a superior USA team. Therefore we still come back to the formation being the deciding\determing factor no matter how much yu a try go 'roun it. No so?
You're not watching these football games before you respond to my posts, are you ?
If you watched New Zealand and did not see Jamaica's overall TEAM defensive improvement, plus improvement in their defense(the central defense),along with the change in tactical formation that you keep harping on about, you certainly did not watch the game that the rest of us did.
If Jamaica had played this game with the exact same team that played against the USA and only changed the formation and got the same result as they did against New Zealand, your argument would be proven; obviously Tappa's seen where he also needed a change in personnell in his central defense, but you haven't.
Are you the only one ites on this entire site who hasn't seen this ?
Why do you think Tappa recalled Claude Davis and Damion Stewart into the team...shall I tell you ?
Because he considers them better central defenders than who he's been using so far that lost him 5 matches on the trot.
Did they let him down and prove him wrong against New Zealand ?
Watch the game again, and decide for yourself.
Ok I stayed up and watch the game. I am not really interested in watching friendlies, but I did it for you Ric.
I am not one to comment on friendlies, but I am going to make an exception this time. Everything considered this Jamaica team played worse than they did against the USA in the GC.
These are some of the reason:
A- NZ formation. I almost fell out my chair when the announcer said NZ was playing with 3 men up top. JA showed no tactical awareness of this. The ranking says NZ is a weaker team than JA therefore JA should've murdered them for playing that formation, instead it was NZ finding the gaps time and time again. It sat in amazement. Additionally the announcers mentioned that a KIWI midfielder was being to anxious leaving his position everytime NZ went on the attack, therefore there should've been even more gaps for JA to shoot.
B- JA's formation. 5 midfielders I was told. They didn't serve any purpose. If you are going to play 5 midfielders against a weaker team why play a sagging defense? Why not play pressing defense trying to win the ball and spring counterattacks? How many counters JA had? exactly 1, on the 3rd goal which was executed perfectly. If JA was tactically aware those counters should've been there all night, especially considering the KIWI's formation and their weaker status. Unu remember the barrage of counters the USA was hitting unnu with? And unnu remember the barrage of counters Mexico hit the USA with? That's because they were tactically aware of the gaps. NZ played the midfield as if they were the ones in the 3-5-2 formation, and technically they are suppose to be the weaker team. They were made to feel very comfortable in the midfield while JA sagged off defensively. That is where the pressing and hard tackling suppose to take place. I have seen JA run counters all night against much better teams out of formations not necessarily design for counters.
You can't play 5 midfielders against a weaker team who themself are playing 3 or 4 midfielders and 3 forwards and come away with 1 counter and say you played an improved team defense. You played a prevent defense is what you did.
C- What did Daley do all night? Somewhere I read someone said he has improved. I can't see how he was ever worse. The best moment he had was between the 66th & 68th minutes, and right after that he turn in the midfield and just roll the ball to the defense with no one on him. Now I see why he is riding the bench for his club. Ric you lied to us again. Ric faulting Taylor for not driving the offense when in fact that was Daley's job. The man gone all the way in the back of the midfield to blame the defensive midfielder for not doing the job his boy, Daley, should have been doing. He wasn't even showing for the ball. The man just looked lost.
D- The 2 big lugs in the defense. Are you kidding me? NZ won just about every ball in the box. On the first goal look what the man do to Claude Davis on the very first touch in the build up. Right through his legs, and then he compounded it by leisurely jogging behind the man, that's why the other brother left his man fi cover Davis' man. The second goal was more of the same of what was going on all night, beaten in the box by a header.
The best things I saw is what most here seem to try and downplay, and those were the goals. Those were some well taking shots. The only reason I can see for the underappreciation is the fear by some ites that this might propel these players into the team at the expense of other players some see as giving JA a better chance to win. Which is fair, but give the goal scorers props where props are due. For JA players those were fantastic strikes, for any player really. If they were UK based players everyone would be singing their praises and pointing out how their techniques have improved since they left the bush league in JA.
Except for what I pointed out above everything was great.
Again, I don't usually watch or comment on friendlies. Friendlies to me are for the coaches to work out their thing, tinker and evaluate and I allow them that, but...
P.S. I got you HI. CRica just have to blow out this team and you got your UK ballas. Unfortunately my comments also play into Ric's hands.
You're not watching these football games before you respond to my posts, are you ?
If you watched New Zealand and did not see Jamaica's overall TEAM defensive improvement, plus improvement in their defense(the central defense),along with the change in tactical formation that you keep harping on about, you certainly did not watch the game that the rest of us did.
If Jamaica had played this game with the exact same team that played against the USA and only changed the formation and got the same result as they did against New Zealand, your argument would be proven; obviously Tappa's seen where he also needed a change in personnell in his central defense, but you haven't.
Are you the only one ites on this entire site who hasn't seen this ?
Why do you think Tappa recalled Claude Davis and Damion Stewart into the team...shall I tell you ?
Because he considers them better central defenders than who he's been using so far that lost him 5 matches on the trot.
Did they let him down and prove him wrong against New Zealand ?
Watch the game again, and decide for yourself.
Ok I stayed up and watch the game. I am not really interested in watching friendlies, but I did it for you Ric.
I am not one to comment on friendlies, but I am going to make an exception this time. Everything considered this Jamaica team played worse than they did against the USA in the GC.
These are some of the reason:
A- NZ formation. I almost fell out my chair when the announcer said NZ was playing with 3 men up top. JA showed no tactical awareness of this. The ranking says NZ is a weaker team than JA therefore JA should've murdered them for playing that formation, instead it was NZ finding the gaps time and time again. It sat in amazement. Additionally the announcers mentioned that a KIWI midfielder was being to anxious leaving his position everytime NZ went on the attack, therefore there should've been even more gaps for JA to shoot.
B- JA's formation. 5 midfielders I was told. They didn't serve any purpose. If you are going to play 5 midfielders against a weaker team why play a sagging defense? Why not play pressing defense trying to win the ball and spring counterattacks? How many counters JA had? exactly 1, on the 3rd goal which was executed perfectly. If JA was tactically aware those counters should've been there all night, especially considering the KIWI's formation and their weaker status. Unu remember the barrage of counters the USA was hitting unnu with? And unnu remember the barrage of counters Mexico hit the USA with? That's because they were tactically aware of the gaps. NZ played the midfield as if they were the ones in the 3-5-2 formation, and technically they are suppose to be the weaker team. They were made to feel very comfortable in the midfield while JA sagged off defensively. That is where the pressing and hard tackling suppose to take place. I have seen JA run counters all night against much better teams out of formations not necessarily design for counters.
You can't play 5 midfielders against a weaker team who themself are playing 3 or 4 midfielders and 3 forwards and come away with 1 counter and say you played an improved team defense. You played a prevent defense is what you did.
C- What did Daley do all night? Somewhere I read someone said he has improved. I can't see how he was ever worse. The best moment he had was between the 66th & 68th minutes, and right after that he turn in the midfield and just roll the ball to the defense with no one on him. Now I see why he is riding the bench for his club. Ric you lied to us again. Ric faulting Taylor for not driving the offense when in fact that was Daley's job. The man gone all the way in the back of the midfield to blame the defensive midfielder for not doing the job his boy, Daley, should have been doing. He wasn't even showing for the ball. The man just looked lost.
D- The 2 big lugs in the defense. Are you kidding me? NZ won just about every ball in the box. On the first goal look what the man do to Claude Davis on the very first touch in the build up. Right through his legs, and then he compounded it by leisurely jogging behind the man, that's why the other brother left his man fi cover Davis' man. The second goal was more of the same of what was going on all night, beaten in the box by a header.
The best things I saw is what most here seem to try and downplay, and those were the goals. Those were some well taking shots. The only reason I can see for the underappreciation is the fear by some ites that this might propel these players into the team at the expense of other players some see as giving JA a better chance to win. Which is fair, but give the goal scorers props where props are due. For JA players those were fantastic strikes, for any player really. If they were UK based players everyone would be singing their praises and pointing out how their techniques have improved since they left the bush league in JA.
Except for what I pointed out above everything was great.
Again, I don't usually watch or comment on friendlies. Friendlies to me are for the coaches to work out their thing, tinker and evaluate and I allow them that, but...
P.S. I got you HI. CRica just have to blow out this team and you got your UK ballas. Unfortunately my comments also play into Ric's hands.
As I figured, Pelepappa...
U a come on ya and expect fi bowl over peeps with your brilliant ananlysis of games that you don't even WATCH ????!!!
Based on WHAT...your understanding of two likkle coaching dvd weh teach a likkle something bout formations and tactics ?
Pleeeaaasseee...pay mi and the other ites a likkle more respect than that...and the Jamaican national team.
EARTH TO PELEPAPPA....EARTH TO PELEPAPPA...please, beam back down..over...
You're not watching these football games before you respond to my posts, are you ?
If you watched New Zealand and did not see Jamaica's overall TEAM defensive improvement, plus improvement in their defense(the central defense),along with the change in tactical formation that you keep harping on about, you certainly did not watch the game that the rest of us did.
If Jamaica had played this game with the exact same team that played against the USA and only changed the formation and got the same result as they did against New Zealand, your argument would be proven; obviously Tappa's seen where he also needed a change in personnell in his central defense, but you haven't.
Are you the only one ites on this entire site who hasn't seen this ?
Why do you think Tappa recalled Claude Davis and Damion Stewart into the team...shall I tell you ?
Because he considers them better central defenders than who he's been using so far that lost him 5 matches on the trot.
Did they let him down and prove him wrong against New Zealand ?
Watch the game again, and decide for yourself.
Ok I stayed up and watch the game. I am not really interested in watching friendlies, but I did it for you Ric.
I am not one to comment on friendlies, but I am going to make an exception this time. Everything considered this Jamaica team played worse than they did against the USA in the GC.
These are some of the reason:
A- NZ formation. I almost fell out my chair when the announcer said NZ was playing with 3 men up top. JA showed no tactical awareness of this. The ranking says NZ is a weaker team than JA therefore JA should've murdered them for playing that formation, instead it was NZ finding the gaps time and time again. It sat in amazement. Additionally the announcers mentioned that a KIWI midfielder was being to anxious leaving his position everytime NZ went on the attack, therefore there should've been even more gaps for JA to shoot.
B- JA's formation. 5 midfielders I was told. They didn't serve any purpose. If you are going to play 5 midfielders against a weaker team why play a sagging defense? Why not play pressing defense trying to win the ball and spring counterattacks? How many counters JA had? exactly 1, on the 3rd goal which was executed perfectly. If JA was tactically aware those counters should've been there all night, especially considering the KIWI's formation and their weaker status. Unu remember the barrage of counters the USA was hitting unnu with? And unnu remember the barrage of counters Mexico hit the USA with? That's because they were tactically aware of the gaps. NZ played the midfield as if they were the ones in the 3-5-2 formation, and technically they are suppose to be the weaker team. They were made to feel very comfortable in the midfield while JA sagged off defensively. That is where the pressing and hard tackling suppose to take place. I have seen JA run counters all night against much better teams out of formations not necessarily design for counters.
You can't play 5 midfielders against a weaker team who themself are playing 3 or 4 midfielders and 3 forwards and come away with 1 counter and say you played an improved team defense. You played a prevent defense is what you did.
C- What did Daley do all night? Somewhere I read someone said he has improved. I can't see how he was ever worse. The best moment he had was between the 66th & 68th minutes, and right after that he turn in the midfield and just roll the ball to the defense with no one on him. Now I see why he is riding the bench for his club. Ric you lied to us again. Ric faulting Taylor for not driving the offense when in fact that was Daley's job. The man gone all the way in the back of the midfield to blame the defensive midfielder for not doing the job his boy, Daley, should have been doing. He wasn't even showing for the ball. The man just looked lost.
D- The 2 big lugs in the defense. Are you kidding me? NZ won just about every ball in the box. On the first goal look what the man do to Claude Davis on the very first touch in the build up. Right through his legs, and then he compounded it by leisurely jogging behind the man, that's why the other brother left his man fi cover Davis' man. The second goal was more of the same of what was going on all night, beaten in the box by a header.
The best things I saw is what most here seem to try and downplay, and those were the goals. Those were some well taking shots. The only reason I can see for the underappreciation is the fear by some ites that this might propel these players into the team at the expense of other players some see as giving JA a better chance to win. Which is fair, but give the goal scorers props where props are due. For JA players those were fantastic strikes, for any player really. If they were UK based players everyone would be singing their praises and pointing out how their techniques have improved since they left the bush league in JA.
Except for what I pointed out above everything was great.
Again, I don't usually watch or comment on friendlies. Friendlies to me are for the coaches to work out their thing, tinker and evaluate and I allow them that, but...
P.S. I got you HI. CRica just have to blow out this team and you got your UK ballas. Unfortunately my comments also play into Ric's hands.
As I figured, Pelepappa...
U a come on ya and expect fi bowl over peeps with your brilliant ananlysis of games that you don't even WATCH ????!!!
Based on WHAT...your understanding of two likkle coaching dvd weh teach a likkle something bout formations and tactics ?
Pleeeaaasseee...pay mi and the other ites a likkle more respect than that...and the Jamaican national team.
EARTH TO PELEPAPPA....EARTH TO PELEPAPPA...please, beam back down..over...
When did I render an analysis on this game before my above post?
You were going on about improved TEAM defense and I basically took your word for it and commented that it should have been expected. Is that what you are calling analyzing the game? I should've known better than taking your word for anything relating to football, but I thought the change of formation made your analysis so obvious it couldn't be wrong. I was wrong!
I said a lot. Refute them or shut the hell up. Keep the emotional bull to yourself, talking about respect. If someone need to be respectful is you with your bias analysis all over the forum. You don't think that is disrespectful? Even HI start checking you, and that's saying a lot, so spare me.
The only respect I owe anyone on a forum is to be unbias, and of course as a guest on a Jacan forum I try to be as sensitive to cultural mores as possible.
If you think I am watching coaching DVDs you should be asking me for their names instead of your wack attempt at dissing, because you sure can use them. I don't think any of those DVDs deal with how to overcome bias, therefore I don't think they will be of much help to you.
Have to agree with pelepapa to a certain extent. I am not sure how anyone could watch this match and honestly claim that Daley has improved significantly, when he gave away the ball more than he ever has for a Jamaican team. The weakness of Claude and Stew Peas was quite obvious for everyone to see.
Based on WHAT...your understanding of two likkle coaching dvd weh teach a likkle something bout formations and tactics ?
A coaching DVD came out on this game already? I better run to the store before they sell out.
Mr. don't need a coaching DVD man,
Give us your take on what you saw Daley doing on the pitch. Tell us why he wasn't useless in this game. Because I like him is not an acceptable answer.
Tell us how many counters JA had for the entire game. Wouldn't you expect counters after counters out of this formation? You know like what JA saw against the USA whereby Tappa had to change to a 4 man backline just to contain the onslaught?
Tell us the percentage of balls won by your boss central defenders in the box...What do you think a better team would do with those balls dropping all over the box?
Tell us why with a man less in the midfield, a weaker team (NZ)was operating so freely in that area of the field. Why more passes weren't intercepted for counters or why the KIWI on the ball wasn't closed down with more ferocity. What's with this bend but don't break defense in midfield against a weaker team?
What was disappointing to me is that I didn't see the effort to pressure the ball. This was a friendly which I don't usually put much stock in, but even in a friendly you want to see the right tactics attempted even if they are not successful. Actually that is the only importance I place on friendly games, that the right tactics are being attempted.
Based on WHAT...your understanding of two likkle coaching dvd weh teach a likkle something bout formations and tactics ?
A coaching DVD came out on this game already? I better run to the store before they sell out.
Mr. don't need a coaching DVD man,
Give us your take on what you saw Daley doing on the pitch. Tell us why he wasn't useless in this game. Because I like him is not an acceptable answer.
Tell us how many counters JA had for the entire game. Wouldn't you expect counters after counters out of this formation? You know like what JA saw against the USA whereby Tappa had to change to a 4 man backline just to contain the onslaught?
Tell us the percentage of balls won by your boss central defenders in the box...What do you think a better team would do with those balls dropping all over the box?
Tell us why with a man less in the midfield, a weaker team (NZ)was operating so freely in that area of the field. Why more passes weren't intercepted for counters or why the KIWI on the ball wasn't closed down with more ferocity. What's with this bend but don't break defense in midfield against a weaker team?
What was disappointing to me is that I didn't see the effort to pressure the ball. This was a friendly which I don't usually put much stock in, but even in a friendly you want to see the right tactics attempted even if they are not successful. Actually that is the only importance I place on friendly games, that the right tactics are being attempted.
Great goals though.
Pelepappa
This was not a vintage Jamaica performance or Jamaica's strongest team...and we all know and have said that already.
You have focused on what this team was NOT doing...and if that is your focus, you have every right to that.
What I saw from this game that was missing from the USA game was an ATTEMPT at playing the right tactics under the prevailing conditions of this game...the most important thing in getting the midfield to defend more and the forwards tracking back...that is the tactics that Jamaica needs, regardless of the quality of the team or personnell, on the pitch.
I expect to see more of the things that were lacking when Jamaica has a stronger side, with our top ballas, on the pitch but I also expect to see that team doing the things that this team was doing, only doing them better.
Dada Daley's improvement lies in the same area of the team improvement...a more all-round defensive contribution; are you saying he was useless in this game, or that he didn't have a reasonably good game ?
I agree, very poor defending on the goals against at crucial times in the match, when the team had just scored, which is purely lack of concentration and when one defender was subbed for another.
No, not a vintage performance from Jamaica but signs that things are headed in the right direction...I call things as I see them
Based on WHAT...your understanding of two likkle coaching dvd weh teach a likkle something bout formations and tactics ?
A coaching DVD came out on this game already? I better run to the store before they sell out.
Mr. don't need a coaching DVD man,
Give us your take on what you saw Daley doing on the pitch. Tell us why he wasn't useless in this game. Because I like him is not an acceptable answer.
Tell us how many counters JA had for the entire game. Wouldn't you expect counters after counters out of this formation? You know like what JA saw against the USA whereby Tappa had to change to a 4 man backline just to contain the onslaught?
Tell us the percentage of balls won by your boss central defenders in the box...What do you think a better team would do with those balls dropping all over the box?
Tell us why with a man less in the midfield, a weaker team (NZ)was operating so freely in that area of the field. Why more passes weren't intercepted for counters or why the KIWI on the ball wasn't closed down with more ferocity. What's with this bend but don't break defense in midfield against a weaker team?
What was disappointing to me is that I didn't see the effort to pressure the ball. This was a friendly which I don't usually put much stock in, but even in a friendly you want to see the right tactics attempted even if they are not successful. Actually that is the only importance I place on friendly games, that the right tactics are being attempted.
Great goals though.
Pelepappa
This was not a vintage Jamaica performance or Jamaica's strongest team...and we all know and have said that already.
You have focused on what this team was NOT doing...and if that is your focus, you have every right to that.
What I saw from this game that was missing from the USA game was an ATTEMPT at playing the right tactics under the prevailing conditions of this game...the most important thing in getting the midfield to defend more and the forwards tracking back...that is the tactics that Jamaica needs, regardless of the quality of the team or personnell, on the pitch.
I expect to see more of the things that were lacking when Jamaica has a stronger side, with our top ballas, on the pitch but I also expect to see that team doing the things that this team was doing, only doing them better.
Dada Daley's improvement lies in the same area of the team improvement...a more all-round defensive contribution; are you saying he was useless in this game, or that he didn't have a reasonably good game ?
I agree, very poor defending on the goals against at crucial times in the match, when the team had just scored, which is purely lack of concentration and when one defender was subbed for another.
No, not a vintage performance from Jamaica but signs that things are headed in the right direction...I call things as I see them
Ric
Nobody asked whether it was a vintage performance. That is why I don't usually comment on friendlies. I am just asking you to back up your initial analysis which you are now progressively running away from.
You and HI insist that the fans should be allowed to play a more critical role in JA football outside of what fans should be responsible for, therefore it is important to analyze what the leaders of this movement say and make sure it makes sense. We wouldn't want a clueless JFF working in conjuction with clueless fans. JA football surely will be lost then.
Take a look at the game again and try to come up with a coherent analysis that you can stick to. Right now you are all over the place. Your latest analysis contradicts your initial analysis and it too is wrong, even though I see you are inching closer to my position as you tend to do. Where is my lawyer?
You soon coop the essence of my analysis and pretend that's where you were all the while. Mi done read yu already. You do this all the time. Mi na go let you get away with it this time. Where is mi lawyer? Since you insist on contradicting everything mi say you better gi mi proper credit when you decide fi steal my ideas/reasoning.
You said I was the only one with a different analysis than the whole forum, yet I am still standing on my analysis while you are floundering all over the place. What gives? This is the way you will be carrying on if the JFF made the mistake and lend you their ears as you insist?
You can't look at the game and say the team ATTEMPTED to play the right tactics under the prevailing condition of the game. The game/formation called for pressure defense in the midfield and springing counters from turnovers. I didn't see any of that. Even when they got the turnovers I didn't see an awareness from them that they had numerical advantage just based on the formation NZ played with. That was Dada's fault. If he was playing club ball regularly he probably would've had that awareness.
Dada does not play with his club, therefore his poor performance was not surprising to me even though you promised the forum that he will be there for the national team. Obviously Dada is no Gio or Adu. Unlike them he needs games with his club to shine internationally. He can't wait for his club to get better so he can shine, otherwise he will kiss his international career goodbye as well.
The way you a go after the locals mi know this a go hurt you, but they performed admirably when compared to the regulars, with the exception of Luton. I would like to know your basis, other than bias, for beating up on the locals while heaping praise on Dada, and the 2 lumbering center backs. Dada didn't push the offense, I am not even going to say anything about his defense, because with 5 midfielders his defense was not crucial. The center backs lost the battle in box time and time again and the 2 goals came right down the middle of the field.
You so desperate fi give props to the center backs you even a heap praise pon Stew peas for not making a tackle that would've gotten him sent off. A play which resulted in a goal no less. Lawd mi neva si dat yet.
Based on WHAT...your understanding of two likkle coaching dvd weh teach a likkle something bout formations and tactics ?
A coaching DVD came out on this game already? I better run to the store before they sell out.
Mr. don't need a coaching DVD man,
Give us your take on what you saw Daley doing on the pitch. Tell us why he wasn't useless in this game. Because I like him is not an acceptable answer.
Tell us how many counters JA had for the entire game. Wouldn't you expect counters after counters out of this formation? You know like what JA saw against the USA whereby Tappa had to change to a 4 man backline just to contain the onslaught?
Tell us the percentage of balls won by your boss central defenders in the box...What do you think a better team would do with those balls dropping all over the box?
Tell us why with a man less in the midfield, a weaker team (NZ)was operating so freely in that area of the field. Why more passes weren't intercepted for counters or why the KIWI on the ball wasn't closed down with more ferocity. What's with this bend but don't break defense in midfield against a weaker team?
What was disappointing to me is that I didn't see the effort to pressure the ball. This was a friendly which I don't usually put much stock in, but even in a friendly you want to see the right tactics attempted even if they are not successful. Actually that is the only importance I place on friendly games, that the right tactics are being attempted.
Great goals though.
Pelepappa
This was not a vintage Jamaica performance or Jamaica's strongest team...and we all know and have said that already.
You have focused on what this team was NOT doing...and if that is your focus, you have every right to that.
What I saw from this game that was missing from the USA game was an ATTEMPT at playing the right tactics under the prevailing conditions of this game...the most important thing in getting the midfield to defend more and the forwards tracking back...that is the tactics that Jamaica needs, regardless of the quality of the team or personnell, on the pitch.
I expect to see more of the things that were lacking when Jamaica has a stronger side, with our top ballas, on the pitch but I also expect to see that team doing the things that this team was doing, only doing them better.
Dada Daley's improvement lies in the same area of the team improvement...a more all-round defensive contribution; are you saying he was useless in this game, or that he didn't have a reasonably good game ?
I agree, very poor defending on the goals against at crucial times in the match, when the team had just scored, which is purely lack of concentration and when one defender was subbed for another.
No, not a vintage performance from Jamaica but signs that things are headed in the right direction...I call things as I see them
Ric
Nobody asked whether it was a vintage performance. That is why I don't usually comment on friendlies. I am just asking you to back up your initial analysis which you are now progressively running away from.
You and HI insist that the fans should be allowed to play a more critical role in JA football outside of what fans should be responsible for, therefore it is important to analyze what the leaders of this movement say and make sure it makes sense. We wouldn't want a clueless JFF working in conjuction with clueless fans. JA football surely will be lost then.
Take a look at the game again and try to come up with a coherent analysis that you can stick to. Right now you are all over the place. Your latest analysis contradicts your initial analysis and it too is wrong, even though I see you are inching closer to my position as you tend to do. Where is my lawyer?
You soon coop the essence of my analysis and pretend that's where you were all the while. Mi done read yu already. You do this all the time. Mi na go let you get away with it this time. Where is mi lawyer? Since you insist on contradicting everything mi say you better gi mi proper credit when you decide fi steal my ideas/reasoning.
You said I was the only one with a different analysis than the whole forum, yet I am still standing on my analysis while you are floundering all over the place. What gives? This is the way you will be carrying on if the JFF made the mistake and lend you their ears as you insist?
You can't look at the game and say the team ATTEMPTED to play the right tactics under the prevailing condition of the game. The game/formation called for pressure defense in the midfield and springing counters from turnovers. I didn't see any of that. Even when they got the turnovers I didn't see an awareness from them that they had numerical advantage just based on the formation NZ played with. That was Dada's fault. If he was playing club ball regularly he probably would've had that awareness.
Dada does not play with his club, therefore his poor performance was not surprising to me even though you promised the forum that he will be there for the national team. Obviously Dada is no Gio or Adu. Unlike them he needs games with his club to shine internationally. He can't wait for his club to get better so he can shine, otherwise he will kiss his international career goodbye as well.
The way you a go after the locals mi know this a go hurt you, but they performed admirably when compared to the regulars, with the exception of Luton. I would like to know your basis, other than bias, for beating up on the locals while heaping praise on Dada, and the 2 lumbering center backs. Dada didn't push the offense, I am not even going to say anything about his defense, because with 5 midfielders his defense was not crucial. The center backs lost the battle in box time and time again and the 2 goals came right down the middle of the field.
You so desperate fi give props to the center backs you even a heap praise pon Stew peas for not making a tackle that would've gotten him sent off. A play which resulted in a goal no less. Lawd mi neva si dat yet.
Pelepappa...
You're seriously talking/writing pure garbage again and trying to cover it up with your supposed high-intellect understanding and analysis of football matches....that, imo, if you do watch them, you're not understanding half of what you see.
Your views of football must be formed on play-station, where the perfect football game and stratgey can be played, without consideration of anything else.
Your views and mine will continue to differ and clash...at least mine are based on the reality of the football that I watch and comment on.
Only heaven knows what yours are based on...its certainly not the football that everyone else is watching.
My views on this match with NZ have been consistent from the start, even with me stii holding out, against all opposition, that Jermaine Taylor did not play a good game, imo....but
My views are consistent; its not my fault that your head is wrapped up in anything else but the football that we all watch and comment on.
You're seriously talking/writing pure garbage again and trying to cover it up with your supposed high-intellect understanding and analysis of football matches....that, imo, if you do watch them, you're not understanding half of what you see.
Garbage talk cannot be covered up. Don't you wish it could? Has nothing to do with high intellect or any such nonsense. You have the same rights to address the points in my analysis as I did with your points. But all you do is rant about side issues, which tells me you cannot rebut anything I said.
Your views of football must be formed on play-station, where the perfect football game and stratgey can be played, without consideration of anything else.
Could you list those considerations and explain to us TV observers how they affected the tactics in the game? Why are you holding on to considerations which could validate your analysis. Share them with us. Who knows, I might side with you after hearing them.
Your views and mine will continue to differ and clash...at least mine are based on the reality of the football that I watch and comment on.
Reality through bias tinted glasses.
Only heaven knows what yours are based on...its certainly not the football that everyone else is watching.
What with you and this everyone else whenever you are having a discussion? Its like you always a look backitive. All now mi no si everyone else sign on one time pon the forum. Mi and yu having a conversation, let everyone else speak for himself.
My views on this match with NZ have been consistent from the start, even with me stii holding out, against all opposition, that Jermaine Taylor did not play a good game, imo....but
Why is it imperative to you that Jermaine had a bad game even against all the evidence to the contrary? Let mi guess, I am just guessing here. Would it have anything to do with taking the blame away from your star boys Dada and the lumbering center backs? Per you, it was not Dada's, the attacking midfielder, fault for the team's lack of offensive imagination in midfield. It was JT, the defensive midfielder's, job to marshall the midfield. The goals weren't the fault of the 2 center backs, JT didn't pick up his man on the 1st goal causing Stew Peas fi get pile and salad. But of most importance is the composure and restraint Stew Peas showed on the play. Unlike idiot JT in the GC, Stew Peas did not prevent the goal by tackling the man from behind. They scored on the play, but the important thing is Stew Peas remained on the field. On the second goal JT refuse fi let one of the center back climb pon him shoulder to prevent the 7 foot NZ player from winning the header.
My views are consistent; its not my fault that your head is wrapped up in anything else but the football that we all watch and comment on.
We all and everyone else unnu better sign on and talk fi unnuself because Ric a embarrass unnu.
You're seriously talking/writing pure garbage again and trying to cover it up with your supposed high-intellect understanding and analysis of football matches....that, imo, if you do watch them, you're not understanding half of what you see.
Garbage talk cannot be covered up. Don't you wish it could? Has nothing to do with high intellect or any such nonsense. You have the same rights to address the points in my analysis as I did with your points. But all you do is rant about side issues, which tells me you cannot rebut anything I said.
Your views of football must be formed on play-station, where the perfect football game and stratgey can be played, without consideration of anything else.
Could you list those considerations and explain to us TV observers how they affected the tactics in the game? Why are you holding on to considerations which could validate your analysis. Share them with us. Who knows, I might side with you after hearing them.
Your views and mine will continue to differ and clash...at least mine are based on the reality of the football that I watch and comment on.
Reality through bias tinted glasses.
Only heaven knows what yours are based on...its certainly not the football that everyone else is watching.
What with you and this everyone else whenever you are having a discussion? Its like you always a look backitive. All now mi no si everyone else sign on one time pon the forum. Mi and yu having a conversation, let everyone else speak for himself.
My views on this match with NZ have been consistent from the start, even with me stii holding out, against all opposition, that Jermaine Taylor did not play a good game, imo....but
Why is it imperative to you that Jermaine had a bad game even against all the evidence to the contrary? Let mi guess, I am just guessing here. Would it have anything to do with taking the blame away from your star boys Dada and the lumbering center backs? Per you, it was not Dada's, the attacking midfielder, fault for the team's lack of offensive imagination in midfield. It was JT, the defensive midfielder's, job to marshall the midfield. The goals weren't the fault of the 2 center backs, JT didn't pick up his man on the 1st goal causing Stew Peas fi get pile and salad. But of most importance is the composure and restraint Stew Peas showed on the play. Unlike idiot JT in the GC, Stew Peas did not prevent the goal by tackling the man from behind. They scored on the play, but the important thing is Stew Peas remained on the field. On the second goal JT refuse fi let one of the center back climb pon him shoulder to prevent the 7 foot NZ player from winning the header.
My views are consistent; its not my fault that your head is wrapped up in anything else but the football that we all watch and comment on.
We all and everyone else unnu better sign on and talk fi unnuself because Ric a embarrass unnu.
Pelepappa...
You've toned down your rhetoric in this post, I see....even though you might not admit this...
Case in point that bears out my views that you don't watch the matches and when you do, you don't recognise what it is you're watching....this is a perfect example...
The player you are referring to as 'Tew Peas', who you CLAIMED that I've said pulled out of a tackle etc etc...is not Damion 'Stew Peas' Stewart, it is CLAUDE DAVIS....
If you were watching the same game the rest uf us did, you would see and know this...and not claim totally fictitious statements made by me which EVERYONE else on the forum would KNOW, were not, because they might not only have watched the game and recognised Jamaica's players...they might also have read my posts themselves.
You're seriously talking/writing pure garbage again and trying to cover it up with your supposed high-intellect understanding and analysis of football matches....that, imo, if you do watch them, you're not understanding half of what you see.
Garbage talk cannot be covered up. Don't you wish it could? Has nothing to do with high intellect or any such nonsense. You have the same rights to address the points in my analysis as I did with your points. But all you do is rant about side issues, which tells me you cannot rebut anything I said.
Your views of football must be formed on play-station, where the perfect football game and stratgey can be played, without consideration of anything else.
Could you list those considerations and explain to us TV observers how they affected the tactics in the game? Why are you holding on to considerations which could validate your analysis. Share them with us. Who knows, I might side with you after hearing them.
Your views and mine will continue to differ and clash...at least mine are based on the reality of the football that I watch and comment on.
Reality through bias tinted glasses.
Only heaven knows what yours are based on...its certainly not the football that everyone else is watching.
What with you and this everyone else whenever you are having a discussion? Its like you always a look backitive. All now mi no si everyone else sign on one time pon the forum. Mi and yu having a conversation, let everyone else speak for himself.
My views on this match with NZ have been consistent from the start, even with me stii holding out, against all opposition, that Jermaine Taylor did not play a good game, imo....but
Why is it imperative to you that Jermaine had a bad game even against all the evidence to the contrary? Let mi guess, I am just guessing here. Would it have anything to do with taking the blame away from your star boys Dada and the lumbering center backs? Per you, it was not Dada's, the attacking midfielder, fault for the team's lack of offensive imagination in midfield. It was JT, the defensive midfielder's, job to marshall the midfield. The goals weren't the fault of the 2 center backs, JT didn't pick up his man on the 1st goal causing Stew Peas fi get pile and salad. But of most importance is the composure and restraint Stew Peas showed on the play. Unlike idiot JT in the GC, Stew Peas did not prevent the goal by tackling the man from behind. They scored on the play, but the important thing is Stew Peas remained on the field. On the second goal JT refuse fi let one of the center back climb pon him shoulder to prevent the 7 foot NZ player from winning the header.
My views are consistent; its not my fault that your head is wrapped up in anything else but the football that we all watch and comment on.
We all and everyone else unnu better sign on and talk fi unnuself because Ric a embarrass unnu.
Pelepappa...
You've toned down your rhetoric in this post, I see....even though you might not admit this...
Case in point that bears out my views that you don't watch the matches and when you do, you don't recognise what it is you're watching....this is a perfect example...
The player you are referring to as 'Tew Peas', who you CLAIMED that I've said pulled out of a tackle etc etc...is not Damion 'Stew Peas' Stewart, it is CLAUDE DAVIS....
If you were watching the same game the rest uf us did, you would see and know this...and not claim totally fictitious statements made by me which EVERYONE else on the forum would KNOW, were not, because they might not only have watched the game and recognised Jamaica's players...they might also have read my posts themselves.
Am I finally getting through to you ?
This is the extent of your rebuttal? SMH.
Are you really going to shamelessly hang your football knowledge hat on a technicality that says: "You lose because I said Claude Davis and you said I said Stew Peas"? Surely you can do better.
I referred to them throughout as the lumbering center backs, that applies to them individually and as a unit. Name distinction is really of no value to the analysis, because what could be said about one could be said about the other. If one had distinguished himself over the other then maybe It would've been somewhat relevant to get the names right. Mi still can't believe you came to this.
You have no answer to my analysis which refutes yours, you have no answer to the leading questions I posed to you, mi even accuse you of bias towards certain players, you no gi no example fi show seh yu no bias, you can't even follow up on your assertions when you are asked for detail. I asked you for details of the considerations you say I am not considering and mi no hear back from you.
It is obvious from your post above that if you had anything substantive to say you would have jumped and done so. The fact that this is all you could find in your defense speaks volume.
You're seriously talking/writing pure garbage again and trying to cover it up with your supposed high-intellect understanding and analysis of football matches....that, imo, if you do watch them, you're not understanding half of what you see.
Garbage talk cannot be covered up. Don't you wish it could? Has nothing to do with high intellect or any such nonsense. You have the same rights to address the points in my analysis as I did with your points. But all you do is rant about side issues, which tells me you cannot rebut anything I said.
Your views of football must be formed on play-station, where the perfect football game and stratgey can be played, without consideration of anything else.
Could you list those considerations and explain to us TV observers how they affected the tactics in the game? Why are you holding on to considerations which could validate your analysis. Share them with us. Who knows, I might side with you after hearing them.
Your views and mine will continue to differ and clash...at least mine are based on the reality of the football that I watch and comment on.
Reality through bias tinted glasses.
Only heaven knows what yours are based on...its certainly not the football that everyone else is watching.
What with you and this everyone else whenever you are having a discussion? Its like you always a look backitive. All now mi no si everyone else sign on one time pon the forum. Mi and yu having a conversation, let everyone else speak for himself.
My views on this match with NZ have been consistent from the start, even with me stii holding out, against all opposition, that Jermaine Taylor did not play a good game, imo....but
Why is it imperative to you that Jermaine had a bad game even against all the evidence to the contrary? Let mi guess, I am just guessing here. Would it have anything to do with taking the blame away from your star boys Dada and the lumbering center backs? Per you, it was not Dada's, the attacking midfielder, fault for the team's lack of offensive imagination in midfield. It was JT, the defensive midfielder's, job to marshall the midfield. The goals weren't the fault of the 2 center backs, JT didn't pick up his man on the 1st goal causing Stew Peas fi get pile and salad. But of most importance is the composure and restraint Stew Peas showed on the play. Unlike idiot JT in the GC, Stew Peas did not prevent the goal by tackling the man from behind. They scored on the play, but the important thing is Stew Peas remained on the field. On the second goal JT refuse fi let one of the center back climb pon him shoulder to prevent the 7 foot NZ player from winning the header.
My views are consistent; its not my fault that your head is wrapped up in anything else but the football that we all watch and comment on.
We all and everyone else unnu better sign on and talk fi unnuself because Ric a embarrass unnu.
Pelepappa...
You've toned down your rhetoric in this post, I see....even though you might not admit this...
Case in point that bears out my views that you don't watch the matches and when you do, you don't recognise what it is you're watching....this is a perfect example...
The player you are referring to as 'Tew Peas', who you CLAIMED that I've said pulled out of a tackle etc etc...is not Damion 'Stew Peas' Stewart, it is CLAUDE DAVIS....
If you were watching the same game the rest uf us did, you would see and know this...and not claim totally fictitious statements made by me which EVERYONE else on the forum would KNOW, were not, because they might not only have watched the game and recognised Jamaica's players...they might also have read my posts themselves.
Am I finally getting through to you ?
This is the extent of your rebuttal? SMH.
Are you really going to shamelessly hang your football knowledge hat on a technicality that says: "You lose because I said Claude Davis and you said I said Stew Peas"? Surely you can do better.
I referred to them throughout as the lumbering center backs, that applies to them individually and as a unit. Name distinction is really of no value to the analysis, because what could be said about one could be said about the other. If one had distinguished himself over the other then maybe It would've been somewhat relevant to get the names right. Mi still can't believe you came to this.
You have no answer to my analysis which refutes yours, you have no answer to the leading questions I posed to you, mi even accuse you of bias towards certain players, you no gi no example fi show seh yu no bias, you can't even follow up on your assertions when you are asked for detail. I asked you for details of the considerations you say I am not considering and mi no hear back from you.
It is obvious from your post above that if you had anything substantive to say you would have jumped and done so. The fact that this is all you could find in your defense speaks volume.
Pelepappa...
Its pointless repeating myself in any rebuttal to you...my analysis is out there for any and all to read for themselves and agree or disagree...any rebuttal to your particular points would, again, be useless repitition...my keys point to you have already been stated and they haven't changed.
Maybe one of these days I'll get more from you than 'playstation, fantasy football' analysis and rebuttal of other people's points of view...hopefully a committed, positive viewpoint that others can analyse and rebut....and I'm not talking just about Jamaica's matches...and I'm talking about the matches of your own team, Costa Rica as well....Costa Rica beat the USA in a friendly, they also beat Wales the other night in a friendly...from you, pure criticism of Costa Rica aginst the USA and nothing about the Wales match...but in both games, no doubt Costa Rica were doing things that were right and helped them to win the matches...or is it because they were friendlies that they don't count ?
You are great at telling us what the football teams under discussion in this forum ARE NOT DOING, OR HAVEN'T DONE but I have yet to see anything from you of value of what teams ARE DOING, OR HAVE DONE, results being a factor as well.
You will have a very good chance to convince me of more than I've gotten off you so far in the next couple of weeks...or is that you don't watch friendlies ???
Its pointless repeating myself in any rebuttal to you...my analysis is out there for any and all to read for themselves and agree or disagree...any rebuttal to your particular points would, again, be useless repitition...my keys point to you have already been stated and they haven't changed.
Which version of your analyses you don't want to repeat? The initial one or the latest one? All of which are flawed by the way.
Maybe one of these days I'll get more from you than 'playstation, fantasy football' analysis and rebuttal of other people's points of view...hopefully a committed, positive viewpoint that others can analyse and rebut....and I'm not talking just about Jamaica's matches...and I'm talking about the matches of your own team, Costa Rica as well....Costa Rica beat the USA in a friendly, they also beat Wales the other night in a friendly...from you, pure criticism of Costa Rica aginst the USA and nothing about the Wales match...but in both games, no doubt Costa Rica were doing things that were right and helped them to win the matches...or is it because they were friendlies that they don't count ?
What with all the side issues? How come you have time fi come up with all different arguments except to address my points? Ok. Address my points and I will give you an analysis on the CRican game. Deal?
You are great at telling us what the football teams under discussion in this forum ARE NOT DOING, OR HAVEN'T DONE but I have yet to see anything from you of value of what teams ARE DOING, OR HAVE DONE, results being a factor as well.
AHHHH!
You will have a very good chance to convince me of more than I've gotten off you so far in the next couple of weeks...or is that you don't watch friendlies ???
lets wait and see, my friend.
If only I could convince you that you don't know what you are talking about. Make sure you get some coaching DVDs or a playstation between now and then.
I know I am for keep responding to him, but he is an even bigger one for what he is writing.
Me responding to him takes nothing out of me, I am just parrying what he is saying, it provides me some comic relief and serves a bigger purpose. Ric on the other hand is the one racking his brain trying to come up with one clever response after the other.
. I wonder if you also break down the tape in segments, slow-motion, rewinds etc. to come to your conclusion 
. If JA had played against the KIWIS with the same players that played in the USA game in the 4-5-1 or 3-5-2 the overall TEAM defense would've also improved, therefore your reasoning doesn't make sense.
Unfortunately my comments also play into Ric's hands. 
Surely you can do better.
