[ndividually, Jamaica's defenders are the weakest in the quality department, when compared to the individual ability of the others players in the other areas of the team...that makes sense, knowing Jamaica's culture of entertaining attacking football but you cannot win matches without a strong defense, no matter how many goals you can score.
AHHHHHH! Lets go back to the GC and see Ric trying fi mock this simple concept he is now so proudly expounding.
Guess who he got that one from too? Mi affi start looking into some type of legal recourse. The man no stop counteract everything mi seh then little later the same words a spew from him. Mi a go bring him up pon plagiarism charges.
Seems like anytime the man mek sense he should start his reasoning by stating "like pelepapa is fond of saying" then go on and mek his statement.
This is what mi a seh from I came on this forum about the fans responsibility to the programme and their role in holding back JA football. During GC the man was a push the notion that offense/goals win games. Today defense is what win games. How many months passed since GC?
Based on his new position, if he and I each had a team with the same deficiencies I would've made the right adjustments from right after the GC while he would've just now be getting around to the right adjustments, probably after spending the little resources he had chasing the wrong solutions. Who knows if he would have any resources left fi mek the corrections he just now discovered. Who here would expect his team to beat mine if both teams were evenly match and playing each other today?
That has been Jamaica football in a nutshell over the years. Wasting money chasing after the wrong solutions. By the time JA got around to making the right decisions they didn't have any money left, thus you have JA trying to qualify with a second string team. At the same time the other CONCACAF teams made the right decisions much earlier, thus they are better prepared and have more cash on hand to put on a better campaign.
JA start making the right decisions in a timely manner and the whole of CONCACAF is in trouble. Nobody 'fraid of players. Smart decisions trump players everyday in a tournament.
U mussi a comb my posts for what you can glean to use to bolster your own arguments...]having a strong defense and playingdefensive football are two entirely different things...something I don't think you have the grasp of.[/color]
Your argument at the GC was that the USA, and Jamaica should have bolstered up their teams to play defensive football, which admittedly MIGHT have stopped Mexico and the USA from scoring...and that is definitely no guarantee...but without effective attacking football, where were the goals going to come from to win either match ?
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.
Back to your typical arguing technique. State the universally acceptable argument and infer that I am saying the opposite, even going so far as to highlight it. Everyone knows the difference between defensive football and having a strong defense.
You now claim you were talking about a strong defense against the USA, yet, while per your analysis JA's defense was horrible in the USA game, your solution was to take off a defensive player and replace him with an offensive player so they could put more pressure on the USA. You can't dispute you said that.
How an offensive player pushing forward helps what you see as a weak defense against a stronger team is something you need to explain to me.
My point was not that JA should've played defensive ball in the GC against the USA, and if you are honest you will stop saying that, but that they should not have came out with such an offensive formation because the USA was clearly the stronger team. I think I said they would've been better off playing straight up/their normal set.
Even if I had said JA should've played defensive football in that situation, I would've been more correct than you with your proposition to take off a defensive player for a offensive player in an already overly offensive team for the situation.
Barcelona is the best team in the world; they normally play with 3 forwards, yet when they are playing in tournaments against strong teams, not stronger teams, they modify their formation somewhat to a more defensive/balance set even though their forwards work their butts off and play in the 3 forward set all the time. They do that because they know that the 3 forward formation create holes in the defensive end which can be exploited by good teams...and why make the game harder for themself?
Here we had JA playing a stronger USA team and playing with a formation which was not their normal formation and one which not even Barcelona play with against strong opponents in tournaments. Where is the sense in that?