Originally Posted By: Ric
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?

Edited by pelepapa (03/02/12 03:57 PM)