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.