Cybereagles

One of the main things we've all seen from these two friendlies has been our struggle with physical play.

Besides our inexperienced goalie, this physical issue is the reason we struggle with set pieces.

Against the Poles, they were rough and physical...and it led to many stoppages which interrupted the flow of the game. But the Serbs were physically imposing and not rough about it. Especially in midfield where it looked like men against boys. We couldn't win 50/50 balls for long stretches and the small field did not allow us to stretch them and take advantage of what we should have had the upper hand in..speed. They shrunk the field and made the game moreso 1v1 physical battles everywhere and they were winning until Ighalo came in and gave them something else to think about.

The first half line up (front 6 all under 6') had only 2 players capable of really withstanding an aerial assault in Ekong and Awaziem. I chuckled when I saw Ndidi and Idowu trying to match up with Matic, Ljalic etc. Mismatches galore.

Iceland look more like the Serbs than the Poles. That game will require us to at least try to match them up in what will be their core strength....whipping crosses in like crazy both from set pieces and wide attacking plays.

Is there a case to start a midfield of Ogu, Ndidi and Mikel? An Echiejele at left back (although I think Gunnardson will eat him for lunch sha)? Shehu definitely at right back and Oyinbo wall at CB. That gives us 6 guys above 6' to defend set pieces and not really lose much from a personnel and style of play standpoint.

Thoughts?

I'd rather see Aina or Idowu at left back. Tbh, I'm not entirely convinced that Ogu is the answer unless the question is Who else do we have left?

Esiti is the answer, dude is a Beast.

Ugbowo wrote:One of the main things we've all seen from these two friendlies has been our struggle with physical play.

Besides our inexperienced goalie, this physical issue is the reason we struggle with set pieces.

Against the Poles, they were rough and physical...and it led to many stoppages which interrupted the flow of the game. But the Serbs were physically imposing and not rough about it. Especially in midfield where it looked like men against boys. We couldn't win 50/50 balls for long stretches and the small field did not allow us to stretch them and take advantage of what we should have had the upper hand in..speed. They shrunk the field and made the game moreso 1v1 physical battles everywhere and they were winning until Ighalo came in and gave them something else to think about.

The first half line up (front 6 all under 6') had only 2 players capable of really withstanding an aerial assault in Ekong and Awaziem. I chuckled when I saw Ndidi and Idowu trying to match up with Matic, Ljalic etc. Mismatches galore.

Iceland look more like the Serbs than the Poles. That game will require us to at least try to match them up in what will be their core strength....whipping crosses in like crazy both from set pieces and wide attacking plays.

Is there a case to start a midfield of Ogu, Ndidi and Mikel? An Echiejele at left back (although I think Gunnardson will eat him for lunch sha)? Shehu definitely at right back and Oyinbo wall at CB. That gives us 6 guys above 6' to defend set pieces and not really lose much from a personnel and style of play standpoint.

Thoughts?

Yep, you are on to something. It was glaringly clear that the physical appearance of our players and that of the opponents for the two friendlies was like night and day. Our players looked like fragile high school players, it was an obvious mismatch. The Pole and Serbs were winning 50/50 balls not because they were better than our players but for simple fact that they were bigger and taller.

If "physical appearance" is such a huge factor, the likes of Spain should not be dominating the way the do. You can NOT start a midfield with two slow players in Ogu and Mikel. That is a recipe for disaster.

The reason why Spain is able to dominate the midfield and games with smaller players are that they have players that are technically superior to ours. Look at how they play in their games. If we play them I would be surprised if we get more than 20% possession and any shots, on or off target.

So because of that we need to match up phyicality with both Serbia and Iceland.

TheHitman47 wrote:The reason why Spain is able to dominate the midfield and games with smaller players are that they have players that are technically superior to ours. Look at how they play in their games. If we play them I would be surprised if we get more than 20% possession and any shots, on or off target.

So because of that we need to match up phyicality with both Serbia and Iceland.

We played against them with a team that is arguably weaker than the crop we have now,and Xavi and Iniesta at their peak and had 42% possession.

http://www.fifa.com/confederationscup/m ... index.html

We have players that can play the ball on the floor. Rohr's teams have done so in games. We do not need to out muscle teams to compete. Our players just need to know how to move off the ball and retain possession and mix it up with balls over the top when needed. We were way too static in the past two friendly games. A good mixture of physicality and skill has worked, and can work for us.

metalalloy wrote:If "physical appearance" is such a huge factor, the likes of Spain should not be dominating the way the do. You can NOT start a midfield with two slow players in Ogu and Mikel. That is a recipe for disaster.

I cant really argue with you. Hence why I only mentioned the Iceland game. For the other games we should be able to cope.

Iceland game is about neutralizing their specialty based on what we have seen in these friendlies.

metalalloy wrote:If "physical appearance" is such a huge factor, the likes of Spain should not be dominating the way the do. You can NOT start a midfield with two slow players in Ogu and Mikel. That is a recipe for disaster.

Mikel is actually quick

[/video]

Ugbowo wrote:

metalalloy wrote:If "physical appearance" is such a huge factor, the likes of Spain should not be dominating the way the do. You can NOT start a midfield with two slow players in Ogu and Mikel. That is a recipe for disaster.

I cant really argue with you. Hence why I only mentioned the Iceland game. For the other games we should be able to cope.

Iceland game is about neutralizing their specialty based on what we have seen in these friendlies.

Ugbowo

I have watched Iceland and can understand your point but I disagree on a fundamental basis. I do not believe that Iceland are in a superior position that we should focus on neutralizing them. Hey if it was Germany or Spain then that is understandable. I will not sacrifice our advantages of speed and quickness to the ball to bring in lumbering players because of attempting to match their physicality. How about them worrying about our advantage of quickness and speed?

Enugu II wrote:

Ugbowo wrote:

metalalloy wrote:If "physical appearance" is such a huge factor, the likes of Spain should not be dominating the way the do. You can NOT start a midfield with two slow players in Ogu and Mikel. That is a recipe for disaster.

I cant really argue with you. Hence why I only mentioned the Iceland game. For the other games we should be able to cope.

Iceland game is about neutralizing their specialty based on what we have seen in these friendlies.

Ugbowo

I have watched Iceland and can understand your point but I disagree on a fundamental basis. I do not believe that Iceland are in a superior position that we should focus on neutralizing them. Hey if it was Germany or Spain then that is understandable. I will not sacrifice our advantages of speed and quickness to the ball to bring in lumbering players because of attempting to match their physicality. How about them worrying about our advantage of quickness and speed?

I would think that was Rohr's thinking coming into the friendly games. But if we cant learn from friendlies then why play them?

We suffered in both games especially the second game. We had our best spell in the Serbia game after Ighalo came in to help with some of that physicality. It should definitely provide some food for thought on how best to tackle such challenges the next time. Do we want to do the same thing and expect a different result?

Ugbowo wrote:One of the main things we've all seen from these two friendlies has been our struggle with physical play.

Besides our inexperienced goalie, this physical issue is the reason we struggle with set pieces.

Against the Poles, they were rough and physical...and it led to many stoppages which interrupted the flow of the game. But the Serbs were physically imposing and not rough about it. Especially in midfield where it looked like men against boys. We couldn't win 50/50 balls for long stretches and the small field did not allow us to stretch them and take advantage of what we should have had the upper hand in..speed. They shrunk the field and made the game moreso 1v1 physical battles everywhere and they were winning until Ighalo came in and gave them something else to think about.

The first half line up (front 6 all under 6') had only 2 players capable of really withstanding an aerial assault in Ekong and Awaziem. I chuckled when I saw Ndidi and Idowu trying to match up with Matic, Ljalic etc. Mismatches galore.

Iceland look more like the Serbs than the Poles. That game will require us to at least try to match them up in what will be their core strength....whipping crosses in like crazy both from set pieces and wide attacking plays.

Is there a case to start a midfield of Ogu, Ndidi and Mikel? An Echiejele at left back (although I think Gunnardson will eat him for lunch sha)? Shehu definitely at right back and Oyinbo wall at CB. That gives us 6 guys above 6' to defend set pieces and not really lose much from a personnel and style of play standpoint.

Thoughts?

We miss one important thing that differentiates quality teams from average and poor teams-technique. We do not have technical players in our team with the exception of Mikel, Balogun, V. Moses and may be one or two others. The way one controls and passes the ball and the way one generally reacts to all situations in the field. This is where world-cup winning teams excel. We seem to neglect this most important aspect. Physicality counts for nothing if one lacks the techniques and intelligence to execute the good passes, to make the runs and many other skills. We are lacking in this area and this will hunt us big time when we meet more technical teams like Croatia.

Ugbowo wrote:

Enugu II wrote:

Ugbowo wrote:

metalalloy wrote:If "physical appearance" is such a huge factor, the likes of Spain should not be dominating the way the do. You can NOT start a midfield with two slow players in Ogu and Mikel. That is a recipe for disaster.

I cant really argue with you. Hence why I only mentioned the Iceland game. For the other games we should be able to cope.

Iceland game is about neutralizing their specialty based on what we have seen in these friendlies.

Ugbowo

I have watched Iceland and can understand your point but I disagree on a fundamental basis. I do not believe that Iceland are in a superior position that we should focus on neutralizing them. Hey if it was Germany or Spain then that is understandable. I will not sacrifice our advantages of speed and quickness to the ball to bring in lumbering players because of attempting to match their physicality. How about them worrying about our advantage of quickness and speed?

I would think that was Rohr's thinking coming into the friendly games. But if we cant learn from friendlies then why play them?

We suffered in both games especially the second game. We had our best spell in the Serbia game after
Ighalo came in to help with some of that physicality. It should definitely provide some food for thought on how best to tackle such challenges the next time. Do we want to do the same thing and expect a different result?

I actually have a different interpretation. First I do not believe we came into the game in the right frame of mind and even with Ighalo we only raised the tempo after going behind. Second note Ighalo movement was much better than Musa in the position and it was not always about physicality. Then the defense made some critical errors. Thus it isn't just about physicality.

Enugu II wrote:

Ugbowo wrote:

Enugu II wrote:

Ugbowo wrote:

metalalloy wrote:If "physical appearance" is such a huge factor, the likes of Spain should not be dominating the way the do. You can NOT start a midfield with two slow players in Ogu and Mikel. That is a recipe for disaster.

I cant really argue with you. Hence why I only mentioned the Iceland game. For the other games we should be able to cope.

Iceland game is about neutralizing their specialty based on what we have seen in these friendlies.

Ugbowo

I have watched Iceland and can understand your point but I disagree on a fundamental basis. I do not believe that Iceland are in a superior position that we should focus on neutralizing them. Hey if it was Germany or Spain then that is understandable. I will not sacrifice our advantages of speed and quickness to the ball to bring in lumbering players because of attempting to match their physicality. How about them worrying about our advantage of quickness and speed?

I would think that was Rohr's thinking coming into the friendly games. But if we cant learn from friendlies then why play them?

We suffered in both games especially the second game. We had our best spell in the Serbia game after
Ighalo came in to help with some of that physicality. It should definitely provide some food for thought on how best to tackle such challenges the next time. Do we want to do the same thing and expect a different result?

I actually have a different interpretation. First I do not believe we came into the game in the right frame of mind and even with Ighalo we only raised the tempo after going behind. Second note Ighalo movement was much better than Musa in the position and it was not always about physicality. Then the defense made some critical errors. Thus it isn't just about physicality.

I disagree. Again we had our best spell BEFORE we conceded and it had everything to do with Ighalo's work against the Serb defenders and Iwobi coming into his own for a brief period in the second half. We did nothing after the first goal and even worse after the second.

I don't want us to dismiss this physicality by thinking it oversimplifies an issue. I think it is a necessary tactic that should be taken into consideration given the kind of resources we have and the caliber of team we will be playing. We really need to think about it.

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that these friendlies are for the most part a waste of everyone's time, besides the coaches and the specific objectives they have going into these games...

Yesterday's game was a nothing burger...

Nobody is showing anybody anything...

The day our players learn to play the game with minimal frivolities is when we can engage
the big teams. Seems like our midfield do not understand or appreciate moving the ball with
minimal touches. Also the concentration is lacking, resulting in wrong passes and being out of
position. What's the craze about lobbing long passes to a short forward marked by a defender
that is six inches taller, or taking wild shots from long range into the stands?
Watching successful teams with short personnel should have informed that quick accurate
passes and positioning is what separates the good teams from also-runs.

joao wrote:What's the craze about lobbing long passes to a short forward marked by a defender
that is six inches taller

Yeah, that was frustrating. It's partly due to our defenders not being comfortable on the ball and just hitting it forward in hope when pressed, and also our midfielders not showing for the ball. I think/hope it was just a bad day yesterday - the players are technically sound but often couldn't perform the basics yesterday.

This is why a fit Isaac Success would be a tremendous benefit to our team.

Those boys need to be coached on how to play the passing game than just punt hopeful long balls forward, or maybe it takes a special level of technical players that can pass the ball brilliantly even under pressure, but most of these qualities are coacheable.

txj wrote:Frankly, I'm of the opinion that these friendlies are for the most part a waste of everyone's time, besides the coaches and the specific objectives they have going into these games...

Yesterday's game was a nothing burger...

Nobody is showing anybody anything...

I KPOM this statement. I am not thinking of winning the World cup because we beat Argentina or Poland nor do I think we are no hopers because we lost to Serbia. It will all be different in the second week of June.

Ugbowo wrote:

Enugu II wrote:

Ugbowo wrote:

Enugu II wrote:

Ugbowo wrote:

metalalloy wrote:If "physical appearance" is such a huge factor, the likes of Spain should not be dominating the way the do. You can NOT start a midfield with two slow players in Ogu and Mikel. That is a recipe for disaster.

I cant really argue with you. Hence why I only mentioned the Iceland game. For the other games we should be able to cope.

Iceland game is about neutralizing their specialty based on what we have seen in these friendlies.

Ugbowo

I have watched Iceland and can understand your point but I disagree on a fundamental basis. I do not believe that Iceland are in a superior position that we should focus on neutralizing them. Hey if it was Germany or Spain then that is understandable. I will not sacrifice our advantages of speed and quickness to the ball to bring in lumbering players because of attempting to match their physicality. How about them worrying about our advantage of quickness and speed?

I would think that was Rohr's thinking coming into the friendly games. But if we cant learn from friendlies then why play them?

We suffered in both games especially the second game. We had our best spell in the Serbia game after
Ighalo came in to help with some of that physicality. It should definitely provide some food for thought on how best to tackle such challenges the next time. Do we want to do the same thing and expect a different result?

I actually have a different interpretation. First I do not believe we came into the game in the right frame of mind and even with Ighalo we only raised the tempo after going behind. Second note Ighalo movement was much better than Musa in the position and it was not always about physicality. Then the defense made some critical errors. Thus it isn't just about physicality.

I disagree. Again we had our best spell BEFORE we conceded and it had everything to do with Ighalo's work against the Serb defenders and Iwobi coming into his own for a brief period in the second half. We did nothing after the first goal and even worse after the second.

I don't want us to dismiss this physicality by thinking it oversimplifies an issue. I think it is a necessary tactic that should be taken into consideration given the kind of resources we have and the caliber of team we will be playing. We really need to think about it.

Ugbowo,

I do not dismiss physicality but I also believe the issues involved in a soccer game are complex. Furthermore, We should not just change our personnel and play because an opponent is physical. We have advantages that we should highlight also and they should not be negated.

Echiejile is probably 40 move on!

Ahidjo wrote:We miss one important thing that differentiates quality teams from average and poor teams-technique. We do not have technical players in our team with the exception of Mikel, Balogun, V. Moses and may be one or two others. The way one controls and passes the ball and the way one generally reacts to all situations in the field. This is where world-cup winning teams excel. We seem to neglect this most important aspect. Physicality counts for nothing if one lacks the techniques and intelligence to execute the good passes, to make the runs and many other skills. We are lacking in this area and this will hunt us big time when we meet more technical teams like Croatia.

Iwobi is one of the most technical players anyone could wish for.
Ebuehi is also quite technical.
There are a few less technical players in the team that stink up the joint but what we really need are sharp tools that are goal threats.

In the Serbia game we created many chances even in the first half but the shooting was poor:
Moses x2
Iwobi x2
Onazi x1
Ekong x1
None of them tested the keeper (apart from Moses' early shot) despite having a clear sight of goal.