We didn't lose the final because of tactics

[Tbite]

Peseiro's tactics were good enough to win the final.

We are making a very simple mistake. Nigeria did not get to the final because we were not tested.

The hole in the midfield was NOT a glaring weakness. It was NOT the issue.

Peseiro's team was not a team that played on the backfoot. They did not cede possession arbitrarily. They knew exactly what they were doing. They would let you keep possession where it was futile. Your attacks were never damaging as they would neutralise possession from the danger points.

Someone like Adringa was not really the issue, nor was Kessie. Peseiro's tactics does not fall apart under such plays. His tactics relies on immense sacrifice. Yes we lose ground, but not in the way that many teams lose ground.

We lose ground but ALWAYS make up for it. It is a high workrate team. I think his plan would have worked. Adringa and Kessie would have been dealt with, Haller would have never gotten service.

Nigeria didn't fail because of tactics. We failed because of management. I made the initial mistake to think it was mostly psychological or tactical. The game was lost in management.

Nigeria was the hardest working team in the competition, maybe in the history of the competition. The team that cedes the midfield but chases down every cross in the nick of time. That takes a monumental amount of energy. Energy that we didn't have by not using the bench, and energy that was made even more scarce when we went into extra time and penalties with South Africa.

Peseiros plan cannot work without an immense workrate. It is not an efficient model. It is why a low efficiency striker was the hero of the model.

The second we lost our legs there was no way we could win. Unless he changed the model, not slightly, but significantly.

The loss is Peseiro's fault. In fact, he should have seen the loss coming. We were distracted by so many things to think that we could have won. We lost before the match started. We didn't have the legs to carry out the plan.

Peseiro's reluctance to use the bench must go down as one of the dumbest decisions in football history. Many said that you don't change a winning formula. But this was not a normal team. It was a team built on outworking the opponent. You cannot do that without the bench. Osimhen cannot work that hard over 7 games, abdominal pain or not. Zaidu cannot work that hard over 7 games, hamstring or not. Nobody can.

You either play efficiently or you spread the workload. Peseiro's decision did not show low football intelligence. It showed low general intelligence.

Even the goal from Troost Ekong looked against the run of play to me. I don't think we were ever in the match...and that is obvious, because we were burnt out.

Those of you who supported not going to thr bench, made a huge mistake, and there were many of you. You played this thing like a sprint, when it was a marathon. There is no point talking about other teams, because we obviously played unconventionally. Osimhen worked harder than a normal footballer should. Simon worked harder than a normal winger would etc.

We thought our players were robots.....

[vancity eagle]

Yes the players were gassed. Clearly.

That did play a major role.

Yes he didn't go to the bench, because he didn't TRUST THEM.

His fault though. He let Musa be imposed. He didn't choose some good options.

But I disagree that the formation and tactics had nothing to do with the loss.

The 343 generated fewer and fewer chances the further we went into the tournament.

That isn't a winning strategy. Against South Africa, if not for the silly challenge on Osimehn, we score ZERO goals.

Against Angola we didn't create much.

Did you really think, even if our players were 100% fit we would have successfully deployed the same strategy against CIV in front of their home fans ?

Remember even the first match we were lucky because they gave away an unnecessary penalty. Also we didn't come up against Haller and Adingra that first match.

So yes tiredness played a major part.

But that just shows you that this type of strategy is not sustainable.

Why work your players to death for a strategy that produces so few chances ?

Why not instead use a strategy like you did in the first match, where we dominated posession and created more chances than in any other match, with defensive solidity as well. I was an aberration that that match was a draw. It would have worked eventually, but Peseiro panicked.

The problem IS and WAS

TWO CENTRAL MIDFIELDERS ONLY.

[Tbite]

Do you know how many crosses we have neutralised in previous games? We are extremely good at nullifying crosses. Watch the Cameroon game in particular.

From the first 10 minutes, Kessie was already dominating the flank, Adringa did not merely deliver a few crosses here and there. There was an onslaught before we conceded.

It was not the manner in which civ attacked that was the issue. It was actually nothing we hadn't seen a million times before. What made them dangerous was the volume. That was thr issue.

And the volume would not ordinarily have been a problem if we marked them man to man as we had been doing successfully in previous games. Ivory coast did not win this on efficiency.

You are talking about chances created. That is a distraction. We were up by 1 goal. If we defended with the same energy we had against Cameroon, there is no way on earth we concede twice to civ. No way.

Even the goal that Haller scored. Troost was actually in the right place. Haller beats him to it. That reflex defending from our centre backs and fullbacks was lacking. Troost lost half a second of reaction time..and that is what we conceded.

We were defending the attacks, whereas usually we would prevent the attacks.

I'm not saying I endorse the tactics, but from where I sit, his tactics were good enough to wi the competition.

He did not need to dominate the midfield. That's what you want. That's your ego or personal preference. We could have won this thing playing boringly and with few chances created. Boring, but yes, we could have.

The tactics were fine. The issue was personnel management. By the Angola game, peseiro should have known this thing was a tight rope.

I think surely he cannot have been this stupid. I think most likely he was relying on luck.

[ANC]

I was the first person to complain about this, but was told you do no change a winning team.
Then again CIV may have benefited from from a few players coming back after suspension and/or injury recovery.

[gochino]

I don't understand, our defense stopped being invincible after the Cameroon game, infact we were figured out and our defense looked porous against Angola and South Africa, remember the one on one chance against Angola and the open net chance South Africa missed?

[Coach]

Sorry Tbite, there isn’t a single coaching manual or UEFA certified course (lest one forget JP is European and would’ve passed through such schools) that preaches forfeiture of the midfield. Have never come across a single manifesto that says, lose the midfield on purpose and then quench the attack with a last ditch tackle. Each to their own, but such a suggestion is the blackened, bruised banana on the shelf. Not buying it.

The team tactics were exploited and that was in no way part of the plan. Everyone who is anyone knows in football, the team without the ball works hardest, space doesn’t close itself.

Look at the team positioning in the defensive phase. If one is to exaggerate the formation and call it a 5-2-3, look at the distances between zones. Osimhen was way ahead of the inside forwards, turning the 3 into a 2-1. This effectively reduced his pressing, on most occasions, to an easily bypassed waste of ATP.

What was the pressing trigger? On occasions, VO would go, as if blighted by neuropathy, Chukwueze and Lookman would belatedly go, precious little movement from the backline, effectively stretching the gap between front and back.

If one is to go light in the midfield, there has to be compaction that compensates for the lack of numbers in the centre. Leverkeusen vs Bayern is a perfect example of this. Effectively a 5-2-3 in the defensive phase, averaging less 20 metres from front to back allowing the inside forwards to help the midfield, allowing a system-based press and quick closure of space.

With the front line disjointedly moving forward, where was the reactive stepping up of the backline? Next to nonexistent. Instead they held depth which made the point of pressing even more questionable. Attempting to close space without shrinking the pitch. Fullbacks, given their starting position, so deep as to be almost obsolete to any recovery of possession and counter.

Perhaps this was/is Peseiro-ball and with a silver medal to show for it, exceeding expectations, he pulled it off. Purposely run players into the ground, if that’s not a matter of tactics then 5-2-2-1 is zero nothing else.

[Coach]

I don't understand, our defense stopped being invincible after the Cameroon game, infact we were figured out and our defense looked porous against Angola and South Africa, remember the one on one chance against Angola and the open net chance South Africa missed?

Porosity was all part of the plan. After all the more times one sticks themselves in different holes the more likely they are to turn Syphilitic.

The cloak of invincibility was almost pulled off by Angola, was pulled off by SA, only to be put back on and finally reduced to an elephant’s loin cloth. If this is the Peseiro way, assuming he stays, he needs legs, more able and willing runners and a huge spoonful of synchrony…or as they say, “automatism”.

[sabb]

We played the same way from beginning to end so it was still our tactics that lost us the game. We sat back and invited teams all tourney, even the domination VE was talking about in the 1st match we still sat back but EG attacked full on and we picked them apart in the counter attacks albeit we could not convert.

Aina as gassed as he was showed Adingra where to go on the 2nd goal and Adingra took the open space and utilised it, another day it might not have been converted but dat day just belonged to CIV cos even 2nd balls were falling at their feet.

Boys played well but that was the 2nd time we were playing CIV which means we need to adjust strategy and we didn't. Just sat back and invited them hoping to pick them apart whereas they upped the intensity from the onset and never held back. ṢE was not ready for the final

[OJI]

Peseiro's tactics were good enough to win the final.

We are making a very simple mistake. Nigeria did not get to the final because we were not tested.

The hole in the midfield was NOT a glaring weakness. It was NOT the issue.

Peseiro's team was not a team that played on the backfoot. They did not cede possession arbitrarily. They knew exactly what they were doing. They would let you keep possession where it was futile. Your attacks were never damaging as they would neutralise possession from the danger points.

Someone like Adringa was not really the issue, nor was Kessie. Peseiro's tactics does not fall apart under such plays. His tactics relies on immense sacrifice. Yes we lose ground, but not in the way that many teams lose ground.

We lose ground but ALWAYS make up for it. It is a high workrate team. I think his plan would have worked. Adringa and Kessie would have been dealt with, Haller would have never gotten service.

Nigeria didn't fail because of tactics. We failed because of management. I made the initial mistake to think it was mostly psychological or tactical. The game was lost in management.

Nigeria was the hardest working team in the competition, maybe in the history of the competition. The team that cedes the midfield but chases down every cross in the nick of time. That takes a monumental amount of energy. Energy that we didn't have by not using the bench, and energy that was made even more scarce when we went into extra time and penalties with South Africa.

Peseiros plan cannot work without an immense workrate. It is not an efficient model. It is why a low efficiency striker was the hero of the model.

The second we lost our legs there was no way we could win. Unless he changed the model, not slightly, but significantly.

The loss is Peseiro's fault. In fact, he should have seen the loss coming. We were distracted by so many things to think that we could have won. We lost before the match started. We didn't have the legs to carry out the plan.

Peseiro's reluctance to use the bench must go down as one of the dumbest decisions in football history. Many said that you don't change a winning formula. But this was not a normal team. It was a team built on outworking the opponent. You cannot do that without the bench. Osimhen cannot work that hard over 7 games, abdominal pain or not. Zaidu cannot work that hard over 7 games, hamstring or not. Nobody can.

You either play efficiently or you spread the workload. Peseiro's decision did not show low football intelligence. It showed low general intelligence.

Even the goal from Troost Ekong looked against the run of play to me. I don't think we were ever in the match...and that is obvious, because we were burnt out.

Those of you who supported not going to thr bench, made a huge mistake, and there were many of you. You played this thing like a sprint, when it was a marathon. There is no point talking about other teams, because we obviously played unconventionally. Osimhen worked harder than a normal footballer should. Simon worked harder than a normal winger would etc.

We thought our players were robots.....

[sabb]

Sorry Tbite, there isn’t a single coaching manual or UEFA certified course (lest one forget JP is European and would’ve passed through such schools) that preaches forfeiture of the midfield. Have never come across a single manifesto that says, lose the midfield on purpose and then quench the attack with a last ditch tackle. Each to their own, but such a suggestion is the blackened, bruised banana on the shelf. Not buying it.

The team tactics were exploited and that was in no way part of the plan. Everyone who is anyone knows in football, the team without the ball works hardest, space doesn’t close itself.

Look at the team positioning in the defensive phase. If one is to exaggerate the formation and call it a 5-2-3, look at the distances between zones. Osimhen was way ahead of the inside forwards, turning the 3 into a 2-1. This effectively reduced his pressing, on most occasions, to an easily bypassed waste of ATP.

What was the pressing trigger? On occasions, VO would go, as if blighted by neuropathy, Chukwueze and Lookman would belated go, preciously little movement from the backline, effectively stretching the gap between front and back.

If one is to go light in the midfield, there has to be compaction that compensates for the lack of numbers in the centre. Leverkeusen vs Bayern is a perfect example of this. Effectively a 5-2-3 in the defensive phase, averaging less 20 metres from front to back allowing the inside forwards to help the midfield, allowing a system-based press and quick closure of space.

With the front line, disjointedly moving forward, where was the reactive stepping up on the backline? Next to nonexistent. Instead they held depth which made the point of pressing even more questionable. Attempting to close space without shrinking the pitch. Fullbacks, given their starting position, so deep as to be almost obsolete to any recovery of possession and counter.

Perhaps this was/is Peseiro-ball and with a silver medal to show for it, exceeding expectations, he pulled it off. Purposely run players into the ground, if that’s not a matter of tactics then 5-2-2-1 is zero nothing else.

Exactly - The pressing was just non existence and in spurts not decisive at all

[icee]

Peseiro's tactics were good enough to win the final.

We are making a very simple mistake. Nigeria did not get to the final because we were not tested.

The hole in the midfield was NOT a glaring weakness. It was NOT the issue.

Peseiro's team was not a team that played on the backfoot. They did not cede possession arbitrarily. They knew exactly what they were doing. They would let you keep possession where it was futile. Your attacks were never damaging as they would neutralise possession from the danger points.

Someone like Adringa was not really the issue, nor was Kessie. Peseiro's tactics does not fall apart under such plays. His tactics relies on immense sacrifice. Yes we lose ground, but not in the way that many teams lose ground.

We lose ground but ALWAYS make up for it. It is a high workrate team. I think his plan would have worked. Adringa and Kessie would have been dealt with, Haller would have never gotten service.

Nigeria didn't fail because of tactics. We failed because of management. I made the initial mistake to think it was mostly psychological or tactical. The game was lost in management.

Nigeria was the hardest working team in the competition, maybe in the history of the competition. The team that cedes the midfield but chases down every cross in the nick of time. That takes a monumental amount of energy. Energy that we didn't have by not using the bench, and energy that was made even more scarce when we went into extra time and penalties with South Africa.

Peseiros plan cannot work without an immense workrate. It is not an efficient model. It is why a low efficiency striker was the hero of the model.

The second we lost our legs there was no way we could win. Unless he changed the model, not slightly, but significantly.

The loss is Peseiro's fault. In fact, he should have seen the loss coming. We were distracted by so many things to think that we could have won. We lost before the match started. We didn't have the legs to carry out the plan.

Peseiro's reluctance to use the bench must go down as one of the dumbest decisions in football history. Many said that you don't change a winning formula. But this was not a normal team. It was a team built on outworking the opponent. You cannot do that without the bench. Osimhen cannot work that hard over 7 games, abdominal pain or not. Zaidu cannot work that hard over 7 games, hamstring or not. Nobody can.

You either play efficiently or you spread the workload. Peseiro's decision did not show low football intelligence. It showed low general intelligence.

Even the goal from Troost Ekong looked against the run of play to me. I don't think we were ever in the match...and that is obvious, because we were burnt out.

Those of you who supported not going to thr bench, made a huge mistake, and there were many of you. You played this thing like a sprint, when it was a marathon. There is no point talking about other teams, because we obviously played unconventionally. Osimhen worked harder than a normal footballer should. Simon worked harder than a normal winger would etc.

We thought our players were robots.....

Very interesting angle.

[1] The SA extra time game probably took a bit more out of our players

[2] I will recommend that we reflect on what happened between when the SA game was over and the kick off of the CIV game. How did we manage that time space, energy, recovery, emotions, expectations. I think this is a space we can learn a lot from moving forward as in what to do/not to do in getting players to the right mind set

[3] Related to the above, I'm not sure it is fatigue but what I saw was a team that wasn't in the winning frame of mind from the kick off. Perhaps looking like being hung over from a party the night before. Aina suddenly couldn't pass, Calvin who had been impeccable all through the tourney was making mistakes at the back. Lookman was MIA.

[4] I disagree with your point on fresh legs to be the solution although I can still change my mind. One of the worst gambles was to rest Simon Moses and play Chukweze. Resting Simon didn't quite turn out well.

[5] I will tend to think that there is a specific conditioning that goes with our template of play. If that conditioning falls short, then yes we will not be able to play with industry. Perhaps small detail like conditioning and #3 may be areas to look into. We played CIV the same way two games and this time, we were on our backfoot.
Question - What do you think CIV did differently?

[gochino]

We lost due to tactics! Let's assume what you are saying is 100% true, is it not the duty of the manager to speak to the players and find the best tactics that fit their physical and psychological state? If he failed to adapt the right tactics based on the change of his players state of mind or fatigue, then who is to blame? How can you use exactly the same strategy from the first game without taking certain variables( a new coach, the additional players; Haller and Adringa) into consideration?

[Gotti]

Perhaps Tbite’s understanding of the term “tactics” differs from basic English…
Even how you use (or not use) players, including how they exert (or not exert) energy is a tactic!

[gochino]

Perhaps Tbite’s understanding of the term “tactics” differs from basic English…
Even how you use (or not use) players, including how they exert (or not exert) energy is a tactic!

Kpom!

[Coach]

In any contest, be that sport, academia, war, there is need for and application of, tactic and strategy. Approaching any contest without, renders defeat and failure absolute certainties.

Football is, most certainly, a game of tactic and strategy. The understating of that, is the welcoming of disorder and dysfunction. This isn’t the 80s or 90s where mercurial magicians run rings around whole teams single-handedly. The modern game mandates tactical considerations to optimise advantages i.e. in playing personnel.

Nigeria over performed adopting an approach that, with each successive game, dropped deeper and deeper, growing ever more devoted to defensive resolve. The irony being, defending/defence is a function of a tactic, not the tactic itself. Again, look at the shape off the ball during the Ivorian build-up, 5-2-3, huge gaps between lines, the absolute antithesis to the 5-2-3, which demands compaction.

The tactics peaked vs Cameroon only to plateau and plummet thereafter. Even then, it could be argued, the plummet was only after soaring to dizzying heights few would’ve expected. On falling, they still came to rest above what fair assessment would’ve assumed pre-tournament. Silver was a successful return.

[Tbite]

Perhaps Tbite’s understanding of the term “tactics” differs from basic English…
Even how you use (or not use) players, including how they exert (or not exert) energy is a tactic!

You are digressing strangely. I am stating that our tactics need not have changed, not that games can be won with or without tactics, nor am I stating what our tactics are or aren't in that passage.

Let me rephrase it, if it is still not clear. The title is clearly an abbreviation...., it does not contain all the information that would render it entirely understandable to a non native speaker or one reading it without context. Most of the people in this thread understood the abbreviation. I think you clearly did too...but you thought you might muddy the waters?

Why would I abbreviate it? Well why not? Simplifying titles for specific audiences is useful when you want to be edgy, punchy, and strike a stronger point. When English is your native language, you get to play around with it. And I clearly play around with it often on this forum, but so called native speakers are always calling me out on little points of ambiguity. No, I will not change the way I speak. This is a Nigerian football forum, certain things should be considered implied. I don't want to be too dull.

Actually funnily enough, many of you aren't actually native English speakers. hmmmmm.

We did not need to change formation, we did not need to change the press, we did not need to adjust the team in any significant way. What we needed to do was account for workload, and not specifically for this game, but in general. Peteiro had a formula for this tournament and I think his formula from day one was slightly wrong.

I feel like my point is true because Nigeria did not execute its game plan poorly, it did not execute its game plan AT ALL. That says to me that other things have to be at play. It is our game play to track the wingers to the by-line, it is our game plan to press heavily. We didn't do these things. Did we suddenly forget our game plan? Obviously not.

Kessie is strong, but is he any stronger than Fofana? Adringa is fast but we have dealt with such wingers before. The ease in which they burnt us out, our recovery was nowhere near our previous games. I cannot say I recognised Nigeria.

To say we lost the midfield battle or our ball retention, pass completion etc. were poor would be a bit of a distraction. Yes on the ball we were atrocious, but the more interesting story is how we performed OFF the ball. Nigeria was the best team in the tournament OFF the ball, you would not have known it in the final.

Something was not right in that team. Could be a combination of many factors such as energy, hangover, psychological etc.

How we perform off the ball is actually where we get our confidence from! I think our off the ball performance was probably a domino effect that then impeded our on the ball control and movement. They say we lost the midfield, but that is a sweeping statement. We actually had a lot of space in the midfield. What we lacked was confidence in the middle of the mark. The Ivorians were not actually overly aggressive in the midfield. The South Africans were far more aggressive.

I actually think South Africa looked the stronger side. The main concern with the Ivoriens was the Blitzkrieg, and I think that under normal circumstances we would have neutralized it. I don't think we had the legs. You could say the inverse was true, because the Ivorians injected some fresh legs. So two things coincided. They were reinvigorated, and the opposite was true for us.

[YUJAM]

Both teams started off with their set strategy. CIV with 4-3-3 and Nigeria with a 3-4-3 with Ajayi stepping a bit forward into the DM spot.
But when CIV gained the ascendancy with Adingra in particular getting the best of Aina time and time again, the tactical adjustment to counter these issues on the field never came. Aina desperately needed help on his side of the field and the midfield was being overrun. So did tactics have anything to do with the defeat? Absolutely

Perhaps Tbite’s understanding of the term “tactics” differs from basic English…
Even how you use (or not use) players, including how they exert (or not exert) energy is a tactic!

You are digressing strangely. I am stating that our tactics need not have changed, not that games can be won with or without tactics, nor am I stating what our tactics are or aren't in that passage.

Let me rephrase it, if it is still not clear. The title is clearly an abbreviation...., it does not contain all the information that would render it entirely understandable to a non native speaker or one reading it without context. Most of the people in this thread understood the abbreviation. I think you clearly did too...but you thought you might muddy the waters?

Why would I abbreviate it? Well why not? Simplifying titles for specific audiences is useful when you want to be edgy, punchy, and strike a stronger point. When English is your native language, you get to play around with it. And I clearly play around with it often on this forum, but so called native speakers are always calling me out on little points of ambiguity. No, I will not change the way I speak. This is a Nigerian football forum, certain things should be considered implied. I don't want to be too dull.

Actually funnily enough, many of you aren't actually native English speakers. hmmmmm.

We did not need to change formation, we did not need to change the press, we did not need to adjust the team in any significant way. What we needed to do was account for workload, and not specifically for this game, but in general. Peteiro had a formula for this tournament and I think his formula from day one was slightly wrong.

I feel like my point is true because Nigeria did not execute its game plan poorly, it did not execute its game plan AT ALL. That says to me that other things have to be at play. It is our game play to track the wingers to the by-line, it is our game plan to press heavily. We didn't do these things. Did we suddenly forget our game plan? Obviously not.

Kessie is strong, but is he any stronger than Fofana? Adringa is fast but we have dealt with such wingers before. The ease in which they burnt us out, our recovery was nowhere near our previous games. I cannot say I recognised Nigeria.

To say we lost the midfield battle or our ball retention, pass completion etc. were poor would be a bit of a distraction. Yes on the ball we were atrocious, but the more interesting story is how we performed OFF the ball. Nigeria was the best team in the tournament OFF the ball, you would not have known it in the final.

Something was not right in that team. Could be a combination of many factors such as energy, hangover, psychological etc.

How we perform off the ball is actually where we get our confidence from! I think our off the ball performance was probably a domino effect that then impeded our on the ball control and movement. They say we lost the midfield, but that is a sweeping statement. We actually had a lot of space in the midfield. What we lacked was confidence in the middle of the mark. The Ivorians were not actually overly aggressive in the midfield. The South Africans were far more aggressive.

I actually think South Africa looked the stronger side. The main concern with the Ivoriens was the Blitzkrieg, and I think that under normal circumstances we would have neutralized it. I don't think we had the legs. You could say the inverse was true, because the Ivorians injected some fresh legs. So two things coincided. They were reinvigorated, and the opposite was true for us.

[Schillachi]

Perhaps Tbite’s understanding of the term “tactics” differs from basic English…
Even how you use (or not use) players, including how they exert (or not exert) energy is a tactic!

You are digressing strangely. I am stating that our tactics need not have changed, not that games can be won with or without tactics, nor am I stating what our tactics are or aren't in that passage.

Let me rephrase it, if it is still not clear. The title is clearly an abbreviation...., it does not contain all the information that would render it entirely understandable to a non native speaker or one reading it without context. Most of the people in this thread understood the abbreviation. I think you clearly did too...but you thought you might muddy the waters?

Why would I abbreviate it? Well why not? Simplifying titles for specific audiences is useful when you want to be edgy, punchy, and strike a stronger point. When English is your native language, you get to play around with it. And I clearly play around with it often on this forum, but so called native speakers are always calling me out on little points of ambiguity. No, I will not change the way I speak. This is a Nigerian football forum, certain things should be considered implied. I don't want to be too dull.

Actually funnily enough, many of you aren't actually native English speakers. hmmmmm.

We did not need to change formation, we did not need to change the press, we did not need to adjust the team in any significant way. What we needed to do was account for workload, and not specifically for this game, but in general. Peteiro had a formula for this tournament and I think his formula from day one was slightly wrong.

I feel like my point is true because Nigeria did not execute its game plan poorly, it did not execute its game plan AT ALL. That says to me that other things have to be at play. It is our game play to track the wingers to the by-line, it is our game plan to press heavily. We didn't do these things. Did we suddenly forget our game plan? Obviously not.

Kessie is strong, but is he any stronger than Fofana? Adringa is fast but we have dealt with such wingers before. The ease in which they burnt us out, our recovery was nowhere near our previous games. I cannot say I recognised Nigeria.

To say we lost the midfield battle or our ball retention, pass completion etc. were poor would be a bit of a distraction. Yes on the ball we were atrocious, but the more interesting story is how we performed OFF the ball. Nigeria was the best team in the tournament OFF the ball, you would not have known it in the final.

Something was not right in that team. Could be a combination of many factors such as energy, hangover, psychological etc.

How we perform off the ball is actually where we get our confidence from! I think our off the ball performance was probably a domino effect that then impeded our on the ball control and movement. They say we lost the midfield, but that is a sweeping statement. We actually had a lot of space in the midfield. What we lacked was confidence in the middle of the mark. The Ivorians were not actually overly aggressive in the midfield. The South Africans were far more aggressive.

I actually think South Africa looked the stronger side. The main concern with the Ivoriens was the Blitzkrieg, and I think that under normal circumstances we would have neutralized it. I don't think we had the legs. You could say the inverse was true, because the Ivorians injected some fresh legs. So two things coincided. They were reinvigorated, and the opposite was true for us.

Dude, what the heck are you rambling about?

[Enugu II]

Perhaps Tbite’s understanding of the term “tactics” differs from basic English…
Even how you use (or not use) players, including how they exert (or not exert) energy is a tactic!

Gotti,

Your definition here is expansive. I think we can differentiate tactics from psychological readiness etc of the players.

In any case, I think the point raised in Tbite's piece is a different look from claims mostly propagate, currently, in the media. In my opinion, I do not believe that the result from that final was a result of tactical failure. I am more inclined to think that Tbite's interpretation is more compelling. The question, however, is if Tbite is indeed correct, why is it that this issue of physical or psychological readiness impacted just the Nigerian players. My recollection is that the Ivorians played not just more minutes of soccer in this competition. Moreover, they may have exerted more because in at least in multiple games they had to fight very hard to comeback from deficits while Nigeria had only one game, prior to the final, where such exertion was necessary.

[Penarity]

Wow! So many solid analysts and almost-coaches on this forum. Lots of interesting perspectives. At the end of the day, the SE did not win AFCON.

[aykwes8]

Peseiro's tactics were good enough to win the final.

We are making a very simple mistake. Nigeria did not get to the final because we were not tested.

The hole in the midfield was NOT a glaring weakness. It was NOT the issue.

Peseiro's team was not a team that played on the backfoot. They did not cede possession arbitrarily. They knew exactly what they were doing. They would let you keep possession where it was futile. Your attacks were never damaging as they would neutralise possession from the danger points.

Someone like Adringa was not really the issue, nor was Kessie. Peseiro's tactics does not fall apart under such plays. His tactics relies on immense sacrifice. Yes we lose ground, but not in the way that many teams lose ground.

We lose ground but ALWAYS make up for it. It is a high workrate team. I think his plan would have worked. Adringa and Kessie would have been dealt with, Haller would have never gotten service.

Nigeria didn't fail because of tactics. We failed because of management. I made the initial mistake to think it was mostly psychological or tactical. The game was lost in management.

Nigeria was the hardest working team in the competition, maybe in the history of the competition. The team that cedes the midfield but chases down every cross in the nick of time. That takes a monumental amount of energy. Energy that we didn't have by not using the bench, and energy that was made even more scarce when we went into extra time and penalties with South Africa.

Peseiros plan cannot work without an immense workrate. It is not an efficient model. It is why a low efficiency striker was the hero of the model.

The second we lost our legs there was no way we could win. Unless he changed the model, not slightly, but significantly.

The loss is Peseiro's fault. In fact, he should have seen the loss coming. We were distracted by so many things to think that we could have won. We lost before the match started. We didn't have the legs to carry out the plan.

Peseiro's reluctance to use the bench must go down as one of the dumbest decisions in football history. Many said that you don't change a winning formula. But this was not a normal team. It was a team built on outworking the opponent. You cannot do that without the bench. Osimhen cannot work that hard over 7 games, abdominal pain or not. Zaidu cannot work that hard over 7 games, hamstring or not. Nobody can.

You either play efficiently or you spread the workload. Peseiro's decision did not show low football intelligence. It showed low general intelligence.

Even the goal from Troost Ekong looked against the run of play to me. I don't think we were ever in the match...and that is obvious, because we were burnt out.

Those of you who supported not going to thr bench, made a huge mistake, and there were many of you. You played this thing like a sprint, when it was a marathon. There is no point talking about other teams, because we obviously played unconventionally. Osimhen worked harder than a normal footballer should. Simon worked harder than a normal winger would etc.

We thought our players were robots.....

I agree . You lost because it wasn’t a 3rd place match

[Dammy]

Peseiro's tactics were good enough to win the final.

We are making a very simple mistake. Nigeria did not get to the final because we were not tested.

The hole in the midfield was NOT a glaring weakness. It was NOT the issue.

Peseiro's team was not a team that played on the backfoot. They did not cede possession arbitrarily. They knew exactly what they were doing. They would let you keep possession where it was futile. Your attacks were never damaging as they would neutralise possession from the danger points.

Someone like Adringa was not really the issue, nor was Kessie. Peseiro's tactics does not fall apart under such plays. His tactics relies on immense sacrifice. Yes we lose ground, but not in the way that many teams lose ground.

We lose ground but ALWAYS make up for it. It is a high workrate team. I think his plan would have worked. Adringa and Kessie would have been dealt with, Haller would have never gotten service.

Nigeria didn't fail because of tactics. We failed because of management. I made the initial mistake to think it was mostly psychological or tactical. The game was lost in management.

Nigeria was the hardest working team in the competition, maybe in the history of the competition. The team that cedes the midfield but chases down every cross in the nick of time. That takes a monumental amount of energy. Energy that we didn't have by not using the bench, and energy that was made even more scarce when we went into extra time and penalties with South Africa.

Peseiros plan cannot work without an immense workrate. It is not an efficient model. It is why a low efficiency striker was the hero of the model.

The second we lost our legs there was no way we could win. Unless he changed the model, not slightly, but significantly.

The loss is Peseiro's fault. In fact, he should have seen the loss coming. We were distracted by so many things to think that we could have won. We lost before the match started. We didn't have the legs to carry out the plan.

Peseiro's reluctance to use the bench must go down as one of the dumbest decisions in football history. Many said that you don't change a winning formula. But this was not a normal team. It was a team built on outworking the opponent. You cannot do that without the bench. Osimhen cannot work that hard over 7 games, abdominal pain or not. Zaidu cannot work that hard over 7 games, hamstring or not. Nobody can.

You either play efficiently or you spread the workload. Peseiro's decision did not show low football intelligence. It showed low general intelligence.

Even the goal from Troost Ekong looked against the run of play to me. I don't think we were ever in the match...and that is obvious, because we were burnt out.

Those of you who supported not going to thr bench, made a huge mistake, and there were many of you. You played this thing like a sprint, when it was a marathon. There is no point talking about other teams, because we obviously played unconventionally. Osimhen worked harder than a normal footballer should. Simon worked harder than a normal winger would etc.

We thought our players were robots.....

I agree . You lost because it wasn’t a 3rd place match

Abeg go and sit down! Your team, Black Stars, were camped in the same hotel with Nigeria and they spent all their time womanising according to someone who was lodging in the same hotel.
No wonder they crashed out in the first round! The goalkeeper was thinking of escapades and lost concentration in the last minute against Mozambique!

[kash n' karry]

Hmmm.. .. what tactics are we talking about ???

We lost the finals for no simple reason other than the fact that .. . we were simply intimidated, we've lost the SE confident swag loooongest time ago !!
Jeez ... our boys were still playing intimidated even when they were 1 goal up with less than 45 mins to glory ..
Our pro players were cowards and our coaches were inept to wake up OR better say ...they were all "JUJU-FIED" !!!

Shame ... shame.. .. shame... !!!!!
================================================
Truth.. ..be told. ALL da Time.. . !!!