Nigeria: Not yet uhuru

[txj]

GOTTI
I will not get into a back and forth debate with you on this. In the next few days we will learn more about the growth or lack thereof of our team.

As I said, every football team on earth has its weakness, players sometimes bomb out. Its the nature of the game. You may be right about the weaknesses at the ANC in 1994, but the more important thing is that one or two months later, the same could not be said of the same team at the WC.
However, not every team continues to reveal the same fundamental weaknesses after one year of rebuilding, and it is not nitpicking, it is a danger signal. The same weaknesses which led you to declare CCC out of his depth against Brazil are still manifestly evident today. And today, February 1 2004, my interest is in the SE of this time. CW 's successes or failures cannot in any way justify CCC's.... In 1994, I had my criticisms of CW, today I have criticisms of CCC, and tomorrow I 'll have the same of any new man in the saddle, as I deem it necessary..

[txj]

GOTTI
This is indeed a stretch if I ever saw one. Elijah Litana's goal in about the 3rd minute was the product of the failure of Yekini to reverse-mark his marker, Elijah Litana. That hardly qualifies for definition as a sign of fundamental weakness. Needless to say, it did not recur at the WC.
In the semis, Bassole's goals again were the result of lax marking in the box by Okafor who failed to pick out his man.

TXJ:
If THREE FREE HEADERS right in front of the GK on three corner-kicks is not a sign of "consistent weakness in fundamentals," then your definition of 'consistent' 'weakness' and 'fundamentals' certainly differs from the plain English (and/or dictionary) language definition of those terms.

[The YeyeMan]

OK then, my question is when does an individual error become a coaching error. Did we lose to Morrocco because Yobo failed to pick up the open Hadji and thus granting him the opportunity to score, or did we lose because of Chukwu's tactical misjudgements.

[deanotito]

Many of these guys are biased against chukwu.

[Enugu II]

On three ocassions in the semi and final games we were caught flat in defending. That is by no means a question on the fundamentals of our tactical game as we are currently displaying. Up until those games, no one had scored against Nigeria. I totally disagree with your characterisation. In the semis, I disagree we were overrun in midfield by CIV. On the contrary we overran them and wayward finishing by Yekini denied Nigeria what could've been a blow out win. And in the final, I have always maintained that Nigeria took her foot off the pedal and played with safety first after taking the lead.
Like any team, CW's super eagles did have its weakness. I can only say how much I wish we were playing at the level that showed only those weaknesses.

To remotely suggest that the SE was consistently showing weaknesses in its fundamentals at this stage of the ANC, betrays a weak knowldge of the game.

TXJ:
I would counsel that you pick up tapes of the 1994 ANC and refresh your memory that all three goals conceded by Nigeria as LATE as the semi-final and final of the 1994 ANC were virtually IDENTICAL -- caused by a "consistent weakness in its fundamentals" in defending against corners (and spot-kicks generally).

I realize that with the passage of time, memories tend to become hazy and often nolstalgic, but those tapes may also be be helpful to refresh your memory as to how the Eagles' midfield was OVERRUN by the Ivorians in the 1994 ANC semi-final and by the Zambians in the second-half of the 1994 ANC final.

Txj:

Wow if you make the above argument why then did you argue that the SE that all but conceded one goal in Mali, in regulation play, was full of fundamental weaknesses? I think that you need to give kudos where it is due. Clearly, the SE is not playing its best football but there were noticeable improvements in the RSA game. Furthermore it is astounding that you have used the fact that Westerhoff's team failed to concede a goal to show strenght in fundamentals but you widely denied this very benefit to Amodu's team that conceded one regulation goal in the Mali tournament.


As you noted, in the next few days we will learn that only ONE team can win the Nations CUp as always and it will not mean that those that did not simply did a poor coaching job.

[Cristao]

OK then, my question is when does an individual error become a coaching error. Did we lose to Morrocco because Yobo failed to pick up the open Hadji and thus granting him the opportunity to score, or did we lose because of Chukwu's tactical misjudgements.

good question .. i wan see the answer to this one

[JssMan]

I have to go with Txj on this. If we had lost that game or drawn by not converting the chances i.e. Yobo didn't score that first goal (quite possible)and Nomvete converted one of his chances and Osaze didn't produce that individual brilliance on the day. Everything else being equal, forumers would have been berating the team for poor performance and an in-effective system. To be honest, I see better team coordination, positional and tactical play watching Senegal, Tunisia, Algeria and even Egypt than I see in the Eagles.

[txj]

EII
I am shocked that you let faulty premise lead you to the cul de sac of a false conclusion.
First, I have in no way suggested that the strenght of CW's team is in its keeping a clean sheet. I was addressing a point raised by Gotti. I wonder why you guys insist on all these comparisons. My interest is in the team in front of me!
Once again, you have led yourself into the trap of simply isolating goals scored as both the means and the end in assessing a team. And I believe that I did address this issue fully in assessing Amodu's team. For instance, I spoke about the inability to properly lay-out the attack, as well as structural weaknesses in defence.
I have given kudos to the SE for winning, and I repeat, I'll take the victory any day!
But I happen to look at the game beyond goals scored. When a team lacks balance in midfield, it leaves undefended zones in midfield, which allows the opponent posession, and which eliminates the ability of the midfield to act as screen for the defence, which means that when the opponent attacks, they make immediate contact with your back four, or they draw your defenders into the midfield (as happened several times to Abbey vs Morocco), creating space for the free man to exploit. That is a fundamental weakness. Brazil took advantage of it, RSA did not have enough quality to do so.
Nigeria beat RSA and I am delighted, but we need to keep perspective.

Txj:

Wow if you make the above argument why then did you argue that the SE that all but conceded one goal in Mali, in regulation play, was full of fundamental weaknesses? I think that you need to give kudos where it is due. Clearly, the SE is not playing its best football but there were noticeable improvements in the RSA game. Furthermore it is astounding that you have used the fact that Westerhoff's team failed to concede a goal to show strenght in fundamentals but you widely denied this very benefit to Amodu's team that conceded one regulation goal in the Mali tournament.


As you noted, in the next few days we will learn that only ONE team can win the Nations CUp as always and it will not mean that those that did not simply did a poor coaching job.

[Robbynice]

I have to go with Txj on this. If we had lost that game or drawn by not converting the chances i.e. Yobo didn't score that first goal (quite possible)and Nomvete converted one of his chances and Osaze didn't produce that individual brilliance on the day. Everything else being equal, forumers would have been berating the team for poor performance and an in-effective system. To be honest, I see better team coordination, positional and tactical play watching Senegal, Tunisia, Algeria and even Egypt than I see in the Eagles.

Na wa for una. We lose na war. we win na wahala. Wetin una want again?

[txj]

Among other things, we lost because we lacked balance in midfield. In my opinion, the idea of playing attackers in midfield positions without a countermeasure compromised our ability to defend in midfield, and often allowed our opponent too much sight of our back four. For instance, there are two zones in defensive midfield (sometimes more). Olofinjana was made to cover both. Lacking help from midfield in lateral defence, and out-manned in central midfield, our full backs were several times sucked out of their positions, while the defence was unable to track off-the ball runs. We were neither zone marking nor man marking. When the goal was scored, Yobo for instance was caught in a no mans zone. When they hit the bar, the defence was unable to track the runs from behind.
While Okoronkwo must be blamed for allowing Hadji to turn in the box, up until that moment, there was a systemic failure by Nigeria in defense. That is the realm of coaching.

OK then, my question is when does an individual error become a coaching error. Did we lose to Morrocco because Yobo failed to pick up the open Hadji and thus granting him the opportunity to score, or did we lose because of Chukwu's tactical misjudgements.

[txj]

Your child-like simplicity leaves me

I have to go with Txj on this. If we had lost that game or drawn by not converting the chances i.e. Yobo didn't score that first goal (quite possible)and Nomvete converted one of his chances and Osaze didn't produce that individual brilliance on the day. Everything else being equal, forumers would have been berating the team for poor performance and an in-effective system. To be honest, I see better team coordination, positional and tactical play watching Senegal, Tunisia, Algeria and even Egypt than I see in the Eagles.

Na wa for una. We lose na war. we win na wahala. Wetin una want again?

[Enugu II]

EII
I am shocked that you let faulty premise lead you to the cul de sac of a false conclusion.
First, I have in no way suggested that the strenght of CW's team is in its keeping a clean sheet. I was addressing a point raised by Gotti. I wonder why you guys insist on all these comparisons. My interest is in the team in front of me!
Once again, you have led yourself into the trap of simply isolating goals scored as both the means and the end in assessing a team. And I believe that I did address this issue fully in assessing Amodu's team. For instance, I spoke about the inability to properly lay-out the attack, as well as structural weaknesses in defence.
I have given kudos to the SE for winning, and I repeat, I'll take the victory any day!
But I happen to look at the game beyond goals scored. When a team lacks balance in midfield, it leaves undefended zones in midfield, which allows the opponent posession, and which eliminates the ability of the midfield to act as screen for the defence, which means that when the opponent attacks, they make immediate contact with your back four, or they draw your defenders into the midfield (as happened several times to Abbey vs Morocco), creating space for the free man to exploit. That is a fundamental weakness. Brazil took advantage of it, RSA did not have enough quality to do so.
Nigeria beat RSA and I am delighted, but we need to keep perspective.

Txj:

Wow if you make the above argument why then did you argue that the SE that all but conceded one goal in Mali, in regulation play, was full of fundamental weaknesses? I think that you need to give kudos where it is due. Clearly, the SE is not playing its best football but there were noticeable improvements in the RSA game. Furthermore it is astounding that you have used the fact that Westerhoff's team failed to concede a goal to show strenght in fundamentals but you widely denied this very benefit to Amodu's team that conceded one regulation goal in the Mali tournament.


As you noted, in the next few days we will learn that only ONE team can win the Nations CUp as always and it will not mean that those that did not simply did a poor coaching job.

Txj:


Outcomes are critical in any analysis because afterall they are the expected end product. Thus, I cannot fully understand the value (beside mere academics) to discuss the deficiences when a team wins consistently. Does it not presume that winning consistently indicates some positive attribute of the team's characteristics? Thus, Amodu's team despite the inconsistencies that you mention can very much be compared to Westerhoff's or any other with the same outcomes.

We are more likely to agree if you are able to locate and to acknowledge the very values that carried Amodu’s team beyond the opening rounds to the semi-finals. You need to acknowledge those because such values indeed exist.

On the other hand you seem to spend so much space and time on identifying the weaknesses to the point that one can assume that the team with such fundamental weaknesses cannot go beyond its first game. While one acknowledges those weaknesses, we would like to know about the positives that in fact propel those teams beyond the opening round.

[Enugu II]

Txj:


For whatever it counts, here is the view of one of your favorite coaches -- Westerhoff.

Westerhof Tips Eagles for Cup Glory

This Day (Lagos)

February 2, 2004
Posted to the web February 2, 2004

Praises Osaze

Former Super Eagles coach Clemens Westerhof believes that the team is now good enough to go all the way to repeat the feat of the last team he took to Tunisia and win the cup.

Commenting on the performance of the Eagles after they whitewashed South Africa 4-0 Saturday to jump start their Nations Cup campaign, Westerhof said they showed their true character, which was conspicuously missing in the opening match defeat by Morocco.


"Ha, they showed that they are in Tunisia for business. I told you in the first match they did not play with any character or fight but now they did and you can see the result 4-0!"

He also backed Christian Chukwu's decision to expel the players from camp insisting that without discipline the team would not be able to do well in the competition.

"You need discipline to be able to get the best out of the team. No discipline. No team!"

Westerhof, who was the first coach to qualify Nigeria for the World Cup at USA'94, was also full of praise for two-goal hero Osaze Odemwingie describing him as a 'very good player'.

The Dutchman, who said he angered South African TV when he was asked if the Bafana Bafana could end their losing streak against Nigeria and he told them no.

"They (South African TV) were very angry with me when I was asked if their team could beat the Eagles and I replied no that they would lose 3-0!"

He said he latter celebrated the win at a local pub near his Cape Town house with some other Super Eagles supporters.

On Nigeria's chances in the competition should they come up against the defending champions Cameroon in the quarter final, Westerhof's reply was short and sharp: "No problem!"

According to the Dutchman, Chukwu was his former assistant and as such would know what to do to win.

"Chukwu was with me at Faro. I think has prepared the team right, they have the right players and more importantly the attitude has improved. Should they play like they did against South Africa I can't see them losing to Cameroon. But first they have to reach the quarter finals!"

[txj]

EII
As you probably expected, CW's comments has little to do with the discourse on CCC's team.

Your position reminds me of the Rangers of old, whose handlers on being criticized for their long ball approach, retorted that the goal post is not in midfield!
To consider the discourse on team play as merely academic is to totally miss the point. It reflects the position of most Nigerian LCs who regard such talk as 'mere grammer'.
As I said earlier, when a team plays, it leaves 'footprints' of her game on the pitch. Unfortunately, not everyone sees this, but it is those footprints that lead you to goals scored or prevented, goals not scored or conceeded. That is the richness of the game...

[Blakes]

OK then, my question is when does an individual error become a coaching error. Did we lose to Morrocco because Yobo failed to pick up the open Hadji and thus granting him the opportunity to score, or did we lose because of Chukwu's tactical misjudgements.

that error was not individual..personally i think invidual error is an own gaolll .that morrocoo error started all the way from baba who gave his man all the time in the world to pick out who he wanted to cross to in the boxx...and everything else happend from there..

[Enugu II]

EII
As you probably expected, CW's comments has little to do with the discourse on CCC's team.

Your position reminds me of the Rangers of old, whose handlers on being criticized for their long ball approach, retorted that the goal post is not in midfield!
To consider the discourse on team play as merely academic is to totally miss the point. It reflects the position of most Nigerian LCs who regard such talk as 'mere grammer'.
As I said earlier, when a team plays, it leaves 'footprints' of her game on the pitch. Unfortunately, not everyone sees this, but it is those footprints that lead you to goals scored or prevented, goals not scored or conceeded. That is the richness of the game...

Txj:

As I continue to say, the use of long balls is not poor play. The bottomline is whatever provides you with a consistent positive result is what is needed. I do not care whether it is long or short ball or medium or even girl-watching ball. The Rangers that you deride above won consistently with the long balls even against teams like the Jets who played the short one. Now, who achieved the results, that is ALWAYS the bottomline. That is exactly why I refer to mere academics. By that I mean that all theory or tactical discussions MUST lead to results or become valueless in terms of their pragmatic necessity. What use is it that a team plays in organized fashion but loses consistently? or take the alternative, a team plays in disorganized fashion and wins consistently? I'll surely take the second one. Remember we have had this argument several times. My take is theory can only be borne out by practical results. Nothing less.

Txj, make no mistake a lot of people watch the game as carefully as you indicate that you do. However, they reach alternative conclusions or atleast a fairer one. I think that my beef is that you need to provide fairer analysis. For instance Nigeria beat South Africa 4-0. Surely, you must know that there were things they did that led to such a win. The 4-0 is not luck, my brother. If they go on to win this championship, you ought to give them credit, my brother. That is all I ask. The point of finding the little faults and not acknowledging the positives must surely not symbolize a fair analysis. For instance, what exactly did the team do between the Morocco game and the RSA game? Or was there nothing worth discussing on that line? To most of us, there were indeed things that were apparent watching the game.

In 2002 you indicated that Garba Lawal's mishap that led to Senegal's winning goal was due to team defensive tactics and not individual error. Yet when I pointed that the exact error occured, a couple of months later, in the Euro Nations Cup involving Italy -- I recall that you conveniently labelled it an individual error (no more team error -- afterall how could the great Italian technical minds commit such an error?). Is it just possible that there are failings in the game plan of European coaches? Is it also possible that there are examples of great tactics employed by Nigerian coaches? Perhaps, that is just not possible.

[txj]

EII
If you bothered to read my post well, you'll see that I started with looking at the positives, the improved efforts by the players, as symbolized especially by Kanu, and then the negatives. It seems that until I join the alellujya chorus of praise singers, I'll never qualify in your books as being fair.
I recall disagreeing with you on the example from Italy, because they are indeed different games. The problem is that you never truly follow my positions, or are guilty of some form of comprehension deficit or forgetfullness. If you recall, following the WC, my comments on Trapattoni's Italy was very uncomplementary. I take each team on a case by case basis.
In football there are individual errors and there are team errors. Lawal's loss of the ball was a personal failure, accentuated by pre-existing weaknesses in the tem's defence.
You constantly take snipets of my positions and juxtapose them with misleading scenarios, and you insist on loooking at only one aspect of a multifaceted position. That is simply wrong...

[Enugu II]

EII
If you bothered to read my post well, you'll see that I started with looking at the positives, the improved efforts by the players, as symbolized especially by Kanu, and then the negatives. It seems that until I join the alellujya chorus of praise singers, I'll never qualify in your books as being fair.
I recall disagreeing with you on the example from Italy, because they are indeed different games. The problem is that you never truly follow my positions, or are guilty of some form of comprehension deficit or forgetfullness. If you recall, following the WC, my comments on Trapattoni's Italy was very uncomplementary. I take each team on a case by case basis.
In football there are individual errors and there are team errors. Lawal's loss of the ball was a personal failure, accentuated by pre-existing weaknesses in the tem's defence.
You constantly take snipets of my positions and juxtapose them with misleading scenarios, and you insist on loooking at only one aspect of a multifaceted position. That is simply wrong...

Txj:

Not at all. Your note on Lawal above came only after your earlier position was heavily criticized here. I remember that episode as if it occured just yesterday. Moreover, while the Italian game was a different game, I continue to stress that the Italian example was no different from the Lawal example in ANC 2002. IMO, both are no more than individual errors that had nothing to do with team tactics. Thus, the comparison is indeed important.

In any case, no one expects you to join the "halleluyah chorus" as you describe but one wishes that you are not among the dooms day analysts either. I say this because I know that you are more objective than that. Frankly, I admire your attempt at detailed analysis but surely fairness ought to be a major consideration because whatever analysis that you arrive at must match with reality i.e if a team progresses towards the championship one expects the analysis to reflect that very achievement, if the team nosedives early then surely the analysis should reflect that as well. The SE weaknesses that you point out are not difficult to observe and as you know I have acknowledged several in our private discussions. However, what I am asking is the recognition of the positives as well. That is all I ask.


I know that you are surely capable of doing the above. Without it, it becomes difficult to see the difference between your position and the several dooms-day analysts and agenda-driven cliques (both pro and con) that masquerade on this site.

[txj]

EII
Again for reasons best known to you, you continue to misread my posts. I make a difference between the improved contribution of the players, a positive to echo you, but the continued weaknesses of the team game, especially in midfield. If that is doomsday or negative analysis, then I am sorry I cannot help you here!
Some teams play well and lose, you blame them for losing a game they should've won. Some others play badly and win, you congratulate them and take the victory, but you remind them that it is 'not yet uhuru'..... That is the bottom line.
I recall that when you brought one of those snippets that you often do for comparison, I did observe that I could not comment because I never watched the game. My position on Lawal remains as it was at the beginning.

[anikulapo]

"Your position reminds me of the Rangers of old, whose handlers on being criticized for their long ball approach, retorted that the goal post is not in midfield! "