Peseiro is decent

[Enugu II]

No. He's not decent. He's a Top quality modern coach with modern man management and football tactics. You don't have to coach at Bayern or Barca to know your stuff. This guy knows his game and his players. Coach Pesse is going to be the most important aspect of the team going forward.

There's not enough data to reach the above conclusion...

Txj

Actually, if you read up on the guy he is indeed noted as an innovative guy and one of the leaders in implementing periodization. I actually posted this before the last AFCON when it was rumored that he was being considered.

[txj]

No. He's not decent. He's a Top quality modern coach with modern man management and football tactics. You don't have to coach at Bayern or Barca to know your stuff. This guy knows his game and his players. Coach Pesse is going to be the most important aspect of the team going forward.

There's not enough data to reach the above conclusion...

Txj

Actually, if you read up on the guy he is indeed noted as an innovative guy and one of the leaders in implementing periodization. I actually posted this before the last AFCON when it was rumored that he was being considered.

I'm familiar with the work of the Portuguese in periodization

[vancity eagle]

"Peseiro is decent"

Not sure I agree with that statement. Neither Rohr or Eguavon would have lost back to back friendlies to these tier 2 National teams regardless of performances. Nigeria is ranked #30 and played a home based Mexico and a Ecuador ranked #43 and lost both matches. Everyone raving about the attacking chances we created with Peseiro need to be reminded that Eguavon produced attacking football against Egypt at last ANC and Rohr against Ukraine and Brazil in previous friendlies. We also didn't loose those games.

Yes but none of those matches (Brazil, Ukraine, Egypt) were half a squad of homebased players forced onto the coach.

Those matches we had our full team.

Absolutely Rohr and Egu would have lost those 2 matches to Mexico and Ecuador given the circumstances.

I hate this excuse. Let's get one thing straight. Unlike Tournament and Qualifiers, most friendlies are played with SOME fringe players. That goes for all National teams. Do you think Mexico and Ecuador were full? Nigeria's team was FULL enough. Iwobi, Aribo, Bassey, Troost, Aina, Simon, Uzoho, Awaziem are all starters when in form and fully fit. And Denis, Dressers and Moffi are legitimate replacements for the inconsistent Ihanacho, Awonyi, and Umar. So apart from Ohsiman and Chukwezie this was a full team! Every team has injuries so I don't want to here about the missing Ndidi.

I wasn't using any excuses of missing players.

YOU compared these friendlies to games against Brazil, Ukraine, Egypt saying how we didnt lose and I just pointed out how those teams we paraded were much stronger.

You had Chuks, Osimehn, Ndidi, Balogun, Iheanacho. Aina didn't even play against Mexico.

You cannot tell me that doesn't make a difference.

Osimehn and Ndidi are our only players who would genuinely start for most national teams.

If we had played Brazil, Ukraine, Egypt without all those players, there is a good chance WE LOSE.

[Enugu II]

Damunk

Of course, there is pain not qualifying for Qatar but I feel we would not have made it with Rohr. That is the difference. We were headed south with him and he was duly sacked as we attempted to salvage the situation. Unfortunately, the situation was too late to be salvaged.

I'm seeing this narrative being pushed here now. I guess believing this makes you feel better for supporting that decision.

But you're depending on woulda, coulda, shoulda...

The only FACT we actually have is that sacking Rohr led to failure as those of us against it predicted. Anything else is conjecture.

BTW, as Ghana proved, a late replacement does not mean it's too late to recover. Ghana was in a far worse shape than us. Coming off a very poor AFCON run and a new coach without a single game, not even a friendly match, they still beat us to the ticket. So the "too late to recover" thing is not really an excuse.

IMO, here is the reason why we failed...

Sacking a coach for no good reason other than pressure from fans who want "better", because the desired result was achieved. It left confusion and disarray, with Pinnick making things up as he went along. Every single time we've done something similar in the past, it led to failure.

Ghana had a very good reason for sacking their coach, so they had a more focused approach to finding a replacement.

Orion

Rohr would have qualified for Qatar? That surely isn't coulda or woulda? Remember the 'would' in the sentence right there!

[Orion]

Damunk

Of course, there is pain not qualifying for Qatar but I feel we would not have made it with Rohr. That is the difference. We were headed south with him and he was duly sacked as we attempted to salvage the situation. Unfortunately, the situation was too late to be salvaged.

I'm seeing this narrative being pushed here now. I guess believing this makes you feel better for supporting that decision.

But you're depending on woulda, coulda, shoulda...

The only FACT we actually have is that sacking Rohr led to failure as those of us against it predicted. Anything else is conjecture.

BTW, as Ghana proved, a late replacement does not mean it's too late to recover. Ghana was in a far worse shape than us. Coming off a very poor AFCON run and a new coach without a single game, not even a friendly match, they still beat us to the ticket. So the "too late to recover" thing is not really an excuse.

IMO, here is the reason why we failed...

Sacking a coach for no good reason other than pressure from fans who want "better", because the desired result was achieved. It left confusion and disarray, with Pinnick making things up as he went along. Every single time we've done something similar in the past, it led to failure.

Ghana had a very good reason for sacking their coach, so they had a more focused approach to finding a replacement.

Orion

Rohr would have qualified for Qatar? That surely isn't coulda or woulda? Remember the 'would' in the sentence eight there!

We don't know because he was fired. The fact we do have is that firing him led to abject failure.

Prior to the firing, he had achieved ALL objectives he was given.

[Enugu II]

Damunk

Of course, there is pain not qualifying for Qatar but I feel we would not have made it with Rohr. That is the difference. We were headed south with him and he was duly sacked as we attempted to salvage the situation. Unfortunately, the situation was too late to be salvaged.

I'm seeing this narrative being pushed here now. I guess believing this makes you feel better for supporting that decision.

But you're depending on woulda, coulda, shoulda...

The only FACT we actually have is that sacking Rohr led to failure as those of us against it predicted. Anything else is conjecture.

BTW, as Ghana proved, a late replacement does not mean it's too late to recover. Ghana was in a far worse shape than us. Coming off a very poor AFCON run and a new coach without a single game, not even a friendly match, they still beat us to the ticket. So the "too late to recover" thing is not really an excuse.

IMO, here is the reason why we failed...

Sacking a coach for no good reason other than pressure from fans who want "better", because the desired result was achieved. It left confusion and disarray, with Pinnick making things up as he went along. Every single time we've done something similar in the past, it led to failure.

Ghana had a very good reason for sacking their coach, so they had a more focused approach to finding a replacement.

Orion

Rohr would have qualified for Qatar? That surely isn't coulda or woulda? Remember the 'would' in the sentence eight there!

We don't know because he was fired. The fact we do have is that firing him led to abject failure.

Prior to the firing, he had achieved ALL objectives he was given.

Orion,

We also have the fact that the team was on a streak of poor results under him including a home loss to a lowly ranked team that had not won a game in 10 before beating Nigeria. Those are facts as well.

[Orion]

Orion,

We also have the fact that the team was on a streak of poor results under him including a home loss to a lowly ranked team that had not won a game in 10 before beating Nigeria. Those are facts as well.

He won the H2H series against Cape Verde - 4 points to 1 - FACTS.
He won the H2H series against CAR - 3 points shared but 2-1 on goals - FACTS.

That's why we topped our group with 13 points and +6 goals. Slightly better than Ghana achieved in their own group - FACTS.

[TonyTheTigerKiller]

His team can create numerous chances, Osimhen will thrive in his system

Oyibo worship has already started. When has the creation of chance’s been a major problem for the SuperEagles? Finishing off those chances has been the issue and Peseiro’s team hasn’t improved any in that department. Forget the style of play. Rohr was overly defensive and relied mostly on counters and long balls while Egu tried a more direct approach through the wings. Regardless of the strategy, finishing remains the biggest issue in our attack. Ironically, our best finishers all seem to be falling out of favor


Cheers.

[Nostradamus]

"Peseiro is decent"

Not sure I agree with that statement. Neither Rohr or Eguavon would have lost back to back friendlies to these tier 2 National teams regardless of performances. Nigeria is ranked #30 and played a home based Mexico and a Ecuador ranked #43 and lost both matches. Everyone raving about the attacking chances we created with Peseiro need to be reminded that Eguavon produced attacking football against Egypt at last ANC and Rohr against Ukraine and Brazil in previous friendlies. We also didn't loose those games.

Yes but none of those matches (Brazil, Ukraine, Egypt) were half a squad of homebased players forced onto the coach.

Those matches we had our full team.

Absolutely Rohr and Egu would have lost those 2 matches to Mexico and Ecuador given the circumstances.

I hate this excuse. Let's get one thing straight. Unlike Tournament and Qualifiers, most friendlies are played with SOME fringe players. That goes for all National teams. Do you think Mexico and Ecuador were full? Nigeria's team was FULL enough. Iwobi, Aribo, Bassey, Troost, Aina, Simon, Uzoho, Awaziem are all starters when in form and fully fit. And Denis, Dressers and Moffi are legitimate replacements for the inconsistent Ihanacho, Awonyi, and Umar. So apart from Ohsiman and Chukwezie this was a full team! Every team has injuries so I don't want to here about the missing Ndidi.

I wasn't using any excuses of missing players.

YOU compared these friendlies to games against Brazil, Ukraine, Egypt saying how we didnt lose and I just pointed out how those teams we paraded were much stronger.

You had Chuks, Osimehn, Ndidi, Balogun, Iheanacho. Aina didn't even play against Mexico.

You cannot tell me that doesn't make a difference.

Osimehn and Ndidi are our only players who would genuinely start for most national teams.

If we had played Brazil, Ukraine, Egypt without all those players, there is a good chance WE LOSE.

We DIDN'T play Brazil or Ukraine though. We played Mexico's B team and 47th ranked Ecuador and lost to both. Not sure how you can conclude Peseiro is "decent" from 2 losses. In 2 games Peseiro has managed to do what no previous Nigerian coach has done in 4 years. Lose back to back games. It only took Peseiro his first 2 matches.