As a Sweden supporter; I have to say that our first three goals were more because New Zealand were playing too far forward, too high a defensive line, and their defenders weren’t really mobile enough to scramble back once they lost possession. They ended up giving our attack all the time in the world to get a shot on. I’m surprised they didn’t abandon this after the second goal, especially given the technical level of our players. But I suppose that it was just a friendly….
All three goals were very avoidable cheap give-aways. The first in particular is one that I've seen so many times lately, from every team that tries to play this build-from-the-back tactic from Man City down. I thought passing into the middle in front of your own goal was something they literally teach you not to do in basic school-age training; apparently that's gone out of the window these days with teams trusting in the ability of the player to overcome the risk. As you can see, with how loose that receiving touch was, not every player has that ability. Third goal was another hi-risk play, trying to thread the ball through two covering midfielders, even though there were safer options on either wing. Second (and third) goal was also from a very flawed tactic; the space between midfield and defense was too wide, leaving Sweden with all the control in the centre of the park. You _can_ play that way, provided your midfield can drop back quicker; as you can see with the 2nd goal, NZ's players are nowhere near fast enough. The very instance the ball was given away there should have been players tracking back, so by the time Quaison was cutting in there should be at least 6-7 players back. Instead at the moment of the giveaway (4:04) there's a midfielder still walking around near the ref, only starting to run at 4:06, two seconds later. By the time Quaison gets the ball at 4:07 there are five Sweden players ahead of the NZ midfield, who are also all bunched up the right wing, so there's acres of space on the left. Third goal, similarly, is one NZ central midfielder against two, and another three attackers occupying space between NZ defense and midfield, so when the ball breaks it's four Swedish players attacking three defenders. Look at the distance of the attempted pass, it's almost half a half, so about 25m. You're trying to pass the ball that distance thru the eye of a needle in the middle of the park, with four Swedish players in front of you, and the surface also looks very heavy, with the ball not being able to be moved at great pace, it's just suicidal. Managers need to stop pretending that every team can play like Guardiola's teams. They need to actually manage, which means reading the ability of your players, reading your opposition, reading the pitch etc, not just promising passing, attacking football just so you look good and "modern".
@@Zzyzzyzzs I agree with all of that. Except maybe that all teams try and play like Manchester City. Teams with *good* managers do not. Defenders passing in front of their own goal mouth is a big sin in international football. In club games in teams where the defenders and goalie have a lot of experience playing together and have built up reactions and understandings of how each other play it’s not such a big error (although it’s still high risk), but in international games where an XI has been brought together it is just atrocious play.
NZ are just far too naive. Their coaching staff need to bring in someone who is ‘streetwise’ in relation to playing in the right areas, keeping the ball properly and not forcing things, also being 100 times harder to be broke down. They have some talent, but won’t win games unless they wake up to the reality of International football.
Were just not good enough to be honest, we don't have a great league and Welly phoenix play in a poor a league. We don't have really anyone playing in top leagues.
4. Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
As a Sweden supporter; I have to say that our first three goals were more because New Zealand were playing too far forward, too high a defensive line, and their defenders weren’t really mobile enough to scramble back once they lost possession. They ended up giving our attack all the time in the world to get a shot on. I’m surprised they didn’t abandon this after the second goal, especially given the technical level of our players. But I suppose that it was just a friendly….
All three goals were very avoidable cheap give-aways. The first in particular is one that I've seen so many times lately, from every team that tries to play this build-from-the-back tactic from Man City down. I thought passing into the middle in front of your own goal was something they literally teach you not to do in basic school-age training; apparently that's gone out of the window these days with teams trusting in the ability of the player to overcome the risk. As you can see, with how loose that receiving touch was, not every player has that ability.
Third goal was another hi-risk play, trying to thread the ball through two covering midfielders, even though there were safer options on either wing. Second (and third) goal was also from a very flawed tactic; the space between midfield and defense was too wide, leaving Sweden with all the control in the centre of the park. You _can_ play that way, provided your midfield can drop back quicker; as you can see with the 2nd goal, NZ's players are nowhere near fast enough. The very instance the ball was given away there should have been players tracking back, so by the time Quaison was cutting in there should be at least 6-7 players back. Instead at the moment of the giveaway (4:04) there's a midfielder still walking around near the ref, only starting to run at 4:06, two seconds later. By the time Quaison gets the ball at 4:07 there are five Sweden players ahead of the NZ midfield, who are also all bunched up the right wing, so there's acres of space on the left.
Third goal, similarly, is one NZ central midfielder against two, and another three attackers occupying space between NZ defense and midfield, so when the ball breaks it's four Swedish players attacking three defenders. Look at the distance of the attempted pass, it's almost half a half, so about 25m. You're trying to pass the ball that distance thru the eye of a needle in the middle of the park, with four Swedish players in front of you, and the surface also looks very heavy, with the ball not being able to be moved at great pace, it's just suicidal.
Managers need to stop pretending that every team can play like Guardiola's teams. They need to actually manage, which means reading the ability of your players, reading your opposition, reading the pitch etc, not just promising passing, attacking football just so you look good and "modern".
@@Zzyzzyzzs I agree with all of that. Except maybe that all teams try and play like Manchester City. Teams with *good* managers do not.
Defenders passing in front of their own goal mouth is a big sin in international football. In club games in teams where the defenders and goalie have a lot of experience playing together and have built up reactions and understandings of how each other play it’s not such a big error (although it’s still high risk), but in international games where an XI has been brought together it is just atrocious play.
NZ attacked pretty well at times, but just can't keep up in defense.
1:31 what an amazing pass😱🔥
NZ are just far too naive. Their coaching staff need to bring in someone who is ‘streetwise’ in relation to playing in the right areas, keeping the ball properly and not forcing things, also being 100 times harder to be broke down. They have some talent, but won’t win games unless they wake up to the reality of International football.
Were just not good enough to be honest, we don't have a great league and Welly phoenix play in a poor a league. We don't have really anyone playing in top leagues.
Sounds like they may have just found the man for the job - YOU (@billywhizz5021) 😅
NZ are actually good; they just need to sort their tactics 💯
Not a totally shit performance by NZ. A bit naive/lazy in places, and a bit of a gap in class with the finishing in particular, but some good signs.
4. Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Ollie Sail you missed so many easy one mate...not like you..nz was own worst enemy
player sweden passing are very simple..