This is my take on the U17 Boyz vs USA:

[Rockman]

The team has to wholly execute Colour's strategy,I think that is where the team is lacking.
The unit has done well doing things the hard way,it is in their interest and obligation to folow the instructions given by the coach.We can rest assured Colour already know and appreciated the things you mentioned.

[Rockman]

Yuh dun kno,it goes without saying,I endorse the above.

[Rockman]

Suh Karl we are face confronting the reality of a team obviously touched by Colour yet remains hard headed in areas despite..
My guess is they identify future success with former ones,they got away that way largely because of a lifetime of competing with domestic competitors that subscribed to the very same ignorance.A renaissance of sorts is needed to prevent a rude awakening.
As is,I still think CR will pick up three.

[Karl]

Thanks!

In Karl's defence, when you watch a game live, and I guess I'm speaking for myself, I'm usually very critical of the team I'm supporting. But once the game is over and I take another look, some things don't look nearly as bad as they did when I watched it live. Maybe Karl should take another look?

We may have looked slow to close down the Yanks just because we were so way out of position, double and triple teaming the player with the ball, or ball watching generally, not staying aware about who is around us. So by the time the ball gets to the open player we are scrambling to get over to him. But scramble we did, with fleety feet and conviction.

So far, I have watched it 3 times!

[Mosiah]

So far, I have watched it 3 times!

Then someting wong!

The lads were pushing it from the first whistle!

[Jangle]

In Mosiah's analysis I always trust.

[Mosiah]

In Mosiah's analysis I always trust.

Mi still want back di money mi lend yuh di odda day.

Thanks still!

[Jangle]

Lol....me "invest' it

[Karl]

You are crazy or blind to have missed the frequency the forwards and midfielders watched easily reachable balls go without being 'snared'.

[Mosiah]

You are crazy or blind to have missed the frequency the forwards and midfielders watched easily reachable balls go without being 'snared'.

Or both. Me and everyone else who disagreed with you.

I am kool with that!

[Me]

Get him the pills

[Gamma]

He had father issues

[Rockman]

Lol!

[Assasin]

LOL!!!!

You have some kids when daddy deh round or start talk bout them, them nuh perform at all.

[Karl]

Or both. Me and everyone else who disagreed with you.

I am kool with that!

Let me say it after 15 years!
Once we had a few months on this site...as teacher of football...I was not surprised to see most of the posters hardly understood the game beyond the most basic of levels. I deliberately set out...as the teacher in me...to teach on the game.

It is important to realize that finding most persons here level of ignorance on the game was not a surprise. I had already been called 'hard-headed' on my views of how the game should be played. Happened at school - Mannings and Munro and during discussion with close friends in football administration at all levels.

My type game demanded as dream...ultimate play had such technical levels and tactical levels that - I have posted on the forum and written articles on such in this site...where the game would become mechanically boring as perfection on each side would be a mere end process of each TEAM picking the ball out of the net after each other's start and re-start of game. On explaining that concept it was assumed all who read same took the idea with firm knowledge that was impossible. On its most basic examination consideration of factors external to human failings e.g. the ball hitting rough patches would impact play....and disturb achieving that perfection spoken of. So everyone knew not to take that 'perfection' literally. Right? (Did you think I meant that 'perfection' was possible? Anyone who did so could be argued 'crazy'! Right?)

That concept of aiming for trying to get as close to perfection as possible was often snared at. So after years of trying to get the concept across - all players as fast or faster than a bullet, all players having greatest of technical ability, all players being superb athletes and brilliant tactically=extremely smart=smartest of the smart...etc., etc...perfect players. It was not getting across.

Like any teacher who runs into a brick wall, I had to find another way: I am using that method. BREAK IT DOWN INTO BITE-SIZED PORTIONS!

I remember posting a number of times on: Why SUDDEN? = Why football is a game whereon an aim is "keeping the opposition off-balance/late to the aggressor's act". - (Here let's leave out all the other single words or phrases I employed...same one, TEAM.). ...another important point was the reasoning behind why the players...each player had to within the first few minutes understand how the ref is calling the game and other relevant information e.g. relative 'SPEED ACROSS GROUND' player v opposition player. - On the how of that methods of arriving at accurate assessment was often explained.

Let me now tackle the specific problem you have here:
The context is, this our U-17 TEAM and specific to our match that v USA.

The problem:
It relates to your assessment of relative speed of our U-17 players? = What can they do? ...and what is reasonable to expect!

Your assessment: They were operating at full effort in both halves of the game.

Mine: I held a different view.

In real time i.e. as the game flowed, I expressed my disappointment. ...after the game, you posted your opposite view.

Here is what is being discussed: Getting to the ball + speed across ground of the player/our players + awareness-mental sharpness-acting on that awareness/ acting on what is observed.

If we assume the players saw/observed/logically arrived at what was desired and acted thereon then it is, whether or not they acted to best of their ability or they did not which we addressed.


You claimed on effort they operated at optimum level in the 1st half! I claimed the opposite.

- You concede that the 2nd half effort=intensity (I think you called it), was greater in the 2nd half!

I would think having conceded that, you would acknowledge I was correct. ...instead you double-down on your erroneous statement. ...and you cite the agreement of 'all who disagree with my stance' as validation of yours. That is merely an emotional appeal to other readers emotions...not a request for logical assessement and conclusion.

The more important thing is not our disagreement but as "arm-chair teachers=coaches" what do we take away that improves our understanding of the game and the quality of and improvement possible for this U-17 squad as we approach their future games.

Context - Even for short-falls on technical ability and tactical awareness, this U-17 squad has the ability to turn in a performance superior to any of the TEAMs in this competition as getting to reachable balls and increased effort levels the playing field.

Incidentally based on play displayed, the top TEAMs in the competition are:
USA, Mexico and Costa Rica.
- All are tactically sound! ...tactically very good.

- Mexico and Costa Rica are each better than all other TEAMs on technical skills.

- Our U-17 outgun all of the above TEAMs on aggregate (that is, there may be individual players on those mentioned TEAMs who can match or surpass our fastest...but as TEAM we have the edge on those TEAMs on pace across ground).

Areas I identified for immediate improvement:
Call it intensity if you will - commitment to get to the ball first.

There are 2 parts to getting to the ball first:
- Willingness to get to reachable playable balls whereon having great pace

...and...

Willingness to get to reachable playable balls whereon the ability to move at pace matters not...

This getting to the ball or lack thereof is a great fault of our players...yet you claim you did not see lack of effort.

Examples:
- Slowly rolling free ball is not approached at pace....resulting in opponent possession;

- Opponents on attack our defense scrambles mightily often matching attackers on pace and movement to stop or disrupt attack a midfielder or number of midfielders amble backward thus NOT HELPING!

- our player within easy reach of ball (ignore the attackers on the ball) and jog towards ball or worse MAKE NO EFFORT TO GET TO THE BALL see: minute 42 and others.

Willingness to get to reachable playable balls whereon moving at great pace matters...
Example:
A ball is under-hit....i.e. the pass is arriving too slowly and therefore - a) If the intended recipient does not 'race' to it the opponent can win the ball = the intended recipient does not attack the ball, possession is lost = defense compromised and attack destroyed.

Your failing could be down to your teaching on subject football - Lack of appreciation to, on each play, VIEW THE ENTIRE FIELD=perhaps, you do not appreciate the need to observe what each player is doing. The aim is to be aware of "the field"...it helps..."helps" does not accurately describe the importance of that "act of knowing where each player is at all times"...rather "it greatly assists=provides invaluable assistance"...on defending and attacking.

HUGE IMPORTANCE: Plays part in deciding TEAM support on individual play - When, where and how of action contemplated and taken....i.e. when to stay with "your man", when to leave "your man";

...and also provide assistance elsewhere e.g...allows for instinctive and 'last known position of support player=to support player, passing' when under pressure. This happens when there is no time/there is no respite from task at hand to once again check players' - TEAM-mates and opponents - positions on the field.

Conclusion: You 'did not see' possible because of poor teaching on the game=lack of knowledge on importance of observing all. So the 'joggers' are missed as your concentration is solely fixed on 10 yard area of play; the player who could waltz to get to ball is missed.

The final missing gap in your knowledge may have to do with recognizing when balls are in playable position?

Let me use this one of the many examples: A ball is looped into an area and falls slowly downwards; two opposing players are within easy reach of where the ball comes to ground - Both players get to the position where the ball arrives...one jumps and wins the ball; the other plays for the ball hitting the ground loses the ball to the player who jumped. One player put in the effort to win the ball!!! The other did not put in the effort!!!

Another example could be rushing to ball to allow time for good decision-making as opposed to jogging to the ball allowing time for opponent to arrive such that pressure can be applied!

Another: Long ball comes in! Easy task to step in front of opponent and win same...effort not made as our man 'sits behind the defender'=hides! That equals - EFFORT NOT MADE TO WIN THE BALL!!!