Sidebar

29
Fri, Mar

Typography

It was a game which we may wish to remember as the night when the warriors attempted to derail the mighty Mexico.

It is fair to compliment the efforts of the team on the result and their success in reaching the quarter finals in the tournament.
 
It is not good developmental football sense to start consoling ourselves over the distance that the team had reached before we take a closer view at the statistics and the occurrences of the matches themselves.
 
The previous comments on the matches which brought them to the quarter finals were well justified and if not taken out of context, should have offered some level of hope for the future.
 
Nevertheless, the field of play is where it all happens and it is exactly where there is need for analysis in order to determine whether we have progressed in our doings over the length of this tournament from it’s beginning.
 
After seeing the performance against Honduras, we were certainly left with hope that maybe, just maybe, the lads may be driven by the wonderful feeling of a victory against one of the leading teams in the competition.
 
My first observation prior to the start of the match was the unusual formula of the starting team and was truly taken aback by the players in their selected positions.
 
Normally, I would refrain from sharing my view on that aspect of the team, simply because I have not been seeing them at practice sessions leading to the tournament.
 
But I honestly believe that I can comfortably say that Carlos Edwards could not have changed his style of play at this stage of his life in order to perform as good at left midfield as he has played during his career at right wing back.
 
The same can be said of Daniel Cyrus, Keon Daniel, Darryl Roberts, all players who have identified firmly in specific positions and literally showed their worth in the original ones.
 
This was my first observation and I still decided to see whether the technical staff had seen something which would have encouraged this drastic adjustment.
 
The answer is clearly in the negative. Edwards travelling down the left flank was a misfit and did not produce one single cross from the left side.
 
Daniel Cyrus demonstrated his competence to win the ball when defending, but unfortunately does not possess the skill of crossing the ball from the fight flank.
 
I am brave enough to assume that the reason for wing midfielders was to serve the aerial ability of Kenwyne Jones, Cornell Glenn and Darryl Roberts to outplay the shorter Mexicans from deliveries on the flanks.
 
That did not happen and with the exception of a right footed cross by Daniel from the left side and another from Daniel on the fight, there was no other crosses.
 
I reckon that these were serious errors of judgment which may well have retarded the expected quality of play.
 
Strangely, the athleticism of our players appeared to have upset the Mexicans who failed to operate their chemistry in midfield with their artistic looking short passing game. The warriors even appeared to monopolies the possession game at times and appeared to show glimpses of gaining ascendency.
 
However, their desire to release the ball by our defenders in haste brought about inaccuracies galore and it meant that we won the ball from the opposition and returned it to them very often.
 
One superb shot by Andre Bouchard left us in hope that more were in the making and we began to start the count process.
 
Well, we were eventually seeing the it was the Mexicans who were finding out the our Keeper Jan Michel Williams was up to the task, despite a porous defenceline.
 
They failed to give adequate support and allowed far too much space in and around the penalty area for the Mexicans to target keeper Williams for a rough evening.
 
The official stats claimed that Mexico shot twenty five times at our goal, eleven of which Williams had to bring off some brilliant saves.
 
Some of the experts described our play as ugly but serving its purpose. I humbly agree, and also wish to observe that this unorthodox approach seemed to unsettle the Olympic champions, and forced them into error.
 
Sure they had a greater percentage of possession, but had little by way of goals to show for it until a badly placed defence allowed what appeared to be a run of the mill low right cross to slide guided into the net from an angle which could have been covered by a solitary defender, far more three.
 
I conclude by saying the original decision to rearrange the players in the team could well have been the main reason for an absence of the chemistry which brings success to good teams.
 
Our next step is even greater than this one and the manner in which we play our cards will determine whether or not success is around the corner.