Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Matildas friendlies in Western Australia

I really don't know what to make of this team. We are so gung ho on transition. It's super dangerous for us and the opposition. I always feel we're just as likely to concede as score.

I didn't watch the whole series but keen to hear who stepped up as depth? From what I saw I liked Sayer and McNamara.
 
Panama played the same way as the Japanese side with high press and a lot of pressure and it worked well for them. They were very unlucky to lose tonight, the better side lost. Matilda's have a lot of work to do if they want any chance of getting out of the group stage at the Asian Cup.
 
NoMates said:
Panama played the same way as the Japanese side with high press and a lot of pressure and it worked well for them. They were very unlucky to lose tonight, the better side lost. Matilda's have a lot of work to do if they want any chance of getting out of the group stage at the Asian Cup.
Click to expand...
We can't be drawn in the same group as Japan or North Korea anyway for the Women's Asian Cup next year, but still there's a lot of work to do if the Matildas want to go far in the tournament.
 
NoMates said:
Panama played the same way as the Japanese side with high press and a lot of pressure and it worked well for them. They were very unlucky to lose tonight, the better side lost. Matilda's have a lot of work to do if they want any chance of getting out of the group stage at the Asian Cup.
Click to expand...
Big difference is how much Panama were allowed to get away with that totally messed us up.

I wouldn't say Panama were unlucky to lose because I think they were hugely lucky to have 11 players on the field playing like they did. Early yellows and second yellows given as soon as they were warranted and Panama has to play a different game.

Their passing, speed, athleticism and drive to get the ball was better than ours - as were their pathways to goal. But despite th ethreat they posed they still 'only' scored 2 against us tonight.

If you have 4 or 5 of their players on yellows for professional and excessive fouls early on, you have a different flow to the game.

They also ran out of legs badly in the second half on the back of the same intensity in the previous and very recent game.

Lincoln pulled off a particularly good save mid second half to deny Tanner - who could not be contained by any of the individual players who tried to mark her. Bloody dangerous player.

I am not saying Panama did not play well - just that they got away with more than they should have been allowed to by a long way in both games and that should not be forgotten when we think about 'should' and 'unlucky'.

On the positive side - it was a very hard and educational experience for a lot of the Newtildas.
 
Raso is great, but she tried to do too much in the first half. Similarly, Heyman dropped back too deep to try and help build our attacks in the first half where she is better off playing higher and waiting on a good cross.

In the second half, Raso crossed the ball sooner which played into the wiles of Heyman and prevented the rest of the Panamanian players from getting back and smothering the box.

Most of our players are inconsistent at this stage. We see brilliant pieces of play one moment then horrible vision, poor touch, poor execution of a pass the next and most players were guilty of it. Unsettled is how I would describe it and I can understand why that would be.

To compare it to my Roar as always, I am very familiar with the effects of having largely new groups playing together every game when as a fan I am expecting fluidity and cohesion every game from professionals - but it is just not the reality. Until a team have played together or trained together long enough they never know when someone will run left, right or straight - when they will hang back and when they will split the line.

When we got our act together we got the ball forward up the flanks and some times managed a good cross.

When we took the ball into the middle we often had 3 or 4 Panama players closing on the ball carrier. We need to include more attention on the centre if we want to be effective overall and avoid being shutdown by squeezing on the wings.

As a stable team they will get much better with time and at this early stage Montemurro has been given a lot of information about this group of players he had his eye on.

On the Panamanian side - they have some very skilful ball players, and effective and cohesive teamwork. They also have some very good players who can do damage one on one.

I cannot stand Cox for Panama though. She shows a lot of the things that women's football was kept free from for a long time - diving, exaggerating injury, and worst of all looking slyly to the sideline when she gets up off the ground. The number of times they had an ambulance ready to drive onto the pitch only to have her rebound miraculously the moment the referee had laid down as much of the law as she was going to was quite remarkable.

The one moment that almost made up for it was when Raso raked her shin from knee to ankle with her studs and Cox was so busy throwing her head and shoulders back that the ref took it all to be concocted and ignored it. But that is just the nasty football fan side of me coming out.

Shame we have to wait however long for the next games. They will tell us a lot more about Montemurro and what he plans for the team.
 
Good win, Panama look quite an organised side so good win for the confidence.

Still issues when we build up, I’m not convinced with GVE as a No.6, however the whole teams needs to be better at protecting the ball in possession.
 
RIMB said:
Big difference is how much Panama were allowed to get away with that totally messed us up.

I wouldn't say Panama were unlucky to lose because I think they were hugely lucky to have 11 players on the field playing like they did. Early yellows and second yellows given as soon as they were warranted and Panama has to play a different game.

Their passing, speed, athleticism and drive to get the ball was better than ours - as were their pathways to goal. But despite th ethreat they posed they still 'only' scored 2 against us tonight.

If you have 4 or 5 of their players on yellows for professional and excessive fouls early on, you have a different flow to the game.

They also ran out of legs badly in the second half on the back of the same intensity in the previous and very recent game.

Lincoln pulled off a particularly good save mid second half to deny Tanner - who could not be contained by any of the individual players who tried to mark her. Bloody dangerous player.

I am not saying Panama did not play well - just that they got away with more than they should have been allowed to by a long way in both games and that should not be forgotten when we think about 'should' and 'unlucky'.

On the positive side - it was a very hard and educational experience for a lot of the Newtildas.
Click to expand...
Good recount, RIMB.
 
Don't know much about the Panama coach?

She organised them very well in Ball Possession Opposition. Their intensive Squeezing in the attacking half, in a Full Press, forced a lot of errors from Aus building up from the back.

Panama committed a lot of players into the Aus defensive half when Aus tried to build up. Hence, both Panamanian goals were Reactive - resulting from Aus mistakes - not building up from the back.

In the defensive half, Panama decreased the Squeezing intensity, with players not sprinting at Aussies to force mistakes like the Panamanian attacking half.

Instead they sat right off, with only moderate Squeezing. Panama was intent on keeping the shape compact at all times - not risk losing shape by aggressive closing down of space by multiple players.

However, with Panama deploying a game plan like Slovenia's, there was a reward for playing through the Panamanian lines and exploiting space closer to the Panamanian goal. Pleasingly, a lot of Aus's goals were Proactive. They resulted from longer build ups starting from further back on the pitch. all 3 Aus goals resulted 5- 8 passing sequences.

Raso's two assists for Heyman's 2 suberbly taken goals, were outstanding. Heyman subtly paused her run to stay onside to volley home from low down. The second goal she executed a well-timed leap to head home from a perfect Raso aerial cross.

Thr 3rd Aus goal involved an exquisite subtle side of the foot pass and simultaneous fake from the replacement left winger - achi? - which gave Nevin the op for another superb aerial cross, for Grant to score.

All three Aus goals featured teamwork from Proactive play.

* Was impressed with Murphy's two touch passing in midfield when she came on. Reminds me of Chidiac in the last game.

* McNamara's running with the ball, involving neat changes of pace, and acceleration off the mark, were good. She uses her pace well.

For Panama -

* Very physical with plenty of rugged ball winners in the defensive half.

*Like RIMB's view, Panamanian left winger with an English name, Hutton?, used her outside Brazilian step over and her body swerve to good effect. Both Grant and Torpey had trouble negating her dribbling.

* There was one, or two, dark, black haired exquisite Panamanian ball players in central midfield.

Not sure if Panama ran out of gas? The intensive Squeezing dropped in the second half from Panama in the Aus defensive half, enabling Aus to play through a midfield with far more space between the lines.

Really enjoyed this game! I like the relaxed feel of friendlies and trying new players.
 
Barca4life said:
Good win, Panama look quite an organised side so good win for the confidence.

Still issues when we build up, I’m not convinced with GVE as a No.6, however the whole teams needs to be better at protecting the ball in possession.
Click to expand...
Slovenia and Panama really increased the Squeezing intensity in the Aus defensive half - which made it tough for Aus keeping the ball.

The possession under pressure needs to improve though - I agree.
 
Barca4life said:
Good win, Panama look quite an organised side so good win for the confidence.

Still issues when we build up, I’m not convinced with GVE as a No.6, however the whole teams needs to be better at protecting the ball in possession.
Click to expand...
Slip of the pen with GVE instead of EVE :). I don't get the hate for her by a lot of posters. She had a good game, and moved the ball well in the build up for our second goal. She seems to be playing to instructions, so maybe we should bow to the coaches she has played under.
 
Hillbilly55 said:
Slip of the pen with GVE instead of EVE :). I don't get the hate for her by a lot of posters. She had a good game, and moved the ball well in the build up for our second goal. She seems to be playing to instructions, so maybe we should bow to the coaches she has played under.
Click to expand...
Her passing tends to be backwards most of the time, which may be due to the pressures of the moment and coaching instructions - but like Behich when you see someone pass back constantly when there are forward options it accumulates in your head.

She has vision and can execute a through ball or pass into space as well as anyone we have had over the last so many years when it goes well but she also has had many games where she had a 50% turnover rate in critical moments which just is not acceptable. I can remember watching many games where I saw a pass to a team mate followed by a pass to an opponent repeated time and again. If you have an accumulating feeling of "that's another crap pass from Van Egmond" there is a pretty strong case for it being true.

Her kicks from dead ball moments were particularly good this last game I thought.

She always plays with composure.

The problem is when she isn't doing the good things.

Over the last several years she has been too slow to react or be effective at getting to loose balls, too slow to be a useful defender, too slow to contribute to a running attack, gets in other players' way often, and ambles around the midfield without much effect while the ball goes past her in both directions.

She takes up a place that another player should have and while there are only so many minutes that a player has the ball in a game, her ineffective role off the ball is a wasted opportunity for the team.

When she had a bad game or a series of bad games there was never a question of her being dropped which adds to my own, and perhaps unfair dislike, on the grounds that there must be some power games in the background that keeps her in the team regardless. She just did not deserve a place based on her performances but there she was - and there she still is.

Just my 5 cents worth off the cuff.
 
RIMB said:
Her passing tends to be backwards most of the time, which may be due to the pressures of the moment and coaching instructions - but like Behich when you see someone pass back constantly when there are forward options it accumulates in your head.

She has vision and can execute a through ball or pass into space as well as anyone we have had over the last so many years when it goes well but she also has had many games where she had a 50% turnover rate in critical moments which just is not acceptable. I can remember watching many games where I saw a pass to a team mate followed by a pass to an opponent repeated time and again. If you have an accumulating feeling of "that's another crap pass from Van Egmond" there is a pretty strong case for it being true.

Her kicks from dead ball moments were particularly good this last game I thought.

She always plays with composure.

The problem is when she isn't doing the good things.

Over the last several years she has been too slow to react or be effective at getting to loose balls, too slow to be a useful defender, too slow to contribute to a running attack, gets in other players' way often, and ambles around the midfield without much effect while the ball goes past her in both directions.

She takes up a place that another player should have and while there are only so many minutes that a player has the ball in a game, her ineffective role off the ball is a wasted opportunity for the team.

When she had a bad game or a series of bad games there was never a question of her being dropped which adds to my own, and perhaps unfair dislike, on the grounds that there must be some power games in the background that keeps her in the team regardless. She just did not deserve a place based on her performances but there she was - and there she still is.

Just my 5 cents worth off the cuff.
Click to expand...
Lot of good points, RIMB.

However players tend to pass sideways or backwards when there is nobody opening a passing lane further forwards - or - they are receiving with their body shape facing their own goal, hence, forcing a backwards pass backwards - often a 1 touch bounce pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top