Western Sydney Wanderers vs Melbourne Victory: A-League live scores, blog

@dasilva So, you're saying TC was analysing the match - AFTER THE FACT - & trying to provide an explanation for what transpired? If that's the case - excellent. We agree. Of course, it doesn't require a master tactical brain to deconstruct what happened AFTER THE EVENT occurred! I got the distinct impression TC was saying that "going down to 10 men in a football match, was like taking candy from a baby". If Ben Williams had given Ange Postecoglou the choice: a) You can play with 10 men for the next 75 minutes; or b) You can play with 11 men for the next 75 minutes I'd be willing to bet all my possessions that Ange would have opted - and in every future game against WSW he'd still opt for - for choice "b".

Fuss The point wasn't a side should incorporate deliberately playing with 10 men as a tactic It was simply an explanation why a team with ten men can play better and outperform a team with 11 men in certain situation Yes Western Sydney were unprepared playing against a team with ten men TC explained the result of the unprepared status

No, I'm saying Poppa admitted his team didn't react well to going 1 man up, which means he hadn't planned for that scenario. No one knew how the WSW players would react to being 1 man up until AFTER the event. You are analysing a game in hindsight, which - for me - is a ridiculous way to analyse sport.

In other words, you are now basically agreeing with what I have posted? TC

"But it didn’t happen like that? Why?" Why? Simple - WSW hadn't planned well-enough for having that extra man - Popovic admitted as much in this post-match presser. He felt HIS team lost their way after the sending off more than MVFC. Mates from VicPol's SOG once told me about "The 7 Ps": ... Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance Put Poppa's name in front & call it "The 8 Ps".

Sometimes you have to look beyond the obvious to have a true understanding of the game. Logic dictates that the team with the extra man should be better placed to manufacture 2 on 1s and 2 on 2s. But it didn't happen like that? Why? Context and structure. Understand that, and you will then soon realise that the fact that the team with one less man manufactured more 2 on 1s and 2 on 2s is no mystery at all. In fact, I am arguing it is entirely predictable - it you understand the context and structure. TC

Always great to read input from any True Believer, QsAF. Can you believe what this AFL clown is suggesting? Never heard a single AFL coach suggest he'd rather play with fewer players, because it gives him an advantage. In fact, AFL coaches whinge non-stop about potentially having 1 less player on the park.

Forgive me Fuss for butting in... Lol an Aussie Rules tactician lecturing to football managers the advantages of running out on the field with only 10 players.. I have to say, I for one, never knew that Ange was all about route one football. MV were stunning last night and showed how to defend with possession triangles as well as quick counter attacks from them on the break..

So, if you were coaching a team that had "the personnel to take advantage", would you start every match with 1 less player? Or, perhaps, you would take 1 player off after 10 minutes & not replace him? I can't believe you're continuing with this line of argument - it simply illogical & lacks common sense.

If a team can manufacture a situation where they can rely solely on counter-attacking with the other team naively pushing numbers forward - then there in no more preferred scenario for most managers - it's money for jam. The thing is that it's rare that you get an opposition willing to be so compliant (as to push numbers forward naively). But when a team is reduced to 10 men - that is precisely the scenario you get - your side falls back into a well known and understood counter-attacking regime, and the other side start pushing numbers forward naively. It's like your Christmases coming all at once - if you have the personnel to take advantage, which MV did with Arch and Rojas. So if the opposition is going to have its two central defenders camped in your half, you are in a great position to exploit the space behind them (incompetent linesmen aside). the fact that you have 10 men is neither here or there - two banks of four are going to hold out with ease, just requires a bit more focus and energy. The critical point is that losing the man sharpens that focus, they fall back quite diligently - happens time and again. It's like taking candy from a baby. TC

"MV has the advantage..MV get the advantage, regardless of how many men they have.." Huh??? What are you on about? Are you suggesting having fewer players gives a team an advantage? How many fewer players, do you think, is the optimum - 1, 2, 3 ... ? If you were a football coach, perhaps, you could revolutionize the Game by starting every match with fewer players than the opposition - since you think it's an ADVANTAGE? Yes, 10 v 11 is not as easy as it seems IF - repeat if - the team with 1 less man is well organised and remains disciplined & the team with 1 extra man fails to exploit their advantage of having 1 more player. Try playing a competitive senior football match with 1 less player - it ain't easy. It's physically exhausting from having 1 fewer player to do the job & immense mental fatigue from maintaining the shape and system. MVFC may have made it look easy last night ... but, it ain't.

You take things far too literally. The minute MV fall back to two banks of four sitting tight with WSW wanting to test that in numbers, MV get the advantage, regardless of how many men they have. WSW encounter defensive numbers EVERY time they attack, and MV have the luxury of NOT encountering defensive numbers, because there's 50m of space behind the WSW defensive line, which more often than not was reduced to two. MV has the advantage - that situation can be exploited all day long, and was exploited, having the man down is neither here or there, it's simply a case of getting that mother into space and having the pace to exploit it. It's money for jam. TC

Come on lads. The lads from Olympic Blvd are always very humble & magnanimous in VICTORY ... just 1 week at a time.

As far as I observed, this win had nothing to do with getting "that mother over a defensive line" - there was nothing Route 1 about either goal. Goal 1 was a terrific patient build-up by Finkler. He didn't panic & simply "cross the ball into the mixer". Rather, he kept calm & followed Ange's game plan, which involved being positioned wide to receive the ball & spread the defense then move to the goal line & cut back. MVFC's 2nd goal was the epitome of "the triangle formation" - Celeski to Rojas to Archie = GOAL. When a team has to defend for 75 minutes with 1 less man, it's a game of organisation, discipline & maintaining shape & structure. In the past few weeks, MVFC has had been very wasteful with simple chances. This week, we had very few chances - luckily 2 went in. WSW were, yet again, very impressive ...apart from the final ball, which has been their problem all year.

Preemptive action is clearly required.

Will we be able to live with Fuss & MVD next week...

Schadenfreude is my chief character flaw, I must confess him.

It was about a week ago when we got that article about triangles, and I made the comment that you have the theoretical Idyll on one hand, and then on the other you have the hard, cold calculated reality of winning 3 points by organising a group of 11 men (or 10, as the case might be). Tonight we saw that in clear relief. Forget the theoretical mumbo jumbo, it's difficult to beat a team playing with energy, but most importantly, who are all on the same page, who understand their role in the team, who are all following the managers' instructions in unison. In the context of tonight's game, we can throw in the advantages that come with having ten men: the game plan becomes very clear, there is no ambiguity, everyone understands explicitly and implicitly what needs to happen. Lastly, I mentioned at the time that ultimately, the game is about opportunity: seeing the opportunity, acting on it promptly, and taking it. People will recall that I said something along the lines that there is no more efficient route to goal than to get that mother over a defensive line that has crept forward a few metres too far and getting onto that loose ball - it's like taking candy from a baby I said. And that's the beauty of going down to ten men. You know what you have to do, it's a straightfoward enough game plan, and then the opposition feels the need to take advantage of that extra man, and they will actually take risks in doing it, they will push forward, and push forward, and before you know it - bang - it's like taking candy from a baby. Forget passing the ball round in circles. It's a game of opportunity: seeing it, acting on it, taking it. TC

nathan - does that give you some solace? what are your chances tomorrow? so far i have 0/3, so do actually have PG to win.