Is Queiroz failing?

[zzgloo]

To attack or NOT to attack , that is the question !!..( Shekespear ..)
..
There is Something about a " head Butt " !!
as while is between two equaliy strong " SKULLS "..yet,the attackers have the advantage .....
It seems, it is easier to attack than it is to defend.
It is better to be " proactive ", than " reactive " !
...
Ofcourse...that is when and if, one has options !!

[Doctor DOOM]

^ But I dont bring up any issues unless there is a problem or something doesnt work or there are deficiencies. I certainly dont create issues out of thin air.
If we fail to score goals even when the supporting players do create chances, then that IS an issue. If we fail to overcome teams 2-3 tiers below us, then something IS not working/functioning. If we fail to create chances by ourselves and rely on lucky mistakes, then there IS something being overlooked or not addressed. If ... etc

[zzgloo]

I am not sure, what we are talking about here...CQ,or DD ?
DD like all of us, has some good atributes and some not so good ones....he is at time hard to have diologe with..as some times more interested in his own view of the issues.....having said that...he is very well informed, and generaly very polite and nice...his contributions are never irrelevant and mostly avangard ....and as his " Attacking football ", and " Criticism of coaches "..while some times excesively...nevertheless, his opinion....and that is well respected by me.
as of CQ,he simply is the best coach Iranian football has ever had !.........and he came at the most desperate time when TM was in shamble,in between period, and confused from couple of stupid coaches TM previousely had..........

So, VIVA CQ........

[Doctor DOOM]

^ if you accuse me of "merely criticizing" then the burden of proof is upon you to prove I object/criticize WITHOUT REASON.

whenever I crticize, I bring in the point in contention. I dont just say "I dont like X or Y" and stop there, as you're trying to portray.

I bring the issue, discuss and dissect it, give my opinion and the reason why I object.
you may like it or agree with it or not. That's your prerogative. But dont make it as if I just say "I dont like x"


and "irrational"? just because it doesnt sit well with your tendency of "close eyes and blindly trust"???
explain how our goal was due to anything but pure luck & chance.
until you prove that particular incident (not some general statement), you basically have proven you are the irrational one who blindly follows something without putting it through any intellectual scrutiny.

you still fail to show how luck was the main factor in our qualification, as I said before luck is not the main factor if your team fights and plays hard for 90 minutes even if they had less than 50% possession or only one scoring chance, that means you won the game because of playing an exemplary defensive match, capitalization and execution of our one chance, and shows that your main tactics were most probably defensive.

you fail to recognize that the match is not simply about statistics, who had more possession, or who has more shots on goal, it is about who won, and if we have won 10 of our 16 WCQ matches so you can tell they were not attributed to luck because no team has ever been lucky enough to win ten pivitol matches in a span of only two years

you can say "you fail to ... you fail to ..." a 100 more times. It still doesnt make it true. I think anyone who's watched the game will know how lucky we got to score the goal. by ignoring this fact, you unfortunately, just embarrass yourself. Or maybe you didnt even read my posts and dont know it. Which is, again, embarrassing as you reply to something you havent read!

to put it in as simple a words as possible: if the defender hadnt made the most simple of mistakes or had he merely touched the ball, chances are the game would have ended 0-0 and we'd be in a prolonged process of elimination. Because we simply didnt have any plans to score goals ON OUR OWN and werent given any chances to do so either.
one either sees it for what it is and accepts the truth .... or one can deny that and look pretty silly.
or one is so bored out of their skull to instigate silly, mundane arguments to while their time away.



and lol at you trying to throw that statistics comment at me. It seems you arent very familiar with members here. pretty funny though

[Martin-Reza]

We have some different issues here. There are people who like CQ's decisions more or less, but if you have someone like Dr. Doom who for a decade is attacking every single TM coach after a few months at helm this can't be taken as objective criticism anymore, it's more an annoying habit. Maybe you don't know his history of always insulting coaches and claiming how much better we would be if the coach had just done otherwise. Now after CQ did pretty much the exact opposite of what Dr. Doom had been demanding before the final three games but was outstandingly successful with that, he suddenly plays the luck card. Great to see other members are not willing to let him get away with such irrational behaviour.

If you play 16 games in World Cup qualifiers, win 10 and only lose 2 with a 30-7 goal difference and thereby are amongst the top teams in the continental stats in almost every aspect, it's no more than a desperate final try to avoid admitting the own mistake by claiming we were mostly relying on luck: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/prelimi...ics/index.html

On your valid point Dreamer I must say attack is never a safe option. Sometimes you have no choice because otherwise you will normally at best get a dull draw, but sometimes you are in the thankful position to benefit from the opponent doing so and thereby giving you the chance to capitalize on the space given and the risk they are taking. We benefitted from such a situation three times, in all three away games we won. I don't think taking as much risk as Uzbekistan, Qatar and South Korea would or could have led to a better result. Given our traditional obvious weakness in away matches this was an extremely effective strategy, while at home we played differently anyhow.

[Dreamer]

If I may ...

I think the real issue at hand here is that on these forums CQ is either a hero or a failure. If someone says he did something wrong, then that member is automatically deemed to be against CQ regardless of whether that member approves/agrees with CQ's (or any coach's) decisions. The exact opposite holds true as well.

I think that we'd all be lying to ourselves if we say that our qualification followed a successful "plan." Our game plan against Qatar wasn't successful attacking-wise. Our game plan against Lebanon away wasn't successful. The fact that we lost to Uzbekistan in Iran was ridiculous and it was a horrendous display from our team, not to mention the away fixture. The home game against Qatar was plain stupid as well.

We don't have to deny that somehow, whether religious or not, we were meant to make it. Sure, the players hard work paid out, but let's be honest with ourselves here, against any of the teams we played, we almost never displayed a good attacking football.

And you can't blame the players either ... it'slike the Asian Cup 2011 South Korea match ... if you play a defensive formation, you shouldn't expect a lot of goals. If you play 5 defenders (Beikzadeh, Sadeghi, Hosseini, Montazeri, Heydari) and three defensive midfielders (Teymourian, Nekounam, Jabbari), then how do you expect to win?!

What Ghoochannejhad accomplished was a pure miracle. Rarely can you find strikers that use the one chance they get to score. Both times, against Qatar and South Korea, our crucial last 2 matches, he, all alone, put so much pressure on the defense that someone finally made a mistake and he used that one mistake to score.

And that's our problem. If we are going to rely on the opponent's mistakes to win a game, then why are we playing?! This tactic (in my opinion) is very "anti-"football.

Personally speaking, when it comes to crucial must win games, I think the safest option is to attack attack attack. If that's too offensive,then at least give Ghoochannejhad 2 support players. Give the team a playmaker. Give the team a tactic to create scoring opportunities.

That is my personal issue with CQ's coaching. I'm not denying that we qualified under CQ and that as the coach, naturally he has share in some portion of our success, no matter how small or large. The biggest accomplishment (and risk, which is a positive thing for me) was that he stuck to his word and kept Rahmati and Aghili out of the squad. That is a good lesson for our youngsters and our older players. He's great at mentally 'attacking' the referee before the game.

Other than that, he didn't introduce any new players to the squad. He didn't "discover" our golden generation. He didn't give us a playing style. He got ejected for crucial matches. He didn't go on extensive scouting trips WITHIN the country (and I'm sure he didn't go outside either).

He didn't do anything that would deserve 2 million dollars straight from the pocket of our nation. Could a domestic coach have done much more? I believe so.

But this doesn't mean that I'm negative or unappreciative of what has happened (and I think other CQ critics fall into the same category). I just wish he was doing more. I wish he would have dramatically changed our tactics after the Lebanon game. I wish that he would have introduced plenty more players. I wish he would give young players a chance. I wish that, considering the connections he has, he'd be sending youngsters to Europer. I wish he would lobby for more high profile friendlies.

Anyways, I'm happy that we made it and what makes me even happier is that I'm sure that even for one night, our team made our country happy, and after all, that's what really matters in my books.

[Prince of Fasa]

you still fail to show how luck was the main factor in our qualification, as I said before luck is not the main factor if your team fights and plays hard for 90 minutes even if they had less than 50% possession or only one scoring chance, that means you won the game because of playing an exemplary defensive match, capitalization and execution of our one chance, and shows that your main tactics were most probably defensive.

you fail to recognize that the match is not simply about statistics, who had more possession, or who has more shots on goal, it is about who won, and if we have won 10 of our 16 WCQ matches so you can tell they were not attributed to luck because no team has ever been lucky enough to win ten pivitol matches in a span of only two years

[Doctor DOOM]

^ a bit rich, coming from someone who begins with those words to enter a discussion!! lol
I could say the same thing about someone saying "I'm tired of ..." who's basically shutting the door on any intelligent discussion. as a matter of fact, there was an intelligent discussion going on between 2 ppl with opposing views on an issue before you felt the urge to express your "tiredness".

so maybe next time instead of opening with that (which is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot btw), you could take a side and express your opinion instead. right?


2- nobody has been PROVEN wrong. it seems the entire issue is lost here!
some are saying instead of relying on fate and luck and chance to get things done for us, it is always better to take the reigns in our own hands and arrange/plan/whatever that would increase our chances of success

if the korean defender hadnt missed the most rudimentary of touches or if he had pushed the ball away or ... hell, even if he had tripped and had fallen connecting with the ball, (or a million other probabilities), then you or me or anyone else wouldnt be here talking like this. in other words, if the goal had come through a team move or rehearsed passing, then we could claim the goal was well planned and we did it on our own. But we all know it wasnt ... no matter how we try to cover things or fool ourselves

3- credit is also given when due.
however (it seems I must repeat this again and again) if our fate was decided based on LUCK and PURE CHANCE (3-4 occasions in the last game), then it is obvious there WILL BE ppl who'd say we must do better, plan better and arrange things in a better order to make sure we do NOT rely on luck to get our job done.
how difficult is this to grasp?

[Prince of Fasa]

^ I stopped reading when you said you tire of my ... .
You do know there's a way out, right? Dont read my comments and you shall always be lively and well entertained.

As for giving credit, I credit whats due. But I also wont close my eyes to other facts such as how luck played such a significant part in it all.
Besides, it all comes down to each individual's standards. For some, mere qualifying is enough, no matter what happens next!!!

your problem lies in your post, if someone truly wishes to engage in a worthwhile, factual, and intelligent discussion then he does not stop listening or "reading" his counterparts opinions, you refuse to listen to any other member's opinions lest they agree with you, all I am trying to say is that even though you and some other members such as Kaiser, etc. were proven wrong, the large majority of you stick to making excuses and not giving credit where it was due, to our brilliant manager and gheyrati players

[Doctor DOOM]

^ I stopped reading when you said you tire of my ... .
You do know there's a way out, right? Dont read my comments and you shall always be lively and well entertained.

As for giving credit, I credit whats due. But I also wont close my eyes to other facts such as how luck played such a significant part in it all.
Besides, it all comes down to each individual's standards. For some, mere qualifying is enough, no matter what happens next!!!

[Prince of Fasa]

I can say the exact thing and say "unless you have a crystal ball to know if you persist more on the same tact you will get the result", common sense dictates you try a different approach as your primary approach has shown to be ineffective.

talking about tashkent or ulsan or tehran or any game that has already happened in HINDSIGHT proves nothing as there are both supportive and unsupportive facts (I could bring up lebanon for example).
in other words, it is easy to say we stick to the plan because we know at minute 93 we'll score a goal against the run of the play.
But WHILE the game is on, neither you, nor CQ or me or anyone else knows that. ALL WE KNOW IS WHATEVER WE'RE DOING IS NOT GETTING THE JOB DONE.
you will not find anyone saying "I am sure we'll score the goal at min 93" while on the screen, we see wave after wave of uzbek attacks and even legitimate goal and penalty calls and ... . I'm sure you or anyone else wouldnt have said that.



I cant believe we're arguing about such an ordinary and obvious matter that holds true not only in football, but in all aspects of life ("always have a back up plan") ... unless we're so bored. with no football games, club, league or nat'l games, we MUST busy ourselves with something. so lets argue over obvious issues!!! lol




as for demanding a change, nobody is demanding it just for the sake of seeing change. change is demanded when things dont work and there is a need for a different approach or for an improvement. if this attitude was not seen in man, today we'd still be riding horses and this message would be written on a piece of paper, reaching you after a month or two.
so change IS good.

dadash I tire of your relentless and in most cases un-needed use of long, exclamatory, and usually negative posts. I cannot believe that even after Iran has qualified to Brazil because of Carlos Quieroz's guidance, you still refuse to hand him the credit that he rightfully deserves. your innate and undeniable bias against Quieroz will stop you from rationally judging the situation.

of course we may have run into some minor "road-blocks" but no qualification is perfect and you will always be faced by both lucky and un-lucky events, I believe we had an equal amount of both. we were unlucky in Tehran vs uzbekistan, beirut vs lobnan, Tehran vs qatar, manama vs bahrain, whereas the only trully lucky event I believe we encountered was our win vs uzbekistan in tashkent, other than that I would not call any of our other wins lucky they were rather a testament to how organized our team was and how hard they worked and played

[Doctor DOOM]

I can say the exact thing and say "unless you have a crystal ball to know if you persist more on the same tact you will get the result", common sense dictates you try a different approach as your primary approach has shown to be ineffective.

talking about tashkent or ulsan or tehran or any game that has already happened in HINDSIGHT proves nothing as there are both supportive and unsupportive facts (I could bring up lebanon for example).
in other words, it is easy to say we stick to the plan because we know at minute 93 we'll score a goal against the run of the play.
But WHILE the game is on, neither you, nor CQ or me or anyone else knows that. ALL WE KNOW IS WHATEVER WE'RE DOING IS NOT GETTING THE JOB DONE.
you will not find anyone saying "I am sure we'll score the goal at min 93" while on the screen, we see wave after wave of uzbek attacks and even legitimate goal and penalty calls and ... . I'm sure you or anyone else wouldnt have said that.



I cant believe we're arguing about such an ordinary and obvious matter that holds true not only in football, but in all aspects of life ("always have a back up plan") ... unless we're so bored. with no football games, club, league or nat'l games, we MUST busy ourselves with something. so lets argue over obvious issues!!! lol




as for demanding a change, nobody is demanding it just for the sake of seeing change. change is demanded when things dont work and there is a need for a different approach or for an improvement. if this attitude was not seen in man, today we'd still be riding horses and this message would be written on a piece of paper, reaching you after a month or two.
so change IS good.

[Martin-Reza]

No, you don't have try it. Only if you have a crystal ball and can look into the future and know it won't work with plan A - or a bit more realisticly, if many factors point to a likely negative outcome.

Imagine CQ would have changed the plan early in second half in Tashkent, Doha or Seoul. We rather certainly would have failed to qualify for WC.

Same goes for Kafashian, had he panicked like in 2009, the result probably wouldn't have been better than back then.

I know psychologically it is very attractive to often demand change when things don't immediately go the way they were planned, but both in football as well as in my job I have learned that it is very often a good idea to stick to a well made plan you already invested much into rather than making changes just for the sake of doing so.

We are arguing for years now and I have learned that you seem to be a person who has an affinity to the concept of change, while I tend to be more "conservative" than you. I think that is one of the biggest reasons why the two of us disagree so often.

[Doctor DOOM]

and who's talking about "too early"? minute 10? 20? 30? No. but if you keep on doing the same thing, only to get the same negative results by minute 65-70, you HAVE TO try something different; namely, plan B.
and CQ has shown he doesnt have a plan B. that's why luck payed such huge parts in both our victories and defeats in this round. Because we couldnt control our destiny on our own.

[Martin-Reza]

Nobody doubts one needs to have a backup plan, but the question is when to give up the initial plan A. That depends on many factors. If you start doubting too early and get insecure, you might give up the main plan too early and since you will basically start from scratch again it is a risky thing and shouldn't be done too early.