CECAFA Senior Challenge: Kutoka Uganda
CECAFA Senior Challenge: Kutoka Uganda
- Thread starter Mphamvu
- Start date
Mphamvu
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 28, 2011
- 10,702
- 3,345
- Thread starter
- #353
Mpira umekwisha.
Uganda wamefuzu kwa robo fainali ya michuano hii, baada ya kushinda mechi mbili mfululizo.
#HollaCranes #
Uganda wamefuzu kwa robo fainali ya michuano hii, baada ya kushinda mechi mbili mfululizo.
#HollaCranes #
Tanzania 2 -0 Sudan: dominant first half.
Two first half goals from Bocco gave Kilimanjaro stars a winning start, producing a dominant the first half and a rather subdued performance in the second.
There was a surprise in terms of midfield selection. Salum start ahead of Kiemba, partnering Domayo as the two pivots in the 4-2-3-1 formation. This selection was slightly puzzling bearing in mind that Salum missed the early part of the season due to injury and that he usually played behind Bocco and Kipre Tchetche as a play maker and not a pivot. The rest of the team was as expected. Sudan were deployed in a 4-1-3-2 formation.
4-2-3-1 VS 4-1-3-2
It was inevitable that Kilimanjaro stars would dominate possession once the formations were clear. Having a spare man in midfield meant that they could dominate the centre of the pitch. Mohamend stuck on Kazimoto who played behind Bocco, performing almost a man marking job on him. The three playing in front of Mohamed found it hard to provide cover across the width of the pitch, often concentrating on covering the centre leaving Nyoni and Maftah free.
With an advantage out on the wings, Kilimanjaro stars looked for balls out to the wings, setting Ngassa and Mvusa on the run behind the Sudanese defense. Salum and Domayo often had time on the ball and the real battle of interest was between Kazimoto and Mohamed. Several times Kazimoto managed to escape his tight marking, receive the ball and set a through ball. First was for Msuva who failed to hit the target and the second, Mohameds failure to track Kazimotos off the ball run set Ngassa up to cross for Bocco to score.
Sudan found it hard to develop any fluidity in their play, as their midfield was outnumbered with Kazimoto dropping deep transforming the formation into a 4-4-1-1 during the defensive phase. Failing to go through the centre, Sudan were forced to go long, managing to fashion half chances from free kicks they won. The second goal came as Sudan tried to play out from the back. The right back had pushed forward in an attempt to provide width. Sudan got dispossessed in midfield and ball into space found Ngassa who found Bocco.
Second half:
At the start of the second half, Poulsen made like for like change Kiemba for Salum who had been booked in the first half, while Ngassa and Msuva switched wings. The major tactical shift was that Kilimanjaro stars no longer dominated possession as the first half. The formations remained the same but this can be attributed to the fact that Kaseja kept taking goal kicks which Sudanese players won. Secondly, the left back, Faris showed more attacking intent down the flank.
Conclusion:
Kilimanjaros win can be attributed solely to the inherent weakness of the 4-1-3-2 formation. What makes football tactics interesting is the fact that in trying to solve one problem, you inevitably create another. In this case, Sudan opted to create width with their fullback, in so doing left themselves exposed to a quick counter attack. The holding midfielder didnt do a particularly good job on Kazimoto being outwitted on several occasions.
Two first half goals from Bocco gave Kilimanjaro stars a winning start, producing a dominant the first half and a rather subdued performance in the second.
There was a surprise in terms of midfield selection. Salum start ahead of Kiemba, partnering Domayo as the two pivots in the 4-2-3-1 formation. This selection was slightly puzzling bearing in mind that Salum missed the early part of the season due to injury and that he usually played behind Bocco and Kipre Tchetche as a play maker and not a pivot. The rest of the team was as expected. Sudan were deployed in a 4-1-3-2 formation.
4-2-3-1 VS 4-1-3-2
It was inevitable that Kilimanjaro stars would dominate possession once the formations were clear. Having a spare man in midfield meant that they could dominate the centre of the pitch. Mohamend stuck on Kazimoto who played behind Bocco, performing almost a man marking job on him. The three playing in front of Mohamed found it hard to provide cover across the width of the pitch, often concentrating on covering the centre leaving Nyoni and Maftah free.
With an advantage out on the wings, Kilimanjaro stars looked for balls out to the wings, setting Ngassa and Mvusa on the run behind the Sudanese defense. Salum and Domayo often had time on the ball and the real battle of interest was between Kazimoto and Mohamed. Several times Kazimoto managed to escape his tight marking, receive the ball and set a through ball. First was for Msuva who failed to hit the target and the second, Mohameds failure to track Kazimotos off the ball run set Ngassa up to cross for Bocco to score.
Sudan found it hard to develop any fluidity in their play, as their midfield was outnumbered with Kazimoto dropping deep transforming the formation into a 4-4-1-1 during the defensive phase. Failing to go through the centre, Sudan were forced to go long, managing to fashion half chances from free kicks they won. The second goal came as Sudan tried to play out from the back. The right back had pushed forward in an attempt to provide width. Sudan got dispossessed in midfield and ball into space found Ngassa who found Bocco.
Second half:
At the start of the second half, Poulsen made like for like change Kiemba for Salum who had been booked in the first half, while Ngassa and Msuva switched wings. The major tactical shift was that Kilimanjaro stars no longer dominated possession as the first half. The formations remained the same but this can be attributed to the fact that Kaseja kept taking goal kicks which Sudanese players won. Secondly, the left back, Faris showed more attacking intent down the flank.
Conclusion:
Kilimanjaros win can be attributed solely to the inherent weakness of the 4-1-3-2 formation. What makes football tactics interesting is the fact that in trying to solve one problem, you inevitably create another. In this case, Sudan opted to create width with their fullback, in so doing left themselves exposed to a quick counter attack. The holding midfielder didnt do a particularly good job on Kazimoto being outwitted on several occasions.
UGANDA 1 0 ETHIOPIA: Game of two halves
Uganda has qualified for the quarter finals of the Cecafa Tusker challenge after recording a one nil win over Ethiopia. This was a game of two halves, with Uganda dominating the first and Ethiopia the second.
Williamson makes changes:
Uganda made a shift to a 4-4-2 flat midfield formation. Presumably this was done in an attempt to try stretch the play as well as crosses into the opposition penalty area, something they hardly did in the game against Kenya. There were also changes in terms of personnel and positioning. Okwi partnered Umony upfront while Kiiza dropped to the bench with Ochaya taking his place. In the previous game against Kenya, Kiiza showed a lack of defensive discipline, failing to track opposition fullback and preventing crosses. Even when he came on late in the second half, he was deployed as a striker and not on the wings. It would seem that Williamson has recognized his weakness and his omission from the first eleven was fully justified.
Flanks:
Uganda settled very early in the game, comfortably passing the ball around helped largely by Ethiopia opting to sit deep in their half. The two midfielders were content with letting Kizito and Wasswa have time on the ball while when possession was reversed, they found themselves under pressure. Ethiopia found it hard to consolidate possession with most of their forward passes being intercepted.
Uganda were quick to move the ball to the wings and it was down their right (Ethiopias left) that Oloya had joy. On several occasions he managed to get past the fullback largely due to the fact that Ethiopias number 5 stayed higher up the pitch and didnt give enough cover to his fullback. This was further compounded by Gumas willingness to push forward when Uganda attacked. The space that Guma left behind as he ventured forward was occupied by Ethiopias captain, an outlet for Ethiopia when they won possession back and he was their best player. With Ethiopias play gravitating mostly towards this wing, right winger drifted inwards a lot trying to take part in the play leaving them devoid of width on the right. Another feature on this wing was the inability to defend throws, with one leading up to the goal. On the left flank not much happened but on one occasion Walusimbi got behind the defense, and crossed and created a scoring opportunity.
Second half changes:
There was a noticeable change in attitude from the Ethiopian players. A change to what looked like a 4-2-3-1 formation; with their captain the focal point of attack seemed to galvanize them, often quicker to the ball than their opponents. There was also a reversal in central midfield as Ethiopias pair now looked to put pressure on their opposite counterparts. This coupled with a man advantage in midfield led to them dominating possession in the second half.
Uganda made two tactical changes, one was the highline they held which caught their opponents offside in more than four occasions and the second was the use of their left wing where Ochaya was positioned. It was an interesting dual down this flank with Ethiopias fullback coming out on top. Ochaya failed on several attempts to beat his man, the defender able to nick the ball away from him. With little success on a 1 v1 situation, Ochaya decided to try cross early but his crosses were poor often met first with a defenders header. It is rather perplexing why they chose to attack down this wing because on the opposite wing, Ethiopias number 5 still took a position higher up and Guma had plenty of space to attack. Recognizing that his winger had failed to get the better of his opponent, Williamson made a change bringing on number 17 who in combination with Walusimbi managed to cross the ball creating the halfs best chance which fell to Kiiza.
Conclusion:
Not an impressive start by the defending champions scoring two goals from two games. Williamson clearly worked on his teams deficiency from the previous game and credit to him for spotting the teams weak link. However, it is paramount that his wide players work hard on their crossing as the only one who seems to be adept is the left back Walusimbi.
It is often frustrating when teams give too much respect to the host, as was the case here. Second half switch to a 4-2-3-1 formation enabled Ethiopia to flourish and dominate possession though they didnt test the opposition defense that much. They should take the positives of this match into their encounter with Kenya and if they start the game with the same mentality as the second half, it surely promises to be an interesting match.
Uganda has qualified for the quarter finals of the Cecafa Tusker challenge after recording a one nil win over Ethiopia. This was a game of two halves, with Uganda dominating the first and Ethiopia the second.
Williamson makes changes:
Uganda made a shift to a 4-4-2 flat midfield formation. Presumably this was done in an attempt to try stretch the play as well as crosses into the opposition penalty area, something they hardly did in the game against Kenya. There were also changes in terms of personnel and positioning. Okwi partnered Umony upfront while Kiiza dropped to the bench with Ochaya taking his place. In the previous game against Kenya, Kiiza showed a lack of defensive discipline, failing to track opposition fullback and preventing crosses. Even when he came on late in the second half, he was deployed as a striker and not on the wings. It would seem that Williamson has recognized his weakness and his omission from the first eleven was fully justified.
Flanks:
Uganda settled very early in the game, comfortably passing the ball around helped largely by Ethiopia opting to sit deep in their half. The two midfielders were content with letting Kizito and Wasswa have time on the ball while when possession was reversed, they found themselves under pressure. Ethiopia found it hard to consolidate possession with most of their forward passes being intercepted.
Uganda were quick to move the ball to the wings and it was down their right (Ethiopias left) that Oloya had joy. On several occasions he managed to get past the fullback largely due to the fact that Ethiopias number 5 stayed higher up the pitch and didnt give enough cover to his fullback. This was further compounded by Gumas willingness to push forward when Uganda attacked. The space that Guma left behind as he ventured forward was occupied by Ethiopias captain, an outlet for Ethiopia when they won possession back and he was their best player. With Ethiopias play gravitating mostly towards this wing, right winger drifted inwards a lot trying to take part in the play leaving them devoid of width on the right. Another feature on this wing was the inability to defend throws, with one leading up to the goal. On the left flank not much happened but on one occasion Walusimbi got behind the defense, and crossed and created a scoring opportunity.
Second half changes:
There was a noticeable change in attitude from the Ethiopian players. A change to what looked like a 4-2-3-1 formation; with their captain the focal point of attack seemed to galvanize them, often quicker to the ball than their opponents. There was also a reversal in central midfield as Ethiopias pair now looked to put pressure on their opposite counterparts. This coupled with a man advantage in midfield led to them dominating possession in the second half.
Uganda made two tactical changes, one was the highline they held which caught their opponents offside in more than four occasions and the second was the use of their left wing where Ochaya was positioned. It was an interesting dual down this flank with Ethiopias fullback coming out on top. Ochaya failed on several attempts to beat his man, the defender able to nick the ball away from him. With little success on a 1 v1 situation, Ochaya decided to try cross early but his crosses were poor often met first with a defenders header. It is rather perplexing why they chose to attack down this wing because on the opposite wing, Ethiopias number 5 still took a position higher up and Guma had plenty of space to attack. Recognizing that his winger had failed to get the better of his opponent, Williamson made a change bringing on number 17 who in combination with Walusimbi managed to cross the ball creating the halfs best chance which fell to Kiiza.
Conclusion:
Not an impressive start by the defending champions scoring two goals from two games. Williamson clearly worked on his teams deficiency from the previous game and credit to him for spotting the teams weak link. However, it is paramount that his wide players work hard on their crossing as the only one who seems to be adept is the left back Walusimbi.
It is often frustrating when teams give too much respect to the host, as was the case here. Second half switch to a 4-2-3-1 formation enabled Ethiopia to flourish and dominate possession though they didnt test the opposition defense that much. They should take the positives of this match into their encounter with Kenya and if they start the game with the same mentality as the second half, it surely promises to be an interesting match.
Similar Discussions
-
-
-
Orodha ya wachezaji bora Afrika Mashariki wa muda wote- Started by Mstahiki Mea
- Replies: 94
-
Full Time: Simba Queens 5-0 Fad Djibouti | 2024 CAF Women's Champions League - CECAFA Qualifiers
- Started by Bagamoyo
- Replies: 18
-
TotalEnergies U-20 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) CECAFA Qualifiers 2024
- Started by Bagamoyo
- Replies: 2