CECAFA Senior Challenge: Kutoka Uganda
CECAFA Senior Challenge: Kutoka Uganda
- Thread starter Mphamvu
- Start date
Mwana Mpotevu
Platinum Member
- Sep 7, 2011
- 3,295
- 2,505
Mkuu updates???
Watu8
Platinum Member
- Feb 19, 2010
- 76,290
- 108,306
Uganda 1 - Kenya 0...goli limefungwa na Geoffrey Kizito, dk 74
Watu8
Platinum Member
- Feb 19, 2010
- 76,290
- 108,306
pamoja mkuu...
Watu8
Platinum Member
- Feb 19, 2010
- 76,290
- 108,306
Tutawakalia tu, mimi naamini kikosi cha sasa cha Tanzania Bara ni moja ya vikosi vizuri tulivyowahi kuwa navyo
Katavi
Platinum Member
- Aug 31, 2009
- 42,099
- 12,919
Wana rekodi nzuri, sisi hiyo kesho sijui itakuwaje maana timu yetu ni tia maji tia maji.
Uganda 1-0 Kenya: set piece wins the game.
Hosts Uganda managed to win their opening game in the Cecafa tusker challenge beating Kenya by a solitary goal. This was not a particularly entertaining game with Kenya happy to sit back and absorb the pressure from their opponents.
The hosts were deployed in a 4-2-3-1 formation which at times looked like a 4-3-3. Kiiza and Okwi played out wide with Umony the lone striker upfront. They dominated possession from the start largely due to Kenyas passive approach. Kenya defended deep in a 4-4-1-1 formation and at times the front, Salim and Mieno dropped so deep that they had Ugandas two holding midfielders in front of them. With Kenya packing the midfield, Uganda found it hard to penetrate their opponents and resorted to long balls down the channels. These were misplaced, intercepted or over hit. Kenya defended well and stayed tight on their opponents, always able to put a foot in when Ugandan players received the ball to feet, breaking up the attack and were not afraid to concede free kicks. With this pattern of play, they restricted the Cranes to shots outside the penalty area, most taken by Okwi who made his usual diagonal inward runs.
Defending deep requires a counter attacking strategy. There appeared to be no clear plan as to how Kenya would counter attack their opponents. They were however, a threat down their left flank. They managed to create chances down this wing, two crosses and one directly from a corner that their keeper had manager to gather and initiate an attack only for the linesman to wrongly penalize for an offside. The simple explanation is that Kiiza, who started on this wing didnt track the opposition fullback and when he did, didnt get close enough to prevent the cross. It is hard to say for sure that this was planned i.e taking advantage of Kiizas unwillingness to track the opposing fullback some which also happens when he plays for his club side Yanga. Had it been planned, then their attacks in the second half should have come down their right flank where Kiiza was stationed. This didnt happen.
In the second half the pattern of play remained the same. There were slight changes in the positioning of the front four. Oloya went wide to the right, Okwi behind Umony and Kiiza to the left. The difference was apparent, Oloya looked to try get to the goal line so as to cross, something that lacked in the first half. He did manage to get two crosses in but no damage was done. Kenyas threat remained the same and on the same wing. The games crucial and perhaps wrong decision came when Kenya were about to defend a free kick in their own half. Nandwa decided to make a substitution. Kizito managed to score heading home Gumas free kick.
This was a game of two different approaches, one trying to stifle the attacks of the other, content with a draw. Uganda on the other hand played well but didnt make use of the flanks. With the centre of the pitch crowded a more sensible approach would have been to push the fullbacks up and try get crosses in. As for Kenya, Nandwa has to take some blame for the goal that his side conceded.
STAYED TUNED FOR MORE TACTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CECAFA TUSKER CUP. TOMMOROW KILIMANJARO STARS ANALYSIS. FOR MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS trequatista | Wix.com
Hosts Uganda managed to win their opening game in the Cecafa tusker challenge beating Kenya by a solitary goal. This was not a particularly entertaining game with Kenya happy to sit back and absorb the pressure from their opponents.
The hosts were deployed in a 4-2-3-1 formation which at times looked like a 4-3-3. Kiiza and Okwi played out wide with Umony the lone striker upfront. They dominated possession from the start largely due to Kenyas passive approach. Kenya defended deep in a 4-4-1-1 formation and at times the front, Salim and Mieno dropped so deep that they had Ugandas two holding midfielders in front of them. With Kenya packing the midfield, Uganda found it hard to penetrate their opponents and resorted to long balls down the channels. These were misplaced, intercepted or over hit. Kenya defended well and stayed tight on their opponents, always able to put a foot in when Ugandan players received the ball to feet, breaking up the attack and were not afraid to concede free kicks. With this pattern of play, they restricted the Cranes to shots outside the penalty area, most taken by Okwi who made his usual diagonal inward runs.
Defending deep requires a counter attacking strategy. There appeared to be no clear plan as to how Kenya would counter attack their opponents. They were however, a threat down their left flank. They managed to create chances down this wing, two crosses and one directly from a corner that their keeper had manager to gather and initiate an attack only for the linesman to wrongly penalize for an offside. The simple explanation is that Kiiza, who started on this wing didnt track the opposition fullback and when he did, didnt get close enough to prevent the cross. It is hard to say for sure that this was planned i.e taking advantage of Kiizas unwillingness to track the opposing fullback some which also happens when he plays for his club side Yanga. Had it been planned, then their attacks in the second half should have come down their right flank where Kiiza was stationed. This didnt happen.
In the second half the pattern of play remained the same. There were slight changes in the positioning of the front four. Oloya went wide to the right, Okwi behind Umony and Kiiza to the left. The difference was apparent, Oloya looked to try get to the goal line so as to cross, something that lacked in the first half. He did manage to get two crosses in but no damage was done. Kenyas threat remained the same and on the same wing. The games crucial and perhaps wrong decision came when Kenya were about to defend a free kick in their own half. Nandwa decided to make a substitution. Kizito managed to score heading home Gumas free kick.
This was a game of two different approaches, one trying to stifle the attacks of the other, content with a draw. Uganda on the other hand played well but didnt make use of the flanks. With the centre of the pitch crowded a more sensible approach would have been to push the fullbacks up and try get crosses in. As for Kenya, Nandwa has to take some blame for the goal that his side conceded.
STAYED TUNED FOR MORE TACTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CECAFA TUSKER CUP. TOMMOROW KILIMANJARO STARS ANALYSIS. FOR MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS trequatista | Wix.com
Watu8
Platinum Member
- Feb 19, 2010
- 76,290
- 108,306
mkuu Kilimanjaro ya mwaka huu iko poa sana, naamini tutafanya vizuri tu
Katavi
Platinum Member
- Aug 31, 2009
- 42,099
- 12,919
Itakuwa saa ngapi ili nijisogeze jirani na runinga mida hiyo??
18h00 eat.
Watu8
Platinum Member
- Feb 19, 2010
- 76,290
- 108,306
saa 12 jioni mkuu, kama ratiba itakuwa kama zilivyokuwa game za jana...
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