UHT Vana Nava Hua Hin City FC 2015

[Big Boy]

Can't argue with the first bit, and the 2nd bit is encouraging.

[GLCQuantum]

Well that was a very frustrating/disappointing match to lose. As you say BB, we were the better side. Although I will give some credit to our opponents Seemok who looked a much better team than the previous 2 games I've seen them in this season(our home game against them + when they were on tv a few weeks ago) admittedly both of those games they were away from home. Away from their artificial surface. Not really sure we can use the surface as an excuse for losing yesterday but it perhaps demonstrates that Seemok are clearly very used to it and play their best football at home.

Hua Hin pleased me with their 'professional build up' to this match, travelling up to Bangkok on Wednesday and playing a friendly on an artificial surface, training at a different venue in BKK on an artificial surface Thursday before travelling up to Suphan Buri to get a feel of the match surface Friday...... Did we perhaps overdo it though?? I'm not taking credit for this suggestion by the way, it was GD(who I'm sure will be along soon to have his say) who mentioned to me at the game that the last 20 mins or so, a lot of the Hua Hin players seemed to be struggling a bit fitness wise..... And I agree, a few of them looked knackered. Add to that some of the whispers that have been coming out of the training ground from players complaining about the work load.... I think GD perhaps has a point and it's something the club need to look at. I always thought our fitness was one of our strengths but we need to be careful and not overdo it. It's a slightly bigger concern that coach KK obviously has other commitments now and does not oversee all of the training like previously.

The first half there was only one team in the game, we were the only side creating chances. Their keeper had a good game, few awkward crosses he dealt with comfortably and then came out to close down the angle and save superbly from Jonato not long before the break after a lovely through ball had put him in.

Having said that, the midfield weren't as fluid as last week. The coach kept the same midfield as last week's game, understandably as they'd played so well. However, the longer the game went on into the 2nd half the team was crying out for the introduction of Michael Byrne into the team. I think we left it too late, I'd have had him on earlier than he did eventually get on. I thought he done very well when he did come on and was exactly what we were missing.

When they did score it was completely against the run of play and yes, we absolutely gifted them it.

stupid suicidal faffing about tendencies at the back were the deciding factor in this crucial 'must win' game. I was very angry at the way we threw this match away.

I've had the benefit of watching the replay of the goal a few times now. We were actually on the attack, Valery was 30 yards from their goal when he played a pass to the usually very dependable no.34 Nuttapong. Now, it was a misplaced pass, still looked like perhaps 34 could have retrieved it? Possibly.... Maybe it was so mis-hit he initially thought it was for somebody else.... Possibly the right back, should he have been there to receive? I think he had possibly pushed up too far by this point. The result was their player intercepted the ball BUT I'm going to lay the blame firmly at Valery's feet for this one, not for the misplaced pass, but what he done next...

You can clearly see Da step up and play his man a mile offside, however Valery, on some kind of desperate charge is bombing back and although he had no chance of actually catching the guy, succeeded in playing him on. You can see their other striker(Valery's man) checking his run to remain onside, all Valery had to do was stay with him. I think he had a rush of blood to the head as a result of his misplaced pass, and that ultimately, is what cost us the goal, rather than the pass itself.

I'm not sure you can really class it as faffing about at the back when we're deep in their half and on the attack. Just curious BB, do you feel it was the wrong ball to play? Or was it just unfortunate it didn't find it's target?

I said I'd have accepted a point before the game yesterday and I don't think many people could argue it would have been a fair result, however it is what it is and we have to deal with it, put it to the back of our minds and concentrate on our remaining 7 matches.

If I could choose out of all the teams still in the mix, which run-in to have, I would choose ours. We are capable of winning all 7 and if we do that we WILL be in the CL.

I alluded to Seemok's home form/play, well 4 of their next 5 are away from home. The 2 Tonburis still have to play each other + Samut Sakhon as well. I've no doubt all of the teams above us are going to drop points so we don't need to worry about anyone else, just make sure we take care of our business. Our most tricky game would appear to be our last game, away to Tonburi, although I'm confident if the pressure is on in that game the players will rise to the occasion.

Final word to the support yesterday, despite the scoreline and long journey, it was still a fantastic day out.

Bloody Nora... has there ever been a longer post on HHForum? There was one way back, when Randy Cornhole still posted, that may have beaten it.

*Cue Liverpudlian Accent*

"Calm down, calm down".

[Sabai Sabai]

Bloody Nora... has there ever been a longer post on HHForum? There was one way back, when Randy Cornhole still posted, that may have beaten it.

Short answer(since that will be nice + easy for you to digest)....Yes, go back 1 page on this thread.

If you don't find it interesting or it is too long winded for you, don't bother reading it. Simple!

Edit: looking back over it, it's longer than I intended or realised! However, above point still stands!

[Big Boy]

Sun 9 Aug 2015
VANA NAVA HUAHIN CITY vs J.W.POLICE FC
@THANARAT FORT STADIUM 4.00PM

[Big Boy]

Whoops, who threw that banana skin?

Table_Gameweek_17.jpg (101.06 KiB) Viewed 513 times

[Geordie Dancer]

An early start yesterday for our furthest trip of the season to Supanburi for our crucial game against Seemok to try and consolidate our second place in the league and move four points clear of our opposition. Unfortunately it was not to be.

Quite where things went wrong yesterday I am having difficulty in pin pointing. In terms of possession and chances created we were the better side although the number of clear goal scoring opportunities created by either side were very limited.

Hua Hin made two changes from last week with Dusit coming back in for the injured left back Anaecha Masamak and Da replacing Pu in central defence. Piyawat Piemcharoen (No. 28) was originally in the starting line up at right back but must have got injured in the warm up so Panupong Rampairoh (No. 31) retained his starting place.

Hua Hin dominated possession and territorially in the first half but without really creating many clear cut chances. Gionata twice got in behind the Seemok defence but couldn't finish. The second chance being a really good move, after an interchange of passes Andre threaded a ball between the defenders for Gionata to run on to. The Seemok keeper reacted very quickly in coming off his line and produced a good save.

Andre, in particular, had his work cut out today. He was up against a man mountain of a defender. To be fair Andre was getting the better of him and generally getting fouled in the process but very little came from the resulting free kicks.

Hua Hin had numerous opportunities to put in quality balls from free kicks and corners. The Seemok keeper was very good at claiming crosses and immediately cut out any danger with his catches. Having seen this I was disappointed that Hua Hin didn't adapt and vary their delivery more. Nearly all crosses were put within the keepers reach around the edge of the six yard box and he was handling them with ease.

Half time came and I was happy with our first half performance. Hopefully we could kick on and get the vital goal we needed.

In the second half Hua Hin continued to dominate but Seemok became more persistant in their niggly fouling to constantly stop play and prevent Hua Hin from playing any kind of free flowing football. What made things worse was opposition players were continuously standing on top of the ball to prevent a quick restart. You could see the Hua Hin players becoming more and more frustrated with the tactics of the Seemok, particularly Andre and Lucas, who were the victims of the majority of fouls. Whilst giving free kicks the referee did little to stop this persistant fouling and nothing to stop the opposition players preventing play continuing quickly. He should have been issuing yellow cards. As the half wore on the two Brazilians became less and less effective. Whilst there was no doubt they were getting a rough ride the majority of their efforts were being spent in complaining to the referee about tackles, whether they were fair or not, rather than being determined to punish their opposition in a way that matters with goals. Seemok had obviously done their homework and this ploy was undoubtedly deliberate. Unfortunately the response from Andre and Lucas was falling right into their trap. Eventually Lucas was replaced by Michael Byrne.

Mid way through the second half disaster struck. From a Hua Hin throw just outside the Seemok box the ball went to Wongsawad and onto Valery. Valery played the ball square to Natthapong Kamaksorn but the ball eluded him. Two Seemok players reacted quickly, racing to get to the ball. The first playing a first time pass forward for his team mate to pick up 10 yards inside the Hua Hin half. He raced towards goal unchallenged and beat Annop from just outside the box. Much has been said on here already about the goal, some of which I agree with and some I don't. Firstly I agree with SS and his summing up of Valerys role not in the initial pass but his subsequent actions of not playing offside as Da had tried and succeeded in doing. Having said that I can understand Valerys actions in the heat of battle in trying to recover ground. Unfortunately that was the wrong action but it's easy said in hindsight. More of concern to me was the actions of others who were equally or more culpable for us conceding the goal. I have watched the video many times and these are my conclusions. Valery was 100% correct in selecting the pass he did. It may not have been executed with pin point accuracy to Natthapong but it was by no means a bad pass.Had Natthapong reacted as I would have expected he could have taken the ball and driven forward into the space in front of him. Personally I think he had either switched off for a split second or misjudged the pace of the pass or thought it was going to another player.

At the point Valery plays the pass no Seemok player is nearer than 30 yards to where the ball ends up. Their two players involved in the goal (the passer and scorer) have reacted far quicker than the Hua Hin players. Gionata is probably the quickest player in our squad. He has five yards on the passer but is beaten to the ball by 10 yards and then gives up the chase. Panupong Rampairoh (No. 31) is totally out of position in the context of play and regardless of whether the error happened or not should not have been where he was. Had he been correctly positioned he would have been able to defend the attack.

However people view this episode one thing is clear, it certainly did not happen because of any "faffing about". Interesting that BB has side stepped SS question about whether or not he thought it was the correct pass regardless of its execution. Where exactly did you think the ball should have gone BB?

For the final 20 or so minutes Hua Hin flattered to deceive. Seemoks fouling was relentless to stop play at every opportunity. It was disappointing, but probably for the first time this season we were not the stronger team in the latter stages. Michael Byrne showed his class to create space for himself and fire in a shot which the keeper managed to scramble round the post and Surasak Wongchai (No. 24) had a difficult headed chance right on the final whistle which the keeper collected with ease.

All in all not a bad display but a very disappointing result. I think it is no coincidence that Hua Hins performances, with the exception of last week, have dipped since the TOT thing raised its head. If SS synopsis of what the coach had to say post game is correct he needs to get himself back to Hua Hin now because he and his coaching staffs absence has already had a detrimental impact on our side.

[Big Boy]

However people view this episode one thing is clear, it certainly did not happen because of any "faffing about". Interesting that BB has side stepped SS question about whether or not he thought it was the correct pass regardless of its execution. Where exactly did you think the ball should have gone BB?

Firstly, I knew you would deny faffing about in the same way couldn't kick and rush. However, now that coaching staff have got the team attacking smoothly, I wonder why there is no shout for kick and rush football from you. All that I hear is regular praise for the way the team is playing.

Whether or not you can see faffing about at the back is irrelevant. It is happening, I don't like it. While it continues, I will continue to criticise (don't forget, I'm happy, when I'm moaning ).

Now to address your question.............

For the majority of Sunday's match, there was no faffing about at the back - I was very pleased with the way things were going. However, the error was very akin to what I have been warning about. Where should the ball have gone? Certainly not where it landed. OK, we've all mis-kicked a ball before, and even professionals are entitled to an error. Where it went wrong was that it was such a bad ball, we had moments of indecision as to who it was meant for. While they were working it out, Simork scored.

Basic schoolboy football says when you pass a ball, you shout the recipient's name. OK, it should be obvious amongst professionals. However, as soon as he'd cocked up BIG TIME, he should have been screaming at whoever it was intended for to pick it it up. He didn't, and the rest is history. Those split seconds of indecision cost us 3 points (well, at least 1).

To clarify my faffing about at the back concerns, we do often lose possession while playing the silly games, but fortunately there is usually enough cover available to rectify the situation. Unfortunately, we were high up the field when the mis-kick happened, and Simork had some very fast forwards.

[Sabai Sabai]

Whether or not you can see faffing about at the back is irrelevant. It is happening,

I don't recall any from Saturday's match, can you give an example? Was any of it captured in the highlights feed?

Now to address your question.............

Well, perhaps the intent was there, but you still haven't....

Both myself and GD have asked similar questions as to where the ball should have been played.... ie to whom.

Where should the ball have gone? Certainly not where it landed.

Only confirms it was a bad pass, which nobody is disputing. The question was about the choice of pass, not the quality of the pass.

we were high up the field when the mis-kick happene

So not at the back then....

[Big Boy]

Read my response - all of it, and most of your questions will be answered.

[Sabai Sabai]

Read my response - all of it, and most of your questions will be answered.

I've just read your response again, twice for good measure and I'm afraid I'm struggling, at no point in your response can I see whom you suggest the ball should have been played to, despite you having been asked 3 times now.

I'll try asking the question a different way.... It is, for me anyway, quite clear the intended target of Valery's misplaced pass was 34. Nutthapong. Do you agree or disagree that was the correct pass to play?

I also cannot see you giving me any examples of us 'faffing about at the back' from Saturday's game to back up your claim of:

It is happening

[Big Boy]

In Red

Read my response - all of it, and most of your questions will be answered.

I've just read your response again, twice for good measure and I'm afraid I'm struggling, at no point in your response can I see whom you suggest the ball should have been played to, despite you having been asked 3 times now.

I'll try asking the question a different way.... It is, for me anyway, quite clear the intended target of Valery's misplaced pass was 34. Nutthapong. Do you agree or disagree that was the correct pass to play?
Yes, he would have been the better choice, but if he couldn't manage that, then I think Panupong was the alternative. However, when faffing about at the back, our players cock up quite often, and miss-hit the ball to the opposition. Pre-match preparation should have warned us how dangerous the opposition were if we lost position at that point on the field, and maybe he should have been more cautious.

Regarding the position where our backs were playing on the field, whether it be the edge of the 6 yard box or the half way line, they are still our last line of defence.

I also cannot see you giving me any examples of us 'faffing about at the back' from Saturday's game to back up your claim of:

Do I really need examples when we've dropped 5 of the last 9 points because of it? I think there a many others who see the same flaw in our game, they just can't be bothered to debate it.

As I said, if you read my response, it states, "For the majority of Sunday's match, there was no faffing about at the back - I was very pleased with the way things were going. However, the error was very akin to what I have been warning about." What more can I say? Our defence and deeper midfield have established that they can't play a possession game at the back - I was happy that we are learning, and then such a basic error.............. If he makes such a basic error, and it was very obvious his team mates were confused, as I said he should have been making his intentions more obvious. I call it faffing, you call it whatever you like. Until they are good enough, they should not be playing balls that are too difficult for them in dangerous areas. Or do you approve of giving such an advantage to the opposition?

Unless we're really unlucky, we'll probably get away with it until the Krung Thonburi match now. Here's hoping we've learnt our lesson the hard way.

It is happening

[Big Boy]

No video last week due to me being away.

Again, a lot of change. They are painting the stand, so it definitely looks better than the standard concrete grey. The downside to this is that we can see people in the grandstand,. I think at a generous estimate it will seat a maximum of 150 Thai sized people or a very cozy 100 people my size.

Very nice to see the goals in place. It is really looking like a football stadium now; and all floodlight pylons have lights fitted.

The pitch itself is flattening out - clearly somebody is working very hard at producing a decent playing surface. Obviously, it needs repair in a lot of places, and the bit just in front of where I was standing was looking very rough after the recent rain. A few weeks should see the surface improving greatly.

The meccano set they call the rest of the seating looks to be in place, just waiting to be clipped together.

The big development this week is laying of the hardcore ready for the East car park.

Looking very good.

[Sabai Sabai]

Wow, you should type in red every post, you're much clearer when you post in red!

At last, an answer to the question!

the intended target of Valery's misplaced pass was 34. Nutthapong. Do you agree or disagree that was the correct pass to play?
Yes, he would have been the better choice

So, we're in agreement he made the right decision in passing the ball to 34. So nothing wrong with the thinking, just an unfortunate error, he could probably play that pass another 100 times and not miss his mark. It should have been a simple pass.

Until they are good enough, they should not be playing balls that are too difficult for them in dangerous areas.

Do you honestly believe the pass he attempted was difficult?? If they're not good enough to play balls like that, they shouldn't be playing football at all!

Perhaps our interpretation of faffing about differ, for me it would be playing a silly, needless ball into a dangerous area that is just asking for trouble and has a high percentage of going wrong. However, given we're all agreed it was the correct ball to play, I don't think you can place that pass under that bracket.

Funnily enough I actually think playing the ball to the right back, whom you suggested as an alternative, would have been much more risky.

It was a careless pass which cost us dearly, the biggest error wasn't the pass though, the decision by Valery to charge back and play the attacker onside was what cost us the goal. So I'm afraid I can't agree that the goal we conceded was down to faffing about at the back.

Although wait a minute, I must be in the minority....

I think there a many others who see the same flaw in our game, they just can't be bothered to debate it.

This made me chuckle!

[Big Boy]

OK, because you like it so much, let's try a different colour. In my favourite Green

Wow, you should type in red every post, you're much clearer when you post in red!

At last, an answer to the question!

the intended target of Valery's misplaced pass was 34. Nutthapong. Do you agree or disagree that was the correct pass to play?
Yes, he would have been the better choice

So, we're in agreement he made the right decision in passing the ball to 34. So nothing wrong with the thinking, just an unfortunate error, he could probably play that pass another 100 times and not miss his mark. It should have been a simple pass.

Until they are good enough, they should not be playing balls that are too difficult for them in dangerous areas.

Do you honestly believe the pass he attempted was difficult?? If they're not good enough to play balls like that, they shouldn't be playing football at all!

Maybe you should sit down in the cheap seats with us - we're obviously seeing a different game. When they start faffing about at the back, they often lose the ball to the opposition. All teams train for such a game when they play in a circle with 2 piggies in the middle. All teams are expert in intercepting these multiple passes. If we've got to try to play the possession game, why do it at the back, putting ourselves in danger?

Perhaps our interpretation of faffing about differ, for me it would be playing a silly, needless ball into a dangerous area that is just asking for trouble and has a high percentage of going wrong. However, given we're all agreed it was the correct ball to play, I don't think you can place that pass under that bracket.

It is passing amongst ourselves trying to maintain possession, time wasting, taking a breather or however you might want to describe it. We repeatedly mis-kick, and hand the advantage to the opposition.

When we don't cock it up, we've invariably given the opposition loads of time to park the bus. I watched us try exactly that game against Prachuab last season and get hammered. Please don't tell me this season's team is better - we had champions last season, this season's team are still trying to be that good. I really hope they get there.

Funnily enough I actually think playing the ball to the right back, whom you suggested as an alternative, would have been much more risky.

I agree it would have been a poor alternative, but if the ball was mis-kicked, we'd have had Nutthapong covering.

It was a careless pass which cost us dearly, the biggest error wasn't the pass though, the decision by Valery to charge back and play the attacker onside was what cost us the goal. So I'm afraid I can't agree that the goal we conceded was down to faffing about at the back.

Although wait a minute, I must be in the minority....

I actually think you are. Sit in the cheap seats on Sunday, and I'll gladly point out what I'm on about, or just watch my body language when we start faffing about at the back. However, nothing would please me more than for you to be proved 100% correct, as it would mean the team have learnt from their mistakes.

I think there a many others who see the same flaw in our game, they just can't be bothered to debate it.

This made me chuckle!

[Sabai Sabai]

OK, because you like it so much, let's try a different colour. In my favourite Green

Wow, you should type in red every post, you're much clearer when you post in red!

At last, an answer to the question!

the intended target of Valery's misplaced pass was 34. Nutthapong. Do you agree or disagree that was the correct pass to play?
Yes, he would have been the better choice

So, we're in agreement he made the right decision in passing the ball to 34. So nothing wrong with the thinking, just an unfortunate error, he could probably play that pass another 100 times and not miss his mark. It should have been a simple pass.

Until they are good enough, they should not be playing balls that are too difficult for them in dangerous areas.

Do you honestly believe the pass he attempted was difficult?? If they're not good enough to play balls like that, they shouldn't be playing football at all!

Maybe you should sit down in the cheap seats with us - we're obviously seeing a different game. When they start faffing about at the back, they often lose the ball to the opposition. All teams train for such a game when they play in a circle with 2 piggies in the middle. All teams are expert in intercepting these multiple passes. If we've got to try to play the possession game, why do it at the back, putting ourselves in danger?

Perhaps our interpretation of faffing about differ, for me it would be playing a silly, needless ball into a dangerous area that is just asking for trouble and has a high percentage of going wrong. However, given we're all agreed it was the correct ball to play, I don't think you can place that pass under that bracket.

It is passing amongst ourselves trying to maintain possession, time wasting, taking a breather or however you might want to describe it. We repeatedly mis-kick, and hand the advantage to the opposition.

When we don't cock it up, we've invariably given the opposition loads of time to park the bus. I watched us try exactly that game against Prachuab last season and get hammered. Please don't tell me this season's team is better - we had champions last season, this season's team are still trying to be that good. I really hope they get there.

Funnily enough I actually think playing the ball to the right back, whom you suggested as an alternative, would have been much more risky.

I agree it would have been a poor alternative, but if the ball was mis-kicked, we'd have had Nutthapong covering.

It was a careless pass which cost us dearly, the biggest error wasn't the pass though, the decision by Valery to charge back and play the attacker onside was what cost us the goal. So I'm afraid I can't agree that the goal we conceded was down to faffing about at the back.

Although wait a minute, I must be in the minority....

I actually think you are. Sit in the cheap seats on Sunday, and I'll gladly point out what I'm on about, or just watch my body language when we start faffing about at the back. However, nothing would please me more than for you to be proved 100% correct, as it would mean the team have learnt from their mistakes.

I think there a many others who see the same flaw in our game, they just can't be bothered to debate it.

This made me chuckle!

Now I'm confused!

I thought we had agreed the decision to play the ball to Nutthapong was the correct decision??

You're now talking like he shouldn't have played that pass..... Have you changed your mind since your previous post?