Dejected New Zealand players look on after falling short against Portugal in their round of 16 encounter on Thursday night. Photo / Getty Images
Dejected New Zealand players look on after falling short against Portugal in their round of 16 encounter on Thursday night. Photo / Getty Images
New Zealand were knocked out of the Under-20 World Cup this week. Michael Burgess assesses the side's campaign.
Selection
New Zealand coach Darren Bazeley should be applauded for his willingness to make a swag of changes, especially for the games against Myanmar and Portugal, and eventually found his best team. But it would have been better for the best XI (or most of it) to be locked in before the tournament. That's been the key to past New Zealand success, especially at the back. There can be some changes due to form but it's unusual that the defence and midfield looked vastly different from the first game to the fourth.
Style
We saw only glimpses of the possession-based style, although in the second half against Portugal, New Zealand started to play to their potential. Most of the tournament, there was a direct approach, which wasn't always executed particularly well. Set pieces were disappointing and the strategy of pressing high up the pitch also wasn't particularly effective.
The set-up for the final game against Portugal, with wing backs, seemed the most effective and suited the personnel more than 4-3-3. It showed that, although the overriding goal may be 'alignment' across all national teams, you have to cut your cloth according to the players you have and opposition you face.
Personnel
Bill Tuiloma was excellent and held the backline together well, Andrew Blake showed his potential in the last match and probably deserved to start earlier. The same assessment applies to Monty Patterson, Te Atawhai Hudson-Wihongi and Nik Tzanev. Noah Billingsley, as the youngest member of the squad, looks a good prospect.
Enduring questions
Why was Jesse Edge, predominantly a central player, used at right-back? The Vicenza 1902 player looked uncomfortable on the flank and would be more suited to a defensive midfield role.
Why did Moses Dyer play almost every minute of every game? Dyer was playing 1st XI football until last year and the step up was too big. There was no questioning his work rate or endeavour but he was found wanting in and out of possession. A curious selection.
What happened to Matt Ridenton? He was supposed to be one of the premier players on the team, but the Phoenix midfielder wasn't in the picture for the final two games. He struggled against the United States, like most of the team, but his experience could have been handy against Portugal.
Why didn't Stuart Holthusen get more time? On limited evidence, the University of Akron striker looked the only genuine poacher in the New Zealand team. In a short time against Portugal he scored once and got in a handy position for another, dragging his shot wide. Perhaps deserved an earlier opportunity.
Why was Alex Rufer played out of position? To most judges, including Ernie Merrick, Rufer is a midfielder, and his composure and strength on the ball would have been handy in that area. He worked extremely hard but didn't fire up front.
Overall
A positive result for New Zealand football. Coming within a few minutes of forcing extra time against Portugal is a meritorious effort, and the second half featured plenty of encouraging play. They also showed great resolve to come back from the pasting by the US, and also to recover from an early deficit against Myanmar.
But this Junior All Whites team had an unprecedented build-up and were playing at home. And Myanmar, although they proved much better than expected, would still be the weakest team New Zealand have ever faced at an Under-20 World Cup.
It felt like Bazeley, in only his second head coaching assignment, was learning along with his team as the tournament progressed.
If only. . .
PEC Zwolle midfielder Ryan Thomas and fellow All White Tyler Boyd missed the age cut-off for this team by 11 days and two days respectively.
