Another set of questions for the candidates, related to tactics:
Would you consider calling up a player and using a roster spot specifically because player can fit a certain offensive or defensive scheme? How many of these players would you consider having on your roster?
Secondly, the majority of national teams are super-conservative especially with defensive tactics. How likely are you to stick to m2m defense, compared to trying 3-2 or 2-3? Would you feel comfortable playing a 2-3 zone, for example, if the matchup suggested it?
Lastly, what are your opinions on the new tactics (the Iso's and Box-and-One's)? Would you EVER consider using them in international play? Or would you stick with the well known tactics, letting the standard leagues try out the newer tactics more instead?
1. Yes I would. I am a big believer in matching players talents with tactics.
2. I would absoluely play 3-2 when the situation calls for it. We have already discussed 2-3 zone in this thread; I think the tactic is too unpredictable and doesnt always work the way its intended to. There are examples of it working great...but my personal team pretty much runs Look Inside 80% of the time, and LP most of the time I dont run Look Inside, and I have faced 2-3 zone, and box in one inside D, and I have never lost to those tactics. I guess in my experience I have never seen a time when 2-3 would give me something I couldn't get out of m2m.
3. I am not a big fan of those new tactics....One thing though, I have not experimented with any of those tactics with the best players in the USA either. I would need to study that, and speak to my tactical advisors should I win before forming any sort of real oppinion on that.