Our infrastructure is falling apart right infront of our eyes.
Coca-Cola is giving water tankers.
Discovery is busy fixing potholes.
Outsurance is busy directing traffic.
We are in trouble here.
The EFF has once again been vindicated!
The Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria has set aside the awards of the R15 BILLION HIV antiretroviral tender. The department has 120 days to redo the tender. Something we had told them to do in FEBRUARY!!! We told you Minister Aaron Motsoaledi, if you ate wrong money, YOU WILL VOMIT IT!
Ey lamasela!
♦️Must Watch♦️
EFF Member of Parliament, @NalediChirwa raises serious concerns about conflict of interest and possible collusion in the awarding of a R15-billion ARV tender.
The tender was awarded to Innovata and Barrs, both owned by Avacare Group, under the ownership of Dr. Naik. Government claims the tender was split among suppliers to mitigate risk, yet both companies are owned by the same parent group.
How does this reduce risk when the supplier is effectively the same entity?
#EFFInParliament
You people are sick. A country with the most exclusionary economy in the entire world and highest unemployment rate is trying to amend labour laws so that you can have an easier migrant labour system? Does this even make sense to you?
From Mzansi to the UEFA Champions League 🤩🇿🇦
Aden McCarthy scores his first goal in Europe's big leagues 👏🔥
📺 Stream #UCL on DStv: https://t.co/B0jLrQW5cc
THE STATE OF KAIZER CHIEFS: TACTICAL CHANGES AND RECRUITMENT FAILURES
There are 2 important things to consider when analysing the current state of Kaizer Chiefs.
The first is the team's tactical approach at the beginning of the season, how it influenced performances and results, how it inspired confidence across the fanbase, and how that approach has changed since the Sundowns game.
The second is recruitment. We cannot afford to ignore this simply because we are currently seeing questionable team selections and tactical decisions. Those issues should not distract us from what I believe was a below-standard transfer window.
1. WHAT CHANGED?
When the season started, the tactical approach was one of the most interesting aspects of our football. The coach opted for a 4-2-3-1 that morphed into a 4-4-2.
The positive results were encouraging, but I don't think many of us expected them to remain positive indefinitely. We knew there would eventually be difficult periods, and the results could turn against us. However, what mattered most was the football we were playing, the tactical direction of the team, and how the coach was setting us up to compete.
2 CBs:
■ 2 Wins, 1 loss
■ 5 goals scored, 2 goals conceded
■ 1 cleansheet
3 CBs:
■ 1 Win, 5 Draws
■ 8 goals scored, 7 goals conceded
■ 1 cleansheet
Defensively, we were looking better with a back 4 than a back 5. Our main concern was the goalkeeper, who kept letting us down. The coach was reluctant to address this problem, and it cost us important games.
We could see that the problem was specific and did not necessarily need a complete tactical overhaul to solve. We needed to address the weakness in goal without compromising the defensive structure that was beginning to show promise. Remove Petersen and play Leaner/Mazhamba.
Then came the change from a back 4 to a back 5.
For me, this was the turning point in our overall performance because it affected the selection in midfield and attack too.
Suddenly, the defence looked weaker, and opponents were finding more opportunities to hurt us in dangerous areas. Poor organisation began costing us, and the problems extended beyond the goalkeeper. We conceded every game.
It was no longer just a goalkeeper crisis. We were now dealing with a defensive crisis. Games were always close, something I highlighted with the 343 system.
The obvious question is why we moved away from a structure that had shown encouraging signs so early in the season?
I don't believe injuries are the primary explanation. In my view, the biggest factor was the transfer window and the implications of failing to recruit the attacking players the coach requested.
2. THE ROLE OF RECRUITMENT
When the season started, the coach had reason to believe that management would provide the players he needed to improve his 4-2-3-1/4-4-2 structure. That's why he started with it but used the likes of Baartman temporarily on some roles in attack.
He had a tactical vision, but he also understood that certain positions required better personnel to make that vision work consistently. The existing squad could provide a foundation and temporary solutions, but he needed specific additions to raise the team's level.
As it became increasingly clear that management was not going to provide those players, the coach had to reconsider his approach. His preferred way of playing was going to be compromised, and he had to find another way to keep the team competitive with the personnel available.
At the start of the season, our tactical weaknesses were fewer and less concerning than they are now. Today, the coach's decisions and ability to get the best out of this squad are rightly under scrutiny. But we must not lose sight of the bigger problem: poor recruitment has left this team with fundamental weaknesses that tactical adjustments alone cannot fix.
The coach must be held accountable, but so must the management responsible for building this squad.
To be continued...📝