At the 35 minute mark, his performance at RB has been the best by an Aussie for some time.=d>

Even if he makes mistakes, his speed, compared to Wilkshire's means he recovers better.

Off the ball in BPO Leckie is so vastly superior to Kennedy and Cahill, it is not funny.

Leckie demonstrates very fast ball carrying, or Running With The Ball. Opposition defenders desperately try to catch him.

He is an excellent athlete too. If Kennedy or Cahill compete for a 1v1 challenge, they are slow to compete for a second ball duel. Leckie is so much quicker on his feet and fights for second balls where Cahill and Kennedy cannot force a contest. This creates more pressure on the opposition defender.

Even if the defender wins the ball, he is forced to make a hasty pass. This creates fertile pre-conditions to turn the ball over in an area of the pitch the opposition don't want to turn the ball over.

Leckie also has been effective in one twos. However, whereas Kennedy and Cahill make a good wall pass, Leckie sprints forwards after his wall pass, creating a scenario where a defender has to chase him, being forced out of position, or leave him, opening a passing lane for Australia.

Brosque was good in these areas too, although older, but lacking the improving heading power of Leckie. Importantly, what Kennedy and Cahill do though, is convert goals from limited scoring opportunities.

With Leckie as the number 9 Australia has more attacking tactical options.

At the 35 minute mark, this is a far better performance than against Canada, who Costa Rica would have beaten decisively in WC qualifiers.

In hindsight, Holger was a useless coach. I've never said it before, but other than bringing McKay into the national team set up, and giving Ogger a go, when Pim stubbornly refused to select him, he seems to have made some poor selections. Even more importantly, he has put players them in stupid positions.

These can be exemplified with McKay at LB and Bresc having to do the donkey work as a defensive midfielder. In this game Milligan and Jedda are going a lot of donkey work giving us a lot of midfield muscle, augmented by Davidson at LB.

Williams' weakness in 1v1 duels against quality opponents in previous games, make be negated by his speed and distribution skills. Hence, Australia can play a higher defensive line with him, and someone other than Neill, being the other CB.

Williams is also assisted by having two excellent muscleheads in Jedda and Milligan playing in front of him. They are winning a lot of ball and unsettling Costa Rican attackers.

The worst player for Australia at this stage is Neill. He must only be used as a squad player. He just does not do the donkey work needed as a CB, which he was so good at before.

Neill also can't make the extraordinary numbers of intercepts, like Muscat, who averaged 7 per game, from outstanding reading of the game late in his career. Neill can only be effective as a sweeper. I've seen enough of Spiranovic to say he can do everything better than Neill, apart from organise the defence and other players around him.

Neill's experience should put him in good positions, which occurs, but he is just too slow for this team to play anything but a deep defensive line. Neill's body cannot do what his brain tells him to do anymore.





Edited by Decentric: 27/11/2013 10:15:07 AM

Davidson at LB showing some nice physicality, and mongrel, with aggressive pushing players around and unsettling them with good use of the body. He's made a few distribution mistakes, but I'm liking what I'm seeing.

Zullo looked promising for the national team before, but his current HAL games look like he hasn't played enough over the last year or so.

This team has a lot more ball winning power, with Davo, Milligan, Jedda and Leckie on the pitch at the same time. Neill's expulsion should improve things further. He is not mobile enough to make challenges in the first place.

Decentric, what's your view on Josh Rose in place of Zullo at LB?

I've never really broken down his play and analysed Rose.

He looks good going forwards, but I haven't really scrutinised his defensive capabilities. Then again I hadn't really looked at Franjic before. I've just finished the first half and Franjic has played better than Wilkshire at right back, or anybody else for that matter , for years.

I can already see that Ange P has decidedly superior ability to Holger in appraising talent, skill set, and, which position they should play.

i know I've only seen one half of football against Costa Rica, in a friendly, but the style and quality of football I've seen has been the best I've seen from the Socceroos in years. The combination play and attacking interplay, has been astonishing, compared to Holger. I cannot believe a coach can change things with just a few days on the training track.

Bresc has been down on form, but he has many other things to worry about ATM off the pitch. I think he is the only veteran Socceroo who should start ATM.

I cannot get over how good Ryan's distribution is in goal, and how few clearances he makes compared to Schwarzer. Birighitti is also good on the deck too. I'm delighted Schwarzer has retired, without his weaknesses being highlighted. I've had quite a vociferous discussion with one of Oz's top keeping coaches about Schwarzer's poor foot skills recently in a FFA goalkeeping course. Almost any pass back to the keeper would result in a big clearance forward with minimal pressure. Ryan is so much more accomplished in working in tighter spaces on the deck. Players are much more confident using him as sweeper. Langerak seems to be an excellent shot stopper, but with Ryan they can play proactive circulation football more easily.

It seems it no matter what league one plays in, international football is different. Just because a player plays in Europe, does not mean one will play better than a HAL player in the national team.

Also, I've really berated the English Championship. Yet Rhys Williams seems to be an atypical player from that league. He has excellent distribution, is a good ball carrier, but he doesn't seem the archetypal rough and tough Championship muscle-head CB, like a Paddy Kisnorbo. Other members of 442 have said that his coach, Tony Mowbray, likes to play possession football.

Chris Herd is a great ball winner, but Aston Villa has had so little ball, I've rarely seen him do anything with it. I've never seen Lowry play, but Topor - Stanley may be another CB for the squad?

This team should be promising work in progress for the Asian Cup. Apart from Neill, they will be collectively better under Ange P's tutelage in the Asian Cup, even if they are thrashed at the World Cup.

Edited by Decentric: 27/11/2013 01:37:19 PM

Vidosic has taken risks, made mistakes, but I can see great potential in passing and moving in tight spaces in attacking combination play.

His left foot has been a weakness though.

Even though Holland is a promising prospect, Milligan and Jedinak appear to be very comfortable playing with each other.

Jedinak could be another prospect for CB, although he is slow on the turn. Holland seems a bit too good to leave out.:-k

Holman, Carney and Wikshire haven't been missed. Holman has suffered by playing in a league with slow play in extreme heat. His game is based on high intensity.

I feel sorry for Ogger. He is still improving, with peerless ball winning skills, but his distribution is never going to be good enough.

Archie has not been missed, but he did score decisive goals in the qualifying campaign. It seems like he propped up the deficiencies of others, who shouldn't have been selected.

holger talked a lot about "desire" being a selection criteria he used. I suspect desire =fitness in practice.

I also suspect that his training camps were very fitness focused so the team never formed co binations

A lot of good stuff above but these are three points that really struck a cord with me.

http://au.fourfourtwo.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=87877


The Costa Rica/Socceroos game is now up in the Australian section on the aformentioned link.

Edited by Decentric: 28/11/2013 08:32:46 PM

I'll do the stats when I get back from a remote location some time next week.

I think I'll do them for both teams up until Langerak was sent off.

Then after that I'll continue the 1v1 duels and maybe total the individual passing stats. A lot more passes would've been made under pressure by Australia after going down to 10 players.

my synopsis of the game

1. this was typical of a game early in anges tenure in that passing mistakes at the back cost us dearly. No biggie but there could be some pain in the next 12 months or so until oz gets used to anges style
2. we seem to have the same defensive problems under ange as many a league teams:
a. it takes an eternity to form a block of 8 when the game warrants it
b. slow in closing down space for players in front of the box (zone 14 i believe) so we are very vulnerable to good long shooters
c. last line often isnt straight and we rarely have an organized offside trap
d. struggle to track runners in the box

in truth these aspects didnt cost us much but at the absolute highest level they will i think

what are other peoples thoughts

Some good points made, Grazor.

I'll start on the game in the next few days. Didn't realise the ACL was on though.






Edited by Decentric: 11/3/2014 04:27:42 PM

interesting watching wsw v the csl team tonight

their structure is so much better in defence and they have none of the problems I listed above

I wish popovic could be employed as a short term consultant to the roos to help their defensive shape

WSW only had to defend against a Chinese club side deploying very languid squeezing. It was so easy for WSW to maintain shape against a team who deployed very limited demands on time and space, compared to to CCM and particularly Victory this week.


I'm up to 42 minutes in the Ecuador game.

Spiranovic is now just as good as Neill as a distributor, plus he is quicker, is a better ball winner, reads play well,
and is very proactive creating angled passing lanes for the keeper to play out. If he plays regularly in the HAL and ACL he is a certainty for the World Cup. Our best current CB. Neill is now surplus to requirements. Ogger's ball winning and positioning are needed more than Neill's distribution.

Good has also done very well. He has timed some tackles superbly and distributed well, as well as making timely intercepts, and winning heading and body on body duels. He and Spira have maintained good distancing thus far, against a modicum of pressure. Good has shown superior physical strength and use of the body to Rhys Williams in body on body contact duels against some big, strong players.

Milligan and Jedinak have both improved first touches, particularly Milligan, who like Bresc and Holland is beating players with his first touch and breaking the line on a number of occasions.

Jedinalk seems to have stepped up being a senior player, with some of the non-selection of other more senior players. These guys are doing a lot of gesticulating to position other players. Milligan is constantly showing for the ball in tight diagonal positions, as is Rogic. The only thing Milligan and Jedda lack is speed off the mark, and quick recovery like Jason Culina.

Rogic is also combining well with the midfield screeners. His understanding with Milligan at Victory is paying dividends for the Socceroos.

Rogic has made 5 outstanding first touches, but has lost the ball due to poor control on a number of occasions as well. Not being marked as closely as in the HAL has helped. Rogic has also played some sublime defence splitting passes and killer passes. The only issue with Rogic, is he never seems to play 90 minutes. He may always have to be subbed early due to suspect stamina.

Defensively Rogic has helped keep team shape compact, but hasn't caused the turnovers Holman and Brosque do with aggressive running to squeeze.

This above quintet who played Ecuador should be the core of the Asian Cup field players in central positions, along with Ryan in goal. He is so much more composed as a sweeper than our other keepers, including Schwarzer. Even if Schwarzer was playing at Fulham as first choice, I would prefer Ryan as he is more of asset in build up play from back to front with his foot skills on the deck.






Edited by Decentric: 13/3/2014 11:43:36 PM

Yeah, there is a second 45. :lol: :cry:

By the way, how were Davidson's stats? I thought he was a lot better than most on this board seem to be suggesting.

I think this is going to be his biggest hurdle in making it overseas. I don't think its laziness either but some players just don't have the engines to make it at the top level.

http://au.fourfourtwo.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1920442&#1920442

This is the link for the stats for the Ecuador v Australia game in the Australian section.

AUSTRALIA v ECUADOR in London

Australia 3, Ecuador 4.




Australia had 55% possession, Ecuador had 45% possession. This was at the 58th minute of the game when Langerak was sent off and Australia had enjoyed 11 v 11.

At full time with 35 mins played with Australia playing with 10 players, the stats were Australia 52%, Ecuador 48%.

(This is based on completed passes. There was a differential in 15 metre plus ball carries of 11 to Australia and 14 to Ecuador. So possession would have been slightly more in Ecuador's favour.) Of Ecuador's ball carries were in the period when they enjoyed numerical advantage.






Australia completed 197 passes, Ecuador 163 passes.

This was in the period of 11 v 11.

At the end of the game it was Australia 280 passes, Ecuador 256 passes.

In the break up of those passes Australia had 104 in the defensive half and 93 in the attacking half. Ecuador made 97 defensive passes and 66 attacking passes.

This was in the period of 11 v 11.

At the end of the game, Australia had 146 in the defensive half and 134 in the attacking half. Ecuador made 142 passes in the defensive half and 114 in the attacking half.

So Australia had 20 more passes in the attacking half, at the end of the game. This meant they had a percentage of over 54% of possession in the attacking half compared to Ecuador's possession in the same part of the pitch.


Australia had 4 more passes in the defensive half, even after playing a third of the game with 10 players.


Oar only completed 7 effective passes in the 66 minutes he was on the pitch. This is relatively low, but he in particular showed signs of considerable ability in ball carrying and crossing.



Milligan was busy, completing 53 passes at 90%.

Jedinak was quite busy, completing 35 passes at 85%, in 77 minutes on the pitch.

In the all important defensive pass accuracy, Milligan made 31 at 97%.

Spiranovic made 22 defensive passes at 100%.

Milligan also executed 5 defence splitting and killer passes, and had a remarkably high number of 25 difficult passes. They are defence splitting passes, eye of the needle passes, killer passes and passes made under close defensive pressure.




Australia won 40 more 1v1 duels.




There were 204 1v1 duels altogether. This is an above average figure.

Milligan featured in 30, 1v1 duels;

Jedinak contested 21, 1v1s; Leckie 20, Spira 20, Rogic 19.


The lowest contested 1v1 duels figure for Australian players on the pitch for most of the game, was Franjic, 9, (whose ledger was minus 3), the worst in the team.

Spira won 11 more than he lost, ( the highest in the Socceroos) out of 20 contested.

Good won 9 more than he lost, out of 14 contested.

Jedda won 7 more than he lost, out of 21 contested.


Oar was 0 out of 16 contested. Franjic's figures have been previously alluded to.






Australia had 87 % pass accuracy for attempted passes , Ecuador had 89 %.

This was in the 11 v 11 period.

The all important defensive pass accuracy was 95 % for Australia , whilst Ecuador achieved 96 % . This was in the 11 v 11 period.

Attacking pass accuracy for Australia was 80% , whilst Ecuador achieved 80%. Also, in the 11 v 11 period.


Australia had 12 shots for goal, Ecuador had 14. This was at the 90 minute mark.





Australia had 7 shots on target, Ecuador had 7. (90minute mark).

Aussie keepers made 7 saves, whilst the Ecuadoran keeper made 3.



The ball carrying favoured Ecuador 14 to 11. Ecuador had space to run into on more occasions than Australia. Rogic achieved the highest number of 15 metre plus ball carries for Australia with 4.





Edited by Decentric: 23/3/2014 11:23:11 PM

I've posted the game summary here.

Will probably continue the thread for the Ecuador game here.

Many of the guys who used to join in the discussion of these sort of threads seems to be currently inactive on the 442 site. They used to post in the Aussie section regularly.

I'm sure I qualify in here. Life has been pretty hectic lately with a new job and other craziness. Always checking for your Socceroo stats though. Very good reads in the other thread.
I think you talked about basically everyone I was interested to hear about except Leckie. Any insight into his performance? Better suited to the right wing or as a striker in your opinion?

You certainly qualify.

Most of the guys who usually ask questions/ make comments about specific players, that I can add statistical data to, seem to have been relatively inactive on the forum lately, or may have left the 442 forum.



Leckie was in the majority of play, being one the right side of the pitch.

In response to a previous comment from Grazorbalde, about Oar, in the first 45 minutes there were 13 instances of build ups on the left side of the Socceroo attacking half, meaning Oar, playing left flank had less involvement than Leckie who played on the right flank.

On the right flank of the pitch there were 22 instances of build ups on the right side.

Leckie made 9 defensive passes at 100%.

He made 12 attacking passes at 71%.

Leckie hit 15 difficult passes - killer passes, defence splitting passes, eye of the needle passes, passes made under confined time and space from the opposition.
15 is a pretty impressive result, much higher than the best for any Socceroo in most games, but in this game not as high as Milligan's 25 difficult passes.

Out of 20 1v1 encounters, Leckie had a ledger of plus 5 - very good for a player in an attacking position, because often the body position is more favourable for a defensive player.

In Leckie's 20, 1 v1 duels:

He won 1 heading duel and lost 2 out of 3 contested.

Leckie dribbled around opponents on 4 occasions, being dribbled around on 1 occasion himself. This is good.

Out of 3 tackling duels he won 2 and lost 1 contested.

He won 1, 1v1 duel with superior speed.





Leckie made 2 crosses, with 1 being effective. This is rather low for his position, although he changed to a more central role from the 66th minute onwards.

The worst aspect of Leckie's game was losing the ball due to poor control on 3 occasions. Many regular Socceroos only lose the ball on 1 occasion from poor control about every 2-3 games. Leckie's first touch needs to improve immeasurably.

He caused 1 turnover and made 1 intercept. He also made 1 defensive block. His defensive work, in Ball Possession Opposition was good.

As a central striker he is more more effective than Cahill in Ball Possession Opposition, and as a defensive player, but he is nowhere as good in terms of Cahill's positioning in the penalty box to create scoring opportunities.

As a wide player he doesn't make enough aerial crosses.

He won 3 free kicks in attacking areas and committed 1 foul.

He had 2 instances of ball carrying over 15 metres. Not as much has I'd like to see, but he was often tightly marked.

His pace and strength is a difficult proposition for defences.

I'm still not sure of his best position. Leckie is a work in progress.

Edited by Decentric: 23/3/2014 10:25:04 PM

Grazorblade wrote:

oar is our most interesting player. Parts of his game are unbeleivable. When playing for utrecht it looks like every cross or corner will be a goal. For some reason though he doesn't seem to get a lot of touches. I wonder why that is...



In response to Grazorblade's comment about Oar seeming to get few touches against Ecuador, which I think also happened against Brazil, I looked at the Ecuador game again to revisit some match phenomena.

In the first 58 minutes, till Langerak's send off, Australia made 17 build ups on the left, 18 build ups in the central part of the attacking half and 22 on the right flank.

At full time it read 22 left, 23 central, 24 right.

Oar had less opportunities, but the ball the employed was decisive.

Oar took the corner that Leckie flicked on, cleared by an Ecuadoran CB, to Milligan who headed to Cahill, who headed home.

Oar also performed a fast 15 metre plus ball carry and played a superb cross for Cahill to head a spectacular goal.

Oar made 3, 15 metre plus ball carries in his 66 minutes on the pitch.

He completed 4 defensive passes at 80%.

He completed 3 attacking passes at 75%.

He made 5 crosses with 4 of them being effective. This facet of his game has improved immeasurably since going to Holland.

Out of 16, 1v1 duels, Oar had a ledger of 0 or neutral. He was out headed and out tackled, but he dribbled around opponents on 4 occasions, which is a pretty good result.

One of the interesting aspects of the game against Ecuador was that Spira, Good and Jedinak won a lot of heading duels from a plethora of long balls launched by Ecuador into the attacking third.

They played many more long balls than most Aussie opponents.

Ecuador played 24 long balls at about 8% of the total passes attempted. This is a very high figure for international football. Most teams who play on the deck, Germany , Holland, Spain, Japan, Serbia, and now Australia, are well under 4% for long balls, even much lower than this.

Most off Australia's aerial balls were from crosses, or even the keeper playing out diagonally to players wide, but a little closer to goal from the half way line, certainly when Ryan plays. Schwarzer, Langerak and Jones pay more long, straight balls into the mixer.

Th initial long high balls were often repelled effectively from:

Good won 5 and lost 1 out of 6 heading duels contested.

Spira won 6 and lost 2 out of 8 contested.

Jedinak won 5 and lost 1 out of 6 contested.

Milligan won 1 out of 3 contested. (He usually does better than this).

Australia did very well against long high balls pumped into the mixer by Ecuador. However the problem was in the second ball duels. If Australia had Holman playing attacking mid and Culina was one of the defensive midfield screeners, they were both quick off the mark , also anticipating well.

In second ball duels after the initial heading action, these two guys often closed down opposition attacking players receiving a second ball, quickly enough so they had to take a hasty touch to make a rushed shot, often inaccurate.

With Milligan, Jedinak and Rogic as the central midfield triangle, none are particularly fast off the mark to close down players quickly enough. They often have time for that extra touch and to set themselves before shooting from outside, or near the edge of the box.

Astute observation, Grazor.=d>

See the preceding post.

We miss Culina and Holman in Defensive and Attacking Transitional play, (second balls), close to our defensive penalty box.

In the first half, the squeezing by Ecuador was relatively languid, particularly in the first 25 minutes. This enabled Rogic to get on the ball a lot, which worried Ecuador. Australia often had time and place to play.

Australia was able to create diagonal passing lanes, to play through midfield. Socceroos were providing a lot of support to the players on the ball, proactively creating diagonal passing lanes with an effective body shape, so they could play forwards easily.

Also, when In Ball Possession, the Ecuadoran ball circulation was relatively slow. This enabled Australia to maintain a very compact, optimum defensive shape in their 1-4-2-3-1 configuration. It was easy to maintain optimum distancing between and within the lines, because Ecuador were not putting much pressure on Australia in BP.

Ecuador often played a few passes across the defensive line. Then responding to inadequate movement in BP, in midfield , not being able to create effective angled passing lanes to play forwards, there was a Socceroo defensive block, so they launched long, high balls down in the direction of our defensive midfield and defensive lines.

This enable Spira and Good, plus Jedinak, to easily defend the initial high balls.

As the ball circulation of Ecuador increased in the second half, in BP, their build ups increased in speed. Then the Australian CBs and DMs had to defend against quicker combination play, interspersed with slower rhythm changes in structured possession.

Good and Spira did okay, maintaining effective distancing between each other as a CB pairing, but the shape was put under more pressure through the attacking Ecuadoran interplay near the edge of the box. Wilkinson struggled when he replaced Good.

Also, Ecuador, with the new players who came on, their first choices, also shifted the point of attack effectively from central, then left, then central, then right, probing for weakness in the defensive shape. They launched far fewer long balls.




Edited by Decentric: 24/3/2014 12:02:36 AM

As the intensity of the game increased by Ecuador in the second half, the defending by Australia deteriorated. It looked good in most of the first half against much lower intensity play from Ecuador, on the ball, and off the ball.

Decentric, I would love to know who would be your starting lineup in Brazil and why?

And who you would take in the squad.

I will get back to this question later tonight.

I have a clearer picture of this, compared to the past , with some interesting recent performances.

Edited by Decentric: 24/3/2014 01:31:09 PM

Awesome.

I was very surprised by Equadors directness, the first half for them almost looked like they were trying to replicate England. In the 10 years I've been following the sport I had never seen a South American team play like that. I can only imagine Chile will play a style that is completely different from that and with a lot more intensity.

Edited by switters: 24/3/2014 06:43:50 PM