Many people on here hate or until recently, hated the idea of Archie Thompson in the NT, but Archie has proven to be a game changer off the bench and currently has 3 goals in his last 3 games for Australia. Age is clearly the main factor and form was also a factor last season, but it's clear that he can do 'a job' for the national team right now. So here's the question:

If Archie was to score 1 goal every 3 games (On average) from now until the World Cup, would you take him in the squad?

If not, what would it take for Archie to prove his worth in the National Team? Or does he have no place at all, no matter what he can produce?

Edited by farrand93: 8/11/2012 08:14:24 AM

Archibald has slotted a couple in his last few hit outs for australia. WHat i would say is well done archibald however that doesnt gloss over the fact based on form he shouldnt have been selected in the first place to get those opportunities and there is no way that he should be playing any friendlies at all. IF we dont have a better option on the road to brasil than yes he could be selected. Playing him against lebanon and sth Korea is just ridiculous as he is now taking the opportunity of a developing younster

Which, if you allow for minutes on the park, is at least the equivalent of 1 or 2 goals per FULL game.
Which Australian has this strike rate?






Didn't think so :oops:

Fair assessment

umm.... Archie is?

:oops:

A top quality striker scores a goal once every two games for his nation, FFS.

It's a good thing then we don't have a scoreboard analyst like you coaching the national team....

Archie has 24 goals from 41 games, does that make him a top striker?

Edited by Joffa: 8/11/2012 10:40:43 AM

Okay... let's make this nice and simple for you.

He currently has 3 goals in his last 3 appearances.
And we DON'T HAVE anyone scoring 1 goal every 2 games other than Archie and Tim Cahill...

What are we supposed to do? Just not play with a striker because we don't have 'a top quality striker'?




Besides that simple equation, my initial question was, would you include him in the squad if from here on he scored 1 goal every 3 games until the world cup, and if not, what would he have to do to be included?

He is a super sub.

I really dont get all the Archie hate. If he's doing the job and is still willing he deserves his spot. Some players legs just last a little longer than others (pace and agility). If his are still fine and he's doing a better job than anyone else why not?

The more pertinent question is who in the Australian squad has the form to justify starting AHEAD of Archie?

No.

Edited by imnofreak: 8/11/2012 11:24:00 AM

A good question, Scott McDonald is scoring in the championship.
Porta and Brosque are scoring in the Middle East.
And Archie is Scoring for the National Team.

Take your pick! :-k

Are you going to try and tell me that archie played well last season and deserved his recall to the international fold?

And as far as being a scoreboard analyst that you have labelled me to be. If that were the case i wouldnt be eager to see scott mcdonal back in the side and given the opportunity to prove himself.

Ive played and coached long enough to know that there is more to a strikers game than finding the back of the net



Edited by stfa_striker: 8/11/2012 11:28:06 AM

](*,)

Surely scoring for the national team is the most relevant barometer?
Regardless, what most of the chumps on here don't want to ADMIT is Archie has more strings to his bow than a goal typical poacher.
His crosses/assists for Rojas show what a dynamic player he is (considering Rojas is incapable of doing the same)

Oh relax. :lol:

He's already 34. He'd be 36 in Brazil. We shouldn't have any outfielders of that age there. And yes, he has a few goals, credit to him, but I think that scoring (for example) in the CCC is more impressive than scoring against Jordan etc.

I'm with you here, i like what he offers to the side. If he can bang in a few more on the road to Rio i hope he goes.

As long as Archie is a pinch hitter no issues with him being around while we find his replacement. This is what people overlook all the time - every player in the National Team should only be used until we find their replacement. It is not any players right to be in the National Team - especially the incumbents.

To the OP: In general, yes. The only qualifier I would put on that is if he was scoring his goals against the lowest countries, and was rubbish against any quality Asian team. Then it could be argued that he wouldn't perform at the WC, where all the teams are quality.

Would love to see Holger play with Cahill and Mcdonald up front. Mcdonald needs another striker next to him. The Guy has a bucket load of Talent and is never used right for Australia.

I have zero problem with Archie staying in the national team till the WC in his role as the super sub. Provided ofcourse he doesn't start going too down hill with age.

I guess it's a shame that a younger developing player could use his spot in the squad but impact like he has off the bench and his effect on team morale may be pretty important for us in difficult times like these.



In answer to the original question.. If you mean 1 goal in 3 games when he's just being used as a substitute... who could say no to that?
Would be incredible statistics for a substitute.

Edited by neanderthal: 8/11/2012 12:51:18 PM

'One swallow doesn't make a spring.' Holger Osiek

If you're over 33 I won't them out of the national team. No one over 34 (at the time of the world cup) should be in the team without exceptional curumstance.

We should be looking only to build the youth up and have them ready for the world cup or bow out trying. I'd rather not make it than go with a team that is just gonig to get embarassed by much younger and quicker opposition.

Well what do you want from your striker is the question. Do you want him creating or do you want him finishing.

McDonald is quite obviously a better finisher than archibald, it could certainly be argued that archibald creates more chances as well.

I have no issue with the fact that he has scored for the national team recently. WHat i do take issue with is the fact that given his club form over the past season he did not warrant the opportunity of selection over some others

Only every 3rd game.

Edited by RBB_Kopite: 8/11/2012 01:27:38 PM

Yet Archie has 24 goals and McDonald has 0.

Better finisher or not it just never seems like McDonald is on the same wavelength with the rest of the team.
Archie on the other hand is great at combining with team mates and getting on the end of their chances.

And if you knew anything about Archie you'd know his game isn't all about goals and that he's a very dynamic player who has a lot of qualities to bring to a side.

In the lead up to him getting back into the NT, Archie couldn't hit a barn door. That hasn't changed for MV, but he is still getting into good positions to have a shot at scoring. Difference is, he seems to be putting them away for the NT right now.

So, while he is missing chances for MV...he is setting up goals. I think he'd have 3 assists to his name in his 4 MV matches, as I assume his cross that lead to Rojas' goal against the Reds wouldn't place another assist to his name. :lol:

He keeps playing his role as impact sub for the NT. I don't think that role should be expanded. If he comes off the bench and helps swing the match, then I think he should be keeping his spot. Not only is he scoring more then the current starting XI striker, Brosque, but he is also performing better then the other guys that come off the bench.

Plays his role, can't see why he shouldn't be keeping his spot. Up to another player to displace him IMO.

Not when 15 of those goals came against an absolute abortion of a team. Taking that one game out of the equation, how is his strike rate now?

I cant ever remember McDonald playing poorly for australia, can you?

Archibald does get into some very good positions and he does tend to be on the end of many chances unfortunately for archibald he scores about 1 in ten of those chances. He would be absolutely deadly if he had a slightly better finishing touch and understood the offside rule :lol:

FFS read my other posts where i agree that archibald has more to his game than scoring ](*,)

Edited by stfa_striker: 8/11/2012 03:05:21 PM

=d> =d> =d> =d> =d>

Does anyone remember his partnership with allsop against the brilliance of indonesia

He'll be 35 in Brazil.

That's if we qualify, is Archie justifying himself to be on the field in these World Cup qualifiers? Or no he isn't because of his age?

The original question is, what would it take for you for Archie's selection in the national team (albit as a sub) to be justified?

Imo since he came back to the Socceroos against Saudi Arabia, he has been a game changer and has swung the attacking momentum in our favour every time, if he's not scoring he's creating chances for our team by moving the ball forward towards goal at full pace meanwhile some of the other players are walking around scratching their butts.

To some extent i agree with what you're saying the only problem with it is that the other players arent getting their chance to displace him as holger constantly uses the tried and tested in games where we should be providing the opportunites to younger players to earn their place.

Holger knows what the likes of neill, swarz, jedinak, valeri, wilkshire, bresc, cahill, thompson etc are capable of. WHat does he gain from playing them in meaningless friendlies?

Seems to do well for the Roos in that aspect :lol:


True, it is disappointing that in some friendlies Holger hasn't experimented.

And, when younger guys that could displace Archie have a chance, like Ruka and Troisi...they don't perform. There is a little bit of the guys not grabbing their chance and Archie working his way in with this one.

Of course, it is disappointing that Holger doesn't persist in throwing chances to some other guys along the way. Would be nice to see how Leckie goes against SK, am hoping he at least gets a run on Wednesday. Am hoping that he performs well, if given a run.

Leckie would be a good one and could play a similar role to Archie. Younger, faster, but I do question his finishing...perfect replacement :D

With the EACQ's coming up, Holger will be forced to use some different players. Best shot for some of the younger guys to grab a spot for themselves. Archie will certainly be there, so I expect to hear more complaints when that tournament comes around :lol:

But, as we come closer to the EACQs, I'm wondering what other striking options we will have for it. Maybe Kennedy, barring injury (missed Nagoya's last match).

Edited by Ali07: 8/11/2012 03:30:46 PM

For me it is all about the number of times he misses a sitter in front ..... or is offside.

If he was a good striker he would have doubled his tally twice over.

He gets tired and he gets sloopy with his timing ............... he does well against tired legs ..... obviously he is a super sub.

I like him as an option off the bench in the last ten minutes. I don't like the fact that he is taking up a younger persons spot who might be a world beater in waiting ???????

If we had one of those, their club form alone would be making the push. Can't think of an upcoming Aussie striker that seems like a world beater.

I can't think of an upcoming Aussie striker that seems like an Archie beater. Apparently neither can Holger. Therein lies the difficulty.

All we have is potential, hopefully some of them realise their potential (Leckie, Babalj, Bulut).

We've got some older players in the likes of Kennedy and Macca (don't know if we will see him again), but I doubt if one of those two come in...it'd knock Archie out of the squad all together.

More appropriately I can't think of one not selected in this squad or playing at the AFC U19s already.

Not at all. In terms of natural strikers It's really only Babalj at the moment who seems to have the potential to become good enough to nail down the spot.
Maybe Gameiro or Tombides are on their way too.

True, might see Gameiro make seem leaps. And I would love to see Tombides get back on the track he was seemingly heading down.

This.

for all those advocating the removal of Archie, and I can see your point, imagine where The Socceroos would be without his three goals....

Can anyone explain to me how after getting dumped by Pim, he got back into the team?

-- Club form wasn't that great.
-- He'd barely scored a goal for the national team since we moved into Asia.
-- His other "famed" skills have never come out at international level i.e. he can't dribble past anyone.

-- He was on fire all season, if not scoring he was constantly getting assists, he was also selected to play because we were missing half of our 1st team and the dead rubber was in Melbourne
--He has barely played for the national team since we moved into Asia
--I've seen his famed skills performing at international level, he could do everything except score it seems (missing sitters), he got dropped after getting a long term injury against China at altitude.

-- 7 goals and 7 assists for MV is hardly on fire. Mitch Nichols had 10 goals and 5 assists. Mitch Ncchols has better stats. Mitch Nichols.
-- He's played 24 games for the national team. That's not "barely" considering how useless he really is.
-- Those skills were on show when Pim called him hopeless.

I can see him being taken over to brazil, purely because from what I understand he makes training for the roos enjoyable. he's the good vibe in the camp.

morale does play it, but surely at that level....

Under Holger Archie has 8 games and scored 3 goals. This is quite a good return and if he can continue scoring I see no reason not to have him in the squad all the way to and including the 2014 WC.
One other player has also played 8 games for Australia under Holger, he has 8 goals and 3 assists. It would be really good to see a fit Joshua Kennedy playing for Australia again.
Another player has played 8 games for Australia under Holger and has managed no goals. I do not know why McDonald has not scored for Australia, he is a good enough player but I guess opportunities will be limited now.

Information taken from http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/holger-osieck/spieler/trainer_181_3433_2010-08-11_2014-06-30.html

Edited by reds are best: 9/11/2012 12:00:05 AM

I see whats going on here.

Another Roaroo, I won't be complaining. :cool:

So, who deserves a shot ahead of him right now? Love it that you bring up the past, which I admit wasn't good for Archie, and seem blind to what he is doing now for the Roos.

As someone pointed out, he has played 8 games under Holger. In four of those games, he turned the momentum of a match, gave us a sniff with a goal, scored another in a friendly, and won us a WCQ.

Guess we can all focus on the past that is convenient to our stance :lol:

RUKAVYTSYA should be our striker, included in all games. i would work with him till i got the potential i needed out of him and go thim to perform.
he is our best prospect.

So no one can explain how he got recalled?

Those "7 goals and 7 assists" all came in the first half of a season where they only play 27 games. So that's roughly fourteen or so games, which is about three and a half months of form, after which he bombed and helped lead Melbourne to their worst ever finish.

I'm just asking a simple question. I'm not ignoring his current achievements. I agreed if there is no one currently better then we'll go in to the WC with this hack.

You're the one who seems to think it's okay we're gambling on the form of a 34 year old whose career peaked with a training stint at PSV.

No gamble, since his goal scoring form for the national team puts other potential strikers to shame.
And that's not counting his build up play which puts a Cahill or Brosque to shame and is more a game breaker than Holman will ever be.

In the end, a coach is entitled to pick who he feels are the best players a country has. Maybe he just like Archie's style of play, and to Holger's credit, he played Archie as more of an attick midflieder/winger, not as an out and out striker.

To answer the question of the thread if Archie was scoring goals and assisting in the A-League even at 34 i wouldnt mind having him on the bench for the Socceroos.
Having said that we already know what Archie can do so i find it very sill by Holger to select him in the next friendly when we have players like Ruka,Leckie,Babalj miss out because of Archie.
Give all these three players a chance for the national team and see how they go and if they cant do a job then you go with Archie for the qualifiers but its just stupid to ignore them for a player who when first picked to play for the Socceroos was having the worst season in the A-League and it was just a joke that he still got picked when lets face it he was simply shit.As for people saying if Archie wasnt in the team and scored those 3 goals where would we be now in the qualifiers i could easily say would Archie have that record of Oar hadnt done the hard work and sent in a pin point cross for him.
In my opinion Archie is not good enough on current club form to get selected and its club form that counts because you cant compare national team form with young promising players who havnt yet been selected to play for their country.
The thing i dont mind about Archie though is that he is atleast on the bench and used as a impact player unlike Brosque who is a starter and should not be anywhere near the national team not even on the bench.

Age should only ever become an issue if there is nothing else to separate the players when picking them, or it is an experimental match. There is no too old or too young, just in the best squad or not in the best squad. As GA said, it's not about incumbents having a right to be there, it's about form, but at the same time Archie's current NT form makes it impossible for him to be dropped.

Archie to me fits the role of scapegoat ATM from fans looking to vilify a player. He is similar to Jade North in the eyes of the fans.

Brett Holman fulfilled this role a few years ago.

Archie is a great combination player in the attacking third. His off the ball movement, and, passing and moving in attacking combination play is excellent. McDonald is pretty good at this too, but can't beat players like Archie can.

Weird isn't it? The guy has scored 3 goals in 3 goal games for Australia, but has scored 1 in 14 for Victory! He doesn't seem to be losing form/ability like other players of his age.

He was involved in a lot of effective combination play that resulted in goals, even if he was a little profligate with his scoring chances.

Osieck has also stated that Archie doesn't seem to need time, like most other players, to get into the game.

We also don't see the team train on a regular basis either to evaluate how players are performing in camp, or fitting into the team in general and follow different game plans.

Doing half of that. Fluffing chances, but has at least 3 assists to his name in 4 HAL matches. Could've had 4 assists, as his cross lead to the Rojas goal against Adelaide. Don't think that would lead to an assist stat...as before it made it to Rojas the cross hit Boogaard and then the cross bar.

All that cross comes down to in the end is a dangerous ball. :lol:


And yet, now all 4 of them are in the squad to take on South Korea. Time for Ruka to actually perform and fingers crossed that we get to see Leckie and Babalj hit the pitch.


And I could easily say, would Oar's cross looked so pin point if Archie hadn't actually made the run to get in between the two CBs? Beautiful cross, but the run would've meant it was a nothing ball. Just like Archie's run wouldn't have of been useful if there was no cross.

6 of one, half dozen of the other.


Obviously not watching him actually playing for MV.

Edited by Ali07: 9/11/2012 01:50:09 PM

Single handedly destroyed Sydney last night.
One of the best individual performances I can recall from any A League player.

That's a quadruple hat trick, plus one.

Thanks for that.

This season I think he's played the best I've seen him play. But he's been a winger and thats what I've always seen him as. His finishing can be very erratic, but as a winger he's been good.

Now I get to post this!

^ LOL

I sure miss Cup Fever...

Was writing up a quiz for the participants to name 6 English national team players born abroad. Could name a few foreign born Roos but was very surprised and wouldn't have named Thompson who was in fact born in NZ.

He was actually wanted by the NZ coach before Australia selected him. He waited thinking he'd get the Aussie call up, which he did. I believe that he was also eligible through his mother for an Island nation, who wanted him as well. He made the right choice!

PNG

Cheers, thanks.