The Greeks are a very good defensive side ATM.

Their structure is good, even under sustained pressure. They always have the middle of the pitch covered.

I was in Greece when they played a few WC qualifiers.

then you obviously havent watch any Greek internationals for at least the last 10 years except for maybe this world cup and when Skoko ripped one into the back of the net at the G. I have watched sides pass them to death, cut them open, create all the chances in the world but ultimately Greece always got the chocolates.

Fair play to Ivory Coast, great goal, counts for shit ultimately, when the greeks pinched the win on capitalising on the basics at international level, taking your chances and punishing mistakes of the opposition.

It is a possibility, except Japan had too much possession in the Greek defensive half, for the Greeks' comfort.

Against their African opponent, Greece had a lucky penalty and the other goal was capitalising on a mistake - a Reactive goal for Greece.

The African team, (was it Ivory Coast) scored one superb Proactive goal.

or could the equation be thrown on its head and said that Greece allowed the Japs to play where they wanted to play and conceded certain areas of the pitch, whilst being in full control of the areas that they deemed important. Remember these mid-rankers, have now come out of the group (which is the reason why we are all here for) whilst the glory of Japan and their curriculum is catching Air Nippon and Japan Airlines back to Tokyo.

Holland v Chile


In this game the pressing was interesting.

Both Chile and Holland applied a full press, as opposed to a half press or partial press.. The difference was that within the lines, from the defensive line, to the attacking line, Chile squeezed more. The Dutch midfielders and backs constantly played under time and space pressure. Holland lifted their squeezing intensity within their full press in the second half and probably disturbed more Chilean build ups.

Holland played a 4-4-2, with a midfield diamond, but the midfield shape was often difficult to identify from TV. Schneider sat behind two strikers, but the triangle behind him often didn't assume classic shape.

Chile played a 3-4-3. Their fitness was remarkable, being able to squeeze intensively for long periods. With full pressing and intensive squeezing, I've observed over the years that most teams run out of gas just after an hour.

It was also interesting that within these field formations, Chile pushed their defensive line higher, whilst Holland's sat deeper.

In terms of possession, about half way during the first half, Holland had passed the ball 47 times to Chile's 160. Rather than play the possession game, slowly building the ball up from defence to attack, Holland seemed content to suck Chile into their defensive half, then if they disturbed the build up , they launched fast accelerated attacks, using the pace of Robben in particular. They seems to want to have the Chileans defending running towards their own goal.

Holland could play the rapid fire quick one and two touch passing in triangles, as they did on occasions, but generally they chose not to.

On balance of play, Chile should have got more out of the game. Van Gaal has diverged from the past KNVB mode of playing possession football, deciding that his team's best chance of winning, is through the pace of his forwards with fast ball carrying ability. In the past, the Dutch have looked to impose themselves on other teams, dominating possession , like Spain did against Australia.

One goal was from a corner, the second from an accelerated attack. In the past many Dutch goals have come from rhythm changes and intricate attacking interplay.


Playing like this, I think Holland could struggle to go much further in the tournament. The only time they were clearly in the ascendancy in their three games, having seen all of them, was in the second half against Spain, and to a lesser extent against Australia in the second half. They've certainly had their share of luck.

Australia v Spain

Australia was outclassed today by Spain.

I didn't see the Chile/Spain fixture, but from when they've played Australia and Holland, I'm surprised they haven't progressed.

Whereas Australia was able to apply intensive squeezing , at times, not all the time, against the first two opponents, Chile and Holland, over the duration of this game, Australia put it on in the first 20 minutes, but then faded against Spain.

Once Spain had more time and space on the ball, as they suffocated Australia, through minimal, but correct off the ball movement , creating angled passing lanes in Ball Possession.

Also, Spain were able to apply more squeezing pressure over the whole game, within their defensive and attacking lines, usually applying a full press. Australia struggled to maintain possession against the off the ball pressure. Spain were very effective at closing down, and very fit.

Spain also wore Australia out by maintaining the ball in BP for extended periods. Moreover, in the Defensive Transitions, when they lost the ball, they were able to win it back more and more quickly from a fatiguing Australia as the game progressed.

There was a chasm, in technical quality. Spain were able to hold on to the ball in confined time and space, through better first touches and more accurate passing with the inside and outside of the foot under sustained pressure.

In Ball Possession, they were usually more capable in 1v1 attacking skills, and ball carrying at speed with close control. Their footwork was a bit better. Hence they had faster handling speed, with little time for Australia to disturb build ups.

Everything Spain were doing well, is what the tenets of the new Football Fed Aus National Curriculum is based on.

From the performance today, I thought Spain were the best team into group, and , if they had progressed, a threat for the title.

With the rise of 3 at the back and the acres of space it creates , I can a return to the long ball over the top , shame England now have the highest passing rates in the oppo half.

Haha you sick of chasing soccer balls all over the place when doing shooting practice as well.

I thought Japan were a bit robotic and lacked imagination against Greece, while the Greeks fought for their lives.

Yes possession increases your chances of success, but in individual games the side with less possession can still get a result. That's football.

But if Japan played Greece 11v 10 ten times, they'd win about seven or eight of those.

This crop of world players does not have the flare of players in the past.
It is more about sound technic and individual pace.

Edited by krones3: 22/6/2014 07:54:44 AM

A national push for high fences behind goals across the country.

I analysed the game closely when there were 11 v 11, then lost interest.

There is no philosophical point about lauding the superiority of Japanese technique in structured possession against Greece. Japan is becoming another resource for FFA coaches/coach educators to analyse. There have been many study tours by FFA coaches to Japan. We have to acknowledge their success and improvement since adopting Brazilian methodology and embarking on some huge blueprint for the future.

Korea and Japan dominating Russia and Greece is relevant. Dominance in structured possession is significant. These European mid-rankers cannot dictate the terms of games.

Japan needs to work harder on rhythm changes in attacking interplay and clinical finishing.

I should also say their ground 1v1 attacking skills were superior to the Greeks, as were the Koreans superior to the Russians.

FIFA technical committees argue, without equivocation, that no teams are successful without having outstanding technique in big tournaments on the world stages and in big continental comps like South American and European championships. The exception to the rule may have been Greece who won a fairly recent Euro championship playing Reactive football.

I still say Japan didn't play well- they played poorly, without any purpose, or adaptability. They were up against 10 men for much of the game. Japanese supporters will tell you the same. Praising their possession play in order to make some sort of philosophical point doesn't really give us a very clear or accurate analysis of the game.

The problem with these, is they are all about numerical facets of play all over the pitch.

There is no analysis of technique and how some teams/players can hold their own with numerical inferiority, because of superior individual technique and more cohesive structured possession.

There was an article about square balls and vertical/straight balls in one of these. This is anathema to KNVB or FFA NC preferred modes of play. Diagonal balls are paramount, to induce better body shape to move or play forwards. In the Socceroos, apart form back passes and bounce passes, players rarely play straight balls forwards. Ange P hates them, which is part of his training he has done with FFA and what he would've seen at Arsenal.

Nevertheless, they are the best game analyses in the media in England and Oz, apart from David Pleatt's analysis. Pleatt has been a EPL coach.

It is very hard.

Cahill is easily the best finisher , goal mouth predator we've had, even though I've listed about 10 weaknesses in his game.

One thing that Andy Harper noted, is that Brazilian teams do a greater weighting of shooting for goal, than we do, in their training sessions.

I suppose individuals, in the scoring positions, need to do more work in match simulated conditions on the training ground, increasing the defensive pressure incrementally as they improve.

I watched the Oz team practice shooting before Pim's first game against Qatar. Valeri applied the defensive pressure. They couldn't hit the side of a barn! They were hopeless. All our best attacking players were there, apart from Kewell and Dukes.. yet they put three past Qatar.

Japan seemed to be caught out in Defensive Transitions when they made an unforced mistake. The Greeks were good in their accelerated attacks, featuring individuals who had good control and speed in ball carrying.

Greece needs to do a lot of the harder work in improving their Ball Possession play, featuring Proactive support of players on the ball, and receiving with the outside of both feet when receiving from back to front. Japan easily seemed to disturb the predictable Greek build ups. Greek ball handling speed was too slow.

Great to see you posting here again mate!

Where have you been?

We will have to agree to disagree. Japan played well in Ball Possession, with some good technical play.

Greece were superb in Ball Possession Opposition, with terrific organisation and distancing between and within the lines. It takes a lot of concentration and good coaching to achieve this.

Edited by Decentric: 21/6/2014 02:04:33 PM

http://leopoldmethod.com.au

This is hardly rational discussion- you are just spouting dogma!

I would suggest that Japan failed to score because:

a) Greece were utterly determined not to lose after their captain was sent off.

b) Greece were willing to test the boundaries of the laws of the game regarding physical contact.

c) Japan did not have one natural goal scoring striker in their team.

How would you devise coaching routines to develop prolific goalscorers? We won't have one when Cahill retires.

Japan had 11 shots on goal to Greece's 5.

Japan dominated the game, having more possession in the attacking half.

UEFA has researched that possession in the attacking half is decisive in determining the outcome of football games.

FFA , using the parent country methodologies of the FFA NC as a resource source, also contend that technique is paramount in determining football games, and tournaments, at the highest level. Technique , can equate to possession percentage in the attacking third.

Edited by Decentric: 20/6/2014 05:42:35 PM

Whew.... I go away for six months, and when I return you are worse than ever, decentric.

Personal attacks, and a desperate promotion of your own personal coaching agendas. Personal attacks and abuse- the very thing that you used to criticise the "bitters" for on other forums.

How about discussing the Japan vs Greece game, instead of attacking people personally? If possession creates more scoring chances, why couldn't Japan score against a clapped out bunch of Greek hackers, reduced to 10 men?

Actually it isn't Chips.

This guy is a former state league player and recent author of a football book.

Yes chips you keep banging the same old drum.

Just goes to show how former stakeholders in the game like you, have learnt nothing about football methodology over the last 6 years.

Your opinion, and lack of ability to analyse contemporaneous football, is symptomatic of Australia being the football backwater that it was.

Japan gave us a lesson in how not to play football. They were pathetic- could barely manage a shot on target against 10 men. Just goes to show that there is more to football than theories, tactics and fancy words...!

Greece v Japan

Japan currently playing Greece, have absolutely dominated possession in the attacking half of play, even more than Korea did against Russia. Possession in the attacking half, closely correlates with creating chances on goal, which equates to winning football.

These observations have been based on when there were 11 v 11 on the pitch.

The structured possession of Japan and Korea is infinitely superior to most European nations.=d>

Eurosnobs will say that the score is indicative of standard of football. Wrong. I also doubt many of the technical departments of national federations of mid ranked European teams will admit they are being overtaken by the likes of Japan and Korea.

Results are important , but chances created on goal are even more important. Proactive play and attacking interplay are sage criteria to appraise a football nation.

Japan and Korea have had many more chances to score than their European opponents. In terms of Proactive play, building yup from the back of the pitch to the front, without the opposition touching the ball, Korea and Japan are better than any of the European teams, apart from the four powerhouses we base the FFA NC on. Maybe one can add Portugal and Belgium too.

In terms of handling speed, Japan is much quicker when receiving the ball and passing it onto the next player than many of the nations many in Australia think are infinitely superior to Asian football.

Japan don't get caught in possession easily, because they have had constant training to develop two footednesss and playing football on both sides of the body, in an effective body position. Hence, their footwork is infinitely superior to most European nations who don't have a holistic , national curriculum.

Japan, adopting a Brazilian development model, are constantly supporting the player on the ball, with innumerable, diagonal passing lanes, before they receive the ball. Receiving the ball diagonally, enables a player to have an effective body position to play or move forwards.

Japan were also easily able to break down Greece's slower handling speed of their players, by interception of predictable passes from Greek possession play that is too slow, Greek players having slower handling speed and being unable to move the ball quickly enough in structured possession and attacking combination play.

Japanese players also pass more proficiently with the outside of the foot in tight spaces, hence, feinting as they pass, with both sides of the body. It is just too hard for Greece and the likes of Russia, countries who have the wealth to import good players to their big clubs, to appear better than they are.

Greece is well organised defensively, like many European teams, but they are spectators watching Japan play all the football. Their best chances have been to capitalise on a few mistakes, in the Japanese Defensive Transitions, which should be better than they are - a weakness noted by FFA.

All Greece were able to do was launch a few , quick, accelerated attacks in their Attacking Transitions. The ball carrying of the Greeks has been good. Nevertheless, like Russia, they cannot put together sustained periods of structured possession, through inferior technique and less cohesive teamwork in Ball Possession.

if and when, Japan, and Korea, can become as clinical around goal as their European and South American counterparts, and as tactically astute, they will blow most European nations away.



Aussie teams in the ACL, and the Socceroos, are able to sustain possession, and disturb build ups far more effectively than these mid ranked European teams. I'd contend that it is more useful for Aussies to play in the K and J League, as opposed to the mid ranked Euro leagues.

It is good that Australia is part of Asia.

What the SBS commentators failed to note, is that teams playing like Greece never win World Cups. All teams winning World Cups have had excellent technical qualities.

Greek/Japan games should also see diminishing numbers of Eurosnobs, as the better Asian teams overtake the mediocre European teams.

For the record, Greece is one of my favourite countries to visit.:)

What was apparent when Russia and Korea drew one all, was the technical superiority of the Korean team. To be superior to ostensibly the 6th best European league, is a commendable achievement. Japan also may have little more technical ability again.

Football Fed Aus's research, from the 8 world powerhouses, is that quality Technique is paramount for success. No team has ever won a WC who has not been technically proficient.


The handling speed was much quicker in the Koreans. That is the ability to receive and pass a ball in the minimum amount of time. The faster the handling speed, the less likelihood of disturbing the build up, by tackling or making intercepts.

The Koreans were superior to the Russians in their ability to build up from defence to attack, in neat triangles. The Koreans received the ball well on the outside and inside of both feet. Their touches constantly took the ball away from the Russians, who constantly fouled them. The Russians really struggled to disturb these build ups.

In their first touch, the Koreans were already moving so that the first touch was a quick one, moving forwards, which again prevented the Russians from disturbing build ups.

Also, the Koreans passed well in limited time and space with the inside and outside of both feet. The outside of the foot passing in confined spaces , wrong foots opponents , because of the simultaneous fake as they pass the ball. This also made it difficult for Russia to make intercepts.

some excellent analysis Deccentric

The only thing I have ever heard David say about selection is he wants only players with mungrel.