It was an interesting comparison of styles between two countries, Spain and Holland. The Dutch won 5-1 this morning. Spain and Holland, are the two national methodologies that are most integral in determining contemporary coach education in Australia.

Spain, like Barca, often tried the short passing , working in neat, small triangles, to build up from defence to attack. They deployed the 1-4-3-3 with the defensive midfield triangle and used a target man, Diego Costa, at the apex of the attack.

The Dutch, used a 3-5-2 under Van Gaal. This also manifested as a 1-4-3-3, or 3-4-3, when Schneider pushed up in a forward line with Van Persie and Robben, albeit this 1-4-3-3 was the 3:1 back four, or diamond shaped quartet in midfield if termed a 3-4-3.

The Dutch played out, apart from their keeper, who constantly cleared the ball (probably under Van Gaal's instructions), rather than play it out at every opportunity, like Matt Ryan likes to do.

What they didn't do, like Spain, was always choose the closest, easiest option to pass a diagonal ball to, in build ups. They often went for the the riskier, further forwards player, trying to create passing penetration through a more direct approach. Although the Dutch field players always played the ball diagonally for the receiving player to have an effective body shape to play forwards when receiving the ball. I wondered why the Dutch kept playing longer diagonal aerial balls, until that wonder, headed goal by RVP from Blind's cross.=d>

Spain's build ups were slower, often playing sideways and backwards , more patiently, waiting for the right time to play forward diagonal passes and showed more technical skill.

Holland, on the other hand, like the Madrids did to Barca in La Liga, effected accelerated attacks in the Attacking Transitions. Spain were not too good when they had to turn and chase, running towards their own goal. Conversely, Holland' s back four, De Jong, Vraal, and the other boys, were outstanding off the ball in BPO, and did a lot of graft, winning a lot of hard balls. Their organisation and cohesion was exemplary. This has often not been a strength of many Dutch teams in the past. most of them play in the Eredivisie too - they are not playing in the five big Euro leagues. They negated the muscular, physicality of Costa.

I thought the football on show in this game was fantastic, from both teams at times, easily the best in the comp so far. I watched a bit of Mexico/Cameroon and Brazil/Croatia. It was a different game, played at a much lower standard.

After Australia, Spain and Holland, are my two favourite teams. It seems ridiculous having both of these football powerhouses playing in the same group.](*,) They should be meeting much further on in the competition. I think both qualified easily for Brazil, so I cannot work out why Holland were not one of eight seeded teams?

Having the previous two World Cup finalists from South Africa, plus the third ranked South American team, Chile, in a group of four, seems ludicrous. A cogent argument can be mounted that these three may even be in the top eight teams in the tournament, along with Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Belgium and Germany. The latter quintet of quality teams, must be thrilled that this trio are all in the same group, avoiding having to play them in the early rounds.






Edited by Decentric: 14/6/2014 06:41:22 PM

Edited by Decentric: 14/6/2014 06:42:44 PM

Fair assessment decentric
Totally agree with the sentiment that the socceroos played football against chile.

The world will look on and know australians can play quality football.


Edited by krones3: 14/6/2014 07:25:37 PM

Australia v Chile



In this game we saw some salient technical differences between the two teams.

Handling speed

This is the time taken for a player to receive a ball and pass it on in one or two touches. Chile were so much quicker, particularly their midfielders, compared to Jedi, Milligan and Bresc (our best technician, but still not equal to the Chileen midfielders).



Passing accuracy under pressure

In time and space, as well as having faster handling speed, Chile were able to pass decidedly more accurately than Australia. So often they not only passed it to a player, but played it to the optimum position for him to receive the ball with a body shape to play forwards. Guys like Jedda, Milligan, were often receiving balls where they had to move too far, under pressing and squeezing pressure. They were not receiving the ball in the optimum position to play forwards. Australian players cannot pass as accurately, and, on the ground to teammates, as Chili can under minimal time and space.




Receiving the ball and turning

Milligan was skinned in two instances from one of the Chilean midfielders, even when the Chilean was not necessarily in an effective body position to play forwards. Milligan is one of our best at doing this, but he mainly uses the inside of the foot on both sides.

Where the Chilean players were so good, is they were receiving the ball and turning with the outside of the foot, on both sides of the body, as well as the inside. This creates a reverse shoulder feint, as the body fakes one way, and then by receiving with the outside of the foot, the body goes the other way. Some Aussie players do this, but they are often only able to do it on one side of the body. The Chileans were good because they could do it on both sides, makin git harder to predict which way they would turn. =d>

Also, the Chileans 'checked' well. This is faking one way, then running in the other direction to receive the ball and shaking the marker.

These facets of play have not been coached comprehensively in Australia until the Berger led revolution. The new Football Fed Aus National Curricuum, has kids doing this in the Skills Acquisition Porgram and Skilleroos. A whole new generation of young kids coming through will be able to do this well.



Footwork

often Milligan and Jedinak were off balance, when having to adjust to receive less accurate passing. Conversely, the smaller mor nimble Chileans were more often able to adjust to a less accurate pass with more nimble footwork.




Running With The Ball

Oar and Leckie were able to effect fast ball carrying. Unfortunately, Leckie's technique was often poor for this level of football, losing the ball due to poor control. Having said that, their pace worried the life out of Chile. A shame the even faster Halloran, or quicker again Rukayvtsa, the fastest player in Asia, were not able to receive the ball in a body position where they received the ball facing forwards and being able to run at the Chilean defenders already having the ball under control from 10 meres away.

Rogic, if fit, could've been a real handful for the Chilean defence, with his incredible close ball skill when ball carrying.

The Chileans' ball carrying around the edge of the penalty box, was very good.



Tackling

Wikinson, Spira, Milligan and Jedda may not have lost a 50/50 tackle between them for the whole game. The only problem was creating the scenario to tackle. The two DMs did a lot of chasing and were manoeuvred out of position, individually, but combined with each other well, covering, and kept effective distancing most of the time in BPO. Jaon Culina would've been an asset. He has been our best midfielder, being hardest to beat and recovers more quickly than anyone if beaten.


Heading

Australia dominated in the defensive half. Cahill was a real headache for Chile when he received effective aerial crosses.



Defensive organisation

After the first 15 minutes, for such an inexperienced team, Australia's distancing between and within the defensive lines was commendable against a world class opposition. Great coaching Ange P.=d> He has done more with the defence in ashore time, than Holger did over some years. Ange is on the way to making them the impregnable defensive unit they were under Pim.=d>

Ryan, the back four of of Franjic, Wiko, Spira, and Davo were terrific. Milligan and Jedda, both a bit slow to recover, unlike Culina, also framed part of aocohesive structure in BPO.=d>


Conditioning

Australia were probably the fitter side over the duration of the game. Well done coaching staff.=d>


Mental Strength

Amazing that such an inexperienced team came back so hard in the last 70 minutes, after conceding two early goals. Most teams at the WC would've given up, but not the Socceroos. Australia were the better side in the second half. Chile were lucky to win. They were extremely relieved at the end of the game. Mentally, it could've destroyed them.

Chile will probably be hammered by a Dutch team, playing the best football they've played for some time, and a wounded Spanish team. These teams are veritable world powerhouses who present an insurmountable opposition for Chile. Holland and Spain can thank Australia if they qualify for the next round, for giving Chile a much harder game than they expected. They were exhausted at the end of the game, having survived a very physical game in tough conditions. Their confidence will have taken battering.



The future

This augurs well for the Asian Cup and beyond. Three of the players, Franjic, excellent going forwards, Spira and Milligan, are playing in the HAL and were some of the best Aussie players. Hopefully, the new generation of whiz kids, Da Siva, being the vanguard, will be able to at a technical level of football none of our current senior players can currently play at, apart from Rogic.

All that I have seen of the U20s I can not see how they are playing anything like the socceroos

I still think the youth selection is flawed and will hinder our progress.

Edited by krones3: 14/6/2014 08:20:55 PM

Great Analysis again Decentric, again i hope the FFA will address these deficiencies in the NC, if we want to go to a higher level which is possible.

Hope we are seeing some improvements in this regard with the next generation of juniors coming( the 9 to 13 year olds) already.



Edited by Barca4life: 14/6/2014 08:36:25 PM

The NC is better
The coaches are better
The style is better
The players with the better coaches and teams have improved out of sight.

But the system to support the best is still rubbish.

Just like the players the coaches who watch good teams play try to imitate them and the parents insist on their children playing good football. Therefore self propelling .

Great analysis. I think Jedinak and Millsy are "old school" and are doing their absolute best with a somewhat limited skill set.

Once the next lot of CMs replace them - eg, Antonis and a a few of the o/s based young players - we'll see them start to add greater variety to our CM.

Edited by thupercoach: 15/6/2014 03:24:20 AM

Must admit I'm a huge Antonis fan from his games late in the HAL season.

I must admit the system is not perfect.

Can you give more detail.




Edited by Decentric: 15/6/2014 09:09:18 PM

Italy v England

The EPL may be reducing the effectiveness of England in international football.

Most big tournaments are played in the summer months. Sometimes the weather can be too comfortably hot for the English to play the very fast style of football they would like to.

The EPL as we all know, is played at a very fast pace. It is frenetic. Some players, like Mertesacker, who was in a team who came third in the last World Cup, struggled to keep up with the speed of play in the EPL, when he first played with Arsenal.

Many punters would argue he is too slow. Wrong. The EPL needs to have teams who play more rhythm changes. That is slow the play down, then speed it up, slow it down, speed it up. This was identified by a FIFA technical Committee a few years ago as one of Australian national teams' weakness.

Today England were forced to play at a much slower tempo in a very even game against Italy. The heat caused the tempo of the game to be much slower than the English players were used to. On the continent, and South America, teams change the rhythm from fast to slow, and back to fast and slow again.

I haven't been able to watch much Italian football over the last few years, but when I did see it, it was slower than than La Liga, and much, much slower than the EPL. Italy are well equipped for big tournaments to play in hot conditions.

Alexander Pirlo appears to have incredible handling speed, passing accuracy and vision. Every time he receives the ball, no matter how little time and space he has, he seems to know where every teammate on the pitch is, and quickly passes it to the player in the best position, with quickly executed long and short passes. There is so little time for the opposition to close him down.

Pirlo constantly, successfully deploys killer passes. They are passes that break one or two lines and take a number of opposition players out of the game. I only saw him mishit one pass. I haven't seen a player as good in this facet of the game as he is. However, I cannot remember seeing him win any hard balls, or even making intercepts.

The other excellent player on the pitch was the English number 9, from Liverpool. Was it Sterling, or another name? Whenever he had the ball at his feet he was phenomenal at ball carrying and dribbling with his head up. He also was able to shoulder feint on both sides of the body, change the rhythm from slow to fast, and back again, with amazing balance and close ball control. Whenever he was on the ball he worried Italy.


Italy seem to have changed their style from setting half presses and sitting back in Ball Possession Opposition, then launching fast, accelerated attacks in Attacking Transitions. Now they are playing the ball from defence to attack through more patient build ups, then they try to increase the tempo in bursts. They are becoming more Proactive.






Edited by Decentric: 15/6/2014 09:10:04 PM

I wonder if that leave from Pirlo (that led to the goal) was part of a set piece or just part of his vision. I'm amazed at some of the long range efforts that have led to goals - that one scored by italy and by Neymar - both through traffic and on the ground. It would be nice to see Leckie and others test the opposition keepers when they dribble into space a bit more than they did against Chile (well, did Leckie even have a shot at all?).

To me it was a wonderfully executed set play. Great dummy by Pirlo.

I have never seen a TD at small sided games looking at the coaches and players I have seen operators of private accadomies.
Shows who is interested and who is not. Private enterprise at work.

I did that, selected a few players from watching games, then was chastised by a jerk in FFA (the only one I've met) for selecting them without his consent.](*,) I told him it was my job to do so. To his credit he goes around grounds evaluating players. I know others from FFA state branch who scout regularly.

I think the aforementioned jerk is a mate of PL's.](*,)




Edited by Decentric: 16/6/2014 10:23:50 PM

I have never seen one. Also at some trials of kids the other day , once again all the big kids were separated from the others and pushed up at a higher age group.

One despairs at this.](*,)

I deliberately didn't select big strong kids born in the first few months of the year. It was hammered into us that Technique ( four core skills), Insight and to a lesser extent, Communication, were the criteria for selection.

Wasn't Gary Phillips Football Fed Queensland's TD? He should'v been giving some reasonable directives.

I hope David Abela is giving some clear directives. Since he left here, I think Kurt Reynolds and Spencer Prior have been far better than David as TDs. Mind you DA would've completed lot of coach education since I last saw him.

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

some excellent analysis Deccentric

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.

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.:)

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...!

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.

Yes chips you keep banging the same old drum.

Actually it isn't Chips.

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

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?

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

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.

http://leopoldmethod.com.au

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.