Watching the socceroos play, to me it is blatantly obvious that Australia needs to strikers to be successsful.

We simply dont have anyone good enough to play as a sole striker. Scott Macdonald was found not to be good enough at international level and he was probably better than any of our current strikers are ever likely to be. The advantage of the dual strikers is massive.

Firstly, it puts added pressure on the central defenders and puts them in two minds which creates mistakes and increase opportunity to score. Secondly, it means the lone strike has support and allows them to play off each others mistakes and imperfections, meaning that where one striker is often forced into a simple turn over, with two strikers a similar result often opens up a side. I think that it is a must for Australian sides and we simply dont have the players to play with anything but two strikers.

But this seems to be against everything this new curriculum stands for. My question to some of the experts in the curriculum is how does such a system deal with the fact that we simply dont have a skilful or good enough player to play, with one striker up front.

And why is there such a concentration on using a 4-3-3 or 4 2 3 1 at the expense of the tried and tested 4-4-2 which is frowned upon. Even when a 4 4 2 is used nowadays, it usually that ridiculous diamond formation which to my mind is simply a 4-4-2 without any with and without your two central midfielders being willing to get stuck into the middle and tackle a bit (with one playing back one bludging up front).

Do you think that all the new focus (body shape, killer balls, bpo and all that) would translate equally as good to the 442 formation?