Reading on twitter that there are no Victorians in the squad. 6 rejected the call.

Interesting..

Ange has built a career learning how to get a team to punch above their weight playing a pretty purely proactive style. He could in theory moderate this and play a hybrid style he has never played at club level but why? He wouldn't have the same expertise in the hybrid style but is it clear that that would produce better results? So you sacrifice the benefits of ange who is a proactive specialist for something which may give equivalent results if you had an equally good coach who specialized in a hybrid style.

There are a lot of tournaments where a reactive or even a hybrid team makes a deep run. So perhaps this makes a case for playing reactive or hybrid. But I'm cautious of the "look elsewhere effect" because so many teams play these types of tactics and just as many underperform. Also I do notice teams who take on a purely proactive style from a previously hybrid or reactive style tend to improve over a sustained period of time (germany and belgium). Are there examples of national teams that have gone in the opposite direction and improved over a sustained period? Also to make sure we aren't butting heads against the look elsewhere effect are the examples of national teams that have gone more proactive and gotten worse over a sustained period?

I haven't done a thorough statistical analysis but at the moment my opinion is there is a large benefit to youth teams playing proactive football and a very small but non-zero benefit to being proactive at senior level. But I think the biggest benefit is in getting the best coach you can (probably ange at this stage) and ask them to coach what comes naturally to them. Hence my original comment

is that half the 12 clivesundies mentioned or an additional 6?
Look if we have players that are as good as last aff tournament then I'm happy to wait and see. But at the moment I'm concerned

In either case we lack a lot of depth.

grazorblade

1) Ange has no experience of success in international football with a proactive style. Ange's success is from the A-League. Different ballgame.

This goes back to what I was saying before... it's fine to use an extremely proactive style in a fairly level playing field, but it's not advisable when you have a massive disadvantage (such as technically/tactically inept and/or non-athletic defenders versus the best attackers in the world).

2) grazorblade, most countries use a hybrid system. Very few have the resources for a purely proactive system. If Ange doesn't know how to go about this (which still enables an attacking emphasis) then he's not worth his salt as a football manager.

3) How many countries use a purely proactive style?

I'd be interested to see an analysis of each and every major football nation's style. That study linked by clivesundies alluded to some countries which have a very proactive system. But which ones?

Germany and Belgium, yes. Spain (to great effect when they had the right balance of footballers). In the past, the Netherlands (I haven't seen enough of them lately, as they didn't actually secure qualification).

I'm not so well-versed on South American nations, unfortunately. So what possibly Chile?

People go on and on and on about how the football powerhouses all use exceedingly proactive systems. I think this is hyperbolic.

A few do, but most use hybrids. France and Portugal, for example, use a hybrid system. When the Dutch made the World Cup final in South Africa, surely their system would have to be regarded as hybrid?

If you have the resources, go proactive. I don't have a problem with it. But if you don't, compromise or get schooled again and again and again.

I don't think France can be accused of boring football this Euros.

Edited by quickflick: 12/7/2016 10:08:05 PM

yeah the team i saw today is about as good as the team that played vietnam 4 years ago apart from a couple of players. Thats no disaster its the same quality youth we have been producing for a half dozen years which as a generation matures to a team with a bunch of eredivisie quality players with a sprinkling of big 5 quality players. So no disaster but clearly we want to do better.
The team at the last aff looked a big step up in individual quality. If the ntc means producing mostly normal quality youth with a sprinkling of dozen skilled players nationwide what is happening?
Do only a few get access to top quality training?

quickflick

its true that a lot of weaker nations play reactive or hybrid. But is there evidence that this on average helps?
If all styles are roughly the same effectiveness (and I think there is a argument that there is a slight benefit to proactive even against stronger teams) why make a manager play a style that he isn't a specialist in?

I mean if you look at our results considering the squad we have on paper which results were below par under ange including and post world cup? (taking into account the club level our players play at)

two more teams that have become more proactive in recent years are mexico and chile I believe. Both seem to have improved even when playing bigger nations

I never always disagreed with you, but you and Decentric always disagree with certain things about it.

But all agree with what good things it has no doubt has certain flaws.

Nice bit of thuggery by Moric at 90 +1.55. Elbow to the back of the Vietnamese bloke's head.

In Belgium i read that certain clubs train to play 4-3-3 but also train to play variances such as 3-4-3, also in France they play 4-3-3 but also train to play 3-4-3 as well as 4-4-2 diamond.

Should we do something similar because i don't see our players as smart ones who can solve problems tactically all the time when up against different styles.

yep, shit act

They may not be the best we have apparantly but they in the COE. So what are De Roo and co doing day in day out with these players?

From the NC

Counterattacking
What can also be deduced from World Cup 2010 and Euro 2012, is that top teams
need to have the ability to launch quick counterattacks. One can also observe
the potent use of counterattacking in successful club teams such as Real Madrid.
However, UEFA point out the ‘declining effectiveness of the counter’: in Euro 2008,
46% of the open play goals were from counters, but in Euro 2012 only 25% of
goals from open play were derived from counters. This decline is also observed
in the UEFA Champions League, where the percentage steadily fell to 27% in the
2011/12 season.
The evidence suggests that the ability to counterattack quickly and successfully is
a ‘weapon’ that successful teams have at their disposal. Even ‘possession-based’
teams will look for the opportunity to do so when their opponent is disorganised or
slow in transition.
We must ensure that this ‘weapon’ is also developed. The danger of overstressing
‘possession and more possession’ is that players may not look for
counterattacking opportunities, and if they do, may not be equipped to exploit
them.

there is also one model session for BPO to BP. ie transition for counter.

Edited by dirkvanadidas: 12/7/2016 11:55:48 PM

the game on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPNIzVmsI3M

I thought Cox looked good.

Edited by moops: 13/7/2016 12:59:35 AM

IMHO it is not the formation, but the way we train (in full field play) that is the problem. Just watch a few youth training vids from Bayern or River Plate. They teach the basics and creativity comes from experience playing games in the most part. A house without a foundation will fall.

Thats true although teaching different formations is part of the learning process too, whilst we only focus on 4-3-3 all the time.

Why are we discussing Belgium and Barça and France when we were thrashed by Vietnam and drew with Myanmar.

But 433 can become so many formations, if you are going to be rigid in it's application, then that will limit the team. The biggest strength of the 433 is it's flexibility. Also 433 if implemented right, is very good for youth and if done well (as an example Ajax), can create players who are versatile. Players will always have a propensity or desire to play a certain position, but versatility will mean a more rounded player.

But formation is moot imho, it is like saying these are the players we are putting on the field, it is the training we are failing, especially at centre forward, in which I say watch some River plate training vids.

Maybe because Belgium also get beaten by apparent minnows :d

Like Vietnam? Don't think so.

I'm being smart. Wales obviously got a lot of talent - way more than we have.

No blue text mate ;)

Some sports management experts would beg to differ with your statement as to how well the A-league's financial model :


This is not to say that the A-league should completely abandon private ownership and capital investment, however, to suggest that the FFA know exactly what they're doing just because they are the gatekeepers is a completely flawed argument.

The FFA have stifled the natural development of football in this country with its tight stranglehold on the football pyramid. It has established a class divide by handing all the concessions to 9 Australian clubs while locking out the rest.

As far as the relevance for this thread, the FFA have NO HOPE in developing 3,000 elite junior players if all they have at their disposal is 9 professionally run clubs.

The two results that we have witnessed this week takes me all the way back to 2005 and that famous on-TV spat between Foster & Ange. Nothing has changed since then. The arguments are still the same as they were back then.

I look at the U-19's squad posted on previous pages too. How many of them have played more than 20 professional senior games?

As Albert Einstein famously said insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

It is just so saddening :(

He never actually said that.

I like the cut of Socceroo 06 Jib

On a side note - the fees are ludicrous. How can kids be expected to pay 800-2000K to play at an elite level?

But hey, at least Tim cahill gets his marquee fund to play for a club backed by billionaires...

Edited by tsf: 13/7/2016 11:21:50 AM

Regardless, the statement is partially true, if not profound or directly attributed to Einstein.

The argument over junior development pathways, more game time etc. crops up after every successive national team failure. Alas, around the merry-go-round we go. Lets not look at the system or the structure. Lets just bring in a new coach or a new technical director.

Excellent points Socceroo 06

Well, just as well I never stated, or even implied that "FFA know exactly what they're doing" isn't it? There's no need to exaggerate my position to make your own seem more tenable.

I think they make many errors in the guidance of the game, their administration I would see as mediocre, to be honest.

But they are the one who are direct possession of the ratings, they are the ones who see where the money comes in and goes, they are the ones bargaining with rival tv rights organisations, so they know the corporate value of their product, and they are the ones who will carry the can if Australia's national competition goes belly-up.

While a lot of us are talking P/R, etc etc, the ones who actually crunch the dollars and numbers are just thinking about survival...clubs in debt, stagnant ratings

If there are better, more stable, more lucrative options than, say, Bakries, they would be preferable. Are we sure that they are all out there, ready to throw their hat in the ring? I doubt it.

It is very easy to say that one's hypothetical alternative is self evidently better than the existing reality, but more of ten than not, there are sound reasons why one's ideal scenario is not feasible.





Edited by eldorado: 13/7/2016 04:40:09 PM