Anyway well done they took advantage of the open spaces on the counter really well.

Onto the semis to play Thailand again whom they lost to them this time last year.

if this is just our FFA COE side, imagine what our full strength side would do

Good work lads.

Well done!!!

We play Thailand in 2 days time. We get an extra days rest as well as avoid playing the host nation (who have been pulling in 40k crowds) so I think we can count ourselves lucky.

thailand knocked us out last year.
be funny if we won this year with a weaker team

With a game every 2 days on astro turf in a hot and humid summer thats tough and probably means the fittest team wins

IMO it's a good thing. Toughens them up for the future.

Just to throw another aspect of qualities of players, for the first time I've been able to view the Brazilian league through BEIN.

The Brazilian league is far higher quality, in terms of technique and skill, than any European league. Most of the better teams and mid ranking teams are of the technical quality of Barca, Bayern Munich, Man City, and even better.

Yet for the technical inferiority of the European teams, they are better organised, more athletic, have better football conditioning and are considerably better organised.

The top European club teams probably have players who are more two footed. However, they lack the first touch, handling speed, ability to pass using the outside of the foot under pressure, and have inferior 1v1 attacking skills.

This is certainly the case with the Brazilians ' preferred foot. If many of the best European players played in Brazil, they could struggle to adapt.

The Brazilian players on average are more creative and probably don't need to adhere to a strict game plan in order to be effective.

No European teams are probably going to attain the technical quality of Brazilian players, and possibly the best imports from other parts of South America in that league, but they have compensated in other areas.



In the game Vietnam played against the Joeys a few days ago, they relied on defending deep, staying compact in defence, and playing a counterattacking, reactive game capitalising on Australia's mistakes.

Australia played a high defensive line, which has risks.

However, long term, no world powerhouse has achieved sustained success using what Vietnam did against Australia, apart from italay. For the one team who has achieved sustained success, Italy, there are 9 other teams, who are world powerhouses, who all play the same style of proactive football.

Proactive - means to create goalscoring chances from build ups from back to front without the other team touching the ball.

Reactive - means to create chances relying on one's opponent to make mistakes, then capitalising on those mistakes.

Italy, as usuual, in this year's Euro champs, demonstrated they have a higher level of tactical sophistication, to augment their game plan where they are far more comfortable than any other team when their opponents have the ball.

To get back to Australia, even if one makes plenty of mistakes through the youth ranks, long term Australia will be more successful at senior level. It is easier to coach that Vietnamese team to gain success, in terms of results, against youth teams who inherently make a lot of mistakes.

Long term, history shows they won't be as effective at senior level.

I'm not sure how many people have travelled and played football in Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Burma and Indonesia. It is a massive issue, particularly during the day. It really makes it hard to play a full pressing and intense squeezing game for sustained periods in that tropical heat and humidity.

Against Vietnam Australia struggled to create chances against their French Clairefontaine style Academy team. Australia cracked under pressure.

Against Philippines and Singapore, most of the goals and goalscoring chances were Proactive. This is encouraging. Many times in the past, we have relied on set pieces and the opposition making defensive mistakes.

Most of the chances created were from build ups using the wings with the assist or final ball. On fewer occasions there were central build ups resulting in goals and scoring chances . Australia was more successful against the weaker teams using this style of football.

We could probably set up underage Socceroo teams of the past, before 2006, to play like Vietnam did against us, and beat the current team. However, long term, not many of those players evolved to be successful international senior players.

FFA boffins recognise that Italy are very, very good at what they do. Notwithstanding, it is also recognised that the Australian psyche is too attack and dominate rather than defend.

Hence, the proactive style of the other 7 powerhouses, which could be deemed as 9, now that Portugal and Croatia appear to be meeting those three criteria to define a powerhouse, appears to be the only plausible path. It is a long term project for Australia to get close to being a powerhouse. It is not easy to achieve.





Edited by Decentric: 19/7/2016 10:06:05 AM

Watching the highlights. The goals were mostly off their lack of composure. For me, there is nothing extraordinary but that could take time to develop.

I watched full game replays, apart for watching the whole first half against Vienam. After the first 20 minutes I fast forwarded to a minute before the goals scored and conceded.

I was quite pleased to see the nature of the Oz goals scored, and chances created. Most of Australia's goals were proactive - where it was their build up play from back to front, that resulted in goals - not capitalising on defensive mistakes.

The big issue is performing to the team's best, against the better teams.

Apart from Italy, and probably in this case, Wales, and Iceland, the USA, the successful teams in the Euro champs and in Copa America ( apart from the USA), usually the ones who get to the late rounds in tournaments, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Spain, France, Portugal, Germany, Belgium, Croatia, even more mediocre ones, like Poland, played like Australia's Joeys are trying to do.

They rarely play high, long straight balls over the top. They try to build up through midfield with pass and move football, interspersed with longer diagonal switch balls, with judicious use of counter attacks.



One issue that Abrams has idententified as a weakness, is defensive 1v1 defending. It is still an issue, but Cox looks okay in this area.



Edited by Decentric: 19/7/2016 10:39:51 AM

The first goal Oz scored against Malaysia was achieved against high intensity full pressing and squeezing from Malaysia. Earlier in the tournament we would've lost the ball trying to do that.

That was a step up in proactive football, with some fast ball movement.

Vidmar, Ange and Abrams would've been thrilled with this calibre of build up play, attacking interplay and goal.=d>




Edited by Decentric: 19/7/2016 11:03:53 AM

Once again we should all get together and applaud The Select Few for setting up this excellent thread.:)

do you have links to highlights for each game?

@Decentric
do you agree that the quality of individual is lower than last years aff? (Do you remember last years aff?)
Do you have any ideas why? Some people in this thread have speculated

In football, the result is an impostor. You can do things really, really well but not win. There's something greater than the result, more lasting - a legacy.

Xavi

Credit to Malaysia.

They set up up have a go at us. Most of the other teams we play, including Vietnam, defend deep, trying to stay compact, then hit us on the break.

Malaysia tried to play attacking football. It cost them. At times they had too much distance between the lines, but they tried to play football on the deck and generality tried to play football.

* Shooting for goal.

We've all bemoaned the heaps of missed goals we've seen Aussie players miss over the years, too high and too wide, at all levels. Whether it was question of pressure, or lack of scoreboard pressure, in the last three games this Aussie team converted a high number of their goalscoring opportunities .=d>

Against Vietnam, unless it was different in the second half ( I didn't see it), the problem was actually creating chances.

Generally though, these Aussie players are converting a higher percentage of goals, from shots at them, compared to what many of us have seen before. Under pressure, like in the Euros, maybe these players would become more profligate too?


* Individual 1v1 defending still needs to improve from all players, particularly the defenders - tackling, muscle on muscle duels, heading duels, jockeying.


* Many on here have heard me banging on about diagonal passing lanes to create effective body shape to receive, simultaneously scan the field and play forwards.

Australia tried to do this at all times, except on a few occasions players were unmarked in the attacking half, so a defensive player played a killer, straight pass on the deck that was the most effective option.

Players moving to support the ball carrier by opening a diagonal passing lane before they received the ball, was quite good most of the time. The problem was consistency of delivery by the ball carrier. At times the handling speed and rapid fire passing against Malaysia was exemplary.

Ball movement has increased in speed as the tournament has progressed.


* To play a lot of games against these opponents in hot and humid climatic conditions really develops match toughness. For those who've coached this age group, and young adults, they they can get cocky, conceited and complacent about their ability. A coach has a lot more to work with when things don't go to plan and teams are under pressure.


* In the past, even in the beginning of the HAL, our underage teams seemed to rely a lot more on set pieces to create chances, albeit against better calibre opponents. Now a greater percentage is being created from proactive open play .


* For those condemning Tony Vidmar, we have seen some good football played by this team at times. It has been good to watch.

Even in the Euro champs it became very difficult for even good teams to penetrate other very well organised defences. Set pieces became too prevalent in scoring opportunities. This is boring football to watch.





Edited by Decentric: 19/7/2016 12:58:25 PM

It's on the Sport asean youtube page.

No worries bro :)

Apart from Cox, and the African heritage central striker, who are quite distinctive, and another player I may have coached, I can barely recognise one player compared to another in this team.

From playing the last three teams, Malaysia, Philipines and Singapore, this Oz team has improved immeasurably as the tournament has progressed.

I'm seeing some good 1v1 attacking actions at the appropriate time, as opposed to some showboating from the past generation.

In terms of 1v1 defensive skills, I'll admit this was well coached in Oz prior to 2006. It has definitely been neglected by the Berger NC.

Having said this, in so many other areas, the Berger inspired FFA NC is far, far better. We have improved in whole team defending and organisation when we don't have the ball.

At this level of development, players are still very inconsistent from day to day, and even within the same game. Did we lose against Myanmar? If we played them, and Vietnam, I was away.

Australia seems to lack confidence, hence execution against Vietnam.

It would be interesting to play Vietnam at night ( when it is cooler). Australia can apply more sustained pressing and squeezing.

I think the last game was played in daytime heat. Australia has improved out of sight since. Comparatively, I 'm not sure who Vietnam played in the lead up to this tournament and what their general preparation was like?


The other issue I've raised is that FFA now have players being developed under the jurisdiction of clubs. As long as the quality of coaching is similar and consistent to what the players have had in recent years at national and state FFA HQs, then it should be a superior system.

It means the national and state TDs have to do a lot of liaising with clubs. ATM the NPL clubs are the target, but it seems that the HAL clubs are the most important in terms of developing younger players, as they should, ideally, have contact with senior pro coaches and players.



Edited by Decentric: 19/7/2016 11:17:05 PM

When the highlights show goals, they usually just show the last few seconds of it.

I've been interested in rewinding the tape further to see what actions led to the goal, from about 30 seconds to a minute back.

One goal scored by Australia, the rocket from outside the box, which was a cracker, initially occurred because of an opponent losing the ball from making a mistake.

It was not the result of good team play in possession, apart from the Oz squeezing in BPO, but good individual dribbling, ball carrying and shooting from whoever it was who scored it.

Many don't get this , particularly at youth level.

You won't get trophies for playing well, a subjective term in any case.

No one won't and it is subjective.

However, given a choice, would you prefer to win trophies at senior level, with a youth program designed to create effective and effective underpinning program for effective senior players?

Or:

Would you prefer to win youth tournaments , with results being paramount, if it led to senior players with an inadequate skill set to win trophies?

But imo we aren't doing either yet lol.

Great comments Decentric, why did they struggle to create chances against Vietnam?

I thought there execution of their passing was below the required standard and by doing the same attacking patterns over and over again which didn't work was telling, the general inability to solve this football problem was concerning.
But they seem comfortable when they go up against pro-active sides and have the ability to go through teams which in the past youth sides we weren't able to do due to the players inability to play through teams unlike this group of players.

Though one thing that has stood out is their individual technique, their first touches, ability to move the ball quickly(handling speed) and also have the ability to go past players 1v1 was quite telling, its getting better and better with the younger groups which is quite encouraging.

But the technique in passing, crossing and even shooting is still lacking but of course these things can be worked on with just practice and perhaps better coaching too from a younger age.

Edited by Barca4life: 19/7/2016 06:59:30 PM

Vietnam played a defensive half press and partial press four the first half that I saw. They kept the shape very cohesive, hence limiting time and space for Australia.

In those partial and half presses, the level of squeezing intensity was good, well timed and well coached by Vietnam's coaches. Australia struggled to cope with this level of off the ball pressure at that stage of the tournament. I think the game was played in midday heat. It greatly favoured Vietnam.

At this stage of the tournament Australia are now playing much better football and have had a few night games. The cooler nights enable Australia to play at a higher tempo, and execute more aggressive full pressing off the ball. Vietnam would find this much more difficult.

In the Vietnam game Australia's attacking interplay was not fluent and fluid enough to play through the Vietnamese midfield and defensive lines, which were close to each other.

Since that game, Australia have been able to play through the central midi fled under less off the ball pressure and have often increased the speed of ball movement and ball circulation.

Also, Australia's cohesion with wingers has been better. The service to the wingers and weighting on passes has been better. The wingers have also been able to beat their markers more effectively and provided more crosses.

For under 16s, to play this type of football is difficult. Australia has improved considerably as the tournament has progressed.

Vietnam tend to play quick counter attacks, with fast ball carriers or straight balls over the top against Australia. By playing a high defensive line, it was often easier for Vietnam to attack with Australia having to turn and chase trying to defend by running toward their own goal too often.

Vietnam were often defending facing forwards, which is a lot easier. Vietnam rarely played a high defensive line in the first half.

Essentially, Vietnam played reactive football. They waited for Australia to make mistakes - and they did, which Vietnam capitalised on.

It would be an interesting fixture to see Australia play Vietnam now, at night. Oz are now playing much better football, albeit against weaker teams than Vietnam. They are also playing a brand of football that is far harder to execute short term, than Vietnam.

Australian underage teams of the past, prior to 2006, would probably also be effective against this Australian team in terms of results, to the detriment of a long term plan of playing a superior brand of senior football.

Earlier in the tournament, Australia's passing accuracy was poor. They made a lot unforced errors. Also their movement off the ball wasn't good either. Where Australia are now, with much higher passing accuracy and superior off the ball movement to support the ball carrier, it forces other teams to have to expend a lot of energy trying to win the ball back.

The first goal against Malaysia was very pleasing. Australia played through the midfield from the back of the pitch to the front through the Malaysian lines of energetic off the ball squeezing and full pressing.

To Malaysia's credit, they had much more of a go at Australia than the other teams. They tried to play proactively, rather than wait for Australia to make mistakes.

Winning the Asian Cup at men's senior level isn't too bad.:d

If we qualify for a fourth successive World Cup at senior men's level it isn't too bad either.:d

Is there a streaming link for this next game, which I assume is Thailand?

When does the next Aussie game take place?