Goes to back to what Han Berger said when he first came here about the majority level of coaching and in general knowledge in youth level in australia as very poor and said we are 10 years behind or something similar too.

Sorry i meant has.

Edited by Barca4life: 29/10/2015 03:10:55 PM

Any team can get pumped by another team,however it is clear that against the top teams we are no match at this age.Against France,Germany and Nigeria we have been outclassed in defence.
What this all means for the players down the track ,I really don't know.Because I presume defence can be taught,especially in transition from turnovers.
However I can only conclude that at the moment the coaching or players or both are not up to scratch in this area .Yet for the top performing countries their youth are up to scratch.
If the coaching aims to develop bold attacking players at the expense of results,well I wonder if this is too naive.
If you are coached to defend and attack you actually produce more well rounded players,eventhough you sacrifice attractive attacking play ,by being a bit more circumspect going forward.
I find it hard to believe that Nigeria have managed to develop players to such a high standard at a young age and yet we cannot.

The coach was a moron and if he thought "you can't teach that" how much effort do you think he's putting into that side of their game?

I'll tell you. Fuck all.

And that was at a high falootin Brisbane club.

Well that is different to what you said before and I kind of agree. A number 6 or CD don't need a huge amount of 'flair' (flashy players good at 1v1 as you say), but it can compliment, but most of all in an attacking sense they need to have high concentration levels, discipline, game awareness and decision making to pass a ball.
Where the forward players need a bit of flair, but they also need game awareness and good decision making. I am not worried at all if an attacking player tries a risky pass, that should be the aim where they pull it off more than not. But in defence and central midfield you need to make passes stick, they don't have to be defence splitting passes, just the right passes for each moment of the game.

Well then I agree with you.

The review will make interesting reading if they publish it.





Edited by munrubenmuz: 29/10/2015 03:21:43 PM

I am myself worried mostly about movement off the ball, from what I have seen the team seems quite rigid, but this goes against being proactive in attack (BPO), where getting between the lines and offering a passing option could be better imho.

I mentioned 3rd man runs a page or so back with regards to movement off the ball. (Quoting myself again.)

And they're effectively a 3rd world country but that's OK their pedigree at the senior level is sub par so don't let the fact that their junior players are heaps better than ours bother you.

It's more about being tactical aware, off the ball positioning. Decentric talks about the 2 defensive midfield 433, where the FB go forward, one of the defensive midfielders need to cover that position. When you have 2 of them it still leaves one to screen, when you only have one defensive midfielder it becomes a bit more complicated, there are many way's to adjust, usually the back 4 become a back 3 with the opposing FB becoming the third defender.

Fatigue was a huge factor also in the past 2 games , I just don't understand why take 23 players to a tournament and then only use 11-14 of them , I mean if they are good enough to be in the squad shouldn't they at least get a run at some stage ? Or is the fear of losing big ,at the back of Vidmars mind ?
I think in the latest u20s tournament , Okon used 21 of the 23 players that went to Laos , much better than Vidmars effort .

Yes ok and I do agree with that, though what about playing out from the back?
We seem very rigid here (even in the socceroos), it's not a matter of running around like chickens with no heads, it's about maybe moving five steps this way, making a run, drawing the opposition away from an intended pass. There are many ways to play out from the back, but I have only seen one employed by our national teams at all levels.

Edited by moops: 29/10/2015 04:14:23 PM

What if Nigeria go on to make the final, would that change the way you feel about the result?

Well Vidmar was at fualt, making a sub on 30 something minutes? Tells you he went all cards in, or is a fool.

I don't think we are giving Nigeria enough credit here, their finishing was of experienced professional quality and overall they were clinical.

YES!

I feel this tournament there was pressure to show a result beyond we played the way we want to play.

They are more physically developed than us and we played our guys constant, that kiwi guy - come Aussie looked awesome, why didn't he come on earlier instead of commeti (our no6, whatever his name is) to give him a rest, he looked really good.

Agree, we had two clear cut chances and could not convert, but that Osimhen was pretty special, tucked them away with ease.

All I am reading is excuses which seem rather week.
Fatigue? Really?Why when we lose to top teams is it fatigue.Is fatigue a part of chasing the ball,because defence is inadequate?
Why are France,Germany and Nigeria(each who have schooled us) not getting fatigued?
Nigeria are good at youth level but rubbish at senior level .Why can't we be good at youth level like them?Then we can kill it at senior level.
Nigerian players develop more quickly so we can't expect to compete.Yet other countries can without losing by 6?It's football not Rugby.The ball is the same for both teams.ADP managed to keep the ball or draw fouls easily regardless of the size of his opponent.

Well why don't you tell me?

You've added nothing, challenged me to substantiate myself, which I did at length, and then you don't have the decency to address anything I wrote except to write trite one liners.

At least other posters can see (or are starting to see) it's not all sunshine and lollipops even if they think I'm a wanker who won't shut up.

Also in reflection I think it would have been better to play 2 def mids (6&8) and 1 attack (10) but to do this we needed a fully fit and fresh full backs (5&2) , as the tournament went on those players were playing under a lot of fatigue and constant pressure from quick counter attacking teams , at times in today's game both fullbacks were found totally lost for speed when turned around by the Nigerians .

Fatigue is my BIGGEST pet hate as an excuse. Closely followed by "conditions".

It's like the Australian team always plays running up the hill on 200m long pitches that are 90m wide whilst the other teams are running downhill the whole time with the wind at their backs and their pitch is only 80m long.

FFS.

100% agree with all of that.

I'm not against playing out from the back particularly if you are looking to draw the other team forward to create space beyond. What I am against is playing out for the back every single time.

Too slow in the transition means that when you do decide to finally go forward they're organised and they've got 8 or 9 behind the ball.

I agree it's a crap excuse , but we did look pretty tired today and after the Argentina game , one of the reasons I believe it that we are not playing clever enough and turning over The ball far two easy , a lot I would put down to just lack of game awareness and football smarts , tbh.

I'll never forgive Ange for the 5 nil shellacking they got against Spain in the WC 2014 due to them being unfit.

Months to get organised, 3 matches to play and yet they looked like they had run a marathon the night before.

Absolutely unforgiveable. (Contrast that to Guus' side who Dukes said when they finished camp it was like they'd just finished a whole pre-season.)

No Australian side that ever left Australian the shore in the decades before could ever be accused of being unfit. Plenty of other deficiencies with the sides (dozens if you ask decentric) but fitness was never one of them.



Edited by munrubenmuz: 29/10/2015 04:18:53 PM

Seeming as our FB's were slow, but ok going forward, it would have seemed like the smart way of going about things.

Whens our next event?

I do sort of agree, I would prefer to play out from the back because you have the ball already and don't have to rely on winning the second ball constantly (which surprisingly happened in all our games at this level). Though mixing it up a bit can keep the opposition on it's toes.
What I do not like is that we have only one way to play out from the back!!! There are at least 5 ways I know to play out from the back in a 433, yet we only seem to use one of them! Mind you I am mixing this issue with the soccerroos, we cannot expect too much from these guys, but I wouldn't mind seeing us employ 2 way's of playing out from the back.

I disagree, we were all over the place in that regard, we held the ball when we should have gone forward at pace, we went at pace when there was no one forward or tracking. It comes down to decision making and one that is very important between U17-U19, that is when the tactical side should be ramped up. It is why I think we should be playing high opposition in this age group, not as we have done, but like the Matildas being on full time contracts.

No one has said its all sunshine and lollipops, but your responses don't seem to put into context that we played the current WC champs who look like challenging for the title again this year.

They are clearly one of the best teams in the world, so some credit needs to go to Nigeria in the way they played and how they forced us to play the way we did.

It's clear to see we have come along way In terms of player development and clearly a long way to go if our aim is to be number 1 in the world. But we are on the right track and should only get better as a league clubs get their junior setups going

In the context of these matches fatigue can be factor though, however this is simply due to the inadequate coaching and rotating of players.

Perhaps Nigeria etc weren't tired because their coached rotated their squad and used all the players available ot him. Whereas we ask 8-9 16 year olds to play 4 full matches in like 10 days. They simply don't have the conditioning to be able to perform playing that much at that age.

The question is why didn't Vidmar rotate. Lack of quality depth can be my only guess. If you trust your squad, more or less everyone should get a game out of the 4 played.
maybe if we were playing a minnow (in relative u-17 world cup terms) he would have given the other boys more chances.