He can't be a striker, the man couldn't score in a brothel!!

considering no one is scoring for ingolstadt and he is being played on a wing chasing down second balls im not surprised he doesnt score.    im just saying that he probably sees his role very differently to most other people. even ange refers to leckie as a striker.

Striker as in forward, not the number 9.

Agree with Giannou, Spira and Degenek.
Not sold on Risdon.
Grant should be given a go, he has really improved.
Smith shouldn't be anywhere near the National team, he isn't even playing for a championship side!
Geria is too much of a bully, he would be getting cards every game outside Australia, some could be reds.
Gersbach has only one foot, the other is just for running and the way he is played for his club is very reserved, almost a third CB.
Behich should be an Ange type player and playing constantly in a good league, I don't understand why he isn't first pick.

Leckie is a standout for Ingolstadt and he does bloody everything, there is a real difference between national team and club for Leckie, whether that's from instructions from Ange or not?

I'll say this in the slightly more polite way first. I'm not gloryperth. To those who are, ummm, competent in analysing these things, it's very obvious. We have completely different writing styles (phrasing, word-choice, linguistic patterns, etc.) and we express completely different opinions. To anybody remotely bright, it's completely obvious we're not the same poster. It seems you've just noticed great chunks of text and said to yourself- oh they must be the same poster. Sorry, but have you not stopped to think that maybe (and unfortunately) there might be more than one person on the forum who writes a lot? Gotta delve deeper and break it down more.

The same goes for analysing football. You'll understand it better when you break it down more.

That brings me to your second question. Having more in central defence (and freeing up the wingbacks slightly) will not increase the risk of us conceding. As I say, try to break things down a bit more. When we break it down, our current defensive structure is a recipe for disaster (when you look at results and when you look at the individual strengths/weaknesses of our defensive footballers). Three at the back addresses those strengths/weaknesses somewhat. It makes it less likely, not more, that we'll concede goals. The only risk is it might be slightly harder to score. But I think that's a separate issue. The main problems are lack of a competent striker and increasingly not decent enough wingers and poor balance in central midfield.

Even if there is a risk, Ange has to focus on Russia as well. Not only must he make them qualify, they must also be prepared. Playing with three at the back will put them in a far, far better position if they qualify. It's no good qualifying and them losing three matches in row in Russia. As things stand, that's probably what will happen.

Neither you, nor anybody else has produced an actual compelling reason why there should not be 3 central defenders. In fact, increasingly more posters whose opinions I give quite a bit of weight have come around.

Honestly, if they cannot adapt to having more defensive cover, then they ought to give up football and go to uni/TAFE now.

The formation we're playing with now plays to our weaknesses not to our strengths. We have slow central defenders and wingbacks who are quick but not so good defensively (although I think Leckie can be good defensively if he's deployed there). It's a really bad situation now.

Having three central defenders will not make it worse. It will relieve pressure. Also, we need slightly bigger changes for Russia. Ange needs to start on them now. Not later. He needs to make them adapt ASAP. I agree completely that Rogic/Mooy is a big problem. But even if that becomes far more fruitful, we're still a few minutes from conceding two goals in a row until there three central defenders in place. Better they learn now than never.

As for Rogic and Mooy. I don't think they can play together in central midfield. They don't complement each other much at all. And they bring out more defensive problems for us. Rogic is not so good in defence. Mooy is better. But both are slow. So, together, they're liabilities.

Gotta go back and ask yourself why Rogic does well at Celtic and Mooy does well at Huddersfield Town. I think it's because they're surrounded by quicker attackers and more robust defensive footballers. They don't get that for Australia. Possibly, if Daniel Arzani and those kind can be introduced. And some kind of decent striker.

I think if Rogic plays slightly higher up, alongside a better striker, that's a go. Not ideal, but a way to get them both in the side. Then you Jackson Irvine in central midfield. I think he'd work well with Mooy :)

You don't need to waste your time with this rubbish, either inala is taking the piss or he's lost the plot.

No team I've ever played with or against has implemented 3 at the back competently so I admittedly don't understand it as well as systems with 4 at the back. We have been playing with a rest defence of 3 defenders and jedinak as far as I can tell though, so it terms of the counter attack 3 at the back probably wouldn't change that at all, you'd have the 3 cbs and the wing backs would always be wide. 

It's hard to analyse problems with our system right now because in the few games (the ones we drew) there were other very obvious and serious issues that make the formation a non-issue. 

Against Thailand the team was done after half an hour. Completely dead. We didn't track any players (jedinak, mooy, rogic, smith, kruse all guilty on multiple occassions) we were lazy and lethargic with no urgency. (spiranovic someone not managing to clear a ball 30cm away from him for the first goal a good example). Thai players got the ball within 10 meters of our box with jedinak and others trotting over at a snails pace - again nothing to do with the system because we had the numbers! Thai through balls you could see a mile away were just left undefended by rogic and mooy who each took a good few seconds just to turn and start to chase. 

Attacking we were slow and fat and unfit and gave the ball away for no reason. Kruse gave the ball away every time he touched it. Maclaren barely even touched the ball. 

This sort of thing happens though sometimes though, no need for panic stations. 

That is why i think we should move to a 4-2-3-1, slight change which gets the best out of our best players, or play Rogic in a false 9 as quite frankly we have no strikers.

But with 3 at the back the center halves actually need to be far more mobile or they will get carved to utter shreds by the forwards and the other biggest problem is how difficult it is. If one of those center halves gets dragged upfield it is all over as there are no fullbacks. It also struggles if teams are good at exploiting wide areas as it stretches the defence far more than 4 at the back. Then you have the whole issue of who to mark which again requires very good, intelligent footballers and our lot would be ripped apart. 

Then we have our slow midfield and when the oppositions fullbacks decides to move forward it drags that midfielder out wide leaving more space centrally. It is why playing with a false 9 or 2 strikers up top causes utter mayhem for 3 at the back. Also the wingback position is incredibly difficult, ask any fullback out there and they all say it is far harder to play as a wingback than a fullback so we are putting our inept fullbacks/wingers in a tougher system. 

The central midfielders and the center halves must be able to work with eachother without fault, the wingbacks must get their positioning at all costs correct and not over compensate in one direction in play, the back 3 will have a harder job of actually not keeping forwards onside due to how much they'll be stretched. And the entire team needs to be energetic and mobile. All in all, if we moved to 3 at the back we'd get utterly slaughtered.

Quickflick

This 3 at the back system you are proposing, i assume that it is a proper back three.  ie a Sweeper and 2 stoppers.  If so, i do think there may be some merit.  The Sweeper will provide the defence with Depth and stop the slow fulbacks from being exposed against the run of play on the counter.  And from an offensive point of view, given that Ange's sides do tend to play out too often from the back when it isnt on, the sweeper would really help here by providing both cover and an extra option on the ball.  I think that Ange's style really suits the use of a sweeper.  

Interestingly, when Ange first took over, he mentioned introducing elements of the style of his South Melbourne sides, as well as his roar and victory formations.  I wonder if the use of the sweeper might help this. 

There is also the chance  that having the spare man at the back will allow the defence to push Jedinak (or whowever) forward into a proper central midfield position (rather than the midfield sweeping role he plays now).  If we get three fulbacks who read the game well, and i think we may have that with Wilkinson, Milligan, Sainsbury and Spiranovic, they can chime into the midfield  and cause some damage in the midfield if they pick their times accordingly.  

Whether it is three, four or five at the back, I really think that we will improve out of sight under Ange's system with a sweeper. Even if it is only used in the last 10 minutes of a half to start with, i think he should start experimenting.  

after missing a big chunk of the early season taggart scores and gets into equal 3rd in goal scoring for the HAL. on par with maclaren.

i rate him as a better striker than maclaren.  taggart needs to be in the next squad. both maclaren and taggart need to be in there ahead of cahill.

Maclaren is nowhere near good enough as a striker yet, to play for Australia.  If he hits a purple patch of form and starts fixing up his conversion rate, then he could be, but at the moment he is struggling to keep his spot in the Roar starting 11.  He has the talent but is a long way off.

His speed and off the shoulder running does give Australia a different element, but he is not in good enough form.  At the moment he is just a younger, less physical version of Matt Leckie.  Perhaps he could be a squad player, but he isnt the answer at centre forward.  

Taggart, i havent seen as much of, but he certainly is a class above in the all important ability to shoot and score.  Previously his problem was his general play and foot skills.  It makes sense that he would have improved since the last world cup, certainly i think he should probably be given a chance (although as i said i haven t really watched him closely enough). Juric and Taggart seem like our best of the younger brigade, with Maclaren a fair way behind in third.  Cahill is still our best, though i can see the merit in bringing him off the bench.

The closer we get to russia, the less important  age and development comes.  In this sense, if Brosque keeps up his form, he should be in the side.  I think he is perfectly suited to Ange's style. And while not playing at club level, at soceroo level, nathan Burns has been one of our better forwards and should also be in the mix.   

Oh god we're not starting this three at the back shit again are we........

Look, I'm half drunk ATM cos Makers Mark was on special, so bear with me ........


The crux of this debate comes down to the coverage we have on the opposition no.9, particularly in the group stages of the WC or hopefully, the last 16 and beyond, by which stage we will be lucky to have 50% of posession.

Almost every team we play lines up with a front three. If we play three at the back then it's single man coverage across the front three, while higher up the field our wing backs pick up their wing backs or wide midfielders and our CDM & CM pick up their AM & CM.

Alternatively, if we play four at the back then we double-team their single most dangerous positional player with two CBs, while our LB and RB pick up their wide players in the front three. On the occasion that the opposing striker is covered by man-to-man then the free CB can act as a floater, picking up the runner from midfield or the wing.

We're better off with double coverage in front of the box and single man coverage further up the field.

Simply - our defenders aren't good enough to go man on man with some of the most lethal strikers in the world. Look, I like Sainsbury, but he ain't gonna stop Suarez or Augero 1-1 in the round of 16. We're much safer going 2-1 in front of the box.

Let me use some real games as examples:

1. Go back to Keogh's hatrick against Melbourne City earlier in the season. It was against a three man back line and if you check the game thread, I even commented at the time that this is what you can expect a decent striker to do against man to man coverage. Keogh realised what he was up against and acted accordingly. Keogh won rave reviews and MoM, but the reality was that he had nothing in front of him.

2. The 2014 game against the Dutch. Imagine we go with a three man backfield:

- Wilkinson or Spira man on man against Van Persie.
- McGowan or Wilkinson at right CB man on man against Robben.
- 2nd half its either Davidson or Spira against Depay on the left.
- oh shit.
- don't expect help from the midfield either, our DMF (Jedinak) has his hands full with Sneijder, so can't leave his man to assist with VP.
- The only defensive help in this situation are the wingbacks in a 5 man midfield, who need to make a defensive run from outside-in. Good luck with McGowan et al making it back in time to help out on Robben once they realise they need to leave their man and track back.

Every advantage to a three man backline is an offensive advantage that ignores the defensive counter-cost.

Aside from the positional deficiency this would create, let's look at the lack of man power Australia has to fill a three man backline.

Sainsbury, Wright, Degenek, sure.
Spira - well yes, but he's playing in the Chinese 2nd Div.
Wilkinson - hmmm bit slow for 3 at the back in 2018.

And that's it's. That's the CBs you can count on. Who else? Chapman, Ansell and Donachie and the kid in League One aren't ready, Deng is a youth-team teenager. Milligan is a midfielder not a CB.

For a WC you want at least 6 players to cover those 3 CB positions and in 2014 we had 3 of our first 4 CBs injured (Sainsbury, DeVere, Good). Where we would be with 3 injuries to the list above?

We have a number of players to suit the wingback role, attacking out of our own half. But defensively, we lack CBs who can shut down down an opponent and the wingbacks don't have the defensive capability to fill in. Smith, Behich, Gersbach, Risdon, Grant don't have the stopping ability join as wide CBs in a 3-man backline.

TLDR: 3 at the back leaves us defensively exposed and we don't have the players to make it work.

Sorry to ramble, but as I said, half drunk. Best to start a new thread titled "3 vs 4 at the back". I'll join in there, rather than sidetrack one of the best threads on here.

SPOT ON: Re Taggart over Maclaren - superior player in almost every way. Not true about cahill though, the man is a scoring machine for the socceroos. 

only glory perth raises this 3 at the back shit. every couple months.  gets a couple hangers on but i dont see it happening in a hurry under ange.  although i was surprised when he went to a diamond 442. 

if cahill is our best why isnt he outscoring maclaren, taggart, santalab or brosque??  because he is not our best anymore.

dont get snidey with me because your shitty fkn multi is found out.  yes you both waffle on with shit and cant seem to make a point. let alone make a point in under 100 words. it's possibly the most obvious multi in the forum.   

fact is you dont provide a compelling argument for 3 at the back. you just dont like that almost no one supports your waffling on the topic.  if you are going to patronisingly imply that i dont understand football because i dont "break it down", then it might help if you actual go on to break it down yourself instead of making vague statements about the virtues of your preferred system.

When we reach the World cup we need someone who will score 1 or 2 times out of a handful of half chances because that is all we are going to get.   Maclaran seems to score about 1 in 10, many of which are pretty good shots.  He won get anywhere near that many chances in the world cup.

Cahill wont create 10 clear cut chances a game for himself.  I find it hard to believe their  is a player in the game who would do this, playing for the socceroos in the world cup.  I know which player  of those mentioned i would like to give three chances a game to.  

There is a bit of an argument to play the others leading up to Russia in what is deemed easier games (didnt seem to work too well against thailand).  And i do agree that he is at an age where a form drop prior to danger is certainly a danger.  Still, our up and coming forwards have a long way to go before they reach Cahill's value.

i think we need to be cautious of conflating the player cahill was with the player cahill is.  he hasnt done enough this season in australia to show me he is still able to do that. although his stats are not terrible - especially considering that he has played a lot in midfield and has had inconsistent game time.  i would still have him in the squad.  i just would not be thinking of him as our #1 hope.

minutes per goal this season in all comps (except the FFA cup..)

Brendon Santalab  - 9 goals 93 minutes per goal (+1 assist)
Adam Taggart      -  11 goals 105 minutes per goal (+1 assist)
Tim Cahill            -  7 goals 145 minutes per goal (+1 assist)
Jamie Maclaren   - 11 goals 161 minutes per goal (+2 assists) (includes ACL. it's 150 minutes per goal without ACL. and if he scores tonight he will overtake cahill)
Alex Brosque       - 9 goals 169 minutes per goal (+4 assists)
Tomi Juric           -  6 goals 205 minutes per goal (+5 assists) (includes swiss cup)

I dont have the stats on how many where penalties.  I would like to see minutes per goal + assist - penalties.  maybe one day when i am procrastinating harder than today....

It seems to me that we're playing with more of a 2 man rest defence and Jedinak sitting just above. Three central defenders would address that and mean they have less ground to cover. It's a one man numerical difference. But that one is crucial. When they're under the pump, the wingbacks can come right back as well. That's a very difficult to break down (but obviously we don't want to be be playing five at the back more than we need to do).

I agree that the way they all played in the recent WCQs was deplorable. Unfortunately, that needs to be handled and this at the same time. Ange has a lot on his plate. Some of which outside his control, but some things he can take charge of.

Bender Parma

Spot on. You can play with a sweeper in the back three or flat. Either or.

Your post reads like the status quo is that Ange is playing with a flat back four. If that were the case, then you'd be absolutely correct that three at the back introduces difficulties which a flat back four doesn't have.. The problem is Ange insists on overlapping wingbacks. So it's not a flat back four at all.

I would argue that our current formation (back four which includes overlapping wingbacks/fullbacks and then you have Jedinak sitting just ahead of the defence) ends up being just two at the back and Jedinak unsure whether to go further up and screen the defence (as he would do for his club side) or sit back and leave a massive hole in midfield ahead of him.

And if three can be carved up. You can bet that two can be carved up.



Case in point at 2:13



We'd be less likely to be slaughtered than we're currently being. See the video above. We're effective playing with two at the back and Jedinak in no-man's land when we defend a counter at the minute. This is why unadulterated Angeball is untenable (for a team in our specific circumstances).

At least with three at the back, we'd have an extra man in defence.


This makes a lot of sense to me. My favourite formation is 4-2-3-1. I think it's the most balanced. If it is not a flat back four, if it has overlapping fullbacks/wingbacks, then it's only on degree better than the status quo (4-3-3 with overlapping wingbacks and an offensive midfield triangle). The only difference is it has a defensive midfield triangle. Slight improvement. But not enough.

Oh my goodness. You actually are being that stupid. I thought it was banter. You seriously believe gloryperth and I are one and the same as we both write a lot. Yours is post of the year. Really shows how bright you are right now.

For the record, I don't care if nobody on the forum agrees with me on this. I just judge everything on its individual merits. Whether others agree or not, I could not care less. Unlike you, I'm capable of thinking outside the box. You just say to your self- Ange hasn't tried three at the back, therefore, it won't work. That is literally your line of argument.

But as it happens some of the brightest of the forum (imo) have expressed opinions which find the idea of three at the back favourable, at the very least. I refer to johnszas, melbourne_terrace and azzaMVFC. Those are three of the most enlightened people on here, imo. Others also think it's sensible.

Anyway, I've produced a host of compelling reasons. You will find them above. You're yet to articulate a single reason against it. Nobody has managed to do so (CitySam came close, but his argument doesn't take into account we have overlapping wingbacks as things stand).

Aljay, you're doing the same as CitySam.

You're both looking at the formation (4-3-3) and you both almost seem to be assuming that it's a flat back four. If this were the case, it would mean, as you say, 'our LB and RB (can) pick up their wide player in the front three'.

But our left back and right back cannot do this. Why? Because Ange wants them to push right up. So, if we lose possession and they're further up, it means those wide opposition players are have only got two central defenders to deal with rather than three central defenders (as it would be if we had three at the back). This is what it currently looks like when we lose possession


Situation a (status quo)

Smith----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Whoever


--------------------------------------------------------------------------Jedinak-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------Sainsbury------------------------------------------------------Spiranovic-----------------------------------------------------



------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ryan-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And there's also hole in midfield ahead of Jedinak (because Ange insists on an offensive midfield triangle). So if Jedinak goes further up to engage in a duel (and loses it), it leaves us with two central defenders dealing with (potentially) three attacking players at once.

This, my friend, is why I propose three at the back as follows...


Situation b (what Ange should do)


Behich----------------------------------------------------------------Jedinak-------------------------------------------------------------------------Leckie


-----------------------Sainsbury------------------------------------Spiranovic------------------------------------------Wright--------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------Jones/Langerak-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Can you see how much easier it for them to defend? They're much more likely to be carved up in Situation a than Situation b. The plus-side about Situation b is that Jedinak has a bit more freedom to engage in duels a bit further up (and that's why he has had the success he has had in English football). In Situation a, he doesn't really have that freedom. Plus, if you have Jackson Irvine operating as a box-to-box midfielder (and he's fairly mobile), it means that Jedinak and Irvine can double team to close down attacks. We can't do that at the minute. We're too stretched. The great thing about Situation b is it renders us less stretched.

It's a very interesting discussion. There's a higher chance that Ange won't play 3 at the back because it's Ange rather than the fact our players would be incapable.

Interesting is more and more clubs are employing this. It's making a comeback. Inter, Frankfurt and Fürth do it all to great effect. Frankfurt are insanely good and even crazier is they have the small Hasebe at CB.

I'd just have Jedinak in the back 3 with Sainsbury and Wright provided Mooy, Smith and Leckie vigorously keep an eye on things when Jedinak goes a bit forward on the ball. Behich played further up at left midfield yesterday. 

I just hope Ange keeps this in mind for those matches where it'd be appropriate. 

Maclaren scored twice today. Can someone please explain why they still doubt him for the national team squad?

He and Taggart are scoring and I don't think we've ever had two A League Aussies doing that well so close to qualifications. 

But you are assuming that teams will move the ball slow enough for us to be able to transition into 5 at the back which is the only way you get defensive solidity in this formation without decent players. The problem with 3 at the back is it is 3 at the back and not 4 it isn't more secure some quick movement and good switching will create so many gaps centrally that there is nothing we could do. Then in a team playing two up top the two central strikers will be able to occupy all 3 center halves as the man marking is far more difficult in this formation. Then this allows a lot of space for the wingers and overlapping fullbacks creating an overload and the defence unable to cope. But with a back 4 the 2 center halves can simply man mark the two strikers with no problem, the fullbacks are deeper and there average position is far deeper as it is a back 4, not a back 2 even if they are attacking fullbacks, they are still deeper than in a 3 at the back formation by a good 5-10 meters on average. Also if the fullback is too far up the pitch the midfielder will slot into the position making sure it is a flat back 4.

Problems also occur against the false 9, losing that midfield battle and the centre half getting dragged upfield by the striker just creates so many holes. This is why almost no national teams use the formation as it is so incredibly difficult to master and you need the right players and time for it or it is the complete opposite of organistion. 4 at the back is compact and players in this team know there roles within it.

Tbh It's a bit hard lining up the form of Glory players full stop as I think Castro maybe making others look good. They're a hard team to earmark/grade. At times they look very good but I'm not sure they are genuine contenders with Castro marked well.

Agree with this. I'd like to see it tried simply because most of our FBs are better going forward than they are defensively and it'd be nice to have a plan B, the midfield diamond is very unconvincing. It'd be interesting to see if it allows us to play attacking wingbacks without getting destroyed in transition.

That being said, Ange has his way and I very much doubt he'll be experimenting that heavily in the year leading up to the WC.

I'm not making that assumption. I'm not saying it will always be the case that the wingbacks will be back quickly enough. Sometimes they'll be leaving the three central defenders isolated. But you do realise the status quo means leaving two (rather than three) central defenders isolated much too often?

Your post assumes that we always have four at the back at present. Imo (and with all due respect, all the more so as you're one of my favourite posters on here), your proposition is based on a false premise.

The premise you're assuming is that we have four at the back at any given time. This is patently incorrect. Ange wants the fullbacks/wingbacks to push right up. Let's say that's the case. Let me ask you this.

With both fullbacks caught out of possession as per Situation a above, which is preferable:

(a) to have two central defenders trying to contain three attacking opponents

or

(b) to have three central defenders trying to contain three attacking opponents?

That's the crux of it. There's no point in me responding to the rest of your post until this matter is resolved.