I think Ange has it right at the moment.

Playing with 3 in the attacking quarter we can play his high intensity,High pressure game and get alot of turn overs in great area's..........Thats why he loves Leckie

There is also no need to get all our best players on the field at once as it's more about the system than individuals.

Plus it's great to have 2-3 players on the bench who can make an impact......Think Rogic and Kruse against Tajikistan

Guus never started with the strongest line up at the WC because he like to keep an ace or 2 up hid sleeve.

I understand and I am no tactic guru. But as far as the 3511/352 is, that it is good against the 442 in certain overloads, but it can be quite bad against 433 in overloads. It depends who we are playing against, also how well Ange can teach the formation.
In an individual prospective it is agreeable, as a team overall, I'm not to sure.

[quote=Tickler]I think Ange has it right at the moment.

Playing with 3 in the attacking quarter we can play his high intensity,High pressure game and get alot of turn overs in great area's..........Thats why he loves Leckie

There is also no need to get all our best players on the field at once as it's more about the system than individuals.

Plus it's great to have 2-3 players on the bench who can make an impact......Think Rogic and Kruse against Tajikistan

Guus never started with the strongest line up at the WC because he like to keep an ace or 2 up hid sleeve.
[/quote

Agree mate

It's not functional. A back 3 is a failed idea. It doesn't work. Any team with decent wingers and full backs would have an absolute field day and completely shred up out wide. Any 3 of those center backs in wide areas against a winger get shredded every time. No. What do you want leckie and smith to do, cover both the wingers and wing backs plus act as attacking wingers? Not going to happen. It's just a fail.

Also, Kruse is not a center midfielder or a central striker, never has been, again this is completely disfunctional. He is a winger.

No, it depends, but it's unlikely, the reason for the 353 is to overload the central parts of the midfield, meaning you have the most possession and push the wing backs forward. But it needs very smart players, rather than technical players.

Italy would argue it was a failed idea. It is a formation that requires discipline in that rarely if ever do both wing backs go at the same time and even if you played the formation in a way that they would it is quite easy to transition a player like jedinak to become a central defender as cover for sainsbury who has played fullback previously covers leckie or wright who has also played left back covers for smith.

Under ange we tend to play a more possession based game which provides the wing backs with the opportunity to get forward at the right times as opposed to just kicking it into the corner for them to chase.

If you had read my initial post you would see that i wasnt advocating for kruse to be a central midfielder but to have a free role to move across the front line wing to wing.

I'm not arguing with Italy, I'm not arguing with you. It's a ridiculous formation.

Edited by the fans: 15/4/2016 04:19:24 PM

Finally found it. And worth a bump/update in view of the friendlies against England and Greece which have taken place and the upcoming second friendly against Greece.

So we now have Giannou and Degenek playing for the Socceroos and potentially alleviating real dilemmas upfront and and in defence, at least to a small extent.

Smith and Gersbach contesting the left-back role. Really good options there, thankfully.

Milligan has been as versatile as ever.

The right-back question is still a very problematic one. Risdon, Geria and Degenek have all been given a go (however briefly).

I reiterate my main conclusion from recent weeks (without having viewed the friendly against the Greeks)...

Angeball is fine but could perhaps be modified by only having the one fullback acting as a wingback (on the left hand side, where we're strong). Until we have a right-back who is capable of getting forward and providing quality play, getting back quick smart and defending like a boss, having both fullbacks rush forward is a luxury we can ill-afford.

At present, we have conceded between 2 and 3 goals each game against top notch opponents. As we cannot be counted upon to score between 3 and 4 goals each match (especially with a lack of quality options up front), it's time for Ange to have a rethink. He should just be a tad more conservative in one part of the park (right-back) and also reconsider what skills he prizes most in his goalkeepers. Do that right and I suspect we concede fewer goals against good opponents.

A fair point and why I rate Mcgowan at this time the better right back option. Geria went well for a first gamer but please not Risdon who is too mistake prone, even at HAL level. If Curtis Good can finally get back on the pitch regularly for the toon , he may rise up the pecking order.

We have conceded between 2 and 3 goals against top notch opponents....in friendlies. Ange uses friendlies to experiment. He's on the record saying that he isn't very good at coaching friendlies. We are using these matches to get better for when it counts, and try out certain things and ideas so to look at goals conceded and judge that we need to change our approach is wrong. I don't think any of Smith, risdon, wright and milligan will be our first choice backline come 2018.

We always need to rethink everything but we aren't about to change the role of the right back, having that player get forward its too important to the teams attacking structure. It's just a matter of tweaking thinks and finding an appropriate RB for the position. We have time. There is no need to panic.

Fair point. Friendlies are the place to experiment with the side.

I was including the matches at the World Cup in Brazil, in which we also always conceded between 2 and 3 goals. And, imo, in part due to the same weaknesses which we're seeing exploited now (albeit in friendlies).

Even for non-friendlies with competent fullbacks, although I can see the argument for having both fullbacks overlapping, I still have my doubts as to whether this is the best way to go. For mine, the jury is still out on that one.

I like Milligan's versatility and know he likes to be in the centre of the park , however, his best contributions in recent times have been at RB during the Asian Cup. At LB we have Smith and now Gersbach, at CB Sainsbury, Wilko, Spira, Degenek and Wright. Milligan has done a great job at RB at the national level, in spite of his preference not be there. Better than anyone else that has been thrown into any other of Ange's games.

Why does Spira play ahead of either Degenek or Wright? I know they are more mobile than he is, especially Degenek with his passing game too.

Degenek is quickly forcing his way into that position.

Yes at world cup level the jury is still out on everything. But we'll see. There's no point second guessing ourselves now. We have our way, we need to put everything into being the best at it we can. Not making temporary changes that send us backwards in development to get quick results in friendlies. I know you don't see it as going backwards but I think it is.

We certainly need to make some changes tactically defending the counter. It wasn't good enough against England. We actually had players making schoolboy error decisions and diving into tackles and getting sucked to the ball leaving men free. Against Greece we we're much better.

Tactically sainsbury is our best center back while Wright is our worst. Sains virtually always makes the right decision. Perhaps we might be looking at a Sainsbury/Degenek CB pairing. I think maybe it adds an even better balance than Sains/Spiro.

I think if we rectify our issues we can still use attacking full backs.

Jury is still out on Wright imo.

He's a club footballer. By that I mean his success is with his club over a sustained period of time. Probably this is due to being really familiar there. He may be able to replicate that form with the NT if he becomes familiar there.

Even in the England friendly, he seemed to have improved (for the NT) since the previous matches he played.

Moreover, if you have him in the central of defence, you can have Degenek at right-back. If, as I'm suggesting (at least for the short term), Degenek's role is to stay in line with the two central defenders, that all dovetails nicelyl

Obviously there are other players to be taken into consideration for both the right-back and central defender roles (including the possibility of deploying Smith or Gersbach on the right hand side, which might be a way to go)

I think with Wright his Championship style served well against England with contested headers and 50/50's but against smaller Asian opponents who run at him he can get caught flat footed.

The only downside with Degenek is that he plays DM for his club. According to Transfermarkt he only played CB once last season. He looked pretty good, but playing out of position is generally not great.

Also hoping that Lyden might come into the picture at RB. Fingers crossed he gets lots of minutes there next season.

I would argue the Championship is not without footballers who are pacy and direct. Wright would have to deal with those kind of players quite a bit.

I still think there's a strong case for letting Wright get acclimatised. It has served him and PNE well. It might serve him and the Socceroos, well also.

I think Ange genuinely has to think outside the box here.

Converting players from one position to another. All rather unorthodox. But it has been done successfully on many occasions in the past. And given we're threadbare in certain positions but have talented players competing for one positions, it really may need to happen. The skills they have in one part of the park can, often, be transferred to another part of the park.

What can Australia learn from the European Championships about style and tactics?

What are they doing right? What can they be doing better?

Could they do things differently to increase the chances of getting better results? But if they do that, does that harm Australian football in the long run?

Or is there a way of altering things slightly to increase Australia's chances without compromising the type of football we want the national team to be playing?

What do you think?

I believe Ange is on the right path.

Play to their strengths
Not try to copy another nation
Emphasis on passing the ball
Getting the basics right.....first to the ball etc
Understand and accept their limitations
Teamwork and unity

Wales are doing just that now and look how they're going for the first time in their history.

The only thing I think we are genuinely missing is that finishing touch

Seems to be a problem in world football in fairness. Amazing how many teams at both the euros and the copa who lacked that player up front with a killer instinct.

Poland had a dude who kicked 42 goals in 51 matches for Bayern during the 2015-16 season and yet he only kicked on goal at the Euros, probably three shots on target.

If he isn't good enough, then what hope do we have?!

Speed and incisiveness in the final third. It's the same story as usual, the more successful teams are the ones who can move the ball quickly around the box.

Australia is excellent in the aggressive press and squeezing of opposition followed by a controlled build up in possession but it is useless in creating chances against a set defence.

I think why can't Australia look to Wales' style.

They play an aggressive brand but they are also compact at the back and difficult to break down.

They have three at the back (who become central defenders when the wingbacks are right back). That means they can attack super fast while maintaining their defensive structure.

Australia has four at the back. But the two fullbacks operate as wing-backs. This is patently stupid and partly why we concede so many goals.

Why can't we have an extra central defender? This puts a lot less pressure on fullback/wingbacks, too.

I'll add. I agree wholeheartedly with melbourne_terrace that moving the ball around quickly and finishing is really what counts for so much. Australia sucks at this. In fairness, some of the better European nations have struggled though at this tournament.

With this in mind, Tom Rogic has to play up front.

He's the only play we have with natural instinct for scoring goals, other than Tim Cahill. He just has a feel for where the goal is and how to score; whether by smashing the ball into the top corner or cajoling it.

We've already established that Rogic and Mooy working together in central midfield doesn't translate so well. One but not both. They don't have the defensive abilities. But you want both on the park at the same time to get the most out of the side. Well, you put Rogic up front (where it doesn't matter that he's not so good at defence).

Rogic has the finishing ability, the scoring instinct, the 1 vs 1 ability to play up front. The only thing I'm not sure he has is the pace (although I'm not sure he's slow, and he accelerated nicely to score that goal on the weekend).

So Rogic as striker. Either on his own or with Tim Cahill.

Jedinak is CDM as screener. Irvine or Luongo is CDM as box-to-box midfielder. And Mooy is CAM and creates the chances.

We play three at the back. Decentric made a really good point that Italy's central defenders aren't that quick but they do an outstanding job. This is because they're not stretched too thin. If we have 3 at the back, plus wing-backs, then ours won't be stretched too thin (hopefully). This means that the lack of pace on the part of Spiranovic and Sainsbury won't be so bad.

---------------------------------------------------Rogic-------------------Cahill-----------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------Mooy----------------------------------------------------------


Smith----------------------------------------------------Irvine-------------------------------------------------------------Kruse

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


--------------------Sainsbury-----------------------------Spiranovic------------------------Degenek---------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------Langerak---------------------------------------------------------------


That's in a relatively aggressive version. If you wish for a more defensive version, you just swap Leckie for Kruse. If you want ultra version, you put Irvine in CDM, you have Kruse as an extra CAM and you have Leckie at right-wing back. Obviously, Gersbach and Goodwin are really good options for wing-back, too.