We're already being destroyed in transition with two central defenders. Having a third won't make it any worse.

I've got a sneaking suspicion that Jackson Irvine is the key to all this. I reckon if he gets a good run as kind of box-to-box midfielder, it will make things run that much smoother in the middle of the park. He has that which Rogic, Mooy and Jedinak lack.

I'm not sure if Cahill is carrying an injury, but he hasn't been starting for City in recent games.

But the midfielders cover the fullbacks if they are too far up the pitch too make a back 4, well what usually happens is one fullback stays back more to easily get back into position so the midfielder in question covers the more advanced fullback. For Australia our RB rarely ventures forward. Also with 3 central defenders one is more advanced generally anyway and even ventures into midfield.

And as i also stated fullbacks, even attacking ones on the whole stay deeper, just look at heat maps and you'll see the average position is considerably different and in defence it does become a typical back 4 unless they are caught out on the counter. While 3 at the back the team in general is higher up the pitch and those 3 defenders cover so much more space creating more gaps centrally especially when the overlapping fullbacks drag the midfielders out wide.

Imagine it like this, in a back 4 the 2 cb's are responsible for the middle part of the ground and put trust in the fullback and midfield to cover the wide areas, so on the whole they cover far less ground. While 3 at the back covers the entire length of the pitch which makes it so much easier to find holes, drag them out of position and struggle to keep a defensive line.

gloryperth, that's all you have. personal attacks about my intelligence because you got some serious sand in your knickers.  im not surprised that the people you consider enlightened are those that agree with you.

and...  that is not what i have said about 3 at the back.  i also dont need to write a novel repeating my point over and over and over again.  i personally dont prefer 3 at the back.  i'd rather see us stack our team in the areas where we are stronger ie midfield. that doesnt mean i dont think it would work or it wont happen.  but i cant see ange doing it because i havent seen him do it before. i dont think it would be wise for him to break out a brand new formation in competitive fixtures. i would bet your left multi nut sack that if he was seriously considering it, we would have seen it in earlier friendlies. but no, he worked on a 442 diamond in those times.

i agree that defensively we are shot.  this is common with most teams that press forward and seek possession in the klopp or guardiola style.  this is an issue that they have themselves right now in the EPL.  

the simplest solution would be to use jedinak/milligan/whoever much more defensively than we do now. much like how jedi is played at club.   essentially it is like a 3 at the back except with the sweeper in front of the centrebacks.  i would even prefer to see us play with 2 defensive mids. although in reality the triangle in midfield rotates so much that to call it a static attacking or defensive triangle really doesnt fit the way it plays out on game day.

i also think we need to be stricter about who we actually let in the squad.  having our key defenders playing in money leagues or sitting on the bench is going to cost us goals.it does cost us goals.  i would rather look to the a-league.

Was watching the cricket so missed the Roar game.

It is good that MacLaren is scoring, and he scored twice today. Having said this he looked all at sea with little service in Roar's ACL debacle last week.

Taggart has looked very sharp for Glory and is scoring.

Juric also scored a brace in a recent Swiss Cup game. Maybe all three will be in the next squad, along with Cahill.

edit.  updated.  goals per minute of australians.  who else need to be on this list?

1. Brendon Santalab  - 9 goals 93 minutes per goal (+1 assist)
2. Adam Taggart      -  11 goals 105 minutes per goal (+1 assist)
3. Jamie Maclaren   - 13 goals 136 minutes per goal (+2 assists) (includes ACL. it's 127 minutes per goal without ACL.)
4. Tim Cahill            -  7 goals 145 minutes per goal (+1 assist)
5. Alex Brosque       - 9 goals 169 minutes per goal (+4 assists)
6. Tomi Juric           -  6 goals 205 minutes per goal (+5 assists) (includes swiss cup)

 Good stats, Inala.

ive updated it above :)

The problem with the national team right now is we are getting stuck too centrally with too many players occupying the same space.
http://imgur.com/a/2ztrj

That is the average position vs Japan there are literally 4 players who occupied the same average position for the match and 2 others just in front of them, lack of width and utilising spaces have been killer for us.

Inala, I'm 100% certain Glory Perth and QF are different people. They have completely different structure in language and the only thing they have in common is they often post long posts.

There are some strange folk on here, a snag short of a barbecue, that accuse me of being other people I'm not, and accuse others of being me. Then others believe it!

I wasn't aware that Glory Perth is keen on 3 at the back for the Socceroos.

It can also be a question of phases of play.

Australia is selecting a team based on the possession phase of play.

We have been punished in counter attacks, because the personnel selected that is the best in possession, is not as effective in defending counter attacks when we defend running towards our own goal.

It makes for very interesting reading.

Santalab certainly knows where the goals are, but is often only a sub for WSW.

Maclaren has also taken penalties too, but I'd surmise nowhere near as many as Fornaroli and Berisha.

Penalties greatly enhance one's stats.

If Giannou is bench sitting in the CSL, I'd rather he play regularly in the HAL.

Problem is our possession especially in that game was just passing around the back because no one was utilising any space out wide and we therefore get clogged up centrally. A common issue for us.

CitySam

That doesn't answer my question ;) You're not obliged to agree with the premise behind my question (in much the way I disagree with the premise underpinning your argument). But, supposing I'm right...

Which of the two situations 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 theory, I agree. It gets lost in translation to practice. Here, the problem is the gap between theory and practice. In practice, what happens is both the fullbacks press forward and Jedinak sits back a bit.

The logic behind having both fullbacks pressed forward is, imo, sound. It provides heaps of width and it does stretches opposition defences. This is something that I think Ange has got right.

But the downside is that it means there are just two central defenders with Jedinak slightly ahead and in such a position that it is ill-advised to contest midfield duels further up (which is precisely what Jedinak did best for Crystal Palace). Ange insists on an offensive midfield triangle. This is a recipe for disaster with the calibre of footballers at his disposal. Now, your 4-2-3-1 idea would partially rectify this. Jedinak would be able to contest duels slightly further up with defensive cover behind him (or vice versa). It would certainly be an improvement. But it would still leave our central defenders much too isolated when both fullbacks push forward... as they system demands they should.

This stems from Australia not having the calibre of footballers to put the theory into practice. In an ideal world, Ange could play 4-3-3 (with overlapping wingbacks and an offensive midfield triangle to his heart's content).



I would have either a flat back three with Jedinak above them and screening them. He would have that role of venturing into midfield. Otherwise, you could go with that back three shape to which Bender Parma refers. That also works. Then, again, we can play the ball out from defence with a lot more stability. And Jedinak can do precisely the same thing; screen the three central defenders and provide that muscle in central midfield.

I say Jedinak. Milligan could also fulfil that role. The same may also go for O'Neill and Irvine.



Not our fullbacks. When you've a stronger midfield, quicker central defenders and fullbacks who are better defensively, then sure. But we don't have that. This means that we find our fullbacks are caught out of position, high up the park, we have a lousy central midfield, so all hell breaks loose. Case in point, the video of the goal that Wayne Rooney scored.

It's an accident waiting to happen. As you say, the two central defenders are responsible for the middle part of the ground and should be able to put trust in the fullback and midfield to cover the wide areas. Our central defenders cannot trust in the ability or the savoir-faire of the fullbacks to cover those areas. And then, as Ange prefers an offensive midfield triangle, they can have precious little faith in the central midfielders.

Ange is using a formation which doesn't suit his players in the slightest bit.

So basically, we have a situation where it's two central defenders taking charge of their middle part, hoping that the fullbacks will be able to get back and help out and then, when that doesn't happen, having to cover more ground.

You're assuming that, if we played with a back three, they would have to cover the whole back line.

This is an assumption. Why does it need to be this way. We can have the wingbacks dropping right back and covering the wide area (albeit not quite in line with the central defenders, but just above). Why can that not be?

Sure, when it goes pear-shaped, it will be a case of three central defenders covering the width of the pitch. But, do you realise, that as things stand, it ends up being two central defenders covering the width of the pitch. Which of those situations is preferable?

I don't know that Glory Perth is keen on that. I've never seen him put forth his view on the matter. From his posts, he usually has fairly mainstream views. Yours truly is less inclined to swallow whatever opinion is flavour of the month (no disrespect to Glory Perth, the same can be said of the majority of the forum)

It was you who started the ad hominem attacks. For ages, you have been attempting to call out what you perceive to be a multi. Make sure to get it right. To those who are adept at analysing these things, there is an obvious distinction between the respective writing styles. But you've stooped low and not given up. You've just gotta wear it, my friend. You can't expect not to have your intelligence insulted if you carry on trying to say Glory Perth and I are the same poster when it's abundantly clear we have completely different writing styles and only have one trait in common. You're just making yourself looks stupider and stupider, post by post.




Not quite. There are others on here whom I consider enlightened who either disagree with me (such as CitySam) or whose opinions on the matter are unclear to me (such as Benjamin, Draupnir, Decentric, Munrubenmuz, Paladisious, etc.).

But, sure, some who are willing to think outside the box can see the sense in it.


I wrote

"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."




Prior to this, you wrote

"glory perth..   how many times have you seen ange play 3 at the back?  and you want him to trial it for the first time in a competitive fixture?"

See the 51st page of this forum

What were you saying, again?




Yeah, nah, that's not how bets work. You have to bet your own possessions. Did nobody ever explain that to you?

Moving on. Again, you show you're a sheep. It's not about what Ange has done or will do. It's about calling Ange to account for his incompetencies and to offer an alternate solution (as I have done). Whether or not he does such a thing is another matter.

But do try to think outside the box. Less of this- I've not seen Ange do it before. The calibre of the debate is piss poor if you carry on simply taking for granted that Ange is doing the right thing. But, by all means, stick to typical Australian group think. Be a sheep and don't think outside the box (and three at the back is not exactly terribly unorthodox, anyway).



It depends on the quality of personnel at the manger's disposal. If they're good enough, then a side can play in the way Ange wishes for the NT to play.

If, however, the practitioners are mediocre (as is the case for the NT). It calls upon the manager to compromise and to find a way that enables fairly proactive football while having defensive stability.

I have provided a reasonable alternative (or rather managers such as Joachim Low and various others have done this). For reasons which I don't wholly understand, this causes you distress. Three defenders in central defence does not mean the end of the world.



Jedinak already does this. It does not work. It means that Jedinak is half-way  between a third central defender and a CDM. He's in no-man's land. He's obliged to stay back with the central defenders. The problem is it leaves a big whole in central midfield (which he usually fills for his club side). He can go forward, but that leaves two central defenders horribly isolated. It's far wiser to have three central defenders in place and allow Jedinak (or Milligan or O'Neill) to push forward and to screen the defence, rather than to leave a massive hole in midfield.



You refer to the formation which CitySam proposes; 4-2-3-1. It's a partial improvement on what is currently happening. It would give Jedinak more licence to go forward with cover. But, as you say, it doesn't always play out that way on game day. We're still likely to end up with a situation of two central defenders, isolated from CDMs and from fullbacks who are caught out of position.


I agree that there need to be strong messages sent out to those plying their trade in China or the Middle-East. The problem is that Ange cannot afford to be fussy. He doesn't have the quality of footballers. He just has to choose whoever is the best (whichever league they may play in). Thankfully, Tom Rogic and Aaron Mooy are playing in reasonable quality leagues. But, even if they were playing elsewhere, they'd have to be vying for starting positions such is the lack of quality that Australia has in the NT. As for the A-League, it's too poor in quality. If there's a footballer with the talent and/or the game awareness in the A-League, then fine. But overall, it's a very mediocre league at present.

This is a big call, QF.

He won the Asian Cup on home soil.

He has just been selecting players on reputation, rather than form lately.

I suppose he is concerned about the quality of some players in form.

In his book he talks about some who are not his type of player.