|
Neanderthal
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4K,
Visits: 0
|
+xi look at our squad now and i think if you dropped that NT into the premier league they would not be relegated. this is even less contentious if you considered putting them into bundesliga, serie a, la liga, or ligue 1. so why aren't all our squad playing at that level? Because you're just being optimistic of not being relegated in the PL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xi look at our squad now and i think if you dropped that NT into the premier league they would not be relegated. this is even less contentious if you considered putting them into bundesliga, serie a, la liga, or ligue 1. so why aren't all our squad playing at that level? Because you're just being optimistic of not being relegated in the PL. im more critical of out NT than most on here. i've also watched a hell of a lot of PL over the last 2 seasons. it's not optimism. i think this team would give the relegated PL teams a run for their money. i think it's even less of a question against some of the relegated teams in the other big leagues at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
I'm just having a look at the replay of the Czech game. They hard too many good scoring opportunities in the first 30 mins, which they squandered, but there was a lot to like about us and with some discernible improvement under BVM's tutelage.
Risdon has gone to another level as a RB under BVM.
Milligan's range of passing from CB was impressive.
Nabbout was surprisingly effective as a mobile central striker.
The team is more comfortable playing 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle than Ange's voodoo 3-6-1.
We sat deeper at the start of the game as they played a high defensive line.
Luongo and Mooy didn't screen the defence as well as when Jedi plays though. It was quite an issue in the first half.
Mooy and Rogic were both below par in the first half, apart from Rogic's defence splitting pass that led to the Oz goal.
The Socceroos are better now under BVM than the late stages of Ange's tenure. BVM has devised a game plan to play to the team's strengths as opposed to playing in a doctrinaire style regardless of the opposition.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
The Socceroos also play more early balls under BVM.
This turns the opposition defence around. They have to turn and chase, whilst the Socceroos have more favourable body position in the ensuing duel as they face towards the opposition goal.
With Ange's persistent high defensive line, our defenders have had to do a lot of defending like this against opposition teams's counterattacks.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
I should also add that Ange's tactics worked well for Australia in the 2014 WC, Asian Cup, and most of the home WCQs at home until late in the campaign.
The 4-2-3-1/ 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle, then the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, formations worked well, certainly at home, and for a few games in the second stage of WCQs.
Then when he tried a 4-4-2, where the team struggled for game or two, then the voodoo 3-4-2-1, that was far less familiar than the regular 3-4-3 midfield diamond or 3-4-3 flat midfield, Australia become very predicable and easy to formulate a game plan against.
In hindsight I'm glad Ange walked. He wasn't prepared to deviate from one game plan. Instead of adopting a few game plans to apply in the one game, like the former familiar 4-2-3-1 and variations of the 4-3-3, Ange became inexplicably dogmatic.
|
|
|
|
|
Lightbulb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 347,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
MarkfromCroydon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
You know this Billy Haisley guy is not much of an author when he refers to Postecoglou as "the proud Greek coach". Poor effort really.
|
|
|
|
|
Barca4Life
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
It was refreshing to see an Aussie team playing with speed on transition, under Ange at times we were too slow once we got the ball and was no awareness to play quickly when it was on.
The evidence of ‘effective possession’ as the say in the curriculum.
Agree with you Decentric on the tactics with Ange, it was one formation only and rarely tried to be flexible given the opponent or players that were available.
Too much reliance on possession too.
|
|
|
|
|
maxxie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xYou know this Billy Haisley guy is not much of an author when he refers to Postecoglou as "the proud Greek coach". Poor effort really. Quick squiz at the sidebar on wikipedia is all you need aye.
|
|
|
|
|
Derider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
So he's American, is he? It's a bit more understandable then. It would have been entirely unacceptable for an Aussie to write that. This guy is apparently known for authoring articles with such poetic titles as 'Why the MLS still sucks ass'...
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 17K,
Visits: 0
|
"Australia hired Bert van Marwijk to take Postecoglou’s place on the Socceroos’ bench. But van Marwijk is no Postecoglou. The new manager has already gone about cutting out that adventurous spirit that made Australia such a good show at the last World Cup, and this Aussie team will be much more bland and safe than the one we saw in Brazil four years ago."
How on earth does BVM get this reputation. We lose possession by the speed of the ball movement but the ball is on the ground the whole time. This isn't exactly hoofball. And if we were more technical we would get 60% percent possesion with this style
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
It appears that this bad, boring and untalented team has been predicted to advance the group stages by Jose Mourinho
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI should also add that Ange's tactics worked well for Australia in the 2014 WC, Asian Cup, and most of the home WCQs at home until late in the campaign. The 4-2-3-1/ 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle, then the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, formations worked well, certainly at home, and for a few games in the second stage of WCQs. Then when he tried a 4-4-2, where the team struggled for game or two, then the voodoo 3-4-2-1, that was far less familiar than the regular 3-4-3 midfield diamond or 3-4-3 flat midfield, Australia become very predicable and easy to formulate a game plan against. In hindsight I'm glad Ange walked. He wasn't prepared to deviate from one game plan. Instead of adopting a few game plans to apply in the one game, like the former familiar 4-2-3-1 and variations of the 4-3-3, Ange became inexplicably dogmatic. Voodoo or hoodoo? Anyhow, Ange's tactics didn't work that well in Brazil. They were all right. But they always unveiled a weakness which was too easy for any opposition to exploit. As for the Asian Cup (on home soil)... take that with a grain of salt. What Ange initially was trying to do, in the style of Barcelona, was to play 4-3-3 with attacking wingbacks and an offensive midfield triangle. It was a terrible idea which meant, when we lost possession and the wingbacks were out of position, we'd end up with two fairly slow central defenders trying to defend the width of the pitch. Not good. You literally have to be Barcelona to play that way with sustained success. And Ange was trying that with the stocks available to him. No wonder he was so reliant on Brad Smith (which was always far from ideal). The only chance the formation has is with fullbacks who can cover a hundred in about ten seconds. It became obvious during the last World Cup that the application of that formation would not work. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, top club sides (with far better footballers than ours) were having a conundrum. Do we want to exploit the width of the pitch with our fullbacks? Yep, they did. But can we afford to do this with a back four? No, because we're too vulnerable to pacy counter-attacks. To address that, instead of having two central defenders, they tried having 3 central defenders and then a similar set-up with the wingbacks as before. And this worked. Hence I said Ange can't keep on having us play this way, never mind winning the Asian Cup on home soil and losing to South Korea in the process. Either Ange can have a flat-ish back four or he can have three central defenders and aggressive wingbacks (who still drop back). If Ange had done this, he would have had a bit more success. And he sort of did cotton on to what other sides were doing. But he was still overzealous in his attacking propensity. The idea is to have three central defenders and attacking wingbacks who drop back. He went for what was basically a back three.
|
|
|
|
|
Derider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI should also add that Ange's tactics worked well for Australia in the 2014 WC, Asian Cup, and most of the home WCQs at home until late in the campaign. The 4-2-3-1/ 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle, then the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, formations worked well, certainly at home, and for a few games in the second stage of WCQs. Then when he tried a 4-4-2, where the team struggled for game or two, then the voodoo 3-4-2-1, that was far less familiar than the regular 3-4-3 midfield diamond or 3-4-3 flat midfield, Australia become very predicable and easy to formulate a game plan against. In hindsight I'm glad Ange walked. He wasn't prepared to deviate from one game plan. Instead of adopting a few game plans to apply in the one game, like the former familiar 4-2-3-1 and variations of the 4-3-3, Ange became inexplicably dogmatic. Voodoo or hoodoo? Anyhow, Ange's tactics didn't work that well in Brazil. They were all right. But they always unveiled a weakness which was too easy for any opposition to exploit. As for the Asian Cup (on home soil)... take that with a grain of salt. What a disingenuous, annoying comment. We win the Asian Cup, but "take that with a grain of salt". Apparently that's not an achievement worthy of being proud about. We play awesome attacking football in 2014 with one of the poorest WC squads in history and take the game right to some of the best sides in the world, but no, Ange fucked up somehow. We just can't win with you genius experts, can we?
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI should also add that Ange's tactics worked well for Australia in the 2014 WC, Asian Cup, and most of the home WCQs at home until late in the campaign. The 4-2-3-1/ 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle, then the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, formations worked well, certainly at home, and for a few games in the second stage of WCQs. Then when he tried a 4-4-2, where the team struggled for game or two, then the voodoo 3-4-2-1, that was far less familiar than the regular 3-4-3 midfield diamond or 3-4-3 flat midfield, Australia become very predicable and easy to formulate a game plan against. In hindsight I'm glad Ange walked. He wasn't prepared to deviate from one game plan. Instead of adopting a few game plans to apply in the one game, like the former familiar 4-2-3-1 and variations of the 4-3-3, Ange became inexplicably dogmatic. Voodoo or hoodoo? Anyhow, Ange's tactics didn't work that well in Brazil. They were all right. But they always unveiled a weakness which was too easy for any opposition to exploit. As for the Asian Cup (on home soil)... take that with a grain of salt. What Ange initially was trying to do, in the style of Barcelona, was to play 4-3-3 with attacking wingbacks and an offensive midfield triangle. It was a terrible idea which meant, when we lost possession and the wingbacks were out of position, we'd end up with two fairly slow central defenders trying to defend the width of the pitch. Not good. You literally have to be Barcelona to play that way with sustained success. And Ange was trying that with the stocks available to him. No wonder he was so reliant on Brad Smith (which was always far from ideal). The only chance the formation has is with fullbacks who can cover a hundred in about ten seconds. It became obvious during the last World Cup that the application of that formation would not work. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, top club sides (with far better footballers than ours) were having a conundrum. Do we want to exploit the width of the pitch with our fullbacks? Yep, they did. But can we afford to do this with a back four? No, because we're too vulnerable to pacy counter-attacks. To address that, instead of having two central defenders, they tried having 3 central defenders and then a similar set-up with the wingbacks as before. And this worked. Hence I said Ange can't keep on having us play this way, never mind winning the Asian Cup on home soil and losing to South Korea in the process. Either Ange can have a flat-ish back four or he can have three central defenders and aggressive wingbacks (who still drop back). If Ange had done this, he would have had a bit more success. And he sort of did cotton on to what other sides were doing. But he was still overzealous in his attacking propensity. The idea is to have three central defenders and attacking wingbacks who drop back. He went for what was basically a back three. What a disingenuous, annoying post. We win the Asian Cup, but "take that with a grain of salt". Apparently that's not an achievement worthy of being proud about. We play awesome attacking football in 2014 with one of the poorest WC squads in history and take the game right to some of the best sides in the world, but no, Ange fucked up somehow. We just can't win with you genius experts, can we? It was good. But making a song and dance about anything (let alone a tournament won on home soil against lacklustre opponents) breeds complacency and lulls people into a false sense of security. Trawl through the posts on this forum from then to get an idea. I like a quote by Rudyard Kipling in If (not that I agree with all that much of Kipling's work, in general) - 'If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same' You can't just get complacent about the final scoreline. Basically, if you actually look at the passages of play in the virtually all of the Socceroos matches under Ange (including those with decent results) we were always far too defensively exposed because of how he set up. We didn't have the attacking stocks to finish chances. We didn't have the quality in midfield to break down opponents in congested areas. So we weren't likely to score too much with Angeball. But Ange wanted to take massive defensive risks. Really, really poor strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI should also add that Ange's tactics worked well for Australia in the 2014 WC, Asian Cup, and most of the home WCQs at home until late in the campaign. The 4-2-3-1/ 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle, then the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, formations worked well, certainly at home, and for a few games in the second stage of WCQs. Then when he tried a 4-4-2, where the team struggled for game or two, then the voodoo 3-4-2-1, that was far less familiar than the regular 3-4-3 midfield diamond or 3-4-3 flat midfield, Australia become very predicable and easy to formulate a game plan against. In hindsight I'm glad Ange walked. He wasn't prepared to deviate from one game plan. Instead of adopting a few game plans to apply in the one game, like the former familiar 4-2-3-1 and variations of the 4-3-3, Ange became inexplicably dogmatic. i actually thought we were really good with the 442 diamond. i thought it was the one time we were really playing to the squad that we had. the issue is that the front two didnt know how to operate. jmac would have been perfect for the second striker in that formation.
|
|
|
|
|
jas88
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.6K,
Visits: 0
|
I thought Luongo and Mooy screened well... im not sure what match you were watching? but the issue for me was we were too slow getting it to rogic and in most cases the pass was poor or rogic lost it then we had to scramble defensively in that opening 30mins.. once rogic started holding onto the ball and making passes we were able to start attacking on the counter properly..
|
|
|
|
|
Derider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI should also add that Ange's tactics worked well for Australia in the 2014 WC, Asian Cup, and most of the home WCQs at home until late in the campaign. The 4-2-3-1/ 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle, then the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, formations worked well, certainly at home, and for a few games in the second stage of WCQs. Then when he tried a 4-4-2, where the team struggled for game or two, then the voodoo 3-4-2-1, that was far less familiar than the regular 3-4-3 midfield diamond or 3-4-3 flat midfield, Australia become very predicable and easy to formulate a game plan against. In hindsight I'm glad Ange walked. He wasn't prepared to deviate from one game plan. Instead of adopting a few game plans to apply in the one game, like the former familiar 4-2-3-1 and variations of the 4-3-3, Ange became inexplicably dogmatic. Voodoo or hoodoo? Anyhow, Ange's tactics didn't work that well in Brazil. They were all right. But they always unveiled a weakness which was too easy for any opposition to exploit. As for the Asian Cup (on home soil)... take that with a grain of salt. What Ange initially was trying to do, in the style of Barcelona, was to play 4-3-3 with attacking wingbacks and an offensive midfield triangle. It was a terrible idea which meant, when we lost possession and the wingbacks were out of position, we'd end up with two fairly slow central defenders trying to defend the width of the pitch. Not good. You literally have to be Barcelona to play that way with sustained success. And Ange was trying that with the stocks available to him. No wonder he was so reliant on Brad Smith (which was always far from ideal). The only chance the formation has is with fullbacks who can cover a hundred in about ten seconds. It became obvious during the last World Cup that the application of that formation would not work. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, top club sides (with far better footballers than ours) were having a conundrum. Do we want to exploit the width of the pitch with our fullbacks? Yep, they did. But can we afford to do this with a back four? No, because we're too vulnerable to pacy counter-attacks. To address that, instead of having two central defenders, they tried having 3 central defenders and then a similar set-up with the wingbacks as before. And this worked. Hence I said Ange can't keep on having us play this way, never mind winning the Asian Cup on home soil and losing to South Korea in the process. Either Ange can have a flat-ish back four or he can have three central defenders and aggressive wingbacks (who still drop back). If Ange had done this, he would have had a bit more success. And he sort of did cotton on to what other sides were doing. But he was still overzealous in his attacking propensity. The idea is to have three central defenders and attacking wingbacks who drop back. He went for what was basically a back three. What a disingenuous, annoying post. We win the Asian Cup, but "take that with a grain of salt". Apparently that's not an achievement worthy of being proud about. We play awesome attacking football in 2014 with one of the poorest WC squads in history and take the game right to some of the best sides in the world, but no, Ange fucked up somehow. We just can't win with you genius experts, can we? It was good. But making a song and dance about anything (let alone a tournament won on home soil against lacklustre opponents) breeds complacency and lulls people into a false sense of security. Trawl through the posts on this forum from then to get an idea. I like a quote by Rudyard Kipling in If (not that I agree with all that much of Kipling's work, in general) - 'If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same' You can't just get complacent about the final scoreline. Basically, if you actually look at the passages of play in the virtually all of the Socceroos matches under Ange (including those with decent results) we were always far too defensively exposed because of how he set up. We didn't have the attacking stocks to finish chances. We didn't have the quality in midfield to break down opponents in congested areas. So we weren't likely to score too much with Angeball. But Ange wanted to take massive defensive risks. Really, really poor strategy. It was a brave strategy that worked out in the end and gave our football a certain identity we never had before. I thought it was exciting and suited the Australian mentality particularly well. Also, we hardly ever lost after the Asian Cup, so it's demonstrably untrue that Ange's style was as suicidal or inappropriate as the Euro snob pragmatists now claim. The only inexcusably disastrous game under him was the qualifier in Thailand, which essentially cost us direct qualification. And I'm not complacent at all. I simply recognise the Asian Cup victory as the magnificent achievement that it was.
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI should also add that Ange's tactics worked well for Australia in the 2014 WC, Asian Cup, and most of the home WCQs at home until late in the campaign. The 4-2-3-1/ 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle, then the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, formations worked well, certainly at home, and for a few games in the second stage of WCQs. Then when he tried a 4-4-2, where the team struggled for game or two, then the voodoo 3-4-2-1, that was far less familiar than the regular 3-4-3 midfield diamond or 3-4-3 flat midfield, Australia become very predicable and easy to formulate a game plan against. In hindsight I'm glad Ange walked. He wasn't prepared to deviate from one game plan. Instead of adopting a few game plans to apply in the one game, like the former familiar 4-2-3-1 and variations of the 4-3-3, Ange became inexplicably dogmatic. Voodoo or hoodoo? Anyhow, Ange's tactics didn't work that well in Brazil. They were all right. But they always unveiled a weakness which was too easy for any opposition to exploit. As for the Asian Cup (on home soil)... take that with a grain of salt. What Ange initially was trying to do, in the style of Barcelona, was to play 4-3-3 with attacking wingbacks and an offensive midfield triangle. It was a terrible idea which meant, when we lost possession and the wingbacks were out of position, we'd end up with two fairly slow central defenders trying to defend the width of the pitch. Not good. You literally have to be Barcelona to play that way with sustained success. And Ange was trying that with the stocks available to him. No wonder he was so reliant on Brad Smith (which was always far from ideal). The only chance the formation has is with fullbacks who can cover a hundred in about ten seconds. It became obvious during the last World Cup that the application of that formation would not work. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, top club sides (with far better footballers than ours) were having a conundrum. Do we want to exploit the width of the pitch with our fullbacks? Yep, they did. But can we afford to do this with a back four? No, because we're too vulnerable to pacy counter-attacks. To address that, instead of having two central defenders, they tried having 3 central defenders and then a similar set-up with the wingbacks as before. And this worked. Hence I said Ange can't keep on having us play this way, never mind winning the Asian Cup on home soil and losing to South Korea in the process. Either Ange can have a flat-ish back four or he can have three central defenders and aggressive wingbacks (who still drop back). If Ange had done this, he would have had a bit more success. And he sort of did cotton on to what other sides were doing. But he was still overzealous in his attacking propensity. The idea is to have three central defenders and attacking wingbacks who drop back. He went for what was basically a back three. What a disingenuous, annoying post. We win the Asian Cup, but "take that with a grain of salt". Apparently that's not an achievement worthy of being proud about. We play awesome attacking football in 2014 with one of the poorest WC squads in history and take the game right to some of the best sides in the world, but no, Ange fucked up somehow. We just can't win with you genius experts, can we? It was good. But making a song and dance about anything (let alone a tournament won on home soil against lacklustre opponents) breeds complacency and lulls people into a false sense of security. Trawl through the posts on this forum from then to get an idea. I like a quote by Rudyard Kipling in If (not that I agree with all that much of Kipling's work, in general) - 'If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same' You can't just get complacent about the final scoreline. Basically, if you actually look at the passages of play in the virtually all of the Socceroos matches under Ange (including those with decent results) we were always far too defensively exposed because of how he set up. We didn't have the attacking stocks to finish chances. We didn't have the quality in midfield to break down opponents in congested areas. So we weren't likely to score too much with Angeball. But Ange wanted to take massive defensive risks. Really, really poor strategy. It was a brave strategy that worked out in the end and gave our football a certain identity we never had before. I thought it was exciting and suited the Australian mentality particularly well. Also, we hardly ever lost after the Asian Cup, so it's demonstrably untrue that Ange's style was as suicidal or inappropriate as the Euro snob pragmatists now claim. The only inexcusably disastrous game under him was the qualifier in Thailand, which essentially cost us direct qualification. And I'm not complacent at all. I simply recognise the Asian Cup victory as the magnificent achievement that it was. You're most welcome to believe that. I respectfully disagree. I think it was ill-calculated (Australian mentality or otherwise) and nearly resulted in failure to qualify. From a strategy perspective, I think the risk/reward ratio was miscalculated on account of undiluted idealism. I think that even in the successful moments, the weaknesses were always glaringly obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI should also add that Ange's tactics worked well for Australia in the 2014 WC, Asian Cup, and most of the home WCQs at home until late in the campaign. The 4-2-3-1/ 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle, then the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, formations worked well, certainly at home, and for a few games in the second stage of WCQs. Then when he tried a 4-4-2, where the team struggled for game or two, then the voodoo 3-4-2-1, that was far less familiar than the regular 3-4-3 midfield diamond or 3-4-3 flat midfield, Australia become very predicable and easy to formulate a game plan against. In hindsight I'm glad Ange walked. He wasn't prepared to deviate from one game plan. Instead of adopting a few game plans to apply in the one game, like the former familiar 4-2-3-1 and variations of the 4-3-3, Ange became inexplicably dogmatic. Voodoo or hoodoo? Anyhow, Ange's tactics didn't work that well in Brazil. They were all right. But they always unveiled a weakness which was too easy for any opposition to exploit. As for the Asian Cup (on home soil)... take that with a grain of salt. What Ange initially was trying to do, in the style of Barcelona, was to play 4-3-3 with attacking wingbacks and an offensive midfield triangle. It was a terrible idea which meant, when we lost possession and the wingbacks were out of position, we'd end up with two fairly slow central defenders trying to defend the width of the pitch. Not good. You literally have to be Barcelona to play that way with sustained success. And Ange was trying that with the stocks available to him. No wonder he was so reliant on Brad Smith (which was always far from ideal). The only chance the formation has is with fullbacks who can cover a hundred in about ten seconds. It became obvious during the last World Cup that the application of that formation would not work. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, top club sides (with far better footballers than ours) were having a conundrum. Do we want to exploit the width of the pitch with our fullbacks? Yep, they did. But can we afford to do this with a back four? No, because we're too vulnerable to pacy counter-attacks. To address that, instead of having two central defenders, they tried having 3 central defenders and then a similar set-up with the wingbacks as before. And this worked. Hence I said Ange can't keep on having us play this way, never mind winning the Asian Cup on home soil and losing to South Korea in the process. Either Ange can have a flat-ish back four or he can have three central defenders and aggressive wingbacks (who still drop back). If Ange had done this, he would have had a bit more success. And he sort of did cotton on to what other sides were doing. But he was still overzealous in his attacking propensity. The idea is to have three central defenders and attacking wingbacks who drop back. He went for what was basically a back three. What a disingenuous, annoying post. We win the Asian Cup, but "take that with a grain of salt". Apparently that's not an achievement worthy of being proud about. We play awesome attacking football in 2014 with one of the poorest WC squads in history and take the game right to some of the best sides in the world, but no, Ange fucked up somehow. We just can't win with you genius experts, can we? It was good. But making a song and dance about anything (let alone a tournament won on home soil against lacklustre opponents) breeds complacency and lulls people into a false sense of security. Trawl through the posts on this forum from then to get an idea. I like a quote by Rudyard Kipling in If (not that I agree with all that much of Kipling's work, in general) - 'If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same' You can't just get complacent about the final scoreline. Basically, if you actually look at the passages of play in the virtually all of the Socceroos matches under Ange (including those with decent results) we were always far too defensively exposed because of how he set up. We didn't have the attacking stocks to finish chances. We didn't have the quality in midfield to break down opponents in congested areas. So we weren't likely to score too much with Angeball. But Ange wanted to take massive defensive risks. Really, really poor strategy. Can only beat what is in front of you and he did it in the Asian Cup. Ange's issues came into play in qualifying but in the 3 tournaments he was apart of we exceeded or matched expectations in each. The 2014 world cup we played brilliantly against Chile and Netherlands and we played well enough to get a result in either match but we didn't have the quality to take or keep out those chances in critical moments. Either way he saved us from what should have been 3 humiliating defeats. The Asian cup we won it against a superior Korean side even if it was at home we still did the job so well done Ange. Then finally the confed cup we put up a decent fight against Germany, were decent against Cameroon and brilliant against Chile. Another success considering everyone expected us to get absolutely blitzed in every game.
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI should also add that Ange's tactics worked well for Australia in the 2014 WC, Asian Cup, and most of the home WCQs at home until late in the campaign. The 4-2-3-1/ 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle, then the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, formations worked well, certainly at home, and for a few games in the second stage of WCQs. Then when he tried a 4-4-2, where the team struggled for game or two, then the voodoo 3-4-2-1, that was far less familiar than the regular 3-4-3 midfield diamond or 3-4-3 flat midfield, Australia become very predicable and easy to formulate a game plan against. In hindsight I'm glad Ange walked. He wasn't prepared to deviate from one game plan. Instead of adopting a few game plans to apply in the one game, like the former familiar 4-2-3-1 and variations of the 4-3-3, Ange became inexplicably dogmatic. Voodoo or hoodoo? Anyhow, Ange's tactics didn't work that well in Brazil. They were all right. But they always unveiled a weakness which was too easy for any opposition to exploit. As for the Asian Cup (on home soil)... take that with a grain of salt. What Ange initially was trying to do, in the style of Barcelona, was to play 4-3-3 with attacking wingbacks and an offensive midfield triangle. It was a terrible idea which meant, when we lost possession and the wingbacks were out of position, we'd end up with two fairly slow central defenders trying to defend the width of the pitch. Not good. You literally have to be Barcelona to play that way with sustained success. And Ange was trying that with the stocks available to him. No wonder he was so reliant on Brad Smith (which was always far from ideal). The only chance the formation has is with fullbacks who can cover a hundred in about ten seconds. It became obvious during the last World Cup that the application of that formation would not work. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, top club sides (with far better footballers than ours) were having a conundrum. Do we want to exploit the width of the pitch with our fullbacks? Yep, they did. But can we afford to do this with a back four? No, because we're too vulnerable to pacy counter-attacks. To address that, instead of having two central defenders, they tried having 3 central defenders and then a similar set-up with the wingbacks as before. And this worked. Hence I said Ange can't keep on having us play this way, never mind winning the Asian Cup on home soil and losing to South Korea in the process. Either Ange can have a flat-ish back four or he can have three central defenders and aggressive wingbacks (who still drop back). If Ange had done this, he would have had a bit more success. And he sort of did cotton on to what other sides were doing. But he was still overzealous in his attacking propensity. The idea is to have three central defenders and attacking wingbacks who drop back. He went for what was basically a back three. What a disingenuous, annoying post. We win the Asian Cup, but "take that with a grain of salt". Apparently that's not an achievement worthy of being proud about. We play awesome attacking football in 2014 with one of the poorest WC squads in history and take the game right to some of the best sides in the world, but no, Ange fucked up somehow. We just can't win with you genius experts, can we? It was good. But making a song and dance about anything (let alone a tournament won on home soil against lacklustre opponents) breeds complacency and lulls people into a false sense of security. Trawl through the posts on this forum from then to get an idea. I like a quote by Rudyard Kipling in If (not that I agree with all that much of Kipling's work, in general) - 'If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same' You can't just get complacent about the final scoreline. Basically, if you actually look at the passages of play in the virtually all of the Socceroos matches under Ange (including those with decent results) we were always far too defensively exposed because of how he set up. We didn't have the attacking stocks to finish chances. We didn't have the quality in midfield to break down opponents in congested areas. So we weren't likely to score too much with Angeball. But Ange wanted to take massive defensive risks. Really, really poor strategy. Can only beat what is in front of you and he did it in the Asian Cup. Ange's issues came into play in qualifying but in the 3 tournaments he was apart of we exceeded or matched expectations in each. The 2014 world cup we played brilliantly against Chile and Netherlands and we played well enough to get a result in either match but we didn't have the quality to take or keep out those chances in critical moments. Either way he saved us from what should have been 3 humiliating defeats. The Asian cup we won it against a superior Korean side even if it was at home we still did the job so well done Ange. Then finally the confed cup we put up a decent fight against Germany, were decent against Cameroon and brilliant against Chile. Another success considering everyone expected us to get absolutely blitzed in every game. we definitely exceeded expectations many times under ange. like any attacking possession based team we struggled against teams that sat back and countered. seperately we also struggled to finish teams off - letting them back into that game too often. my only gripes with ange's days are; the squad selections near the end, the defensive frailty, and the inability to transition quickly into attack. the last one it what i believe really made us limp in the face of teams that parked the bus.
|
|
|
|
|
Ds98
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
A borrello and Arzani forward-line is extremely enticing. Would've been so good to see Borrello in this environment, I reckon he would thrive.
|
|
|
|
|
footbawler
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 430,
Visits: 0
|
From watching the team recently
I think our 2 DMs need to be out of Jedinak, Luongo and Mooy. If It's Luongo and mooy then mooy needs to be under instruction to play the ball forwards sometimes at least. My preference is Jedinak and Luongo but that seems unlikely.
I think at AM, especially for the first 2 games, it needs to be Irvine starting with Rogic off the bench. Rogic thrives running at more tired legs and if we manage to keep the game within reach until late the Rogic and Arzani are the perfect 2 players to bring on.
Juric needs to start if fit.
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
I'll be the first one to admit it - I was wrong about Arzani's inclusion in the squad.
I genuinely thought he was too raw and hadn't done quite enough with City to justify his inclusion. However, clearly Bert saw a LOT more in camp with him, and even though it was only a couple of friendlies, he showed so much in about 20 minutes of game time for the Socceroos. It's been a while since I've been so confident in a player going past their defender that isn't simply 'hoof it long and outrun them'. Genuine close ball control and a healthy dose of 'shoot farken' attitude. Yes, we can debate all day that the keeper should've done better with his goal but at the end of it all, Arzani was doing what the others weren't and that was getting shots on target. That skill alone will be enough to snag us a few points.
I am genuinely excited to see how far this young man can go for club and country.
|
|
|
|
|
highkick05
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI'll be the first one to admit it - I was wrong about Arzani's inclusion in the squad. I genuinely thought he was too raw and hadn't done quite enough with City to justify his inclusion. However, clearly Bert saw a LOT more in camp with him, and even though it was only a couple of friendlies, he showed so much in about 20 minutes of game time for the Socceroos. It's been a while since I've been so confident in a player going past their defender that isn't simply 'hoof it long and outrun them'. Genuine close ball control and a healthy dose of 'shoot farken' attitude. Yes, we can debate all day that the keeper should've done better with his goal but at the end of it all, Arzani was doing what the others weren't and that was getting shots on target. That skill alone will be enough to snag us a few points. I am genuinely excited to see how far this young man can go for club and country. Amazing stat, he's had 16 senior games ... and plays like that in an International friendly against a team who was obviously trying to make a point in the first half. Ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Yup. Glad to be wrong about Arzani as well. Was expecting him to make his mark at the Asian Cup when Arnie would give him some game time but happy that he has shown doubters wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
if kruse had scored the one he should have and arzani's shot was stopped as it should have been - would the discussions today be different? yes. everyone would be saying kruse needs to start.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xif kruse had scored the one he should have and arzani's shot was stopped as it should have been - would the discussions today be different? yes. everyone would be saying kruse needs to start. Kruse would have run straight in to the first defender and lost the ball, let alone cut inside twice. And if by some miracle he did get a strike in, the strike would end up somewhere in row Z let alone be a strike with top spin and dip that bounces just in front of the keeper and is headed for the back bottom corner.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
When one looks at the last WC in Brazil, 2014, I think our current team could be worse player for player.
One exception is Ryan who has improved as a keeper. Just as well, because no matter how well Jones plays as a club keeper, I've see him drop the ball twice in his last two games, that any other keeper would have taken cleanly.
Ivan Franjic was playing better than Risdon is ATM. What happened to Chris Herd, who was a good Socceroo RB for a while?
Wilko was okay.
Spira is an amazing example of a good player deteriorating when he should currently be in his prime.
Davo was at the peak of his career and may have been a similar quality option to Behich.
Jedi is older as DM.
I'm not sure Mooy breaks up attacks as a DM like Milligan, McKay have done/did in the last WC?
I'm not sure who our attacking mid was at the last WC? We have no clear first choice now.
Leckie is better with age and is a winger.
Are Juric/ Cahill/Nabbout better options than Cahill/Kennedy in 2014?
Who was the the other winger in Brazil - Oar? Kruse yet again missed heaps of chances he should've made the keeper save.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+xif kruse had scored the one he should have and arzani's shot was stopped as it should have been - would the discussions today be different? yes. everyone would be saying kruse needs to start. Good point. Kruse is a better player in every way in terms of performance off the ball. Notwithstanding, when Arzani has the ball at his feet, with the requisite body shape to play forwards, he is a far better player than Kruse or Leckie. For all the good graft work they do, Leckie and Kruse, in particular, have been shocking in terms of scoring goals.
|
|
|
|