Instead off posting the whole list of stats, I'm going to do it more sequentially, bit by bit. 

I will do a lot more on the Oz and UAE formation  than in the past, as Australia was using quite an irregular 3-6-1 or 1-3-6-1.

In terms of possession based on completed passes:

Australia had 65% and the UAE 35%.



Australia 2, UAE 0.


In the last two games I've done recently with the more conventional 1-4-3-3 attacking midfield  triangle,  in terms of possession Australia achieved 75% against Iraq in Perth and 76% against Jordan in Jordan.

 Australia  beat Iraq 2-0 and lost 0-2 to Jordan.


Using the 1-3-6-1, Australia's possession decreased by circa 10% against the UAE.

In terms of territory based on completed passes, Australia spent 70% of the game in Oz's attacking half in possession of the ball , whilst the UAE spent 30% of their time in  Australia's defensive half in possession of the ball.

Other factors tha can slightly alter the territorial stats, is that Australia completed  188  passes in the attacking half whilst they mishit 38.

The UAE completed 82 passes and mishit 33 passes.

Also , Australia  had 28, 15 metre plus ball carries,  compared to UAE's 6.

In terms of 1v1 duels, Australia had a ledger of plus 55 over the UAE.

There were 200, 1v1 duels in the game.

This is higher than against Iraq in Perth, where the game featured circa 170, 1v1 duels , and also a similar figure was recorded against Jordan in Jordan.



Top 1v1 duel winners were: 

Degenek with a plus 12 ledger from 17, 1v1 duels completed.

Milligan, plus 10 from 18 completed.

Irvine with plus 9, from 12 completed.

Sainsbury plus 8 from 22 completed.



The worst 1v1 duel performers  were:

Juric with a ledger of minus 2 from 18 completed, 1v1 duels.

Kruse with a ledger of minus 1 from 5 completed, 1v1 duels. 

Often the target striker struggles to win more 1v1s than they lose,  because the CBs are often in a favourable body shape to win duels, and they compete against the best opposition ball winners.

so we lose 10% posession playing this way (although that could be due to teething problems) any obvious atvantages you can forsee?

I haven't set them out yet, but including  blocked shots, we had 20 shots at goal compared to their 4.

Having said this, Mohammed Abdul Rahman split our defence open a lot, but we were very lucky with some  very close offside calls in our favour.

In just one game, it could be more shots at goal compared to the opposition shooting at ours.

We might get a bit more idea when I finish the Iraq game.

In terms of formation the UAE struggled to hold a consistent shape in Ball Possession, or BPO.

In BPO the shape the UAE used often manifested as a 4-4-2 bowl shaped midfield. At other times the  if one of the front  two dropped back into attacking mid  made the UAE a conventional 1-4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle as the number 10 lined up with the two wingers.

In Ball Possession  in attack the UAE shape often manifested as a 4-2-4, with each line being flat. The attacking mid or number 10, in the 1-4-3-3 defensive midfield  triangle often played further forward to line up with the central striker.

At other times the in the bowl shaped 4-4-2, the two UAE wingers pushed up to make a flat attacking line of 4.

In later posts I'll set these formations out in diagrammatic detail. 

I have to go, but I have a lot of  data comparing Irvine to Troisi - and Rogic and Mooy.

Smith had the worst ever game by a Socceroo for ball loss in one game and unforced errors!

his first touch was horrendous.  seriously rusty.

Smith is exasperating.

He was shocking on a lot of occasions, but as the game progressed, Smith  really provided attacking  impetus. This talented player really needs to get his club career sorted out. At times his technique for the Socceroos under minimal pressure is atrocious, even by HAL standards.

Unfortunately for Smith, he lost the ball on 7 occasions due to poor ball control.

To put this into perspective, players like Cahill, Mooy, Rogic, Sains, Spira  and Milligan might lose the ball due to poor control on 1 occasion every 3-4 matches! I think the worst we've had before is something like 4 ball losses due to poor control in 1 game, which may have been Leckie a few years ago.


Another  shocking  stat for Smith is he made 4 unforced passing errors.

This is when one is under only a modicum of pressure, has a clear line of sight to the target player, but misdirects the pass! This is  also the equal worst in the last 9 years! These mishit passes and ball losses from Smith often resulted in UAE accelerated attacks, which led to goal scoring opportunities from some of  them.


 Yet in other areas,  particularly as the game progressed, Smith  was really effective.

In the second half  he played many of his 5 effective crosses from 9 attempted. His crossing can be high quality.

His searing pace left many UAE players in his wake.

He dribbled  around UAE players on 4 occasions down the wings .

He completely  outmuscled his opponents in 4 shoulder barging duels, often when tracking  back. This is so important  at attacking corners when Smith is positioned  as last man at  to prevent counter attacks. He is physically very strong.

His 1v1 duel tally was a ledger of plus 6 out of 14 contested.

Smith's stamina and speed over the turf is exceptional. As an Oz schoolboy sprint champ he must be one of the quickest players in world football. 

The bowl shaped 4-4-2 midfield that the UAE deployed at times looks like this: 



X.............................X................................X...............................X


.............................X..................................X

X................................................................................................X


..................X..................................................X



If one moves the two wingers forwards it manifests as a 4-2-4 which UAE used at times:

X...........................X................................X...............................X

.............................X................................X

X..........................X.................................X................................X



Then if one of the central strikers drops back and the other central forward takes a more central position it looks like this, a 1-4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle, which the UAE also used at times.


X..........................X................................X............................X

........................X.........................................X
.............................................X

X.........................................X..............................................X



The constant for the UAE was the back four and two screening DMs.

Ange's voodoo formation was a 3-6-1, 3-2-2-2-1, 3-2-4-1, 3-4-2-1.


................Degenek.....................Sains....................Wright


..............................Milligan........................Jedi

Leckie.................................................................................Smith

.............................Irvine............................Troisi


..............................................Juric


The two standard 3-4-3 formations are the flat midfield:


.............X..........................X............................X


X...................X................................X.........................X


.........X...............................X.............................X


Then there is is the  3-4-3 with the midfield diamond, also known as the 4-3-3 with the 3:1 back line and the defensive midfield triangle:



.............X.........................X...........................X

.........................................X

.....................X.................................X

.......................................X

...........X.........................X.............................X

Inherent in the two latter formations are diamonds and triangles, whilst Ange's has a 4 man box formation in midfield.

 In the UAE game either Jedi or Milligan played straight balls to Troisi or Irvine on occasions. Too often Troisi and Irvine had inadequate body shape to simultaneously  receive, scan the field and play forwards, because they were receiving straight balls, not diagonal balls. 

I suppose what Ange is trying to do is use Leckie's and Smith's astonishing athleticism to create 6 in the middle, 3 at the front and 5 at the back depending where the play is.



In FFA coach education since Abrams is under 16 TD and under, Ange's role as Socceroo coach is crossing over  to the curriculum. He doesn't like the 1-4-3-3 as much as the powerhouses.  Yet it is based on standard practice as a development system in Germany, France, Holland, Belgium and Spain.

This role is for national TD, not the national team coach. We need a TD in Oz for the over 16s.

Hi D have you got any news is to what Abrams is trying to do with the NC? You say he doesnt like the 1-4-3-3 and in that case what other formation does he prefer that he wants to see being played?

Also i don't like Ange's thinking in play a bowel shape midfield 4 instead of a diamond which i think would help us play through the middle and keep possession for a longer periods which wasnt there in the last two games, thoughts? 

Abrams is a 1-4-3-3 adherent, like most coaches from that part of of the world as part of their national systems.

Ange is the maverick with this voodoo formation. He is not an adherent to the 1-4-3-3 and its many variations. His 3-6-1 is based based on no sound parameters apart from  deploying  the best players on the pitch and solving the problem of our lack of quality full backs.

The main problem with Ange is he is using unfamiliar formations from players' development, and different from what they use at club level, then trying to play them at international level in key qualifiers with very little time on the training track to implement them.

The other extreme is Pim, who used the same system, most of the time. He used  the 4-2-3-1, sometimes 4-3-2-1 and occasionally 4-4-2 midfield diamond. Players were familiar with these systems.

Tactically with this formation, Ange appears to be trying  to create a 3-4-2-1 in defence, with Leckie and Smith tracking back in a line closer to Milligan and Jedinak.

Then as Australian builds up through midfield,  Leckie and Smith move up in a line with  Irvine and Mooy to create a 3-2-4-1.

At times this can be extended further to create a more traditional 3-4-3. This is when  Australia penetrated the attacking third of the pitch against the UAE, Smith and Leckie often moved into a line with Juric.

Also, a trailing attacking midfielder, manifesting in either Irvine or Troisi, was  close to Juric in this phase of play.

With the box midfield formation, in Ange's 3-6-1, like any formation, much of the time spent  is not in perfect shape. The premises of it, other than Ange trying to play his strongest players in what to him is a viable formation, are nebulous. 

In possession Ange's midfield fornation against UAE would've manifested as:



.................Milligan
............................................................Jedi


....................................................................Troisi
Irvine



at times.


Or:
...............................................................Jedi
Milligan


...............Irvine

.................................................Troisi


etc.

 Ange's current box midfield doesn't have the same impact in the all important control of the centre of the pitch which is axiomatic in the Dutch, German, French and Spanish methodology the FFA NC is based on. The inherent diamonds and triangles in the 1-4-3-3 permutations or even the 4-4-42 midfield diamond, are not as prevalent  in Ange's formation.

It seems that more build ups occurred either on the right :

...............................Sains
..............Milligan

Leckie


..................Irvine


Or on the left:

........Sains

.................Jedi
..............................Smith

.................Troisi

As opposed to playing through the centre more often, varying three points of attack like in previous games, than an over-reliance on the flanks and focusing more on two points of the attack against the UAE.

The one empirically verifiable observation that worked for Ange, was that the Socceroos had 20 shots at goal, whilst the UAE had 4.

As I've mentioned before, Australia received a number of very close off side decisions that penalised the UAE when Abdul Rahman split the Socceroo defence open with killer passes. On any other day those decisions could've gone against Australia.


Of Australia's 20 shots, 6 were on target.

Of UAE's 4 shots at  goal, 3 were on target.

brazil a few decades ago used to use a box mid field so they could stack the center with creativity didn't they?

When they last played us and thrashed us 6-0, Brazil's technique was so good, they simply turned blind from receiving straight balls and still moved forwards.

Only Rogic for the Socceroos can do this.

Yes they did.  AC Milan did it very well back in the mid 90s as well.

The game has changed dramatically since then.

I was astonished at the number of straight balls played in a replay of the 1990s World Cup final between Italy and Brazil.

No shit.

You'd do well to remember that that was the 'prevailing milieu' next time you want to slag off the socceroo's playing style and their '32 years of failure'.

Welcome to the forum.