Lot of unjustified hatred of Timmy Cahill. Did these people pay any attention to the qualification campaign whatsoever.

Whichever way you argue it, it would be stupid for him not to go. People say others deserve to be there more. Remember it's not about who deserves what (however brutal that sounds) but if you want to argue it that way, Cahill deserves to be there more than others as we wouldn't be there without him.

Then in terms of ability. Maybe Tim won't do much in Russia. But he has been a big game player for ages. We need big game players. The other options haven't demonstrated the ability that could alter the course of a game. And they haven't shown up in matches. But Timmy does this. Again. And again. And again.

And Nikita needs to be there, too. The other strikers aren't very quick. We want to play effective counter-attacking football.

Do people not get that that requires pacy forwards?

The thought of mistakathon Josh Risdon playing in a World Cup  is hard to contemplate

I'm more comfortable with Riso at this wc than I was with Franjic/McGowan at the last one. 
He could also be pretty useful on the counter as he'd be playing on the same side as Leckie so plenty of pace there.

i agree with you but i'll add this. jmac is no slouch. he has enough pace for counterattacking football. 

cahill deserves to be there - but it's because we dont have better more reliable options that have experience on the big stage.  like BVM said (kind of) timmy isn't going to shit his pants in front of 50000 people, timmy will turn it on in front of a crowd.

i would have dropped troisi for jmac in this squad. we have enough cover in attacking mid. troisi is not needed.

Yeah not to disparage Jamie Maclaren. I'm surprised it wasn't a matter of asking which of Jamie Maclaren, James Troisi and Andrew Nabbout should go to Russia

lol calm down.. he WAS our golden boy he's 38 now.. I was just highlighting the fact hes been around so long means we haven't actually blooded any replacements because he never retired compared to other nations where they retire so the next gen can be blooded in... many top strikers need time to produce goals at international level.. 

Thought susnjar and jmac had stepped up and proven themselves. Worry that jmac might be another scotty mac if playing a lone striker against teams that will dominate possesion. Although he might work with arzani if he can get in  behind to slip through a pass. Risdon in the second half against columbia was a traffic cone. Troisi, milligan and cahill have been champions but i worry they are on a skill decline right at the point we need to see their best.

Thought it would be..

GK-Ryan, Jones, Vukovic
CB-Sainsbury, Jurman, Susnajr(cut)
CB/RB-Degenek
RB-Karacic
LB-Behich, Meredith
DM/CB-Jedinak, Milligan
DM/CM-Luongo, Irvine
CM/AM-Mooy
AM-Rogic
AM/W-Petratos
W-Leckie, Arzani, Kruse
S-Juric, Cahill, Maclaren(cut)

Now it's
GK-Langerak (cut)
CB-Wright (cut)
RB-Risdon
DM/RB-Brillante
AM/W-Troisi
W/S-Rukavytsa
W/S-Nabbout

Think Nabbout will replace Maclaren and one of Risdon or Brillante will replace Susnajrs defensive spot moving 1 of Milligan or Jedinak to CB.

I'd say Nabbout, Brillante and Troisi are the final 3 to be cut from this squad.

Brilliante worries me. Can see him being targetted until he makes some crazy tackle. He is another who seems to have slumped in the last 6 months

I have a feeling it might be Arzani who gets cut. Van Marwijk doesn’t strike me as someone who would risk taking a kid who has played the equivalent of 13 or so full games ever. And that’s A-League games, so not even at a strong level.
The Czech friendly is before the final cut date, if he doesn’t amaze there I don’t think we will see him going to Russia. Wait for the Asian Cup.

So for me the cut will be Brilliante, Troisi, Arzani.

Mmm, but BVM's pragmatism might work two ways. Yes, it's conservative. But he might also have rather a dim outlook on the overall ability of the squad and think of Arzani as patently obvious missing ingredient. When the team is as crap as it is, it's not really a risk, imo, to bring along a youngster. Compared with Troisi, Nabbout and Rukya, I think there's an extremely strong argument on the grounds of skill level that is missing and that crushes the consideration of a lack of experience.

If too many of those those three are better and demonstrate it in the matches and training then fair enough, don't include Arzani in the final squad. Let's just hope they all play to the best of their abilities in the matches and in the training camps.

You're right, I was exaggerating saying 12 months. But fuck it has been ages, and Millwall didn't see him as good enough to play him regularly.

If his failure at Millwall (and lack of time at MC towards the end) isn't sufficient to rule him out, how about you tell me what period of time without regular football WOULD be sufficient to rule him out? 9mth? 12mth? What is an appropriate measure? Because you can't go saying that he is still up to it without giving some indication of what the limit is.

France; Denmark; Peru :- I don't care who we use. I'd be stoked if we beat any of them, so I really don't care who makes the team. BvM can either look at it as a cash grab, but he looks like he knows how.

Not sure thats a valid argument - apart from the syria game I dont know that TC started that many games or had that many minutes. Pretty confident Juric (if not anyone else), has had plenty of game time. If others havent had a run its not really because of the old fella taking up the spot.

Agree he played in too many meaningless friendlies that he shouldn't have been anywhere near, to give others time. Maybe that was because he wasnt getting club minutes though.

Have to think Brillante is surplus if the 2 'specialist' RB's go.

Maybe Petratos gets axed in favour of Nabbout due to excess midfield options and Nabbout's potential to play up front?

Troisi would have to be outstanding in camp you'd think or be marrying BVMs daughter to stay but who knows.

This has been a real problem for australia. The amount of times we have seen rusted on older players continuing to play the majority of minutes in friendlies mean we find ourselves in a constant panic cycle trying to find players capable of playing those roles once the senior player retires.

I mean i can understand the need for a reasonable core of experience by way of one of the centre halves, midfielders etc but there have been so many times we should have given valuable minutes to younger players to at least give them a chance of making the position their own

Interesting comments around Cahill's value to the team. The only comparison that I can think of is Roger Milla of Cameroon in the 1990 finals in Italy, also co-incidentally 38 at the time. He scored 4 goals, got them through to the quarter finals, and was a hero of the tournament. In fact he actually came out of international retirement to play, so all the better.

interesting article on the roar

https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/05/17/van-marwijks-history-shows-rarely-experiments/

Argues that BVM's history suggests that whoever is his 1st choice 11 will probably be the first choice throughout our tournament 

Payet injured and won't be in Russia. Griezmann scoring for fun. We're dead if he's on song. 

Payet wasn't selected in the France squad in the first place I believe.

Great article 

Yep, good insight into the mans process.

What happens in games 2 and 3 will depend largely on game 1 though - if we somehow jag a draw or god forbid even manage to ...(not even going to say it), then Holland circa 2010 is a real possibility but if we lose by a lot then its likely going to take 6 points to get through so he'll have to break the mould and go for it.

I dont care how we sets them up if he gets results.

It's not hatred, people just think he is a complete tool. I'd say that it is pretty justified with the way he goes about things, 

If he's in the team we'd all want him to score no doubt. 

That works in two ways. We're a weak team in the group. We might be evens with Peru on a 'true odds' basis (very, very blunt guess). But we're an underdog against Denmark (based on the match-ups, at least).

In that scenario, you want the strong team to dominate. We don't want Peru or Denmark to have a decent shot against France. Unfortunately, Denmark (on paper) have a better shot against France than we do.

However, if we can miraculously get a result against the French, that's a flying start for us. You can then count on the French to go out and butcher everybody else in the group. We get a point and the ball's in our court against the Danes.

If we get beaten (even thrashed by the French) it's not too bad. We just need to do very well against the others and hope that the French don't let up.

Sucks for Dimitri Payet, too. Feel sorry for the bloke

Nah if we get thrashed by the French it is 2010 all over again, i feel we need to hope 4 points will be enough to get out of the group because i don't see us getting more than that.

Not necessarily. Ukraine got thrashed by Spain in the first match of the group stage in 06. They got out of the group.

Pim Lover

It didn't get us out of the group in 2010.

The first 30 minutes of the tournament will decide our fate.   France will come out to champing at the bit to dominate us into submission and will  be cracking the whip from the get go,

If we then respond as deer in the headlights starstruck the tournament is dead  for us.