Even Ange has admitted we were in no way competitive against Spain. 

One has to look at the quality of the opposition too.

The 2014 WC featured a relatively inexperienced Socceroo side against the group of death in the tournament - Spain, Holland, Chile. Australia could have conceivably won the first two games against Chile and Holland, but  without sufficient  rotation  were outclassed in the final  game by Spain, the other non-qualifier from the group.

As I reiterate, points accrued are not always an accurate measure in  a few games. 40% of games are attributable to chance.

 The English FA were impressed by the Socceroos two performances against Chile and Holland in 2014. In the last  two World Cups, particularly 2018, we struggled to convert  chances created in front of goal from the number of chances created.

Bert pulled his hair out because of the lack of clinical finishing and mediocre attacking interplay in the penalty box, that negated the good work in the other two thirds of the  pitch, and even in the attacking third with the number of balls played into the pen box. 

The weakness in the Socceroos was the Attacking Third in Ball Possession in 2014 and 2018. The GG team of 2006, were more clinical in front of goal, than the WCs of 2014 and 2018. Also, Holman and  Cahill weren't too bad in 2010 in finishing.

However,  if one evaluates the other facets of play in the other two thirds of the pitch in Ball Possession and the three thirds of the pitch in Ball Possession Opposition, I doubt the 2006 Socceroos were significantly superior.

Moreover, the 2006 Socceroos claimed they were lucky opposition teams weren't able to do their home work on the Socceroos, like  the campaigns of 2010, 2014 and 2018 WCQs. The latter three featured a more clearly delineated football style for opposition teams to plan against.

Regarding your facetious comment about triangles and possession, Guus's 2006 team still tried to play these patterns with diamonds and triangles. This was emphasised in some  early FFA C Licence courses around 2007.

Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of  turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against  Italy, playing their classic perfectly  formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring  perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.  

The  difference was the GG players had  not played the triangles and diamonds  on a consistent basis in their embryonic years in Australian development. There was no holistic national Aussie system trying to develop a national playing style based on world powerhouses. The football education of Aussie GG players varied depending on which clubs in which countries Australians plied their trade in. It also varied between coaches coaching in Australia, youth and senior, who coached in very different  ways. There was a massive differential in quality. 

 

He also admitted he made a mistake with lack of rotation, meaning  some players were just too tired playing the last game against Spain. 

It is a fair comment that we've had an arguably easier qualification campaign against lower calibre opposition  in an arguably weaker Confed, QF, but we have  had to play in some tough away  conditions totally unfamiliar  to many European countries.

Many of our away games have been played in oppressive heat and humidity in  Middle- East and Tropical Asia.

I see this as you reiterating Frank's thoughts in the original article here, and I don't think you intended it to be so. 

This statement perfectly illustrates Farina's point, some coaches value triangles more than match points.

No disrespect Decentric I appreciate your opinions on football especially the analytical side but we can talk about the stats or systems of play all you like but, if you dont have the quality of players that can make an difference at the top level or not have enough of them you will struggle especially at the top end of world cup level.

I see the same thing in the UEFA Champions League which is why so much money is spent on players and coaches.

To develop great teams you need great players, you can do so much with cohesion and well coached players but it doesnt substitute for quality you need on the park.

And that's sadly being missing for Socceroos for almost a decade maybe since 2006.

We couldnt even score a goal from open play at the last World Cup , we haven't won a game since Serbia in 2010.

The lack of quality we haven't developed has been telling in this decade.

I feel quickflicks posts cover my feelings towards all this discussion.
No matter what period of time our premium players are contending getting into other leagues in EU there is always competition gaining selections and performing just as today.
The games styles have changed/progressed but you can only play whats in front of you.
For whatever short comings the GG had to some they performed in the NT far better than we have the last number of years.
Our bench looked far stronger or more capable to the task than recent times as well.
Games always have that portion of "luck", more so due to a glut of possesion or due to having players with the ablitiy getting shots on target from counters.
Sooner or later that luck gives.
The GG's group in 06 had Brazil/Croatia/Japan, no minnows and to us, a group of death as well you could say and even though we had the advantage of the "unknown" style of play as D quotes a good opponent with far more experience and pedigree can/should overcome this, I won't say easily but with confidence and their known abilities.
The later Roos no matter being inexperienced and opponents having the luxury of more intel were mostly outclassed full stop.
You can have all the ball and triangles but if its not in the final 3rd enough your just delaying the outcome and get punished.

We may have alot more skilled players coming through that I'm looking forward whats to become but untill we see some real time results the "robot" tag is for all to see imo.
The passing stats on passing back the last 5-10yrs would make for figures of frustration as a viewer.
How many pass's have we in our own half compared to the opponents - maybe in stats I'm proven wrong for whilst we keep lacking some finishers stats will mean not much.

If farking Guus would have brought on 3 subs against a tiring Italy in 2006 instead of the one very late in the piece this wouldn't  even be an argument.

I mean WTF!

You only have to see SFC ignoring the best talent they've produced in Tilio because he wouldn't tackle and work hard enough to see the issue is incredibly relevant. Someone far less skilful that runs a lot will get a chance but a small, creative player capable of unlocking packed defenses gets shunted. 

If you watch the likes of Ninkovic, Caceres who play in the same position they work hard off the ball as well as with it.

Maybe they feel Tilio could work harder without the ball but I agree he's gifted with the ball so that's no question on that.

Good luck to him wherever he goes next.

If it’s City that he goes to, will be interesting to see the way that PK plays him. Some managers are happy to let one player be the creative maestro and use others to provide additional support around them.

Its all about the structure though, but when the pressure is applied, having a luxury player out on the park can often be the first thing that goes out the door.

I certainly rate Tilio And do hope he has signed for City though. Can always do with some youth talent to add some spark. 

No. 

Not at all. 

The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t  like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity  to control a game. 

Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. 

you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. 

No one really knows what should or shouldnt  have been done in the last two world cups.  I thought the sides we had played very well, about as well as they could have.  Obviously an ounce of luck here and there could might have chaneged things, if the coaches had have had the sides a bit longer, they might have got the players  to keep possession a bit better create more triangles etc.  You have a decent analysis of the game in this manner using the current coaching methodology. Maybe you can spot reasons and things we could have done better.  I like to hear different theories on this type of thing. 

Now for what it is worth, not using the methodology, but using a practical analysis of our performance, here is how i saw it:

Bert:  i thought he did a great job.  He improved on what Ange started and brought great steel and structure to the game.  On the list i posted earlier in the thread, he taught the side to keep it simple, ie no stupid risk taking at the back and simple no risk taking quick ball movement.  Also quick marking and tight defence as soon as they lost the ball.  I note that you pointed out that he would rue not having a goal scorer.  I agree.  If only he had the chance to select one of Australians All time Great goalscorers instead of the bench he had at his disposal.  Someone who had scored nearly ever decent australian goal over the last 4 years? Someone like maybe Tim Cahill?  I understand that Tim Cahill had only played 4 minutes in a year or whatever the figures were.  Supposedly he wasnt fit enough.  Why then, didnt he play in the trial games? Hell why didnt he schedule him to play in a specially scheduled trial game to get fit, if that was a problem.  No one knows if he wasnt fit enough, and if he wasnt fit enough why in the Hell did Bert allow him to be selected.  To me, Bert as a non aussie, didnt quite understand just how much better timmys goal scoring class was to the rest.  I doubt he wanted timmy in the squad and arrogance took over with him wanting to know better.  In hindsight that was a massive blunder.  Timmy may not have made a difference but the fact that we dont know this for sure, and that we allowed him to go into the world cup without having played full games in our trial games can only be described as a massive coaching error. 

Ange: I am the biggest Ange fan going around.  But in order to get the job, he had to shed blood and this political move cost him from being probably our greatest coach, imo.  When i think of these games (pretty sure my memory is right, but i would be happy to read other view points), we lost a couple of goals against Holland because Ryan unfortunanately performed poorly.  He was a good young talent who has improved immensely, but i am pretty sure that if the man who Ange had to unceremoniously dump, Mark Schwarzer was between the sticks still, Australia runs Holland an awful lot closer.  SEcond, Franjic was a good player who played well.  It was a major shame when he was injured early and if Memory serves the back up right back Milligan also injured.  Leaving Wilkshire out was a huge gamble and tough call to start with. It ultimately saw McGowan badly exposed and punished down the right.  If that gamble wasnt taken for the sake of "a bit of discipline and a system of triangles", i think we d have been a good chance of saving a goal or two more in the goals against column.  the third difficulty is we missed that x factor player, even if it was only off teh bench.  Australia simply doesnt  have teh depth to leave out true world class players, even if they are getting long in the tooth.  As with Timmy 4 years later (though not as glaringly obvious),  Harry should have  been in the squad in some capacity.   Make those three changes and we go a hell of a lot closer to the second round. 

Guus in contrast, i cant think of a single mistake he really made in selecting the team or squad.  (okay not sure if i would have started harry on the bench against Uruguay in hindsight).  He got the sides perfect, made the perfect substitutions (someone raised no subs in the italy game which maybe i should rewatch one day, but really, who was going to improve what we had going on there).      

So all in all, that is how my analysis of the situations were.  I didnt think they got too much wrong tactically.  Do you agree with this analysis?  Would the methodology method recommend similar changes to win the games or do you think i am speaking total rubbish.  I would be interested to hear your comments on this.

Franjic was getting slaughtered by Chile

WC he was totally out of his depth 

You need to take your risks at the right time and in the right part of the field.  

I must admit, i prefer the possession game a lot more than most, and i do think it is often underated, but you need to stick to the basics as well, and sometimes you will need to take your risks.  I thought Anges Brisbane Roar years produced easily the best football side, of homegrown players, at least in the country.  And they did what i would call a team of average talent, especially when compared to some of the stacked club sides of the past and present.  The biggest problem i see with the sides trying to replicate it, and it always has and always will be a problem, is that players are too stationery and while they play the quick passing game, they one touch too often.  One touch has its time and place, but once defences set, players not to run with the ball, because this is the only way to draw defenders out and create gaps for other teams.  Get this right with  70 percent possession domination and you will win a lot more games than you lose.  Make no silly mistakes when you do it, and add a couple of class finishers to work miracles and you will very rarely if ever lose. 

There is nothing wrong with the triangles, SSGs adn other methodology, but you need to remember the basics.  The best coaches and players will learn from every situation.  There is no one correct answer and what works in some games doesnt in others.  This is why you need players who are aware of these basics, but who play the game as they see it on the field.  Some times a great player will do something great just because they do. Even robots need to have the freedom to turn the game on the head when they need to, from time to time.  

I have never seen it improved! i would say its harder to improve at a late age then any other trait.

It needs to be built in from an early age.  Good old aussie battling spirit used to be around in spades.  I reckon the fair go to everyone, anti competitive environment we have created in juniors (and to be honest in society in general) is doing more harm then good on this stage.  I could be wrong but i doubt it.  

Thank you for this link.

At least it explains they are doing a small bit more than i originally thought, but you are completely wrong as with the other poster earlier when you try to suggest that it is graded.  

I note from those sites, that the junior sides are graded at the "end of the year".  How do you think this works.  The teams from say under 7s to under 8s are always completely (or more accurately half) different from year to year.  Performance from year to year is completely irrelevant especially when most of the time they are simply different sides with no more than 1 or 2 players from the previous year.  To be fair on my understanding they may sometimes switch a side or two midyear.  Maybe i am wrong i would be interested if you or others know more or otherwise.  The even bigger problem though is what you mentioned later.  Yes it is true that Logan lightning or Rochedale (how times have changed how do such a crappy side like logan lighting become a powerhouse, lol).  the problem is that those sides themselves are not graded properly.  The best sides do not pick the best players in their best sides.  Truth be told they sort of half pick the best sides by picking the mouthy parents who hang around the club or overtry real hard, or the kids with older siblings who are known.  This is no fault of them, what else are they to do, there are no preseason grading games or training sessions allows (at least our political correct society frowns on it and i dont know of any) so they can only sort of guess.  What it means is that the best players do not play the best players and there are so many talented young players who simply give up because it is simply not enjoyable to play in teams where half he players are so much better or so much worse than you.  There is no proper gradings and pretending otherwise is simply ridiculus. 

You say that kids arent stupid.  So why treat them like it?  What is the great advantage of depriving a child the enjoyment of winning the competition (or for that matter placing 6th instead of 7th in the competition.  Or of not having match reports that mentioned the score.  Or of not knowing that they just kept the top of the table to a 2 goals instead of their match avereage of 10 goals.  you are right about kids not being stupid.  They lose interest easy.  I would like to know exactly how this is improving the game, and preventing kids from playing for other sides. 


 

Having grown up during a period that competition with my brother and team mates drove me to be put in more effort and push to be a better player, I agree that we often need that push. 

1. Keep it simple.
Actually, unlike many, robots have their place on a team.  but that aside, when i look at last years roar side which considering individual ability, was quite probably the worst side in the history of the A league, i find it quite interesting that all reports of John Aloisis coaching has a complicated grid set up perforated with triangles where players are instructed to make complex runs and their performances was evaluated using contemporary methodology.  Pretty sure he might have coached a bit better if he kept that game plan simple.
 
2, 3 and 5
First touch away from player.
Mark up.
Talk to your players
Yes it is important for six year olds.  Why then is it so common for so many A league players to have the first touch of log?  Why is it the most modern players simply have absolutely no idea of how to Mark up?  And lastly why is it that very few players in the a league actually organise their players and off teh ball running.  

Maybe it is because it wasnt taught at under 6 level, because gradings didnt allow them to make the u6 komodo Goannas Pink Group? or maybe it is because their coach has them focussing their attention on countering in BP when threading an eye of the needle pass through the channels and into the path of the front triangle to unlock  the defence while the Natural Number 10 is busy drifting into a false 9 position, instead of just winning the ball and playing  a diagonal ball behind the defence for the attackers to run on to?

This is 100 percent spot on.  It is no coincidence, in all sports not just soccer that the best players in the teams are nearly always players who have brothers or sisters playing the sport.  That cant be understated.

Your are also right about video game distractions.  If you dont have brothers and sisters, almost certainly a kid will learn to play from the Play station! and now adays, the ipad is a massive distraction.  Most kids are reaching for the phone on the way to or way home from the game, not thinking about what they did or didnt do.  I think it is a bigger competitor to player loss than other codes! I dont know the solution is.  The only way is to make things as fun and attractive for kids as we can.  They only way to do this is with big games, proper match reports, competitve tables etc.   Something to try to get kids interested in themselves and in their club.  This is a big challenge though, but we need to concentrate on this, imo.

Player fees are an obvious problem.  It always has been a problem and always will be, but obviously it goes without saying that this needs to be fixed.  I dont know the answer but certainly it needs some out of the square solutions and thought.  Maybe it is just as simple as lowering fees?  Or lowering fees for some parents? or Competive trials where low income players qualify for club scholarships.  I dont know the answer but some brainstorming and change on this issue would be nice.  Think off the cuff, what about $1 a person tax on all a league admission to go to reducing junior fees for low income earners would this have any merit?

Unfortunately the modern society is making it more challenging for sports to get kids eager to play sports and practice during their own time.

Ive seen it in my time in Europe as well, its not how it was from before when communication was more direct and people had more time on their hands in their youth with very little distractions.

This will be a bigger problem, its up to all sports to find ways to make things more interesting for kids and keep them engaged especially making it fun.

The costs of the sport will always ben an issue, dont see why clubs take up scholarships like they do overseas but again a very challenging issue.

You clearly have preconceived ideas that you don't want corrected.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with the processes, the TD's and trials at these clubs and then come back and say it's all rubbish.

That has to be one of the funniest things I've read and unfortunately perfectly sums up the issue with what Farina has identified about "coaches" that dont really know the game getting an FFA accreditation and then thinking they are Pep when trying to coach kids (special shout out to a particular poster on here).

I have seen some horrendously complex sessions run by B-License coaches for boys (U13 & U14) which saw both the players & coach getting confused and eventually frustrated and as a sideline spectator, me & other coaches scratching our heads wondering what was trying to be achieved.

I have been coaching juniors for a while and in my experience it is OK for the coach to think complex, but on the training ground you need to keep it simple and set it up so the kids figure out the complex themselves.

Agree on the distractions, not many self motivated kids but at the same time, the pathway here is so bad that even highly talented & motivated kids themselves know they need a plan A to pay your bills with football as plan B.

On the cost topic, cant speak for every club, but I do know that a number of clubs I've been involved with offer assistance to low income families, from payment plans to reduced fees to no fees and no talented kid has missed out due to costs. Another major issue for low income kids is the ability to fully commit to training and gameday requirements as their family life makes it challenging. Reasons are various (parents work multiple jobs, drive uber, one car, etc) and unfortunately without training with the team, particularly in older age groups, the raw skill is not turned into talent on the pitch. That is why many join the team which is walking distance from their home.

I dont disagree but going back to Farina's point about robots, he doesnt say it eloquently but key issue is that people without any understanding of the game are gaining senior coaching qualifications and then teaching kids. Long time & professional players generally have a good game understanding, which I think Farina was coming from, but no doubt there are other students of the game that haven't played at the highest levels (like Sarri who only played at amateur level) but as students of the game have been able to develop as understanding to perform as senior level coaches.

These "non-football" coaches dont have the background so what they see during the FA training and NC becomes gospel as they dont have any other reference point. Case in point is the NC and the false perception that everyone has to play 433. This is perpetrated by these coaching robots who really dont understand the game and take the NC as gospel because they dont know any better.

Below is an exert form the FFA Football Coaching Process Handbook used for C & B License courses:

The overarching ‘compass’ that guides the coach is their Vision and Philosophy. In essence, this is where the potentially infinite range of possible playing styles and formations must be distilled into a ‘personal preference.’ The coach has to be able to say ‘I am aware of the many different ways of playing football, but THIS is how I believe it should be played. I have a philosophy on football, and a vision for bringing it to life.’

Coaching robots dont understand that this means they can have their own way of playing and dont need to follow FFA's 433 vision (which Ange ignored as well by the way). Yes C & B courses use the FFA Vision and Philosophy as a basis because many of the novice coaches havent developed their own style yet and by having the same platform it makes it easy to run the courses, but in the A & Pro licenses coaches can use their own Vision & Philosophy as their frame of reference for the course and it is in fact encouraged for them to develop their own.

Here is another myth busted, Individual skill is actually a key principal of the FFA Team Model, which I have detailed below again straight from the FFA coaching manual.

MAIN MOMENTS	BPO>BP	BP	BP>BPO	BPO
KEY PRINCIPLES	Immediate transition into BP positions	Effective Possession 1. Structured Build- Up	Immediate transition into BPO positions	Win the ball back as soon as possible
	Quick forward passing	Effective Possession 2. Controlled Possession In The Middle Third	Press the ball carrier immediately	Deny opponents time and space to build up
	Quick forward movement	Combination Play 1. Organised Opponent	Limit opponent’s passing options	Limit opponents’ ability to create scoring chances
	Make the field as big as possible	Combination Play 2. Disorganised Opponent	Make the field as small as possible
		Individual Skill 1. To create scoring chances
		Individual Skill 2. To convert scoring chances

Hang on, I hear you say, doesnt the NC create robots with no individual skill? No, actually robot coaches create robots. At junior level, good structure and robotic play (ie predefined passing & player movement patterns) are more successful than free play (plus small pitches let coaches yell their minute instructions with ease) so robot coaches focus on this during training rather than developing individual skill like first touch, dribbling, etc. U9's playing tikka takka certainly gets parents and coaches going doesn't it!

Unfortunately there are too many of these guys in circulation and while they are happy to sprout crap about triangles and body shape (2 words which coincidentally don't appear in the FFA Advanced Coaching manual AT ALL) but they eventually get caught out and leave coaching, so we are seeing fewer robots out there.

Thanks for posting this up.  

I think what's good about all of this though is that there is an actual manual and tonnes of resources.  There is a dialogue, there are pathways for coaches and there's an exchange of information and experience.  None of this was available when I was growing up.  I grew up in the country and not in the city near strong footballing communities so none of this information was ever passed on.  (I've learnt more about coaching, tactics and movements in the last 15 years than I did in the previous 25.)  

There's always going to be a mum or dad who sticks their hand up because nobody else will but at least there's a road map of sorts that lays the groundwork for aspiring, motivated coaches.

Yes at the higher levels you need more than this but the FFA has done good work here and the people they send out to the courses that held around the place are generally excellent.

Not only that some of the people criticising the NC should actually READ IT instead of spouting empty 'back in my day' statements and actually get along to a few of the bigger clubs and have a look at some of the young guns running around the place.  I guarantee you at grassroots level they are miles better (in general) then when we were kids.

The problem is and always has been pathways and money.  Who knows how many guns are missing out because it's $2400 a season to play NPL.    

@Muz, to your point, it is definitely improving and what we are seeing is many clubs are recognizing that mum's and dad's as sub-junior level are not good enough if you are serious and so have implemented separate TD's for the SAP years. Unfortunately this also comes at a cost so fee's have to go up again. Really, the key to reducing costs is to create a transfer market where clubs earn money for time spent developing players and it is a sad indictment on football in this country that more money for player development was paid by FIFA (that is not a mistake, yes it is FIFA) to NPL & Community clubs, than what they have earned from AL clubs who regularly poach their players for youth and senior teams.