I've gone right back to 1993 WCQ game against Argentina in Australia.

I'm up to about the 65th minute mark of the game, but I'm astonished at what I've found.

*The Iran team we played in 1997 at the 1997 WCQ game at the MCG, had quite a weak last line in their defence when we had the ball. Yet their Squeezing, which was a bit haphazard to call it that, or more  correctly their closing down of the ball in midfield and the attacking line in BPO, was far superior to Argentina's in 1993!

Hence, the 1993 Socceroos playing against Argentina, had more opportunity to play through the lines, building up from the back to the front. Argentina gave them more time and space with languid Squeezing pressure. At the same time, Argentina's last  line of defence was much better than Iran's last line, and they were relatively effective at preventing Aussie  shots on goal.

* Another conclusion is that the 1993 Socceroo team was playing better and more cohesively as a team unit, coached by Eddie Thompson, than the Terry Venables coached 1997 manifestation of the Socceroos. Johnny Warren said after the first half against Argentina , with the score at 1-1, the Socceroos had never played so well. He was also thrilled they had 55% possession against Argentina.

Australia had the better of the first half in 1993 against Argentina, a world class opponent on paper. Except they weren't world class on the pitch. There was a reason they had come 5th in South America, or whatever, for an intercontinental World Cup play off. They had a weak defence  as a team unit. Particularly defending as a team unit in the attacking line and midfield, and as an overall team unit.

Maradona had returned to play for them, but was well past his best and wasn't match fit . However, he was brilliant  sporadically, and bettered Ivanovic to play a perfect cross for the first goal.

 Argentina also had the incredible Batistuta, one of the greatest international strikers of all time. There was another player, I think called Balbo,  who was classy in midfield.


Australia's differences from the 1993 team to the 1997  team were quite interesting.

*Tony Vidmar played WCQing sudden deaths games against Argentina in 1993, Iran 1997, Uruguay 2001 and Uruguay 2005. He was pretty consistent over the 12 years, probably slightly improving over time.

*Yet Ned Zelic, in 1993, was a far superior player to the Zelic manifestation of 1997. He had put on quite a bit of weight, muscle, by 1997. However, he was nowhere near as mobile. He was more proficient at screening the defence in 1993, than 1997 in BPO. Having said that he was way behind DMs Grella, Culina, Valeri, Jedi, Milligan, Luongo, Mooy (a few years ago) and Irvine at screening when they were at their peaks ( some have had much longer peaks than others). 

With the ball at his feet, the 1993 Zelic was able to beat payers 1v1, ball carry effectively, and passed and moved  in effective one/twos. Against Argentina  he was given more  time and space than 1997 against Iran. His tackles were better timed in 1993 than where he was often later to the challenge  in 1997. His  mobility, speed, deftness on his feet when ball carrying, or turning and chasing, was  much better in 1993 than 1997.

Furthermore, his first touch under pressure in limited time and space, was more assured in 1993 against Argentina than against Iran in 1997. 

I'm guilty of rating Zelic by what he did post 1997 for the Socceroos, compared to prior.   I don't know how many friendlies he played between 1993, and Iran and NZ WCQ elimination games in 1997? 

  I looked up  Zelic's club career. He played at Borussia Dortmund from  1993 to 1996 or 7. After he left, he seemed to change clubs almost every year and appears to have declined rapidly as a player. In books few of his Socceroo teammates liked him. He, Bozza, Aurelio V, were considered to be primarily  European pro footballers whose major aim was consolidation  of their club careers in Europe.
They were perceived to see the Socceroos as a useful club shop window. Ned also  rolled his eyes to the back of his head if a teammate didn't deliver the ball to him as well as he would have liked. I have no doubt Ned was considered a difficult personality  to coach and had volatile  relationships with coaches from then on.

*Graham Arnold as a target striker was more effective in 1993 against Argentina  than a tightly marked Viduka  was against Uruguay in 2005. Arnie was able to check, and shake his marker more effectively. It might have assisted Arnie that Aurelio was playing closer to him.

*Robbie Slater was a constant threat on the wing against Argentina in 1993. He had searing space and aerially crossed well on his right foot.

*Aurelio Vidmar, was a  constant threat around goals. Apparently he had scored 19 goals in the Belgian league in the 1993 seaon. He scored a clinical finish  with brother Tony assisting.

*Ivanovic, although  displaying  classy ball carrying at times, as well as overall defending,  was culpable for the first goal.  Maradona rounded him after a Milan mistake in distribution and put a perfect cross on a striker's head, who scored. Ivanovic was inexperienced as an international player at that stage, despite playing heaps of games for Red Star Belgrade.

*Even though they were good shot stoppers,  both Bozza in 1993 and Schwarzer, from  then on , were awful  playing with their  feet with the ball on the deck as sweepers, compared to Matt Ryan.

*Some of the Argentinian build ups in midfield and attacking interplay, usually featuring Maradona, Balbo and the two strikers, one being Batistuta, were extremely classy at times in the game. They featured the use of a diagonal passing and moving in tight paces, creating and utilising  triangles.

Australia didn't do this in 1993 or 1997, or even against France in 2001. I couldn't get over the number of straight balls Australia played. Argentina played heaps of straight balls to marked Argentinian  teammates  too.  This extended to 1997 from both Iran and Aus, and Aus still doing it playing France in 2001.

However, France was superb in 2001, opening diagonal, angled passing  lanes, in their build ups. Their build ups through midfield were high quality in any era of football. The inherent diamonds and triangles that most quality teams endeavour to create were  on display in their classy build ups.  France, through their academy at Clarefontaine, was leading the world at this stage in their football methodology, which was mainly devised by Michel Platini.

I've gone right back to 1993 WCQ game against Argentina in Australia.

I'm up to about the 65th minute mark of the game, but I'm astonished at what I've found.

*The Iran team we played in 1997 at the 1997 WCQ game at the MCG, had quite a weak last line in their defence when we had the ball. Yet their Squeezing, which was a bit haphazard to call it that, or more  correctly their closing down of the ball in midfield and the attacking line in BPO, was far superior to Argentina's in 1993!

Hence, the 1993 Socceroos playing against Argentina, had more opportunity to play through the lines, building up from the back to the front. Argentina gave them more time and space with languid Squeezing pressure. At the same time, Argentina's last  line of defence was much better than Iran's last line, and they were relatively effective at preventing Aussie  shots on goal.

* Another conclusion is that the 1993 Socceroo team was playing better and more cohesively as a team unit, coached by Eddie Thompson, than the Terry Venables coached 1997 manifestation of the Socceroos. Johnny Warren said after the first half against Argentina , with the score at 1-1, the Socceroos had never played so well. He was also thrilled they had 55% possession against Argentina.

Australia had the better of the first half in 1993 against Argentina, a world class opponent on paper. Except they weren't world class on the pitch. There was a reason they had come 5th in South America, or whatever, for an intercontinental World Cup play off. They had a weak defence  as a team unit. Particularly defending as a team unit in the attacking line and midfield, and as an overall team unit.

Maradona had returned to play for them, but was well past his best and wasn't match fit . However, he was brilliant  sporadically, and bettered Ivanovic to play a perfect cross for the first goal.

 Argentina also had the incredible Batistuta, one of the greatest international strikers of all time. There was another player, I think called Balbo,  who was classy in midfield.


Australia's differences from the 1993 team to the 1997  team were quite interesting.

*Tony Vidmar played WCQing sudden deaths games against Argentina in 1993, Iran 1997, Uruguay 2001 and Uruguay 2005. He was pretty consistent over the 12 years, probably slightly improving over time.

*Yet Ned Zelic, in 1993, was a far superior player to the Zelic manifestation of 1997. He had put on quite a bit of weight, muscle, by 1997. However, he was nowhere near as mobile. He was more proficient at screening the defence in 1993, than 1997 in BPO. Having said that he was way behind DMs Grella, Culina, Valeri, Jedi, Milligan, Luongo, Mooy (a few years ago) and Irvine at screening when they were at their peaks ( some have had much longer peaks than others). 

With the ball at his feet, the 1993 Zelic was able to beat payers 1v1, ball carry effectively, and passed and moved  in effective one/twos. Against Argentina  he was given more  time and space than 1997 against Iran. His tackles were better timed in 1993 than where he was often later to the challenge  in 1997. His  mobility, speed, deftness on his feet when ball carrying, or turning and chasing, was  much better in 1993 than 1997.

Furthermore, his first touch under pressure in limited time and space, was more assured in 1993 against Argentina than against Iran in 1997. 

I'm guilty of rating Zelic by what he did post 1997 for the Socceroos, compared to prior.   I don't know how many friendlies he played between 1993, and Iran and NZ WCQ elimination games in 1997? 

  I looked up  Zelic's club career. He played at Borussia Dortmund from  1993 to 1996 or 7. After he left, he seemed to change clubs almost every year and appears to have declined rapidly as a player. In books few of his Socceroo teammates liked him. He, Bozza, Aurelio V, were considered to be primarily  European pro footballers whose major aim was consolidation  of their club careers in Europe.
They were perceived to see the Socceroos as a useful club shop window. Ned also  rolled his eyes to the back of his head if a teammate didn't deliver the ball to him as well as he would have liked. I have no doubt Ned was considered a difficult personality  to coach and had volatile  relationships with coaches from then on.

*Graham Arnold as a target striker was more effective in 1993 against Argentina  than a tightly marked Viduka  was against Uruguay in 2005. Arnie was able to check, and shake his marker more effectively. It might have assisted Arnie that Aurelio was playing closer to him.

*Robbie Slater was a constant threat on the wing against Argentina in 1993. He had searing space and aerially crossed well on his right foot.

*Aurelio Vidmar, was a  constant threat around goals. Apparently he had scored 19 goals in the Belgian league in the 1993 seaon. He scored a clinical finish  with brother Tony assisting.

*Ivanovic, although  displaying  classy ball carrying at times, as well as overall defending,  was culpable for the first goal.  Maradona rounded him after a Milan mistake in distribution and put a perfect cross on a striker's head, who scored. Ivanovic was inexperienced as an international player at that stage, despite playing heaps of games for Red Star Belgrade.

*Even though they were good shot stoppers,  both Bozza in 1993 and Schwarzer, from  then on , were awful  playing with their  feet with the ball on the deck as sweepers, compared to Matt Ryan.

*Some of the Argentinian build ups in midfield and attacking interplay, usually featuring Maradona, Balbo and the two strikers, one being Batistuta, were extremely classy at times in the game. They featured the use of a diagonal passing and moving in tight paces, creating and utilising  triangles.

Australia didn't do this in 1993 or 1997, or even against France in 2001. I couldn't get over the number of straight balls Australia played. Argentina played heaps of straight balls to marked Argentinian  teammates  too.  This extended to 1997 from both Iran and Aus, and Aus still doing it playing France in 2001.

However, France was superb in 2001, opening diagonal, angled passing  lanes, in their build ups. Their build ups through midfield were high quality in any era of football. The inherent diamonds and triangles that most quality teams endeavour to create were  on display in their classy build ups.  France, through their academy at Clarefontaine, was leading the world at this stage in their football methodology, which was mainly devised by Michel Platini.

Thats been discussion forever who's best ever etcetc....you can't its just not that black and white.
With all due respect Ryan's career isn't even a patch on MS's even if his footwork wasn't the standard of todays game.
366 games for Boro.
172 for Fulham.
103 for the Roos, Ryan will never surpass MW's standard and highs barring Roo appearances.

Thats been discussion forever who's best ever etcetc....you can't its just not that black and white.
With all due respect Ryan's career isn't even a patch on MS's even if his footwork wasn't the standard of todays game.
366 games for Boro.
172 for Fulham.
103 for the Roos, Ryan will never surpass MW's standard and highs barring Roo appearances.

Sometimes it isn't always a question about one being better than another. It can be a question of different attributes, and strengths and weaknesses.

However, Schwarzer and Bozza, could never play effectively in the current style Ange, Bert and Arnie have wanted the Socceroos to play.

I've done a few keeper coaching courses, and still know little about shot stopping techniques, but have learnt a lot more  about how to incorporate a keeper into a team unit.

Sometimes it isn't always a question about one being better than another. It can be a question of different attributes, and strengths and weaknesses.

However, Schwarzer and Bozza, could never play effectively in the current style Ange, Bert and Arnie have wanted the Socceroos to play.

I've done a few keeper coaching courses, and still know little about shot stopping techniques, but have learnt a lot more  about how to incorporate a keeper into a team unit.

That's the point LFC is trying to make, you can't effectively compare eras because of how the game changes, in this particular case a very significant change. Of course Bosnich and Schwarzer could not play the current style effectively, they didn't have the opportunity to develop those skills in their formative years to the extent expected today.

That's the point LFC is trying to make, you can't effectively compare eras because of how the game changes, in this particular case a very significant change. Of course Bosnich and Schwarzer could not play the current style effectively, they didn't have the opportunity to develop those skills in their formative years to the extent expected today.

Agreed 100% and not just about not having the opportunity to develop those skills, it wasn't expected of them nor required. Do you remember Higuitta and Chilavert first making a name for themselves in 90s and the discussion wasn't so much about their ball control and distribution along the deck but "What the fark is a goalie doing out of the box"?
Same applies, in my opinion, to pretty much every position on the pitch... I wonder how horrible so many past legends of the game would look under the prism of "semi-pro trained coach" criticism? Football, like every other facet of society has changed and comparing past methodology to present is counter productive... For example a 1950s Mustang didnt have disc brakes, power steering, seat belts or an air-bag but I still think it outperforms a Holden Barina?

cheers bud he did miss the point ! glad someone else gets it.

I did take the point. I probably didn't  acknowledge it though.

I am a bit cross with both keepers, Schwarzer and Bozza, who have pontificated ad infinitum about what is wrong with Aus football, when they have demonstrated virtually no knowledge of how it has changed for the better. That is, because they haven't studied it.

I wish they had followed the lead of some of their peers, who've undertaken coaching pursuits to assist the development of Aussie footballers.

It depends on the context.

We have constantly been inundated with how terrific some former eras are, and how so much is wrong with the modern version of the game in Australia, by a number of players playing in those eras. They haven't  acknowledged what has improved and changed for the better, or/and, what has improved within the skill set of their own positions. 

Watching these games back as far as 1993, has  been pleasantly surprising to  see so players playing in their prime in past eras. Instead we often remember players' performances at the end of their careers.

Agreed 100% and not just about not having the opportunity to develop those skills, it wasn't expected of them nor required. Do you remember Higuitta and Chilavert first making a name for themselves in 90s and the discussion wasn't so much about their ball control and distribution along the deck but "What the fark is a goalie doing out of the box"?
Same applies, in my opinion, to pretty much every position on the pitch... I wonder how horrible so many past legends of the game would look under the prism of "semi-pro trained coach" criticism? Football, like every other facet of society has changed and comparing past methodology to present is counter productive... For example a 1950s Mustang didnt have disc brakes, power steering, seat belts or an air-bag but I still think it outperforms a Holden Barina?

It depends on the context.

We have constantly been inundated with how terrific some former eras are, and how so much is wrong with the modern version of the game in Australia, by a number of players playing in those eras. They haven't  acknowledged what has improved and changed for the better, or/and, what has improved within the skill set of their own positions. 

Watching these games back as far as 1993, has  been pleasantly surprising to  see so players playing in their prime in past eras. Instead we often remember players' performances at the end of their careers.

It depends on the context.

We have constantly been inundated with how terrific some former eras are, and how so much is wrong with the modern version of the game in Australia, by a number of players playing in those eras. They haven't  acknowledged what has improved and changed for the better, or/and, what has improved within the skill set of their own positions. 

Watching these games back as far as 1993, has  been pleasantly surprising to  see so players playing in their prime in past eras. Instead we often remember players' performances at the end of their careers.

It depends on the context.

We have constantly been inundated with how terrific some former eras are, and how so much is wrong with the modern version of the game in Australia, by a number of players playing in those eras. They haven't  acknowledged what has improved and changed for the better, or/and, what has improved within the skill set of their own positions. 

Watching these games back as far as 1993, has  been pleasantly surprising to  see so players playing in their prime in past eras. Instead we often remember players' performances at the end of their careers.

It depends on the context.

We have constantly been inundated with how terrific some former eras are, and how so much is wrong with the modern version of the game in Australia, by a number of players playing in those eras. They haven't  acknowledged what has improved and changed for the better, or/and, what has improved within the skill set of their own positions. 

Watching these games back as far as 1993, has  been pleasantly surprising to  see so players playing in their prime in past eras. Instead we often remember players' performances at the end of their careers.