Conversely, Australia is trying to develop and play a national style under the auspices of a TD.

If coaches of senior state league teams keep ignoring what they learn in FFA courses, it says something about the courses, or the quality of the instructors taking them.

So essentially what your saying is that all teams within Australia should be playing the same formation and style? Does that not make a mockery of playing football??

Coach 1 "i'll play 4-4-3 but only if you do as well" coach 2 "okay, I think my strength is in a 4-4-2 formation because of the players I have but for the good of the nation, I'll play 4-3-3" Cue the violins.

433 or 442 or whatever is just a pre game plan that gets torn up the moment the ref blows his whistle to start the game.

If decentric possessed any genuine coaching experienced (outside the infants school playground) he'd certainly be aware of this.

Our knvb inspired national U17's and U20's are prime examples.

Not even an ultra conservative hack like pimms could maintain shape (451 regularly morphed into a 640) - these things tend to happen more quickly and regularly when players have zero belief or confidence in thier coach.

Edited by judy free: 3/8/2011 09:40:02 AM

** ^ 433

I disagree here as well. A plan or formation can be played and maintained but it depends on the level of opposition. A good opposition will pull a lesser teams formation to pieces.

Pim? Is that name allowed on a public forum .... sacrificial!

So essentially what your saying is that all teams within Australia should be playing the same formation and style? Does that not make a mockery of playing football??

Coach 1 "i'll play 4-4-3 but only if you do as well" coach 2 "okay, I think my strength is in a 4-4-2 formation because of the players I have but for the good of the nation, I'll play 4-3-3" Cue the violins. [/quote]






I'm saying that Australia is renowned for playing no particular formation well in a global context.

There are a number of variations in a 4-3-3.

4-3-3 with a backwards and forwards midfield triangle, 4-3-3 with a flat midfield, 4-3-3 with a diamond or 1;3 defensive line, 4-2-3-1 and 4-5-1 as more defensive variations of the midfield triangles, and when 4-3-3 with the backwards triangle evolves to 4-2-4 in attack.

If one adds the 4-4-2 win the a diamond midfield as a variation on 4-3-3 with the forwards triangle, and a more defensive 4-3-2-1 by inverting the 4-2-3-1 midfield, one has a pretty comprehensive system.

At least this shape (4-3-3 and some variations) is being taught properly (or should be in FFA courses) as opposed to what before?

With players one has the shape can be adjusted.

The Dutch preference is to have adaptable players to adjust to an overall plan. The Italian preference is to build teams around specific players.

Edited by Decentric: 3/8/2011 12:11:47 PM

A good coach is easily able to determine strengths and weaknesses across the park, and will exploit this. However, if he chooses to sit on his hands, players with good "problem solving" abilities will adapt to any such situations accordingly. At elite level shape is more managable. However, at amateur bog standard level, it is an exercise in futility.

Edited by judy free: 3/8/2011 10:03:44 AM

This topic has been covered ad infinitum on here.

When one looks at cold hard facts, Pim has just about the best win/loss record for any Australian coach about 57%, with no games against Oceania minnows.

Pim accrued exactly the same number of points HIddink did at the World Cup in a harder group, albeit with 10 players for most of two matches. Beating Serbia was Australia's greatest achievement on the biggest stage.

Pim qualified for the World Cup, top of table, with an arduous home and away campaign; often in difficult climatic conditions with jet lagged players in the Asian zone.

Yet all people remember is losing 4-0 against Germany.

Holger lost 3-0 to Egypt , a team of much lower stature, yet little was said.

Of course.

And a weak opposition can be further exploited by changing your own team shape or player roles.



Edited by judy free: 3/8/2011 10:14:59 AM

Statistics statistics. Australia went from playing an attractive style where chances were created regularly under Hiddink to playing unattractive crap where the team relied on individual brilliance or raw determination. I wasn't at all impressed with the qualifying campaign either.

I wasn't aware Australia played Egypt in the most important sporting tournament???

Edited by JuveJuve: 3/8/2011 10:24:27 AM

Why is what is taught in a course gospel anyway?? I can sit here and say that the whole thing is a sham, conversely you can sit there and say that every facet taught is the best way.

Give me some supporting evidence. If I hear someone say "just look at the Barca methodology or the Dutch and do what they do" i'll tear their argument to bits.

Edited by JuveJuve: 3/8/2011 10:57:24 AM

True about Egypt being a friendly. It was still a bad loss against a team with similar stature to Australia.

In terms of chances created compared to chances conceded and amount of possession, Australia did well against their adversaries in qualifying campaigns under Verbeek. How would you rate Australia's victory over Serbia in terms of aesthetics?

Juve Juve you do recognise that Alex Ferguson, Arsene Wenger and Valery Lobanovski (did)evaluate stats comprehensively don't you?

Trends emerge over time. In terms of aesthetics in football, Australian fans frequently expect our national senior team to play expansive football and win against technically superior opponents. This is very difficult to achieve.


The innumerable gallant defeats of past eras are a sore point for many Australian fans.

'Unattractive Crap' is often whats needed in a long campaign. Too many people expect us to play like Barcelona and win every game 3-0. I know I'd rather qualify for a World Cup grabbing 1-0 wins away from home than missing out to a series of 4-3 losses.

Pim wasn't perfect but he knew what was needed. There are much bigger footballing nations than ourselves who have battled their way into World Cups. I want to see us playing attractive football but it can't happen in every match

First how can you say any course is a sham if you haven't attended one , or, a specific course?


For KNVB course content visit the Dutch KNVB thread in this section. I don't want to replicate what I've posted in that thread. I'm already accused of prolixity , which is probably a fair comment. I can provide as much detail as you like, or to answer queries in the Dutch KNVB thread.

The FFA Youth Licence wasn't as specific though. I can't remember the detail as well.

I can say the empirical supporting evidence is the players we are currently training under a KNVB model. If one observed the kids train using the methodology compared to what they were using before and evaluated their progress it would be a useful appraisal.

Juve Juve, you haven't responded via PM getting contact details to look at FFE. The last chance is this coming Monday. If you are interested you won't get a chance to view it with the specific and incremental KNVB training paradigm until the end of October.

Given the inexperience in navigating WC and AC campaigns, external football voices are staggered at Australian pundits' criticism of successful campaigns under Pim's tutelage. If one is in Europe Australia has little credibility as a football power.

Stinger makes a moot point when he raises bigger nations than Australia battling their way into big tournaments.

Yes, almost as bad as a new age blow in post 2005 fanboy and wannabe wenger, attempting to compare player dev of past eras with the present.

Christ, yer can't have it both ways, old fruit. :lol:

Ah Decentric, loyal til the end. :lol:

I enjoyed the game against Serbia (well sort of) but I think you're being too lenient on his decision in the Germany match. They were simply mind boggling, anyone with half a brain knows that. To say 'it was just one match' is pretty misleading in a sense. Anyway that could be argued all day.

Welcome to the forum, Arosina.:d

Garcia had a ball cleared off the line in the first few minutes.

If he had scored, Pim would have been labelled a genius. Ironically, the Germany game was one of the first he deviated from 4-3-3 and its permutations. I'm saying his approach was plausible, but didn't work. If you ever read Soccernomics and Inverting The Pyramid, one realises the margins for success and failure are minimal.

He played 4-4-2 with a diamond against Qatar in his first game in charge. Muscat was dropped because of this. Other than those games , Verbeek essentially stuck to a 4-2-3-1, sometimes 3-3-3-1 attack, sometimes 4-3-3 in attack. Once against Japan he opted for a
4-3-2-1.

That's exactly my point. I can't say its a sham and you can't protest it to be the opposite whether you've attended it or not. Specifically who are you or I to say it is the way it should be done. How are you to say Coach K.M would benefit from it???? I would say there are very few in the world that you could trust to say "this methodology is the most effective." Football is dynamic, I'd argue there isn't one methodology that is the be all and end all.

"I can say the empirical supporting evidence is the players we are currently training under a KNVB model. If one observed the kids train using the methodology compared to what they were using before and evaluated their progress it would be a useful appraisal."

^ this needs to happen on a nation wide scale before I 'buy into' anything. I might check a data base and see if there is any emperical research.

A further option is to look at a KNVB paradigm.

You would have to have had a knowledge of the players before they came though to compare. You would also need to be familiar with other training ground practices on offer, otherwise it would be worthless, unless you want to join in/help.:)

I've read on the internet that Dutch, French, Italian and Brazilian models are regarded as the most successful. I can't remember where I've read it, but some of Craig Foster's articles have had references to the subject.

One can also look at what nationality coaches have who are coaching international teams.

Kelly Cross might also have alluded to this subject in one of his speeches. He also told me in private conversation which methodologies are considered the best.

But the difference between a win and a loss wasn't minimal in that match. WE SHOULD HAVE LOST 10-0!! How does losing 10-1 (because Garcia could have scored) make Pim a genius?

His tactics were plausible? ............have you watch the match? You've really got your blinkers on this issue.

As for attending your clinic - I work full time, I'm renovating a house and in the middle of further post grad studies. Time is tight sorry.

I spent about 8 hours slowly analysing a replay, recording individual stats for Science Of Football.

I'm not saying the performance was good, I'm saying that there are fine margins in football.

If Lampard (or Terry) had scored a penalty in a ECL semi-final, Avram Grant would have been retained as Chelsea's coach.

It is an analogous scenario to Chelsea's with Garcia's strike. Germany was a young team. They may have panicked by going one down. The 4-4-2 with a bowl shaped midfield was deployed for a small period of the game.

Edited by Decentric: 4/8/2011 11:37:11 PM

FFS. :lol:

You said this


[/quote]

It is an analogous scenario to Pim's with Garcia's strike. Germany was a young team. They may have panicked by going one down. [/quote]

Thanks. It's good to be here. Yes. It. Is.

Just like the old days....:lol: :d

Pims decisions in South Africa IMO were the correct ones and any mature adult with any knowledge of football would be able to clearly see what his thought process was.