Yes. I'm not sure what else to say.

The MCG game was where Pim played Carle wide left where his total lack of defensive workrate exposed Stefanutto time and time again. Another case of a coach not knowing his players. IIRC both our goals in this game were Cahill headers from set pieces.

I don't remember the Asian Cup game as well but I do remember that we were clearly the better team which is something I doubt would occur against Japan using basic long ball football.

Sure Holger definitely has his problems but he is a clear step up from Verbeek's anti-football.

I would think Australian football should look like this
Australian style goal keepers
English style centre backs
Dutch style wing backs
English style central Midfielder + dead ball specialist
Spanish style attacking midfielders
Brazilian #10
2 Argentinian attackers
I can not see how using the Dutch development system stops us in anyway from producing these players.

You may be alarmed that none of it was taught in the FFA Youth Licence in 2007.

Many experienced coaches learnt nothing new for the training ground in that course.

Well umm that isthe game after all, if it failed to incorporate any of that then I'm not sure what game would be being taught?

Contemporary methodologies may be more applicable. Fair comment.

I just happen to know one better than the others. And I can compare it to the old ad hoc FFA courses, as I've done both.

I suggested you observe in person what is done on the training ground at FFE. But as you say you haven't questioned Coach C and my coaching /training capabilities. Good point.

Movement and technical ability, passing combinations, off the ball movement etc, is a massive part of KNVB methodology. I would assum eit is the same in Barca Academy, Coverciano and Clairefontaine too.

KNVB is also emphatic that there is no prescriptive approach. Wiel Coerver made some pertinent criticism of KNVB lacking individualised and more prescriptive individual skill acquisition programme. There was a reconciliation a few years before his death.

On a local level, a couple of coaches sitting their FFA Senior Licence told the state FFA instructor they had covered nearly all of what they learnt in the course from KNVB based training at FFE - and for no cost, unlike FFA. That is apart from learning three new passing drills in a 4-3-3 context.

Rondos, recommended 4v4s within a framework, etc, were nothing new to them.

ha, I took that bit out, thought it may have been a bit harsh. By asking me to come to FFE, what are you trying to prove? I don't think I've ever questioned your coaching/training capabilities.

I do question your absolute commitment to KNVB. If you spoke about 'contemporary methodologies' without mentioning KNVB you might get a more favourable response from some posters. Atm, you're just sooooo biased.

Not true.

What I'm saying is that KNVB probably has similar methodology to Coverciano, Clairefontaine, KNVB based German and Barca Academy. What any of these methodologies have is superior to the ad hoc system in Australia in the past.

When are you going to look at FFE in person?

Surely you can't be that busy?:?

* How can we go forward if we don't learn from our mistakes (Verbeek). He wasn't a coaches 'a hole.'
* I think the new FFA curriculum is a step forward but must be scrutinesed very closely.
* Why is everyone so obsessed with formations - it clearly identifies a lack of working knowledge of the game. Passing combinatons, players working off the ball and technical ability are about a billion times more relevant to the game.
* Is KNVB a cult? its like Scientology and Decentric is Tom Cruise and Han Berger Elron Hubbard (is that his name).



Edited by JuveJuve: 15/12/2011 11:31:33 AM

I took drugs after the event.:lol:

Panadol, aspirin, nurofen worked well.



Australia played better against Japan in Melbourne in the World Cup qualifier under Pim, than the Asian Cup final under Holger.

There was a ridiculously high percentage of long, high crosses launched from just over the half way line in the general direction of our capable heading target forwards in the Asian Cup.

Asian teams evaluated us in this way at the Asian Cup. Good connect between the defence and defensive midfield, but they were surprised to see aerial balls launched/crossed at every opportunity from just over the half way line.

Uzbekistan was a case where they played an intense squeezing game, dominating us, but made a couple of defensive mistakes. Then they lost confidence. Kewell says that Australia has struggled to play well against them and has been very lucky to date.

What you define as 'risk free football' where the team you support has more shots on goal than the opposition, sounds like a plausible strategy to me. Patient build ups are fine, but yes, we could've changed the rhythm better. Unfortunately, not many of our players do this frequently enough at club level.

Asian teams have deployed two clear tactics against Australia. The defend deep, half and partial pressing game, hoping for the opportune accelerated attack. Or, the high pressing, intensive squeezing game that Korea, Japan and Uzbekistan have attempted on occasions. Both Korea and Japan were more cautious at the Asian Cup.

What was a concern at the Asian Cup, and against Korea in particular, is that they accrued twice as many passes in their attacking half as we did.

Arosina, have you heard of Valery Lobanovski, the Dynamo Kiev and Soviet coach? He pioneered the comprehensive stats that Arsene Wenger, Alex Ferguson and Sam Allardice love to analyse.

Arsene is also a massive fan of Dutch methodology. Valery also loved their pressing/squeezing concepts.


Edited by Decentric: 15/12/2011 12:17:37 AM

Disagree.

We had far more shots on goal and conceded less shots on target than our opponents in nearly every match. As you know I compiled extensive stats. Our worst performance - and we should have been thrashed, was against Bahrain, in Bahrain, in 2008. Australia was comprehensively outplayed. But not in any other subsequent game.

I agree Schwarzer was good over the whole campaign. He made a lot of decisive saves. So did some other keepers against us.

Many opposition shots were taken from distance over the campaign. Verbeek devised cunning plans to invite shots from targeted innocuous places on the pitch from certain teams. Or some teams were invited to cross by deliberately conceding space in wider areas, as opposed to having to deal with central attacking combination play.

Someone else on 442 posited the sage view that we often perceive matches by a few key moments when we watch it live. When one has a second look, dispassionately, the game often assumes a different form. Particularly when one assiduously compiles painstaking stats.

I'm not trying to refute, or take an antithetical perspective of whatever proposition you advance. Far from it. A previous agreed evaluation we share on a player, and my stats support our collective views, is David Carney.

The stats show Michael Zullo wins many more hard balls, and is a much stronger tackler than Carney. He also wins more intercepts (already reading play better at LB). Zullo also creates more turnovers for teammates. That is not to say Carney is not a good player. But his talent is as a left winger, not LB.

Also, you have suggested Brett Holman is one of our few quick players - true. He is the third fastest in the team after Scott McDonald and Robbie Kruse. The former Victory player was the second fastest recorded player at the Asian Cup out of all teams.

:)








Edited by Decentric: 15/12/2011 12:42:31 AM

This is laughable. When you play risk free football ofcourse you are less likely to turn the ball over. Obvious?

As for the lucky results under Holger ... first you say we were no better than three of the better teams at the tournament??? Secondly the Japanese coach admitted we outplayed them in the final (something that would never have happened under Pim!) and thirdly we absolutely smashed the Uzbeks 6-0?

Your close scrutiny didn't involve drugs did it? :lol:

Yes because we always played two deep lying midfielders which becomes a problem when neither of them has any attacking intention whatsoever. As a result guys further up the park like Bresciano, McDonald etc were constantly isolated.

Normally we had Grella and Culina - a hacker and a buck passer - in the centre of midfield. Both were masters of the slow backwards and sideways passing under no pressure. Neither could go forward or create anything. There was a total lack of penetration from central midfield. All responsibility fell to the fullbacks and it is no surprise that most of our goals were headers from crosses.

As I posted in the other thread to Incoming, this is the mindless possession I was talking about. Except in this case it was even worse as generally we were clearly the superior team!



Edited by Arosina: 14/12/2011 11:23:03 PM

No, Schwarzer and quite a bit of luck got us to the WC.

We had significant control of games against inferior opposition (Japan aside) who were sitting deep, playing on the counter, and happy to get a draw. Well fancy that.

Lets not forget we are talking about the following teams - Oman, Kuwait, Indonesia, Japan, Uzbekistan, Qatar, Bahrain, China and Iraq. So one good team, two decent teams and the rest are utter crap.

I've asked this question once or twice before ... do we consider ourselves Asian giants or not? If the answer is no then it's time to find a different sport to play.

Pretty much any team is capable of being well organised without the ball. Verbeek favoured this bus-parking method because he had (and no doubt still has) nothing else in his locker.

In any case it is a sad and miserable failing of Verbeek which he had also previously thrust upon his South Korean team. Not surprisingly they produced similar dour and appalling football.

Interestingly enough Rob Baan was able to prove this attitude to be a total nonsense in his one and only game in charge. He used a 442 diamond with an interchangeable and short ball-playing front three. The end result here was excellent football against Nigeria, one of the strongest African teams.

Thanks for moving the post.:)


Under Verbeek the coach rationalised that the defensive qualities of his players greatly exceeded their attacking qualities.

Australia was capable of being well -organised without the ball and were generally better at winning the ball than distributing it.

Australia also had a significant amount of control over games when they played. Most Asian teams played half pressing, partial pressing and defended deep, waiting to hit Australia on the counter.

The two defensive mids are standard practice in Europe. This negates the ability of many modern teams to counter attack.

Australia conducted patient build ups under Verbeek. In terms of attacking combination play, creating neat diamonds and triangles, only midfielders, McKay, Holman, Bresciano, Culina and Grella have played this consistently at club level. They are effective at give and goes, one/ twos in attacking interplay in the central third in front of goal. These five players have never been on the pitch at the same time.

The patient build ups got us to the WC. The attacking combination play by the Socceroos was a problem. The cohesion between the forwards and midfield was often a problem. Many of the forwards didn't do this at club level.

When Australia played in the Asian Cup, when I recorded stats and put players under close scrutiny, they turned the ball over much more than Verbeek's teams. Australia's performances at the Asian Cup were mediocre. They got some lucky results but were no better than Iraq, South Korea and Japan. They also were lucky against Bahrain and Uzbekistan.

After the Asian Cup ( I missed the first three WC qualifiers under Holger) the last three have been a case of Holger trying to deploy different tactics, more like Pim's. Except that he hasn't ever deployed a 4-3-3 with defensive and attacking midfield triangles, a
4-2-3-1, 4-5-1, 3-4-3, 3-3-3-1 like Pim did. Australia was able to set out in four lines rather than three under Verbeek.

ATM we look less like qualifying of the WC than under Pim. We navigated the Asian zone with the best win/loss record and goal difference in Asia. Sounds good to me.

Not sure if you remember the Socceroos under Verbeek, or if you have seen the AIS play recently under Versleijen, but 2 holding midfielders passing the ball sideways and backwards is not good football.

here we go again.

LOL.

This thread dismantles the theory that there's no entertainment on FFT.

What for?

Yeah. Cop that skeptic, my thread! :lol:

Arosina
Who else has had an opportunity, with a squad full of proven Euro performers, to match this supposed great record via Asian qualification?



Fair point.

Verbeek had experienced Euro players in top leagues, Grella, Moore and Culina to call on regularly when fit.

Verbeek's team played with more cohesion in this part of the pitch when under pressure more than Holger's teams.

Offensive pass completion rates were higher and opposition build ups were broken up more easily.

Holger has not had these players to call upon. Pim had an advantage in his campaign.


Edited by Decentric: 9/12/2011 08:40:04 PM

They are responding to Arosina's points made in another thread.

List how all these aforementioned coaches have failed tactically as defined by you.

Describe specifically how these coaches have failed in their training ground practice.

What would some selected Australian coaches, steeped in which training ground practice, have done differently on the training track to ensure success?

In results based football, some coaches will always lose more matches than they win. If we had Hiddink, Van Gaal, Mourinho, Sacchi, Lobanovski, Mourinho, Guardiola, Mancini, Capello and Scolari coaching the ten teams in the A League at any given time, they cannot all win. Some would have to take up positions at the bottom of the ladder. It doesn't mean any of them are bad coaches.

The aforementioned coaches have had differing levels of success. It is also relevant to evaluate the strengths of their squads compared to their opponents.

No, it's not your very own. As you can see, all posts are by decentric, coversing with decentric, so it's decentric's thread. Sorry, you have to wait for another.

It is a question of you raising some fair points, but, in the wrong thread.

My very own thread! :cool:

All are welcome except krones, I dont want krones posting here until he apologises to Paul Lonton.

Not true.

What I raise is the difference between top European methodology in general, and the ad hoc coaching system which existed in Australia prior to 2008.

Whether it is KNVB, Clarefontaine, Coverciano or Barca Academy, they are all in a bracket of best world's practice.

Australian ad hoc coaching methodology in the past was not, and was light years behind.

For those who claim it is best to be eclectic, including some former Socceroo coaches, one has to be competent in any practice to be eclectic. We were not competent in any cohesive methodology or system.

Edited by Decentric: 9/12/2011 06:50:34 PM