Many people on here hate or until recently, hated the idea of Archie Thompson in the NT, but Archie has proven to be a game changer off the bench and currently has 3 goals in his last 3 games for Australia. Age is clearly the main factor and form was also a factor last season, but it's clear that he can do 'a job' for the national team right now. So here's the question:

If Archie was to score 1 goal every 3 games (On average) from now until the World Cup, would you take him in the squad?

If not, what would it take for Archie to prove his worth in the National Team? Or does he have no place at all, no matter what he can produce?

Edited by farrand93: 8/11/2012 08:14:24 AM

Archibald has slotted a couple in his last few hit outs for australia. WHat i would say is well done archibald however that doesnt gloss over the fact based on form he shouldnt have been selected in the first place to get those opportunities and there is no way that he should be playing any friendlies at all. IF we dont have a better option on the road to brasil than yes he could be selected. Playing him against lebanon and sth Korea is just ridiculous as he is now taking the opportunity of a developing younster

Which, if you allow for minutes on the park, is at least the equivalent of 1 or 2 goals per FULL game.
Which Australian has this strike rate?






Didn't think so :oops:

Fair assessment

umm.... Archie is?

:oops:

A top quality striker scores a goal once every two games for his nation, FFS.

It's a good thing then we don't have a scoreboard analyst like you coaching the national team....

Archie has 24 goals from 41 games, does that make him a top striker?

Edited by Joffa: 8/11/2012 10:40:43 AM

Okay... let's make this nice and simple for you.

He currently has 3 goals in his last 3 appearances.
And we DON'T HAVE anyone scoring 1 goal every 2 games other than Archie and Tim Cahill...

What are we supposed to do? Just not play with a striker because we don't have 'a top quality striker'?




Besides that simple equation, my initial question was, would you include him in the squad if from here on he scored 1 goal every 3 games until the world cup, and if not, what would he have to do to be included?

He is a super sub.

I really dont get all the Archie hate. If he's doing the job and is still willing he deserves his spot. Some players legs just last a little longer than others (pace and agility). If his are still fine and he's doing a better job than anyone else why not?

The more pertinent question is who in the Australian squad has the form to justify starting AHEAD of Archie?

No.

Edited by imnofreak: 8/11/2012 11:24:00 AM

A good question, Scott McDonald is scoring in the championship.
Porta and Brosque are scoring in the Middle East.
And Archie is Scoring for the National Team.

Take your pick! :-k

Are you going to try and tell me that archie played well last season and deserved his recall to the international fold?

And as far as being a scoreboard analyst that you have labelled me to be. If that were the case i wouldnt be eager to see scott mcdonal back in the side and given the opportunity to prove himself.

Ive played and coached long enough to know that there is more to a strikers game than finding the back of the net



Edited by stfa_striker: 8/11/2012 11:28:06 AM

](*,)

Surely scoring for the national team is the most relevant barometer?
Regardless, what most of the chumps on here don't want to ADMIT is Archie has more strings to his bow than a goal typical poacher.
His crosses/assists for Rojas show what a dynamic player he is (considering Rojas is incapable of doing the same)

Oh relax. :lol:

He's already 34. He'd be 36 in Brazil. We shouldn't have any outfielders of that age there. And yes, he has a few goals, credit to him, but I think that scoring (for example) in the CCC is more impressive than scoring against Jordan etc.

I'm with you here, i like what he offers to the side. If he can bang in a few more on the road to Rio i hope he goes.

As long as Archie is a pinch hitter no issues with him being around while we find his replacement. This is what people overlook all the time - every player in the National Team should only be used until we find their replacement. It is not any players right to be in the National Team - especially the incumbents.

To the OP: In general, yes. The only qualifier I would put on that is if he was scoring his goals against the lowest countries, and was rubbish against any quality Asian team. Then it could be argued that he wouldn't perform at the WC, where all the teams are quality.

Would love to see Holger play with Cahill and Mcdonald up front. Mcdonald needs another striker next to him. The Guy has a bucket load of Talent and is never used right for Australia.

I have zero problem with Archie staying in the national team till the WC in his role as the super sub. Provided ofcourse he doesn't start going too down hill with age.

I guess it's a shame that a younger developing player could use his spot in the squad but impact like he has off the bench and his effect on team morale may be pretty important for us in difficult times like these.



In answer to the original question.. If you mean 1 goal in 3 games when he's just being used as a substitute... who could say no to that?
Would be incredible statistics for a substitute.

Edited by neanderthal: 8/11/2012 12:51:18 PM

'One swallow doesn't make a spring.' Holger Osiek

If you're over 33 I won't them out of the national team. No one over 34 (at the time of the world cup) should be in the team without exceptional curumstance.

We should be looking only to build the youth up and have them ready for the world cup or bow out trying. I'd rather not make it than go with a team that is just gonig to get embarassed by much younger and quicker opposition.

Well what do you want from your striker is the question. Do you want him creating or do you want him finishing.

McDonald is quite obviously a better finisher than archibald, it could certainly be argued that archibald creates more chances as well.

I have no issue with the fact that he has scored for the national team recently. WHat i do take issue with is the fact that given his club form over the past season he did not warrant the opportunity of selection over some others

Only every 3rd game.

Edited by RBB_Kopite: 8/11/2012 01:27:38 PM

Yet Archie has 24 goals and McDonald has 0.

Better finisher or not it just never seems like McDonald is on the same wavelength with the rest of the team.
Archie on the other hand is great at combining with team mates and getting on the end of their chances.

And if you knew anything about Archie you'd know his game isn't all about goals and that he's a very dynamic player who has a lot of qualities to bring to a side.

In the lead up to him getting back into the NT, Archie couldn't hit a barn door. That hasn't changed for MV, but he is still getting into good positions to have a shot at scoring. Difference is, he seems to be putting them away for the NT right now.

So, while he is missing chances for MV...he is setting up goals. I think he'd have 3 assists to his name in his 4 MV matches, as I assume his cross that lead to Rojas' goal against the Reds wouldn't place another assist to his name. :lol:

He keeps playing his role as impact sub for the NT. I don't think that role should be expanded. If he comes off the bench and helps swing the match, then I think he should be keeping his spot. Not only is he scoring more then the current starting XI striker, Brosque, but he is also performing better then the other guys that come off the bench.

Plays his role, can't see why he shouldn't be keeping his spot. Up to another player to displace him IMO.