It is very hard.

Cahill is easily the best finisher , goal mouth predator we've had, even though I've listed about 10 weaknesses in his game.

One thing that Andy Harper noted, is that Brazilian teams do a greater weighting of shooting for goal, than we do, in their training sessions.

I suppose individuals, in the scoring positions, need to do more work in match simulated conditions on the training ground, increasing the defensive pressure incrementally as they improve.

I watched the Oz team practice shooting before Pim's first game against Qatar. Valeri applied the defensive pressure. They couldn't hit the side of a barn! They were hopeless. All our best attacking players were there, apart from Kewell and Dukes.. yet they put three past Qatar.

The problem with these, is they are all about numerical facets of play all over the pitch.

There is no analysis of technique and how some teams/players can hold their own with numerical inferiority, because of superior individual technique and more cohesive structured possession.

There was an article about square balls and vertical/straight balls in one of these. This is anathema to KNVB or FFA NC preferred modes of play. Diagonal balls are paramount, to induce better body shape to move or play forwards. In the Socceroos, apart form back passes and bounce passes, players rarely play straight balls forwards. Ange P hates them, which is part of his training he has done with FFA and what he would've seen at Arsenal.

Nevertheless, they are the best game analyses in the media in England and Oz, apart from David Pleatt's analysis. Pleatt has been a EPL coach.

I still say Japan didn't play well- they played poorly, without any purpose, or adaptability. They were up against 10 men for much of the game. Japanese supporters will tell you the same. Praising their possession play in order to make some sort of philosophical point doesn't really give us a very clear or accurate analysis of the game.

I analysed the game closely when there were 11 v 11, then lost interest.

There is no philosophical point about lauding the superiority of Japanese technique in structured possession against Greece. Japan is becoming another resource for FFA coaches/coach educators to analyse. There have been many study tours by FFA coaches to Japan. We have to acknowledge their success and improvement since adopting Brazilian methodology and embarking on some huge blueprint for the future.

Korea and Japan dominating Russia and Greece is relevant. Dominance in structured possession is significant. These European mid-rankers cannot dictate the terms of games.

Japan needs to work harder on rhythm changes in attacking interplay and clinical finishing.

I should also say their ground 1v1 attacking skills were superior to the Greeks, as were the Koreans superior to the Russians.

FIFA technical committees argue, without equivocation, that no teams are successful without having outstanding technique in big tournaments on the world stages and in big continental comps like South American and European championships. The exception to the rule may have been Greece who won a fairly recent Euro championship playing Reactive football.

A national push for high fences behind goals across the country.

Edited by krones3: 22/6/2014 07:54:44 AM

This crop of world players does not have the flare of players in the past.
It is more about sound technic and individual pace.

I thought Japan were a bit robotic and lacked imagination against Greece, while the Greeks fought for their lives.

Yes possession increases your chances of success, but in individual games the side with less possession can still get a result. That's football.

But if Japan played Greece 11v 10 ten times, they'd win about seven or eight of those.

Haha you sick of chasing soccer balls all over the place when doing shooting practice as well.

With the rise of 3 at the back and the acres of space it creates , I can a return to the long ball over the top , shame England now have the highest passing rates in the oppo half.

Australia v Spain

Australia was outclassed today by Spain.

I didn't see the Chile/Spain fixture, but from when they've played Australia and Holland, I'm surprised they haven't progressed.

Whereas Australia was able to apply intensive squeezing , at times, not all the time, against the first two opponents, Chile and Holland, over the duration of this game, Australia put it on in the first 20 minutes, but then faded against Spain.

Once Spain had more time and space on the ball, as they suffocated Australia, through minimal, but correct off the ball movement , creating angled passing lanes in Ball Possession.

Also, Spain were able to apply more squeezing pressure over the whole game, within their defensive and attacking lines, usually applying a full press. Australia struggled to maintain possession against the off the ball pressure. Spain were very effective at closing down, and very fit.

Spain also wore Australia out by maintaining the ball in BP for extended periods. Moreover, in the Defensive Transitions, when they lost the ball, they were able to win it back more and more quickly from a fatiguing Australia as the game progressed.

There was a chasm, in technical quality. Spain were able to hold on to the ball in confined time and space, through better first touches and more accurate passing with the inside and outside of the foot under sustained pressure.

In Ball Possession, they were usually more capable in 1v1 attacking skills, and ball carrying at speed with close control. Their footwork was a bit better. Hence they had faster handling speed, with little time for Australia to disturb build ups.

Everything Spain were doing well, is what the tenets of the new Football Fed Aus National Curriculum is based on.

From the performance today, I thought Spain were the best team into group, and , if they had progressed, a threat for the title.

Holland v Chile


In this game the pressing was interesting.

Both Chile and Holland applied a full press, as opposed to a half press or partial press.. The difference was that within the lines, from the defensive line, to the attacking line, Chile squeezed more. The Dutch midfielders and backs constantly played under time and space pressure. Holland lifted their squeezing intensity within their full press in the second half and probably disturbed more Chilean build ups.

Holland played a 4-4-2, with a midfield diamond, but the midfield shape was often difficult to identify from TV. Schneider sat behind two strikers, but the triangle behind him often didn't assume classic shape.

Chile played a 3-4-3. Their fitness was remarkable, being able to squeeze intensively for long periods. With full pressing and intensive squeezing, I've observed over the years that most teams run out of gas just after an hour.

It was also interesting that within these field formations, Chile pushed their defensive line higher, whilst Holland's sat deeper.

In terms of possession, about half way during the first half, Holland had passed the ball 47 times to Chile's 160. Rather than play the possession game, slowly building the ball up from defence to attack, Holland seemed content to suck Chile into their defensive half, then if they disturbed the build up , they launched fast accelerated attacks, using the pace of Robben in particular. They seems to want to have the Chileans defending running towards their own goal.

Holland could play the rapid fire quick one and two touch passing in triangles, as they did on occasions, but generally they chose not to.

On balance of play, Chile should have got more out of the game. Van Gaal has diverged from the past KNVB mode of playing possession football, deciding that his team's best chance of winning, is through the pace of his forwards with fast ball carrying ability. In the past, the Dutch have looked to impose themselves on other teams, dominating possession , like Spain did against Australia.

One goal was from a corner, the second from an accelerated attack. In the past many Dutch goals have come from rhythm changes and intricate attacking interplay.


Playing like this, I think Holland could struggle to go much further in the tournament. The only time they were clearly in the ascendancy in their three games, having seen all of them, was in the second half against Spain, and to a lesser extent against Australia in the second half. They've certainly had their share of luck.

or could the equation be thrown on its head and said that Greece allowed the Japs to play where they wanted to play and conceded certain areas of the pitch, whilst being in full control of the areas that they deemed important. Remember these mid-rankers, have now come out of the group (which is the reason why we are all here for) whilst the glory of Japan and their curriculum is catching Air Nippon and Japan Airlines back to Tokyo.

It is a possibility, except Japan had too much possession in the Greek defensive half, for the Greeks' comfort.

Against their African opponent, Greece had a lucky penalty and the other goal was capitalising on a mistake - a Reactive goal for Greece.

The African team, (was it Ivory Coast) scored one superb Proactive goal.

then you obviously havent watch any Greek internationals for at least the last 10 years except for maybe this world cup and when Skoko ripped one into the back of the net at the G. I have watched sides pass them to death, cut them open, create all the chances in the world but ultimately Greece always got the chocolates.

Fair play to Ivory Coast, great goal, counts for shit ultimately, when the greeks pinched the win on capitalising on the basics at international level, taking your chances and punishing mistakes of the opposition.

The Greeks are a very good defensive side ATM.

Their structure is good, even under sustained pressure. They always have the middle of the pitch covered.

I was in Greece when they played a few WC qualifiers.