As I said in the euro thread, I think it highlights how far behind we are. Wales are a third tier European side. We'd or be close to competing with them. It shows how important it is to have players playing constantly and having a consistant starting 11. 3 years on from when ange started and if you gave ten people a piece of paper and said 'write down Australia's starting eleven' there is no chance you'd get ten same answers.

we had that with Pim.

Do people think that having three at the back (plus two wing-backs) compromises the philosophy of proactive football Australia plays best?

I want to get some feedback on this.

For the life of me, I cannot see how Australia can stop haemorrhaging goals without 3 at the back at any given time. We just don't have enough defensive quality and athleticism to play two central defenders and two wing-backs. It keeps costing us 2-3 goals per match.

Surely, 3 central defenders will improve things. And Wales do it. So I don't reckon it compromises our brand of proactive football.

I like a back 3, maybe we can go 3-4-3 or 3-4-1-2 and free up Rogic and utilise our wing backs.

But i'm not sure if Ange is stubborn enough to make kind of change, unless Gombau can convince him given he's now part of the national team fabric.

Other wise he should be contemplating the midfield variation and move to a 2 holders instead of the 1 depending the opposition.

Edited by Barca4life: 2/7/2016 10:41:41 PM

Barca4Life

You mean you think Ange is too stubborn to alter his formation in that way? He's going to do that or else find world-class defenders from the middle of nowhere who just happen to have Australian passports. A back four which includes overlapping wingbacks is the equivalent of trying to run before you can walk. It just needs minor tweaking (i.e. three central defenders, not two) and you strike the appropriate balance between attack and defence.

Yep, those formations are similar to the one I posted before. Three central defenders. A five man midfield (including the wingbacks who overlap or sit back depending on what we need) and two strikers (Rogic and Cahill).

It's great because it means we can use overlapping wing-backs necessary to attack and play proactive, possession based football. But we still keep our defensive structure. You wouldn't find Bailey Wright isolated in a 2 vs 1 situation with three central defenders.

But I fear Ange is too stubborn and he'd see such a formation as too conservative. He should look at what Wales have just done.

Hey Quickflick.

Yes the wingbacks go up is what I meant.

I agree we'd not be conservative. Only the image of 3 CB for Australia gives me the feeling of the Scottish national team without a striker. Of course though Sainsbury is a good ball player.

We'd need 3 CB as we can't cover the ground. Sainsbury is only faster on FIFA :d

Dortmund would suck the life out of teams with Ginter and Schmelzer. Hummels and Sokratis are just too intelligent despite not having pace. Then they had Weigl and Gundogan covering.

Rogic, Mooy and Luongo are a lot less skilled defensively. Milligan and Jedinak lack acceleration.

I'm mostly confused whether we name it 5-2-3 or 3-4-3.

The latter could suggest a diamond midfield but that's unlikely.

I'd have Sainsbury Wright Spiranovic. Lyden, Williams or Leckie RWB. Smith, Gersbach and hopefully by 2019 Elder at LWB.

Midfield would be Mooy Luongo and Rogic while Mclaren and Kruse work up front. Or drop Luongo and have Timmy central with the speedsters working inwards.

Just one idea of many. Ange might write some off in training.

johnszasz

Does the formation need to be categorised? It's basically 3-5-2 when we're attacking and 5-3-2 when we're defending :d

In terms of formation, it's fairly fluid and depends on what transition we're in. But to balance out attack and defence; three central defenders, a wing-back on either side, one screener (CDM), one box-to-box midfielder, one play-maker (CAM) and two strikers.

That's for ordinary circumstances. It can be worked around with in terms of how those CDMs and CAM are deployed.

Imo, having Kruse and Cahill up front together is not the best way to go about things. Who's likely to get dangerous crosses to Cahill? Krusey. But if so Kruse needs to be wing or wing-back or even some kind of fantasista. Rogic is the best option up front (unless we see something special from one of Juric, Giannou or Maclaren). Rogic is the best at finishing in the team overall and has the best 1 vs 1. And it's difficult to fit Rogic and Mooy together in the midfield because they're not defensively good enough. This issue is largely avoided if Rogic doesn't have much defensive responsibility.

So Rogic and Cahill up front. It means we suddenly have about three times as many ways of scoring.

Anyway, I see the midfield and striker(s) dilemma as horses for courses. You can play around with it depending on who can play and you you're playing.

But we shouldn't change our defensive structure unless we're trailing (or unless we suddenly develop world class defenders).

Three central defenders and two wing-backs. Keep it like that. And then horses for courses in the midfield and up front.

Edited by quickflick: 3/7/2016 07:19:02 AM

I agree Kruse central will lack so I'd want him to have instruction to get wide to cross. The good news is we've got some depth and can play around with it.

Hopefully we get a friendly or two to practice.

luongo holds his ow defensively. all the QRP games i saw last year he did not leave his own half.

mooy can as well.

rogic is pretty much a deep sitting striker and struggles to play in the wings on his side. pretty much locked leckie out of the game v greece 2.


Edited by inala brah: 3/7/2016 08:26:36 AM

What's to stop us getting torn up on the wings? That lineup can't handle overloads on the left and especially the right.

I don't mind the midfield though. Starting to really think Rogic would be a better option on the wing. He makes our midfield a little unbalanced, I would like to see Irvine given a shot there. I think it wil both free up attacking space for mooy to exploit and give us more defensive cover.

I would like to see us try with our wing backs played a little bit more conservatively then they have.

---degenek---sains---spira---Goodwin
--------------Jedi---------Irvine
---------------------mooy
-------kruse------Cahill-------rogic

The Fans

Rogic isn't fast enough for the wings. At least he hasn't shown any evidence to suggest he is. He also doesn't have the defensive skills, either. Rpgic is also the best overall finisher in the team. If you want Mooy in the starting line-up, Rogic has to play up-front.

Why would that line-up get torn up on the wings? You do realise that at the minute we're being torn up on the wings by playing two central defenders and stretching our wing-backs too thin? What I've suggested would relieve our wing-backs a bit because we'd have three central defenders which means if one of our wing-backs gets caught out of position, it doesn't fuck up everything.

Anyway, Smith is capable of defending that left-wing and attacking. Gersbach has the attacking skills and will gain the defensive skills. Goodwin is also a decent option.

The right-wing is horses for courses. If you want to attack, you play Kruse. If you're trying to contain the opponent you play Leckie. Leckie, as right wing-back, would be part of the most defensively solid formation we could play.

I think johnzsasz pointed out that we used a not dissimilar kind of formation against Germany and our wing-backs looked more comfortable because they had more space. This would be ideal for Leckie because he needs acres of space. Well, if he has a whole wing to himself, that gives him the best chance of getting acres of space.

Edited by quickflick: 3/7/2016 10:49:33 PM

Rogic as a false 9 is something I would love us to consider, his lack of pace may be a worry though...

Kruse and Leckie outside him causing havoc wow..

----------Jedi----------
Mooy----------Luongo
---------Rogic-----------
Kruse----------Leckie

Could also have that triangle rotating with Mooy coming forward sometimes, rogic drops back.. etc.

Edited by jas88: 4/7/2016 06:23:48 PM

When we talk about possible changes to the national team it is always a good move to remember that we have a team model that has been built around our philosophy of how we want to play, the playing style. We are no longer a nation dependent on the flavour of the month formation or a particular coach but a have a clear vision of how we want to play.

The team model has specific key principals in the four main moments of the game, when losing possession and when the opponent has secured it our key principals are to win possession as soon as possible, apply pressure to the ball carrier immediately, deny the opponents time and space to build up, limit the opponents passing options.

IMO playing 3 center backs and 2 wing backs would compromise our ability to make this happen.

Exactly we have our own style of philosophy in place from the juniors to the socceroos, although its good to learn from other nations but its best we stick to our path and learn along the way.

Copying others won't work which we tried to do when the dutch coaches were here.

I prefer the holistic path that we have a certain way of playing now, it will lead to greater gains in the long run no doubt.

Rogic doesn't have to be your a typical winger. But the idea is that the closer to goal he is the more it suits his attributes. I don't he could cope at all as a center forward so the best option is left forward. He would have to defend yes but I think he's more than capable of doing so.

Gone are the days where we base the team structure and ideas around the best players. The national team is now all about the team, and to a degree players need to adjust to that. I think as a center mid he is very attacking and forces mooy back a bit out of the areas in which he is most dangerous. As a left or right forward I think we can utilise his skills best. He doesn't need to be lightning fast at all, it's the combinations with other players and getting into goal scoring areas that I'm most looking for not as much for crosses. He would play closer to the middle with smith providing more width and jedinak/Irvine providing defensive cover. Defensively he should be fine, better than kruse.

Yeah I agree with you 2.

We are finally finding our own way. It's a beautiful thing. No reason whatsoever to start question it. We are Asian champions. We lost a couple of totally meaningless friendlies, big whoop. We need to stick to our guns and keep moving forward.

Why exactly don't you think Rogic could play up front? Aside from his lack of acceleration, there's no reason he couldn't.

He knows where to run, how to time his runs the kind of shape that his runs need. We can be fairly sure of this based on the kind of running he has done to score in the past. He knows how take the ball in no space and find himself in lots of space.

I would have some scruples about Rogic being the only striker, at this juncture (without having had a crack alongside somebody else). But he'd do just fine if he played alongside somebody else up front.

He has the best overall finishing of anybody in the team (from close range and from distance). As I say, aside from not being the quickest, or so it seems, there's no reason why he can't play up front?

Have you got any concrete reasons why Rogic can't be striker?

As for Rogic playing on the wing. You say you like the current football philosophy. Well, it requires pacy wingers. It's that simple. They need to be able to get from the halfway line to the edge of the box quick smart (whether they have the ball or not). Rogic can't do this. You mention that Rogic would be able to defend better than Kruse on the wing. This isn't the case. Defending on the wing is reliant on being able to get back at speed. Kruse and Leckie suit this style of defending, Rogic does not.

I don't think your idea of Rogic being a winger is unfeasible in all systems. Just our current system. Your not-particularly-quick winger needs to be a playmaker like David Beckham (which Rogic is). But you then basically need to have a flat back four, which is not something Ange wants to do.

Except our style is not quite holistic. It's defensively a house of cards. And thus it cannot be considered holistic. It could only be considered holistic if we had world-class defenders who are good at all aspects of the game. Basically, if you want to play a back four with overlapping wing-backs, you need to have the best defenders in the business. Otherwise, you need to play a flat back four or three central defenders plus aggressive wing-backs. That's the trade-off.

Are you sure the Dutch coaches didn't work? It worked with Hiddink. I don't like the style Pim used but he was substantially more successful than Ange has been.

Basically, you need to play to your own style but you need to be aware of the demands of the game. At the moment, the current system stretches us too thin. Smith and the musical chairs of right-back are not good enough defensively and Sainsbury, Wright and Spiranovic are not fast enough for there to be an aggressive back four.

Gotta find a compromise.

With these things, it's usually a case of adjusting (usually pushing too far in one direction and then the other) until you strike the best balance. A kind of Hegelian dialect of football.

The problem is this; we haven't struck that balance given that we don't have the cattle for the kind ideological brand of football Ange wants us to play.

At the minute, we're still conceding between 2 and 3 goals against top notch nations. I'm sorry but results have to count for something. This means Ange has to have an attack which can produce at least 3 or 4 goals against top notch nations. And we don't even have a proper striker. So basically, Ange needs to think are we going to carry on getting gallantly thumped or are we going to find a way of being true to our style while not haemorrhaging goals.



How so? When we lose the ball, we can still shut down really fast. We have Jedinak sitting in front of the three central defenders plus a box-to-box midfielder (perhaps Irvine) to help him. If this happens out wide, you have players like Smith and Leckie on the wings to harass the opposition. It actually makes those guys more dangerous because they don't need to be so fearful of getting beaten. If they get beaten, we have three defenders behind them.

Personnel is key. If you have Jedinak and Irvine doing that in central midfield, rather than Rogic and Mooy (who will be further afield) it's actually more likely we can limit the time and space the opposition have. As for getting the ball to our key players. This is ideal. We have seriously good ball handlers in the middle in that we'll have Irvine as box-to-box (or Luongo if he finds form) and Mooy at CAM. And they can release players like Smith, Leckie or Kruse with the whole wings to themselves. Those three are some of the quickest in the Bundesliga and Premier League.

I think playing three central defenders and wing-backs suits our football philosophy more than what we're doing.

Other countries play aggressive football with that kind of formation. Why can't Australia?

the biggest difference is our pressing. We had more structure in the Asian cup. our transition was better because of our pressing. We only pressed just outside the halfway line (in the Asian cup), it allowed us to conserve energy and to transition into defence, but once the ball was anywhere near our halfway line we pressed.
Against England we pressed everywhere and imho led to 2 goals, pressing is fine if everyone knows what and where they should be, against England and Greece we didn't. It was Jen Jen press disaster.
Hopefully Ange understands that the full on press is shite without precise structure and will open you up, where organised press allows players to get positional.
I thought we attacked well, we just don't have an effective striker with the fuck off attitude we need atm.

This link will provide anyone with a real interest in the Australian playing style with most of the information they need. If that wets the taste buds then go and take a coaching course then turn your vision and philosophy into reality.

http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/dct/ffa-dtc-performgroup-eu-west-1/The%20Football%20Coaching%20Process_sojtrxt7i5ka18k1ws5awk14f.pdf

Just a couple of notes about our players currently in one of the Big-5 leagues.

I believe Brad Smith should go out on loan to try and get as much game time into his legs as possible. At his age, compared to other 22-year-olds in the Big-5 leagues, he is about 69 competitive matches of football behind them, which is telling.

Mat Ryan is still well ahead of his compatriates in terms of his experience, but these next 2-3 years are going to be critical for his development as he is at risk of bottoming out if he doesn't secure the no.1 position at Valencia.

For all the player shuffling that has occurred in the last 2 years, Mile Jedinak has remarkably been able to stay above the experience curve at Crystal Palace. Up to this point, his career trajectory has been critical for the Socceroos midfield and is well placed to remain our captain until he retires.

In contrast, Robbie Kruse has unfortunately for most of his career been behind the 8-ball in terms of his experience when compared to others his age. Granted he has had some horrific injuries over the last 3 years, which has stunted his development. However, it is critical that he now secures a move away from Leverkusen so he can make up for lost time. He is about 100 competitive games away from matching his compatriots in the Big-5 at this point in time.

Similar to Ryan, Mathew Leckie is well ahead of other forwards in the Big-5 in terms of experience by approximately 38 games and as long as he continues to this trend at Ingolstadt then he should be safe to stay there. He is apparently going to be competing more for his place this season, so we will have to wait and see how 2016/2017 pans out for him in the lead up to the WC.

Data has been provided by: http://www.football-observatory.com/-Ratings-eng-

It's extremely refreshing to have a player with such stability at a high level. He's been at Palace for 6 years now, and captain for 4 of those.

Given Gombau is now involved i love us to go for something like this when possible outside of the 4-3-3.

(3-1-3-3) More attacking, helps with pressing and keep possession and protection in transition but i stress this should be something that can be implemented against deep block defenses or against teams when chasing the game.

Rogic playing as genuine No.10 with little defensive work.

High risk but it fully utilises the players we have.

-------------------------------------------Ryan----------------------------------------

---------------------------------------Spiranovic-------------------------------------

--------Sainsbury-----------------------------------------------Wright-------------

-----------------------------------------Jedinak---------------------------------------

------------Mooy--------------------------------------------------Smith--------------

------------------------------------------Rogic------------------------------------------

Leckie---------------------------------------------------------------------------Kruse

-------------------------------------Cahill(Juric)--------------------------------------

A good high press formation, although, the Socceroos would struggle carrying Cahill and Rogic, cause of the counter attack of other teams. Guys like Mooy, Smith, Leckie and co would be running a marathon in matches and I even get tired watching them struggle on tv.
The safest formation is 4 2 3 1 I have to concede. A midfield of Jedi, Irvine/Milligan and Mooy works best, with more emphasis on defence, not just out and out attack. Rogic and Luongo have to accept being more versatile, like Burns, Leckie and Oikonomidis are.

eww. three at the back is the worst.

its a dying fad.

I'm with you mate, just the though of it makes me feel a bit sick. Back 3 is a comprehensively and thoroughly failed idea. (yes I don't care about the bloody exceptions)