This is excellent. I would have had Irvine as a box-to-box midfielder and used Timmy up front because I still think we should cash in on his aerial prowess.

But you actually find a way of fitting Leckie and Krusey in the side and you get the Ikon there, too.

Good thinking.

Would you have a flat back four?

4-2-3-1 is my favourite formation if you have a reasonably flat back four. You also need to have a complete striker/targetman (which we don't have at the minute).

The main problem is that Ange seems to favour wing-backs which crticially destabilises that formation and leaves anything but safe. So it stops looking like 4-2-3-1 and ends up being us losing the ball and only having 2 defenders back and horribly isolated.

If Ange wants to play with wing-backs, then he needs three central defenders.

But if he's willing to have his back four sit back a bit, then 4-2-3-1 is the best formation (or would be with a good targetman)

I just don't know that we have the players. You would want to take at least 5 dedicated players to cover 3 positions to any tournament. Wright, Spiranovic, Sainsbury, then an out of position Degenek on the bench, then who? Wilkinson is old, Good, DeVere and Williams are injury prone, Ansell, Chapman and Donachie might never make it, Jovanic is an unknown quantity (who has really seen him play).

Our LBs aren't known for their defense, so they can't shift into the left side of a back 3 - Smith, Davidson Behich etc and there is literally no one above A- league level on the right.

CB depth is a weakness, so I am not sure that exacerbating that weakness by playing 3 CBs is a good idea.

inala brah and The Fans

saying ewww and it's a fad or it has failed means jackshit if you can't provide concrete examples of why it won't work.

Do try to think critically. Football is no different to other things in the sense that you have consider cause and effect.

You lot want a really idealistic formation but don't stop to think of what the results are (or whether we have the type of footballers suitable).

As I said, in replying to soccerfoo, 4-2-3-1 is a great, stable formation but it means you can't have particularly aggressive fullbacks (which soccerfoo seems to have acknowledged).

The trouble is that Ange wants his fullbacks to operate as overlapping wingbacks. So let's break down what happens when we lose the ball when we're playing a back four (two central defenders and two wing-backs).

The wing-backs are too far forward and don't have excellent defensive skills to get the ball back. Jedinak at CDM often gets drawn forward in screening (rather than fitting in at the back). This means that we only have really two defenders covering the back. All our central defenders (Sainsbury, Wright and Spiranovic) are not particularly fast. That means you've got two rather slow central defenders trying to cover a lot of ground against really pacy attackers.

This one of the main reasons we bleed goals. Did you not see the England match in which Risdon got caught out of position. All of a sudden there were two or three rather fast England attackers bearing down on just Wright and Sainsbury. They couldn't cover the ground and, lo-and-behold, Rooney thunders the ball into the top corner.

Think it through. You can only play a back four with two aggressive fullbacks if your central defenders are really faster and your fullbacks are outstanding in defence. We don't have either of those luxuries.

If we jut have three at the back, it addresses so many of these problems. In fairness to The Fans, I think you suggested a back four in which the fullbacks are not so aggressive. This would also address the problem. But it seems to be against Ange's football philosophy of having aggressive fullbacks.

Can you lot provide concrete reasons why a back three is not the way to go or do you just not like it because it's not popular?

You can play Milligan in central defence if need be. You'd hope that Deng would be good enough to play there by the time Russia arrives (assuming we qualify).

There's plenty of options. That's before we even look at the likes of Lyden.

The main problem is that Ange is asking too much of our players with the current formation. Two wing-backs operating in a back four only works if you have central defenders who can cover a lot of ground fast (which we don't have) and fullbacks who are excellent defenders (which we don't have).

Three central defenders and two wing-backs is a silver bullet. The central defenders don't need to be fast and there's less defensive pressure on the wing-backs.

Overlapping fullbacks should go with a diamond midfield 4 4 2. If the wings have to be playing in a high line, 3 5 2 is usually a good fit too. Ange never plays 3 5 2 though.

4 4 2

Ryan
Sainsbury Spira
Degenek Smith

Jedi
Irvine Leckie
Mooy

Cahill Rogic

---

3 5 2

Ryan

Degenek Sainsbury Spira

Kruse Jedi Smith
Irvine Mooy

Cahill Rogic











Edited by soccerfoo: 5/7/2016 11:43:06 PM

Edited by soccerfoo: 5/7/2016 11:44:03 PM

soccerfoo

Playing four at the back (including overlapping fullbacks) works in theory with either 4-4-2 (and a diamond midfield, as you correctly say) or with 4-2-3-1. But there's a big proviso.

A back four with overlapping fullbacks only works if the central defenders are fast enough to cover a lot of ground quickly and if the fullbacks have the defensive skills.

So it's really a question of personnel. The trouble is that Smith and all right-back options aren't defensively good enough yet and all our senior central defender options lack pace. So it doesn't work for Australia.

There's another personnel issue about playing 4-4-2 with a diamond midfield. You need your CDM to be an all-rounder. I'd argue that Jedinak is nowhere near good enough as a passer or ball-carrier for him to anchor the midfield on his own. That's why I think it's best to have Jedinak as CDM and Irvine as box-to-box midfielder. That's my only criticism of the formation/line-up suggested by Fletcher Munson (and the lack of the Cahill option), but he balances it out by fitting both Kruse and Leckie into the starting line-up, as well as the Ikon.

The upshot of all this, imo, is that if Ange wants to carry on using overlapping fullbacks (which is a good idea, especially given our aggressive skills there) then he needs three central defenders. And the beauty of it is that the central defenders don't need to be too pacy because they're covering less ground. Plus, it puts less pressure on Smith's defensive ability because we have more cover at the back.

Edited by quickflick: 6/7/2016 12:16:07 AM

Thanks quickflick.

What I like is that it adds speed defensively - with Smith and Leckie able to track back to add to the back 3 - all of which have the passing ability to play out from the back.

I was seriously considering Cahill upfront - however I always feel we play too one dimensionally when he starts - great supersub (particually on the end of Smith's crosses); however would be keen to see what Rogic could do also - particularly with some of his recent finishes for Celtic - and also with support from Kruse/Ikon.

Food for thought atleast :)

While you make some reasonable points at times you are missing the point of what Ange is trying to do.

Ange is looking to overload in wide areas to provide more scoring opportunities, something we never had in the era of Holger and Pim. The trade off is always going to be conceding goals. Its not quite as bad as the old brazilian mantra of you score six and we'll score seven but the point remains.

The evolution of the formation with wingbacks is fluidity in transition which will only come as the players play more and more games together in the lead up to Russia.

As far as the centre haves being too slow i dont believe that is an issue for Ange as he is looking more so to containment in transition than actually winning the ball back. As long as the centre halves are capable of jockeying the opposition player long enough for his midfield to recover the centre half has done his job. It is only when we are naive in defence and sell ourselves that we get found out.

I have my doubt about whether Jedinak will find himself in Russia especially with the likes Milligan already challenging him and Irvine+Degenek finding their feet.

I honestly believe if Kruse is unavailable through injury ange will revert to the diamond midfield. It is only that Kruse is such a crucial player that ange accommodates him.

It is difficult to disposes Jedinak of the ball, it is a harder task defeating the Socceroos when he is in the team. It would make more sense to play 3 CB and high pressing wingers, without trying to saturate the front third with an extra player, who can't find the net anyway.
To me, Rooney's goal against us in the recent friendly is what to expect, it epitomises how there is no progress in defence. superior teams will expose our frailties at the back and we won't be beating those sides, even with all of the Socceroos' enthusiasm. Matt Leckie conceded we need a plan B.

Not really, he actually gets caught in possession and tackled far too often for a dm.

Thanks. But how is the formation/line-up suggested by Fletcher Munson not in keeping with the idea of overloading in the wide areas in order to provide more scoring opportunities? He seems to suggest having Kruse and the Ikon drifting wide and having Smith and Leckie pushing right up. If anything, it's better than what Ange is doing now because it means there's less pressure on the wing-backs as there's more defensive cover. Those wing-backs can go right and work with one of the attackers and Mooy.

As for the formation that I suggested... I think mine is compatible with the idea of overloading out wide. Smith and Leckie, as wing-backs, would be able to push right up without as much pressure of failure. And Mooy at CAM and Irvine, as box-to-box midfielder would be able to push wide as well and overload it. How does that not work?

As for creating more scoring opportunities... we're not creating them now, full-stop. This is why I suggest we put our best overall finisher with the best 1 vs 1 ability up front.



My formation offers just that. It means we can release our quickest players on the park with, basically, an entire wing to themselves. Then they can work around the likes of Kruse further up (if you use Fletcher Munson's formation) and Irvine and Mooy in the middle of the park.

The thing is that the formation we're suggesting means that we can attack without substantially risking conceding a goal every time.



That's the trade-off. But you do realise that, at present, we've always conceded between 2 and 3 goals each and every time that we have played against a top notch opponent when Ange has coached. So, the trade-off means that we're going to carry on losing, unless Ange can improve personnel (which he can do) or unless he just tweaks his formation a bit.

Ange has to figure out what he can do to stop us bleeding goals and still find a way of creating chances (and finishing chance). This does just that.

I'm not talking about wholesale adjustments. I'm talking about minor tweaking; namely having three central defenders instead of two central defenders and giving our full-backs more license.



But if you want to have two central defenders (and overlapping fullbacks), then you need fast central defenders in order to contain.

Think about it. There's so much ground that they need to cover and they are fewer in number. That means the only way of them containing opponents is to have fast enough central defenders (who also have a really high football IQ) to do so.

They can't just jockey super fast attackers.

Let's look at this in real terms...

Probably two attacking footballers like Antoine Griezmann, Thomas Müller, Jamie Vardy, Marcus Rashford, Alexis Sanchez, Arjen Robben, etc. are charging at our goal with all their speed and control. Do you realistically think that Bailey Wright and Trent Sainsbury can just jockey until things are under control every time they attack?

They can't. It's a question of having the speed or the numbers to cover that ground. We don't have the speed, so we need an extra number. Trent Sainsbury, Bailey Wright and Milos Degenek is an entirely different proposition. Suddenly we're talking a lot less space and it's far more difficult for any attacker to break them down.

If Ange wants his attacking wing-backs, he needs to make that compromise. That's the trade-off.

Im not sure of your credentials as a coach or a player but a lot of what you're posting is fantasy stuff and unworkable in the real world

So with a high pressing game plan, the players at CB and fullbacks are usually the athletes, as they run so much. Therefore, they are working a lot harder at achieving the same goal as the other members of the team, to win a given match. Well, Spira, Sains and Wright are not the best athletes in the team. Having 2 CB in Ange's set up is not effective enough. Running players to a standstill is a wank. You either have 3 CB, with the wing backs playing a high line, or a flat back four where the fullbacks don't overlap. Jedinak or Irvine can be the 3rd CB by playing in a deep-lying position. That's why I would play both Jedi and Irvine (ahead of Millsy), in the starting side.
The good sides will keep scoring through the Sydney heads over and over again.
Keep replaying Rooney's goal in that friendly.

Edited by soccerfoo: 7/7/2016 03:10:42 PM

NS, if you are the bolded print and QF is not, have to agree with what you've posted.

It takes incredible energy and stamina to play the wing back position, particularly over a whole tournament.

Given what you've said, I'm surprised you've used 3-5-2 at club level? The KNVB consider it impossible for anyone other than very fit pros who can play the wing back position. Henceforth, they consider it an unsuitable formation for amateur football.

Definitely.

Ange used to do this with Paartalu for Brisbane Roar. Sometimes he would use DM Paartalu to make a back three when both full backs went forwards and overlapped.





Edited by Decentric: 7/7/2016 04:07:40 PM

Ok lets throw out our entire game plan because in a friendly game that useless hack WAYNE ROONEY scored against us................

It was several years ago. Played it for two years and won, i think two titles. We were fortunate that we had players with the stamina to do it and in particular one of the wing backs was intelligent enough to read the game and knew when he had to stay home.

We were also blessed with an amazingly talented centre half. It amazes me he never made it into the A league or further

Probably never been seen by the right people.

If the CB is still young enough, give Benjamin a call.

Interesting.

For the Socceroos, where he may often have more time and space than the very quick EPL, I'd guess from my stats, he doesn't get caught that often. He makes unforced errors that Milligan rarely does, and mishits passes that Milligan makes regularly.

When I've seen Jedi play EPL, he seems to have less touches and spends less time in possession than for the Socceroos against most Asian teams. I've seen him caught a bit in the EPL, but he rarely has it for long. Jedi is too smart and knows his limitations.

And that's just Rooney, imagine Payet, Bale, Iniesta or Ronaldo..

Talking about midfield rather then strikers

Edited by moops: 7/7/2016 06:26:00 PM

New Signing

With all due respect, I think your mistake is to apply principles which work when we're talking about evenly matched sides to a situation involving very unevenly matched side. So at, I don't know, NPL level, it doesn't really matter that much because, by and large, most attacking players haven't the weapons to annihilate opponents playing in the way you're suggesting.

Similarly, at the top level, fullbacks tend to be far more defensively competent, so they can play in the way you're suggesting and handle top-class attackers.

This all collapses when we're talking about top-class attackers against inept defenders. And that's Australia's predicament.

If Ange wants his side to be successful he has a choice. He can (a) find entirely new footballers with the skills to implement that kind of system or (b) he can tweak it minorly to stop us bleeding goals or he can (c) do a bit of both (which I recommend).



It's little different to what we're currently doing with wingers and overlapping wing-backs.

Did you say you want to overload the wide areas?

The formation/line-up suggested by Fletcher Munson gives that option (by virtue of having two attacking players with the licence to move wide) but does not oblige that. I like the flexibility that it offers. The attacking players can drift in and out.

The formation/line-up I suggested frees up the wing-backs to push right up, you'll be pleased to see :d



No argument from me about the work rate of wing-backs. I know this to my own own personal cost (at least to the extent that having to do a lot of running in a football match can be considered a personal cost).

I would go further and say, from personal experience, that it's mentally exhausting knowing that if you screw up then your central defenders are horribly isolated. Whereas when you have the defensive cover, you feel empowered.

This is another reason why I suggest three central defenders, instead of two (as things stand).

Also, the issue is not that the wingback would have to do more offensive and defensive work. They'd be doing slightly more offensive work and slightly less defensive work than they currently are doing.

Ange likes them to push right up as far as the opposition penalty box with his current system. So he's already asking them to do that. We're asking them to do little more running than that. If anything, it relieves them a bit because there's a lot less defensive pressure by way of having three central defenders. And the great thing about what we're suggesting is that we have enough players to offer back-ups, very handy in a tournament. Smith, Leckie, Gersbach, Goodwin. It doesn't matter that much if they still need to learn defensive skills because there's less defensive responsibility.



Agreed. That's why you have to love the suggestion made by Fletcher Munson. His formation offers the flexibility of those attacking players keeping a more narrow shape. That can be Plan A for scoring. It also gives us a Plan B. Following Fletcher Munson's train of thought, we could use Plan A (without Cahill) and then, if we can't still break down the opponent, bring on Cahill and start using the width of the pitch.



It depends on whether you use Fletcher Munson's or my idea. They have different strengths and weaknesses. It's more difficult to create a 2 vs 1 situation in our favour out wide using the formation I suggested. But it's no more difficult than with the current system if you use the one suggested by Fletcher Munson because his attacking players would have the ability to draw opposition defenders who might otherwise engage our wing-backs.

I admit that is the weakness of my formation/line-up compared to that of Fletcher Munson. The upside of mine is it bring Timmy into the game and then Smith or Leckie or whoever can look to cross the ball to him and the lack of numbers out wide does not matter so much. It's a horses for courses problem anyway. Anyway, my formation would still offer the ability to isolate opponents out wide because we can have Mooy, Irvine and whichever wing-back work together in wide areas. It's not utterly limiting in terms of isolating the opponent's wide defenders.



Here you have a point in theory but not in practice. In theory the idea of Smith dropping back when, say, we attack down the right is great. Unfortunately, it hasn't really stopped us conceding goals. The great flaw in it is that it still requires fast central defenders to be able to readjust their positions, spread out a bit wider to the right. We do not have fast central defenders. So it all falls down.

As for the idea of Jedinak dropping back... that's wishful thinking. As you know full well, Ange like both Rogic and Mooy to play an aggressive role in central midfield. Neither Rogic nor Mooy has shown much evidence to suggest they are quick across the turf. What does this mean?

It means that when there's, inevitably, a spill, Jedinak must try to mop it up. Jedinak is not particularly speedy, either. So he can't just drop back into defence (certainly not with the likes of Rogic and Mooy in central midfield and playing aggressively).

The very premise of playing two CAMs and one CDM (in the context of a back four with overlapping wing-backs) is fundamentally flawed anyway. It only works if you've got the best athletes in the entire country in every position, technically outstanding and blessed with the highest football IQs.

We've got bits and pieces of that across the park, not all of that in each and every single position.

So we need to adjust.



Not sure I agree with this, certainly to a point. For starters, how many of them are outstanding at shooting? Not particularly many. A lot of the time, against decent opposition, it seems that it's not just a matter of the other lads not pulling the trigger. We're talking about them not pulling the trigger on low-percentage shots (to borrow the tennis and basketball expression).

We need to be able to move the ball around quicker to put our opponents out of position. It would help having some more attackers with excellent 1 vs 1 skills because that's another way of breaking through and fear of them leads to more space.




Rome may not have been built in a day. Ange has been trying the same approach for several years. Each and every time we have played a quality opponent, we have conceded between 2 and 3 goals.

He needs to adjust a bit. Guus did that brilliantly. Ange has the brains, the drive and may even get some of the players to do fantastic things. At the current rate, he's going to be the least successful manager we have ever had, sadly. He needs to adapt. There's a way of compromising without ruining the type of football you believe in.



No. We would be doing no such thing. My formation proposes what is, effectively, a five man midfield and two strikers. Fletcher Munson's formation proposes a four man midfield and a three man attack. If they cannot see most of possession and maintain midfield dominance with those type of numbers then that's the least of their worries.



I'm not familiar with the exact term (or don't recall it, at any rate). Feel free to elaborate on it and I'll tell you if I'm familiar with the concept.



Not sure how well the analogy works. Sol Campbell was at the Gunners with Ashley Cole at left-back (before he joined Chelsea) in the golden era for Arsenal. They had Patrick Vieira right in front of him. That side had the likes of Kolo Touré. That's before we even get to the amount of destruction that Thierry Henry did to the opponent's defence.

Sol Campbell had the best in the business in front of him and to his side. As I wasn't so critical or analytical when I was younger, I can't recall if the Gunners played with aggressive fulbacks or a flat back four in those days. The point is that with the fullbacks they had and the central midfielders, they could afford to play with two central defenders and aggressive fullbacks.

I'm not suggesting this can't be done. You just need the type of players.

But tell me, does Ange have Sol Campbell, Kolo Touré, Patrick Vieira, Thierry Henry, Dennis Bergkamp? Or does he have Trent Sainsbury, Bailey Wright, Matthew Spiranovic, Brad Smith, no established right-back, Mile Jedinak, Tom Rogic and Aaron Mooy?



I'm willing to bet that any of Antoine Griezmann, Thomas Müller, Jamie Vardy, Marcus Rashford, Alexis Sanchez, Arjen Robben, etc. would be overjoyed at the prospect of isolating the likes of Bailey Wright or Trent Sainsbury.



Sweet. And what about defensive situations? What about when you've got two or three pacy, skilled attacking players taking on Wright and Sainsbury in acres of space?

Edited by quickflick: 8/7/2016 05:02:55 AM

That was the long response, New Signing.

I wrote so much. I wanted to reply to each separate point you made. I don't expect you to reply to any of it (although you are, of course, most welcome to do so). Anyway, in summary, here's the short response.

You haven't explained how two rather slow central defenders can be expected to contain top class attackers in acres of space.

You mention the idea of one fullback covering back when the other goes forward. Great in theory. It hasn't helped out Australia much in practice, either in Brazil or against other top-notch nations in subsequent matches.

As for Jedinak dropping back when we press down the side. It doesn't work, partly, because Ange insists on two attacking central midfielders.

The point that I, and others, are making is that if you want to play two central defenders and ultra-aggressive fullbacks, you need all of them to be extremely fast and defensively competent. So I'm not suggesting that this style is impossible. Just that Australia doesn't have the cattle right now.

So if you want to have aggressive wing-backs, you either need the athleticism in central defence (and the defensive skills in your fullbacks) or you need the numbers in central defence. That's the trade-off. Otherwise, a flat back four.

What you suggest is contingent on having exactly those type of defenders (which Ange currently does not). What we're suggesting means your central defenders don't need to be fast and your wing-backs don't need to be the best defenders on the planet. And it doesn't compromise our attacking threat. At least not unduly.

You said what I'm saying is fantasy. Tell me, is Wales making the semi-finals of that small tournament in France fantasy? I believe they use three central defenders and attacking wing-backs.

I've provided you with real-life scenarios for the formation you're suggesting versus what I (and others) are suggesting. That's not fantasy.

You said Rome wasn't built in a day. It's interesting you say that.

Without wishing to provoke a debate on one of the most historiographically interesting issues in scholarship, I'll point out that one of the main reasons the Roman Empire collapsed was imperial overstretch.

A fitting simile. Ange shouldn't overstretch our resources.

Edited by quickflick: 8/7/2016 07:08:35 AM

Have you ever wondered why their are a lot of people you havnt seen for a while?

Personal insults again, huh, clive? It's becoming par for the course for you when somebody makes a point you're not a fan of.

New Signing made a lot of separate points which wanted refuting and I have no problem with doing so. I'd much sooner be the bloke who plays the ball not the man. As it is I'm accustomed to having to read hundreds of pages a day, so this is no bother to me. I don't expect others to do the same, but I will reply thoroughly. It's up to them if they do or do not. If others choose to resort to personal insults, that's their prerogative and gives me an idea of what kind of a person they are.

Australia need to prepare for their upcoming Iraq World Cup Qualifiers!

Not having any games till then is tempting fate.

They need to contact the Faroe islands FA and get the Faroe Islands to come over for a 3 game warm up series with 1 game in Sydney, 1 game in Melbourne, and the other in either Adelaide, Brisbane or Perth.

I don't know your histories together but I took it as a bit of a laugh.

So essentially when it comes down to it, Postecoglou should abandon his reliance on wing backs to shore up a leaky defense?

Or get the DM to create the extra man in defense when the wing backs go forward-but that would put Jedinak up against a fast winger?

Interesting that at the Euros, teams with less possession won two more games than teams with more possession. OK its only two games more, but it suggest winning possession is not currently an advantage for winning games.

It also means if we choose to dominate possession we need a strategy to cope with being caught on the counter. And that brings up back to playing with defensive full backs, rather than wing backs.

The other critical finding is that except for a couple of games, who scores first, wins.

Our friend may have just been having a laugh in which case fair play to him. I freely admit that post looks never ending. Our friend has been a tad vitriolic in the past so I interpreted this as more of the same.

Anyhoo great post from you. They need a containment strategy for when we lose possession. The current strategy is calibrated towards having world class footballers and athletes all over the park. This we don't got.

You're right about it being interesting looking at how the European teams value possession. I watched the replay of Germany France last night. Germany seem to play in the way we want to play. But they can because they have the cattle. But German can adapt to conditions (eg back three against Italy). Ange needs to learn to adapt a bit until we have the players to play the exact way he wants. What we've outlined doesn't unduly compromise possession. And Langerak should go in goals

Hey relax its a bit of banter , you know jokes between the boys. Everyone knows you the daddy of the boards.

Now in among all that reading you have been doing did you read the Coaching Process material that i sent you the link for, if so what part was it you didnt understand.