Frank Farina took a look at brisbane roar but at the time they didnt have a place in the squad for him.

He's older than me so he's no chance. I don't even know if he still plays

To save boring everyone to death on this matter and replying to every single point you've made quickflick, i'll say this, you seem to have a fixation on speed and have made zero allowance for players reading of the game. There are reasons players like nesta, maldini, cafu etc managed to play on successfully long after their speed had left them and that is because they were able to read the game. Speed of mind is as important as speed across the ground.

Football has evolved from the days where teams would line up 442 and with 3 distinct lines. Today it is all about transition and where players need to be defensively, offensively etc. Football is now far more fluid than it once was and i have confidence in Ange getting us to a point where we are comfortable to dominate possession against top teams.

It is interesting as someone else mentioned that in the euro's many teams won the game without winning the possession battle

i disagree about us not having world class athletes. we can compete with some of the best in terms of pure athleticism. just dont ask us to go 3 games.

i think the issue we have is about playing better to our strengths. it's a bit of a cliche but i think we need to have our best 11 on the pitch and shape the formation around that - within reason.

i also rate rogic and probably mooy as better goal scorers than any of our wings. it's time to choose one of leckie/burns/kruse and not put them on instead of midfielders. same with milligan/irvine. our defensive midfield is going to be a strength for a while. lets play 2 of them.

we need to stop playing 3 at the front. and stack our midfield better. aside from the counter weakness we dominated england in the middle - because out midfield is our strength. lets get them on the pitch and play 2 defensive midfielders to actually cover and hold the ball.

things like the diamond or a 4-2-3-1 better accomplish this. with a thin midfield and the fullbacks moving up the wing for width.


degenek---------------wright------------------------sainsbury--------smith

--------------------milligan/irvine-------------jedi/luongo

----------------kruse--------------------------------------------mooy
-----------------------------------------rogic
-------------------------cahill/juric/mclaren/giannou




Edited by inala brah: 11/7/2016 12:28:07 PM

Edited by inala brah: 11/7/2016 12:29:03 PM

Goals/Games. our midfielders outscore our wings and our midfielders also defend.

5 - 49 milligan
5- 16 mooy
12-64 jedi
4-18 rogic
4-19 luongo

3-32 leckie
4-43 kruse
3-22 burns

clivesundies

Hahah, good on you. That's okay. It was a horribly long post and for that, in and of itself, I'm happy to have the piss taken.

I have had a look at the FFA document you linked. It's very thorough and informative. I haven't read all 285 pages but I have gone to the subsections which, I believe, are the points being debated.

As regards the distinction between proactive and reactive styles of football, the manual (correctly) identifies that there are hybrids between the two style.

It then goes on to say that proactive football is more in keeping with the national psyche of Australia. Although I accept the premise for the sake of simplicity, I must point out that this is slightly problematic. Although there are trends, it's dangerous to say that all Australians have such and such character traits.

But, broadly speaking, I think footballers and sportspeople from this country are best suited to a more proactive approach.

The problem is that the guide then seems to forget what it had previously said about there being some hybrid styles. Instead it seems to prescribe a purely proactive style of football for Australia. This is a false dichotomy. Most successful teams have a hybrid style.

I think we need to accept that there can be a difference in the style for the NT and at youth level. For the NT, results count for a lot. At youth level, they count for less (although they still count). At youth level, fine go basically the whole hog and try to play a really proactive 4-3-3 style. The idea being that, hopefully, a system can be built as such so the players are adept with that very proactive style by the time they reach senior level. But for the NT, if results are endangered because we haven't got the players, Ange needs to have a hybrid system to a point. At least until such a time that he has the players for his desired proactive style.

My main argument is that Ange needs to consider some sort of a hybrid system (which still is attack-heavy) or else his teams are just going to get annihilated against good opposition (as happens now).

You misunderstand me. We don't have world class athletes across the park and we don't have have world class athletes who are also technically outstanding footballers. That's the problem. It's a bit of an either or case with Australia at the minute.

Do we have some world class athletes? Yes. Leckie, Smith, Kruse, Gersbach to name a few. Are they technically very good footballers? Not really. Gersbach has the potential to be but still has a lot of learning to do. Kruse is technically decent but still needs to rely on putting the ball around his opponent and winning a foot race. In comparison to the best European and South American footballers, Kruse is not renowned for his technical ability. He's still good though and vital to Australia.

Not all positions in football require world class athletes- but that assumes that the right formation is played and that there's a lot of balance in the team. The best football teams balance things out between some world class athletes (who are technically outstanding, too) and blokes with immense football IQs but might not be the most athletic. So you might have world class athletes out wide and up front where there is the chance to isolate with 1 vs 1. And then in the centre of midfield and central defence, you have the blokes who might not be the most athletic but can tackle, act as playmakers and create chances.

The trouble is that what others are suggesting, a back four which includes wing-backs, requires every single one of that back four to be world-class athletes and technically/tactically immense. The central defenders need to be fast across the ground (and our established central defenders are rather slow) and the wing-backs need to be defensively outstanding (and ours are not). This is why such a formation is a recipe for disaster for Australia. Whereas a minor alteration and it doesn't matter if the central defenders are slow and it's not the end of the world if the wingbacks are still learning defence as they go.

Does that make sense?

Edited by quickflick: 12/7/2016 02:44:57 AM

Here's Germany's formation and line-up, New Signing and clivesundies

http://formation-x.com/en/national/germany.html

This is basically what Ange is aiming for. And, if you have the personnel, then so be it. I'm a fan if you've got the personnel.

You can see how it can break down all manner of defences. Having Jonas Hector and Joshua Kimmich (at right-back and left-back) making overlapping runs is ideal. At that point Julian Draxler and Mesut Özil drift inside to give their fullbacks options. It's great. It means you can create 1 vs 1, even 2 vs 1 situations outwide and then get the ball through to the likes of Thomas Müller or Toni Kroos in a perfect position to score.

But it works because Germany have very specific attributes in their defenders. The fullbacks Jonas Hector and Joshua Kimmich are very defensively smart. They know how to defend far better than Brad Smith, for example, knows how to defend. Smith is fast but not that great defensively. Those two are fast and very good in defence. Additionally, the central defenders Jérôme Boateng and Benedikt Höwedes are rather fast central defenders. Did you watch Benedikt Höwedes (I think it was) chase down Olivier Giroud and make that sliding tackle? He was like lightning. Australia has Trent Sainsbury and Bailey Wright. Sainsbury is a smart defender and Wright may be (apparently he is at Preston North End), but are either of them fast? No. Well, in order to cover the ground that a back four with wing-backs need to cover, you need fast central defenders. Australia does not have this right now.

So, until Ange can get these sort of footballers, he needs to find some way of compromising a small extent so that Australia still attack a lot but are not undone at the back like we currently are. We currently concede between 2 and 3 goals against every decent opponent. This is, partly, because Ange is hellbent on copying the Germans and partly because he has used the wrong personnel.

France have more of a balance between attack and defence but are still more than aggressive enough. Arguably, Wales do too. Why can't the NT consider something like this?

That way we won't get caned so often.

Edited by quickflick: 12/7/2016 02:44:21 AM

Kimmich is no different to our own young fullbacks. He is defensively poor and doesn't have great technique. If you knew anything about Howedes you would know that the whole of Germany was laughing at Giroud for being run down by him. While he is a quite decent defender he is incredibly slow, almost as bad as mertasacker.

Id really have my doubt as to whether he would get close to any of our central defenders in both acceleration and speed over ground so the point you have tried to make has bitten you.

It is also worth noting that the only reason de maanschaft lined up as they did in the final was the injuries to both gomez and khedira. The injury to gomez meant that muller had to play centrally and ozil into his wide area.

Arsenal play with wingbacks and have mertasacker and koscielny as their central defenders, neither are what you would call athletes are they?

I dont know what more i can do to show you that while you are entitled to your own theories in this case you have the bull by the proverbial horns

I saw a few games of the Copa America and i thought Chile were the best team but also played the best football which is similar to how we play but they aren't athletic or had loads of talent unlike the germans they are just tactically smart but also technically good enough to execute their style which has been years in the making since Marcelo Bielsa was in charge in 2009.

Check out how they beat Mexico 7-0 and if there footage of when they beat Brazil in the WCQ earlier check out that too, it high pressing, excellent build up and keep possession with the importance of Vidal moving the ball forward but also had the ability to work out movement patterns through centrally and out wide to create chances and of course Alexis Sanchez who can put them away.

In the end it does help when you have a couple of world class players in their team which i mentioned but the rest weren't superstars unlike Germany they knew the style and system well enough to execute to the highest degree.

But It takes persistence and time but they got their rewards a few years later a lesson for us with Ange and i have feeling he trying to do something similar for us whether it pays off is anyones guess.

We just need to find a quality No.9 someone somehow, given we have the strong midfield base as the foundation to how we play that's the only thing missing we us is the quality up front.

Its one of two MAJOR problems, that and leaking too many goals with defenders too often isolated on the counter. Too many goals are being conceded.

The other issue is the keeper's shot stopping ability-we need a keeper that can pull of the "certain goal" save that Ryan does rarely.

New Signing

Disagree about Kimmich. I think he's far more sound in defence than our defenders. As for Höwedes' speed... I've seen the video posted on social media poking fun at Giroud a number of times already. I think his running style is what made it popular. Höwedes still covered him very quickly. Compare that to, say Spiranovic, against Jordan away and he looks very pacy indeed.

Boateng seems to move quickly across the turf, too.

I may have it wrong about Höwedes' speed but his movement looks far better than our central defenders.

Either way, even if they have one central defender who isn't the quickest, they have another who is quick and two aggressive fullbacks who are better in defence than what we've got.

If Ange persists with what we're doing and we start yielding decent results, then I'll happily eat my words. The trouble is that each and every time we've played a world class opponent, we've conceded between two and three goals. That is only partly due to having a goalkeeper with tortoise-like reflexes. Have you any response to this?

=d>

Langerak in goals, three central defenders plus attacking wing-backs who are allowed to press really high and Rogic up front. Sorted. That's the best we can do at the minute in terms of dealing with those problems which you correctly identify.

I am 90% confident that Rogic as a central striker would barely see the ball. I have never seen him make runs onto through balls, and he isn't particularly fast so that is barely an option and I've never seen anything to suggest he can hold the ball up when under heavy pressure from behind. I'm not sure some of you guys realise how difficult it is to a) find space to even receive the ball and b) to maintain possession when under heavy pressure. Having a lack of space in the midfield and being put under pressure by a center back (who has cover and will try not to hold you up but get in front and tackle as we only play one up front), is an entirely different proposition. In the midfield you have a metaphorical acre of space compared to up front and while a Rogic is pretty decent at using his body it's just an entirely different skill. I don't think it'll work. I think he would end up dropping into the midfield and we would effectively have no striker.

Cahill is a good example of a midfielder moved to striker. He basically never gets the ball.

I don't see what's wrong with having him nominally in a wing position. He would obviously be playing more centrally but would be able to drop deeper There than a central striker and be able to get the ball more but further up the pitch to have more goalscoring opportunities and he would be taking the position of leckie/burns who can't score goals. Please don't think a player in this position needs to be lightning fast and get to the byline all the time for crosses, he would play his natural sort of game, be able to link with the mids and other forwards and his wing back. It's the best option. I'd love to see him as a right sided forward.

You can't be serious re: langerak. he has done nothing to deserve or warrant even a place in the squad. Birraghitti is a better keeper in every way.

Edited by the fans: 12/7/2016 07:46:58 PM

The Fans

you make some reasonable points. I don't mind the idea of Rogic playing as a winger, on the proviso we're talking about a very specific type of winger. If we're talking about an out-and-out traditional winger, he won't do because he hasn't the pace. But, if you go to the formation of Germany I linked, then you'll see Mesut Özil is, strictly speaking, deployed on the wing as a kind of right-wing/forward. But he has more of a central role and doesn't have to track back too much. Meanwhile, Joshua Kimmich pushes all the way forward from right-back and Özil tucks inside/works with him. This would work with Rogic on the right.

But that requires very aggressive wing-backs, which, in turn, requires three central defenders. So it could work, but it requires some tweaking on Ange's part.

It's not ideal to have Rogic up front (owing to a lack of pace, but it's the best option I can think of). I'm not sold yet on either Giannou or Maclaren. The reasons I'd have Rogic up front rather than on the right are given the other options we have. Rogic is a far better finisher than anybody else in the side and I'd sooner see him in a position to put this to good use. Plus, I'd rather have Kruse either as a right-wing/forward (if we're talking about using the 3-4-3 type of formation suggested by Fletcher Munson). I think our resources are better deployed by having Rogic central and Kruse with more space. But I accept the idea of Rogic in that role for Kruse, too.



He's not fast and, thus, not an ideal striker but he has the other attributes necessary. I've seen him run into space and receive the ball for Celtic (granted, from a midfield position) and I've seen him get better and better at holding onto the the ball while at Celtic.



The main hurdle would be a lack of acceleration (that I perceive in Rogic) to break the lines and thus get that space. But I don't see better options (maybe Kruse but he lacks the finishing and 1 vs 1 that Rogic has). You can count on Rogic being technically gifted and crafty enough to be able to find space, nevertheless.

At the end of the day, does Australia have any senior strikers who have all of the following; great acceleration, great first touch, great 1 vs 1 ability, great timing of runs and ability to read the game, great ability to hold up play and great finishing?

No. Rogic has 4 of those 6 attributes and is reasonable at holding up the ball. I doubt anybody else would get as many as 4.



This is actually one of the most compelling reasons for Rogic playing up front. He doesn't need much space. He can make it. The others need it.



Again, I think this would actually be helpful. If a central defender wants to get in front of Rogic to make a tackle, he's skating on thin ice. Rogic has the ability to turn him. And, while I'm not sure just how much acceleration he has, we know from the goal he scored the other day that when he can clean turn (or beat) an opponent, he can easily get an advantage of several paces very quickly.

Regarding the whole adapting to striker thing... I agree that it's not ideal. But it's the best we can do in the circumstances. At junior level, I normally played on the wing but sometimes played up front and wasn't uncomfortable (although my style was dependent on my acceleration, so it wasn't a particularly great leap). And, obviously, it was at junior level. The point is it's not impossible and worthy of consideration.

But I agree with you that Rogic on the right (providing that we have very aggressive wing-backs) also works.

As for Langerak... I'm not opposed to Birraghitti being in goals. But remember football is not about who deserves what. It's about who's the best option. Langerak has outkept Manuel Neuer on occasion. He's a gun shot-stoppper and, with an extended residency in the Australian goals, would drastically reduced the amount we concede. I'm not suggesting that wouldn't be the case with Birraghitti.

Edited by quickflick: 12/7/2016 09:20:02 PM

Flicky the point I'm making is regarding when there is 2 center backs and a single striker. In a lot of cases on the field the 2nd center provides cover. Meaning that if the striker turns they are easily tackled or covered. Therefore the center back marking the striker can attempt to be first to the ball with impunity. This is what happens with Cahill and is part of the reason he never touches the ball (other than from crosses). The striker has basically has one option which is to hold the ball up and play it back. I would bet my house on rogic not being able to do that.

And I'm not suggesting that Rogic be sole striker (at least not until such a time that he has proved a highly competent striker alongside someone else). I'm a huge fan of 4-2-3-1. I think it's the most balanced formation, but it requires a striker who really is a target-man, which Rogic ain't yet.

The formation/line-up I had puts Rogic up front alongside Tim Cahill. The thinking being that it maximises the ways in which we can score. I'm similarly fine with Rogic and Robbie Kruse playing up front. Even having Kruse just sitting high and rather central.

If you do that, it's much more difficult for two central defenders to mark Rogic out of the game.

Your argument here appears to be 'you're wrong, i'm right' even if i make valid points so the continuation of the discussion regarding our central defenders between you and i is pointless.

Kimmich made the same mistakes you would see our fullbacks make. In time to come he will improve, to the level of lahm, im doubtful. Much like our young players at fullback experience will improve him.

Tortoise like reflexes............... you're taking the piss now. Mat Ryan may not be world class but he is a better than average keeper. That is why he is now playing for Valencia. I understand you have a set on him for whatever reason but the fact of the matter is he is the best we have and im content having him

Where does the theory that Rogic isnt quick come from? Take it from someone who has had his arse handed to him by rogic, he is deceptively quick. Its purely his running style that makes it look like he isnt. Pretty sure the bloke takes in 10 metres every step.

Also why would you remove you most creative player from the centre of the park and lob him up front to have lumps kicked out of him by central defenders. You've spoken about the fact he is not likely to make the angled runs or runs in behind which i agree with. He is at his best facing goal and running at players through the middle. You know, perhaps as a number 10..................

Except it's not. I've explained my main point; to play a back four with wingbacks and not be defensively compromised you want to have fairly quick central defenders and defensively competent and savvy fullbacks.

This is not rocket science. it's common sense. The central defenders have to cover more ground because they're stretched further than they would be with a flat back four. Agree or disagree? Meanwhile, the fullbacks need to be more defensively competent because they need to be able to defend a larger area and find ways of closing down when their opponent is between themselves and the goal and in possession.

New Signing, reasonably, pointed out that Höwedes is not particularly quick. I reckon he's still quicker than Spiranovic or Wright (dunno how fast Sainsbury is but he ain't super quick). Similarly, New Signing pointed out that Kimmich isn't that decent in defence. I respectfully disagree. That still leaves Germany with another fairly mobile central defender- Boateng. Plus another fullback who does know how to defend- Hector.

And that's just one example which might be regarded as dubious. In this context, a host of examples of slow central defenders and inept fullbacks is needed to make a compelling case.

Another thing I forgot to mention earlier is that the quality of midfielders that the Germans have mean they are less likely to surrender possession. Unfortunately, this isn't the case for us and thus makes it less advisable for us to carry on in quite the same vein.

As I was saying- most countries which haven't the resources to play with a back four with aggressive fullbacks use a different option. A flat back four or three at the back with aggressive wing-backs. For example in this tournament just past- France and Portugal didn't have fullbacks anywhere near as aggressive as Ange wants ours. Meanwhile Italy and Wales had three central defenders and wingbacks. This is something Australia would be wise to consider.

None of what I have said there (or before) is symptomatic of the "I'm right and you're wrong even if you make valid points" kind of argument that you suggest I'm making. I've engaged with the argument and elaborated on it reasonably thoroughly.



Philipp Lahm was a very, very good fullback. Very few in the world are in that league. I agree that Kimmich will improve. Where I disagree is that he regularly makes the kind of mistakes our current fullbacks make. You saw the match against England, right? What did you think of Josh Risdon's performance? There's a good reason for right-back being like musical chairs for the Socceroos. Nobody has been decent enough (possibly Degenek might be). Smith is a decent option for left-back but probably a bit less composed than Kimmich (it seems to me, as a Liverpool supporter).



Indeed I am. It's called hyperbola. I apologise to Mat(t)y if that's offensive. He doesn't have the reflexes of a tortoise. But on too many occasions he has been far too slow.

The trouble is this... most of the time there tend to be the odd goal where he should do far better (e.g. the first goal conceded against England). Then there's the ones where the goalkeeper isn't really to blame but a truly excellent goalkeeper will somehow make that unbelievable save. Australia needs that kind of a goalkeeper- the one who makes saves he should have no right to make. It puts too much pressure on us if we have a goalkeeper who not only can't do that, but can't even make saves that he probably should make.

Maybe Mat(t)y will start demonstrating the ability to pull off the spectacular saves at club level. This would be really bloody helpful. Not enough so far.



Where does it come from? This forum, the Celtic forum, etc. I haven't seen times for Rogic's sprints so I don't know how quick he is.

I said he might not be the quickest because it's something I anticipated being pointed out in response to the idea of him being put up front. I'm prepared to accept that he might not be that quick. But, I still maintain that he's a good option up front for other reasons already outlined.

Plus, I did point out to you directly that he is quick enough when he turns his marker (see further up). Perhaps you already know this from having played against him?

If you think he is quick that makes the case for Rogic up front even more compelling. You're doing my job for me :d



For a bunch of reasons. For starters, even if Rogic is a more lethal CAM than Mooy, that's also where Mooy plays best. You've pointed out that Mooy and Rogic don't work well together in central midfield, I believe. I think they don't work well defensively if they're both in central midfield. We just have to hope that Mooy will be creative enough.

You ask why you'd put the most creative player up front. One might ask why you wouldn't put the only competent finisher up front (in a team of really poor finishers).

Although I'm not sure how much acceleration Rogic has to break lines, I think he has the savoir-faire to receive the ball (if only in tight spaces) and to create space. I also refute the notion that he'd be no good with his back to goal. We already know he can score with his back to goal and, at the very least, create desirable outcomes.

Rogic understands, like few Australians, how to exploit limited amounts of space and unhelpful angles to create more space. and better angles. I'm not claiming he's an ideal striker. But given the fairly dire circumstances...

And, to reiterate, I do not suggest that Rogic be sole striker. It will be difficult for central defenders to mark him out of the match if there's somebody else hovering around, too.

In saying that, I don't have any problem with your idea of Rogic as a kind of right-wing/attacker, on the proviso that there are overlapping wing-backs and three central defenders to make the overlapping wing-back option feasible.

Edited by quickflick: 14/7/2016 04:12:00 AM

A) I didn't write those things
B) Cahill is the best finisher in the team obviously

I haven't once disagreed that having pace at the back isnt and advantage. What i have said is that it isnt the be all and end all for central defenders. The examples ive used such as mertasacker were proof in point where central defenders lacking pace are still able to operate in a flat back four with wing backs.

The reason for the musical chairs is that we are in a four year cycle working towards the next world cup. For mine Degenek is now the front runner for the right fullback position while risdon and geria will fight it out as his back up. On the left hand side it is still very open but would appear it is smith v Gersbach at this stage unless davidson can have a remarkable turn around in form or behich breaks out the photos of ange and a goat.

Would you prefer that ange had perservered with the same old players squad in, squad out instead of looking around for better options?

As i told you before, a tweak in transition is all that is required to close out the space opposition have to counter attack into. While i think Jedinak is the better out and out holding midfielder i think milligan is probably most suited to drop between the centre halves and cover for the on rushing wing backs. In its simplest form we go from 433 to 343.

As far as what i though of risdon's form against England, i saw a young man in the biggest game of his life gaining roughly his 3rd cap absolutely shitting himself. I don't think he completed a pass or put in an effective cross that night. The step up from A league to international level is huge as the young man has learnt. He'll only get bigger and better from here. He now knows what is required to reach that level and the work he needs to do. On the other hand Geria made a very good first impression. I don't think he is as good as Risdon going forward but is more developed defensively. At present as we progress through asian qualifying they provide horses for courses options behind Degenek.

What you're asking Ange to do is abandon his philosophy rather than mould the team in the image he has in his head.

I'm not buying the assessment on Mat Ryan. No one has done anything in club land or international opportunities to prove they are a better option than Ryan. He's a young man with plenty of development left in him. By the time 2018 and 2022 come around he'll be well established in Europe with plenty of caps under his belt.

In the case of Rogic i've pointed out to you that he is at his best running at players. Why would you then ask him to play back to goal when you have players who do that week in week out? You talk about his finishing which has improved dramatically, is he not best to use that facing goal than trying to do the dogs work of holding the ball up for others, possibly getting a turn in.................

I've never said Rogic and Mooy CANT play together. In fact i think they can work well together in the long term. YOu argued with me about mooy's engine, you argued with me about his first touch, argued with me about his positioning, all things where my assessment of the player have been proved correct.

Also rogic is not the typ of player to stay high all the time which is require of a centre forward to provide an outlet for their team, he would be constantly dropping in so we lose that focal point.

As far as The Fans idea of playing him on the wing, you are limiting his effectiveness. Rogic has the ability to glide past players and see the little intricate passes in tight areas. If you play him on the wing, either side, you limit the room he has to go past his man as he is hamstrung by the side line.

That was some glorious stuff, qf. Sorry New Signing and The Fans for mixing you up.

If you object to that post's being there, I'm happy to amend it. Otherwise, I'll probably just leave it there since it is probably in with a good shout for worst post of the season on the entire forum.

Rogic would not stay high 100% correct, he would drop into midfield in search of the ball. I sort of agree with you that his effectiveness would be limited as a right or left forward, I the sense that he wouldn't get the ball as much, wouldn't get the ball in as much space and wouldn't have the sort of 360degree options a cm has. But that's sort of one of the reasons I want to see him played there. Because from what I've seen in the cm he tries to break the game open every time he gets the ball and do something amazing, and in doing so loses the ball far too much. Mooy in the position on the other hand is much better at picking the right time, to in his case play the killer pass. He is a very effective link player and brings the players around him into the game much better than rogic. In that wing position, rogic would indeed be getting the ball less, but it would be in more attacking positions and each time he got the ball (and attempted to break the game open) there would be a higher chance of success. Win-win for the team.

All good mate

I know you haven't disagreed that it's an advantage. Where you and I disagree is I think it's basically crucial to have quick central defenders and savvy fullbacks for such a formation, at least in such a formation.

Sure there will be sides that play that way and have one central defender who isn't quick, but what are their fullbacks like? I'm willing to bet they tend to be a lot wiser than ours.

I think what you're saying is that Ange has a grand vision of very attack-minded football across the park, which maximises the ways in which we can score and thereby really does play our opponent out of the game. Ange, it seems to me (and probably to you) is probably willing to risk conceding goals for the sake of being able to channel the side's best efforts into attacking and thereby scoring goals.

Fair enough. Maybe Ange, and you, ultimately see a scenario whereby our squad do learn the skills necessary to be able to execute these ideas, scoring a lot without conceding too much.

I admit that's a possibility. If it happens, wonderful.

I just don't think it's feasible. I mean even with sides which play that way successfully and have a slower central defender, they tend to have the kind of midfields which rarely surrender possession. Germany have Özil, Kroos, Schweinsteiger, Can, Khedira, etc. Then they have blokes up front who tend to put the ball in the back of the net. We don't have this or anything like it. Not at the minute.

Forgive me if I'm wrong about this but it seems to me that we need to have far greater players across the park to be able to play that way and hope to win.

Is it worth losing for a long period of time while we try to build such a team good enough to play that way?

I think if we can compromise a bit and still find ways of attacking a lot, that's probably a wiser option.

Regarding what you've said about the fullbacks...



Agreed. I think Milos Degenek is a good option at right back.

As you know, I'd be happy to play three central defenders (with Degenek among them) and then let Leckie play as a right wing-back and Brad Smith or Alex Gersbach at right wing-back. I think that might be considered playing to our strengths.



Agreed. I don't think Josh Risdon should be written off. Everybody has a bad game. He might turn out to be very handy.

My point is that we do have a fullback issue at the minute. Where I disagree is that I don't think our fullbacks can be considered to be quite the standard of Joshua Kimmich (who was named in the team of the tournament, I gather). Is that an unreasonable proposition?

For what it's worth, I know firsthand what it's like to play horribly and without confidence when thrown into a level that is higher than what you were previously playing it. It takes a while, but eventually you acclimatise and start to believe in your own abilities, to relax, to play with self-confidence and to realise the mental hurdle is the biggest. Risdon has my sympathies.



In theory, this works. I'm not sure how well it works in practice. For instance, Ange seems to enjoy deploying two CAMs and one CDM..

If you have Jedinak as CDM (who then drops into defence when the wing-backs go on an outing), what about central midfield? Doesn't that leave a big hole in central defensive midfield?

Jedinak is needed to screen in that area. Angeball is all about quickly strangling the opposition when we lose possession, wouldn't you say? I'd argue that Jedinak, who's otherwise not conducive to Angeball, is pivotal in his CDM role of sitting above the defence and doing this screening. If you have Milligan at CDM in lieu of Jedinak, it's exactly the same problem.



I'm not asking him to abandon it. Germany, who seem to play with the philosophy to which Ange subscribes, had a back three against Italy. They are flexible. They know they have the quality to play 4-3-3 with very aggressive fullbacks. Most of the time, it's in their best interest to do this.

But, however much Germany care about the overarching philosophy of their football (and I'm not making light of that), they also deal with reality; their players versus the other teams players. They have the flexibility to tweak their formation and line-up if they think it's their best chance of winning. It needs to be horses for courses sometimes.

France have Antoine Griezmann, Dimitri Payet, Paul Pogba, etc. Their style of football (while still aggressive in many ways) is no way near as aggressive as Ange's style. And consider the footballers at their disposal. It's madness to carry on in this vein given the kind of footballers we have when some of the best sides in the world with the best footballers in the world are more balanced than us.

I'm suggesting that Ange be more flexible and tweak things just a bit so that we're more likely to see favourable outcomes. Moreover, some of the suggestions I've made would seem to play to the strengths of our lot.

We don't have many demonstrable means of scoring at present. The fellas don't find themselves in scoring positions. Meanwhile, we always concede between 2 and 3 goals against each top notch opposition we face. There needs to be some tweaking.

Anyway, it's not a huge departure. I think the most sensible approach is either the 3-4-3 that Fletcher Munson suggested or the 3-5-2 that I initially suggested. Again, horses for courses.

If Australia cannot hold enough possession with either of those formations nor create enough chances with either of those formations then it has nothing to do with formation.



In one-offs, Mitch Langerak has made unbelievable saves. Think of the matches he has played against Bayern Munich. He ain't done nearly enough consistently. I just think that Langerak is a far more competent and athletic shot-stopper than Mat(t)y, on the basis of the evidence in matches (too limited though that is).

I think our goalkeeper needs to be able to make the big saves. Langerak can possibly do this. From what we've seen, Ryan struggles with the more routine saves.



This ain't your fault but mine. I confused you with another forumite and attributed his views to you. My apologies, once again. Also, as I admitted before, Mooy has gone a long way to proving me wrong. His first touch is far better than I thought. Happy to be wrong about that. I think he or Rogic should be starting CAM (but sadly not both). I just think that he and Rogic both playing in central midfield is a house of cards in an already fragile defence.



Mate, I don't disagree with any of that. But how do you get both Rogic and Mooy in the same side without compromising our defence? I appear to have been wrong about Mooy's first touch. But is Mooy fast in his defending? Rogic isn't a very great defender (albeit has improved). You already want a structurally attack-heavy line-up (without taking personnel into account). If you have both Rogic and Mooy in central midfield, we'll have an incredibly weak midfield (on a defensive level) and a defence that is learning on the job.

They need some stability.

I agree Rogic is at his best with the ball at his feet, a bit of space and facing the goal. Totally agree. But we can't have that if we want various other attributes in our game. You understand football well enough to know that there's a bit of balancing things out. You have to work out how to get the most out of what you've got. Rogic at CAM in ordinary circumstances. Rogic in a different position, given we have Mooy and we want them both in the same side.

Meanwhile, Rogic is still plenty useful in tight spaces up front and has the best overall finishing ability of any on the team.

This should at least lead to the prospect of him up front (alongside somebody else) being considered.

Edited by quickflick: 14/7/2016 10:51:56 PM

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nfl/nfl-green-bay-packers-quarterback-aaron-rodgers-gives-fifa-shoutout-to-mark-viduka-and-socceroos/news-story/d27adacd66ae20850f49c45ea94f5562

QF we're going to have to agree to disagree. Short of sitting down with a white board and a box of beer we're never going to come to an agreement. On the stability and workability of formations.

I will say of Germany against Italy, the only reason Lowe played three central defenders was because of the injury to khedira. Had Khedira been available Germany would have stuck to their normal formation. It had nothing to deal with any actual threat that Italy might have offered

Decentric

Okay. This will be a long post. Possibly, I did not explain concepts clearly enough in the posts to which allude (my fault, if so). I've done my best to be crystal clear in the post I wrote above to clivesundies.

Warning- pontification on the scale of Pontifex Maximus (well, Ratzinger and JPII, not Francis) about to be served up. Anyway, here goes...



Am I really, though? Let's have a look at what I said. I said that proactive and reactive football styles don't exist as binary oppositions. I said they exist more on a spectrum.

Are you suggesting that the various football authorities would actually argue that football styles exist as a proactive/reactive binary?

I find this to be rather a dubious proposition. I said it's more of a spectrum. Needless to say, most sides will lean more in one direction or the other (more proactive or more reactive). For that reason, I did not point that out in the post to which you replied :d

Shall we have a butchers at one quote from some official FFA literature which clivesundies was helpful enough to link?



I'd say that Ms. Cross is agreed that there's a spectrum. Where, imo, she goes wrong is, in that manual, she then seems to forget the part about hybridity and focuses entirely on proactive football. Now, as I explained to clivesundies, I'm not unduly worried (at the minute) if a very proactive-heavy style is coached at Australian youth level because it may be the best means of facilitating the senior NT to be able to play in that style. The ideal outcome is to have a senior NT with the individual components and team gelling to play very proactive football. The Socceroos just don't got that at the minute.

Repeat, I don't have any problem with the exceedingly proactive style at youth and grassroots level, at the minute.[/b]

The FFA's problem is that it doesn't seem to realise that hybridity might be a way of bringing about drastically better results at present at senior level.

The crux of my argument is that, at senior NT level, if you have the cattle, then it's a good idea to play a wholly proactive style. If not, you must adapt a bit

The powerhouse nations whom you hold in the highest esteem, Decentric, seem to have gotten to grips with this and play in that way. Australia's mistake is that it is a bit overzealous in its pursuit of football nirvana, so to speak.

Is any part of that unclear? Is any part of that unreasonable?



A few points here. Firstly, the three most important words in all this are to an extent.

The devil is in the detail. I try to look at the details. The question is to what extent does such-and-such a nation play proactive football?

There's no argument from me that most powerhouse nations play football which may be described as leaning more in the direction of proactive than reactive.

As I mentioned on another thread... the Germans play incredibly proactive football. Partly because this is their football philosophy and partly because they think it's their best way of winning the football match.

But you'll find that even the Germans can comprise to a point. The Germans played with three central defenders, I believe it was, against Italy. My goodness. There we have the country whose football style Ange wishes to emulate slightly reducing the extent to which they play proactive football in order to win a match.

Heresy!

That's just the Germans. You say that all the powerhouse nations play proactive football. You'll find the extent to which it can be described as proactive varies.

I gather you watched the European Championships. As did I. Did France play an entirely proactive style? No. It was probably best described as broadly proactive, but it certainly had various hybrid elements. It wasn't anywhere near as proactive as the style of Germany.

How about Portugal? They sure as hell didn't. Although, as a fan of Portugal, I wasn't overly enamoured of our style, I must say. Still, it wasn't utterly proactive. How about Wales? Hybrid, once again.

Belgium, with poor team chemistry and terrible luck against Wales, tried a broadly proactive style. Fair enough. They have some of the best footballers in the world and are well-suited to it.

Other nations realise they're not so suited to throwing the kitchen sink at the opposition at all times. So they adapt.

This is where Ange goes wrong. He has defensively poor fullbacks, slow central defenders and no decent striker. He doesn't have the resources to demand as proactive a style as Germany has. Until he gets those kind of footballers, he has to adapt to a hybrid style. The formations and line-ups I (and others) have suggested for the senior NT are still broadly proactive, I stress. They just better cater for our strengths/weaknesses than the current style.



Agreed. Hopefully Ange realises this. We are best served by a style that is proactive, broadly speaking, but not as proactive as that of Germany or Belgium (at least until such a time that we have the same kind of football superstars).

As I said, it's a spectrum. To what extent to we play proactive football? Do both fullbacks press? If so how high? Or does one fulback press higher up the park than another? Do we have one CDM or two CDMs? The answers to those sort of questions (and other questions to do with how they pass) determine the extent to which it's proactive.

Teams as blessed as Germany and Belgium can have both fullbacks pressing and play with sometimes only the one CDM. But others, even with really gifted footballers, compromise a bit and play very aggressive football in some parts of the park, but not so aggressive football in other parts.



They're most welcome to say and believe what they want. It would be fantastic if Ange does try an utterly proactive style with the current squad and the Socceroos play brilliantly in Russia (assuming they qualify) and go far.

It would be very nice to be proved wrong there. Unfortunately, it's not overly likely because, as I said, it's not the wisest allocation or our resources.

Regarding how experience from the training track informs one's understanding of football tactics...

I reckon most people who've played in attacking roles in football (in training and in match situations) would lick their chops at the prospect of being able to isolate two slow (but wise) central defenders in acres of space on account of the fact that the fullbacks have gone on a fishing trip further up the pitch and been caught horribly out of position and lost possession. Even better if that particular team chooses to play with two CAMs and just one CDM (who is slow).

Especially, if you and your teammates have pace and one of you is an outstanding passer or dribbler and you all know how to time your runs.

So imagine that prospect when we're talking about Robben, Payet, Griezmann, Cristiano Ronaldo, etc.

Because that's the situation facing any nation fortunate enough to have outstanding attacking footballers and playing against Australia, at the minute.

There's every chance they'll get butchered. Adapt things just a bit and we still have every chance of scoring while we drastically reduce the chance of conceding.



Let's have a look at Ange's record. How many goals has Australia conceded every time it has played a top notch opponent while he has been in charge?

Between 2 and 3 goals, each time. How many of those matches have they not lost? O.nThey drew in a friendly against Germany. Other than that they've lost every game, isn't it? And they've always conceded between 2 and 3 goals.

This is really, really poor and calls into question the extent to which Ange has been successful.

As I said to clivesundies, leaving aside Brazil (where he definitely made mistakes with respect to personnel and probably aerobic fitness), since then there's reasonable grounds for Ange to be experimenting with the side in insignificant friendlies against top-notch nations (perhaps gauging how far he can take proactive football against strong opposition). But we shall see if things carry on in the same vein.



I'm glad you brought up the Welsh. Are you, or is anybody, able to provide information on the nature of the Welsh overhaul of their system? Is it anything like ours?

If it is, then what do you say to the idea of the Welsh footballers (not brought through under the improved system) playing with a more hybrid style (proactive in some parts of the pitch, but reactive in others)?

I'd say that's damn smart and something that Ange should consider.

Edited by quickflick: 21/7/2016 01:24:46 AM

That's fine, New Signing. I respect your opinion. And I understand the points you're making. I can see how having overlapping fullbacks covered by a CDM dropping back into defence would not be too defensively vulnerable in question. My personal opinion is simply that it that in practice it's where Australia's weakness lies.

Possibly ideas explained by me for you (and vice versa) are getting lost in translation, so to speak. It can be difficult to communicate ideas on an internet forum compared to on a football pitch.

I will add that I'm possibly biased against the notion of overlapping fullbacks when there's only two central defenders for my own personal reasons. When I was 15, my coach made me play that wingback role a few times (if memory serves with just the two central defenders). It was traumatic, shall we say.