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.

Well answered, QF.

Nevertheless, I disagree that a national team should play differently from a designated nationally adopted style. This is because it doesn't vindicate what all the national underage teams further down are doing at the top level.

The premise for employing Holger, who wasn't educated in the desired national style at the time, was that the players under him were not part of the new development system. After a while we went backwards under Holger, after some quality national team coaching from Guus and Pim which adhered to a plan and generally Dutch approach .

In some games it might seem prudent for Ange to change the formation from 1-4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle to the 1-4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle. I'd love to ask him why he doesn't do it more often.

At times he uses the very adaptable Milligan in a rotating midfield triangle. This is where Milligan plays as a DM in defence and AM in attack. I'm sure he has plausible reasons for doing what he does though.

When it comes to allocation of resources our back four aren't exactly strong even on paper. On paper our strengths are attacking mids, one defensive mid and wingers. If we had rock star defenders with donkey midfielders it would be silly to play out the back, try to dominate territory and possession with an attacking midfield triangle.

Ange should be compared with whats possible for a coach of his price. Can anyone really say he doesn't get back for our buck? Is it obvious that a less aggressive coach would get more out of his troops?
Maybe if it was one of the top coaches in the world but they are more expensive.
Besides our defense is slowly improving as the team more adapts to Ange's style. 2 goals conceded against a top team is now more common than 3. If we had a back 4 where all were regulars in a big 5 league that would be terrible. But they aren't

Apart from Cahill or Rogic - who else would everyone pick as our best CF?

Decentric


Thank you. In my opinion, it's all a question of extent. If you're saying that it wouldn't be good if the Socceroos are playing exceedingly reactive football while the youth teams are playing exceedingly proactive football, I agree with you.

On the other hand, if we're talking about the youth teams being coached to play extremely proactive football while the Socceroos modify that just a bit but are still playing very proactive football, would you say that's bad? I think that's sensible.

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.

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

Ange has pushed the Socceroos to play a more attacking football and highly proactive by moving to the 1-4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle as opposed to the 1-4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle and 4-2-3-1 he initially coached.

It is a massive concern that when a player beats a man, Socceroos are so vulnerable when other teams are on the counter attack. Rooney's goal in the friendly is the typical style goal, to look for as a demonstration of what we can expect to concede against the better teams.

Unless you genuinely don't care about results (and Australia's sporting public sure do care). You work with what you've got.

If you have defensively inept fullbacks and slow central defenders, you don't try to get the NT to play only with two central defenders and aggressive fullbacks.

quickflick - i agree with your reservations on the 4 3 3 with an offensive triangle. but i dont think playing a 433 with a defensive triangle is the option either.

also, i dont think we need wings when our fullbacks do that job anyway. because we end up with 4 wings - none of which are particularly good at scoring goals - just putting in crosses.

i would like to see a stronger midfield. 2 defensive mids. 2 central mids. and attacking mid. and a striker. 4-2-2-1-1(pretty much a 4231 but using the fullbacks as wings)

for example.

----------------------jedi-------------------------irvine

-----------kruse/luongo-------------------------------mooy
------------------------------------------rogic

---------------------------striker

If ange can figure out a way to play 8 central mids we would really be playing to our strengths then! :D

Is there anyone who doesn't care about results at senior level (except for maybe the first 15 or so games for a new coach).


Our defenders aren't slow they just don't read the play well or hold their shape well compared to a lot of defenders in big 5 leagues. Their concentration isn't great either. If we spent more of the game defending deep these weaknesses would be exposed. What they are pretty good at is distribution and 1v1 defensive situations. Our best strategy for defense is maintaining possession. Its not like we have an abundance of defenders playing in big 5 leagues that we are ignoring to play a possession based game. Mexico used possesion as an effective strategy at the last world cup. When we have a defensive triangle we do just that. Milligan can be used in a rotating triangle and hopefully mooy and luongo can too given their defensive attributes

Which result in a meaningful match under ange was disappointing to you given the personal available at the time?

damn straight!

QF in the offensive triangle you normally still operate with a number 8. In the last game you had jedinak 6, mooy 8 and rogic 10.

We have players capable of playing in that 8 role providing balance in milligan, luongo and of course mooy

@quickflick- Just as well you posted only the salient points.

Edited by enzo bearzot: 22/7/2016 10:08:59 AM

quickflick - i agree with your reservations on the 4 3 3 with an offensive triangle. but i dont think playing a 433 with a defensive triangle is the option either.

also, i dont think we need wings when our fullbacks do that job anyway. because we end up with 4 wings - none of which are particularly good at scoring goals - just putting in crosses.

i would like to see a stronger midfield. 2 defensive mids. 2 central mids. and attacking mid. and a striker. 4-2-2-1-1(pretty much a 4231 but using the fullbacks as wings)

for example.

----------------------jedi-------------------------irvine

-----------kruse/luongo-------------------------------mooy
------------------------------------------rogic

---------------------------striker

My favourite general formation is 4-2-3-1. Your idea is decent. The problem with it, and 4-2-3-1, is you need either a really decent striker cahill/giannou to act as a target-man or at least a bunch of attacking players who are all very decent goal threats. Australia has neither of these, unfortunately.

Meanwhile we have two really good CAMs. One is a very promising finisher. But if they both play in central midfield, we're defensively in trouble. So we adapt. One goes up front. Unfortunately, he can't play up front on his own just now. So he needs somebody else to play alongside. This is why we need two operating that high up.

One of Australia's biggest problems is creating goal scoring chances. So we need to best utilise our resources there.

Edit. In saying that your formation seems to have scope for both Rogic and somebody else right up there. That may indeed be a go

Edited by quickflick: 22/7/2016 07:59:18 PM

apparently if a manager can't adapt the tactics to suit a teams strengths they aren't worth there salt
so if ange doesn't invent a new formation with 4 wingers, no striker or defends and 7 central mids he is worthless :D