By beating players on 3 occasions  and not being tackled whilst in possession on any occasion, indicates effective ball control.

Also, he made 3 outstanding  first touches.

This means running flat out whilst receiving  the ball, receiving and maintaining the  ball in confined space, or a particularly athletic or unlikely action to make a first touch and control it.

 Juric also lost the ball  to poor control on 0 occasions.

It looks like his club football in Switzerland and Holland has improved his technique.

Another reason I'm not doing stats ATM, fully, is the amount of ball our CBs and keeper have under no pressure when the opposition applies half press and partial presses.

It can be up to 150 passes per game. It proves nothing.

no one should be in an NT squad if they are not playing at club. 

you are then picking someone on past performance and not current form. a holger recipe for disaster. 

Rule of thumb, yes. But you basically have to judge each case on its merits.

For instance, when Rogic was playing no football whatsoever for Celtic. And he'd play his cameo for the NT. He made the rest of the team look like they were AFL players who had been drafted in to help out.

It's not in the best interest of the NT to keep a lad like that out. Ange, despite using the precise rhetoric that you're using, also said that if Big Tam had been fit, he'd have been the first name on the teamsheet. This can't be reconciled with his (and your) notion that there should be a hard and fast rule stopping people from being selected if they're not playing for their club.

There have to be exceptions in rare cases. Wasn't the bit of good that Holger did was to have faith in Krusey when his club (can't remember which) wasn't playing him? That relaunched his career.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that one of the advantages of 433 based systems was that it took the pressure of the striker a bit as it allowed more role for attacking midfielders to get into the mix? In that way having a Juric or Giannou to hold, distribute to incoming AMs, draw defenders was just as important as a more traditional Cahill standing in the box by himself. I'm not saying it wouldn't be great to have a Suarez, Kane etc, but if we don't have one... 

There are others on here who are very well versed on 433 specifically who can respond to this better than I can.

But it seems to me you're right that's one of the advantages of the 433 system. And, I think, if you have the front three able to score goals and interchange quickly and easily, then you're looking at the ideal version of that system and you don't need any particularly dominant striker.

Australia's problem, imo, is that we don't have quite those characteristics by which an out-and-out target man isn't required. Without (maybe even with) Cahill, I'm not sure any of Juric, Maclaren, Kruse, Burns and Leckie in a front three (or de facto front three when we attack) quite cut it. I think there's a lack of quality the with the finishing (Cahill aside) and the ability to pass opponents in tight spaces.

Burns is a maybe because of his mobility on the ball, but not enough for a goalscorer. Then others just lack that quality handling the ball, even if they have a decent finish.

To play with a front three in that way, imo, you need most or all of them to be well-rounded in all attacking aspects. Too many are bits and pieces footballers. They're strong in one area, but weak in another.

New Signing suggests that Ange likes them to build up play more methodically but  where he differs is he'd release attacking players that bit quicker (if I've understood his opinion, my apologies if I haven't). That's fair enough but I reckon Mooy and maybe Rogic might not have that much faith in the ability of those ahead of them to finish in positions with less space. Maybe they think it's more prudent simply to hold onto the ball.

What you, Redcarded, say about the advanced players holding up play and bringing in the midfielders as scoring options (and thus not needing an out-and-out striker) makes sense. And you can see how Rogic and Mooy can be brought into play. But it shouldn't really be because those attacking players struggle to score goals or outwit defenders on their own. That just puts loads of pressure on those guys and makes a defensive hole in midfield. If you play pure 433, the midfield (including the CAM) have more defensive duties.

That's why we need somebody who can be an out and out striker. Only then will Rogic's and Mooy's true value be realised. We need a pacy fella, with good ball skills, a knack of reading play (timing his runs) and clinical finishing. I can't recall the exact formations that France and Belgium used in the Euros. They would be similar to 433 (correct me if that's completely wrong). They still used target men (even though they have the cattle to play 433 in the way you described). France used Griezmann and Belgium used Lukaku. Those guys are so good that their mere presence frees up space for their teammates. Dukes did the same and was thus so invaluable to Australia (even without the most goals scored). Imagine how much space somebody like Krusey or Rogic would have if Dukes was just ahead of him.

Juric is the closest we have to a target man- strong, good touch and close control, can shoot, and as selfish as they come.  Injury and mentality (hey he's from Balkan heritage) have curtailed his career.  I think Postocoglou will give him every opportunity to be the Socceroos starting number 9.  The rest is up to Juric.

Pretty good summation, EB.

In the last two Socceroo games he also worked hard for his team-mates and provided some assists for goals and assists for other scoring opportunities.

If one plays two attacking mids in the attacking midfield triangle  version of the 1-4-3-3, the two attacking mids are often in closer proximity to goal than the 1-4-3-3 with the defensive midfield triangle which has one attacking mid.

I think we just have enough current strikers to do the job, as long as they are playing regularly  at club level.

Amongst Cahill, Juric, Giannou, McLaren and Taggart, it may be enough.

 George Blackwood is also quite promising, but still misses too many goals he should score. His biggest issue in the immediate future is getting game time at SFC.

Philip Michaleff asked the question:

Harry Kewell, Mark Viduka and Mark Bresciano have retired and the Socceroos still depend heavily on Tim Cahill. Do you reckon there is a greater emphasis on the 'team' rather than the 'individual' in the current Socceroos set-up?





Alex Tobin former Socceroo captain and current FFA NSW Technical Director responded:

"Interesting point. The Socceroos are playing in a tactically astute way which of course requires teamwork. Clearly their movement and the way they build their attacks show that the players have a great understanding of teamwork."

"We are progressing thanks largely to this team ethic but in the next few years we will need more players playing at the highest level to make the difference in the pointy end of World Cup qualification campaigns and in the finals."





Thoughts?

He seems to have stepped it up another level this season, watching his club football. Especially the technique side of the game, he is using his left foot well now and he is becoming two footed, He is easily Ingolstadt's best player.

His last game was one of his best, he seems to be improving, I still have hope for this guy.

He is more of a Jesus player, holds the ball up, plays others in, but is more versitile. If he could get a bit more clinical, he would become WC

Imo, once again, there's a disjuncture between theory and practice. The idea of 433 (which comes from total football, as I understand it) is that you won't need truly prolific individuals because all the guys are versatile and competent in a lot of areas. When this pans out beautifully, they play some glorious football in which the team is very balanced and well-synched and there's no particular reliance on any given individual. That's the theory. And that happens in practice with the best sides using that system (give or take because there will always be individuals who are on another level and will be relied upon even in 433).

I'm hoping our youth system starts to produce footballers capable of playing in this way. Although, they still need to be taught individual skills because, even with a side playing 433 brilliantly, it won't do any harm to have some individuals who can make things happen on their own.

The paradox here is that Angeball places more emphasis on the team as a whole than on the individual components which more traditional systems may have used. But because the current senior NT footballers haven't been brought up on this from a young age (it's a relatively new system) and we're comparing the current lot to a Golden Generation more gifted across the park, we're currently more reliant on individuals (Cahill, Rogic and Mooy) than when we had a cast-iron defence, Grella, Bresch, Culina, Cahill, Kewell, Emo, Dukes and Aloisi.

When Ange has the cattle, this system will be far more team-oriented and less reliant on individuals. But, because of the sheer fluke of Australia having the talent we had in the previous generation, we were less reliant on individuals then (and even then we relied on individual a lot, especially Harry).

Unquestionably our team has greater influence on the "team" and has more team work. The 2006 side was basically the best players put together and the team was a secondary consideration. This is the opposite, The team comes first, including the philosophy, strategy and structure and the players come after that and populate the team. The players now aren't necessarily "the best" players we have, but rather the best players for the team. 

This isn't just because Ange is the best coach we've ever had (he is), but also because playing so many games in asia gives the opportunity for a team to be built that the roos of 2006 didn't have. 

I don't like his comment about players playing at the highest level. I disagree with the idea that playing at the highest level is a reliable indicator of a players attributes or potential contribution to our national team. Our best player since kewell/viduka (mooy) was developed in and up until recently playing in the a-league. 

 The 433 ange employs is completelly different from total football (or what i imagine it to be like) and each player has their own roles and responsibilities that they adhere to. The players are in fact very specialized. Just for example our wingers are picked for their speed and dribbling etc, while our center mids for their playmaking and passing and close control etc. and the players in these positions aren't able to swap effectively. 

I don't think playing as a team is in opposition to having important players or relying on individuals. At the moment for example our team is very much set up to enable rogic and mooy to have maximum impact in the game. The instructions to the center backs are clear and their passes into the middle of the park, often through the opposition midfield line to our mids allow these players as our best individuals to influence the game. Another example would be barca and messi. They rely heavily on messi to create and score goals and yet you would still say as a team they are fantastic because they are set up in such a way that allows him to have this impact. 

The false idea here is that being a better team means placing less importance on individuals. 

well the problem is that he isn't clinical. and in my opinion thats the most difficult/rare/important thing for a striker to have. Being clinical in front of goal is the most important thing, the rest is icing. i hope it comes for him but im not holding my breath. i think maclaren and taggart are more promising solutions for the future. 

edit: for example that retarded wobbly legs miss from juric. maclaren and taggart could have that same chance a thousand times and never miss. 

Developed from total football (or so it seems to me), not exactly the same thing.

Maybe you're right that Angeball (in theory, as opposed to practice) relies on individuals having highly specialised roles. Certainly makes sense with respect to the fullbacks and goalkeeper. Valid point.

Where I disagree with you is I think pure Angeball still has more in common with one particular precept of total football than you suggest- that all players are competent in basically all components of the game. Thence, there's no particular reliance on one specific outlet of attack or defence. Again, this is theory (it's not necessarily reflected in practice even among the world's best practitioners of 433, as you pointed out). So, in theory, Angeball would have all members of the midfield unit very adept at creating chances and also in closing down opponents quickly.

I said you've got a point regarding the specific roles of the fullback and goalkeeper. The other way of looking at those positions is that the total football precept of being very good in both attack and defence is required from both those positions. Pure Angeball requires the goalkeeper to be a very good sweeper and pass very accurately, acting as a playmaker.

Likewise, your fullbacks (who obviously have huge defensive duties), provide a tremendous playmaking outlet as they overlap and overload on the wing, ideally, by creating a 2 vs 1 situation. That's my convoluted way of saying that your fullbacks are creating attacking opportunities just as much as your CAM (Mooy or Rogic) is doing.

At the minute, we're rather dependent on specific outlets of attack with rather prescribed roles. You've pointed this out. That's fine we do that. We do it for expediency's sake.

I think the evolution of Angeball would see us not being so reliant on specific roles within specific players in specific positions. I think unadulterated Angeball would have more defensive consistency across the park, the use of creative outlets from various points and more scoring options.

Again, that's all theory. We don't live in an ideal world. And even if we did live in an ideal world... Barcelona-land, as you say, they're still reliant heavily on Lionel Messi.

But ask yourself this, would Barcelona's system stop working if they didn't have Messi? I don't think so. It obviously wouldn't be as good. But they could still dominate against just about everybody creating goalscoring options from more places than they usually do. They don't do this because Messi is Messi. It's more expedient to rely on Messi and use him as a focal point. Using the same principles (with not quite so talented footballers), Australia is relies on specific players to a great extent.

Also, I'm not arguing against individualism. I'm all for one-vs-one ability, as you've probably read ad nauseam. The Dutch played total football, yet Johan Cruyff was one of the greatest footballers ever to have graced the game. His individual talent was immense. The same with Messi at Barcelona. Apart from anything, the individual ability of these guys frees up even more space for their teammates.

Think of the difference in roles in the 433 system compared to Italian systems. The Italian system has far more specialised roles- trequartista, regista, fantasista and so on. Variations of these position are employed in a 433 system. But, whereas a trequartista and a regista have minimal defensive duties, a 433 equivalent has to be far more adept in defence.

The distinction I'm driving at is that the theory of 433 (as I understand it) is that the there is less reliance on specific individuals or individual attributes because, in theory, the whole team is adept at attacking and defending. This shares some things in common with total football (even if it's not necessarily exactly the same thing) and, thus, it's no surprise that the system developed from ideals of total football. In practice, though it will always be modified slightly because things do go pear-shaped, we all have our strengths and weaknesses and sometimes you need that footballer who can carry you. The problem for Ange is that there's so much unevenness among the playing group that it's very  difficult to implement the system successfully. At the minute, there's a huge disjuncture between the theory and the practice because of we're so reliant on specific individuals. Whereas for the likes of Barcelona, the disjuncture between theory and practice is smaller because there's more consistency across the park (more well-rounded footballers in all positions) even if they still channel their efforts into attacking through one particular footballer.

Sorry for posting an essay, by the way :blush:

He is a bitter of the highest order.

Agree.

Alex Tobin?

I don't know much about him. But looking at his comments here in isolation... they seem to make perfect sense to me.

To do well at the pointy end of the World Cup, it seems fairly realistic that you need blokes playing at the highest levels of club competition (which, at present, we don't got).

If you're used to facing Championship or A-League defenders or CSL strikers week-in, week-out, then suddenly you're up against De Bruyne, Hazard, Lukaku, Komany, Meunier and Vermaelen in a one-off, what do you expect to happen?

He, rightly, points out that as a team they're the chance to function better as a whole in ways previous Australian sides haven't because they're playing so much football in Asia. Shouldn't the same apply to the individual components of that team? To have a realistic chance of beating the best (assuming the best don't play like Belgium and England did at the Euros), then you want to be accustomed to facing them regularly. That's on the individual level. But it has relevance on a team level. Frankly, dominating in the easiest or second easiest confederation will lull you into a false sense of security. You won't be used to playing too many opponents who play your game better than you do. How do you respond? The occasional upset can be achieved, but you, realistically, need to be used to competing with the best if you wish to beat them once (let alone multiple times, as success at the World Cup demands).

It's no surprise that the World Cup in which we had the most success and looked the most threatening, we had Harry, Dukes and all those guys. It's no surprise that, to this day, Timmy is our biggest performer. He is mentally geared for anything. He has done it tough and learnt to be mentally resilient. He has played with and against the best in the world. It's not like he just rocks up in a one-off and scores a ripping goal against an amazing opponent. His mental strength (as well as his finishing and know-how) were forged in English football.

I watched Sam Groth take on Roger Federer at Wimbledon last year (on the TV). John Newcome or Todd Woodbridge made a really astute observation- Groth serves at about 235km/h or something. He's not used to opponents being able to deal with that. Then, suddenly, he's up against Roger Federer who is seeing it early and returning it with interest. Grothy doesn't know what to do. He's not used to it. The same goes for football. It's no good suddenly to come up against the best in the world and have realistic hopes of beating them. Success tends only to occur after lots of practice and experience.

I reckon you need to be used to the quality of your opponent if you hope to beat them in multiple competitive matches.

I reckon he will be alright

GREEK-BORN striker Apostolos Giannou has been brought into the Socceroos squad for the upcoming World Cup qualifiers after Milos Degenek was ruled out with a knee injury.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/world-cup-qualifiers-socceroos-call-up-apostolos-giannou-as-milos-degenek-succumbs-to-injury/news-story/076acfb75e4e5280f2b95cfee8ab9dc1?utm_source=Social&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=FoxFootball

..... :)

Surprised  he brought in a striker for a CB/RB?

Mind you Giannou impressed me in his one outing for  Australia when I saw him play against  Jordan or Krygystan. 

I missed the English and Greek games, because I was away. So if he played in these games and was mediocre I didn't see them.

last weeks squad had Goodwin, Jeggo and Wright replacing Burns, Giannou and Risdon from the September games

with this change it is now Goodwin, Jeggo and Wright replacing Burns, Degenek and Risdon, you would need to look at the full squad to see whether there is enough RB cover but as usual I will trust Ange and the coaching team to make the correct calls

can hardly get a game in china.  is a pretty soft swap.  he wont be getting in that easy once the a-league is kicking on again.

id give goodwin a run a RB.  i dont get why our NT is always so afraid of playing inverted fullbacks.  when we usually have ample on one side.

goodwin is a smart and talented enough player to play on the right.  fark me i just looked him up he 193 cm tall. put him in as a striker and we might make better use of all them shitty crosses our current teams spoils every attack with.

He's not 193cm tall. Common misconception. He's more about 180 if you look at him 

Best players can change from month to month.

In terms of overseas leagues, I've watched a lot of recent football in Italy, France and Spain. Most teams are very good in these leagues.

Maybe some of the Socceroos could play in the mediocre clubs in these leagues if offered an opportunity in them? Along with Probably Germany and the upper echelons of the EPL and Portugal, plus most of the clubs from smaller leagues who play the later  UCL and Europa  rounds, the quality of football is often very high. Most of this is shown on TV. The mediocre European leagues are not.

ATM In terms of outfield players Milligan may have been the most consistent for the Socceroos over the last three years. Sains has improved markedly in recent times, Mooy has been very good recently and Rogic has improved playing for Celtic.

Leckie and Juric have also shown recent improvement, as has Smith. 

Kruse and Luongo  have suffered from their current club scenarios.