I'm actually thinking that Rogic could be the single, target striker. 

I think more midfielders are playing better in their positions than Juric, Cahill, et al, are playing as central striker.

Would be interesting.. Just don't know if Rogic has the pace? His touch and strength will help. But would love to ange at least try something like this.

-----------Juric----Rogic-------------
smith---Mooy---Irvine----Leckie
---------------Milligan------------------
--------Sains - Jedi - Wright------

Decentric, I think a lot of us have thought that, it is definitely a possibility, but just like Cahill it is a change best made at club level first, not for the national team. Especially when he has never played in that position before.

But with his size, back to the goal, shooting and footwork, it's a possibility.

Yes.

It would be even more accurate to see how they are deployed in their club system vs how Ange wants to play them in his rather than looking at the stats in isolation.

This is yet another example of statistics not offering the full story.  Something 'milieu' experts will never appreciate.

McLaren, as great as he is for the Roar, is not the type of striker Ange is looking for.  Ange has a style/vision in mind and you're pushing it up hill with a pointy stick if you don't fit into his "vision".
  

If Rogic could chase and hassle centre backs he'd probably already be a striker.

Correct!

If that was the argument it was, imo, fallaciously predicated. I understand the theory of how the formation transitioned. Where we disagree is on how it transitioned in practice under Ange's system and with the current practitioners. Ange liked to have both fullbacks (who are defensively average) forward simultaneously, the better to stretch opposition defences. He only had one CDM, usually Jedinak, dropping back. This left a big space in central midfield which was unoccupied. The transition, at least in practice of Angeball (as opposed to theory), is that we end up in a situation with two fullbacks out of position and Jedinak unsure whether to let an attack have a lot of space or to go forward to try to shut it down  but, thereby, leave two central defenders (who are not fast at all) isolated and defending the width of the pitch.

If we had the quality of footballers, we might be able to put the theory into practice. But we haven't currently got that. The theory is rosy but the practice leaves some huge chinks in our armour which any half-decent opposition can exploit.

A number of other posters who are very logical and reasonable came around to the idea of three at the back before Ange deployed three at the back. Similarly, there were some posters (you are not among them) who disagreed with three at the back for reasons other than those which you gave. They basically opposed it because Ange hadn't done it before.

New Signing, I'm impressed that you think outside the box. Most of our compatriots find it anathema. However that still doesn't answer my question as to whether it's a fair assessment or not. Is it a fair assessment to say that, yes, Cahill is clinical in front of goal and world-class in the air but lacking in the other components which a complete striker ought to have?

I was under the impression that he spent longer at Cahill in a midfield role than you're alluding to. When exactly do you remember him first being deployed up front for Everton on a regular basis?

In any event, the Leckie analogy doesn't quite fit seamlessly here (although I understand what you're driving at). Mathew Leckie never played in the AFL, Cahill spent ages playing professional football as a midfielder.

It is, however, curious that you mention Leckie. If Leckie had spent those crucial years playing football rather than Aussie Rules, you'd hope his touch and so on would be far better. Given he has actually managed to make it to the Bundesliga (albeit in a very niche role) with such a relatively late start in football, with his athleticism and tenacity, he might be a truly world-class footballer.

Thanks Decentric

Don't know why Ange keeps picking Brad Smith.

Sure he's fast. However he's a 22 year old (turning 23 in a few days) who's only featured in around 25 professional club games in his entire career. Half of them is him coming off the bench.

This guy has 16 caps for the Socceroos. 

Ange has made huge blunders with player selection of late.

Smith is one such blunder. Smith isn't good enough either defensively or on the ball. We have come a long way from where just being fit and fast was enough. 

Goodwin and Gersbach are both high quality left fullbacks that would turn a massive weakness for us (left back) into a strength. 

Interesting side, but I'd replace Juric with Troisi or Leckie. Leckie's not enough of a defender to be a wingback - would like to see Grant get a chance if Ange is going to persist with 3 at the back.

And yes, would like to see Gersbach get a go also.

My concern with Rogic as a center forward is the ruff stuff they get.
Juric coped a lot of kicks in the last two games and had a job of holding his position to keep the center backs occupied.
Rogic should be allowed to seek space and escape attention even if that means dropping deep or drifting wide.
A lone center forward doesn't have that luxury and it can be a pretty thankless and brutal task at times.

Would never play Rogic by himself up front. Needs someone pacey like Troisi next to him. 

who is his type.  a hard working target man like berisha.  problem is the NT needs to use the talent we have.  i would take taggart and maclaren over juric.

 troisi pacey?

Troisi is one of the fastest over the turf we have.

No worries.

True.

Juric copped lot of it against UAE.

Then again Taggart and MacLaren must cop it in the HAL too.

An interesting idea. Rogic seems to have a number of the characteristics Viduka had when he was playing.

I'm going to need an Executive summary of this post because i've now read it twice and i still dont get what your main points are

The next David Carney? lol more international caps then games almost

saw him play basically as a wingback against bayern... seemed to do well to me..

fair enough.  i havent seen it.  i know he is fit atm, but ive never really thought of him as exceptionally quick.

ive seen it as well.  holds up as good as just about anyone ive seen in the position.

(a) You were incorrect in saying I did not understood how the old formation transitioned. I do understand how the old formation transitioned. I accept the theory which you described and I think it is strategically sound if the manager has the quality of footballers to implement it.
(b) I respectfully disagree with you that, in practice, it transitioned in the manner you described. That's what I dispute. In practice, it leaves us horribly exposed.
(c) There were other sensible posters who expressed views similar to mine before Ange opted for three at the back. In response to Decentric's post, I also wrote that were also others who denounced three at the back without adequate reasoning (although you are not among them, you and I simply disagree on how it looks in practice).

He's not quick in a long sprint like Leckie, but he has an exceptional short burst of acceleration to get to the ball and get around players. 

Which, if he can be sensible in terms of how he positions himself and if he is technically sharp enough, is an invaluable component of our midfield particularly alongside playmaker types such as Mooy and Rogic