Basically, yes. I agree with the gist of that.

Again, the Italians point to the subtle differences very well linguistically by having distinct terms.

The thing is that, owing to our limitations, Australia needs to be mindful of these distinctions. Only then can we start to harness our strengths and address our weaknesses.

This is why I describe Rogic as a trequartista and draw the distinction between that and what Mooy tends to do as a regista. There's a subtle difference, but being aware of it and spelling it out would be useful. From there, I go on to think that, it's unwise to have them both (a trequartista and a regista in the same XI is not that defensively balanced).

Then, the fantasista is more like a striker/false number nine. Owing to certain limitations in the way that Juric plays and his difficulty being an out-and-out striker, we need a kind of fantasista who is a complete attacking talent and offers more than Rogic. These are very difficult to find. I think Ange needs to give consideration to a footballer such as Arzani for that role.

Just cultural, it just needs context, Tomas Muller was given the Raumdeuter Term to the role he plays, but could be called a fantasista as well

People shouldn't get to hung up by the nomenclature.

The role is defined as much by the manager's instructions and the skill set of the player as the name someone slaps on it.

Exactly

I dont know what in the world you guys are talking about trequartistas,Batistas, fantasistas,10 s and all the other stuff.  If that is what the socceroos are trying to think about while they are out there, then it would certainly explain some of their poor performances recently (though they have been improving to be fair).  Instead of being so fancy and technical, i would see their problems as follows:

1. The back 3.  
One problem to me is that we simply dont have 3 good centrebacks at the same level as the worlds best teams (or close to it).  All of them seem to struggle with the basic concept of Marking their player (goal side) and more importantly, marking the oppositions most dangerous man.  Instead they seem to try for some type of Zonal defence that usually leaves players in no mans land and looking to close down and dive in tackles (some lessons on jockeying would be nice).  They were really shown up in this area.  

To be fair, Wright and Degenek are improving and Ange is obviously hopeful they will continue this next year and be good enough for Russia. (ange obviously sees the same in mcGowan, but i cant see that).  But, at the moment, Milligan, Sainsbury and Wilkinson are our three best centrebacks y a country mile and i presume that Jedinak might also be close to an option there.  I really hope Sainsbury and Milligan  get the job for the chile game the third could go to anyone but i think it will be wilkinsons in Russia (or Japan), at this stage.

2. No Sweeper
We badly need a sweeper.  I know that Ange is trying to compensate with Ryan and this does sort of work, but Ryan is badly down on confidence at the moment even in this aspect of his game and is not the same attacking weapon he was this time last year.  Ange plays much of his game controlling the ball and playing out from the back.  The sweeper is important because it gives the fulbacks the extra option when they have he ball, plus he can time his runs forward at the right time, when the runs are on which also gives more attacking options.  

3. The 6 midfield formation 
This is a mistake.  It is wrong to think that putting 4 midfielders in a 25 yard box strengthens the midfield.  It doesnt.  In fact it does the opposite.  For as start, there is space in the middle of the 4 for a single midfielder to  sit in a traditional central midfield role (not sure if you guys call this a 6 or a box to box or some other fancy name) but the midfield has time on the ball and can dominate because of this.  In fact, when have the ball, that same player can pretty much mark both "Screeners" and any other central midfielders we have without any difficulty and allow his other midfielders to push on.

The other problem is that with 4 midfielders playing so close, It allows the second central midfielder or a winger to make a run and any half decenct centre midfielder can bypass all 4 players with one simple diagonal  pass.  This has caused many of our problems in the goals and/or chances we have conceded recently.

Perhaps the biggest problem wih this is that having this square takes out the options for our central midfieldes who should be our best players (and generally are).  Someone like Mooy and Luongo as well has really struggled because his only option is the short pass his own players crowd them.  He would be much more effective in attack if he was less crowded and he had some runners  off the ball with some space to move into.  I think that we would be much better off with these two ball players in the centre of the park (to be honest i wouldnt be totally against playing mooy and Rogic as our two central  midfielders with Mooy being slightly more defensive of the two.  

3. Lack of Width
This is exposed by that box midfield.  It is no coincidence that when Kruse came on and went wide, it opened up space for Mooy to work and Australia looked 100 times better.  I know the theory is that Gersbach and Leckie give the width but we need the width further up the park as happened when Kruse went wide and he and Leckie looked very good.attacking intandem down the right.  IN fact, Leckie (for mine) looks a lot more dangerous attacking from deep.  I hope ange sticks with that right side combination and instructs kruse to stay or at least look to run wide far more often. The left will be a lot more difficult as we dont seem to have try left sided attacker. I think that Rogic as the second centre forward, playing in a free role and lurking wide like kruse might work though since i suggested him as our central midfielder it would need to be mclaren, Hrustic or Cahill.  Since i dont know how good Hrustic is or isnt, i would suggest Cahill, and play him as a second striker perhaps playing slightly behind Juric, who could really use the extra runner taking a man away from him.  Probably allow Kruse to lurk wide on both the left and the right. 

So, that leaves us with My suggested side of
Ryan
Milligan, Sainsbury, Degenek
Leckie Mooy Rogic Gersbach
Kruse Cahill
Juric

I think that is the best side that can be put out for chile (keeping a back 3 and voodoo formation) but it should naturally adopt the adaptions i have recommended above.

Yeah the role stuff is a bit football manager, but it can be used as a descriptive of how a player can be likened to another, it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.
1/ I think CB need to be zonal, it is a thinking man's position, very different to any other. I don't agree with your favorite, but that's opinion.
2/ not sure you understand the sweeper role?
3/ nothing wrong with it compare it with Brazil when they played a box midfield, the movement is wrong and the backs not pushing up, with what should be midfield suppremacy, we go wide way too much because player movement is poor. I think the biggest problem is going wide and not providing passing options in the middle.
4/ we have too much width and our central players are either isolated or not even there to receive a pass, we become predictable.
Watch the replays, jack all in midfield and with a deep backline there is no player movement between the lines, it's really bad.

first thing iv ever agreed with u on. Very few football systems use a fantasista these days which essentially was the more withdrawn striker role in a 4-4-2. Del piero, totti, rivaldo, ronaldino, ronaldo, teddy sheringham, peter beardsley, and bergkamp all played this role and until ferguson left this was rooneys role. I actually think this would be rogic's best position even though he plays as a trequartista now. 

no. Regista is the number 8 (xavi, scholes, pirlo, veron) or straight CM or box to box midfielder. Mooy, luongo, mckay's best position. 

I was under the impression that a regista is a deep lying playing maker like when we played bresc at 6 partnering jedi

Bresch is probably a good example, played central, the most creative player, not afraid to carry the ball forward and get into the forward positions, almost a false 10.

that position you speak of directly in the middle of the field is the number 8 position which is the regista. Think Xavi, scholes, rakitic, toni kroos, gerrard, mooy, matty mckay, culina, veron, aaron ramsay, pirlo and later in his career bresh (previously was a 10). Number 6 is a DM or screener / destroyer. I think this is the batista. Mooy plays as a dual 6 atm for both club and country but his role functions as more of a deep lying regista (number 8), in other words the player on the field whose chief role is ensuring his team keep possession, dictate tempo, dictate when to attack when to retain etc. Whilst the other DM next to him acts as the number 6 batista/ destroyer/ screener. For hudders this is hogg for roos it is millsy or jedi

lol 'a false 10'.

Its called an 8

No. They are a deep-lying playmaker who functions in a manner not dissimilar to a trequartista (creative and without huge defensive responsibility) but in a slightly less advanced position.

Pirlo and Mooy, yes.

That's not necessarily the same thing as a traditional box-to-box midfielder. Nor is it the same thing as a holding midfielder, for that matter.

Edit. No. 8- I think so. I don't really use the no. system so much. My coaches never much used it. But that sounds right. But not, necessarily, the same thing as a box-to-box midfielder. And, while it's not the same thing as a trequartista, either, it functions in a manner that is by no means dissimilar.

I saw an 8 as a box to box midfielder whose defence is almost good enough to be  6 and attack is almost good enough to be an 8 but doesn't really specialize in either. Like a utility midfielder

Lol
Nuances mate!

if you read fossies book or anything about the dutch/ barca system...the regista is basically is the player responsible for retaining posession of the ball and dictating tempo. The most classic examples of this are xavi, pirlo and scholes. Now the actual positioning of these roles however can differ. In a 4-2-3-1, one of the '2' DM's will act as the regista, the other as a batista (destroyer). In a 4-3-3 however (with one DM and 2 CM's) the 2 CM's will act as regista's, one of these it could be said might get a little further forward to act like a half trequartista half regista. Perfect example is xavi as regista and iniesta as the half regista/ half trequartista. At the asian cup Luongo played the Iniesta role, mckay the xavi role. I actually think this 4-3-3 suits what ange is trying to play the best the problem is rogic... he doesnt really fit into this system brcause he is not defensive enough to play as one of the 8's

The point of the nomenclature is misunderstood here.

Nobody (least of all me) is suggesting footballers can't (or shouldn't be able to) do operate in ways outside these somewhat narrow descriptions. You'd hope that, while coaches will recognise strengths and weaknesses, they try to develop as well-rounded footballers as possible in junior set-ups and so on.

But, when you're dealing with very limited footballers in a senior NT, then it's useful to be mindful of these dynamics. Especially in central midfield where there are very noticeable strengths and weaknesses. E.g. Rogic and Mooy. They fit the role of a limited trequartista and limited regista, respectively. With that in mind, it's rather risky to have both in central midfield simultaneously. Quick opponents can tear us to shreds.

As for the fantasista part, that's useful because it's the kind of footballer who might complement Juric's style very well indeed. As we don't have another out-and-out striker option (not a really decent type, anyway). A fantasista is the type which would, potentially, complement Juric as well as either Rogic or Mooy, quite well.

Suddenly, we turn our weaknesses into strengths. We play to Rogic's, Mooy's, Juric's strengths, rather than exposing their weaknesses.

Hitherto, their weaknesses have been overwhelmingly exposed.

I think, traditionally, fantasisti are very quick and can make things happen on their own. Rogic can sort of do this, but I reckon he is better setting up play and then anything else is a bonus. You'd be better off having Rogic at trequartista and then playing through a more nimble and more dynamic teammate.

At Celtic, Rogic is not a fantasista. We should be mindful of this.

Good post. The problem is Rogic and Mooy aren't compatible in that same central midfield. And it's a bit infuriating as they're our two best.

I'd go further and say that Australia hasn't the cattle for 4-3-3 at all, right now, unfortunately. That's just my opinion, though.

I haven't read the books, as far as regista, creativity and technical skills are defining, but can also score? Unlike a deep lying playmaker he will happily go forward and has the technical skills to do so.
Again it has to be looked at in context.

umm.. yes... thats called the number 8. 6 is defensive mid/ batista/ screener/ destroyer, the player whose job it is to break up attacks think makele, keane, jedi, kante. 8 is the deep lying playmaker you speak the regista, the player whose job it is to retain possession and dictate possession. Depending on the system though the regista can be one of the dual defensive midfielders in 4-2-3-1 or 3-4-2-1 that we play. In this case it can be coined a deep lying playmaker. Think toni kroos, mooy, pirlo. Alternatively it could be one of the CM's 4-3-3 system in which case they are more positioned in a box to box midfield role albeit still fulfils the role of the regista number 8. Think mooy when we play a 4-3-3 or scholes, xavi, veron. 

Of course they can play together, second half against Germany proved it

Regista was way more attacking, I'm thinking Kroose and Kante?

umm.. yes... thats called the number 8. 6 is defensive mid/ batista/ screener/ destroyer, the player whose job it is to break up attacks think makele, keane, jedi, kante. 8 is the deep lying playmaker you speak the regista, the player whose job it is to retain possession and dictate possession. Depending on the system though the regista can be one of the dual defensive midfielders in 4-2-3-1 or 3-4-2-1 that we play. In this case it can be coined a deep lying playmaker. Think toni kroos, mooy, pirlo. Alternatively it could be one of the CM's 4-3-3 system in which case they are more positioned in a box to box midfield role albeit still fulfils the role of the regista number 8. Think mooy when we play a 4-3-3 or scholes, xavi, veron. 

Define 'technical skills to do so'. Do you mean technical skills to set the tempo as Scholes and Pirlo did or technical skills to take people on? Different types of technical skills.

Obviously, a regista will score a goal now and then. But their role is not to quite so far forward as a trequartista. The difference, imo, between a regista and a trequartista is positional and also that a trequartista will be a more natural goal-scorer and be able to get past opponents on their own. The similarity between the two, however, is they tend to be the most creative on the park and have less defensive responsibility.

It is essentially a more aggressive Deep Lying playmaker but the core duties are pretty much the same in dictating the game.

Take people on, that's how I understood it?

I agree with those descriptions. However, I draw a distinction between a regista (no. 8) and a box-to-box midfielder.

I regard Yaya Touré as a box-to-box midfielder but not a regista

The regista, imo, is not required to take people on. More Scholes, Pirlo and so on.