|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
its true he has them in tournaments but it seems he has worked on specific plans tailor made for specific teams which may not work against the asian teams. If he had a full week of unjetlagged players before each team he could change things for each team. Perhaps he should have used tournaments to implement alternate structures that could be used more generally
With Pim he was very good at coach defensive structure and he had players who were good at implementing defensive structure week in week out.
In Ange he isn't that great at it at club level (no a league club bar popa is). He is also working with players that aren't good at implementing a tight defensive structure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
southmelb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Fact is if you had said before the qualifying campaign started that we end up with 5 wins, 4 draws and just 1 loss for a tally of 19 points you would have taken it straight away as 99 times out 100 that would get you in automatically, now is not the time to get hysterical, the focus needs to shift to the playoffs and be treated as an extension of the current campaign, I like a bozza rent as much as anyone but it's important this doesn't get over done, you would think we have already missed out altogether. Teams far better than ours will be competing in playoffs as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
I'm going to illustrate the three formations which can easily be interchanged on the pitch within the same half, that Ange has failed to do.
The defensive midfield 4-3-3:
X....................X...................X.................X
.................X...............................X
...............................X
X............................X.............................X
To make the 3-4-3 midfield diamond, which can also be termed the 4-3-3 with a 3:1 back four, the two FBs tuck in a bit and one CB plays in front of the other:
....X......................X...................X
............................X
..............X.......................X
...........................X
X........................X.....................X
To move from the 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle to the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, the midfield triangle can be inverted. One DM , or number 6, becomes a twin number 10 or twin attacking AM:
X..................X.....................X.................X
................................X
.................X..............................X
X..............................X..........................X
The defensive midfield triangle can also be changed to a 4-2-3-1 with the two wingers moving back in a line with the number 10.
The attacking midfield triangle version of the 4-3-3 can also become a 4-5-1 or 4-1-4-1, with the two wingers moving back in a line with the twin attacking mids.
If one looks at the 3-2-4-1, it is more difficult to change to conventional shapes that have used for some time with success.
........X...............X..................X
..............X...................X
X..................................................X
...........X......................X
........................X
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
The performance wasn't bad the substitutions and game management was abysmal. Rogic should have been pulled, Cahill should never have been that deep when he is our best finisher and nor should we have waited so long to actually pump Thailand with crosses where Timmy and Juric are actually dangerous. When we actually did that we scored some goals. But lastly it also isn't acceptable to look like conceding every time the Thais touched the ball in which although they had one shot on target they sure got in behind usmore than once. Oh and also the suicide passing from the back is ridiculous, I feel sorry for Ryan as that mess at the back clearly comes from Anges instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xwe actually only just beat Thailand. That is crazy. barely beat a team ranked 130, below St. Kitts and Nevis, Ethiopia With 40 odd shots on goal and nothing really to show for it would tell yu it's the cattle that's the problem not necessarily the coach. The tactics used lastnight were fine. It was for the other two games that we setup badly. Ange was not at fault last night. The attacking cattle were because they did not have their shooting boots on. Their attacking interplay and movement off the ball was excellent though.
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI'm going to illustrate the three formations which can easily be interchanged on the pitch within the same half, that Ange has failed to do. The defensive midfield 4-3-3: X....................X...................X.................X .................X...............................X ...............................X X............................X.............................X To make the 3-4-3 midfield diamond, a coach can also be termed the 4-3-3 with a 3:1 back four, the two FBs tuck in a bit and one CB plays in front of the other: ....X......................X...................X ............................X ..............X.......................X ...........................X X........................X.....................X To move from the 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle to the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, the midfield triangle can be inverted. One DM , or number 6, becomes a twin number 10 or twin attacking AM: X..................X.....................X.................X ................................X .................X..............................X X..............................X..........................X The defensive midfield triangle can also be changed to a 4-2-3-1 with the two wingers moving back in a line with the number 10. The attacking midfield triangle version of the 4-3-3 can also become a 4-5-1 or 4-1-4-1, with the two wingers moving back in a line with the twin attacking mids. Yeah once he went to a midfield box he couldn't switch the midfield triangle when we were ahead. Its a small change, so it should be no big deal to implement it. But perhaps ante felt considering our defensive frailties that dominating territory and going for more goals was a better defense given what we had in personnel
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI'm going to illustrate the three formations which can easily be interchanged on the pitch within the same half, that Ange has failed to do. The defensive midfield 4-3-3: X....................X...................X.................X .................X...............................X ...............................X X............................X.............................X To make the 3-4-3 midfield diamond, a coach can also be termed the 4-3-3 with a 3:1 back four, the two FBs tuck in a bit and one CB plays in front of the other: ....X......................X...................X ............................X ..............X.......................X ...........................X X........................X.....................X To move from the 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle to the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, the midfield triangle can be inverted. One DM , or number 6, becomes a twin number 10 or twin attacking AM: X..................X.....................X.................X ................................X .................X..............................X X..............................X..........................X The defensive midfield triangle can also be changed to a 4-2-3-1 with the two wingers moving back in a line with the number 10. The attacking midfield triangle version of the 4-3-3 can also become a 4-5-1 or 4-1-4-1, with the two wingers moving back in a line with the twin attacking mids. Yeah once he went to a midfield box he couldn't switch the midfield triangle when we were ahead. Its a small change, so it should be no big deal to implement it. But perhaps ante felt considering our defensive frailties that dominating territory and going for more goals was a better defense given what we had in personnel From the 3-4-2-1, it is difficult to change shape, particularly to familiar ones the players have played a lot at club level and underage football.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
In comparison to Ange , Pim used three formations.
The 4-4-2 midfield diamond.
The 4-2-3-1 in BPO, and 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle in Ball Possession.
The Christmas Tree 4-3-2-1 formation against Japan, in Japan, when he realised that a draw was a major step in WCQ down the track.
Pim's teams played conservatively away, but he got the job done as our top WCQ coach. We were of the first three teams to qualify, along with Holland and Japan. A draw away in the ME did it - Qatar?
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI'm going to illustrate the three formations which can easily be interchanged on the pitch within the same half, that Ange has failed to do. The defensive midfield 4-3-3: X....................X...................X.................X .................X...............................X ...............................X X............................X.............................X To make the 3-4-3 midfield diamond, a coach can also be termed the 4-3-3 with a 3:1 back four, the two FBs tuck in a bit and one CB plays in front of the other: ....X......................X...................X ............................X ..............X.......................X ...........................X X........................X.....................X To move from the 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle to the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, the midfield triangle can be inverted. One DM , or number 6, becomes a twin number 10 or twin attacking AM: X..................X.....................X.................X ................................X .................X..............................X X..............................X..........................X The defensive midfield triangle can also be changed to a 4-2-3-1 with the two wingers moving back in a line with the number 10. The attacking midfield triangle version of the 4-3-3 can also become a 4-5-1 or 4-1-4-1, with the two wingers moving back in a line with the twin attacking mids. Yeah once he went to a midfield box he couldn't switch the midfield triangle when we were ahead. Its a small change, so it should be no big deal to implement it. But perhaps ante felt considering our defensive frailties that dominating territory and going for more goals was a better defense given what we had in personnel From the 3-4-2-1, it is difficult to change shape, particularly to ones the players have played a lot at club level and underage football. he really tried to think outside the box (pardon the pun) to cover for four facts 1. that we don't have great fullbacks (although i think gersbach provides a decent option and behich is decent but they both play on the left) 2. our wingers are decent but weak finishers (though not bad defensively) 3. We find it difficult to break a team down with a single number 10. Also our 10s are our best finishers. Its difficult to consistently score enough goals without 2 10s 4. We are defensively too fragile to risk playing without 2 6's I think at club level he prefers more conventional methods
|
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xwe actually only just beat Thailand. That is crazy. barely beat a team ranked 130, below St. Kitts and Nevis, Ethiopia With 40 odd shots on goal and nothing really to show for it would tell yu it's the cattle that's the problem not necessarily the coach. The tactics used lastnight were fine. It was for the other two games that we setup badly. Ange was not at fault last night. The attacking cattle were because they did not have their shooting boots on. Their attacking interplay and movement off the ball was excellent though. I think a bit of luck was astray too ... let's face it not very often does a team hit the post three times and have two or three last minute tackles / off the lines to stop a certain goal. As an international coach you plan to create chances, as you hope the individuals have the skills to finish (as an international coach can't teach them to a player in the week or so he has them before a game). I think too many rushed their shot ... the pressure got to them??? This is where Ange probably had to tell them to settle, take their time and make sure of their shots. The goals would come, if they had composed themselves on the shot a bit more. Ange set the team up to attack and create chances, which they did. It was down to some luck and individuals that they didn't score more. In regards to the lack of crosses in the first half, again that they started to do it more in the second half suggests that Ange had instructed them to do this in the first place but the team hadn't followed through with it in the first half. The only thing that Ange really got wrong last night was the subs. Again not necessarily his fault ... as they were probably the right choices, but all three had little to no effect on the game. Kruse's first touch almost resulted in a goal, but he didn't look likely for the rest of the game. Troisi's passing was wayward and Maclaren was invisible. Where was Mabil??? Leckie and Gersbach running at the Thai wing backs caused troubles all night, not sure why you wouldn't have introduced someone like Mabil to run at them when they were obviously tired late in the second half.
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI'm going to illustrate the three formations which can easily be interchanged on the pitch within the same half, that Ange has failed to do. The defensive midfield 4-3-3: X....................X...................X.................X .................X...............................X ...............................X X............................X.............................X To make the 3-4-3 midfield diamond, a coach can also be termed the 4-3-3 with a 3:1 back four, the two FBs tuck in a bit and one CB plays in front of the other: ....X......................X...................X ............................X ..............X.......................X ...........................X X........................X.....................X To move from the 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle to the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, the midfield triangle can be inverted. One DM , or number 6, becomes a twin number 10 or twin attacking AM: X..................X.....................X.................X ................................X .................X..............................X X..............................X..........................X The defensive midfield triangle can also be changed to a 4-2-3-1 with the two wingers moving back in a line with the number 10. The attacking midfield triangle version of the 4-3-3 can also become a 4-5-1 or 4-1-4-1, with the two wingers moving back in a line with the twin attacking mids. Yeah once he went to a midfield box he couldn't switch the midfield triangle when we were ahead. Its a small change, so it should be no big deal to implement it. But perhaps ante felt considering our defensive frailties that dominating territory and going for more goals was a better defense given what we had in personnel From the 3-4-2-1, it is difficult to change shape, particularly to ones the players have played a lot at club level and underage football. he really tried to think outside the box (pardon the pun) to cover for four facts 1. that we don't have great fullbacks (although i think gersbach provides a decent option and behich is decent but they both play on the left) 2. our wingers are decent but weak finishers (though not bad defensively) 3. We find it difficult to break a team down with a single number 10. Also our 10s are our best finishers. Its difficult to consistently score enough goals without 2 10s 4. We are defensively too fragile to risk playing without 2 6's I think at club level he prefers more conventional methods But all it did was create new and more sever problems, with the formation we started with in this qualifying campaign we were in the box seat to qualify for the world cup and we looked comfortable in doing so. We change it at a crucial point and we have immensely struggled since, the change to 3 at the back has cost us automatic qualification.
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI'm going to illustrate the three formations which can easily be interchanged on the pitch within the same half, that Ange has failed to do. The defensive midfield 4-3-3: X....................X...................X.................X .................X...............................X ...............................X X............................X.............................X To make the 3-4-3 midfield diamond, a coach can also be termed the 4-3-3 with a 3:1 back four, the two FBs tuck in a bit and one CB plays in front of the other: ....X......................X...................X ............................X ..............X.......................X ...........................X X........................X.....................X To move from the 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle to the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, the midfield triangle can be inverted. One DM , or number 6, becomes a twin number 10 or twin attacking AM: X..................X.....................X.................X ................................X .................X..............................X X..............................X..........................X The defensive midfield triangle can also be changed to a 4-2-3-1 with the two wingers moving back in a line with the number 10. The attacking midfield triangle version of the 4-3-3 can also become a 4-5-1 or 4-1-4-1, with the two wingers moving back in a line with the twin attacking mids. Yeah once he went to a midfield box he couldn't switch the midfield triangle when we were ahead. Its a small change, so it should be no big deal to implement it. But perhaps ante felt considering our defensive frailties that dominating territory and going for more goals was a better defense given what we had in personnel From the 3-4-2-1, it is difficult to change shape, particularly to ones the players have played a lot at club level and underage football. he really tried to think outside the box (pardon the pun) to cover for four facts 1. that we don't have great fullbacks (although i think gersbach provides a decent option and behich is decent but they both play on the left) 2. our wingers are decent but weak finishers (though not bad defensively) 3. We find it difficult to break a team down with a single number 10. Also our 10s are our best finishers. Its difficult to consistently score enough goals without 2 10s 4. We are defensively too fragile to risk playing without 2 6's I think at club level he prefers more conventional methods But all it did was create new and more sever problems, with the formation we started with in this qualifying campaign we were in the box seat to qualify for the world cup and we looked comfortable in doing so. We change it at a crucial point and we have immensely struggled since, the change to 3 at the back has cost us automatic qualification. yeah it at best broke even for us at worse made things worse. But I can understand why he did it given those problems I think he adopted it after the thailand away game? Who remembers when he first started going voodoo?
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xwe actually only just beat Thailand. That is crazy. barely beat a team ranked 130, below St. Kitts and Nevis, Ethiopia With 40 odd shots on goal and nothing really to show for it would tell yu it's the cattle that's the problem not necessarily the coach. The tactics used lastnight were fine. It was for the other two games that we setup badly. Ange was not at fault last night. The attacking cattle were because they did not have their shooting boots on. Their attacking interplay and movement off the ball was excellent though. I think a bit of luck was astray too ... let's face it not very often does a team hit the post three times and have two or three last minute tackles / off the lines to stop a certain goal. As an international coach you plan to create chances, as you hope the individuals have the skills to finish (as an international coach can't teach them to a player in the week or so he has them before a game). I think too many rushed their shot ... the pressure got to them??? This is where Ange probably had to tell them to settle, take their time and make sure of their shots. The goals would come, if they had composed themselves on the shot a bit more. Ange set the team up to attack and create chances, which they did. It was down to some luck and individuals that they didn't score more. In regards to the lack of crosses in the first half, again that they started to do it more in the second half suggests that Ange had instructed them to do this in the first place but the team hadn't followed through with it in the first half. The only thing that Ange really got wrong last night was the subs. Again not necessarily his fault ... as they were probably the right choices, but all three had little to no effect on the game. Kruse's first touch almost resulted in a goal, but he didn't look likely for the rest of the game. Troisi's passing was wayward and Maclaren was invisible. Where was Mabil??? Leckie and Gersbach running at the Thai wing backs caused troubles all night, not sure why you wouldn't have introduced someone like Mabil to run at them when they were obviously tired late in the second half. But literally 90% of our chances the first half came from corners, it wasn't amazing passing breaking them down but as per usual asian teams unable to deal with set pieces. The second half we actually utilised our aerial dominance by pumping them with crosses and we looked far more dangerous in doing so, which goes against his philosophy but it sure works effectively.
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI'm going to illustrate the three formations which can easily be interchanged on the pitch within the same half, that Ange has failed to do. The defensive midfield 4-3-3: X....................X...................X.................X .................X...............................X ...............................X X............................X.............................X To make the 3-4-3 midfield diamond, a coach can also be termed the 4-3-3 with a 3:1 back four, the two FBs tuck in a bit and one CB plays in front of the other: ....X......................X...................X ............................X ..............X.......................X ...........................X X........................X.....................X To move from the 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle to the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, the midfield triangle can be inverted. One DM , or number 6, becomes a twin number 10 or twin attacking AM: X..................X.....................X.................X ................................X .................X..............................X X..............................X..........................X The defensive midfield triangle can also be changed to a 4-2-3-1 with the two wingers moving back in a line with the number 10. The attacking midfield triangle version of the 4-3-3 can also become a 4-5-1 or 4-1-4-1, with the two wingers moving back in a line with the twin attacking mids. Yeah once he went to a midfield box he couldn't switch the midfield triangle when we were ahead. Its a small change, so it should be no big deal to implement it. But perhaps ante felt considering our defensive frailties that dominating territory and going for more goals was a better defense given what we had in personnel From the 3-4-2-1, it is difficult to change shape, particularly to ones the players have played a lot at club level and underage football. he really tried to think outside the box (pardon the pun) to cover for four facts 1. that we don't have great fullbacks (although i think gersbach provides a decent option and behich is decent but they both play on the left) 2. our wingers are decent but weak finishers (though not bad defensively) 3. We find it difficult to break a team down with a single number 10. Also our 10s are our best finishers. Its difficult to consistently score enough goals without 2 10s 4. We are defensively too fragile to risk playing without 2 6's I think at club level he prefers more conventional methods But all it did was create new and more sever problems, with the formation we started with in this qualifying campaign we were in the box seat to qualify for the world cup and we looked comfortable in doing so. We change it at a crucial point and we have immensely struggled since, the change to 3 at the back has cost us automatic qualification. yeah it at best broke even for us at worse made things worse. But I can understand why he did it given those problems I think he adopted it after the thailand away game? Who remembers when he first started going voodoo? First match was Iraq away, he tried to fix a problem after the Thai result but failed to realise that was because we had about 2 players who played regular football with a bunch of unfit players with no match sharpness dropped into the humidity of Thailand.
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xwe actually only just beat Thailand. That is crazy. barely beat a team ranked 130, below St. Kitts and Nevis, Ethiopia With 40 odd shots on goal and nothing really to show for it would tell yu it's the cattle that's the problem not necessarily the coach. The tactics used lastnight were fine. It was for the other two games that we setup badly. Ange was not at fault last night. The attacking cattle were because they did not have their shooting boots on. Their attacking interplay and movement off the ball was excellent though. I think a bit of luck was astray too ... let's face it not very often does a team hit the post three times and have two or three last minute tackles / off the lines to stop a certain goal. As an international coach you plan to create chances, as you hope the individuals have the skills to finish (as an international coach can't teach them to a player in the week or so he has them before a game). I think too many rushed their shot ... the pressure got to them??? This is where Ange probably had to tell them to settle, take their time and make sure of their shots. The goals would come, if they had composed themselves on the shot a bit more. Ange set the team up to attack and create chances, which they did. It was down to some luck and individuals that they didn't score more. In regards to the lack of crosses in the first half, again that they started to do it more in the second half suggests that Ange had instructed them to do this in the first place but the team hadn't followed through with it in the first half. The only thing that Ange really got wrong last night was the subs. Again not necessarily his fault ... as they were probably the right choices, but all three had little to no effect on the game. Kruse's first touch almost resulted in a goal, but he didn't look likely for the rest of the game. Troisi's passing was wayward and Maclaren was invisible. Where was Mabil??? Leckie and Gersbach running at the Thai wing backs caused troubles all night, not sure why you wouldn't have introduced someone like Mabil to run at them when they were obviously tired late in the second half. But literally 90% of our chances the first half came from corners, it wasn't amazing passing breaking them down but as per usual asian teams unable to deal with set pieces. The second half we actually utilised our aerial dominance by pumping them with crosses and we looked far more dangerous in doing so which goes against his philosophy but it sure works effectively. i'd have to watch again but I remember about half a dozen cutbacks, rogic beating a player to shoot, players being alone in the box to shoot about half a dozen times and of course a bunch of set pieces. It looked like a pretty varied range of chances to me. Bad luck does explain some of it….
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI'm going to illustrate the three formations which can easily be interchanged on the pitch within the same half, that Ange has failed to do. The defensive midfield 4-3-3: X....................X...................X.................X .................X...............................X ...............................X X............................X.............................X To make the 3-4-3 midfield diamond, a coach can also be termed the 4-3-3 with a 3:1 back four, the two FBs tuck in a bit and one CB plays in front of the other: ....X......................X...................X ............................X ..............X.......................X ...........................X X........................X.....................X To move from the 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle to the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, the midfield triangle can be inverted. One DM , or number 6, becomes a twin number 10 or twin attacking AM: X..................X.....................X.................X ................................X .................X..............................X X..............................X..........................X The defensive midfield triangle can also be changed to a 4-2-3-1 with the two wingers moving back in a line with the number 10. The attacking midfield triangle version of the 4-3-3 can also become a 4-5-1 or 4-1-4-1, with the two wingers moving back in a line with the twin attacking mids. Yeah once he went to a midfield box he couldn't switch the midfield triangle when we were ahead. Its a small change, so it should be no big deal to implement it. But perhaps ante felt considering our defensive frailties that dominating territory and going for more goals was a better defense given what we had in personnel From the 3-4-2-1, it is difficult to change shape, particularly to ones the players have played a lot at club level and underage football. he really tried to think outside the box (pardon the pun) to cover for four facts 1. that we don't have great fullbacks (although i think gersbach provides a decent option and behich is decent but they both play on the left) 2. our wingers are decent but weak finishers (though not bad defensively) 3. We find it difficult to break a team down with a single number 10. Also our 10s are our best finishers. Its difficult to consistently score enough goals without 2 10s 4. We are defensively too fragile to risk playing without 2 6's I think at club level he prefers more conventional methods But all it did was create new and more sever problems, with the formation we started with in this qualifying campaign we were in the box seat to qualify for the world cup and we looked comfortable in doing so. We change it at a crucial point and we have immensely struggled since, the change to 3 at the back has cost us automatic qualification. yeah it at best broke even for us at worse made things worse. But I can understand why he did it given those problems I think he adopted it after the thailand away game? Who remembers when he first started going voodoo? First match was Iraq away, he tried to fix a problem after the Thai result but failed to realise that was because we had about 2 players who played regular football with a bunch of unfit players with no match sharpness dropped into the humidity of Thailand. i see so it makes sense that he tried to adjust after the thai result. But it meant that he took a few matches to implement the new plan A and it was difficult to change to any plan b out there with a box (can't invert the triangle etc)
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xwe actually only just beat Thailand. That is crazy. barely beat a team ranked 130, below St. Kitts and Nevis, Ethiopia With 40 odd shots on goal and nothing really to show for it would tell yu it's the cattle that's the problem not necessarily the coach. The tactics used lastnight were fine. It was for the other two games that we setup badly. Ange was not at fault last night. The attacking cattle were because they did not have their shooting boots on. Their attacking interplay and movement off the ball was excellent though. I think a bit of luck was astray too ... let's face it not very often does a team hit the post three times and have two or three last minute tackles / off the lines to stop a certain goal. As an international coach you plan to create chances, as you hope the individuals have the skills to finish (as an international coach can't teach them to a player in the week or so he has them before a game). I think too many rushed their shot ... the pressure got to them??? This is where Ange probably had to tell them to settle, take their time and make sure of their shots. The goals would come, if they had composed themselves on the shot a bit more. Ange set the team up to attack and create chances, which they did. It was down to some luck and individuals that they didn't score more. In regards to the lack of crosses in the first half, again that they started to do it more in the second half suggests that Ange had instructed them to do this in the first place but the team hadn't followed through with it in the first half. The only thing that Ange really got wrong last night was the subs. Again not necessarily his fault ... as they were probably the right choices, but all three had little to no effect on the game. Kruse's first touch almost resulted in a goal, but he didn't look likely for the rest of the game. Troisi's passing was wayward and Maclaren was invisible. Where was Mabil??? Leckie and Gersbach running at the Thai wing backs caused troubles all night, not sure why you wouldn't have introduced someone like Mabil to run at them when they were obviously tired late in the second half. But literally 90% of our chances the first half came from corners, it wasn't amazing passing breaking them down but as per usual asian teams unable to deal with set pieces. The second half we actually utilised our aerial dominance by pumping them with crosses and we looked far more dangerous in doing so which goes against his philosophy but it sure works effectively. i'd have to watch again but I remember about half a dozen cutbacks, rogic beating a player to shoot, players being alone in the box to shoot about half a dozen times and of course a bunch of set pieces. It looked like a pretty varied range of chances to me. Bad luck does explain some of it…. We had some cutbacks but most were just cleared for a corner and plenty of Rogic's chances and others were from the second phases of a set piece where they struggled to clear it effectively. 90% may be a bit dramatic as we did have a very strong first 15 minutes but after that we really relied on set pieces to create our chances till the second half.
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI'm going to illustrate the three formations which can easily be interchanged on the pitch within the same half, that Ange has failed to do. The defensive midfield 4-3-3: X....................X...................X.................X .................X...............................X ...............................X X............................X.............................X To make the 3-4-3 midfield diamond, a coach can also be termed the 4-3-3 with a 3:1 back four, the two FBs tuck in a bit and one CB plays in front of the other: ....X......................X...................X ............................X ..............X.......................X ...........................X X........................X.....................X To move from the 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle to the 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, the midfield triangle can be inverted. One DM , or number 6, becomes a twin number 10 or twin attacking AM: X..................X.....................X.................X ................................X .................X..............................X X..............................X..........................X The defensive midfield triangle can also be changed to a 4-2-3-1 with the two wingers moving back in a line with the number 10. The attacking midfield triangle version of the 4-3-3 can also become a 4-5-1 or 4-1-4-1, with the two wingers moving back in a line with the twin attacking mids. Yeah once he went to a midfield box he couldn't switch the midfield triangle when we were ahead. Its a small change, so it should be no big deal to implement it. But perhaps ante felt considering our defensive frailties that dominating territory and going for more goals was a better defense given what we had in personnel From the 3-4-2-1, it is difficult to change shape, particularly to ones the players have played a lot at club level and underage football. he really tried to think outside the box (pardon the pun) to cover for four facts 1. that we don't have great fullbacks (although i think gersbach provides a decent option and behich is decent but they both play on the left) 2. our wingers are decent but weak finishers (though not bad defensively) 3. We find it difficult to break a team down with a single number 10. Also our 10s are our best finishers. Its difficult to consistently score enough goals without 2 10s 4. We are defensively too fragile to risk playing without 2 6's I think at club level he prefers more conventional methods But all it did was create new and more sever problems, with the formation we started with in this qualifying campaign we were in the box seat to qualify for the world cup and we looked comfortable in doing so. We change it at a crucial point and we have immensely struggled since, the change to 3 at the back has cost us automatic qualification. yeah it at best broke even for us at worse made things worse. But I can understand why he did it given those problems I think he adopted it after the thailand away game? Who remembers when he first started going voodoo? First match was Iraq away, he tried to fix a problem after the Thai result but failed to realise that was because we had about 2 players who played regular football with a bunch of unfit players with no match sharpness dropped into the humidity of Thailand. i see so it makes sense that he tried to adjust after the thai result. But it meant that he took a few matches to implement the new plan A and it was difficult to change to any plan b out there with a box (can't invert the triangle etc) It really wouldn't have been an issue if we changed a few minor things in the formation and how we play, but moving to a box midfield and a notoriously difficult formation with 3 at the back at such a crucial stage was suicide. Leave these things for friendlies and the confed cup.
|
|
|
|
|
gunitinug
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10,
Visits: 0
|
hey guys uli stielike is free
|
|
|
|
|
newton_circus
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 660,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe performance wasn't bad the substitutions and game management was abysmal. Rogic should have been pulled, Cahill should never have been that deep when he is our best finisher and nor should we have waited so long to actually pump Thailand with crosses where Timmy and Juric are actually dangerous. When we actually did that we scored some goals. But lastly it also isn't acceptable to look like conceding every time the Thais touched the ball in which although they had one shot on target they sure got in behind usmore than once. Oh and also the suicide passing from the back is ridiculous, I feel sorry for Ryan as that mess at the back clearly comes from Anges instructions. Yes indeed
|
|
|
|
|
gunitinug
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10,
Visits: 0
|
its strange we won a lot of matches and drew a lot of matches and lost not much but yet we didnt qualify automatically:sick:
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xLook, I've been an Ange booster all this time, but last night's result was simply unacceptable. There's something catastrophically wrong in that team. Ange needs to go for the good of everyone. How should he have setup lastnight game then? Play counter and hope to get 1 maybe 2 goals at best? We needed to go all out for the 90 mins which we did and we created more than 30 chances and hit the post 3 times. Combination of terrible luck and bad finishing by the players. Something Ange cant help with. Last night's game isn;t the one that people should be having a go at Ange about, if anything its the previous one's which had flawed tactics. Why can't people see that? Last night was actually one of our better performances in terms of tactics imo. Sorry but I don't agree When a team is hitting the cross bar that many times, or encountering regular goal line clearances by defenders or the keeper its because they are trying to go through the players or try to pass the ball into the goal to the side of them What Australia lacked last night was a cohesive front third that could get behind the defence. They did it with their first goal. They did it with that miraculous Thai defensive tackle Thailand on the other hand got behind our defensive line on several occasions. Including what should have been a penalty. And other times where they lacked support so it came to nothing. As was said last night Thailand only had a handful of chances and nearly took every one of them Thailand didn't look good last night. It looked like an A League team vs a State League team. They were very quickly cut down and Australia dominated the play. Most of the game was played in and around their penalty box. But Australia didn't know how to break them down
|
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xwe actually only just beat Thailand. That is crazy. barely beat a team ranked 130, below St. Kitts and Nevis, Ethiopia With 40 odd shots on goal and nothing really to show for it would tell yu it's the cattle that's the problem not necessarily the coach. The tactics used lastnight were fine. It was for the other two games that we setup badly. Ange was not at fault last night. The attacking cattle were because they did not have their shooting boots on. Their attacking interplay and movement off the ball was excellent though. I think a bit of luck was astray too ... let's face it not very often does a team hit the post three times and have two or three last minute tackles / off the lines to stop a certain goal. As an international coach you plan to create chances, as you hope the individuals have the skills to finish (as an international coach can't teach them to a player in the week or so he has them before a game). I think too many rushed their shot ... the pressure got to them??? This is where Ange probably had to tell them to settle, take their time and make sure of their shots. The goals would come, if they had composed themselves on the shot a bit more. Ange set the team up to attack and create chances, which they did. It was down to some luck and individuals that they didn't score more. In regards to the lack of crosses in the first half, again that they started to do it more in the second half suggests that Ange had instructed them to do this in the first place but the team hadn't followed through with it in the first half. The only thing that Ange really got wrong last night was the subs. Again not necessarily his fault ... as they were probably the right choices, but all three had little to no effect on the game. Kruse's first touch almost resulted in a goal, but he didn't look likely for the rest of the game. Troisi's passing was wayward and Maclaren was invisible. Where was Mabil??? Leckie and Gersbach running at the Thai wing backs caused troubles all night, not sure why you wouldn't have introduced someone like Mabil to run at them when they were obviously tired late in the second half. But literally 90% of our chances the first half came from corners, it wasn't amazing passing breaking them down but as per usual asian teams unable to deal with set pieces. The second half we actually utilised our aerial dominance by pumping them with crosses and we looked far more dangerous in doing so which goes against his philosophy but it sure works effectively. i'd have to watch again but I remember about half a dozen cutbacks, rogic beating a player to shoot, players being alone in the box to shoot about half a dozen times and of course a bunch of set pieces. It looked like a pretty varied range of chances to me. Bad luck does explain some of it…. We had some cutbacks but most were just cleared for a corner and plenty of Rogic's chances and others were from the second phases of a set piece where they struggled to clear it effectively. 90% may be a bit dramatic as we did have a very strong first 15 minutes but after that we really relied on set pieces to create our chances till the second half. Mooy's shot off the post came from a Leckie cutback. Cahill's shot came from open play that hit the post. Rogic's pile driver (at least two) that forced good saves from the keeper came from open play (one was the nice subtle run off Mooy's shoulder). The last gasp tackle on Juric with the chest down came from open play. Mooy had that delicious ball across the front of goal, that no one attacked (just needed a tap in). All this was in the first half. I personally thought our corners were pretty poor over the night, they rarely got the ball into dangerous spots (other than the one that had to be cleared off the line). Especially given how poor the keeper handled high balls, it was probably something Australia had to use more to their advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xwe actually only just beat Thailand. That is crazy. barely beat a team ranked 130, below St. Kitts and Nevis, Ethiopia With 40 odd shots on goal and nothing really to show for it would tell yu it's the cattle that's the problem not necessarily the coach. The tactics used lastnight were fine. It was for the other two games that we setup badly. Ange was not at fault last night. The attacking cattle were because they did not have their shooting boots on. Their attacking interplay and movement off the ball was excellent though. I think a bit of luck was astray too ... let's face it not very often does a team hit the post three times and have two or three last minute tackles / off the lines to stop a certain goal. As an international coach you plan to create chances, as you hope the individuals have the skills to finish (as an international coach can't teach them to a player in the week or so he has them before a game). I think too many rushed their shot ... the pressure got to them??? This is where Ange probably had to tell them to settle, take their time and make sure of their shots. The goals would come, if they had composed themselves on the shot a bit more. Ange set the team up to attack and create chances, which they did. It was down to some luck and individuals that they didn't score more. In regards to the lack of crosses in the first half, again that they started to do it more in the second half suggests that Ange had instructed them to do this in the first place but the team hadn't followed through with it in the first half. The only thing that Ange really got wrong last night was the subs. Again not necessarily his fault ... as they were probably the right choices, but all three had little to no effect on the game. Kruse's first touch almost resulted in a goal, but he didn't look likely for the rest of the game. Troisi's passing was wayward and Maclaren was invisible. Where was Mabil??? Leckie and Gersbach running at the Thai wing backs caused troubles all night, not sure why you wouldn't have introduced someone like Mabil to run at them when they were obviously tired late in the second half. Forget last night. There was some weird voodoo force field shit around the goal. Ange lost us automatic qualification games ago when he stubbornly persisted with his 3 at the back rubbish in games where we had a lead away.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xLook, I've been an Ange booster all this time, but last night's result was simply unacceptable. There's something catastrophically wrong in that team. Ange needs to go for the good of everyone. How should he have setup lastnight game then? Play counter and hope to get 1 maybe 2 goals at best? We needed to go all out for the 90 mins which we did and we created more than 30 chances and hit the post 3 times. Combination of terrible luck and bad finishing by the players. Something Ange cant help with. Last night's game isn;t the one that people should be having a go at Ange about, if anything its the previous one's which had flawed tactics. Why can't people see that? Last night was actually one of our better performances in terms of tactics imo. Sorry but I don't agree When a team is hitting the cross bar that many times, or encountering regular goal line clearances by defenders or the keeper its because they are trying to go through the players or try to pass the ball into the goal to the side of them What Australia lacked last night was a cohesive front third that could get behind the defence. They did it with their first goal. They did it with that miraculous Thai defensive tackle Thailand on the other hand got behind our defensive line on several occasions. Including what should have been a penalty. And other times where they lacked support so it came to nothing. As was said last night Thailand only had a handful of chances and nearly took every one of them Thailand didn't look good last night. It looked like an A League team vs a State League team. They were very quickly cut down and Australia dominated the play. Most of the game was played in and around their penalty box. But Australia didn't know how to break them down To me part of the problem seems to be that Australia doesn't know how to play to Juric's strengths. As you mention he showed he can get behind defenses (did it lots for WSW too). However, given the manner in which Australia play I don't think we use that strength of his. The wide balls crossed in from the byline don't play at all to his strengths (that so many went amiss doesn't help either). Not a strength of many in the Australian team other than Cahill (who still really is stronger with early balls in from wide ... such as Mooy's assist for Juric's goal). I liked that Rogic and Mooy both tested the goalie from range ... think it shows Australia has more of a threat than just set pieces, crosses etc. That Mooy then started looking for the subtle check passes behind the line were gems too ... the problem is that none of the Aussies really took advantage of those balls. Rogic probably tried too hard to score at times last night, when he could have played some neat passes instead. The combination play (1-2s at the start of the first half opened up the defense at times and let us get behind ... but we gave up on that 10 minutes in).
|
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xwe actually only just beat Thailand. That is crazy. barely beat a team ranked 130, below St. Kitts and Nevis, Ethiopia With 40 odd shots on goal and nothing really to show for it would tell yu it's the cattle that's the problem not necessarily the coach. The tactics used lastnight were fine. It was for the other two games that we setup badly. Ange was not at fault last night. The attacking cattle were because they did not have their shooting boots on. Their attacking interplay and movement off the ball was excellent though. I think a bit of luck was astray too ... let's face it not very often does a team hit the post three times and have two or three last minute tackles / off the lines to stop a certain goal. As an international coach you plan to create chances, as you hope the individuals have the skills to finish (as an international coach can't teach them to a player in the week or so he has them before a game). I think too many rushed their shot ... the pressure got to them??? This is where Ange probably had to tell them to settle, take their time and make sure of their shots. The goals would come, if they had composed themselves on the shot a bit more. Ange set the team up to attack and create chances, which they did. It was down to some luck and individuals that they didn't score more. In regards to the lack of crosses in the first half, again that they started to do it more in the second half suggests that Ange had instructed them to do this in the first place but the team hadn't followed through with it in the first half. The only thing that Ange really got wrong last night was the subs. Again not necessarily his fault ... as they were probably the right choices, but all three had little to no effect on the game. Kruse's first touch almost resulted in a goal, but he didn't look likely for the rest of the game. Troisi's passing was wayward and Maclaren was invisible. Where was Mabil??? Leckie and Gersbach running at the Thai wing backs caused troubles all night, not sure why you wouldn't have introduced someone like Mabil to run at them when they were obviously tired late in the second half. Forget last night. There was some weird voodoo force field shit around the goal. Ange lost us automatic qualification games ago when he stubbornly persisted with his 3 at the back rubbish in games where we had a lead away. I personally don't like the formation for Australia ... but it just seems that we don't have the defenders at the moment to defend a lead (or at least I would argue that Ange is NOT selecting the appropriate defenders for the NT). We look like conceding nearly every time a team attacks us ... this is definitely an area he needs to solidify for Syria. Sainsbury needs game time, as he is by far our best CB, but he really needs to be playing regularly. Wright is OK in 4 at the back as a CB, but is lost in the three at the back formation. Degenek had one of his better games last night. But again he doesn't look comfortable in a 3 at the back. I'd be tempted to almost pick an actual LB or RB to fill out the roles in Australia's back 3 besides Sainsbury (assuming Ange will continue with that formation). Milligan has to be the screen for Australia. Not always pretty but does the job (and with only three at the back a lot better than Jedinak as cover).
|
|
|
|
|
New Signing
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Make no mistake it isn't this game that has cost us our automatic world cup qualification, there were games before this where we gave up points we should have secured.
However looking at this game, we knew very well thailand would sit deep and attempt to hit us on the counter, we knew they had one excellent player in their squad who would have to be involved in any threat they may have posed against us. Ange could have still played his way if he had just conceded the need to take this particular player out of the game. Have milligan effectively man mark him and the thai threat is almost removed entirely.
Ange's insistance of playing leckie and gersbach so high all the time meant that we were crowding the final third and playing straight into the hands of the thai tactics. We effectively crowded rogic out ourselves with the thais having little to do other than shut down the passing lanes and force us to strike from distance.
Continuing to use wingbacks with 'big engines' and speed against a defensive team like this is pointless as well. By sitting deep the thais didnt leave space in behind for these guys to exploit. The few times we did get behind in the limited space instead of crossing the ball and using the aerial strength of cahill and Juric we instead insisted on coming back and recycling the ball. Not that im his biggest fan, but in a game like this we would be better off using kruse wide in place of leckie. At least he has the technical ability to go past his man inside or out as opposed to leckie running down blind alleys or into his man all the time.
The finishing last night was horrendous at best from our guys and thats realistically on them.
Ange can never justify the selection of smith over gersbach and behich again. Both of those players are better and offer more than smith in all facets of the game.
The reason we have played well against the likes of chile is because they come at us leaving space in behind for us to exploit using the speed of leckie et al. In asia we're not going to have that consistently.
TL;DR
We're too predictable and at times the squad selections are laughable
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xwe actually only just beat Thailand. That is crazy. barely beat a team ranked 130, below St. Kitts and Nevis, Ethiopia With 40 odd shots on goal and nothing really to show for it would tell yu it's the cattle that's the problem not necessarily the coach. The tactics used lastnight were fine. It was for the other two games that we setup badly. Ange was not at fault last night. The attacking cattle were because they did not have their shooting boots on. Their attacking interplay and movement off the ball was excellent though. I think a bit of luck was astray too ... let's face it not very often does a team hit the post three times and have two or three last minute tackles / off the lines to stop a certain goal. As an international coach you plan to create chances, as you hope the individuals have the skills to finish (as an international coach can't teach them to a player in the week or so he has them before a game). I think too many rushed their shot ... the pressure got to them??? This is where Ange probably had to tell them to settle, take their time and make sure of their shots. The goals would come, if they had composed themselves on the shot a bit more. Ange set the team up to attack and create chances, which they did. It was down to some luck and individuals that they didn't score more. In regards to the lack of crosses in the first half, again that they started to do it more in the second half suggests that Ange had instructed them to do this in the first place but the team hadn't followed through with it in the first half. The only thing that Ange really got wrong last night was the subs. Again not necessarily his fault ... as they were probably the right choices, but all three had little to no effect on the game. Kruse's first touch almost resulted in a goal, but he didn't look likely for the rest of the game. Troisi's passing was wayward and Maclaren was invisible. Where was Mabil??? Leckie and Gersbach running at the Thai wing backs caused troubles all night, not sure why you wouldn't have introduced someone like Mabil to run at them when they were obviously tired late in the second half. Forget last night. There was some weird voodoo force field shit around the goal. Ange lost us automatic qualification games ago when he stubbornly persisted with his 3 at the back rubbish in games where we had a lead away. At Iraq away in the stands you could see the back 3 was a disaster and the amount of space and danger it was presenting. We literally said 'They will be in in the next 5 minutes' and then right before the long ball you could see the stars align for them. He had ample warning to prevent that goal. He did not want to do anything about it in that match because he always think he's right and the world is against his misunderstood genius.
|
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
I don't see how Smith can be selected again for the Socceroos until he gets game time and shows his value. At the moment Gersbach, Behich, Goodwin, Dougall, Meredith all should surely be ahead of him on the pecking order for that LW role.
|
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xwe actually only just beat Thailand. That is crazy. barely beat a team ranked 130, below St. Kitts and Nevis, Ethiopia With 40 odd shots on goal and nothing really to show for it would tell yu it's the cattle that's the problem not necessarily the coach. The tactics used lastnight were fine. It was for the other two games that we setup badly. Ange was not at fault last night. The attacking cattle were because they did not have their shooting boots on. Their attacking interplay and movement off the ball was excellent though. I think a bit of luck was astray too ... let's face it not very often does a team hit the post three times and have two or three last minute tackles / off the lines to stop a certain goal. As an international coach you plan to create chances, as you hope the individuals have the skills to finish (as an international coach can't teach them to a player in the week or so he has them before a game). I think too many rushed their shot ... the pressure got to them??? This is where Ange probably had to tell them to settle, take their time and make sure of their shots. The goals would come, if they had composed themselves on the shot a bit more. Ange set the team up to attack and create chances, which they did. It was down to some luck and individuals that they didn't score more. In regards to the lack of crosses in the first half, again that they started to do it more in the second half suggests that Ange had instructed them to do this in the first place but the team hadn't followed through with it in the first half. The only thing that Ange really got wrong last night was the subs. Again not necessarily his fault ... as they were probably the right choices, but all three had little to no effect on the game. Kruse's first touch almost resulted in a goal, but he didn't look likely for the rest of the game. Troisi's passing was wayward and Maclaren was invisible. Where was Mabil??? Leckie and Gersbach running at the Thai wing backs caused troubles all night, not sure why you wouldn't have introduced someone like Mabil to run at them when they were obviously tired late in the second half. Forget last night. There was some weird voodoo force field shit around the goal. Ange lost us automatic qualification games ago when he stubbornly persisted with his 3 at the back rubbish in games where we had a lead away. At Iraq away in the stands you could see the back 3 was a disaster and the amount of space and danger it was presenting. We literally said 'They will be in in the next 5 minutes' and then right before the long ball you could see the stars align for them. He had ample warning to prevent that goal. He did not want to do anything about it in that match because he always think he's right and the world is against his misunderstood genius. That Iraqi game was probably one of the most disappointing results ... it was the wrong time to introduce a new system that the players were obviously very uncomfortable with.
|
|
|
|