Despite what many have said, I think your analysis above is completely accurate.  Also, your assessment of Ryan, its clear he is good with his feet and as a sweeper but inferior as a shot stopper to Schwarzer.  To be fair to Ange while Milligan has been basically our best player through the qualification, Jedi was the "name" player at the start of qualification.  Milligan consistently overshadowed him though and has only recently become an automatic starter, with Jedi lacking game time and with injury.  There are plenty of Milligan haters here too, presumably because he is older than 25 and not playing for MV anymore.

Its also clear that Ange wont change from his formation for the games against Syria.  Therefore he has to go.  Its that simple.  As you have noted Ange is a good tournament coach but inflexible as a qualification coach.  We must not play a 3 4 3  away against Syria and Ange will.  He has to go.  Also, he has to pay for mistakes 1., 2. and 3. above.  There will be good coaches available now that qualifying is coming to a close.  We need to act now! 

Eddie thompson is the only coach who has lost more games...dead even with Frank Farina at the moment who coached for 13 more matches - Ange will shit that in (if he isn't sacked). If Ange loses 5 out of the next 10 matches he will be up there with Eddie...get 6 loses and he has the new record

This. I've skipped most of this thread, so someone may have already said this, but after watching the end of Ange's presser, he was more sticking up for his players than chucking a tanty. Say what you will about his tactics at times, but he certainly gets his players to drink the kool-aid; he'll definitely use the aftermath to this game to fire up the team.

#Gombau in LOL

Couple of points:
1. Defence
- Sainsbury, Spira & Gersbach can stay but the other defenders can exit stage left ..they are terrible.
- Wright, Degenek & McGowan are all very very average defenders and way too slow for defending pacy wingers that you always come across in Asia. You might be able to protect them in a back 4 with 1 or 2 DMs in front providing additional cover. But with a high press and a back 3, they are inept / unable to close space and defend 1 v 1. Either change the system or change these 3 defenders. I would do both.
- Geria needs to come purely on the basis that he can play right side of a back 3 and also RB, he has the pace to go with nippy attackers and his leg-speed allows him to recover and get goal side, something the other three are found wanting time and again. Get him fit and get him ready to play. He hasn't set the world on fire last season but, for mine, its more a lack of confidence and stretch with this kid. He is exactly the type that Ange needs and no worse than those 3 guys.

2. Tim Cahill
- Timmy should have either started the game up-front to get us an early goal last night - then hoping for the defensive Thai dam to break - with his physical presence and ability to jump & head; or he should have come on in the last 30 mins - if we were struggling to put goals on the board. His use as a midfield option was a total waste and v Japan, he was always a better option (one-out striker) than Kruse. Thought he has been used poorly in the last 2 games (considering he doesn't have the match conditioning to run out more than 45 mins.

3. Possession (for possession sake) v Direct attack 
- thought we over-possessed the ball last night giving the Thai's ample opportunity to set and reset their defensive block.
- everything was played in front of their defensive formation instead of stretching them over the top.
- last night for mine, was the perfect opportunity to go more direct with a physical presence up front (either Timmy or both Timmy & Juric). We needed some chaos balls into the box and/or better delivery, unfortunately, we got neither.
- we tried to walk the ball into the net and were also playing half-shackled ..too many attempts where we looked tight. Early goal would have been ideal to settle nerves but it didn't come.
- instruction from coach for mine was "too cool for school" and we didn't vary our attacks at all.

4. Team balance ( v Thailand) 
- we needed pace through the middle and cutting edge to go past a player as opposed to playing slow sideways balls, which didn't really stretch the defence.
- Kruse or Troisi had to start instead of Cahill.
- why did Gersbach come off ..should have been Wright or Degenek to depart, with Gersbach able to use his speed to recover & shut down counter attacks whilst still able to whip in attacking crosses when we surged forward.
 
5. Team balance ( v Japan)
- most of key points already raised ..can't be bothered writing any more ... 

It is salvageable from here but we need some tweaks to both the squad and formation. Recognition that the current set of defenders is not up to playing back 3, defending large spaces or 1v1s, is where Ange needs to start. 

Agree with this , good post !!!

To be fair ....as frustrating as last night was I don't really blame Ange for it.
We had three shots hit the post.... an inch or two either way and they go in  .
Had Leckie's early one gone in it could have started a walkover.
It would have knocked the stuffing out of the Thai's early .
Instead they gained confidence and we lost it as the game progressed.
It 's a funny game .

We simply do not have players with a sharp ,battle hardened striking ability.
Juric for example  is a mediocre striker in mediocre league..and he is our main man !
There are no Vidukas, Kewells , Breciano's playing week in week out in top leagues and scoring.
To be honest if Viduka was playing for the current Socceroos I think he would have scored a hatfull for the Socceroos by now as we play a much more attacking style instead of the 1 up front defensive shit he endured under most Socceroos coaches.

It almost seems as if fate has decided something  for us with the Thai result and the Saudi win .
Maybe it is saying we need more desperation and more games to battle harden us ...or maybe it is setting us up for a complete change of coaching and philosphy ? ......who knows what may come out of this failure .
Interesting few months ahead .

Then: you need to be more critical
Now: I dont acknowledge their criticism

Then:: I'm the national coach, all I'm looking at is what's been produced on a weekly basis," he said. I'm not there to sort out their club careers or club situations. That's up to their coaches and themselves.

Now: Postecoglou acknowledged some players in the squad were lucky to be included, conceding club-less Kruse falls in that category.. “Robbie is in that boat now. He gets a little bit of an opportunity to put himself in the shop window.

He was one half of the pairing that won the Asian Cup two years ago, and entrusted as the main man in Postecoglou’s rebooted three-man defence. In Russia, Sainsbury was Australia’s most consistent performer. But he hasn’t played for his club since being substituted in the 1-1 draw with Chile with a hamstring problem.

Speaking after that match, Postecoglou said he asked Sainsbury to attempt the superhuman.

“It was unfair to be honest what we did to him,” he said.

“He played 20 minutes of football this year and it’s not right that he should be out there chasing world class players around.

“I wanted to keep him out there and hopefully some people take notice and he gets the right kind of move in his career.”

FFA CEO David Gallop confirms Ange Postecoglou will be in charge of Socceroos for play-offs

SOCCEROOS

• September 6, 2017 8:10am
• DAVID WEINER@davidweiner9
• Source: FOX SPORTS

#illstandbyyou

Not sure there was much bad luck, Juric's shot getting blocked was a bit of bad luck, but there certainly was some bad finishing. The main problems was there was not quick enough ball movement for players to get shots at the goals without lots of Thai players between them and the goals.

March 2016, 5-0 over Jordan. Kruse had three first half assists and was brilliant.

Gallop, Lowy and Postenoclue. All equally incompetent.  Bring the FIFA and clean out. 

Geria come on struggles  in A league gets caught out left right and center.Craig Goodwin is the one that should be in the team for some reason cant get a look in. Troisi sorry been very poor last 2 games.

Ange, #Illridewithyou

Ange wants to help change the culture of Australian football from long ball to a possession based (possession which is not just for the sake of possession) game. I've been involved in the C and B licence courses and the whole idea is that if we implement this style of football throughout Australia, we'll eventually have players who are technically and tactically good enough to play football under pressure without having to send it up the field every time an opponent gets near them.

It's obvious that the formation isn't helping our situation BUT at the end of the day, do we have the players to do much? Mooy is the only player that has really grown in the last year or two. Luongo is still in the lower leagues of England, Ryan can't find a club where he'll regularly start, half our guys are struggling to play for clubs in below average leagues in Europe and Asia. What do people expect from Ange?

We expect to play a kind of football the players will excel at. Not force them to play a way that have trouble playing. 

Identify how Mooy excels and replicate that. Identify how Juric scores and replicate that. And so on. Have eg Rogic, Leckie and Gersbach play to help Mooy and Jurics games.

Use Tommy more as a target player and fark the ball up field every now and then. Leckie is fast, look for him to gain from Jurics work. 

World Cup: Postecoglou needs to reassess plan for Socceroos

• The Australian
• 12:00AM September 7, 2017
• Save
• • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on email
  • Share more...

• RAY GATT

  

  Sports reporter

  Sydney

  @Gatty54

  

Emboldened by a fierce belief in his footballing philosophy and ability to get the best out of his players, the Socceroos boss has continually defied convention and stared down the doubters and ­critics at both club and international level.

The bumps and bruises along the way have been shrugged off as temporary setbacks, nothing to worry about.

But the time has come for ­Postecoglou to take a deep breath, swallow his pride and reassess just where he is going with the national team as they face up to what will be a torrid, nerve-racking series of playoffs in the quest to qualify for the World Cup in Russia next year.

First, there is a home-and-away series against Syria on October 5 and 10, and if they negotiate that, the fourth-placed side from ­Concacaf (one of either the USA, Panama or Honduras) awaits in another home-and-away playoff.

It’s not exactly the scenario Postecoglou or Australian fans would have envisaged after the Socceroos were cruising, having won two and drawn three of their opening five games in the group. An automatic spot in Russia was certainly well within their grasp. In fact, it was expected.

But Postecoglou then opted for a new playing formation, shifting from a back four defensive line to a back three. It was a decision that raised several eyebrows.

Why now? critics asked. Why halfway through the final qualifying stage? Were the Socceroos travelling that badly that he ­needed to drastically change the formation with very little preparation?

As much as Postecoglou ­reasoned he needed to change so that the team was better equipped to play on the bigger stage of the World Cup, it was a bizarre switch to say the least.

Try as they might, the players have simply failed to adapt to the new system, even if they managed to pull 10 points from their past five matches. They have played maybe three decent halves of football out of 10 in the five games since it was adopted. And don’t let the lopsided ­nature of Tuesday night’s win against an outclassed Thailand blur the lines.

I get what Postecoglou is trying to do, and good on him. He was brave as a player and he is brave and enlightening as a coach.

But we must be brutally frank here: his insistence on sticking with the new system at all costs makes him guilty of putting the cart before the horse. It smacks of arrogance and egoism.

What is the use of having a ­system you believe will help the national team compete with some of the best nations in the world if you can’t qualify in the first place?

And make no mistake, missing out is a serious possibility that presents an almost unthinkable situation for the game in this country.

Australia stands to earn $15 million for making it to Russia, money cashed strapped Football Federation Australia could well do with. Without it, there are too many offshoots of FFA that will be badly affected, not to mention the image of the sport.

Which is why Postecoglou must tread carefully. This is not just about him, it’s about the health of the game.

I don’t believe he should be sacked like some pundits are ­suggesting but he certainly has plenty of pressure on his ­shoulders.

He must handle that pressure much better than he has shown in several media interviews of late — notably the one with Fox Sports after the loss to Japan last week, and the media conference on ­Tuesday night when he produced an extraordinary outburst to a legitimate question that had no malice at all.

So what does Postecoglou do?

For a start, dump the formation, at least for the next four games. These playoffs are no time for pretty football. You have to get your hands dirty. Fight like there is no tomorrow because a World Cup spot is on the line.

So what if we play ugly, uninspiring football? We played some great football against Thailand and were unlucky not to get a ­bagful of goals, but it did not get us the result we craved.

I think most Australian fans would be happy to get two away draws and two ugly 1-0 wins at home and get to Russia by any means we can.

Postecoglou is also going to have to look closely at the line-ups he selects.

Early in his tenure he was quick to suggest he wanted players playing regular club football, match hardened players who are in form. He has seemingly abandoned that.

OK, Trent Sainsbury has been outstanding on the back of a minute amount of football but he is the exception rather than the rule. We need fit, strong players who are appearing regularly for their club sides.

Postecoglou must also find his best XI. Does he know what it is?

Against the Thais he made six changes to the line-up that lost to Japan. Fair enough, Tomi Juric and Aaron Mooy had to come back into the side. But what sort of message are you sending if you are forced to change more than half the line-up?

Judging from the way he spoke at his press conference yesterday, Postecoglou is not about to steer away from his philosophies. He is determined to continue down the same road.

For the sake of the Socceroos and the health of the game here, let’s hope it is not the pathway to destruction and that we will be able to cry out “in Ange we trust” come World Cup time in Russia next year.

World Cup: Postecoglou needs to reassess plan for Socceroos


It does seem he would rather watch it burn than change.

^^^^^

Thats a decent article by Gatt

problem is holding possession has become a key part of our defence

it is difficult to change the team so quickly so that it specializes in bpo

If we had 3 or 4 friendlies before october we could do it....

Agree with first paragraph, Football Lover.

The second though is that Ange needs to have a few different  plans and formations, rather than sticking to one for a few games in a row. His mantra of his  Plan B is  to play Plan A better is flawed. It is not adapting to the opposition tactics. 

You and I haven't coached professional players, but below that level they constantly make mistakes in most cases.

 Also, players vary greatly from individual to individual in terms of game sense. One needs to work a lot harder with some than others. Some intelligent players off the pitch, don't transfer their brains to the sports field.

To coach a midfield to rotate from an attacking and defensive midfield triangle takes some work. I'd surmise you've never done it at this point in time in your coaching career to date.

These are good points.

Gatt makes a few.

Game sense is one of the reasons you select certain players for certain situations.

You're getting your back up because ive brought your knowledge of coaching at a decent level into question. You can surmise all you like but the fact of the matter is you have no knowledge of me as a coach or what i have done or achieved as a player or coach other than what ive told you myself.

Again i put it to you that you dont need to constantly instruct players. Once you are coaching at a decent level you need to take a step back. At the end of the day if the players arent doing what you want them to do its either you've selected the wrong players or your pre game instructions weren't clear enough. The other alternative is that your players dont trust you and aren't buying into your vision.

TD's are a protected species and its a cushy job for those who cant/wont put themselves on the sideline and take the pressure that comes with it. You know that

I haven't read all of that but are you saying new signing that you expect players mid-game to switch from an attacking to a defensive triangle or vice versa without the coaches input?

In my experience that could never happen. I think if we decided to throw out the coaches plan and do that in my team we would quickly find ourselves in U20s. It's not "game sense", its changing the entire team. The entire team. And have unforeseen consequences. The coach spends a lot of time not just getting the team right, but getting the team right for the opposition you're facing. He picks an offensive or defensive triangle for a reason. It's not up to the players to change the system, that's just anarchy. If its not working its up to the coach to change it.

Obviously I'm not saying the positions aren't to a degree fluid. I mean a DMC in a defensive triangle will often be further or lower than the other one depending on the game situation, the players strengths and the opposition midfielders, and same with 2 attacking mids in a attacking triangle. But the roles stay the same, no chance in hell you're flipping an attacking to defensive triangle. 


Also just to add, you seem to be saying that playing at a higher level you get LESS instruction from coaches. Which is absolutely not true. The more professional the team you play for the more structured it is (or at least should be), the more organised it is and the more tightly the players have to follow the instructions of the coach. 

I'm not getting my back up as I don't see other coaches as rivals. The more of us pursuing coach education  and coaching the better IMO. Many others see other coaches as rivals. I don't.

When it comes to  coaching players at decent levels, I've had some input into NPL senior players of both genders, but I haven't coached them as a specific job with a particular team as a long term assignment over a season.

There are two different schools of  thought, within the Dutch/Ajax/Barca methodology. They are exemplified in the Cruyff school or the Van Gaal school. Both have their merits. Van Gaal has been  a more successful coach, but few can emulate his style.

Your philosophy is closer to Cruyff's.

As I surmised you haven't coached a rotating midfield triangle - yet.

It is possible that you've coached  players with better game sense than me.

As you know I wish you every success in your coaching. You've helped me out big time with some sensible ideas in liaising with other club coaches as a rep coach. 

Those are good points, I can vouch for you there, As a coach myself (coached in Azerbaijan, Moldova, among others and am now a GK coach in the Eerste divisie) 

There's only so much you can instruct a player, however, I will let you know from experience, that whole "players aren't buying into your vision or your pre game instructions weren't clear" argument isnt working for me, sit down and watch any top level coach, they are always on the sideline making adjustments, telling g players where to be, who to pass it to, who to mark, players aren't robots, they're human, particularly when fatigued. 

You never see a top coach taking a "step back".

If you think a TD is a cushy job, I'd hate to see you in Europe.

Thats not what im saying at all. What i am saying is once the game begins the formation becomes more fluid. You do have your standard structure and formation that you set out prior to the game however rarely if ever does it look just like you have it written down on paper. The formation you set out is the starting point. The players will/should aim to maintain the shape but as i say the shape/formation is fluid through transition.

Instruction given at higher levels is more strategic than constant readjustment and situational where the players are being constantly coached from the sideline. You watch some traditional coaches yell and scream and carry on, on the sideline compared to coaches/managers who are far calmer on the sideline giving far more poignant instruction. That is what i mean by taking a step back. Coaches i have seen and played under seem to be commentating the game as a fan more so than providing direction to their players.