Italy lost to Sweden, Germany and Netherlands failed to qualify above them. What does that say about those teams how they failed against the awful plodders, who by the way actually do play good technical football too. Switzerland in recent years have become a very good team, constantly making the knockouts and always put up a good fight. They nearly took down Argentina in 2014, defeated Spain in 2010 among plenty other good results.

It is also hilarious how you are calling their performance against Brazil as lucky while lauding our performance against France when we showed even less intent. You are a hypocrite who has no information about any of these teams you keep talking about apart from 3rd hand information from a seminar you heard ages ago. You even mention yourself you don't watch the games, you clearly don't know any of the players or how these sides actually set up, yet you keep acting like you do.

You also mentioned how Russia just play sit deep and hoof the ball, you'd also have realised if you watched their match against Croatia or any match apart from against Spain that they actually took the game on and played some very nice football. 

Ta.

Rale Rasic waxes lyrical about Oscar Crino and Jim Patikas.

I saw them play Socceroo games, but often against some pretty weak opposition. I don't think they were anywhere near the calibre of  Arzani and Rogic as ball carrying and dribbling technicians though. Pertinently, we didn't ever see them play in tournament football against high calibre opposition.


Two players not alluded to were Paul Trimboli,  and, a player I didn't see, called Troy Halpin.  Many who know a bit about the game raved about the latter. Trimmers was a decent player, whose name doesn't get mentioned much.

I always thought that was what the word 'deconstruct' meant. It's only logical. But upon learning (albeit to a very limited extent) what deconstruction actually is,  I basically try to avoid saying it altogether.

Given that the word appears to fly around on this forum a lot, I thought this as good a moment as any to point out that the word, strictly speaking, has an entirely different meaning to what you'd think it means.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/

In this WC  the Swiss drew with Costa Rica - a very poor result,   using Eurosnobs' criteria that any North American team is inherently inferior to any European team.

They had a lucky, back to the wall, defend deep, partial press, draw against Brazil, where they were easily the worst team on the day - and any other. It was a game exemplifying a typical European plodder playing  Reactive football against a veritable, technically brilliant powerhouse playing Proactive football.

Some days they will nick a result - and they did.

Beating Serbia 2-1 is a good result. Serbia play some decent football and have a decent football education system.

Losing to  Sweden, a veritable European plodder, is a shocking result. I didn't see the game to view the balance of play.

Interesting.

I first viewed the term here when Benjamin challenged a few trolls to deconstruct a poster's post, and not attack him personally.

There is a distinct difference between leagues that improve our players' skill sets for international football, and, those who don't.



One of the inherent  strengths of the FFA coaching methodology and NC, is that coaches all over the country are trained in the same way.

All of us who've undertaken semi-pro/pro coaching  courses under  FFA jurisdiction  have to have undertaken the following:

* Have  to prepare match analyses by one's self of  senior World Cup Games, EPL Games, La Liga Games - all with specific game problems pertinent to  teams. Then write the solution to the match problem up, culminating with carrying out the solutions  on the training track with real players and be appraised on one's coaching points to improve the problems identified .

* Have to prepare football solutions identified in live  games (  Young Matildas v Japan) from a defensive, or /and midfield, or /and attacking,  perspective as a group session for peer coaches to evaluate. 

* Have question and  answer sessions with HAL senior coaches and the whole coaching staff of clubs. If coaches don't ask questions, the FFA staff coaches fire specific questions at some diffident  coaches to keep them on their toes.

* Constantly undertake  monthly sessions for specific issues, such as Shielding The Ball.

* Have to perform some of these things at club or rep level for a  year or so, before undertaking the next course.

* One is encouraged to  formally attend sessions with NTC and national team coaches take sessions on the training track.

* If one undertakes rep coaching with state FFA teams at state FFA HQ, one  is constantly  scrutinised by NTC coaches of both genders, the state FFA TD, the state rep coaches,  state coach SAP,  plus NPL head coaches about to train their teams on  the same pitch after each session. All  state FFA coaches proffer opinions, all different, on things to improve sessions.  Pressure!


This is uniform across Australia.

All the other roaches who've undertaken FFA Advanced Education on 442 have done similar.

Ww are not isolated in remote areas of Australia  anymore. There is the same training ground practice occurring in Sydney,  Cairns, Darwin, Perth, Hobart and Bendigo.

In Rale's day, and Ron Smith's day, everybody could do what they liked. It was all different too. There was no uniform quality control.

That's often the intended meaning when people use the term. But I'd advise against using the term with that meaning given that deconstruction is entirely different and there's a hell of a lot of scholarship associated with Derrida's work.

Iirc, at uni the lecturers/tutors asked us not to say 'deconstruct' when we mean critically analyse the components of an idea/phenomenon.

Well said.

Rogic has this quality too.

Fair comment.

I would have thought  it  is used in the context of 'refuting' an argument, step by step.

Swedish first division (Allsvenskan), yes. Not sure any of the Frenchies played quite at Ligue 1 level, though.

I'll add.  A bunch of those who hadn't played Allvenskan or Suprettan were still technically very good footballers and plenty competent in terms of positioning, controlling tempo, etc.

Basically, you've listed a heap of criteria. A bunch of those guys were very, very good there. As good as some of the best I've encountered in this country, for example.

Also, pet bugbear of mine. When people say the word 'deconstruct', I think they mean 'unpack' an idea (or analytically break it down). Strictly speaking, 'deconstruct' does not mean that.

Deconstruct refers to Jacques Derrida's theory of deconstruction. That's something rather different.

In the French and Swedish First Divisions?

The current problem with the FFA NC, is there is no designated, senior FFA TD.

It is his/her job to head a committee or working group to review it. In 2010 it was based  a lot  on Spanish practices. Trends in football continue to evolve.

Gallop and Lowy are consigning us to losing ground by failing to appoint a FFA TD.

A bunch of those whom I'm discussing played football at a professional level.

I'm pretty sure you aren't discussing professional football, QF.

As a corollary, Rogic has improved with Celtic. This was particularly exemplified in his impressive  WC games against Denmark and Peru.

Unfortunately, he came up against the superb  Kante against France. I think Kante was the best opposition player the Socceroos  encountered  in Russia.

And, as usual you cannot refute, or deconstruct the positions I've advanced, because they are based on fundamentally sound football premises.

It is the truth.

32 years of senior WC failure is  why a European powerhouse based NC was developed by FFA.

The tenets used for the NC were predicated on the national team weaknesses identified by FIFA Tech Depts at underage WCs and unsuccessful senior  WCQ campaigns.

Dukes couldn't do it in international football, could he?

11 goals in 44 games, with a 25 % conversion rate from games played is underwhelming.

Some of these 44 caps may have included Oceanian opposition too.

Even though FIFA rankings are dodgy, you've made a compelling point, Paul C.

What this amounts to in Australia is an inverse snobbery. There is an adulation by many - Eurosnobs - of any m national milieu in any country in Europe being decidedly superior to  everything outside - barring South America.

When objective football performance analysis criteria is applied, it shows that most European teams are plodders, and robots, who just make up the numbers in Euro Champs and World Cups.

Outside the teams representing big five European leagues, plus Portugal, Belgium and Croatia, the rest have no realistic chance of  winning any tournament. Credit to Greece for wining the Euro sin 2004, but it was fluke.

All these plodders are  characterised by, at their best or in their  Golden Generations,  tight, organised cohesive defences. Essentially, they play direct football, hoofing many long, high, straight balls up into the mixer, and rely on players much bigger on average than those in the  general population. I've seen them in WCQs, Euro Qualifiers, European Champs and World Cups.

Thankfully, FFA Tech Department has ignored all their national federations' football methodology.

The powerhouses in Europe are characterised  by:

* They can play out from the back under squeezing and pressing  pressure.

* They can build up steadily through the midfield.

* They can play slick football ( rapidfire passing) in tight triangles and diamonds, with players individually having fast handling speed.

* A greater percentage of their players use :

-the outside of the foot for passing, as well as the shoelace,

-players are pretty two footed and comfortable on both sides of the body,

- feature a number of players who are fast ball carriers,

- feature a number of players who use the outside of  both feet to beat players 1v1,

- feature a number of  players with fast handling speed.

*The powerhouses also reflect the average height of the general population, as they primarily rely on technique for success. Not have a football team that is much taller than the average height of the general population, because they see their advantage in contesting high balls and second balls, and, muscle on muscle contests, to compensate for their lack of technique on the ball. 



The fact that Russia and Sweden were knocked out in the quarters  is no coincidence. Their lack of technical quality, compared to the  powerhouses, eventually and inevitably caught up with them. They can only ever play a Reactive game against the powerhouses, because they don't have the technical quality to play Proactive  circulation football against them.  

They cannot dictate terms or/and have the majority of possession and territory. They can only 'nick' the odd result against powerhouses, by playing on the counter.

Few, if any, of the other teams outside the big Euro five leagues' international teams, plus the current Croatia, Portugal and Belgium, have any chance of winning big tournaments.

Yet blindly, and perplexingly, many in Australia think the European plodders and automatons  are better than the better African, Asian and North  American teams. They aren't.

You realise that was when Bresciano was playing at his peak, right?

20 Arnies maybe

As opposed to the masses of videos of BVM coaching us? Oh wait a minute he was manager for 1 minute.

And Brazil swept us aside? We frustrated them, missed an open goal and had to face an utterly embarrassing refereeing display. You literally make shit up

Dukes held the ball up well and was a useful part of a whole team game plan to create chances, even if few fell to him.

Nevertheless, Dukes only scored 11 goals from 44 games played.

25% scoring rate from games played for a central striker is abysmal  in international footballer.

True.

I've interviewed him. He has a good football mind, but is very annoyed his opinion isn't more sought after in the Oz contemporary football scene.

Both are fair points.

Milligan would have been a useful acquisition too.

In 2006, there were barely any videos of the Socceroos' performances using Guus's match plans for opposition coaches  to study to formulate a game plan against us. The Socceroos were an unknown quantity.

In 2018, Australia was more competitive in each of the three group games they played. In 2006 Brazil swept Australia aside - unlike any team in 2018.

The only advantage the 2006 GG had over the  squad in Russia was finishing ability across the entire team.