It wasn't even like we were scoring goals either once Cahill went over the hill, shit defensively and also struggled majorly to score from open play. At least BVM has set up a solid base for Arnold to carry on with.

My point isn't about how good Ange was, but that BvM really did nothing tangible for us. There was no improvement. You're all misremembering the Ange years, which were nowhere near as bad or as disorganised as you people now claim. Seems that everyone conveniently forgot the Confed Cup. I saw absolutely no indication that we'd get humiliated at the WC under any coach, so I refuse to suck Bert's cock solely because we were competitive. It's a nonsense that he gets this much praise. Weirdos. 

Yeah I was a huge fan of struggling to beat Thailand and Syria. Theyve obviously in the same class as France, Denmark or Peru

I stand this idea that we didn't improve under BvM, and the blatant lies the likes of Fozzie perpetuated that we were playing negative football. I was really impressed with the way we played, we showed plenty of attacking intent against the Danes and Peru and it wasn't BvMs fault that our players could hit a barn door from 2 yards out.

The 2-2 draw against Thailand was where I realised Anges problems.
They deserved to win and we were lucky.
He refused to adjust his game plan to respond to the conditions.
Instead of complaining about humidity, terrible pitches, opposition tactics etc, a great manager recognises the reality of the situation he's in and adjusts accordingly, even within matches.
Yes, I get that in general Ange wants Australia to play a certain way, which is high pressure and attacking, but sometimes you have to defend and soak up pressure. There is more than one way to play football, and as we see with teams like Italy in the past, Portugal at the Euros and France at the last World Cup, strong defence and good counter attacking can win tournaments.

France struggled against Luxembourg. Drew 0-0 at home. Are we to conclude from that that France is hopeless?

Yeah, you just keep standing that idea, bro. 

Don't piss me off and turn me against Arnie now, you hear? Your anti-Fozz agenda needs to stop. It's very obvious to any thinking person that he is by far Australia's most intelligent and best analyst. He was also 100% right about BvM. 

No improvement under BVM? Dude he had 2 camps to work with the group... I can appreciate you have the best intentions for Aus football at heart, but some of your expectations are wildly unrealistic.

Yeah, I'm being too tough on Bert. He objectively didn't have enough time and I'm not saying he disgraced himself in any way.  I just can't help but get annoyed when I see everyone gushing about his tenure as though we'd won a game or scored a goal in open play under him. We got 1 point and finished last, so I'm still wondering what exactly he did for us that was so praiseworthy.

I like Arnie however unless we get some quality strikers in all of the deckchair shuffling isn't going to help that much.  

We should nationalise Bobo.   :D 

We are to conclude that Luxembourg are no muppets or even a 3rd world country like Syria.. 

People aren't gushing about him outside of Decentric. We just recognise that he definitely had us more competitive than what he took over in which while we got 1 point we actually played quite well. If we had someone to finish the chances like Cahill did in 2014 we'd have gotten out of the group.

It wasn't like we just parked the bus and hanged on for dear life, we actually took the game on and created some decent chances but our forwards are hopeless. Really no coincidence in my eyes that we turned to shit under Ange once Cahill went over the hill and Kruse never returned to his former form.

When did we turn to shit? I don't see why everyone thinks it was Bert who made us competitive. We were never uncompetitive in this world cup cycle. We played very well at the Confed Cup less than a year before the wc. Even scored from open play a couple of times. We struggled to qualify, but it wasn't as catastrophic as has been portrayed on here. Asian qualifying is tough, so 19 points and just one loss to Japan really isn't too bad at all. It was just a freak occurrence that Thailand played the game of their lives against us and that SA kept winning. We should have comfortably qualified directly with 19 points. It's true that we weren't playing all that well, but we usually did what we had to. It's just that damn Thailand game over there that screwed us. 

So I guess I always had faith that we could do something and was left disappointed. I wish we could have got a slightly less conservative coach who could think outside the box. BvM seemed just as dogmatic and stubborn as Ange, only in a more old fashioned and boring way. 

Derider confirmed as Fozzies FTBL account.

passing and defensive cohesion was noticeably sharper under bert, for the most part.

both ange and bert struggled with goals. we don't have a passable #9. we don't have decent service for out #9's. our last ball/front third options have generally been piss poor - put that on the wings and attacking mids.

I dont think many countries care about the confed.. as Germany sent a second team and still won.. but couldn't get out of the groups at the WC.. so how can you compare any results from that tournament? LOL

I don't think its fair to say countries don't care about the Confed. It's still a major tournament and we performed admirably under Ange. 

There were signs of decline though and the fact that we needed to get into the World Cup via the Intercontinental play-offs was the clear alarm bell.

I see your point maybe the big guys don't quite see it as that important though but can be good lead up tournament.. I just dont know about comparing results there with WC games...

My opinion he played to our strengths better than Ange. Our shape, organisation and lack of retardedness all-in-all looked professional.

That's the general reason why people were in impressed, especially with how we took out our two friendly opponentys quite easily. 

I think he didn't play Luongo or Irvine perhaps because they are poor on the ball and turn the ball over easily/take a touch too many. 

He was looking for control and organisation in midfield, thus Rogic and Mooy, and perhaps Arzani got runs ahead of these guys. 

And when your touch is poor, you probablhy belong in the Championship, or a league like Scotland.

Luongo’s hardly a poor player, and his non selection was my main gripe with BVM. Luongo should’ve replaced Jedinak in midfield once we need to go for it (second half Denmark, whole game Peru.) I genuinely think his extra passing ability could’ve made the difference in those 2 games.

That Germany second team would have thrashed their world cup team 7-1. They were far hungrier and more dangerous than the rabble that played at the wc. 

Everyone takes Confed Cup seriously except the top European nations. Only Germany sent an experimental lineup (and won in a canter). The rest were all at 'full strength'. 

Irvine and Luongo are more similar than you think. Neither stay on the ball or look up with it.

Neither can create something from nothing or have the foresight to create.

Both run around the pitch and get rid of it almost as soon as they get it. Luongo's 1v1 ability is poor, as is (sorry) Irvine's

Irvine's aerial ability and insinct in the box however is quite good. Luongo never really took off after the Asian Cup 2015.

I think many were hoing he'd have a crack/hand at more goals for QPR

I rate Luongo too. Higher than Irvine aside from the goal scoring threat Irvine brinngs. To my eye he’s better at 1:1’s and passing than Irvine.

I’ve defneded BVM, but that’s one thing I strongly agree on. luongo should’ve gone in for Jedinak against Denmark and whole game against Peru when we needed the win.

The Luongo, Mooy, Rogic triangle worked wonders in the friendliest right before the World Cup. That’s the only time goals have been flowing easily for us in years.

Friendlies*
Can’t edit my post cause on mobile and this forum has been abandoned by its owners and devs.

Nobody would have questioned him if he didn't play Risdon because he hadn't shown much prior. Yet BVM had him looking like an absolute gun in that well organised defense. I don't think it's as simple as saying which players should have been in or out, whether that be Luongo or in my example Risdon. He wanted us to play a certain way and he chose the players that would do that.

Highkick im sorry but I couldn’t disagree with you more regarding Luongo. Go back and watch him in the friendlies prior the Cup, bloke was a monster. Much quicker with the ball, quicker movement to open passing lanes, helps to create a fluid midfield and takes pressure off Mooy to hit a killer pass. Only thing he lacks is that extra physicality Jedinak brings.

Circulates the ball well, when a passing lane opens, it looks as if he's pulled the defense out of shape. 

Which is why I SAID, he does not have any other use except a short pass and a scurry back on defense when shit hits the fan. Chamionship confidence

Isnt that his job though. Movement and passing in possession and scurrying back in defense?? Bit like saying the pilot is good at anything except flying the plane

I'm totally lost. The only point I was making is that these guys are poor on the ball, for the sake of remaining organised both in defense and transition. 

Far too wayward. Manoeuvring IN as opposed to OUT of positions. Many coaches would emphasise not going too far this, or that way.

I think even Burt mentioned after a few games, DON'T DROP too far back. etc.

Luongo and Irvine both don't have that instinct of when to press , when to attack, when not too (vulnerable). Tactically inept. etc