Maybe we could ask the Olympic committee if we could change the rules to allow us to bring Soutter on for set pieces , sort of like the punter bloke in the NFL . 

I don't do stats anymore  as I don't have the technology anymore and I can't be bothered, but I thought Deng, Bacchus and O'Neill were good 1v1 ball winners in defence.

O'Neill won plenty of hard ball when he read  the contests, but was often too slow anticipating where he could make a challenge.  Deng and Bacchus read where they could make challenges more often and more effectively.

Ryan made a few decent 1v1 challenges on the ground, but lost  too many heading duels, as did Mourdo, against big opponents. Mourdo improved as the tournament progressed in his 1v1s and Ryan often didn't need to make challenges from  effective defensive   positioning. He lost quite a few stoppage aerial contests  though -  an integral  quality for a CB.

Full backs and Def Mids can often risk 1v1 challenges , as they are  well outside the pen box more often. Conversely, CBs often need to avoid pen box challenges if they can, because of the   ramifications if they mistime one in the box.

Good points made, Charlie.

One issue that concerned me was there wasn't enough muscular ball winning  from a  combination of our Attacking Mid (or number 10), wingers and central striker.

D'Agostino won  some hard balls, and maybe Toure did too, but generally Najjarine, Italiano, Bowman, Piscopo and Buhagiar were too easily beaten in tackling, heading and body on body and shoulder barging contests.


People will laugh when they read this, but Matt Simon's size, strength and physicality created a lot of problems for Asian defences in some underage  games of the past .

Also, the likes of senior attacking Socceroos like  Leckie, Kennedy, Emerton, Garcia, Tomi Juric, Dukes, Brosque, Cahill and Kewell, have thrown a lot of weight around and won many hard balls against defenders in the attacking third in the past. Essentially, our  Olyroo attackers  were outmuscled too much in the attacking third in Thailand.

Before watching the South K game, I had previously claimed that Fleur looked good going forwards.

Against other opponents he looked good going  forwards, but against South K , like many of his team-mates, he really struggled going forwards, or defending.  Fleur  made  some   offensive ball carrying  forward runs late in the game, but it was too late.

Others have speculated Nathaniel Atkinson  was a decisive suspension. I would have thought that Deng is better suited to CB and Atkinson could have played most of the games at RB. It is a definite potential scenario.

Even though Souttar is suspect on the  ground in jockeying, showing and delaying,  a Souttar/Deng CB combo has two CBs with a complimentary skill set. Ryan probably  wasn't  posed as many  difficult  ball contests that Deng encountered, and  won, from difficult positions in terms of unfavourable body shape at RB.

One factor in qualifying that could've been decisive in qualifying, was having a very experienced coach, like Arnie, in charge. 

Ange criticises FFA  in the past for  constantly using inexperienced coaches, to learn their trade, as national underage team coaches. 

Arnie rotated some players, and not others. There are often fine margins in qualifying. Ours was very fine. The Arnie factor may have got us over the line.

As the  tournament progressed, the Aus defence tightened up, collectively. The distancing  between the back four, was often the ideal 10 -15 metres.

Also, even though  the individuals probably  didn't  play as well as we would have hoped, in ball winning,  making intercepts, and distribution, the defensive  midfield screeners improved their shape in terms of distancing within the defensive midfield  line, and, with their distance from  the defensive  line - in Ball Possession Opposition.

In short the collective sum of the defensive  parts, in a collective sense, became better than the individuals comprising the  defence - keeper, back four, and, the two DMs or  midfield screeners.

These are Arnie trademark strengths. However, it fell  apart at times against South K's sustained  pressure.

One stat that has arisen is that there have been claims that the opposition had  more shots on goal. 

I'd surmise many of those shots were well outside  the penalty box. The notable exception would  be  South K, who had many shots in the box after  they totally outclassed us - and probably every other team they played.

Apart from  South Korea , who played  an aggressive  three quarter press with intensive squeezing for large  periods of the game, the other teams sat off in the squeezing and played more languid half presses in the Thai heat and humidity.

Against South K, Aus was pressured for time  and space on the ball - most of the time. How South K were able to sustain it was admirable. They did play a higher defensive line though, which like Aus, made them more vulnerable on the counter attack in our Attacking Transitions. The likes of quality ball carriers , like Arzani and Wales, could have been decisive. Although winger Najjarine disappointed - given what I've seen in his Melb City HAL performances. 

The languid squeezing and accompanying more conservative half and partial pressing from Thailand, Bahrain, Syria and Uzbekistan, resulted in sustained periods in possession in the Aus defensive third and even some of the middle third. 

Also, when some of the opposition teams like Thailand, Syria, Bahrain and  Uzbekistan defended with four at the back, tucking in from the flanks,  Australia was also gifted possession out wide in the attacking  third. This  could have been a possible oppostion game plan, because opposition coaches perceived little aerial threat  from our aerial crosses into the box.

Against all the aforementioned opponents (apart from South K)  the ball circuation  needed to be quicker in possession in the central  attacking third.  The rhythm in Aus's  Ball Possession was often slow. What needed to occur were more rhythm changes, slow, fast, slow, fast, slow with more fast ball circulation in the attacking interplay.

Piscopo was quite good at playing in confined  space in the  central attacking third. However, he  received  little support. The likes of Daniel Da Silva, would have greatly assisted  this rapid ball movement in these  tight  spaces  created by most of the opposition teams,  who defended quite deep with a stacked defence.  I  also surmise that McGree could also have been effective in this condensed time and space scenario in the central attacking third. 

Moreover,  Gersbach's aerial  crossing was often very good, but there weren't many big Aus aeriallists, with a physical presence, like George Blackwood, playing in the central striking role. Regardless of where Verbeek plays him at AU , usually as a midfielder,  Blackwood could have been useful as a target  striker.

In addition, for stoppages, at both ends of the pitch, Harry Souttar would've been potent defensive and attacking weapon. The big Korean striker, plus many opposition CBs, won many easy heading duels against  our CBs, when they played long, high balls  or at stoppages. With Souttar it would've greatly strengthened our offensive and  defensive   aerial power. Having said this, Souttar's ability to jockey, show and delay, looked shaky with the senior Socceroos.  

Glover is the keeper. We can't waste an OA on that and I doubt Ryan would want to or even be permitted to have 2 summer tournaments. Maybe Vukovic if he gets fit as he missed out due to suspension last time.

CB is critical. Souttar gives hope and I'd like Ryan to have the experience. I think we need Degenek, Sainsbury or Wright to boost that position. 

Degenek?

Piscopo has great potential. Ryan i liked a lot but looks like he needs regular football. Degenek was solid without being exciting or dominating like i expected a player of his experience to be. Deng was good, although he had some moment, but i heard he was playing sick for the final match so should cut him some slack. Bouman was out of his depth. Glover was good too.
Need to teach players to learn to play forward in transition. Maybe heavy humid conditions might have made players want to slow things down? People bag out scottish football but if you watched them play khazakstan they were constantly looking to play forward and overlap to pressure opposition into a mistake.
Still have no real dead ball threat. Even many of our corners were high floating hopefuls rather than whipped in between the lines. Central defense looked shaky at times as well and our players still struggle 1v1 in bpo although it was good to see more players trying in bp

Those are the official stats... And are true. They were dominant but yes they obviously (thankfully!) had no end product. 

Forgetting Souttar and Kalik too who were both denied by their clubs. Souttar in particular would have improved the backline a lot. 
FYI atkinson is suspended for the olympics :( Strain though will be available for the olyroos by then 

I didn't proof read all of it!

I've just belatedly edited it - it now  reads quite  differently.

not sure what game you watched but I had shots on target 5-2... they put like 15 in row Z.

Shot count of 17-4 (9-2 on target) indicates they were creating 4 times as many chances we were. Especially considering 3 of those 4 shots were in the last few mins where they barely had 3 in defence.

If you describe their link up play as poor, how would you describe ours? Actually non existent? Or would non existent actually be an improvement on our output? 

Is anyone convinced that Deni Juric who is having a great season in the Croatian second division could be very handy acquisition for the Olympic team?

Honestly, the squad was gutted by the loss of its two best players,  Arzani & McGree as well as the important Atkinson.

Put McGree for Bauman, Arzani for Najainne and Atkinson at RB allowing Deng to go back to CB, and you already have a hugely improved side

Arnold really should be given credit for qualifying with such a weakened squad. And I am far from an Arnold fanboy. 

He recognised that without his best players he had a very even squad, and thus rotated a lot. This was telling IMO. The Uzbeks would have beaten us IMO if they were as fresh as our final team, i.e . many of our players did not start the Korea game 

Not surprising that we did not do it in any convincing manner, considering what was available... but credit where it is due.

Dunno what game you were watching but the Uzbeks were shocking in the final 1/3 , link up play non existent.

Some South Korean players played over 2000 minutes compared to our boys, of course it was going to be very difficult to beat them let alone compete.

Some may see my post as overly negative but apart from fitness and determination I didn't see much to be excited about in this tournament. It's not deliberately negative, it's an honest appraisal without sugar coating it to make us feel better. 
We could have easily lost every single game. Our opponents looked better on the ball, and largely better organised off the ball. Our boys made a lot of individual errors. Of course there were moments where we looked very good, but we weren't able maintain these periods for long enough. Too much baseless possession passing sideways on halfway, but in the conditions it's better to do that than launch a long ball and be back in defense again. 
How we beat Uzbekistan i'll never know. They were far superior in every aspect (bar discipline) but we had luck on our side. 

We need to be aiming to reach the levels of the Uzbek and South Korean sides, the 2 top teams of the tournament. South Korea are a mile ahead of course but if our current joeys can step up their better touch and technique will start to narrow the gap at olyroos level. 

Of course if our boys had a platform to play in they'll improve out of sight too. They simply don't play enough to develop. 

He's not good enough for the Olyroos. 

You don't want to let him go for international duties or you just don't like for the Olyroos ? :laugh:

Yeah that's a hard no from me

Sounds like good old Decentric to me.

Something isnt right about that Decentric post. Too many spelling mistakes and misspelling of players names.

He's either pissed, had a stroke or someone has taken over his account

He is eligible but he’s a better midfielder than striker imo and the AU coaching staff see him as a midfielder as well.

Absolutely.

From a number of players over the  tournament , plenty had good games at times, but the game against South K was our worst, because we were outclassed in nearly every facet of the game.


*Glover - had a very good series as a shot stopper between the sticks and commanded his penalty box well, even if his distribution on the deck could improve. Probably one of our best players and decisive in us qualifying.

*Fleur - after watching his South K game, whereas previously I stated he was effective going  forwards, he was outclassed in ball winning, reading the faster ball movement of South K, and provided attacking impetus.Iin the other games he was effective in Ball Possession and less effective in Ball Possession Opposition.

*Deng- not  used against South K, was our best defender over the tournament with some tough, rugged ball winning, sound  distribution and attacking  impetus. Against the Uzbeks, he has  suffered from lack of on the ball pressure from teammates further up the pitch.

Hence,  Uzbek players made some good balls to their dynamic left winger. At times he trend  Deng inside out, but he received in a more favourable body position than Deng in accelerated attacks from our Defensive Transitions.

I  consider Deng as our best defender, because he won more hard balls from disadvatageous  positions and significant  pressure than Ryan. I also think of him more of a CB than a RB.

*Mourdakoutas - after being puzzled as to what Arnie preferred a him, who has played almost no HAL football, compared to CCM's Rowles who has played a lot, he improved  over the tournament and held his own against South K.

The distancing between him and Ryan was too wide over  the  ideal 10 - 15 metres in  the earlier part of the tournament, but they tightened up in the latter part of  the  tournament. Apart from South K, he often had a lot of time on the ball as opposition teams half pressed. This made him look better than he is. Ball winning was quite good. His  composure on t he ball was also quite reasonable. He should be playing HAL football.

*Ryan - steadier  than Mourdakoutas earlier in in the tournament. Won some some timely tackles, and like Mourdo looked better than he was with more  time on  the the ball with opposition half presses, apart from South K.

Lost a few too many heading duels for my liking. Ryan also made many timely intercepts from  good defensive positioning off the ball, and  often read the game well. He also didn't need to tackle a lot, because he positioned well in BPO.

*Gersbach- disappointingly he has made little progress since he last played in the HAL, when he was fantastic going  forwards. He still is a mediocre ball winner as a left back. It hasn't improved enough.

I loved his ball carrying, 1v1 attacking skills and crossing though. He was our most effective overlapping left sided option. I wonder if he could  be more effective as a left winger? As he advanced and overlapped, the left wingers tended to tuck in. Sadly, we had no dominating big, central target striker, to  convert those aerial  crosses - like a Kennedy, Cahill, Viduka or Juric - possibly George Blackwood.  

*Bacchus -  someone else thought he was great. I thought his distribution was okay most of the time and he was a consistent ball winner in midfield as the  tournament progressed.  What really concerns me  is his game sense and  slow decision-making. In limited time and  space he could think quickly enough when receiving under pressure, and was the culprit for many turnovers - some that leaked goals.

I thought Bacchus was one of our best, out of a bad bunch against South K. He was our best defensive midfielder in the comp and played above expectations, whereas most other DMs played below. Although it was very hot and humid, he could've  checked more to receive the  ball in more time and space from  the  defensive line when we played out. When closely marked he often stood there like a stature, rather than attempting to shake his marker with fakes.

*Duncan - sometimes when one compiles stats and does  an  appraisal after many slowed down frames, a player has done some little things better than first thought.

However, I thought as a distributor, ball winner, and in terms of game sense, he really struggled in the tournament. I don't know how he kept the likes of Genreau and Metcalfe out of the team? I'd love to interview Arnie with specific  football criteria to ascertain Duncan's performance. Maybe he was brilliant on the  training track and liked playing in heat?

*O'Neill - disappointing given what he has done in the HAL. So often misread the play. When he got to the challenges, he was a tremendous  ball winner, but didn't read where those challenges could be made quickly enough. Often, like Duncan, they were turning and chasing towards their own goal, when a better reader of   play, like a Milligan or Muscat, would have broken up an attack with well timed intercepts.

Genreau, Metcalfe - The former tightened up the midfield in one game, but given what I've seen them do in the HAL, they were very, very disappointing. I'm not sure if they were ill, or injured, but whereas Bacchus stepped up, the two City midfielders disappointed by their own HAL standards . Genreau was steady in distribution -  most of the time.

*Piscopo - a revelation.  Good on the ball and our only number 10 who was a  constant threat with the ball at his feet. He dribbled well and brought  teammates into the game, with defence splitting passes and killer passes.

Sometimes his ideas  were not anticipated or read by other attacking Aus players. Piscopo is not a great ball winner or effective at causing turnovers and  disturbing build ups though . He needs to improve. A  bit like Robbie Kruse, he is constantly fouled because of his quick feet. 

*D' Agostino - not such a great  passer and mover in tight  spaces as a number  10 in attacking interplay, but his finishing was good - and- decisive  in us qualifying. I think his headed goal that was disallowed should have been counted.

Good predatory instincts around goal, but I thought should he have been the target  striker. His goal when he beat number of players in midfield and scored,  was individually brilliant! I'd love to hear Arnie's thoughts on this? He should be playing HAL football.

*Bouman - I don't like denigrating players, but  he looked  outclassed for the whole comp. He could not win any aerial balls played by Gersbach to convert to goals. He lost nearly every heading duel to opposition CBs. He  must have trained well, but  with the game plan,  Aus players weren't close  enough to him. This poor guy was innocuous.

* Toure - disappointed compared to his earlier HAL form. I thought he deserved much more game time than Bouman though. He was a goal threat at times.

*Najjarine - disappointing  by his own standards -  from what I've seen him do in the HAL. Was he injured or sick? On the left flank, he often cut in for Gersbach to overlap, but again was relatively  innocuous, even though the quality of ball he received wasn't great. 

*Buhagiar - another who by his own standards in the HAL,  struggled. He  received a lot of poor quality balls from our  DMs, CBs, RBs, as well. He didn't receive enough  balls where he could run  onto them with his body position facing forwards to showcase his blistering pace. He also struggled  as part  of a malfunctioning attacking unit in attacking interplay.

*Italiano -  I cannot  recall  much specifically, but was part of a malfunctioning attacking unit.





Apart  from Toure and D'agostino, there was little muscular ball winning  from the attacking  quartet players  - AM, wingers and  central striker. Most hardly  won any 1v1s - heading, body on body, tackling apart  from T and D. 










  

I'm not sure if Blackwood is still eligible, but he scored the type of headed goal for AU last night, needed for the Olyroos as a target striker 

I'm denigrating a pervasive negativity towards the entire Aus football milieu from a number of naysayers who assume a hegemony - not the concept of the forum.

There have been many positive achievements in Aus football since 2005, but it is sometimes  difficult to find those positives reading comments on here.