Gareca's record may be modest - in a strong football Confederation. However, from what I've read recently, Gareca has had  considerable  success with Peru in the latter half of the CONMEBOL WCQ campaign.

I've been accused of going into too much detail about formations and game plans. Hence, in order to defend Arnie's coaching prowess using football specific performance  criteria, I will go into more detail, briefly, to elucidate  the two coaches' game plans.

 A majority of fans  in Australia  are  very harsh on our own players and coaches.  They appear to suffer  from an innate inferiority complex compared to Europe and South America. I find this weird.  Nevertheless,  I see it apply to other sports and film/TV/drama industry too.

Very sadly, now Arnie and other Socceroos state this - that  they realise the majority of  supposed football fans in Australia are critical of the Socceroos and don't support the national team.

*Gareca got Peru to play with a 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle in Ball Possession.

Then in Ball Possession Opposition he dropped the two wingers back in a line with the  two attacking midfielders.

This manifested as a 4-5-1, with a 1:4 midfield shape.

Gareca essentially used two formations, which the Socceroos negated a lot of the time. Peruvian sustained periods of possession often amounted to sterile domination.



* Meanwhile Arnie used a 4-4-2 flat midfield in Ball Possession Opposition.

Then when they regained the ball in the Attacking Transition, in the defensive half the formation in Ball Possession manifested as a 4-2-3-1.

As the build up moved  higher up the pitch, it manifested as a 4-3-3 attacking midfield triangle, with Irvine moving up into a line with Hrustic.  Meanwhile, Mooy sat and moved into  a more central position screening the defensive line.  At the same time Duke was up top in a three player line  with Leckie and Boyle. There were four lines in this Australian formation when the Socceroos deployed it.

At other times, to confuse Peru, Australia kept Irvine sitting in a line with Mooy, but pushed Hrustic up high in  a line with Duke. This manifested as a three line 4-2-4. We did not play a 4-2-2-2 with a false 9, as some pundits claimed, because the wingers, Boyle and Leckie, would have to have played in a higher line than the one with Duke and Hrustic.


Australia held effective  shape  in all four of  these permutations. This requires good coaching. It also confused Peru as they could not work out how Hrustic and Irvine changed their roles, particularly in the first half.

Also the 4-4-2 flat midfield  in BPO was compact. Ideal distancing of 10-15 mates was managed most of the time - between and within the lines. It had improved immeasurably from a few games back. Peru found it hard to penetrate, particularly in the first half.

Let us give some credit to Arnie.