It's been a really fascinating A-League season tactically - we've seen a range of formations from 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, 4-4-2 and 4-4-2 diamonds, along with highly unorthodox ones like Adelaide's 3-4-3 and the Mariners 5-4-1. Coaches are being increasingly more progressive in the way they approach and adapt in games, and it's leading to a goldmine of things to talk about from a tactical perspective.

For those interested in this sort of thing, I have a website focusing specifically on tactical analysis of Australian football - AustraliaScout.com. Each week, there's detailed match analysis on A-League fixtures, along with commentary on Socceroos matches, general 'tactical theory' articles as well as an additional focus on coaching and youth development. Along with this, I have a regular column on the FourFourTwo website, 'The Breakdown', the latest of which looked at the zonal v man-marking debate - http://www.fourfourtwo.com/au/news/breakdown-zonal-v-man-marking-league

So, with the A-League experiencing a 'tactical boom', please do come and have a read. The latest article looks at the Mariners unusual 5-4-1 formation - http://www.australiascout.com/2014/central-coast-mariners-tactical-analysis/
, and I'll post links to new articles as they are published in this thread.

This week's match analysis looks at Wellington Phoenix 1-0 Western Sydney Wanderers, and Adelaide 0-0 Sydney FC

Mate, I know who you are.

I like what you and Kate Cohen do.

However, I've never received a straight answer from Kate Cohen, but I don't know what both of your backgrounds are in Football?

I think that your analyses, are based too much in numbers and formations. At any point in any game, a team often loses shape. The maintenance of shape is relative to the playing patterns and performance of the opposition. The shape of a team, also varies in size depending on the main moments of a game.

There are also other facets of play where a team does not have numerical superiority in various parts of the pitch, they still hold the ascendancy, because of better technical attributes than the opposition. Your analyses do not extend to this level.

I would strongly suggest that you and Kate, need to do pursue the FFA Advanced coach pathway, getting to C Licence level, to be familiar with these facets of play. It is the same with Zonal Marking.

In a session a few weeks ago, with a HAL club for coaches, the point was made that it is very difficult to accurately appraise a game from TV in terms of shape. At any given time, one cannot see the whole field of play from a TV position.

Edited by Decentric: 11/11/2014 09:57:41 AM

Hey Decentric. Good to hear from you - I've always appreciated the praise you've put my way in the past.

There's a little profile of my background in football here - http://www.australiascout.com/about/. I already have an FFA C Licence, completed it in Canberra last year. Having written on tactical analysis since I was 15, I currently work as the sole Performance Analyst for Prozone in Australia. In addition to this I am an U15s coach.

I can certainly take on board your feedback, even if I don't agree with it all. One thing I can agree with is that the most appropriate form of match analysis takes place with a wide-angle camera that captures the whole pitch, or to be at the game yourself. However, I still think that it is entirely appropriate to produce analysis based on TV coverage, as although it is not perfect it is still enough to be able to produce genuine, accurate analysis.

I would like to think, too, that I do take into account superiority in terms of individual technique. An example of this would be in my latest piece, Adelaide 0-0 Sydney, where I make specific mention of the individual ability of the Adelaide centre-backs to carry the ball forward into midfield. This wasn't an area of numerical superiority, but a situation where Malik and Boogard's greater tactical awareness and ability on the ball meant Adelaide were able to get into the ascendancy.

However, I am always willing to take on feedback, and I appreciate your honesty - it's important that we're always trying to elevate the standard of what we do.

I'm sure that Kate also has a AFC/FFA 'C' Licence.

I thought Kate was English, but it is a surmisation and she has helped me with football manager haha.
I assumed she was cleon, on the football manager forums??

Edited by moops: 11/11/2014 02:55:34 PM

I stand corrected.

Good on you completing the C Licence .

Two other courses I did that helped me focus on technique were:

KNVB Youth Training Certificate in 2008, which supposedly had elements of B and C Licence. Unless you go to Holland you cannot do that one. It is considered an Advanced Coaching Course.

Set up for rep coaches, last year , was a course focusing on core skills.

I think now the old junior licence is called a Skills Training Certifiate, focusing on technical skills. It only took two days, and was as valuable as anything learnt in the C licence, which went into more depth covering about half of what Idid in the KNVB Youth Certificate.

I'd completed the C Licence, then went back to do this short course, which I think is now called the Skills Certificate. I think that most of the C Licence graduates, in my group, apart from four of us, didn't do the focus on four core skills course, which I've found to be very useful knowledge.

This includes many of our current senior NPL coaches in this state, who didn't do the short course. I think it would have been of great benefit.

Core Skills

First Touch

Striking the Ball

Running With The Ball

1v1 Attacking and Defensive skills.



I've found this really good in evaluating professional players or even players at lower levels I've coached.

Edited by Decentric: 12/11/2014 09:19:44 AM

I think you and Kate have raised the bar in Australian football coverage.=d>

Other media writers, with no football pro background, or pro coaching, or advanced coach training accreditation, write little more than trained journos can write with no background in football. I know one now writing about football, getting published, with little interest in football. The sport deserves better than charlatans writing about it.](*,)

Cockerill, Tuckerman, Davutovic, Smithies, Lynch, Gatt, Sobraj, Micagglio, Micheleff, Fink, Ben McKay, are symptomatic of an embryonic football media devoid of knowledge. Compare them to many of the excellent writers with The Guardian, who really know their football.

I have seen Sebastian Hassett do some good stuff on Fox Field.=d>

Apart from when Craig Foster, Zdrilic, Craig Moore and Danny Hay go to print, plus Beau Bush, all former pro players, you Kate and Seb Hassertt, are easily the best writers on football in Australia. You guys should be our premier writers, and football commentators not muck rakers like Cockerill.

Whenever I've politely criticised any of the aforementioned, they've avoided why I've criticised them, calling me grumpy or deleting comments I've made in response to their articles . Those articles should've been written by the likes of you, a decent wordsmith and who has spent a lot of time undergoing very challenging and confronting coach education courses.

Fair play to you.=d>










Edited by Decentric: 12/11/2014 10:34:03 AM

She has just coantactee me to tell me her qualifications.

I'm not going to post them on here, because she emphatically made the point, her articles should be evaluated on the content, not what she has done away from the articles.

I was impressed with her coach education.=d>

She and Australia Scout, have better credentials, along with Walter Pless, than anybody else writing about football in the media in Australia,apart from the ex pro players and coaches who occasionally write about football .







Edited by Decentric: 12/11/2014 11:38:00 AM

Thanks Decentric for your kind words. I certainly wish there was more tactical analysis in the mainstream media, but at the same I think the level of discourse has risen. I think a lot of our journalists do a good job covering the game from multiple angles, and that undergoing coach education courses, while insightful, is not necessary an appropriate necessity for those writing about football from a variety of angles. The courses are a perfectly valid introduction into football analysis, but it is not an indicator of good knowledge nor is there a correlation between the qualifications one has and the quality of analysis they are able to produce. I have met many incredibly knowledgable people who have never undertaken coaching courses, and conversely, I have experience with people with qualifications whose knowledge still leaves a lot to be desired.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your feedback, and hope you continue to read the site.

By the way, I've written an article on Brisbane Roar's problems tactically this season - you can read that here.

Probably a fair point, Aussie Scout.

Some are exposed to some excellent football methodology, and don't really buy into it.

They do it because it is mandated by FFA. There are some coaches , coaching, who don't take what they learn from courses to the training ground. They do what they always did.

There are some guys on here, who have never coached as a far as I know, but they have an eye for detail and learn a lot from others.

Excellent analysis, with a lot of detail.=d>

I'd recommend it to anyone visiting this thread.

If you like I might take a few additional suggestions, to describe various phases of play, I learnt from the KNVB, nebulously covered in the FFA C Licence.

Localstar, I know you are viewing this.

Can you see how Aussie Scout and Kate Cohen have progressed tactical analysis of football in Australia?

I am not the only person on the internet, or involved in football on the training track, who is interested in this aspect of the game. We've all done FFA Advanced Coach education too.

Many great writers and journalists have written about football perfectly well without having coaching qualifications. Brian Glanville and Jonathan Wilson spring to mind. There are many other ways of looking at football without approaching it from the coaching/tactical perspective- that is the beauty of football.

It's not all about "He's a modern methodologist and he isn't... end of story".

Just seen your above post- I think their analysis is great and admire the work that goes into it. Over-cerebral analysis and attempt to see structure in a what is really a fluid, volatile and ever changing game is not everyone's cup of tea however.

Edited by localstar: 13/11/2014 12:52:26 PM

In-depth match analysis of Newcastle Jets 0-4 Brisbane Roar

Cleon is male.

Newcastle man-mark in defence

Rather than man-mark in midfield as predicted, it almost seemed like Newcastle’s back four were man-marking Brisbane’s attackers. Jaliens, in an unusual right-back position, was particularly prone to this, being dragged inside on a number of occasions and at times moving so far infield he overlapped past his own centre-back, Regan. This meant the defence at times became completely shapeless, and because Brisbane were moving the ball forward quickly and directly, the lack of structure at the back was often being exploited.

Actually, Jaliens played RB for Holland in a previous World Cup.

Usually zonal marking is more popular than man marking these days.

Conclusion

Even ignoring the tactical battle, Newcastle were tremendously poor in basic areas of the game – inaccurate passing, poor body shape when defending, and a complete lack of combination play. They finished with just 3 shots, summing up their impotency going forward.

Tactically, Stubbins’ tactics left them exposed in the midfield, where at first Broich found space between the line by dropping deep as a false 9 to overload the Jets midfield 4v3. The switch to 4-4-2 made things even worse, because then both Broich and Brattan were unmarked, and both were devastating in their use of the ball in asserting Brisbane’s dominance.

Henrique provided the finishes, but this game was through simple numerical superiority in




In your diagrams, the Jets formation appeared as a 1-4-5-1 in BPO, but in attack,in BP, they reverted to a 1-4-3-3 with Carney and Griffiths pushing up the wings to form an attacking line with the central striker.

Given how effective they were against Victory, I think the problem was that Jets failed to execute their game plan in this game, as well as they could've done.

Similar players displayed reasonable body shape defensively against Victory.

To me, Jets show a lot more promise than either WSW or CCM at this stage of the season. Against Nix, they played some good football in midfield , but were not so good in the attacking and defensive lines.

Great stuff again, Aussie Scout.=d>

I'd recommend this stuff to any person visiting this thread.

I'm surprised Stubbins hasn't used Griffiths as a central striker. In the past he has been a clinical finisher.





Edited by Decentric: 17/11/2014 08:51:57 AM

In the first half, Brisbane’s full-backs could get forward because Jade North and Matt Smith were happy defending 2v1 against Montano. Stubbins’ thinking may have been that switching to a front two could pinned back the full-backs, for fear of leaving the centre-backs 2v2 against Montano and Griffiths. However, Stefanutto and Bowles always made sure to take turns getting forward, ensuring it was still a 3v2 at the back, and Brisbane were not exposed on the break anywhere near to the extent of last week’s match.



Good insights.=d>

Really? He was so out of depth here it looked like he'd never even played in defence before, to be honest...

You're more positive about the Jets than I am if you think they've been better than WSW or CCM...I 'want' Stubbins to do well, but he's been awfully uninspiring with his general approach, and although it's a bit of a cliche, he really doesn't seem to know his first XI. So much tinkering going on at the moment.

Edited by Australia Scout: 17/11/2014 09:09:47 AM

One thing I noted about Jaliens at RB was that he seemed very nervous about the CB pairing. He seemed to want to be in the centre to help them out, and I'm guessing he felt a little powerless out wide.
I'm sure Stubbins won't make that mistake again.

Stubbins is a new coach, with a lot of new players in the team.


I was pretty impressed with them against Victory in the first half.

Their midfield play against Nix was good too.

There is some merit in this observation.

Also, Madaschi is a very experienced CB, having done well with Melb City. It will eventually work for Jets.

Edited by Decentric: 17/11/2014 10:32:25 AM

In-depth match analysis of Adelaide United 2-1 Wellington Phoenix

Great stuff Australia Scout.

Edited by Barca4life: 17/11/2014 11:20:36 AM

Thanks Barca4Life!



Match analysis of the Socceroos 2-1 defeat to Japan - read here.

Thanks for posting this Aussie Scout.

In a few weeks time I'll have completed a statistical review of this game.

Love your work!

Aussie Scout, when you showed the territory McKay covered in the midfield triangle in those excellent diagrams, it was similar to a rotating a midfield triangle in a 1-4-3-3 as I observed the game live.

There was a defensive midfield triangle in defence. McKay went back, to assume a position closer in a line with Jedinak in Ball Possession Opposition in the defensive variation of the midfield triangle in the 1-4-3-3.

Then when the team attacked, Jedinak moved to a more central position, in front of the defensive line , whilst McKay went further afield to create closer to an attacking midfield triangle in a 1-4-3-3. He moved up to a line, closer to being level with Luongo.

McKay, and , Australia, were very effective in the first half, apart from in the attacking third and clinically finishing chances.

The squeezing intensity in the early second half from Japan increased. They also played higher defensive line, with the whole team paying closer to a full press. This caused Australia to make more mistakes in possession under limited time and space, forcing more turnovers.




Edited by Decentric: 20/11/2014 09:01:36 AM

Aussie Scout wrote:

From an Australian point of view, the most interesting feature of this friendly was a slightly modified, more fluid front three. Normally under Postecoglou, we’ve seen the wingers focusing on creating space out wide either for themselves or the overlapping full-backs, and looking to cross into Cahill.

Without Cahill, though, the dynamic of the side changed. Leckie, Kruse and Troisi were happier to interchange positions, and focused more on creating chances in narrower positions. Troisi, in particular, drifted inside from the left wing to find pockets of space just in behind Kagawa. Kruse, on the opposite side, stayed higher up and tried to run in behind, but the main takeaway here is that all three were happier to rotate in the final third.





Another factor was that without Cahill, a defensive liability in Ball Possession Opposition, the front three squeezed aggressively, in a full press. This enabled Aussie players further back in the pitch, to force turnovers, particularly in the first half.

The Japanese players were often forced to take hurried touches, which gave them less time and space on the ball than they would've liked.

You made a good point about Troisi drifting inside.

One thing about the versatile Leckie, is he can play anywhere in the front three.




Edited by Decentric: 21/11/2014 12:02:13 AM