notarobot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 738,
Visits: 0
|
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 . Looking at some of the comments on this thread tells me we are gone backwards in development again Decentric , I hope you are not involved in any youth coaching because for all your essays you got NFI .
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x 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 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.
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHonestly, the squad was gutted by the loss of its two best players, Arzani & McGree as well as the important Atkinson. 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. Good points made, Charlie.
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
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.
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
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.
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
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.
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
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.
|
|
|
johnszasz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 26K,
Visits: 0
|
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.
|
|
|
Bowden
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
Degenek?
|
|
|
Redcarded
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 0
|
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
|
|
|
kaufusi
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xSome 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. Dunno what game you were watching but the Uzbeks were shocking in the final 1/3 , link up play non existent. 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? not sure what game you watched but I had shots on target 5-2... they put like 15 in row Z. Those are the official stats... And are true. They were dominant but yes they obviously (thankfully!) had no end product.
|
|
|
Bunch of Hacks
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHonestly, 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. 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
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSomething 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 I didn't proof read all of it! I've just belatedly edited it - it now reads quite differently.
|
|
|
jas88
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xSome 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. Dunno what game you were watching but the Uzbeks were shocking in the final 1/3 , link up play non existent. 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? not sure what game you watched but I had shots on target 5-2... they put like 15 in row Z.
|
|
|
kaufusi
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xSome 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. Dunno what game you were watching but the Uzbeks were shocking in the final 1/3 , link up play non existent. 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?
|
|
|
Ds98
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
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?
|
|
|
CharlieYankos
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 285,
Visits: 0
|
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.
|
|
|
notarobot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 738,
Visits: 0
|
+xSome 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. Dunno what game you were watching but the Uzbeks were shocking in the final 1/3 , link up play non existent.
|
|
|
Barca4Life
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSome 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. 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.
|
|
|
kaufusi
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
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.
|
|
|
kaufusi
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSo we qualified for the Olympics which is obviously great, but holy crap we were awful in this tournament. We were outplayed for the majority of every single match. Even against 10 men we capitulated. The first touch, vision and technique pf our players was worse than our opponents in every match. Our boys just can't compete on talent stakes. Our fitness was in general our strength, despite what the Korean coach says. We could overrun opponents at the death. But generally speaking we couldn't create opportunities and the players that made the goals were largely ineffective outside of that moment. All of our players need to be consistent first team regulars to play for the Olyroos. This has to be the goal for the next qualifying campaign. These aren't kids. These are adults. If you aren't regularly involved in a first team in your early 20s then you're setting yourself up to fail in your career. What i would give to see an Olyroos side playing confident attacking football and dominating their opponents. We were crap and was still able to finish 3rd, that says something about the quality in Asia. Thanks for posting this, Kaufusi. I used to get you and Sokorny confused. I don't know. He is much more positive. Using specific football criteria, you've inspired me to compose some detailed responses. Your rationale implies all opponents were infinitely superior in terms of - technique, tactics, game sense, communication and football specific conditioning. These are generally specific criteria in which to appraise teams. I missed the game against Iraq. In the games against Thailand, Bahrain, South Korea and Uzbekistan, there were strengths and weaknesses. Some posters have alluded to the only quality of the Socceroos being football conditioning, where Australia finished games well. In some games, the other teams applied intensive squeezing early in the game, in order to disturb Aus build ups more effectively. Australia turned over the ball a times, because the opposition expended a great deal of energy in their intensive squeezing - hence - less time and space on the ball for Aus. However, the consequence of intensive squeezing, is that opposition teams can usually only maintain this tactic for 60 mins. They usually run out of gas at the 60 min mark. I haven't got to the end of the South K game replay yet, but SK applied a ferocious full press and intensive squeezing in the first 60 mins. After an hour, the squeezing becomes far less intensive. In addition, those teams then need to play with a more conservative, half, or partial press. In other games, the opposition, defended deeper, with 4-5-1, or 5-4-1 formations in Ball Possession Opposition, when Aus had the ball. Aus was able to have plenty of possession in the defensive and middle thirds of the pitch, and sometimes wide in the attacking third, but they struggled to penetrate in the attacking central third where so many opposition players were condensed into two tight lines of defence. We need to change the rhythm in terms of tempo of the attack, from slow to quick, and back to slow, better than we are. Australia at times played the full backs up high, with the wingers cutting inside. Hence, the CBs and DMs had to try and negate the speedy accelerated attacks in the opposition Attacking Transitions when Aus lost the ball . Sometimes these Aus players weren't quick enough chasing opposition attackers facing their own goal, as Aus played a high defensive line. *Many fans on forums denigrate the inherent value of possession. Any football stakeholder of any substance in the HAL or NPL, knows that having possession is preferable. Apart from Italy, no international team has had constant, sustained success, by allowing the opposition to dominate possession. Possession is useful both offensively and defensively. Offensively, the inherent value of possession is obvious. Defensively, the opposition can't score if your team has the ball. Also, it requires a lot more discipline, concentration and energy to defend without the ball, BPO, than to play with the ball, BP. Australia always tries to adopt this Proactive approach - predicated on sound tenets. *Apart from South Korea, who were unequivocally a class above us technically - first touch, quick feet, two footedness, running with the ball, dribbling and handling speed - all over the pitch, technically there were 'some' classy opposition players from Uzbekistan, Thailand, Bahrain, particularly in advanced positions, but not all opposition players in those teams were technically superior to all Aussie players. The notable exception was South K. If Arzani and Daniel de Silva had been selected, along with Lachlan Wales not being suspended, the technical stocks for Australia would arguably have been much better.Hopefully, SK won the tournament, because in footballing performance analytical criteria, they deserved to. you would have to add McGree in here.... Kalik also who apparently was held back by his club. 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 Yeah that's a hard no from me You don't want to let him go for international duties or you just don't like for the Olyroos ? :laugh: He's not good enough for the Olyroos.
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xSo we qualified for the Olympics which is obviously great, but holy crap we were awful in this tournament. We were outplayed for the majority of every single match. Even against 10 men we capitulated. The first touch, vision and technique pf our players was worse than our opponents in every match. Our boys just can't compete on talent stakes. Our fitness was in general our strength, despite what the Korean coach says. We could overrun opponents at the death. But generally speaking we couldn't create opportunities and the players that made the goals were largely ineffective outside of that moment. All of our players need to be consistent first team regulars to play for the Olyroos. This has to be the goal for the next qualifying campaign. These aren't kids. These are adults. If you aren't regularly involved in a first team in your early 20s then you're setting yourself up to fail in your career. What i would give to see an Olyroos side playing confident attacking football and dominating their opponents. We were crap and was still able to finish 3rd, that says something about the quality in Asia. Thanks for posting this, Kaufusi. I used to get you and Sokorny confused. I don't know. He is much more positive. Using specific football criteria, you've inspired me to compose some detailed responses. Your rationale implies all opponents were infinitely superior in terms of - technique, tactics, game sense, communication and football specific conditioning. These are generally specific criteria in which to appraise teams. I missed the game against Iraq. In the games against Thailand, Bahrain, South Korea and Uzbekistan, there were strengths and weaknesses. Some posters have alluded to the only quality of the Socceroos being football conditioning, where Australia finished games well. In some games, the other teams applied intensive squeezing early in the game, in order to disturb Aus build ups more effectively. Australia turned over the ball a times, because the opposition expended a great deal of energy in their intensive squeezing - hence - less time and space on the ball for Aus. However, the consequence of intensive squeezing, is that opposition teams can usually only maintain this tactic for 60 mins. They usually run out of gas at the 60 min mark. I haven't got to the end of the South K game replay yet, but SK applied a ferocious full press and intensive squeezing in the first 60 mins. After an hour, the squeezing becomes far less intensive. In addition, those teams then need to play with a more conservative, half, or partial press. In other games, the opposition, defended deeper, with 4-5-1, or 5-4-1 formations in Ball Possession Opposition, when Aus had the ball. Aus was able to have plenty of possession in the defensive and middle thirds of the pitch, and sometimes wide in the attacking third, but they struggled to penetrate in the attacking central third where so many opposition players were condensed into two tight lines of defence. We need to change the rhythm in terms of tempo of the attack, from slow to quick, and back to slow, better than we are. Australia at times played the full backs up high, with the wingers cutting inside. Hence, the CBs and DMs had to try and negate the speedy accelerated attacks in the opposition Attacking Transitions when Aus lost the ball . Sometimes these Aus players weren't quick enough chasing opposition attackers facing their own goal, as Aus played a high defensive line. *Many fans on forums denigrate the inherent value of possession. Any football stakeholder of any substance in the HAL or NPL, knows that having possession is preferable. Apart from Italy, no international team has had constant, sustained success, by allowing the opposition to dominate possession. Possession is useful both offensively and defensively. Offensively, the inherent value of possession is obvious. Defensively, the opposition can't score if your team has the ball. Also, it requires a lot more discipline, concentration and energy to defend without the ball, BPO, than to play with the ball, BP. Australia always tries to adopt this Proactive approach - predicated on sound tenets. *Apart from South Korea, who were unequivocally a class above us technically - first touch, quick feet, two footedness, running with the ball, dribbling and handling speed - all over the pitch, technically there were 'some' classy opposition players from Uzbekistan, Thailand, Bahrain, particularly in advanced positions, but not all opposition players in those teams were technically superior to all Aussie players. The notable exception was South K. If Arzani and Daniel de Silva had been selected, along with Lachlan Wales not being suspended, the technical stocks for Australia would arguably have been much better.Hopefully, SK won the tournament, because in footballing performance analytical criteria, they deserved to. you would have to add McGree in here.... Kalik also who apparently was held back by his club. 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 Yeah that's a hard no from me You don't want to let him go for international duties or you just don't like for the Olyroos ? :laugh:
|
|
|
jeggohouse
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 831,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xSo we qualified for the Olympics which is obviously great, but holy crap we were awful in this tournament. We were outplayed for the majority of every single match. Even against 10 men we capitulated. The first touch, vision and technique pf our players was worse than our opponents in every match. Our boys just can't compete on talent stakes. Our fitness was in general our strength, despite what the Korean coach says. We could overrun opponents at the death. But generally speaking we couldn't create opportunities and the players that made the goals were largely ineffective outside of that moment. All of our players need to be consistent first team regulars to play for the Olyroos. This has to be the goal for the next qualifying campaign. These aren't kids. These are adults. If you aren't regularly involved in a first team in your early 20s then you're setting yourself up to fail in your career. What i would give to see an Olyroos side playing confident attacking football and dominating their opponents. We were crap and was still able to finish 3rd, that says something about the quality in Asia. Thanks for posting this, Kaufusi. I used to get you and Sokorny confused. I don't know. He is much more positive. Using specific football criteria, you've inspired me to compose some detailed responses. Your rationale implies all opponents were infinitely superior in terms of - technique, tactics, game sense, communication and football specific conditioning. These are generally specific criteria in which to appraise teams. I missed the game against Iraq. In the games against Thailand, Bahrain, South Korea and Uzbekistan, there were strengths and weaknesses. Some posters have alluded to the only quality of the Socceroos being football conditioning, where Australia finished games well. In some games, the other teams applied intensive squeezing early in the game, in order to disturb Aus build ups more effectively. Australia turned over the ball a times, because the opposition expended a great deal of energy in their intensive squeezing - hence - less time and space on the ball for Aus. However, the consequence of intensive squeezing, is that opposition teams can usually only maintain this tactic for 60 mins. They usually run out of gas at the 60 min mark. I haven't got to the end of the South K game replay yet, but SK applied a ferocious full press and intensive squeezing in the first 60 mins. After an hour, the squeezing becomes far less intensive. In addition, those teams then need to play with a more conservative, half, or partial press. In other games, the opposition, defended deeper, with 4-5-1, or 5-4-1 formations in Ball Possession Opposition, when Aus had the ball. Aus was able to have plenty of possession in the defensive and middle thirds of the pitch, and sometimes wide in the attacking third, but they struggled to penetrate in the attacking central third where so many opposition players were condensed into two tight lines of defence. We need to change the rhythm in terms of tempo of the attack, from slow to quick, and back to slow, better than we are. Australia at times played the full backs up high, with the wingers cutting inside. Hence, the CBs and DMs had to try and negate the speedy accelerated attacks in the opposition Attacking Transitions when Aus lost the ball . Sometimes these Aus players weren't quick enough chasing opposition attackers facing their own goal, as Aus played a high defensive line. *Many fans on forums denigrate the inherent value of possession. Any football stakeholder of any substance in the HAL or NPL, knows that having possession is preferable. Apart from Italy, no international team has had constant, sustained success, by allowing the opposition to dominate possession. Possession is useful both offensively and defensively. Offensively, the inherent value of possession is obvious. Defensively, the opposition can't score if your team has the ball. Also, it requires a lot more discipline, concentration and energy to defend without the ball, BPO, than to play with the ball, BP. Australia always tries to adopt this Proactive approach - predicated on sound tenets. *Apart from South Korea, who were unequivocally a class above us technically - first touch, quick feet, two footedness, running with the ball, dribbling and handling speed - all over the pitch, technically there were 'some' classy opposition players from Uzbekistan, Thailand, Bahrain, particularly in advanced positions, but not all opposition players in those teams were technically superior to all Aussie players. The notable exception was South K. If Arzani and Daniel de Silva had been selected, along with Lachlan Wales not being suspended, the technical stocks for Australia would arguably have been much better.Hopefully, SK won the tournament, because in footballing performance analytical criteria, they deserved to. you would have to add McGree in here.... Kalik also who apparently was held back by his club. 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 Yeah that's a hard no from me
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSomething 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 +x+x+x+xA lot of very negative comments in the aftermath of this tournament. I only watched highlights of each match so I'm not going to get into discussions about the quality of play and individual performances. But a more optimistic viewpoint would be that despite not playing that well, we still ground out results and finished 3rd at a major tournament. I wish the Socceroos could do that sometimes! I just can't believe how negative some people are about so many aspects of football in this country. It is why, I, and a number of mates, rarely participate on this forum anymore. This manifest negativism also seems to extrapolate, to an extent, to other sports too. So many supposed football 'fans' appear to despise the Socceroos, the A League, Asian Champ League, most TV pundits, most Aus coaches, FFA hierarchy, most players, Matildas, W League, etcetera. People I know off forum, who are sports fans, and sometimes significant stakeholders, are so much more positive people! Qualifying for the Olympics is a tremendous achievement by the Olyroos and Arnie. Congratulations to all stakeholders concerned in the Olyroos campaign. Seems to me the only person that denigrates & has denigrated this forum is yourself. Please don't patronise people who still enjoy & patronise this forum which is quite active despite your non participation. Thank you. I'm denigrating a pervasive negativity towards the entire Aus football milieufrom a number of naysayers who assume a hegemony Sounds like good old Decentric to me.
|
|
|
New Signing
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
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
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xSo we qualified for the Olympics which is obviously great, but holy crap we were awful in this tournament. We were outplayed for the majority of every single match. Even against 10 men we capitulated. The first touch, vision and technique pf our players was worse than our opponents in every match. Our boys just can't compete on talent stakes. Our fitness was in general our strength, despite what the Korean coach says. We could overrun opponents at the death. But generally speaking we couldn't create opportunities and the players that made the goals were largely ineffective outside of that moment. All of our players need to be consistent first team regulars to play for the Olyroos. This has to be the goal for the next qualifying campaign. These aren't kids. These are adults. If you aren't regularly involved in a first team in your early 20s then you're setting yourself up to fail in your career. What i would give to see an Olyroos side playing confident attacking football and dominating their opponents. We were crap and was still able to finish 3rd, that says something about the quality in Asia. Thanks for posting this, Kaufusi. I used to get you and Sokorny confused. I don't know. He is much more positive. Using specific football criteria, you've inspired me to compose some detailed responses. Your rationale implies all opponents were infinitely superior in terms of - technique, tactics, game sense, communication and football specific conditioning. These are generally specific criteria in which to appraise teams. I missed the game against Iraq. In the games against Thailand, Bahrain, South Korea and Uzbekistan, there were strengths and weaknesses. Some posters have alluded to the only quality of the Socceroos being football conditioning, where Australia finished games well. In some games, the other teams applied intensive squeezing early in the game, in order to disturb Aus build ups more effectively. Australia turned over the ball a times, because the opposition expended a great deal of energy in their intensive squeezing - hence - less time and space on the ball for Aus. However, the consequence of intensive squeezing, is that opposition teams can usually only maintain this tactic for 60 mins. They usually run out of gas at the 60 min mark. I haven't got to the end of the South K game replay yet, but SK applied a ferocious full press and intensive squeezing in the first 60 mins. After an hour, the squeezing becomes far less intensive. In addition, those teams then need to play with a more conservative, half, or partial press. In other games, the opposition, defended deeper, with 4-5-1, or 5-4-1 formations in Ball Possession Opposition, when Aus had the ball. Aus was able to have plenty of possession in the defensive and middle thirds of the pitch, and sometimes wide in the attacking third, but they struggled to penetrate in the attacking central third where so many opposition players were condensed into two tight lines of defence. We need to change the rhythm in terms of tempo of the attack, from slow to quick, and back to slow, better than we are. Australia at times played the full backs up high, with the wingers cutting inside. Hence, the CBs and DMs had to try and negate the speedy accelerated attacks in the opposition Attacking Transitions when Aus lost the ball . Sometimes these Aus players weren't quick enough chasing opposition attackers facing their own goal, as Aus played a high defensive line. *Many fans on forums denigrate the inherent value of possession. Any football stakeholder of any substance in the HAL or NPL, knows that having possession is preferable. Apart from Italy, no international team has had constant, sustained success, by allowing the opposition to dominate possession. Possession is useful both offensively and defensively. Offensively, the inherent value of possession is obvious. Defensively, the opposition can't score if your team has the ball. Also, it requires a lot more discipline, concentration and energy to defend without the ball, BPO, than to play with the ball, BP. Australia always tries to adopt this Proactive approach - predicated on sound tenets. *Apart from South Korea, who were unequivocally a class above us technically - first touch, quick feet, two footedness, running with the ball, dribbling and handling speed - all over the pitch, technically there were 'some' classy opposition players from Uzbekistan, Thailand, Bahrain, particularly in advanced positions, but not all opposition players in those teams were technically superior to all Aussie players. The notable exception was South K. If Arzani and Daniel de Silva had been selected, along with Lachlan Wales not being suspended, the technical stocks for Australia would arguably have been much better.Hopefully, SK won the tournament, because in footballing performance analytical criteria, they deserved to. you would have to add McGree in here.... Kalik also who apparently was held back by his club. 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 He is eligible but he’s a better midfielder than striker imo and the AU coaching staff see him as a midfielder as well.
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xSo we qualified for the Olympics which is obviously great, but holy crap we were awful in this tournament. We were outplayed for the majority of every single match. Even against 10 men we capitulated. The first touch, vision and technique pf our players was worse than our opponents in every match. Our boys just can't compete on talent stakes. Our fitness was in general our strength, despite what the Korean coach says. We could overrun opponents at the death. But generally speaking we couldn't create opportunities and the players that made the goals were largely ineffective outside of that moment. All of our players need to be consistent first team regulars to play for the Olyroos. This has to be the goal for the next qualifying campaign. These aren't kids. These are adults. If you aren't regularly involved in a first team in your early 20s then you're setting yourself up to fail in your career. What i would give to see an Olyroos side playing confident attacking football and dominating their opponents. We were crap and was still able to finish 3rd, that says something about the quality in Asia. Thanks for posting this, Kaufusi. I used to get you and Sokorny confused. I don't know. He is much more positive. Using specific football criteria, you've inspired me to compose some detailed responses. Your rationale implies all opponents were infinitely superior in terms of - technique, tactics, game sense, communication and football specific conditioning. These are generally specific criteria in which to appraise teams. I missed the game against Iraq. In the games against Thailand, Bahrain, South Korea and Uzbekistan, there were strengths and weaknesses. Some posters have alluded to the only quality of the Socceroos being football conditioning, where Australia finished games well. In some games, the other teams applied intensive squeezing early in the game, in order to disturb Aus build ups more effectively. Australia turned over the ball a times, because the opposition expended a great deal of energy in their intensive squeezing - hence - less time and space on the ball for Aus. However, the consequence of intensive squeezing, is that opposition teams can usually only maintain this tactic for 60 mins. They usually run out of gas at the 60 min mark. I haven't got to the end of the South K game replay yet, but SK applied a ferocious full press and intensive squeezing in the first 60 mins. After an hour, the squeezing becomes far less intensive. In addition, those teams then need to play with a more conservative, half, or partial press. In other games, the opposition, defended deeper, with 4-5-1, or 5-4-1 formations in Ball Possession Opposition, when Aus had the ball. Aus was able to have plenty of possession in the defensive and middle thirds of the pitch, and sometimes wide in the attacking third, but they struggled to penetrate in the attacking central third where so many opposition players were condensed into two tight lines of defence. We need to change the rhythm in terms of tempo of the attack, from slow to quick, and back to slow, better than we are. Australia at times played the full backs up high, with the wingers cutting inside. Hence, the CBs and DMs had to try and negate the speedy accelerated attacks in the opposition Attacking Transitions when Aus lost the ball . Sometimes these Aus players weren't quick enough chasing opposition attackers facing their own goal, as Aus played a high defensive line. *Many fans on forums denigrate the inherent value of possession. Any football stakeholder of any substance in the HAL or NPL, knows that having possession is preferable. Apart from Italy, no international team has had constant, sustained success, by allowing the opposition to dominate possession. Possession is useful both offensively and defensively. Offensively, the inherent value of possession is obvious. Defensively, the opposition can't score if your team has the ball. Also, it requires a lot more discipline, concentration and energy to defend without the ball, BPO, than to play with the ball, BP. Australia always tries to adopt this Proactive approach - predicated on sound tenets. *Apart from South Korea, who were unequivocally a class above us technically - first touch, quick feet, two footedness, running with the ball, dribbling and handling speed - all over the pitch, technically there were 'some' classy opposition players from Uzbekistan, Thailand, Bahrain, particularly in advanced positions, but not all opposition players in those teams were technically superior to all Aussie players. The notable exception was South K. If Arzani and Daniel de Silva had been selected, along with Lachlan Wales not being suspended, the technical stocks for Australia would arguably have been much better.Hopefully, SK won the tournament, because in footballing performance analytical criteria, they deserved to. you would have to add McGree in here.... Absolutely.
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
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.
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xSo we qualified for the Olympics which is obviously great, but holy crap we were awful in this tournament. We were outplayed for the majority of every single match. Even against 10 men we capitulated. The first touch, vision and technique pf our players was worse than our opponents in every match. Our boys just can't compete on talent stakes. Our fitness was in general our strength, despite what the Korean coach says. We could overrun opponents at the death. But generally speaking we couldn't create opportunities and the players that made the goals were largely ineffective outside of that moment. All of our players need to be consistent first team regulars to play for the Olyroos. This has to be the goal for the next qualifying campaign. These aren't kids. These are adults. If you aren't regularly involved in a first team in your early 20s then you're setting yourself up to fail in your career. What i would give to see an Olyroos side playing confident attacking football and dominating their opponents. We were crap and was still able to finish 3rd, that says something about the quality in Asia. Thanks for posting this, Kaufusi. I used to get you and Sokorny confused. I don't know. He is much more positive. Using specific football criteria, you've inspired me to compose some detailed responses. Your rationale implies all opponents were infinitely superior in terms of - technique, tactics, game sense, communication and football specific conditioning. These are generally specific criteria in which to appraise teams. I missed the game against Iraq. In the games against Thailand, Bahrain, South Korea and Uzbekistan, there were strengths and weaknesses. Some posters have alluded to the only quality of the Socceroos being football conditioning, where Australia finished games well. In some games, the other teams applied intensive squeezing early in the game, in order to disturb Aus build ups more effectively. Australia turned over the ball a times, because the opposition expended a great deal of energy in their intensive squeezing - hence - less time and space on the ball for Aus. However, the consequence of intensive squeezing, is that opposition teams can usually only maintain this tactic for 60 mins. They usually run out of gas at the 60 min mark. I haven't got to the end of the South K game replay yet, but SK applied a ferocious full press and intensive squeezing in the first 60 mins. After an hour, the squeezing becomes far less intensive. In addition, those teams then need to play with a more conservative, half, or partial press. In other games, the opposition, defended deeper, with 4-5-1, or 5-4-1 formations in Ball Possession Opposition, when Aus had the ball. Aus was able to have plenty of possession in the defensive and middle thirds of the pitch, and sometimes wide in the attacking third, but they struggled to penetrate in the attacking central third where so many opposition players were condensed into two tight lines of defence. We need to change the rhythm in terms of tempo of the attack, from slow to quick, and back to slow, better than we are. Australia at times played the full backs up high, with the wingers cutting inside. Hence, the CBs and DMs had to try and negate the speedy accelerated attacks in the opposition Attacking Transitions when Aus lost the ball . Sometimes these Aus players weren't quick enough chasing opposition attackers facing their own goal, as Aus played a high defensive line. *Many fans on forums denigrate the inherent value of possession. Any football stakeholder of any substance in the HAL or NPL, knows that having possession is preferable. Apart from Italy, no international team has had constant, sustained success, by allowing the opposition to dominate possession. Possession is useful both offensively and defensively. Offensively, the inherent value of possession is obvious. Defensively, the opposition can't score if your team has the ball. Also, it requires a lot more discipline, concentration and energy to defend without the ball, BPO, than to play with the ball, BP. Australia always tries to adopt this Proactive approach - predicated on sound tenets. *Apart from South Korea, who were unequivocally a class above us technically - first touch, quick feet, two footedness, running with the ball, dribbling and handling speed - all over the pitch, technically there were 'some' classy opposition players from Uzbekistan, Thailand, Bahrain, particularly in advanced positions, but not all opposition players in those teams were technically superior to all Aussie players. The notable exception was South K. If Arzani and Daniel de Silva had been selected, along with Lachlan Wales not being suspended, the technical stocks for Australia would arguably have been much better.Hopefully, SK won the tournament, because in footballing performance analytical criteria, they deserved to. you would have to add McGree in here.... Kalik also who apparently was held back by his club. 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
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xA lot of very negative comments in the aftermath of this tournament. I only watched highlights of each match so I'm not going to get into discussions about the quality of play and individual performances. But a more optimistic viewpoint would be that despite not playing that well, we still ground out results and finished 3rd at a major tournament. I wish the Socceroos could do that sometimes! I just can't believe how negative some people are about so many aspects of football in this country. It is why, I, and a number of mates, rarely participate on this forum anymore. This manifest negativism also seems to extrapolate, to an extent, to other sports too. So many supposed football 'fans' appear to despise the Socceroos, the A League, Asian Champ League, most TV pundits, most Aus coaches, FFA hierarchy, most players, Matildas, W League, etcetera. People I know off forum, who are sports fans, and sometimes significant stakeholders, are so much more positive people! Qualifying for the Olympics is a tremendous achievement by the Olyroos and Arnie. Congratulations to all stakeholders concerned in the Olyroos campaign. Seems to me the only person that denigrates & has denigrated this forum is yourself. Please don't patronise people who still enjoy & patronise this forum which is quite active despite your non participation. Thank you. 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.
|
|
|