Pim will get us there, but how much further?
Roar Rookie By Dan J-B, 16 Feb 2009 Dan J-B is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- 2010 World Cup, Australia, Australian coach, football, Frank Lowy, Guus Hiddink, Harry Kewell, Jason Culina, Josh Kennedy, Mark Viduka, Pim Verbeek, Scott Chipperfield, Socceroos, Vince Grella
Related coverage
If, as Frank Lowy has repeatedly reiterated, the sole aim of Pim Verbeek’s appointment to the post of Australian coach was to ensure a safe passage to South Africa 2010, then the team’s impending qualification should rubber-stamp the Dutchman’s tenure as a success.
Yet, as a ticket to South Africa looms, the focus – and thus the measure of Verbeek’s success – must broaden. Yes, Australian will compete in the next World Cup. But once there, what level of damage are they realistically capable of inflicting? On the basis of recent performances, not much.
Verbeek’s modest recent run not only paints a bleak World Cup picture for the Socceroos, but eerily resembles the haunted legacy of Dutch coaches. Almost as a matter of habit, Dutch managers have led the horse to water, but failed to make it drink.
Guus Hiddink, for all his genius, has failed to turn fairytales into trophies. Likewise, Marco Van Basten inexplicably failed to translate a squad laden with talent and guile into any form of material success.
So what of Verbeek?
Is he, like those before him, pre-destined for relative underachievement? Can he avoid such a fate? Yes he can.
Pim’s problems are entirely self-induced. They lie not with fiscal inadequacies, squad-based deficiencies or hierarchical interference. Thus, they are imminently fixable.
With neither an iron axe nor a blunt knife, Verbeek must seek to adjust his rigid thought processes. His unabashed loyalty to a 4-2-3-1 system has suffocated Australia’s ability to control and subsequently score. Excluding the four goals pushed passed an abysmal Qatari outfit, the Socceroos have scored just twice in the final stage of World Cup Qualification.
Perhaps more alarming than the scarcity of goals is the bizarre and inconsistent nature of the strikes. Marco Bresciano’s 11th hour sealer against Bahrain and right-back Scott Chipperfield’s headed winner against Uzbekistan were neither conventional nor intricately planned.
Whilst this may suggest an obvious offensive fragility, in truth the problems lie further down the pitch. The loss of Brett Emerton and Harry Kewell appear to have frightened their left and right-sided partners – Chipperfield and Luke Wilkshere respectively – into engaging in any form of productive forward enterprise. This timidness has adversely affected Tim Cahill, leaving the ‘striker’ hopelessly isolated and effectively useless. Furthermore, with Emerton gone, Verbeek has been forced to extradite his most under-rated attacking weapon, Jason Culina, into an unfamiliar role on the right-hand side of midfield.
Culina presents an interesting case. His technical nous and calm demeanor have gradually overshadowed – and eventually suppressed- the attacking qualities that flourished during his time at FC Twente. Verbeek must resurrect, and subsequently promote, these attributes. This will ultimately lead to a re-shuffle of Verbeek’s favorite, and perhaps only, system.
But it needn’t be drastic.
Vince Grella, or Carl Valeri if required, can occupy the lone defensive midfield postion, thus allowing Culina to partner Cahill in the centre of a newly-formed midfield quartet. Until Mark Viduka overcomes his injury concerns, Josh Kennedy should -and ably can – occupy the target striker position. With a simple shift in thinking, and the benefit of a healthy squad, Verbeek can effectively triple his goal-scoring options. It seems almost too simple.
Whether or not the Dutchman chooses to emerge from his creative hibernation remains to be seen. But what Verbeek must acknowledge is that qualification alone is simply not enough any more. If he forgets this, I – with the entire Australian sporting public – should fear the worst.
Recommend this story.
February 17th 2009 @ 9:09pm
Dan J-B said | February 17th 2009 @ 9:09pm | Report comment
Given what i am reading, i am assuming that you all (with the exception of Koala Bear) don’t feel that 3 consecutive losses (probably without scoring) at the World Cup would be detrimental to the growth and profile of the game in this nation. Surely, given the talent of our squads and the financial support of our organisation, soccer fans around Australia should be entitled to feel as though there team can potentially match the efforts of four years ago. Surely this should be about progress??Surely!
And Millster, this was never an argument about where Australia rates amongst footballs elite. We may go to the World Cup and lose each game, to superior opponents, but should we just surrender and fold meekly?? If we are going to lose- so be it- but why do it without having fired any one of the considerably talent shots out of our gun? It, in my humble opinion, is not the Australian way
February 17th 2009 @ 10:23pm
Vicentin said | February 17th 2009 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
Dan, I’ve resisted posting on this one because I feel much of it has already been discussed both in football terms and philosophical terms (literally) but it is interesting point you raise in your most recent post – am assuming that you all (with the exception of Koala Bear) don’t feel that 3 consecutive losses (probably without scoring) at the World Cup would be detrimental to the growth and profile of the game in this nation
I guess I’m with most others in being pragmatic about wanting to confirm qualification and then I really want to see some adventurousness both in our style of play and our personnel before we go to the World Cup. If we were to lose three games and score zip goals etc I think the non rusted-on supporters would come back if they saw us play in a way that engaged them. If the saw us play really dour and negative football a lot of them wouldn’t come back and they would feel that football just fulfilled all the negative stereotypes that we are all too familiar hearing (even if we don’t agree).
If the team plays in a swashbuckling – let’s give it go way way – we won’t lose those people. Now, let me clarify. If we just need a draw or to not lose by than more than two goals to get to the next round I’ll certainly allow for some pragmatism. But frankly as we can’t realistically expect to win the thing for some years (if ever) let’s put on a decent show and get the non core fans to develop and interest and love for the game at what is a critical time for games development and acceptance here.
It will be interesting to see/hear if/when Australia qualifies whether FFA says to Pim, “ok you got us there, what are going to do now?” One would hope that the FFA would have some senior people thinking about this sort of issue to try and expand the games following. Some of you might say that is interfering with the Manager’s role but frankly I think it is too important an issue to just be left in Pim’s hands. Interested to hear other opinions.
cheers
February 17th 2009 @ 11:30pm
dasilva said | February 17th 2009 @ 11:30pm | Report comment
Vicentin
I agree that at the world cup if we played defensive, negative football. We have to make it to the knockout stages as a minimum to considered successful because getting knocked out early playing dour football will bring football back in Australia. If we play adventurous football and lose the public will be far more forgiving.
Nevertheless the nature of World Cup and the group stages in particular means that teams have to go out and win the points to make it in the top 2. I do expect Australia to be relatively enterprising at the World Cup. We have been attacking against Qatar, Netherlands and Uzbekistans so we know pim has it in him to do it. The defensive performances in Iraq and China have been in difficult conditions, the one in japan was I assume we were top of the group and therefore have the luxury of not needing a victory. In the group stage – you don’t have that luxury and often you have to grab 3 points.
Towser quoted
Pim’s a pragmatist – but he’s not a one dimensional pragmatist
(eg he’s not defensive every game). He knows when there’s a need for Australia to attack and the need not to. If we are playing against the weakest team in the group (or 2nd weakest if Australia is the weakest) then expect Australia to play more enterprising brand of football. The Pim – anti-football stereotype is a bit exagerrated.
February 18th 2009 @ 12:19am
Midfielder said | February 18th 2009 @ 12:19am | Report comment
Almost six years ago today remember .. watch the second goal and KOOL just magic
February 18th 2009 @ 7:28am
Koala Bear said | February 18th 2009 @ 7:28am | Report comment
Who ever wrote ::: “Pim’s a pragmatist – but he’s not a one dimensional pragmatist”
Are you kidding… ? Pimbo has only ever sent out teams to defend, even against teams far less than our own superiority .. He simply does not know how to go forward.. We will qualify for the World Cup yes .. But Frank Farina would have been able to achieve that as well; even the past great Australian managers Rasic, Arok, Thompson, with all of our lads now playing in Europe…
The time is coming when we will face teams in the WC superior to us and we will not know how to go forward but sit back and defend and then lose under Pimbo .. He simply does not have the belly for it to go forward … Ozzy Ardilies (sp) is in Australia now and wants to coach in Australia, I heard him say on SBS news .. I presumably think he meant Australia … Let’s tie him up as Pimbo is out of his depth …. I have nothing against the man personally, but he can not or will not inspire the Australian Team to go forward on the attack or defend further up the park.. as Guus had done …
~~~~~~~~
KB
February 18th 2009 @ 7:30am
Koala Bear said | February 18th 2009 @ 7:30am | Report comment
Who ever wrote ::: “Pim’s a pragmatist – but he’s not a one dimensional pragmatist”
Are you kidding… ? Pimbo has only ever sent out teams to defend, even against teams far less than our own superiority .. He simply does not know how to go forward.. We will qualify for the World Cup yes .. But Frank Farina would have been able to achieve that as well; even the past great Australian managers Rasic, Arok, Thompson, with all of our lads now playing in Europe…
The time is coming when we will face teams in the WC superior to us and we will not know how to go forward but sit back and defend and then lose under Pimbo .. He simply does not have the belly for it to go forward … Ozzy Ardilies (sp) is in Australia now and wants to coach in Australia, I heard him say on SBS news .. I presumably think he meant Australia … Let’s tie him up as Pimbo is out of his depth …. I have nothing against the man personally, but he can not or will not inspire the Australian Team to go forward on the attack or defend further up the park.. as Guus had done …
~~~~~~~~
KB
February 18th 2009 @ 7:35am
dasilva said | February 18th 2009 @ 7:35am | Report comment
KB
At home
We never played defensive football
Away in Qatar and Uzbekistan and the netherlands we played reasonably attacking football.
So it’s not ONLY ever send out teams to defend.
He takes in considering how many points Australia needs, the oppositioin we aer playing etc.
I also don’t believe that the really poor Bahrain performance was Pim sending his team out deliberately to defend rather then just a poor performance either. You don’t play Kewell, Cahill and Bresciano (in fact Guus Hiddink NEVER played those three together) to just defend. It’s more of Cahill was unfit, Kewell had his worst game of WCQ campaign and Kennedy getting aerially dominated to why the Bahrain was such a poor performance and not a case of Pimbo sitting back and defending.
February 18th 2009 @ 7:47am
Millster said | February 18th 2009 @ 7:47am | Report comment
Dan J-B, with respect I think the expectation that “progress” means matching the performance of 4 years ago says more about the immature expectations of a set of fans brought up on ‘small pond’ sports than about anything else. Would you bet that – EVER in your lifetime again – you would see an Australian squad play at a level that essentially equalled an Italian outfit? I’m young and there is not way in hell I would…
We have only ever won one single match at the World Cup Finals. We have never been there consecutive times. What I’m saying is lets talk about progress in a way that reflects our real history and stature in the game.
Finally, on Pim’s style, while yes I see what I see when I watch games and sometimes yes it is pragmatic, its also instructive to look at the hard data from the WC qualifiers to date. 20 points for 10 games is absolutely, strictly not the sign of a defensive approach (and that doesn’t even cover interim fixtures like the Holland friendly etc). Again given the Socceroos place in the world, our history, and the fact we are now playing in Asia, I would sign up for that any day of the week and then some.
February 18th 2009 @ 8:56am
Koala Bear said | February 18th 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
We never played defensive football
Das,
I can only recall one half (45min) of dazzling attacking football against Bahrain in Melbourne in the first qualifier at the Telstra Dome there after we have retreated into a cautious defensive mindset against all other opposition home and away…
Millster,
Dan makes the point that we should be a better outfit than what we were in 2006 .. Can you say with all honesty that we are a better team now than what we were in 2006 .. I say we have certainly have not shown any football that has come close to our performances in Germany under Pimbo… Rob Baan sent out a team in London against Nigeria that looked like we were on the up.. Until Pimbo dismantled it ..
~~~~~~~~
KB
February 18th 2009 @ 9:11am
dasilva said | February 18th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
KB
I can’t remember Australia playing Bahrain at home yet.
Maybe it was Qatar in the first round of qualifications. Where we played well but got fatigue in the second half and qatar started having chances.
I don’t believe playing poorly = playing defensively either.
The Iraq and China away were obviously defensive performance and so was the Japan match.
However matches like Iraq at home where we were outplayed, Qatar second half at home (I assume that’s what you are referring to), Bahrain away weren’t defensive performance.
qatar was tactical changes from Forsatti that pushed Australia in its back foot. Now Pim didn’t really react to those changes (we were already like 3 goals up anyway) but that’s another issue and beef I have with Pim but that’s not related to style of football.
Bahrain – I’ve already explain before that it was poor performance by the forwards and I’ll add that Valeri had a poor game in why we couldn’t keep possession. Very little to do with sitting back and defending. You could make issues with squad selections in that game and about selecting players who were unfit (aka Cahill and Carney) but it certainly wasn’t a conservative line up.
Iraq at home – was actually we were too attacking. We had Carney and Emerton going too much forward and not tracking back to cover the gaps causing Iraq to exploit it.
The away performance was much much better performance but it was a more defensive one as Pim fixes up Carney and Emerton instructing them not to make too many forward runs
I don’t think we have progress from Hiddink but we had progress from Arnie. One of the problems Australia had under arnie was playing to the conditions nad I believe the two defensive away performance + Qatar away were excellent examples of slowing the tempo and conserving energy.
Other plus points is that our full backs have been playing very well under Pim Verbeek and there’s a cohesiveness in hteir roles of knowing when to make forward runs and when not to. Pim got the best out of wilkshire that Guus and Arnie never could have got.
So it’s not all bad with Pim KB