By Tony Tannous
October 12th 2009 @ 4:55am
Related coverage
Ruud reality: Verbeek needs to scatter his square lines
Many long time fans of the European game will remember Ruud Hesp as the Barcelona custodian during the Louis van Gaal era in the late 1990s, when the Dutchmen teamed-up to win back-to-back La Liga titles and a Copa del Rey.
Hesp also featured in the Dutch national squad in a couple of major championships, at Euro ’96 and France ’98, but as the third choice keeper, he lived in the shadow of both Edwin van der Sar and Ed de Goej.
Sadly, Hesp never won an Oranje cap.
These days though Hesp is van Marwijk’s goalkeeping coach, helping nurture the latest batch of Dutch shot-stoppers, including the trio on this tour, Maarten Stekelenburg, Michel Vorn and Piet Velthuizen.
On Saturday night he was at the SFS, sitting just to my right, alongside two of Bert van Marwijk’s more high profile assistant coaches, Philip Cocu and Dick Voorn.
The other assistant is Frank de Boer, who like Hesp and Cocu was also at Barcelona under van Gaal. De Boer sat next to van Marwijk in the dugout, while the other three were hard at it in the stand, scribbling away as their side dominated proceedings.
In truth though, Hesp didn’t have too much to write during the first half, with Stekelenburg barely touching the ball.
But at half-time I managed to engage Hesp in an impromptu technical dissection of the first period, and he was happy to chat.
Not surprisingly, it was an instructive conversation.
I started by expressing how impressed I’d been with the position of the Netherlands three-man central midfield, both in terms of their starting position and how high up the pitch they were.
AZ Alkmar’s Stijin Schaars was the deepest of the three, playing slightly left of central. Slightly advanced of him, and to his right, was Ajax’s diminutive Demy de Zeeuw. Further advanced of de Zeeuw, to his left, was the chief playmaker, Wesley Sneijder.
It was a midfield three, but they were all in contact and scattered across three lines, in the shape of a forward arrow (>). It meant the Dutch could play angled forward passes, thus allowing them to circulate the ball and boss the game.
Contrast it with the Socceroos central midfield.
It featured two sitters, Jason Culina and Vince Grella (until he limped off, replaced by equally defensive minded Carl Valeri), and an attacking shadow-striker in Tim Cahill.
Cahill seemed intent to get forward and close to Josh Kennedy, ensuring the striker wasn’t isolated.
What that did though was isolate Cahill from his two holding midfielders, who often looked like they were sitting right on top their central defenders.
What was so impressive about the Dutch midfield was their willingness to not only circulate the ball, but to pass it and move, to get forward and offer an option.
De Zeeuw, for example, linked beautifully with Dirk Kuyt and Khalid Boulahrouz down the right, while Schaars and Sneijder combined on the left.
When a Dutch player had the ball at his feet, he generally had a forward diagonal option, left and right.
The logic in the midfield shape, according to Hesp, was to alternate position. When De Zeeuw goes, Schaars sits in. When Schaars advances, De Zeeuw drops offs and fills the hole.
It’s Futsal-esque, and looked seamless enough here. It certainly allowed for some neat combinations in the front third, and the Dutch should have had at least a one goal lead at the break.
Contrast this with the Socceroos forward structure in the first period.
With the holding midfielders deep and playing in straight line, focussed on defence, the only options were square passes.
“We know Pim Verbeek and the way he plays,” Hesp said.
“He likes to set the team out in straight lines, and sit back, so our idea before the game was to look for space in between the lines.”
I think you’ll agree they succeeded, with the Socceroos unable to handle the movement of Schaars, De Zeeuw and Sneijder.
Pinned back, it was little wonder Verbeek’s men weren’t able to get the ball out, let alone make it stick in the front third.
With wide men Harry Kewell and Brett Holman offering little, Australia’s play was predictably one-dimensional, with a clipped ball into the head of Cahill or Kennedy the only outlet, seemingly looking for a flick-on and a second ball.
The team, to me, looked like it had been set-up to control at least some periods of the play, but with Holland in total control of the possession, Cahill and Kennedy’s strength, their ability to attack crosses, was wasted.
Verbeek at least recognised this at the break and re-jigged the forward formation into a counter-attack one, with Kewell and Holman deployed through the middle and the quick Dario Vidosic and Brett Emerton on the flanks.
It looked far more effective than the first period, with the front four at least offering plenty of mobility and the odd piece of link-up. Emerton and Vidosic did well, and Kewell showed he still has a lovely touch.
But the front four were still far too isolated from the rest of the unit.
That was because Verbeek wouldn’t cast aside his “twin-holders” mantra.
When Valeri was replaced late, who did Verbeek introduce? Yes, another sitter in Mile Jedinak, instead of showing a bit of enterprise and playing a half-and-half type midfielder like Nick Carle.
One the evidence of this, if the Socceroos are fortunate they may well grind out a point or two in South Africa, but unless Verbeek is prepared to brake the shackles and release one of his holding midfielders, it is unlikely to be enough to get out of the group.
Get Australia's best Football opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(37)
md said | October 12th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Tony – some fair points, but generally I think the commentariat needs to calm down.
We drew with the Dutch. And not luckily; we shut them down to the extent that Schwartzer’s main involvement was catching floated crosses. Pim and the team did a great tactical job that will stand him in good stead for the World Cup, where a similar result in the group stage will be priceless. We know from Ireland and other performances that the team can go into attack mode, when needed. Knowing that we can grind out a draw with teams like the Dutch is tactically huge in terms of World Cup preparation.
The real test, for now, is whether we can do the business against Oman.
Cheers
md
FIsher Price said | October 12th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Yes, Ireland and other second-rate teams… and even against some of those we’ve drawn or been outplayed and miraculously won 1-0.
md said | October 12th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Fischer Price, et. al
Here’s a scoop for you: we aren’t one of the top 10 teams in the world.
Here’s another scoop for you: Probably only our goal keeper and our attacking midfielder would make the squad for any of the top 10 teams in the world; and then neither would be guaranteed a start.
So, the situation seems to be that (when Pim is not experimenting), our best team can beat all the teams that are “second-rate” like us (Japan, Ireland etc…), and we can make it very difficult for top 10 teams to beat us.
Short of us miraculously turning up a dozen Champions League level players, that seems like about the best possible scenario.
FIsher Price said | October 12th 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment
No scoops there. I’m well aware of Australia’s limitations in relation to the 40 or so nations who can arguably boast a superior team and better credentialled players.
My opinion/negativity stems from my sense that playing ultra-defensively every single match has made Australia inflexible and devoid of creativity.
Is it really the limits of Australia’s ambition in South Africa to set up the side exclusively to attempt to eek out a trio of scoreless draws? Should we be satisified with avoiding any defeats and be hopeful or replicating that group stage result (should we even qualify) in 2014 and beyond?
Verbeek’s ambitionless team is most unlikely to win 2 out of 3 group matches, regardless of the opposition. In terms of World Cup and Asian Cup matches, perhaps if we took more risks we’d lose more, but also win more.
Rant over.
AndyRoo said | October 12th 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
Pim is very pragmatic, We have seen with teams that are below us and can’t press as much that with a little more space we can play good football.
Japan and Holland have great midfields so it’s not surprising we end up playing like we do. His away tactics to teams like Bahrain and co is a little more depressing. He treats and away game against those teams like we are playing Holland. Boring but effective so far.
If we lost a little more (say away to China) we wouldn’t have made the World Cup.
Against Oman at home a few midfield players would have to have an off night for the same 4-2-3-1 he used against Holland not to suddenly become entertaining and potent.
I would imagine we would be in a group with 1 team outright better than us, one team around the same (but slightly better than us) and one team the same or worse. We will probably beat the team around our level perhaps an African team with a couple of very talented players but not as solid as our team. We then may get through with just a draw against one of the other two teams or failing on goal difference.
We will then battle hard but not be good enough in the knockout stage.
Pippinu said | October 12th 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
AndyRoo
Hard to know what we’ll end up with – but we do know we won’t end up with another Asian team as happened last time due to a bit of a twist of events.
A good result might be having a weaker African nation (and there aren’t too many of those).
A frightening prospect is to end up with a top European nation or Brasil again, a second European nation, and a top African nation – all likely.
AndyRoo said | October 12th 2009 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
Hopefully we get South Africa as our seeded team, but that is only a 1 in 8 chance. After that it looks tough, as there a few teams that would be good to get but most teams look strong so the odds aren’t good.
KB said | October 12th 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Tony,
great analysis, I totally agree with you, we were absolutely exposed last Saturday night… It was interesting to watch how the Dutch employ triangles from their defence, in midfield, and into their front third; always using forward diagonal angled passes, and catching our players out… It was embarrassing to watch our players stranded so often and chasing shadows in their triangles…
Whilst Pim persists with Holman instead of Carle, we will always be a team that looks like 10 and a half plays on the pitch, instead of 11… I don’t know what more Carle has to do, to get a start before Holman, but it is clear to me that, we need a Nicky Carle who can hold, protect, and create chances with the ball … instead of a headless chook that just runs and chases shadows, and being caught in the middle of triangles with no affect…
No one plays the Dutch system better than the Dutch… So we need a bit of Sth American flair to match them and get a fair share of possession… Otherwise we will always look like a second rate Dutch team….
~~~~~~
KB
AA said | October 12th 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Hi Tony,
Great analysis mate, we need to get you exposed to the Murdoch and/or Fairfax Press also, you may give a few people there a run for their money.
Great article.
AA said | February 27th 2010 @ 12:21pm (4 weeks ago) | Report comment
All these months on and I still feel the same…
Vicentin said | October 12th 2009 @ 9:42am | Report comment
Enjoyable read Tony and good comments by md too….that we created little is frustrating but to have ultimately stifle the Dutch as well as we did is worth noting. I have to admit I only watched the game in a distracted fashion with a child’s birthday party going on around me but I remember hearing a comment – or was it by Ned Zelic yesterday, noting how much of the play goes through Sneijder in a classic playmaker’s role. I think this is pertinent in that many have argued that as we (supposedly) play this fluid Dutch style of football we have no need for a playmaker nor does the system have room for one … sorry to bang on about it but like KB said having a Carle (or Troisi) in there to “put their foot on the ball” and try something creative would have made a difference. I’m not saying a winning difference but I think more would have been created. Now, Holman – superb athlete but a very average park footballer.
Eamonn said | October 12th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Bet Craig “I never made a World Cup,” Foster wishes he was coached by Pim…against Iran.
More Centre-Mids than you could count and ball playing types like Fozzie nowhere to be seen.
and today our soldiers shape our army; slow mo Craig Moore and Lucas Neill are okay…forget Kisnorbo..but it’s the ageing centre backs that means we play two centre mids and Grella, Culina, Valeri and they are not capable or fast enough to run the show on their own….hence the shape of the team.
We don’t have a Roy Keane or Claude Makelele last time we looked.
Pim has got us to the main event and that is good enough for me.
FIsher Price said | October 12th 2009 @ 9:50am | Report comment
I fear Moore and Neill will struggle in South Africa.
Pippinu said | October 12th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
We were made to look a little silly at times, but md has a point – our good record against the Dutch remains intact.
As for releasing the shackles on one of the holding mids, historically, that was Culina’s role (to offer the extra man between the deeper holding mid and the CAM) – was he trying to play that same role the other night?
I reckon he was, but:
1. Culina is probably a bit out of form at the moment
2. Grella has probably lost a bit the last couple of years (and only survived 15 minutes in any event)
3. Our three AMs were pretty ordinary in the first half, without exception
4. The Dutch positioning and closing down of space are as good as anyone else’s.
Put that all together, and of course we were stuggling to link up through midfield.
We did have chances to string more than two passes together in the first half, but invariably our skill level was found wanting under pressure – that’s the big story of the night.
Holman can’t hold onto the ball, and Harry and Timmy weren’t much better in the first half.
It’s a good point that our forward set up was designed to take advantage of crosses that never arrived.
You just have to compare how industrious Sneijder was compared to Cahill – but let’s be all honest here – as wonderful as Cahill has been in tricking up a goal – you wouldn’t put him in the same category as Sneijder in terms of overall skill on the ball.
Eamonn said | October 12th 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
Fisher…
they’ll struggle against Oman never mind at the World Cup….
FIsher Price said | October 12th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Quite.
The team is very average in my opinion.
Robbos said | October 12th 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
I disagree, they play very well according to their ability, we are well structured & capable in the defence, we do still lack a partner for Lucas Neill, but the back 4 plus GK looked strong on Sat night.
We do not have the players available like the Dutch do, gosh how we’d love a Sneidjer to run the show. Cahill for all his greatness is not that type of player. Zelic recommended that maybe we play Kewell in that position, not a bad idea actually, he still has the touch & vision, but has lost his speed. This would free up Carle or Bresc on the left to help out, Emerton on the right. This would also allow Cahill to chime in behind Kewell with his late runs & use his stamina to also get back to assist Cullina. If winning we could than put on Holman as the defensive attacking midfielder.
Of course if we had this set up against the Dutch we would have lost 3-1, but this would be our best attacking options against weaker team ala Oman at home.
Let’s not forget we were playing No 3 in the world & ‘technically’ we are not in the top 30 in the world, but we are starting to admit this & this is a start.
Pippinu said | October 12th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Let’s not get carried away – things aren’t that desperate!!
AndyRoo said | October 12th 2009 @ 10:57am | Report comment
I was about to say something that I thought was a bit out of left field but Pip slightly touched on it.
The reason I feel we are always playing with 10 men KB is not because of Homan, it’s Cahill. While Timmy is a great goal sneak he often doesn’t offer too much else.
The amount of times he touches the ball is pretty low and I don’t think there is any plan to bring him back a little deeper and get him more involved. Obviously he is one of our few scoring outlets so you can just put him down as our second striker but that means we can’t afford another.
I would prefer Kewell as the withdrawn striker and see if Timmy’s passing game is good enough to operate right in the middle. He is tough enough that I thought he might be able to take over one of the holding roles or perhaps we play with 3 central mids. One as an anchor (Grella or Vieri) and Cullina and Cahill on either side. Perhaps leaves us a little narrow though.
I am pretty happy with Pim’s results though. He has done well with pretty much the same team we had last time but less one Mark Viduka and all our key players being older and quite a few on the wane.
Pippinu said | October 12th 2009 @ 11:05am | Report comment
Yeh – that was pretty much the direction I was heading with the Cahill/Sneijder comparison (although Holman is not blameless!!).
I think Vicentin has made this point in the past – Holman is pretty much a poorer version of Cahill – meaning we can’t afford to start a game with both – I think we had our proof of that the other night.
I doubt that in the WC Pim would start with both Holman and Cahill – it’s likely that one of either Bresh or Vidosic will replace the former – this is what I meant about Vidosic becoming a smokey – I didn’t mean for the sqaud – I meant as a starter.
FIsher Price said | October 12th 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
Spot on re: Cahill.
Australia needs his goal threat but as a midfielder he’s very limited at the top level. Likewise, I don’t he’s strong or disciplined enough defensively to play as a holder.
Rellum said | October 12th 2009 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
I have said this for a while now that Two Goal Timmy is not the man to be playing in the attacking midfield position. His passing game and general reluctance to drop deeper to provide the link between lines has been a major reason behind the teams stuttering attacking play. As was pointed out above, he loves to push up onto Jesus’s shoulder, forcing Grella and Culina to pump it forward as there are no other options. Kewell is the only player we have who can play trequartista , and if that means Timmy is pushed up as a second striker or onto the bench then so be it I say
KB said | October 12th 2009 @ 8:18pm | Report comment
Andyroo,
you missed my point… Cahill is an attacking midfielder and scores a heap of goals for us you can’t be serious about his contribution or he should be more of a defensive midfielder when we have Grella and Culina looking after those duties in front of Moore and Lucas Neil… Vicentin and I are of the same opinion (I think), Holman is a passenger in the team (the ½ player) I suggest a straight swap Carle for Holman… Holman can’t put his foot on the ball to slow down the play when it’s vital … He is too much inclined to rush his passes and any possession we get he stuffs up as a result of it … he is a passenger because of it … Give me a player like Carle who knows how to slow down the play and knows how to protect the ball instead of running from one opponent to another caught up in a triangle of passes that he can’t stop… It’s pointless, and energy sapping, close down on one player and move into a zonal defensive position like the Italians do … The masters of defensive shape football when they don’t have the ball… Then when you do regain possession hold on to the ball and don’t continually give it over so cheaply with rushed passing…
I personally don’t think the Dutch system suits us… Because we can’t get our players into camp as often as the Dutch do to work on one touch football… I prefer the Sth American or Italian system, organised and structured playing patient possession football working from the back, 2—4—2—2 or 2—3—3—2
~~~~~~~
KB
AndyRoo said | October 12th 2009 @ 10:59pm | Report comment
KB, I assume Homino isn’t to be in the starting line up
His position last Saturday was a placeholder for the injured widemen.
Unfortunately Carle can’t be chosen now, a player of his style needs to have their touch and absolutely needs regualr football more than anyone. Unless he is at one of the big seira A clubs training hard with a big squad of quality midfielders you absolutely can’t pick him if he is not playing.
I would like to see Cahill play as a central midfielder. Not a defensive midfielder but not an attacking midfielder either. Only want him really pushing when we are controlling possesion and say Kewell playing as the link man has got the ball at his feet.
i would also like to see Cullina as a central midfielder too, a little bit more advanced than what he plays now and Valeri or Grella as the sole anchor. A Diamond really with Kewell at the top
I would just like to see how Timmy would go with a role requiring more touches in the middle as a link man, not sure if his distribution would be up to it but if it is it would be a tremendous boon.
KB said | October 13th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
AndyRoo,
should never be given another start before Nicky Carle….
that’s a good bit of analysis and you could tinker with the side as much as you like; also remembering that Bresh and Chippers have yet to come into the side… However, one thing is very clear to me and that is Holmino
~~~~~~~~
KB
AndyRoo said | October 13th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Well I am not really a Homan fan but he cops a lot of stick, so I feel the need to stick up for hom. No one who plays for Australia should be treated like he is on other football forums. I would hate to hear him booed at the football.
He does get into position very well and gets in more scoring positions than anyone. He is the master at being in the right place at the right time…it’s just infortunate he can’t really do anything when he is there
So I think his time is up as a Socceroo, Vidosic seems to offer so much more and Holman can dissapear from the team until it clicks and he starts scoring for AZ. Plenty of people are saying that so rest assured I don’t have Holmino in my preffered 11 but I just don’t feel the need to shout that to the world.
I am more concerned about the drop in form of Bresciano and Grella who were fantastic in the 05 -06 season but have dipped tremendously.
FIsher Price said | October 12th 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
I guess the Holman/Vidosic spot would go to Emerton if Wilkshire is preferred at right back. Personally, I only rate Emerton as a right back.
DiCanio said | October 12th 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Emerton / Wilkshire combo is a given providing both are at full fitness. One at RB one at RAM
Which leaves kewell on the left and Timmy in the mid
A striker up front
Culina and Grella in the middle (with either Valeri or Jedi deputising)
Carney at LB, Lucash and Moore/Kisnorbo at CB
that is, bar injuries or form dips, the starting squad. Bresc is our first reserve in AM and Holman is our AM reserve if we want to defend a lead.
md said | October 12th 2009 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
I do love the unabashed arrogance of this group
We’ve gone from happy to qualify, to disappointed that we won’t make a mark in the last 4 matches of the tournament in a very short 4 years, arguably with a less talented squad than the one we took to Germany.
I particularly love that Fischer Price doesn’t rate Emerton as anything other than a right back, contrary to a succession of fairly well qualified club and national coaches that have picked him at right mid, when he was the best option for that position.
I’ve had more than one whinge about Pim in the past, but after the qualifying campaign, he’s clearly a genius and his players love him. Moreover, he’s got a plan that he’s executing pretty well.
If you want to think about it critically, the importance of being able to secure a draw against a top team is amply demonstrated by this (which I have referred yall to before): http://www.football-rankings.info/2009/09/2010-world-cup-seeding-formula-based-on_3714.html Take your pick of the groups – particularly now there are likely to be 2 groups of death, with Portugal finally having got its act together.
FIsher Price said | October 13th 2009 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Well, I don’t rate him in midfield…
Emerton’s physically fit and ever-willing but that’s about it. PSV only played him at RB, much to the player’s chagrin. Since he left the Netherlands he’s been in and out of favour at RM for Blackburn. A glowing endorsement of his ability as a midfielder?
Rohan said | October 13th 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
@Fisher Price – it was Feyenoord not PSV that Emmo played.
Pippinu said | October 12th 2009 @ 4:40pm | Report comment
Some interesting quotes from the back page of The Age today.
Harry: They must be thinking what do they have to do to beat us?
Robbie Slater: (referring to Oman) “What better way to prepare than against the No. 3 in the world…” Leaping Larry points out that the Dutch NT has never previously been categorised as the ideal warm up for an Asian Cup qualifier.
Paul Trimbole: (referring to Neill) “He’s looked a little bit like he’s lacking match conditioning, and that’s obviously because he hasn’t played.”
md said | October 12th 2009 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
Heh – good stuff.
Anyone else noticing that Widdle Pawl Twimbowli is sounding more and more like Johnny Howard with every telecast?
FIsher Price said | October 13th 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
On another note, I had to laugh that Les Murray decided an ‘interview’ with Harry Kewell was a good idea for Sunday’s World Game “and that”.
Greg Russell said | October 13th 2009 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
Sorry, but I just don’t get all these comments by passionate Socceroo supporters about things that Pim really must do better. Along the lines of md’s comments above, I would make the following analogy:
It’s a bit like an ugly guy who constantly complains that his beautiful girlfriend, whom he loves to bits, is not a supermodel. The ugly guy should just be very happy that he’s got a girlfriend more beautiful than he can really expect to have. Of course she could be more beautiful – but so can any woman!
So guys, get over it! The Socceroos are currently 14th in the world rankings. 14th! And remember that this ranking is on the basis of RESULTS! If any of us had been offered this ranking at any time in the previous history of Australian football, we’d have gleefully jumped at it. So just sit back and enjoy the success, admit that Pim is doing an amazing job, and save the criticisms for when the results start to head south.
AndyRoo said | October 13th 2009 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
I think we are all happy to have made the World Cup and have got good results…although if we lose on Wednesday we will not be going to the Asian cup.
I don’t see anyone calling for Pim to be sacked, but we all have little things we would do different, not better but different Greg.
I
Green n Gold 2010!! said | November 11th 2009 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
Well AndyRoo count me as ONE!!!! SACK PIM!!!!!
A useless coach now that we have already qualified for the world cup…..Where’s the innovation? Where’s the creativity?? Time to employ a South American coach or someone who is prepared to do more than just eck out draws against sides in the lead up to S.A.
As for Mr Russell, you must be smoking something good to say that Pim is doing an amazing job despite the fact his setup was boring tactically against Holland….
With this sorta form, might as well retire Nicky Carle and give him the coaching position!!
Fair go