To play or not to play with vim
Roar Guru
By Pippinu, 18 Oct 2009 Pippinu is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- 2010 World Cup, football, Pim Verbeek, Socceroos
It’s still hard to believe that having qualified for a second consecutive world cup, for the first time in our history, that Pim continues to receive as much negative criticism as he does plaudits.
The last two Socceroo outings have done nothing to change this mix, certainly not in favour of Pim.
There are two camps that we can identify:
1. Those who have been around a while, understand the enormity of making two consecutive world cups, and fully appreciate that just to replicate Australia’s results in 2006 will be a massive achievement. Let us call these people: the pragmatists.
2. Those who demand far more from Pim and the Socceroos, not just in terms of results, but in terms of what we might call the team’s aesthetic qualities (the ability to string a few passes together). Let us call these people: the fantasy leaguers.
Now, allow me to warn you all, I have no idea where this discussion is about to head, only that I would like to touch on a few inter-related topics. If this doesn’t appeal to you – turn away now.
I have this nagging feeling that we have reached a stage in our football development where perhaps a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
I am reminded of this when I read the reviews of bloggers of A-League games who are very quick to accuse a coach or team of playing a “long ball” game, and I wonder to myself: have people observed a hapless defender go route one under pressure, and assumed that the manager has instigated a long ball game, or are they truly aware of what a long ball game actually entails in terms of game plan and philosophy?
While the whole long ball philosophy is pilloried in the modern age, curiously its underlying philosophy is backed up by a statistic that remains unchanged since the 1950s, and that is that the vast bulk of goals are scored via four or less passes – in fact, it’s a ridiculously high percentage, not just in some countries, but right across the world.
But let us leave that little oddity there.
Regular and highly esteemed Roar football analyst, Tony Tannous, mentioned soon after the Holland match that Australia was set up to get plenty of crosses in from wide (with Josh backed by Timmy). This was undoubtedly true, the only trouble is that the crosses never came and the Dutch absolutely controlled the game with impunity.
Regular Roar contributor, AndyRoo, made the comment around the same time that he much preferred a recent game that featured Macdonald as the sole striker, for the simple reason that it forced the team to keep the ball on the deck.
However, a few days before the Holland game, Pim made it very clear that the time for experimentation was over, meaning the set up we’ve seen for the last two matches: two screeners and Josh backed by Timmy is probably the set up Pim is thinking of taking into the WC.
Both the Dutch and Omanis gave us a hint of what we can expect in the middle of the ground if we proceed with this sort of game plan, and I think that despite his amazing goal scoring record, we are all starting to understand that Timmy is not going to play as a typical CAM – to be honest – I don’t think he is capable of that (at WC level).
What does it all mean?
If you have connected all the dots – I think it’s pretty obvious.
But my closing question: considering what we are likely to be up against in 2010, with a squad that is starting to look like a shadow of the 2006 version, do we have a lot of choices?
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Football articles
- Phoenix need more than flash in the pan crowds (133)
- ‘New football’ fans may help save the game in Australia (124)
- Does Tasmania have a case for A-League inclusion? (119)
- What happened in Port Said was not a football riot (118)
- Magilton struggling to make a mark (68)
- Socceroos screwed over by FIFA, again (41)
- Gulf influence cripples the FFA again (40)
- Departing Lavicka has players’ respect
- Victory gain Spanish recruit for Mariners
- Melbourne derby reveals tale of two journeys
- Midweek regional matches not hitting the mark
- O’ so close for John: How JON almost landed the biggest job in sport (13)
- Capello ‘walks’ from England’s top job (13)
- Fabio Capello quits as England manager after Terry fallout (4)
- Melbourne derby reveals tale of two journeys (0)
- O’ so close for John: How JON almost landed the biggest job in sport (13)
- Capello ‘walks’ from England’s top job (13)
- Why Manchester United are never really beaten (13)
- Die Lowen a chance for a Bundesliga rise? (2)
- Hey, Victory! Give them kids a go (9)
- The problem with Melbourne Victory’s ‘hole’ season (25)
- Explore:
- 2010 World Cup, football, Pim Verbeek, Socceroos
sheek said | October 18th 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
I don’t claim to be a soccer expert, but I think Pim has selected a style of play based on our strengths.
The strength of the Socceroos is defence, beginning at goalkeeper & extending to fullback & defensive midfielders. Conversely, our greatest weakness is lack of penetrative strikers followed by attacking midfielders.
Our best goals usually come form broken play, on the counter-attack. We’re not strong at consistently breaking down defences. I see Cahill & Kewell, great players that they are, as supporting acts to a striker, or strikers. They shouldn’t be expected to play the role of strikers themselves.
This was our weakness in 2006, & it appears to be our weakness in 2010, this inability to craft goals. I guess it shows as a footballing country we still have a long way to go in developing this side of our game.
That said, Pim has done a fantastic job, cutting his cloth accordingly. Like I said, I’m not a soccer expert, but this is my humble offering.
Pippinu said | October 18th 2009 @ 7:50am | Report comment
Sheek
undoubtedly true – we are currently set up to play to our strengths, and personally I don’t have a big problem with that (I actually didn’t make judgement in the article one way or the other), but I am saying, in a convoluted manner:
1. that game plan is one that carries a label that has quite negative connotations; and
2. many, many fans will feel quite let down by that admission.
sheek said | October 18th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Pip,
And I applaud Pim for getting the most out of limited resources. Our current ranking of 24 is probably a truer indication of our overall ability than the previous mark of 14.
Football is often decided by the odd, make that, lone goal. So having a strong defence to begin with makes perfect sense. I guess we can say we’ve arrived as a football nation when we produce the kind of world-class strikers that can open up the strongest defences.
At present we don’t possess those kind of players. And if some fans are expecting Pim to be a wonderful magician, ….. well, unfortunately he ain’t!
Luke W said | October 18th 2009 @ 7:23am | Report comment
Interesting article. Germany 2006 was an amazing sporting time for all Australian football fans, but it has been both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, it has sparked football’s growth in the sporting landscape. On the other, it gave a lot of casual fans the impression that the Socceroos are capable of beating any side in the world. This simply isn’t true. I just hope that these people watched the Netherlands game and truly understand the mountain we are up against. So, if we are simply are not good enough to compete with the best teams in the world, what approach to we take with them? This is where your two groups come in Pip. The pragmatists say who cares if we sit back and play a defensive style, any result against these teams is a win. Then the fantasy leaguers argue that we shouldn’t be scared of any other teams in the world, should back ourselves and attack them.
I for one am a pragmatist. I believe that a lot of sports fan are either overrating the Socceroos ability or underrating our opponents. Let’s be realistic for a second. We drew 0-0 with the Netherlands which at the World Cup would be a fantastic result, but it was a friendly. The Netherlands clearly never took it to the next level, which they do have, and were missing two or three first teamers, including star striker Robin van Persie. Judging by his form for Arsenal, he would have buried some of the chances that fell for the Hunter.
But, I would like to see Pim more flexible. Under a year away from the World Cup, and I don’t think the Socceroos have even played in a formation other than 4-2-3-1 under him. I’m sorry, but how does a manager reach the international level with one formation? This is the same formation that won the Jets the A-League two years ago, and took Adelaide to the ACL final last year, but it can be countered, and unless managers are flexible enough to change and adapt, a team won’t be successful. Ideally, if I was manager, I wouldn’t start Kennedy, because AndyRoo is right, we are tempted to easily into the long ball (or early cross as it may be) when he is on the field. Save him for the last 20 when we are chasing the game.
Pippinu said | October 18th 2009 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Luke
good comments.
4231 was pretty much the norm right across the board at the last WC – I’m pretty sure the top four all played it.
So it’s not a problem with the actual formation.
But in our case, a combination of:
1. not having the equivalent of a Pirlo, a deep-lying, creative DM – Culina comes close, but he’s not really at that same level;
2. our choice of Timmy as a CAM, means we miss out on a second ball-playing mid, Timmy will naturally veer towards being a supporting striker (or a trequartista);
3. a striker who is better in the air than on the ground (as opposed to Dukes who was excellent on the ground for a big man);
means that only one game plan and route to goal is open to us. Not only that – we are going to cede absolute control of the midfield to pretty much all the teams we will come across in the WC.
But here is an interesting question – where are we different compared to 2006?
To answer that question, let us look at what I think was our very best game of 2006 (as it happens, the 2-0 loss to Brazil).
The key differences?
Dukes as the sole striker and Harry as a CAM; and Vinnie and Chippers were four years younger and on top of their game.
It’s happened slowly, but we most surely are in a worse position than we were in 2006 (unless we have some bolters in the next 6 months – but things don’t normally work like that).
As for your point re flexibility – yes – all teams need it – Italy certainly had it in bucket loads last time – they had 10 separate goal scorers, and their highest goal scorer was a central defender!! (who only became a permanent started mid way through the comp).
But this is the point – we are just no where near a team like Italy in terms of personnel – sure – if we meet again, we can just about scrape a result in a one-off situation – but that’s different to surviving the journey over many weeks.
Perversely – and we’ve seen this before where lesser lights have surprised – Pim’s set up is the sort of set up that can survive deep into tournaments.
tifosi said | October 18th 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
I see foz is up to his usual tricks:
“Passable results do not hide the fact this team destined to fail”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/football/craig-foster/2009/10/17/1255624771132.html
Pippinu said | October 18th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Well – it’s pretty hard to argue with Fos on this occasion.
We have to accept that the Dutch made us look second rate, and the Omanis went very close to doing the same.
As we approach the WC, the big question will become: do we continue with PIm’s policy of containment, or do we risk utter humiliation by taking the game on?
Pippinu said | October 18th 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
By the way tifosi – I should add that I hadn’t seen Fos’ article until you put the link up.
dasilva said | October 18th 2009 @ 8:18pm | Report comment
“All this with the most un-Dutch Dutchman at the helm.”
I have to say. I do find that funny.
tifosi said | October 18th 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Before the Omani game Assistant Coach Henk Duut said that Australians have to understand that its the result that matters and that 1 nil is enough. For a second i thought he was an italian!!
At the end of the day winning 7 games 1 nil will win you the World Cup, Thats the way pim approaches his tactics, it might be ugly but he will always play like this. Greece did the same thing at euro 2004
I guess the other teams in our group will also have a bearing on the structure employed by pim.
Joe FC said | October 18th 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
Good article Pippinu. Whether we like it or not we all inhabit a results oriented world and so far Pim has done everything asked of him. I think a part of the reason that Pim continues to receive bad press is that too many Socceroo supporters underrate the opposition, particularly the other Asian nations and thus harbor unreal expectations whenever we compete. As sheek says Pim is making the best use of his resources, he can’t do any more than that. It’s a good thing to be looking to improve our quality of football but as somebody recently said here on the Roar striving for perfection will drive us all mad.
Pippinu said | October 18th 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
tifosi/Joe
good posts.
I saw the Henk Duut interview, and of course he makes a lot of sense – but it won’t endear him to many fans!!
Conversely, I read somewhere that a Dutch assistant coach was quoted as saying (in relation to Australia): I don’t know what it is, but it’s not Dutch football.
Luke W said | October 18th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Sorry for the off topic, but what do you guys think about Sunderland’s goal against Liverpool last night? Liverpool were pretty hard done by, and in a perfect world, Sunderland shouldn’t have let the goal stand.
Pippinu said | October 18th 2009 @ 2:53pm | Report comment
HT Jets 1 MV 0
Re the Sunderland goal – firstly, it’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen in sport, and secondly, I’m happy because I’ve had Bent in my Fantasy team since week one, and he has made me a shit load of points.
Bozza summed it up nicely only some 15 minutes ago.
If he had been playing for Sunderland, he would have been rapt, if he had been playing for Liverpool, he would have refused to continue.
One last thing – it was a Liverpool beach ball – so all I can say is: bad luck!!!
Robb said | October 18th 2009 @ 3:09pm | Report comment
In fairness it was a Liverpool beach ball. The idiot that threw it onto the field got what he deserved!
dasilva said | October 18th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
To be fair on the fantasy leaguers
I do believe their point was not based on aesthetic that their point is based on future results.
That your ability to control the game is an accurate predictor in how the results will be in the world cup. That we don’t need to have a semblance of control in the game to win against Asian opposition but we do need that to win matches at the world cup and that Australia is likely to flop because of that.
This isn’t about playing aesthetically pleasing football for the sake of it which the “style brigade” often gets caricatured into.
In fact it is not even about playing attacking football either. If Australia kept possession and limit the opposition to very few chances while keeping the ball but without playing with any adventure or style. That would still be considered controlling the game as the likes of Foster has mention before. After all didn’t Craig Foster praised the match of Australia against China in Kunming. That was a turgid match but we only limited china to one clear cut chance on goal and we controlled the match by keeping the ball and wearing the chinese side out. After all you can play defensive possession football.
The problem is that virtually every game Australia has played against Asian opponents. The opposition has had some clear cut chances on goal. Therefore we are relying on opponents mistake to win the game and perhaps our strength of our defence is overated.
As Foster said, it’s not about style, it’s about not relying on luck to win a game. Let’s face it australia has been lucky in a few of the matches.
AndyRoo said | October 18th 2009 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
“I do believe their point was not based on aesthetic that their point is based on future results”
This is what I am thinking. I was firmly in the number 1 camp before. and it’s still all about result me. I think it’s fantastic that we are the top rated team in Asia. I would have been really proud ofeven third place.
I will never forget what pim and the boys have achieved by getting us here, logisticaly this was a massive task and we saw all our national teams struggle when they first moved into asia.
I am worried about how we are going to beat teams though. Through the middle we are hopeless, at the world cup It’s going to be a case of fingers crossed and hope whoever is partnering lucas is up to it and Schwarzer is goal keeper of the tournament.
If that gets us into the second round I will be happy…… but without a good draw i feel it is unlikely.
Pippinu said | October 18th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Good points Das.