Fitting for Mr Wait, the reaction came too late
By Tony Tannous, 27 Jun 2010 Tony Tannous is a Roar Expert
Related coverage
- Football news
- Socceroos news
- Socceroos Fixtures news
- World Cup Favourites news
- World Cup Roar of the Crowd Competition news
- Football World Cup - South Africa 2010 news
- Tim Cahill news

Australia's Tim Cahill reacts after getting a red card during the World Cup group D soccer match between Germany and Australia at the stadium in Durban, South Africa, Sunday, June 13, 2010. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson)
Reflecting on the Socceroos third World Cup campaign, the one real regret is that we didn’t have a manager able enough to sense the mood of a match and the mentality of the nation.
Pim Verbeek’s first instinct was to wait. React rather than act.
He looked to the limitations, rather than the possibilities.
One of the most telling moments in South Africa came at the start of the second half of our second game, against Ghana in Rustenburg.
The Socceroos were drawing 1-1 with The Black Stars and Harry Kewell was completing his shower after seeing red midway through the first half for blocking a Jonathan Mensah strike with his right arm.
Needing the three points desperately after the Durban Debacle, the Roos were on the brink of elimination.
A positive reaction was required. All or nothing.
The Socceroos might have been a man down, but they needed to get out in the second half and re-assert control over the game.
It had started well, but the opening goal saw a change in the mood.
Soon after Brett Holman pounced on a Richard Kingson mistake and shortly before Kewell was sent packing, the Roos started ceding control of the match by retreating to their 18 yard box. This negative mind-set, in part, contributed to the equaliser.
I’ve no doubt why Verbeek retreated. His first instinct was to defend the lead, and no doubt he would have been worried about the pace of Craig Moore and Lucas Neill and didn’t want to get exposed in behind.
Fair enough, the Roos were up and had something to protect, but they played into Ghana’s hands and allowed them back in.
In any case, Milovan Rajevac’s men had equalised and were in control. It was time to react.
So at the start of the second half, surely the Roos would get out there and get on the front foot, press Ghana high and have a real crack.
It would require a manager prepared to take a few risks at the back.
A day earlier, Germany had laid out the perfect template on how to control a game with 10 men. After Miroslav Klose was sent off early against Serbia, they were still able to dominate, control the match and create all the best chances.
Joachim Loew’s men played open at the back, lived dangerously, and didn’t end up with the reward, but they showed the initiative. On another night they would have won 5-1.
Verbeek didn’t take the same initiative. He waited.
For the reasons mentioned above, the Roos retreated, allowing Ghana to have acres in front of the back four. The message? Shoot from distance if you like, but we’re not letting you in behind.
Every time the Roos lost the ball, everyone retreated back towards the 18 yard box. When they did win it, they were deep, with no-one forward to hit.
As I noted throughout the early stages of the second half, during my live running analysis, Verbeek could have tried to wrestle the initiative by defending higher, pressuring Ghana and trying to win the ball back early.
If he was worried about the pace at the back, bring on Michael Beauchamp for Moore. The latter was having an excellent game, but there’s little doubt he was dropping off “to give the team a chance to defend”, as his best mate Kevin Muscat had suggested during the loss to Germany.
Instead, Verbeek waited, until the 66th minute, midway through the second half, when Scott Chipperfield was introduced for Marco Bresciano, followed two minutes later by Josh Kennedy’s introduction for Holman.
It wasn’t until that point that the Roos got on the front foot. With Brett Emerton moved up, alongside Kennedy, and Chipperfield and Luke Wilkshire getting forward in support, suddenly the Roos had bodies forward, and could play for the second ball.
There was little football, just a red hot go, in the true Aussie way, and but for a block from Kingston on Wilkshire, the Roos might have had their winner.
I’ve since heard Wilkshire speak about the chance, and his regrets. A player that gave his all, was terrific throughout, should never be made the scapegoat.
After all, he was only pushed up-field very late. Had he been asked to move forward earlier, he might have had three or four chances.
The bigger question is not about the missed chance, but about whether Verbeek’s strategy gave his team enough time to win the game? The reaction came, but it came too late.
Fast forward to Nelspruit and it was a similar tale. Needing goals, Verbeek preferred to wait, gambling instead on an unlikely victory to Ghana over Germany.
Realistically, the Socceroos should have been expecting a German victory, hoping, but never banking on it being comprehensive.
Either way, the Socceroos should have been pro-active from the start, looking for goals, and a two or three goal margin.
Instead Verbeek didn’t unleash his high pressing game until the second half, and it wasn’t until midway through the second half that he finally sacrificed one of his twin screeners.
For a while it looked like the miracle was on, but a piece of poaching by Marko Pantelic saw to that.
Even after he scored to make it 1-2, the Socceroos had two great chances, to Kennedy and Jason Culina, to fix the goal difference.
It proved they had it within them to get on the front foot and dictate to teams at this level. They just needed the confidence and the game-plan.
But for large parts Verbeek chose the safer option. Wait, retreat, react.
Thankfully, the reaction from the players was invariably one of pride. The Socceroos don’t have a problem with pride, and it was almost enough to get them through.
But with a touch more nous, an ability to feel the moment and the mood of his men, the feeling is more might have been achieved.
Over to Wilkshire, one of the Roos unsung heroes, to paint a picture of type of manager the Socceroos should now be seeking. Speaking to Fox Sports on his departure from South Africa, he said;
“He needs to have a bit of understanding, of course, about the Australian mentality. He’ll know there’s talent within the squad to be successful. He’ll be able to guide us to be successful, as we have done in the past, and give us the tactical know-how to go and compete at the top level.”
With the Socceroos winning, go-for-it, mentality (which, incidentally, more credentialed nations would kill for), it’s clear what the players need is a go-forward man who can give them the belief and has the tactical smarts to make the right moves at the right time.
Verbeek, for all his success in reaching the World and Asian Cups, points never to be underestimated, was caught short on both counts.
Follow Tony on Twitter @TonyTannousTRBA
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)
- Does the A-League need an injection of humour? (44)
- Socceroos screwed over by FIFA, again (41)
- Sydney and Perth eye A-League crunch game
- Melbourne Victory vs Central Coast Mariners: A-League live scores, blog (97)
- Liam Miller: Bargain buy of the A-League season? (9)
- Zambia plays Cup of Nations final in memory of their fallen (7)
- Capello’s resignation ends an awkward marriage (8)
- Does the A-League need an injection of humour? (46)
- Redknapp the best bet to clean up Capello’s England mess (2)
- Melbourne Victory vs Central Coast Mariners: A-League live scores, blog (97)
- Liam Miller: Bargain buy of the A-League season? (9)
- Zambia plays Cup of Nations final in memory of their fallen (7)
- Capello’s resignation ends an awkward marriage (8)
- Redknapp the best bet to clean up Capello’s England mess (2)
- Melbourne derby reveals tale of two journeys (3)
- O’ so close for John: How JON almost landed the biggest job in sport (16)
- Explore:
- 2010 World Cup, Craig Moore, football, Germany, Ghana, Harry Kewell, Josh Kennedy, Michael Beauchamp, Pim Verbeek, Serbia, Socceroos, Tim Cahill, World Cup

JR said | June 27th 2010 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Exactly – “Soon after Brett Holman pounced on a Richard Kingson mistake and shortly before Kewell was sent packing, the Roos started ceding control of the match by retreating to their 18 yard box. This negative mind-set, in part, contributed to the equaliser.”
That is where our cup campaign finished.
Pim is taking a lot of heat but the line between success and failure is desparately fine. I think he did OK, but I concede that a really special manager like Hiddink or Mourinho would have done better. The quality of the cattle in most cases is more important than the quality of the manager. We don’t need to be like the poms and demonise these guys, actually it is a kind of pathetic way of not taking responsibility.
Tony, why you don’t do this in the mainstream press and get paid for it is beyond me, but I’m delighted to read your thoughts for free! I read a lot of football commentary and you are easily the best.
Damo Baresi. said | June 27th 2010 @ 7:07pm | Report comment
agreed.
Mega said | June 27th 2010 @ 8:56am | Report comment
“Even after he scored to make it 1-2, the Socceroos had two great chances, to Kennedy and Jason Culina, to fix the goal difference.
It proved they had it within them to get on the front foot and dictate to teams at this level. They just needed the confidence and the game-plan.”
UH? How did the “game-plan” impact on their ability to score in the positions they had? More to do with ability surely.
You can’t blame everything on Pim.
Tony Tannous said | June 27th 2010 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Mega, It wasn’t the game plan that made them miss the chances. Of course players will miss chances. The point being that had the Roos been on the offensive earlier, more chances would have been had. The fact they didn’t attack earlier comes down to the game-plan.
Rabbitz said | June 27th 2010 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Yup it’s all the coach’s fault. The highly paid, professional players had nothing to do with the appalling performances leading up to and in the tournament.
How about this? “Overall both the coach and players performed well below the standard expected of them. It was too little too late when the group started playing as a team, with commitment and with a useful game plan”.
JR said | June 27th 2010 @ 9:09am | Report comment
I’m with Mega, we didn’t have the players. It was more or less the same team as 4 years ago, and we did more or less the same – a little bit worse. That’s what you’d predict with older players and no Viduka. Don’t forget how poorly we pressed and defended – how could Pim throw caution to the winds?
I say it again – the manager is not so important (because National team managers have far less flexibility to influence the game, completely different from top club managers), what we need to discover is new players with much better skills.
JR said | June 27th 2010 @ 9:17am | Report comment
If I can just illustrate my point. I lived in the UK for years and always heard this “we have the best players in the world, just the manager doesn’t pick the right team”. For every bloody manager they ever had. My point; Ericksson, MacClaren, and now Capello ALL picked Heskey, a guy who is usually good for 3-4 goals in each EPL campaign. These are all top class managers with huge records of achievement. Ipso, the best guy available for that position in England is poor old Emile. They just cannot buy in a Fat Ronaldo (or Suarez, what a player) to fill the gap. You see this all the time, a new manager rarely changes the team selection. There isn’t that flexibility at national level.
Tony Tannous said | June 27th 2010 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Gents, isn’t it the manager charged with the responsibility of building his players and their confidence, and then giving them the game-plans to succeed? A good manager can get the best out of poor cattle.
As I wrote a month or so ago here, it was Verbeek’s choice not to rejuvenate his 11, and he’d be judged for it.
Imagine how well the likes of Holman, Beauchamp, Valeri, Vidosic and others might have played had they been incorprated into the 11 and given the confidence earlier. Pim didn’t back them, preferring to wait.
JR said | June 27th 2010 @ 10:59am | Report comment
I think Pim would say that the national team manager has very little chance to develop (young) players, that is their own responsibility with their clubs.*
I do think Holman and Valeri should have had more involvement, and Grella and Moore maybe put out to pasture, but whether either of these calls would have made a huge difference is debatable.
Holman well and truly stuck his hand up, Valeri too, the others not.
If you must have a scapegoat, blame the NSL and its collapse – we are missing a generation of players.
*OK, Hiddink did it with Wilkshire (easily our best player for mine), but there aren’t two Guus Hiddinks. Or only one, as they say on the terraces
Tony Tannous said | June 27th 2010 @ 8:14pm | Report comment
JR, this isn’t as much about developing players (from a technical perspective) but nuturing them, backing them, giving them the wings to fly on the international stage..
In fact, before Hiddink the starting 11 looked like this;
Schwarzer; Neill, Moore, Popovic, T Vidmar/Lazaridis; Emerton, Skoko, Grella, Bresciano; Viduka, Aloisi.
Others like Mckain, Kewell, kalac, Tiatto, Agostino, Elrich, Milicevic, Muscat, Thompson were also in the mix
Guys like Culina, Cahill and Wilkshire were just breaking into the team and not yet first 11 players.
We all know what it looked like by June 2006. Neill and Chippers as centre halves, Emerton as a fullback, Culina a regular, Popovic, Laza, Skoko, Aloisi became bit part benchies, McKain, Tiatto, Agostino, Elrich, Milicevic, Muscat all gone…
What Hiddink did wasn’t so much about developing the team, but evolving the team. It’s not a manager’s job to develop players from a technical perspective, but it is his responsiblity to nuture them, develop them into internationals.
JR said | June 28th 2010 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Yes, I understand and acknowledge your point.
Hiddink is a genius in my view and having seen him at a few different gigs, follows a certain pattern – puts the non-performing big names on the bench, brings in all the youngsters available to have a good look at what’s available and to use their youthful enthusiasm, and can pick winners where others just see dross.
Wilkshire is one example but I also credit him with resurrecting Malouda’s career at Chelsea. I didn’t follow what he did with Russia too closely but have a feeling he also brought exciting new players into the team.
Feeling a bit depressed today – the WC is at that point where I think Australia can never play at this level
You made a great point somewhere when you said that Australia battled back into some game or other, but without playing football. It’s what we’re famous for but I’d love it if we could pass and keep the ball like Argentina, Uruguay or Mexico.
Tony Tannous said | June 28th 2010 @ 8:55pm | Report comment
JR, here’s a piece I did during Euro 2008 on Guus and his Russians, and it includes some of the players he brought through…
http://au.fourfourtwo.com/blogs.aspx?CIaBEID=403
Rabbitz said | June 27th 2010 @ 9:24am | Report comment
“Gents, isn’t it the manager charged with the responsibility of building his players and their confidence, and then giving them the game-plans to succeed?”
Actually, no. If professional players aren’t up to it, then why are they selected? The same problem exists with the Wallabies, why are national coaches expected to coach players on how to play the game? Frankly if that is their job then just pick a squad of random players from the local park to represent the country.
I will concede that the coach should provide a workable game plan.
James said | June 27th 2010 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Bang, bang, bang. Spot on as usual Tony.
PV wasnt a complete disaster, but as many of us suspected and predicted, he was ‘caught short’ as you say.
Great to finally see your post mortem, as JR said, best in the business.
Tony Tannous said | June 27th 2010 @ 8:15pm | Report comment
Cheers James and JR, thanks.
sheek said | June 27th 2010 @ 10:09am | Report comment
I believe Guus Hiddinck said it was the players responsibility to be match-fit, & his responsibility to develop the strategy & tactics, & have the players at a level of understanding where they could play whatever formation & tactics were necessary.
The assumption being, when you reach the national team, you already have the basic skills & fitness. With the Wallabies, it’s extraordinary we have guys at the elite still with severe flaws in their technique. Robbie Deans shouldn’t be spending part of his time as national coach, still teaching players the basics.
There are other problems with Australian rugby not evident in football. For starters, our rugby players are not getting the tough competition at each level as they progress from juniors to high schools to seniors. When players become Wallabies they are lazy, both in attitude & technique. Here it’s the system, the structure. But nobody seems to get it, or wants to get it.
With football, Pim had a plan to get us to the world cup, & in this he succeeded. But as I recall as discussed on the Roar frequently, the tactics that got us to the world cup wouldn’t help us advance far, if we didn’t change. And this is what came to pass.
While Pim was spreading his “steady as she goes” philosophy to the players, he should also have been telling them, “when we get to the world cup, we must be more pro-active. So while we will spend part of our training playing the conservative game to get us to the world cup, we will also spend part of our training developing more attacking options for when the world cup starts.”
I’m not a football expert, but some things are common to all sports. It doesn’t matter how good you are, everyone is susceptible to pressure. Even great players become ordinary players when the time & space they have to think & act is cut down. This is true whether you play cricket, both rugby codes, hockey, football, etc.
This didn’t happen against Germany. Our guys sat back & got smashed. In the very next game, Serbia showed how it should have been done. And the All Whites demonstrated exactly the same thing in all 3 of their pool games.
Sure, some of our key players were down in fitness & form. But strategically & tactically, Pim stuffed up. Having said that, I still appreciate his achievements. I believe he did his best, but he showed in the end he was no Hiddinck.
whiskeymac said | June 27th 2010 @ 10:50am | Report comment
good post sheek – altho the roos technique also falls a bit short compared to other teams and this is due to the set up as well (albeit now being addressed one hopes by the FFA etc) – and i think the notion that the coach is responsible for the tempo and tactics is bang on.
Tony Tannous said | June 27th 2010 @ 8:18pm | Report comment
Sheek, for a non-football man your understanding is excellent.