What did we learn from Paraguay friendly?
Columnist By Mike Tuckerman, 11 Oct 2010 Mike Tuckerman is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- football, Holger Osieck, paraguay, Socceroos
107 Have your say
Related coverage
Australia's Harry Kewell, center, controls the ball through Paraguay's Claudio Morel Rodriguez, left, and Enrique Vera during their soccer friendly in Sydney, Australia, Saturday, Oct. 9, 2010. Australia won the match 1-0 . (AP Photo/Rob Griffith)
Plenty of positives came out of Australia’s 1-0 friendly win over Paraguay on Saturday night, even if Holger Osieck’s new attacking style didn’t amount to playing two strikers up front. A commitment to entertain and an easy-going rapport with the media suggest Osieck is a very different coach to predecessor Pim Verbeek.
“Controlled football” seems to be Osieck’s mantra, and the Socceroos certainly controlled the tempo of the game against a frustrated Paraguayan side.
It was a measured display in Australia’s first match on home soil since the World Cup, with Osieck favouring a 4-4-1-1 formation that saw Tim Cahill play off the shoulder of beanpole striker Josh Kennedy.
That probably says as much about the goal-shy Scott McDonald as it does Osieck, although there’s no doubt Australia tried to make the most of Kennedy’s height from set pieces, with Cahill constantly lurking in behind to feed off any knock-downs from the Nagoya Grampus front man.
Indeed, there’s a predictability about Australia in the front third of the pitch, although that may change the more confident the likes of David Carney and Richard Garcia grow going forward.
Blackpool man Carney was arguably more solid marauding down the touchline than he was in defence on his former home ground, but on the whole the much-travelled defender looks an adequate long-term replacement for the retired Scott Chipperfield.
Jade North also had a good game in defence, and he and central defensive partner Jon McKain will be delighted to have kept a clean sheet in front the watchful eyes of the new coach, not least because it’s far from clear who will partner Lucas Neill in the heart of the defence at the upcoming Asian Cup.
Yet, it’s the Asian Cup that appears to have held Osieck back somewhat, and aside from introducing Middlesbrough striker McDonald with half an hour remaining, the German tactician refrained from making wholesale substitutions.
Rather than planning for Brazil 2014 by trying some untested combinations, Osieck looks likely to prefer a real tilt at the Asian Cup in Qatar, and he’s using much the same personnel we’ve grown accustomed to over the past few years.
That should come as no real surprise, caution was the watchword when Osieck took over from the care-free Guido Buchwald at J. League giants Urawa Reds, but it delivered results if the 2007 AFC Champions League title is anything to go by.
Hong Kong-based journalist Michael Church was a big fan of Osieck’s Reds during his time in Japan, but warns the softly-spoken German will need to keep egos in check inside the Australian dressing room.
“There were a lot of big egos in that dressing room, just as there are within the Socceroos, so it will be interesting to see how he handles those in the coming months and especially at the Asian Cup,” Church recently told me.
About the only disappointment in Sydney on Saturday night was the crowd of 25,210 – less than the derby between Melbourne Heart and Melbourne Victory reeled in at AAMI Park the previous evening.
Australian fans may have grown weary of Pim Verbeek’s dreary approach, but surely Football Federation Australia need to start looking at ticket prices if they’re to fill venues for friendlies.
Plenty of fans may have paid upwards of $80 for the chance to see the Socceroos in the flesh on a cool evening in Sydney, but just as many no doubt watched the game from the warmth of their living rooms or in pubs across town.
That’s only a minor gripe though, and on the whole the clash with Paraguay was a worthwhile affair, if only because it suggests the Socceroos are on an upwards trajectory once again.
Recommend this story.
Follow Mike on twitter @Mike_Tuckerman
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- football, Holger Osieck, paraguay, Socceroos
October 11th 2010 @ 6:11am
Midfielder said | October 11th 2010 @ 6:11am | Report comment
Mike
Sitting in the crowd were many non rusted on Football fans…
In fact roughly half the people around us were RL folk..
RL folk in Sydney by and large support the Socceroos and along with RU folk make up a good part of the crowd both at local matches and watching on TV.
These folk come because we win and play an upbeat style of play..
Meaning I guess the coach has an interesting problem the cross code support for the Socceroos has limited appreciation of the re building process .. they understand it needs to be done but want to win…
I throw this out because we football folk sometimes assume Socceroo support to being football support, when it is often national support… from this we build but never forget that the crosscoder is arguably the most important person in football development .
October 11th 2010 @ 8:12am
midfield general said | October 11th 2010 @ 8:12am | Report comment
Surprised to hear all the positive analysis in the papers -as you say Socceroos were predictable and I found the game a bit hard to watch. I think the Kennedy reduces the team to kick and rush, and perpexed to see him doing well in Japan as his first touch seems so poor. I thought I saw a more cohesive team vs. Poland and Switzerland.
Poor crowd? a) a meaningless friendly, all educated supporters know half the team will change late in the game, b) low-profile (albiet a good quality) opponent c) I think the money’s pretty tight out in the ‘burbs at the moment
October 11th 2010 @ 8:28am
Midfielder said | October 11th 2010 @ 8:28am | Report comment
MG
A CC lad who cut his teeth on our forum now a full time employee of ESPN wrote the best coverage I read of the game… and has similar views to yours … http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=831090&sec=global&root=global&cc=3436
A interesting aside Bret has now workeed for ESPN for about two years and for all you forum hopefulls out there he used his articles and posts on our forum to apply…
October 11th 2010 @ 11:08am
punter said | October 11th 2010 @ 11:08am | Report comment
Thanks Mid, it was a good read & how I saw the game as well.
We will solid & disciplined, it was entertaining, but we do lack that bit of variety & difference. We know where are strengths are, we just need to see what we can do to add to these strengths especially in the final 3rd, Vidosic playing whole game, giving Nathan Burns a run (20 mins) may or may not be the answers but give them a go. Friendlies should be used to experiment.
October 11th 2010 @ 11:13am
Andyroo said | October 11th 2010 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Possibly he has to check which of the oldies can still play for 90 mins.
October 11th 2010 @ 8:35am
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 8:35am | Report comment
Correct.
Josh’s first touch is non-existent – when you look back and think of Dukes’ near-perfect first touch – it’s easy to understand why we have gone backwards a bit in the past 4 years.
“Control” is a strange word to use to describe our performance. Yes, we frustrated Paraguay (who, it has to be said, in fact did control the ball in the first 20 mintues – and I don’t think we ever really had control of it).
All this talk about “positive” football is exaggerated somewhat.
True, we get plenty of bodies forward on the counter, and in a hurry (and Carney’s goal was basically a result of the ball pinballing off a stack of players, and he was the last man standing) – but you would be hard pressed to point to any attacks that were build on controlled, methodical passing in the front forward, in fact, I’d be surprised if we ever managed to string three passes in the front third.
Let us all be very clear, and hopefully Osieck understands this well, we would not be playing like that in a World Cup, where a switched on team would expose us over and over.
October 11th 2010 @ 12:03pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
MF
So, according to you, a technically inept Australian team that had no “controlled or methodical passing” in attack and never managed “to string three passes in the front third” beat the Paraguayans 1-0 and Schwarzer hardly did any work.
Would you agree that the Paraguayan manager has more headaches than Osieck?
Although, I get the feeling you’ll be glowing in your praise for the team that lost.
October 11th 2010 @ 8:17am
JR said | October 11th 2010 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Carney was not better in defence, it just took the Paraguayans 80 min to start targetting him…once they did we were in trouble. He was a major problem for us in the WC and was targetted instantly by most teams
October 11th 2010 @ 8:37am
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 8:37am | Report comment
They targetted him in the first 10 to 15 minutes as well – the point is that he is gradually improving his defensive game, and his attacking attributes make him a worthwhile risk.
October 11th 2010 @ 10:25am
Ben of Phnom Penh said | October 11th 2010 @ 10:25am | Report comment
I tend to agree. It depends if we wish to risk more with an attacking full back or if we are looking for a more defensively sound, less risky alternative.
October 11th 2010 @ 10:50am
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Chippers always had a great balance (between defensive and attacking responsibilities_ – but he definitely had an attacking side to him (as witnessed by the fact that he was played further up the park in the games against Ghana and Serbia).
Same with Emo.
Wilkshire too has a good balance, perhaps more with an inherent defensive side to him.
Carney is starting to show that he might not only be able to match Chippers, but maybe even surpass him (high praise indeed).
The key for Carney now is to be tested over and over and over – that’s the only way he’ll improve his positioning and reading of the game – it becomes a question of picking your moments, learning when he should and shouldn’t go forward – I sense it’s coming with him, I really do.
We have to accept that players will occasionally get past him and reach the by line because he’s not a natural defender – we can just hope he improves that side, and limits those occasions – you can’t ask any more of him.
October 11th 2010 @ 10:57am
Ben of Phnom Penh said | October 11th 2010 @ 10:57am | Report comment
True, you have to play with the cards you are dealt. We might want an Uchida, but until one comes along we have Carney. Heres to hoping he gets the game time with Blackpool he needs.
October 11th 2010 @ 12:27pm
Melanie Dinjaski said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
After their start, I’d think that Blackpool needs him and not the other way around!
I’m with all of you Roar folk on the Kennedy thing.
He seems threatening when you see him up there, but he always manages to make a meal of some decent chances. And he does get some decent chances. Doesn’t seem to have the foot skills needed for split second awareness that strikers need, and despite his height, the much shorter Cahill is far more capable with headers than he is. I think his value would be as a substitute towards the end of the game. That way when we’ve got them against the ropes with strong starters like Cahill and Kewell, we can bring on Jesus and he’ll finish off some of the easier chances. And we’ll freak out the religiously devout South American teams while we’re at it – Yeah, we’ve got Jesus. Do you?
October 11th 2010 @ 8:51am
AGO74 said | October 11th 2010 @ 8:51am | Report comment
I enjoyed it. Yes it often broke down in the front third which is not unexpected due to a) trying to reverse 4 years of conservative style b) quality of opposition (Paraguay rarely concede more than one goal) and c) in any team it will often fall down in front third due to attackers usually being outnumbered. In general though there was more urgency and desire to push forward which as a fan I enjoyed.
If we are going to a more aggressive style of play, could an alternative frontline for Australia be Kewell and McDonald up front with Cahill playing in behind. Kennedy is no doubt good in J-League for aerial ability but against quality teams you need more than that. Due to his injuries, Kewell’s impact on the left is nowhere near as great as it once was. In general play, McDonald is more comfortable with the ball at his feet than Kennedy.
I actually thought 25,000 was a reasonable crowd. Remember that we’ve had around 20 WCQ’s and ACQ’s in Australia over the last 4 years, so unless it’s an Argentina or Brazil then perhaps (like the rest of the footballing world) we are becoming blase to friendlies???
October 11th 2010 @ 9:13am
Andyroo said | October 11th 2010 @ 9:13am | Report comment
I’m with you AG074, I enjoyed it.
It might not be sophisticated and controlled enough for some people but i’m an unsophisticated fan
October 12th 2010 @ 3:12pm
Mike Tuckerman said | October 12th 2010 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
Reasonable as the attendance may have been, it looks as though the FFA may soon start to consider their options.
http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/socceroos/news/1026513/Sydney-risks-losing-big-games
October 11th 2010 @ 9:47am
Sharminator said | October 11th 2010 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Im an Aussie living in Paraguay … it is important to note that Paraguay were without their top players … who are playing in europe and who´s clubs wouldnt let them play.
Martino, the Paraguayan coach has said the trip is about preparing a new Paraguayan team for next years Copa America, which is why he gave a chance to many locally based players to get some experience.
On the positive side it does show the development of Australain soccer that teams like Paraguay are willing to go to Australia and New Zealand.
There were some complaints in the press here that playing the lowly ranked Australian side was a waste of time, but the result and the game seems to show the trip was worth it.
October 11th 2010 @ 10:05am
Ben of Phnom Penh said | October 11th 2010 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Thanks for the input, Sharminator. It is always good to hear from the source. I think that the growing competence in Asian football coupled with the growing economies and love of the game is making Asian tours both commercially and tactically valuable options. Paraguay last FIFA date played Japan and China, this time it’s Australia and New Zealand. Next trip is Hong Kong ……. which I assume a very, very, very developmental squad will be attending.
October 11th 2010 @ 3:18pm
AKITOD said | October 11th 2010 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
The team that played Japan was the Paraguay top side (rematch for FWC game). The one that played china was the same squad but more fringe players than their top side.
The team that played Australia was VERY experimental. It’d be the equivalent of taking Kewell, Cahill, Neill, Emerton, Culina out of the Socceroos. I wouldn’t take too much from that game tbh, except that the left side of the Socceroo defence is a bit weak atm. Just like against Switzerland who also had an understrength team playing.
Plus its still weird that so many of the FWC team who was described as “too old and slow” are still in the ANT set up. I honestly think that if there’s ANY stage of the 4 year cycle to play badly THIS IS IT, when there’s still 18 months from any sort of WC qualifying. Rather than play pretty well for the next 18 months then panic when all of a sudden these 31 year olds become 33 year olds.
I’m not convinced by Osieck though the team hasn’t really been tested at a high level.
October 12th 2010 @ 4:29am
sharminator said | October 12th 2010 @ 4:29am | Report comment
exactly Akitod, Im an Aussie living in Paraguay … we (Paraguay) were without our top players and goal scorers.
As you correctly stated, Martino, the Py coach, took the best possible team for the Japan friendly, but for the Australia-NZ trip the real european stars stayed with their clubs and several up an coming players from the local Paraguyan league were included in the team, to give them a some international exposure, and to prepare the next generation for next years Copa America.
It was a very experimental side, and nowhere near the best team Paraguay could present.
There was actually a lot of criticism in the press here of the Australia trip, saying that the level of opposition i.e. Australia and NZ, are not football countries or of sufficient football pedigree for Paraguay to bother going there to play them,
To their credit, the coaches disagreed and said it would be a useful trip for player development, and I think it has proved so.
Hopefully one day though foreign countries will see Australia as valuable opposition and take full strength sides.
October 11th 2010 @ 9:56am
Ben of Phnom Penh said | October 11th 2010 @ 9:56am | Report comment
I thought Vidosic looked lively when he came on; it would be good to see him start. I’d love to see Troisi given a chance on the left based upon his current form in Turkey however I guess we are going to have to wait until post-Qatar.
As for the crowd I think that it is a sign that the Socceroos need to be shared around. You’d get a better crowd in Adelaide or Perth as they are Socceroo starved and it is important for kids around the country to have a chance to see their heroes in the flesh, not just those on the East Coast. Cricket did this when they played the Bangladeshi’s in Darwin, a great initiative indeed (though we lost the first time we tried that
). Sadly we don’t have any Asian Cup qualifiers this time around so it will have to be friendlies or the earlier World Cup Qualifying matches. Either way surely it is time to share the love.
October 11th 2010 @ 10:12am
Australian Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 10:12am | Report comment
I didn’t see the game, but just now saw the high-lights on TWG site.. When did anyone ever see Culina hit a beautiful strike at goal under Pim Verbeek, against a quality side like Paraguay (please don’t mention Indonesia as an example). Osieck is playing football with an intent to win against quality football teams—-not playing with an intent not to lose under Pim Verbeek. This is the major difference between the two managers. I hope to see more of it in the National Asian Championships. Osieck will regain the lost respect that was once enjoyed under Guus Hindink by all of us.
October 11th 2010 @ 10:17am
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 10:17am | Report comment
He did latch onto to it and struck it sweetly.
But surely you’re not suggesting that Culina lost his capacity to do this because of Pim’s coaching?
October 11th 2010 @ 10:31am
Australian Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Yes I do because under Pim Verbeek and as all the football analysts have agreed he was shackled to a defensive role not to move forward and assist the top third in attack.
October 11th 2010 @ 12:02pm
Midfielder said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
AF
Agree on the different coaching approaches … Culina would not have been in position to take the shot ….
It was interesting he played like PIM two central defensive mids in Jedi & Culina… but they had much more freedom to rove and push forward… Jedi played the game his was famous for at the Mariners pushing forward …
This is the basic difference between the two… ten minuties to go … we are leading by 1 … very easy to close down the game… this is no BS but with 10 mins to go we made an attack and I counted 5 in the box waiting for the pass… so 6 forward… with Culina sitting in a defensive mid position between the penalty area and half way… i.e.still pushing in attack for the lost ball…
Now we lost the ball … and everything went to I guess to a prearranged plan… Culina pushed their aattack wide and drifted wide himself leaving the outside channel open… Jedi and the other who pushed raced back to cover Culina pushing across … with the other backs watching the runners … it was pretty to watch…
October 11th 2010 @ 11:03am
Fussball ist unser leben said | October 11th 2010 @ 11:03am | Report comment
I totally agree with AF.
Anyone, who actually watched the full 90 minutes of matches played by the National Football Team under Pim, would have seen that at least 80% of Culina’s passes each match were passes back to a defender (usually Lucas) or holding midfielder (usually Vinnie).
Culina rarely went forward (until the “all or nothing” 2nd half against Serbia) and rarely played the inventive forward pass to open up the opposition’s defence.
Having watched Culina play for PSV, GCU and now the National Team under Hiddink and Osieck it’s obvious that Culina was given different instructions under Verbeek.
During his role as SBS “expert analyst” for the 2010 WC, one of the sharpest football minds Australia has ever produced – Ned Zelic – repeatedly commented about this refusal by Culina to play the ball forward.
October 11th 2010 @ 11:14am
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Yes, but:
1. It would be incorrect to say that he never had an opportunity to try one from the top of the D; and
2. it would be incorrect to blame his incapacity to hit the target on Pim (just as Vinnie has a poor record of hitting the target from the top of the D, under any other NT manager you care to mention).
October 11th 2010 @ 11:22am
Fussball ist unser leben said | October 11th 2010 @ 11:22am | Report comment
MF
I don’t know what to believe when you post.
You have repeatedly boasted that you only watched the final 15 minutes of all WC2010 matches, so how can anyone take your views on “team structure” and player positioning seriously?
If you admit you were untruthful, and you actually did watch the full 90 minutes of all 2010WC matches your opinions will hold much greater weight.
October 11th 2010 @ 11:39am
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 11:39am | Report comment
It’s a very simple proposition.
It is extremely unfair to blame Culina’s incapacity to hit the target from outside the D on Pim when playing for the NT.
That’s all.
October 11th 2010 @ 11:46am
dasilva said | October 11th 2010 @ 11:46am | Report comment
Mister Football
I think the point is that people aren’t blaming Pim Verbeek for mispasses that Culina made. People are blaming Pim for the fact that Culina didn’t even attempt to make long range or incisive passes under the belief that Pim instructed Culina not to make one.
October 11th 2010 @ 12:12pm
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Das
no one is talking about passing here – this is all about Culina hitting the target the other night (and it was a fatastic shot – no problems there).
But for anyone to think that Culina would never have been in a similar position under Pim is false.
Furthermore, as I have said repeatedly, the fact that Culina has not hit the target in the past, i.e. not tested the keeper from outside the box, has absolutely nothing to do with Pim’s coaching.
People’s memories are lacking here, allow me to remind you:
1. I can recall at least one instance when Jase actually played as an attacking midfielder; and
2. in the opening game agaisnt Germany at the world cup, he played as a defensive winger on the left, marking Lahm, meaning that he would have had opportunities to cut in on his right – if they had presented themselves – but the point is that he was regularly in the opposition half on both occasions (and they are the ones I can think of off the top of my head).
Otherwise, pretty much every corner kick presents a possibility where a DM might try one from distance – even under Pim!! So it’s a silly notion all round.
October 11th 2010 @ 12:48pm
Australian Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
Culina under Guss Hiddink hit the target more often then under Pim—-don’t you get it Mr Aussie Rules Football. He was instructed to hold the line in defence and don’t take any risks or gamble on his shooting. Zelic, Fozzie, Les, Jesse, Boz, Slater, every one has said as much..
October 11th 2010 @ 12:51pm
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
People may have said as much, but their memories are lacking.
I’ve given two examples where he was operating very near the front third.
Secondly, a high percentage of corners will give a DM an opportunity to try his luck from outside the box – that the DM does not take them has nothing to do with the coach.
October 11th 2010 @ 3:48pm
dasilva said | October 11th 2010 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
Mr. Football
“no one is talking about passing here”
Sorry, since you were replying to Fussball comments about Culina’s back passing I thought it was about it and that’s why there was a bit of confusion from my part. Having read your comments again, it was pretty much about Culina’s long distant shooting
In that regard I agree. Culina simply isn’t a good long distance shooter. in the a-league, he sometimes scores some reasonable goals inside the box but never outside the box so you can’t really expect him to get goals outside the box especially at international levels. Despite the fact that Culina hit the target against Paraguay, I’m not convince he will ever be able to score from distance for the national team. In fact I remember many times under Verbeek, Culina attempted many shots from distance and most of the time the result was rather poor. I don’t think you can really blame Verbeek for Culina shooting.
October 11th 2010 @ 11:31am
Australian Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 11:31am | Report comment
btw MF Aussie Rules devoteee—-where in my previous post did I mention culina’s captaincy Urrr ?
October 11th 2010 @ 11:37am
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 11:37am | Report comment
I think you need to re-read things – no one has mentioned anyone’s captaincy.
October 11th 2010 @ 12:35pm
Australian Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Yep missed it.. one for you…
October 11th 2010 @ 10:30am
Andyroo said | October 11th 2010 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Lets stop tip toeing around the elephant in the room and move on too the big issue all you apoligists seem to ignore ..… the hair cuts!!
With Kennedy and Jedi both having switched to respectable hair cuts those watching on dodgy internet streams will struggle to tell the players apart!
I hope SBS are on the case here.
October 11th 2010 @ 10:35am
Australian Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 10:35am | Report comment
Yes I was going to mention the Hair Cuts under Osieck.. It certainly has a Germanic style look about it.. Jesus looks so much more like an Euro style footballer then a Sth American style footballer..
October 11th 2010 @ 11:00am
Ben of Phnom Penh said | October 11th 2010 @ 11:00am | Report comment
At least the u-19′s are keeping the faith. With Bulut’s mohawk and Amini’s red ‘fro those of us with dodgy internet connections have never had it easier
October 11th 2010 @ 11:29am
Realfootball said | October 11th 2010 @ 11:29am | Report comment
I pine for the return of the mullet a la Paul Wade.
Nothing like a mullet streaming in the wind in its full leonine magnificence as a player chases down a through ball.
October 11th 2010 @ 11:42am
Andyroo said | October 11th 2010 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Well I think the U -19s may again come to the rescue because I think Petros has a mullet
Certianly one of them has at least a rats tail.
October 11th 2010 @ 11:57am
GeneralAshnak said | October 11th 2010 @ 11:57am | Report comment
Man we have strange people analysing the game, I sincerely hope this is not the dross that the Socceroos are going to dish up on a regular basis under Holger – am I the only one who thinks a repeat of the Frank Farina era is a bad idea? Under Pim we controlled games (other than against Germany at the WC) by retaining the ball and through patient build ups with a few fastish breaks. It appears that under Holger we are going to rush the ball into the opposition box at the first opportunity when it may have been better to be a little patient.
Basically if we try and play like this game in a tournament we will get owned, if we go to the Asian Cup with a similar game plan we will get ripped apart by most of the other teams – especially a team like South Korea who will press us high up the park. A bowl shaped midfield when we have no blisteringly fast players to launch a counter attack is insane, I would much prefer us to play a diamond midfield or to start playing 4-2-3-1 again.
October 11th 2010 @ 12:17pm
Andyroo said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
Maybe we will get “owned” but it will be a fun ride.
When the younger guys come into the team (Burns, Ruka, Holminho, Vidosic, Leckie and Oar) that’s a lot of pace and the rush Into the box along with attacking from set pieces with our tall centre backs plus Jedi and Cahill seems a fair enough strategy for mine especially if Holger brings some dicipline to the side (no stupid red cards).
Even when we had Bresciano and Grella the “controlling of the game” under Pim you talk of (and I give a lot of credit to Pim for great results) turned into hit it to Kennedy.
A more up tempo game seems to fit our strengths now. We don’t have a good team to grind out results with and it won’t work on the other nations for much longer as there not standing still.
Edit: If the end result is hoofing it to Kennedy anyway why bother taking so long to do it?
October 11th 2010 @ 12:25pm
GeneralAshnak said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
Well I am not very keen on the hoof it to Kennedy approach – would much prefer to see Macca up front (which is a massive backfip from me – maybe I should go into politics?), and I do agree that if we totally regenerated the side then this style of play would be successful. The problem is we are not going to regenerate the side going into the Asian Cup, and I want to win it!
October 11th 2010 @ 12:53pm
AndyRoo said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
I’m not a fan of the lump it too Kennedy approach either like Melanie I think that seems a good plan B but sadly it has been our Plan A for a while. We simply don’t have the players to break down set defences while playing the ball along the ground.
No doubt our strength last Qualifying campaign over the other Asian nations was our experienced European pros and I think the defensive and controlling style chosen by Pim played to those strengths. Holger seems to think they have at least 6 more months in them and the Garcia selection seems to be a desperate attempt to being in another disciplined player to replace Bresc/Grella. He’s very similar (sturdy pro… which by the end is what Bresc and Grella were when compared to how good they were in 06) and I doubt Holger will be quite so open in the tournament proper, we don’t need to practice keeping it tight in a home friendly and Holger’s no PR dummy it seems.
The team has lost a lot of experience though, and while I think Pim undervalued the A league (it’s definitely good enough to provide role players) the fact is in that squad of 19 there were 5 or so A league players and apart from Brosque being in there I didn’t have a problem with any of there selections. Grella, Bresciano, Moore and Chippers are gone. Harry is now a different footballer and Neil is close to being on his last legs too. If Schwarzer doesn’t get a move from Fulham I wouldn’t be surprised if he call’s it a day from the Socceroos before the end of the season.
There is daylight between Carney and our second best left back…. We are not going to be a great defensive team, we need to score goals.
I think the team will look better when Holman and Emerton are back in it as there movement gives the central midfielders and defenders better passing options.
October 11th 2010 @ 12:58pm
GeneralAshnak said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
Well said, sadly you have left me nothing to add
October 11th 2010 @ 1:00pm
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
Emo replaces Garcia on the right.
You’d think Holman and Cahill are pretty much raffling the same spot (unless they share the 1-1 forward responsibilities – which is probably a good option).
Jase, Jedi and Valeri look like raffling the two central mid roles (Vinnnie must also be close to retirement).
October 11th 2010 @ 1:04pm
GeneralAshnak said | October 11th 2010 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
Holman first 45 minutes & Cahill second?
October 11th 2010 @ 1:07pm
AndyRoo said | October 11th 2010 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
I think Holger has used Holminho on the left in some/one of the earlier friendlies.
I wouldn’t be that surprised if we saw Emmo being considered for playing in the centre either like he was under Guus but basically I think they will both be in the starting 11 somehow.
Holman could probably play up front with Cahill like you suggest…i’m kind of surprised that wasn’t the combo Pim went with against Germany.
October 11th 2010 @ 1:10pm
GeneralAshnak said | October 11th 2010 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
Sadly we got left with the workman like Garcia adding effectively nothing to the game
October 11th 2010 @ 1:11pm
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Agreed.
Prior to the German game, I predicted a 4-6-0 formation (which is what Pim used), but I thought he would use Holman instead of Garcia, mainly because Holman is actually quite good at pressing up the park – and that’s precisely what you need when you try that sort of formation (in the end, doesn’t matter, we were going to be dead meat either way).
October 11th 2010 @ 12:28pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
I totally agree with Andyroo
I’d much rather watch us win 1-0 and 2-1 against Paraguay and Poland respectively under Herr Osieck than the 1-0 and 2-1 wins we had against Denmark and NZ leading up to the 2010WC.
Same results; different style of play.
October 11th 2010 @ 12:18pm
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
General
I’ve already mentioned in a few posts that people are exaggerating the merit of this supposed “attacking” style, and that at no point did we manage to control the ball (that I can recall).
And I’ve copped heaps for saying it!!
October 11th 2010 @ 12:27pm
Andyroo said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
Well once we are ahead by a goal or two the centre backs can pass it to each other a lot before we lump it up front if it makes you two feel better.
October 11th 2010 @ 12:29pm
GeneralAshnak said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
Yes please
edit to add: Spain still played negetive football at the World Cup!
October 11th 2010 @ 1:08pm
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Andyroo
I hope you’ve noticed that a few days back, while everyone was talking 442, I forecast that it would most probably be a 4411.
Now behold – everyone is talking 4411!!
October 11th 2010 @ 1:47pm
Australian Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Gee why on earth did we not think that Kennedy would play in front Cahill.? Really Mr Aussie Rules you put far too much value on your own analysis.. Bloody damn obvious if Kennedy was in the team he would be in front of Cahill a smidgen.. lol I can’t continue anymore I have some urgent business to attend to.
October 11th 2010 @ 1:52pm
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Ah yes – nevertheless – everyone is banging on about an attacking 442 – you included – I mention that it will be a 4411 BEFORE the game – and now that is precisely what eveyrone is mentioning.
It’s good to be wise in hindsight, isn’t it??
On top of that – once you’re start talking about a 4411, well, as I observed a few days ago, honestly, there’s bugger all difference with certain variations of 4231 (and this is the point that people continually miss – there are countless variations).
October 11th 2010 @ 12:28pm
GeneralAshnak said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
Thats because some people have to make/take things personal/ly. Keep talking sense mate, it’s all you can do!
October 11th 2010 @ 12:30pm
Australian Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Oh what a lot of rubbish Mr Aussie Rules Football…
October 11th 2010 @ 12:54pm
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
It’s very simply, we rarely (if ever) managed three or more passes in the front third, and the General is right that it was very much a kick and rush mentality.
The rush of numbers helped produce our one and only goal – but in different circumstances, we would be mercilessly exposed for playing that brand of football.
October 11th 2010 @ 1:03pm
GeneralAshnak said | October 11th 2010 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
Exactly, this technical nievity better be confined to this sort of game or we will be mercilessly exposed by teams able to employ a high press successfully.
October 11th 2010 @ 1:08pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | October 11th 2010 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
MF
You obviously didn’t watch the full 90-minutes. There simply was no kick and rush football played on Saturday night.
GA
Under Pim our National Football team was “mercilessly exposed” on numerous occasions on the park, even though we were only smashed twice on the scoreboard (Sth Korea friendly and Germany WC2010).
During our WC and Asian Cup qualification under Pim we were smashed on the park more often than not but – through good luck and Schwarzer’s magnificent goalkeeping – we got results.
October 11th 2010 @ 1:51pm
Australian Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
Only Barcelona/Spain play three or more passes in the front third because the teams they play against have parked the bus..
October 11th 2010 @ 1:54pm
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
Only Barca and Spain have the capacity to string three passes together in the front third?
Hands up everyone who honestly believes that??
I tell you what – watch the Asian Cup carefully, and you’ll see a few passes in the front third – unfortunately – it will probalby be in our third!!
October 11th 2010 @ 2:11pm
Australian Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Yep that’s right if Paraguay had parked the bus in front of goal you would have seen more passes in front of gaol ie in the top third that is the nature of football when your opponent parks the bus you have to move he ball around to find the gaps.. Is that too difficult to work out or understand. When all inferior teams come up against Baca or Spain guess what happens all the time..?
October 11th 2010 @ 1:58pm
Rellum said | October 11th 2010 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
Personally I found that was like watching a game of AFL, the ball spent most of the time in the air, lots of 50/50’s with players charging towards the loose pill. I want us to have some controlled possession in attack, ball on the deck, with some crisp passing, players getting the ball at their feet in the box.
I haven’t seen the other friendlies so I will give Osieck to benefit of the doubt, but a performance like that will not win us the Asian Cup.
October 11th 2010 @ 2:04pm
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
Personally I found that was like watching a game of AFL….
steady on – I didn’t think it was that good!!
Seriously, putting aside our inability to keep the ball – is it such a bad thing that we cause the opposition to create 50/50s against their will?
These sorts of questions need to be better seprated out – if we can cause a quality team to put the ball where it is not to their advantage – that’s a win for us.
If you look closely – all the best teams in the world have that capacity!
October 11th 2010 @ 2:06pm
GeneralAshnak said | October 11th 2010 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
I don’t think we did that delibrately though – they just lost the plot against us
October 11th 2010 @ 2:08pm
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
In fairness – it was probably a bit of both – it took a while but by about half way through the first half, we had a decent pressing game happening, and McKain’s positioning for the whole game was spot on.
October 11th 2010 @ 2:47pm
Rellum said | October 11th 2010 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
That is a wonderous leap of logic to say that our inability to control the ball is a tactical win.
October 11th 2010 @ 2:52pm
Mister Football said | October 11th 2010 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
Rellum
You are not following what I have said – on many occasions I have commented on our lack of ability to retain the ball – many times – on all relevant threads.
But I said you have to separate things out (my exact words above).
That’s one side of it, yes, agreed, barely a pass mark.
But in mentioning 50/50s, that includes us forcing them to lose possession – correct?
That’s something else that be can be assessed, and it’s a separate question – and you would mark the Socceroos as good from about the 20th minute to the 80th minut, and fair/average for the remainder. Here we are talking about pressing, hassling, marking, positioning, Wilkshire getting in their face, etc, etc