Australia’s Tim Cahill celebrates after the World Cup group D soccer match between Australia and Serbia at Mbombela Stadium in Nelspruit, South Africa, Wednesday, June 23, 2010. (AP Photo/Luca Bruno)
It’s a real shame that the Socceroos’ gallant victory over Serbia was a mere sidebar on a historic day as Julia Gillard became our first female Prime Minister. As the Socceroos exited the 2010 World Cup with their heads held high, Kevin Rudd’s exit tears upstaged Lucas Neill’s.
With Australia’s focus inevitably on the leadership change within the Labor Party and Rudd’s demise, the Socceroos were bumped back to the back pages.
It’s not what they needed.
Their battle for redemption was overshadowed in the Ghana match by the controversy surrounding Harry Kewell’s red card and the subsequent penalty, while the rousing win against Serbia was overshadowed by politics.
Their campaign was deflated by the heavy defeat to Germany; both in terms of their ability to progress and limiting the bandwagon support back home.
Following the defeat viewing figures plunged and sadly that will be the lasting image many people may have of the 2010 World Cup campaign.
But as we know the Socceroos’ turn around was as drastic as Rudd’s demise.
The record books show they matched their 2006 haul of a win, draw and loss. But let’s not forget the manner in which they fought back into contention from the opening defeat, with a squad weaker than the 2006 version (certainly in terms of strikers), in a tougher group with a coach tactically less adept, and with the limitations of suspensions to two of our most important attacking options for our two most important games.
These factors make for an impressive campaign for the 2010 Socceroos, despite not reaching the final 16 as they did in 2006.
While pride was the overwhelming emotion after the match, there was also anger at what could have been had it not been for the defeat to Germany. It’s the inescapable reality we must face up to and, as I wrote earlier in the week, it should be remembered as an example of the attitude the Socceroos must never take into another game, no matter the perceived strength of the opponent.
Verbeek will now exit stage left with his tactical misjudgements and approach to the Germany game damaging his
legacy on Australian football.
Any damage done to the Socceroos brand as a result of the Germany defeat is likely to disappear with him, having become a much-maligned figure in his final days.
His comments to the Dutch press, which lead to Craig Foster’s latest outburst on last night’s SBS World Cup coverage, show yet again the lack of faith he had in his bench – something that was ultimately proved wrong.
And this is the focus for us now – the next generation of Socceroos.
The likes of Carney, Wilkshire, Cahill and co are still young enough for another campaign.
But with Craig Moore (34), Scott Chipperfield (34), Mark Schwarzer (37) and Harry Kewell (31 but with a groin approaching 71) unlikely to make it to 2014, attention must turn to the second tier Socceroos.
Some of them are already exerting their influence.
Carl Valeri’s impressive and steady performances in South Africa, especially in contrast with Vince Grella’s struggles, make him a guaranteed starter.
Melbourne Heart’s Michael Beauchamp is likely to replace Moore in the centre-back role (if the next Socceroos coach is more sympathetic to the A-League), with Rhys Williams also looming in the shadow for that role.
Brett Holman, the undisputed golden boy of the 2010 campaign with his goals against New Zealand (at the MCG farewell match), Ghana and Serbia, will help us plug the striker shortage and will hopefully be given more license to go forward in a more attacking Socceroos team under the next coach.
With the likes of Nikita Rukavytsya, Richard Garcia, Mark Milligan, Mile Jedinak and Dario Vidošić on the brink of the starting eleven, and Shane Lowry, James Holland, Tommy Oar, Mathew Leckie and Ben Kantarovski with the potential to develop exponentially over the coming years, the next generation of Socceroos doesn’t look as bleak as many fear.
And let’s not forget the multitude of young Aussies scattered around Europe and emerging through the A-League and national youth league.
Beyond the golden generation, there is a nucleus of a team to build around as attention turns to January’s Asian Cup and qualifying for Brazil 2014.
But, as we’ve seen so clearly at this World Cup, they need a coach who can utilise these options to the best of their ability.
As Craig Foster argues, it’s one of the biggest decisions the FFA face in a crucial year for the code.
With the A-League set to kick-off in August, with the Melbourne Heart debuting and attention on the struggles of earlier expansion franchises in North Queensland and the Gold Coast, the FFA will be hoping for some sort of boost from the World Cup euphoria.
In December we discover if our bid for the 2022 World Cup is successful just as the new Socceroos coach prepares for the Asian Cup a month later.
Let’s hope the Socceroos can build on the momentum they showed in the final group match in Asia because, in case you missed it while watching Julia take the Lodge, they played bloody well, leaving us to ask what could have been with a Round of 16 clash against the beatable USA and a quarter-final match against Asian rivals South Korea or our old nemesis Uruguay.
Across the Tasman there has been so much political upheaval to overshadow the exploits of the All Whites, who can hold their heads high after exiting the tournament undefeated following a 0-0 draw with Paraguay.
Finishing a point above the defending champions Italy, as well as holding them to a draw, is a remarkable achievement, and full credit to Ricki Herbert and co.
As for Italy, the defending champs when out swinging in a remarkable match against Slovakia but were too impotent throughout the rest of the tournament, undoubtedly hamstrung by the absence of Andrea Pirlo.
They won’t be missed based on their earlier performances.
There is a great line doing the rounds on the Internet which says this World Cup is developing a lot like World War Two – France surrender early, USA leave it late to get going, and Germany and England fight it out.
Now we can add Italy providing nothing meaningful to the battle with a limp attack.
As for Australia, it was a spirited campaign that did much for showcasing Aussie grit on the world stage.
It’s just a shame about that early German blitzkrieg in Durban.
Re-live the thrilling climax to Group F as it happened with Tony Tannous’ detailed analysis HERE.
Alders
Guest
Would you like to explain how?
The Bear
Guest
If Cahill is playing striker and Garcia is supporting him then we are playing obstensibly with 9 men and none in attack. Pim has used Cahill up front and he may as well left him on the bench. The formation hamstrung us. The players reflected the accident waiting to happen. And it happened. Pim's happening. The only thing I do not absolve the players on for that night is by saying "F#$% You" to Pim and telling him to shove his tactics and formation where it fits. The players went out with ZERO confidence - and the Germans smelt it, and ate it up.
PeteHarrison
Roar Rookie
Let's bear it in mind that that is close to a million people at 4:30 in the morning.
Realfootball
Guest
Or globally small private parts.
Realfootball
Guest
Actually fellas, if we're going to be pedantic here, elephants have never been on the pigmies hunting list. They hunt with light bows and arrows that wouldn't even puncture an elephant's hide. Sound familiar?
Jeb
Guest
Not to mention the small man's syndrome
Cpaaa
Guest
thats a fair analogy Kurt, pygmies hunt and kill the elephant but the elephants are just not interested in eating pygmies, but pygmies fear that the elephant is going to eat them so its better we just kill them anyways. ....primitive fear, its a great analogy.
Sean
Guest
I suppose at the end of the day everything that I and others say is purely specualtion over a fate that is already done and dusted. I was not happy with his formation and shocked at over-looking Mcdonald as I have become a bit of a fan of the strickers style and the excitment he can provide to all of us in the stands. I just hope that the next at the helm does not make the mistake of dis-regarding him the way Pim did. If it was to happen, he should exercise his Scottish ties, become Brittish and apply to FIFA to play for Scotland. To coin a phrase I have heard from other sports re great athletes, 'He'd be the first one picked by them'
dasilva
Guest
Fair enough I never disagreed with you that Hiddink was much more attacking coach who believed in the importance of controlling possession. Also he was able to fit Aloisi in the team who was pretty much a goal poacher who didn't really contribute much to general play. I would have thought under Hiddink, Mcdonald would have been an impact player for the Socceroos. It's certainly showed the differences between the two coaches where Hiddink was willing to change the system at will adjusting to the opposition and playing players out of their usual positions (he turned Neil who was our right back into a centre back, he played culina at the wing, Chipperfield became our left back at times and then centre backs at other time, Emerton was our right wing back and played in the centre of defence as well), the players were able to adapt. Under Verbeek, we played 4-2-3-1 throughout the qualifiers and then when we changed to 4-4-2 for one match and tried playing players out of their usual position, then the team collapse. People blamed Pim for playing players out of their usual position and for changing the formation to a system that we weren't used to and yet Hiddink did the same thing and it worked really well. Verbeek was incapable of coaching the players to be flexible.
Sean
Guest
Cheers for that mate...
dasilva
Guest
I think Chris K was responding to a few comments from Alders not you
Sean
Guest
Understand Dasilva, Go to the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_FIFA_World_Cup_Group_F It will show you that against Japan we had 2 up front with Kewell and Viduka on. Brazil he brought Kewell on against Brazil and started with Viduka and Cahill against Croatia. The formations were more of a 3 3 3 . Very attacking, you could call them 3 6 1 but look at the set up... Also against Italy they had 2 up front...
Sean
Guest
To Chris K. I do not understand what relevence of being to South America has. Mate I have been to many different British, European, African and Asian countries, no I haven't been to South America but what is the relevence of that statemant? And what did I say that was an invalid comment?
dasilva
Guest
Well Hiddink generally started the game with one striker (Viduka) up front The difference was that he was willing to make attacking substitution and change the formation when needed. We went from 1 striker to 2 to 3 and even 4 when we were playing Japan. We were always very flexible under Hiddink changing from a back 3 to a back 4, from one strikers to 2+. Verbeek pretty much rigidly kept the same system throughout the qualifiers. In any case in the World Cup, Hiddink actually had a fairly strange and innovative formation. It was a 3-6-1 and due to us overloading the midfield it helped us kept possession against sides with better technical qualities. That was how we were able to control the game against Japan and Croatia (whilst under Verbeek, Japan completely dominated us) Have a look at this http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/01/19/teams-of-the-decade-18-australia-2006/ That talks about our side in 2006.
Sean
Guest
Dasilva Well, I do agree that the 4 4 2 is getting out of date but there are much better formations than having a 4 3 2 1. You have a look at the top sides aound the world, the top games, have a look at how attack minded they are. I have to disagree with you on the point of the best formation for the Socceroos. As Guus Hiddink said "You must defend from the front" That comment is derived from keeping the ball in the front 3rd of the pitch. This because, if you have the ball in your front 3rd, then you are more likely to score and they will have less chances to score. In 2006, Guus had a squad that had less experience at this level and less preperation yet they had a go. Have a look at even the game against Brazil, the Socceroos went at them. At the end of the day it was only a lack of experience that didn't allow the Socceroos to get a result. They went on to play a great game against Italy and were unlucky not to get there chance in extra time. In all them games he had 2 to 4 strickers on the field at one time. He had better more experienced players to choose from than Guus had.... He had the players to play a much better formation and he had 3 years (there abouts) to make it work and he didn't
Chris K
Guest
invalid point
Chris K
Guest
You clearly haven't been to South America
dasilva
Guest
I partly agree I personally thought the 4-2-3-1 was the best system for Australia. It was the system that was purely design to get the best out of Tim Cahill who was our star player. Really building the side around Cahill or McDonald? There really only was one winner out of that. It's the only system where we could fit Emerton, Bresciano, Kewell and Cahill in one side (although we didn't see that combination often due to injuries and suspension). Really the traditional 4-4-2 is becoming out of date in World football as sides getting outnumbered in midfield and becomes difficult to keep possession.. However, when we are losing and chasing the game we need to be able to change the system to be more attacking and having Scott McDonald off the bench to poach a goal in the last 30 minutes would have been invaluable. It's just pathetic that after Pim Verbeek was saying that Scott McDonald could only play in a 2 striker system. They go ahead and play 2 strikers against Germany. Is Garcia a better suited to the 2 striker system then Mcdonald?
Sean
Guest
Once again, I agree Greg. He never seem to have a definate plan, thus he never had a definate team to take the field. Anyone who has had a sporting background knows that cosistancy is needed to have any side gel, it does not matter how professional they are, you can't expect them understand, have confidence and have trust in each other in a game situation from the openning whistle if they haven't had much game time with each other. I have watched most of the games of the World Cup so far and you can see the difference between our side and the other sides. They are fluent, flowing and when you look at the history of these sides it is basically the same side taking the field that has been working together over the last 3 to 4 years. Another fault in Pim was he didn't give a crap! I felt that the Socceroos was basically an experimental ground for him. He walked in and said "This is my formation, I will choose the players that suit that formation, I do not care what type of player you Aussies have, you will do as I say!" Any other top manager in the world will first look at the players he has, then build a formation around that. It has been my hobby hate of his style, since he put his first Aussie side on the field. Again I go back to Scott Mcdonald, here is a player who scores if he is a starter for the team or even if he is coming off the bench. Yes I am a Celtic fan and being a mad Celtic fan, I first watched him sink us when playing for Motherwell, then I saw him repeatedly score for us in the green and white hoops in SPL games and European competitions alike. You put him in the right formation and he will score... a lot! (remember he was in just about every game in the qualifiers) You have Mcdonald, Josh Kennedy, Harry Kewell, Tommy Oar (I don't care how old he is he should have been in!) attacking midfielders like Cahill, Bresciano, Holmann, Emerton you use them appropriately. Basically, he didn't give any other formation a thought, he came in before knowing the team and decided what was happening...Not a good manager, not a great future (feel sorry for the next side he's got!) I just hope that the FFA scrutinise a little more of who is to take on the job next time...
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
"His comments to the Dutch press ... show yet again the lack of faith he had in his bench" Pim's actions speak otherwise. Of 20 field players in the Australian squad, 18 tasted action, and 16 got starts. I doubt there's any other team at this World Cup where the squad has been used so extensively. OK, some of this change was enforced by red cards, but the point still holds. The more correct criticism of Pim is that he used his bench too much and that he couldn't settle on a top XI. (For the record, Milligan and Vidosic were the two not to take the field, while Rukavytsya and Jedinak were only used as substitutes.)