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.
Tony Tannous
Expert
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
apaway
Guest
Good analysis, Tony and I agree with most of it. However, when you compared Verbeek's tactics to Joachim Loew's when they both had players sent off, I think the comparison is a little skewed. Loew already had 3 points on the board and a goal difference of plus 4, while Verbeek had 0 points and minus 4. In that respect, Loew had something of a safety net, while Verbeek was walking the proverbial tightrope with his tactics, as another Australian loss would have ended their tournament before even getting to the Serbia game.
JR
Guest
That's too easy, to say regardless of real-world factors. In your answer, factor in that the job varies between frenetic long-haul travelling and long periods of boredom; would best be based in Australia which means you have to uproot your family and miss living in a 'real' football culture; you have a few hours or a few days to prepare your team in amazing different environments and cultures; is starting to attract a great deal of pressure from media and fans; and you have to find a new generation of players while still qualifying for major competitions. Easy, eh? Good luck, FFA.
Phutbol
Guest
Great analysis Tony. Now, please give us your informed opinion on who that new coach should be. Its about the only answer you havent provided. I'd be interested in your top 3 or 4 if ANYONE was available, regardless of cost, current contract, or interest in the job, and your top 3 or 4 realistic options (probably a lot harder to name i guess).
JR
Guest
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.
Midfielder
Guest
I think Pim is a modern day manager... make a few mistakes as possible .. defend... and hold the ball ... His Germany game plan was beyond believable .. panic or whatever got hold of him.. I hope he one day explains he team that day... That we pushed to late in the last match was again sad ... hopefully a new coach would make better decisions... but a national coach needs to be results driven...a difficult job indeed for the newcomer... Pim is the classic modern day coach...
tony yeboah
Guest
Thanks for the reply Tony, food for thought. I hope for an Australian team in the future that can combine the mental aptitude that we obviously have with the technical qualities of a top European team. Not a Black Star fan, just and old Leeds United supporter and a fan of his wonder strikes in the mid 90's. Maybe Ghana though answered some of the people who said they shouldn't have been through. The first African team to play like an African team at this world cup perhaps.
Tony Tannous
Expert
Thanks Damo, and everyone for input.
Tony Tannous
Expert
Cheers Greg, glad you enjoyed, I'm absolutely with you on the German game. Our tactics were neither here nor there. I agree we should have defended deeper, been compact and made life difficult. Instead we played high, open and had absolutely no pressure on the ball with a square backline. Suicide. Re the Ghana game, and as I said in my reply to Tony Yeboah, if you press as an organised unit, everyone in synch, you rarely get burnt because you are and recovering the ball as soon as you lose it. Thus you are invariably in control.
Tony Tannous
Expert
First Anthony, congratulations on the sucess of The Black Stars this morning. Thoughtful post above, and cheers for the question.. There's no doubt in my mind the football dished up by our Roos, even when on the front foot, wasn't exactly A-class. Too often it was route one, aimed at Kennedy and Cahill. So imagine what some organisation and sophistication of play might have achieved. Whether we would have been carved up had we pressed high, I don't think any organised unit, that collectively presses, with everyone in touch, doing their jobs, with the right player in the rights positions, given clear instructions, is going to be carved up. Remember Serbia were as desperate for the win as we were in the second half, and when we did press and get on the front foot, they couldn't live with us, and Beauchamp and Neill were in-control at the back. If you move forward as a collective, organised, balanced unit, you rarely get exposed the other way.
Tony Tannous
Expert
Sheek, for a non-football man your understanding is excellent.
Tony Tannous
Expert
Cheers James and JR, thanks.
Tony Tannous
Expert
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.
Damo Baresi.
Guest
Good article Tony & to everyone above with their insightful comments, well done.
Damo Baresi.
Guest
agreed.
Greg
Guest
Can't say I agree Tony, but I did enjoy your post. The 66 minute mark left plenty of ime to win the Ghana match, 28 minutes in fact. Had we pressed higher earlier with 10 men we would give Ghana more time to catch us on the break. After our initial press higher up at same time against Serbia (about 66 minutes) we get 2 goals as our reward, we didn't need more than 10 minutes to bag those 2, but fast forward a further 20 minutes and we concede. You can't press for the whole match. The irony in all this call to press higher is that was our game plan against Germany, or at least what our back 4 did in the match, and we got slaughtered on the break. Had we sat on our 18 yard box all match against Germany we would probably have conceded less than 4 goals.
tony yeboah
Guest
It was interesting the comments from Harry Kewell that he wants a manager that oozes confidence. For me, a national team manager is more about the personality than the ability. Guus Hiddink ruled over the players in 2006 and they were in awe of him, hence they played there guts out. If Hiddink's personality got 1% more out of the players and Verbeek's got 1% less out of the players than maybe that is the fine line between winning and losing. Tony, a question for you. Watching Australia over the last few years, i have come to the conclusion that we seem to be able to defend great, but then are impotent in attack, but then when we attack, we seem to lose our defensive structure and are often hanging on by a thread. I hear all of this talk (Foster is the biggest!) about the Serbia game of how it showed we truly belong on this big stage, we beat a big European team etc. etc, but watching the game on replay it seemed like we really should have copped a lot of goals if Serbia had of brought there shooting boots. We talk of all our bad luck with refereeing decisions but it seems that in a lot of these games we get lucky as well; Tim Cahills obvious penalty against Japan, poor finishing by Serbia etc. So do you think that maybe Pim being cautious was because he knew that if he opened the floodgates too early we might score, but we also might get scored against, especially against speedier opposition, which is just about everyone! And don't forget that Hiddink played it way to cautious against Italy and he failed.
Fisher Price
Guest
Too true regarding the fact that it took until the last 25 mins to get on the front foot against Ghana. The idea that we "played them off the park" (Foster, C. 2010) is nonsense.
JR
Guest
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 ;)
whiskeymac
Guest
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.