The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

History refutes 'natural attacking instincts'

Roar Guru
4th July, 2010
14
1173 Reads

In the aftermath of the Socceroos 2010 World Cup campaign, much has been said and written about the country’s natural attacking instincts. I’m not so sure where the notion came from, although Craig Foster seemed keen to drum home the point, and some of the players alluded to it as well.

The Socceroos’ more recent history, going back to 1983, paints a very different picture of an emerging national style of play.

It was in 1983 when Frank Arok was given the chance to coach the Socceroos in a best of three series against England. Regular coach Les Scheinflug was involved in a tour with the Youth team and Arok’s brief was to avoid embarrassment, as the then-Australian Soccer Federation’s top brass were fearful that England would hand out a series of hidings.

“I’ll get you two draws,” Arok famously said.

He did just that, a 0-0 in Sydney and a 1-1 result in Melbourne, sandwiching a 1-0 loss in Game 2. And he did it by picking a five-man defensive formation built around David Ratcliffe and Steve O’Connor.

The ASF were so impressed they gave Arok the job full time not long after.

In a reign that spanned two World Cup qualifying campaigns, Australia rarely played with decisive attacking flair, often operating with only one striker.

There were players who emerged with attacking skills in the Frank Arok era, such as Frank Farina, John Kosmina, Eddie Krencivic, Graham Arnold and Robbie Slater. But apart from a memorable 4-1 victory over reigning world champions Argentina in the 1988 Gold Cup at a brand new Sydney Football Stadium, Australia played with a reliance on defence, shutting down space and playing a physical game that at one point had their coach labelled the “Mad Dog.”

Advertisement

He was a lot more than that – Arok was a brilliant tactician and knew how to get the most out of the resources at his disposal.

His successor Eddie Thomson didn’t alter the Socceroos style and was unjustly criticised as being “too defensive.” He often played with a lone striker and worked on getting players behind the ball.

It was Thomson whose foresight might just have altered the course of Australian football history in 1996 when he picked a 17 year old kid to play for Australia in an international friendly in Colombia, at a time when the youngster’s English club were busy checking his parentage to see if he could be excluded from their foreign player quota.

And Harry Kewell became a Socceroo before he’d made a full Premier League debut.

This era saw the emergence of possibly two of the most gifted players in our football history in Ned Zelic and Paul Okon. Both were sublimely talented, wonderfully skilled, and moved with the easy elegance that belied their speed.

Magnificent attackers, they both nevertheless played as defenders, originally in the old sweeper system, or as deep-lying midfielders. Still, there was not overwhelming evidence of “natural attacking instincts.”

Perhaps only the Terry Venables era could we claim that Australia played an attack-minded game, in a period where the Socceroos went on an unprecedented run of victories, which was only brought undone by two draws against Iran in 1997, the second of which is probably the most painful 90 minutes in Socceroos history.

Advertisement

Venables had at his disposal players such as Mark Viduka, Kewell and Aurelio Vidmar who were potent attacking weapons, as well as the marauding Stan Lazarides who attacked from left full back with pace and directness.

It’s worth noting that Venables was criticised mercilessly for not “going defensive” when Australia were 2-0 up on that November night in ’97.

Despite this flirtation with attack, Australia’s best player of the era was arguably defender and Hall Of Famer Alex Tobin, and its most recognisable was goalkeeper Mark Bosnich.

Frank Farina’s time as Socceroos coach might have included a world record 31-0 win in a World Cup qualifier, but I’m not sure it equated to a new-found attacking instinct. It was a difficult era, coming at a time when the Federation were broke and out of ideas.

All of the squad now played in Europe and were reluctant to play anything other than matches that were deemed “important.” Basically, that meant a two-legged tie against Uruguay, where the Socceroos only goal over the two matches came from a Kevin Muscat penalty.

Farina can rightly point to victories in the 2001 Confederations Cup against reigning world champs France and about-to-be world champs Brazil, but they were both 1-0 wins based on counter-attacking and shutting down opposition threats with a five-man midfield and disciplined defence.

Nothing wrong with that, but still no real evidence of natural attacking instincts.

Advertisement

Given the colonial rivalry, Farina’s most famous result as coach was a 3-1 win in February 2003 against England, in a game where Harry Kewell tore the English defence apart, most notably his then-club team mate at Leeds Rio Ferdinand.

Without doubt this was an Australian team that played with attacking intent and included proven goalscorer in one of the world’s toughest leagues in John Aloisi.

It is, however, a rare example.

By the time Farina was replaced by Guus Hiddink, the Socceroos had played in a couple of high-scoring losses at the 2005 Confederations Cup which might have indicated that “natural attacking instincts” aren’t much good if you can’t defend.

History shows that Hiddink is our most celebrated national coach, though statistically not nearly our most successful. What seems to be assumed is that he was an “attack-minded” coach but there is little evidence to base this on. In fact, he was largely attributed with fixing a defence that had become alarmingly leaky.

He did coach the Socceroos to a 5-0 thrashing of Jamaica in October 2005 but it was once again just one goal that the Socceroos scored over two legs against Uruguay. This time, that was enough.

The Socceroos performances in the 2006 finals are now the stuff of legend, but apart from a totally mad 6 minutes against Japan, can it really be claimed they looked like a team naturally inclined to attack?

Advertisement

An inability to break down a ten-man Italy (not an easy job for any nation) would indicate not. Mark Viduka was employed as a loan striker to start each of the games and it was a magnificent amount of cardiovascular fitness that aided the Australian cause, rather than a natural flair for attacking the opposition.

Pim Verbeek’s instalment as national team coach resulted in pragmatism and caution in Australia’s first “real” qualifying path, but the results were what mattered.

The Socceroos built a reputation in the Asian region for being completely miserly in defence. It wasn’t a bad theory to work with – Italy ruled the football world by conceding just twice at the 2006 finals – an own goal and a penalty.

It looked very much like the Socceroos were displaying a lot of natural defending instincts.

As the squad returns to their respective leagues I’m still to be convinced that as a football nation we are an attacking team, and nor should we feel like we have to be, especially if the whole doesn’t suit the sum of the parts.

Besides, every training game I’ve coached or played in between the attack and the defence is won by the defenders, which might prove the adage that defenders can attack but attackers can’t defend.

close