The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Just how did Australia beat Thailand 2-1?

Roar Guru
4th September, 2011
6
1247 Reads

Why were Australia poor in their fortunate win over Thailand? There are a range of reasons to be explored. Brett Holman, nominally on the left flank, drifted centrally and ignored the left.

Matt McKay, nominally playing at left back, was defensively exposed as he tried to drift into midfield and create – therefore the left flank was completely abandoned and this was the flank Thailand exploited for their goal.

This unbalanced formation was obviously an attempt by Holger Osieck to fit McKay, Holman, and the fluid partnership of Brett Emerton and Luke Wilkshire into a the same team combined with Tim Cahill’s goal threat.

Cahill and Kennedy were extremely static. Neither looked to pull wide or drift deep in order to drag defenders out of position and create space for Holman and Emerton to exploit.

For comparison, look at Peter Crouch’s performances for Tottenham – he will often drop near the half-way line to offer passing options to Luka Modric and allow Rafael Van der Vaart, Gareth Bale and Aaron Lennon to exploit the space he has vacated.

By contrast, Kennedy just stayed by his marker, coming short just twice.

Because of the lack of mobility, once Holman, Emerton, Cahill and Kennedy had congregated in the box, Wilkshire often had no other options but to launch a high cross, hoping for a knock down.

Emerton, Neil Kilkenny and Carl Valeri did not have particularly good games. Kilkenny and Valeri were partly responsible for the conceded goal.

Advertisement

Why were Thailand defensively effective, despite losing?

Thailand held a deep defensive line in a 4-5-1, looking to score on the counter-attack.

They defended smartly – Schaffer recognised Thailand would be unable to compete directly against Cahill and Kennedy in the air. The two attackers were marked tightly without over-committing Thai players, but the first ball from the cross was conceded. Thailand quickly surrounded the knock-down with players.

Australia was only playing on two thirds of the pitch, and only attacking from one third; the right flank. It was notable that our two goals came from the left, when every other attacking foray came down the right.

It’s puzzling how Australia came away with a win.

Although he was exposed defensively at left back, McKay put in a brilliant attacking performance to single handedly win this match.

McKay is not a left back or a left winger – he is a left-sided central midfielder. Excellent passing ability, excellent stamina, excellent vision – a decent tackle, no pace, not able to operate on the touchline.

Advertisement

McKay created both goals in the final third. His one-two with Kilkenny; where McKay made a brilliant run through the Thai defense, and Kilkenny played a beautiful pass to split the Thai backline, left him with only the keeper to beat.

The rebound fell to Kennedy, who scored. In a match where 99 percent of his touch came from his head, Kennedy scored with the one that fell to his feet.

McKay’s cross created the second goal, Kennedy knocking down for Brosque to finish. This was a rare counter-attack, launched from midfield from Australia – there were only two Thai defenders in the box.

Although Osieck made several selection errors, his substitutions, while not rectifying the McKay at left back error, were aggressive, and promoted fluidity and mobility.

Robbie Kruse and Alex Brosque are versatile attacking players, able to operate as mobile strikers, wingers and attacking midfielders. It was noticeable that in the last five minutes, Australia’s attack was more mobile, with the aforementioned pair and Holman interchanging positions and making runs.

close