The tactics were clear against the diminutive Thais: knock in high balls towards the head of Kennedy and hope that so-called ‘second striker’ Tim Cahill could pick up the scraps.
Unfortunately for Osieck and a subdued Suncorp Stadium crowd, the Thai defence put up a fierce rearguard action, swarming over every loose ball and looking to hit Australia on the counter-attack.
It paid dividends barely a quarter of an hour in, when striker Teerasil Dangda tucked home a neat volley to stun the 24,000-strong crowd into silence.
From there on in, a barrage of long balls rained down on the Thai defence, yet the visitors simply stacked their penalty area and dealt with the aerial bombardment through sheer weight of numbers.
Part of the problem was the fact the long balls rarely came in from the byline, although one such Lucas Neill-chip towards the penalty area almost resulted in Tim Cahill scoring from Kennedy’s deft knock down.
However, it wasn’t until the industrious Matt McKay got in behind the Thai defence that Australia finally registered a goal, and even then, they needed a helping hand from unlucky Thai goalkeeper Sinthaweechai Hathairattankool to get it.
So the question is: will Osieck travel to Dammam on Wednesday with the same tactics in mind?
It was clear he was frustrated with his team’s performance in Brisbane. After the game he expressed frustration that crosses into the danger area weren’t of the quality he expected.
Yet, if the Socceroos do persist with playing Kennedy as a target man against Saudi Arabia, they may receive short shrift from veteran duo of Osama Hawsawi and Hamad Al-Montashari – both highly-rated defenders on the international stage.
Perhaps the stifling heat of Dammam (40°C yesterday) will make long ball football expedient, but it’s clear from the growing chorus of disquiet that the ugly style isn’t appreciated in many quarters.
It’s a brand of football Osieck has increasingly employed during his tenure – most notably against Bahrain in the Asian Cup in January – however there’s no denying it’s helped get results.
Friday night’s performance may not have been as impressive as the friendly win over Wales in Cardiff last month, but there were still some positives to take out of the game.
Matt McKay once again showed why he is transforming into an increasingly vital player in the national team, even if he was somewhat caught out for the opening goal.
The composed Matt Spiranovic was another who impressed and his inclusion alongside Lucas Neill in central defence was a nod for youth over the experience of Sasa Ognenovski.
Alex Brosque’s brief but highly effective cameo was also notable for a trait he has clearly worked on at Japanese side Shimizu S-Pulse; with Brosque chasing down every loose ball and apparent lost cause that came his way in a spirited display off the bench.
Indeed, far from the heroes of 2006, it was a new breed of talent who proved most effective in Brisbane; however Osieck’s side still needs experienced heads to help claim a result in Dammam.
Whether that includes Josh Kennedy up front is likely to be the tactical question on everyone’s lips, although it would be harsh on the Nagoya striker to drop him after a goal and assist against the Thais.
The tactics Osieck employs in Saudi Arabia look set to strike at the heart of a discussion about what kind of football Australians want their national team to play.
And if Friday night’s performance is anything to go by, the long ball tactics could be here to stay.
rip Enke
Guest
Lol ,why refuse? I find that statement rather puzzling?
rip Enke
Guest
I would rather see Jedinak replace Cahill more than Wilks or Williams, he is too attacking for an away game. Personly Spira has more speed, that and personal intuition says he would be better at fullback than. Ogg.
j binnie
Guest
Nathan - Forget these numerical formulae.They are simply a way of showing how a team is geographically set up to achieve a system of play that suits the players available.The game is all about movement, forward,backward & lateral and as I tried to explain we should use our available players in the following formation. Neill Spira Oggie Holman McKay Wilkshire Cahill Kruse Brosque Kennedy, You will note that this formation allows for the forming of triangles quickly, all players being able to move in all directions,a necessity if "modern" football is to be played. There are numbers at the back to supply cover if someone is caught forward & both Cahill and Wilkshire have the talent & experience to be good "link" men.Kruse & Brosque are both goal getters and Kennedy can offer options to all with his height & can keep a defence stretched in length. jb
Nathan
Guest
What do you think Australia's formation should be? Who should play where?
j binnie
Guest
Nathan -I don't hate any player.In his early days Holman used up tons of energy without seeming to be part of a team. That was his worst offence..Now to your interpretation of "my" roles for McKay & Holman as "modern fullbacks. For want of a better word if three centre - backs are used, the "sweeper" has to have the experience & tactical know-how to organise cover for whatever "back" has gone down the flank so you see if the defence is being organised from behind there is no need for a flank runner to get back asap.That's how Thailand scored their goal. Mackay went ,Holman didn't cover & when Kilkenny's long pass to Mackay was intercepted 2 players succeeded in breaching our defence which was still numerically superior but totally disorganised. So you are right,the defense has to keep it's shape but with Wilkshire caught forward,Valeri trying to get over to cover Spiranovic,who had been drawn by McKay's absence,we were given a sucker punch by a team that theoretically should not be able to live with us.Cruse has a bit to learn,Brosque is not the finished article but both are proven goal poachers a necessity in today's teams.I get back to the 11 as I suggested.All are available & with minor positional changes & responsibilities this team could do a job for they would be in positions they understand jb
Nathan
Guest
All I have to say is Holman has great potential but yet still everyone hates him because of his past. The guy had to do solo runs several times because none of the strikers could move or present themselves to him. For me Kruse is a great player who is still young but is very dangerous to defenses and expect him to play very well in our next World Cup. Every time we bring him on he influences the game and for some reason we start to play well. If anyone can replicate what Kewell did in Europe he has the best chance. Brosque is not the best of strikers his mainly a tap in player or opportunistic player and if he isn't supplied he will get nothing. You are right about Mckay and we all hope Rangers give him game time because he is a gem but we can't rely on him for crosses and for him to work the flanks. But against a strong counter attacking side we stand no chance unless McKay is fast enough to get back and our defense stays in shape, even Thailand got us on the counter attack and that's saying something.
j binnie
Guest
Nathan - You say Holman was "brilliant". Are you the president of his fan club or something?. Australia did not have a brilliant player on the field last Friday & that is why they struggled to break down an extremely hard working & disciplined defensive system that came into vogue around 1960 & had almost disappeared by 1970.Back to Holman.In his defense it is my opinion he was playing hopelessly out of position for he shows no inclination to creativity in setting up other players.I lost count of the times McKay offered himself into space down the left flank only to see Holman jink his way towards the centre of defense which is exactly what the Thai's wanted.When he did take the proper route he overran the ball twice and on the other occasion did an acute cut back to the edge of the box which was blasted over while Kennedy was parked 3 feet from the line where ,if he had got the dangerous cut back BEHIND the back line, it was a tap in.So you don't get the wrong idea I think Holman HAS a lot to offer but it must be in a system,& a position,where his attributes ,speed ,forward movement & aggression can be harnessed to the team effort.If the defense was set up properly to allow 2 men to attack on the flanks I would love to see Holman & Mackay play out of the "full back" positions .What McKay did to engineer our 2 goals from the left Holman could quite easily achieve from the right flank.This is what "full backs" do in today"s game but they must have the energy & will to work backwards too.You will note I said the defense would be have to set up properly for this & I do think we have the players in this squad to achieve that.Personally I would love to see Neill "sweep" behind Spiranovic & Oggie with Wilkshire patrolling the area to the front.Holman &McKay could work the flanks as described & this would allow Cahill to take up HIS position behind two noted goal getters, ie Cruse & Brosque while Kennedy or McDonald could do the target man role.With other players becoming available the personnel could change but I think this formation would suit the Australian psyche. jb
Nathan
Guest
Like I have been saying all along Cahill is not a striker, even Robbie Slater agreed on Fox Sports. His most damaging when he is running at the defence to play a through ball or rush in from behind on a corner kick. The long balls were basically for either Kennedy to head a goal or head it down to Cahill. Cahill was crowded out every time so he wasn't going to score from a header. I like the way Osieck sets out the team, but because we played a lower side the players thought they could do what they wanted and play something else. Long balls is English style crap when your stuck against a side defending deep which happens often. Pass your way through or overrun them on the wings. Emerton played horrible and was man handled by someone half his size, he is our key player in providing crosses along with McKay. Anyway how good was Holman, he played brilliant.
Al
Guest
Not a fan of Sam Allardyce/Tony Pulis then are ya?
Ben of Phnom Penh
Guest
Perhaps we don't have the quality of players to effectively break down a team that parks the bus and does so effectively. Many of the players who excel in open play seem to struggle to convert their style to the cramped conditions. I thought Kennedy was ok, he was static at times however he was drawing defenders. The problem is we didn't seem to avail ourselves of any space he created, rather the opposite, we sent the ball straight to him (or more often merely vaguely in his direction). Perhaps parking the bus is an effective way to deal with the Socceroos; however it is a tactic that won't see us lose too many games even if we struggle to win a couple.
Ben of Phnom Penh
Guest
or when they do it is when Kennedy is being used on the break, and it is a long ball to his feet whilst he's on the run; something we've yet to emulate on a regular basis.
sledgeross
Guest
Poor old Kilkenny, hes a defensive midfielder with no defense!
Rellum
Roar Guru
Harry should be the starting attacking midfielder with Homan his deputy. I would rather see an attacking midfield three of Kewell, Holman and Emerton working around Timmy at this point in time. All those players should be rotating through those positions during a game anyway so Timmy is not isolated or forced to play with his back to goal the whole game. The defensive midfielders would be McKay and Wilkshire. Those two are more likely to push forward into the space between the midfield and forward lines and creating passing options to play through teams than Valeri, Jedi or Kilkenny would. This is another reason we resort to the long ball as there are no options created to allow us to attack down the centre on the deck.
Midfielder
Guest
For me the team is unbalanced ... We don't have a player unless its Holman who can play tho the centre of the park... Harry if fit would be an idea number 10 in this side... were skill touch and placement are important... Nicky C & Amini spring to mind.... as players who can play tho the centre of the park... Scotty Mac may suit this roll as well...also Mat McKay is worth considering... For my mind we have two many of the same type of players on the park ... when Harry is not there they seem to lack creativity... We need on the bench at least a number 10 IMO even if it means only playing one striker as the mids are very supportive with Timmy C, Bret E etc there will be plenty in te box or running we just need people who can unlock and distribuite ...
JAJI
Guest
I would love to see Spiranovic back in Europe given he is only 23 - that would benefit us in the long term....
TomC
Guest
Real good article and discussion, this.
jmac
Guest
first of all, I don't think the first 45 was exclusively an aerial assault, when you consider what holman was trying to do on the other side of the pitch. I think holger was going for some sort of balance in the approach. so in theory I don't believe the idea was that bad. but as mentioned repeatedly, the quality of the crosses was poor, and holman was running into a brick wall with little in the way of intelligent movement ahead of him. then, when chances did come our finishing was limp (in fact, if not for that, we might not be scrutinising to this level). the thai's were prepared for everything we had, so we also need to acknowledge the fine job done by schaefer and their players. having said all that, we look best when we have fast, mobile, intelligent forwards on the pitch. It seems we only get this when our 'first choice' strikers are unavailable. but when this happens we play on the deck, quite effectively. It is prettier to watch, and more effective. I also wonder to what extent their is an espect of 'squad rotation' at play with holger's starting XI last friday. obviously you need this pragmatism given the demands of asian qualifying - with travel, harsh conditions etc. we could see 3 or 4 fresh starters on wed morning: Og, Zullo, Jedi, maybe Kruse - and this would arguably change things up in terms of our ability to play some football. so I would hold off judgement until after the next match.
Griffo
Roar Guru
Didn't Shaefer say pre-game he expected a lot of the ball on the deck from Australia? Was this a bit of mind-games with Holger, who 'played' into his hands a bit by going via the air? Still, the players on the park didn't seem to adjust when it wasn't working after a lot of attempts. Still a legacy here of not being creative enough against defensive formations. This and Holger's non-love of the long ball quotes and periodic use of it by Australia, and obvious blasting by the coach at half time, makes you wonder at the dynamic in the sheds... ...and Kennedy says he likes it more at his feet. Interesting to see Saudi game this week.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Yes, I love to watch Spira on the ball. I'm not going to put him (yet) on the same level as Paolo or Ned .. but his composure and fluid, effortless movement certainly makes me want to see him venture forward more often. And, I would like to have him become the main distributor from the back rather than the skipper.
punter
Guest
Yes I agree, this guys shows great composure. The other new player into the top eleven I'd like to see get a few games under his belt is Rhys Williams. I think these are the 2 players we should be building our defence around come the next year or so. Williams either at RB or as the DM.