So why did the Socceroos’ shape against Thailand fail? In general, the team was unbalanced, with left-side players in Holman and McKay drifting centrally and ignoring the left flank.
There was also a lack of mobility – Kennedy and Cahill were very static, staying high and waiting for service instead of dropping deep or pulling wide.
This resulted in a reliance on the right flank, and a static front line which necessitated crosses from deep.
Osieck countered in the next match by dropping Cahill to the bench. Holman could then play his most natural role; roaming behind the striker, looking to launch attacks, overloading the flanks and playing off Kennedy.
McKay was pushed up to left midfield, where he could drift centrally and create without exposing the left flank. Zullo was selected at left back, and he provided the width and pace McKay is not able to down the left, combined with a defensive presence.
Kennedy in particular looked a transformed player, as he dropped deep to link with the midfield trio, allowing Emerton, Holman and Zullo to exploit the space he vacated. Emerton also performed completely differently, cutting in and allowing Wilkshire to overlap.
Tactical errors by Osieck against Thailand caused Australia to play only in the middle and right thirds of the pitch and attack only down the right. Australia was much more mobile after Kruse and Brosque were substituted on, as both are versatile attacking players. Both of Australia’s goals were created by McKay, after rare forays down the left, which indicated Australia stretching the play.
Against Saudi Arabia, Australia was deployed in a shape that encouraged interchanging and passing. McKay’s natural inclination to drift centrally opened the wide channel for Zullo to thunder up and down, where against Thailand it left undefended space.
In terms of goals, the only tactically significant one was the first, scored by Kennedy in the dying minutes of the first half. It was a result of a Wilkshire cross, but the most important factor was the disparity in the speed of transition.
Australia was able to switch from a defensive posture to an attacking one immediately after Wilkshire won the ball. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s midfield was caught out and behind the ball by the time Wilkshire received the ball from Emerton.
What will be the impact of these two results on qualifying?
On paper, there are only two other teams in Asia capable of dominating a game against Australia – South Korea and Japan. Both nations possess more fully developed and technically competitive domestic leagues and as many player exports to elite European competition.
Saudi Arabia was meant to be one of the more competitive nations in qualifying; but the Australian players were superior physically, technically, professionally and psychologically, which reflects the leagues and clubs Australian players represent.
This is indicated by the manner in which Australia scored our second and third goals by capitalising on simple Saudi errors.
Minor Asian sides are stereotypically portrayed as having more technical passing skill than the lumbering, physical Australians. Though they may look tidy on the ball, they simply don’t possess the speed and finesse of passing to unlock a highly experienced defensive unit.
Osieck has come closer and closer to implementing his preference of a mobile attacking game, by gradually refining and experimenting with his formula and introducing new talent to rejuvenate the squad.
Encouragingly, this new Australian side does not depend on a few star contributors, but on the functioning of the system; the whole has become more than the sum of its parts, which is illustrated by the depth Osieck has accrued in his line-up and the fact that players can be interchanged without overtly damaging Australia’s play.
Once upon a time, Australia would have relied on Kewell or Cahill to nick goals and take home the points. Now Australia are more organised, have a recognisable plan of attack, and a trusted method for implementing it.
Australia is no longer reliant on the set piece to score; this is something which has escaped the notice of the pundits. Previously, Australia’s best hope for a goal was a Wilkshire delivery to Cahill’s head. Now, we look to McKay and Holman to systematically dismantle an opposing defence.
One of the more impressive aspects of Osieck’s management style has been the elimination of Verbeek’s ‘broken team’ whereby the back four and midfield two defend while the attacking four get lucky.
Interaction and integration between disparate parts are how Australia play under Osieck, and it is also how we are going to win.
Are you the ultimate team manager? Pick your own superstar team and go head to head with other football fans for glory and cash prizes on Draftstars. Imagine what you could be buying instead. Set a deposit limit.
Even though St.Pauli ultimately lost a high-scoring affair, Jackson Irvine was a standout, as well as scoring a late goal.
What if we celebrated all of the achievements big and small, and weeded out those hell-bent on bringing down a game that is doing a hell of a lot right?
A good performance from Michael Ruhs, scoring twice to beat Macarthur and doubling his season goal tally in the process.
Nestory Irankunda has sensationally rejected the chance to play at the Paris Olympics this June after a late bid from the Olyroos to include…
Mathew Ryan's tenure at AZ Alkmaar appears to be over, as the Eredivisie side are seemingly moving on from the 93-time Socceroo. The decision…
One down 49 to go. Socceroos striker Kusini Yengi raised some eyebrows this week when he declared himself to be the talisman striker the…
