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.
PassandMove
Roar Pro
@j binnie thanks for the comment mate the article above is an amalgamation of excerpts from 5 separate articles, so it is likely ive missed crucial parts in cobbling them together - all 5 can be found at passandmovetactics.blogspot.com i recognise Thailand were set out in a defensive 4-5-1, but my focus above was on Australia's system, which failed, due to Holman and McKay drifting centrally and ignoring the left flank. this played into Thai hands as they only had to defend 2/3 of the pitch. Thailand did indeed counter attack efficiently, but they were helped by the fact McKay and Holman were caught out of position after Kilkenny's wayward pass. you're right in saying ive never seen the famous italian catenaccio in action, but Thailand only scored because Australia's defence was unbalanced. i recognise again there are different things that have to be considered when playing home and away, but my central point was Holger changed his system against Saudi Arabia, by moving McKay to LM and Holman to AM, where their drifting did not unbalance the system. the actual personnel changes were minor. if you have watched all of Australia's games under Holger, which I have, you'll certainly have noticed the transition from direct, counter-attacking football, to a more possession oriented style. i doubt any of this will appease your criticisms, but if your main concern was my ignoring thailand and saudi arabia, i examine both sides more thoroughly in PM Match Reports.
Ben of Phnom Penh
Guest
agree
jmac
Guest
cheers for the link - that's great..
Griffo
Roar Guru
Can't find the link of the highlights (found it by accident in the first place) but this one will do: Pass for the second goal was a cracker! The Roos will get a noisy reception in Thailand when we play there ;-) Won't be an easy game...
jmac
Guest
nice work griffo! hope we don't see the 'thai' roos again any time soon. ;) yeah probably a bit fast to judge the saudi's and their new manager. we'll see what's changed when we play them here next year..
Griffo
Roar Guru
jmac, a lot of what you say makes sense, but I think with Rijkaard not long in charge of the Saudis you will find they are coming to grips with a new manager still, and are already in danger of failing to qualify for 2014 world cup. Having a year of learning Rijkaards system may (or may not) have made some difference? Saw some extended highlights of Thailand vs Oman which showed some very good passing by Thailand catching out a very flat Omani defence. Something in that if we send out the 'Saudi' Roos instead of the 'Thai' Roos :-)
jmac
Guest
great article, thanks for the read.. just on our opponents:- as Australian's, having watched a team coached by Pim, and our youth teams now coached by another Dutchman, we are now expert at recognising teams attempting to play the dutch 'style', who aren't suited to it, and are confused by it. when I watched the Saudi's the other day, I think I saw a team with a dutch manager who are totally confused and aren't sure how to play the system the manager wants. in fact they seem to be curbing their natural instincts, and 'thinking' about the game they are playing rather than just playing. sound familiar? the thai's on the other hand, as jb says, were brilliant in their execution of their manager's strategy. and you would say they were unlucky, having got the goal, to lose the match. they would feel that both our goals could've been prevented. (it's also testament to them and schaefer the way they bounced back in bangkok the other night against Oman). so while a punter like me thinks your analysis of our team is comprehensive and right on the money, our 'transformation' should probably be viewed also through the prism of the different opponents we faced. we improved out of sight in dammam, but possibly a far sterner test awaits in the shape of Oman. I'm not sure how they played in their opening games, but if they play like they have against us in the past - and they still have the same manager, interestingly - we will be in for a tough night once again..
j binnie
Guest
P&M - I have read your contribution twice & find it almost impossible to follow your logic.You attempt to analyse the 2 recent games & yet conveniently ignore the opponents who,in the Thai match, were playing a system designed to get them a point or 3. eg You analyse how the Thai goal was scored & yet seemingly forget to mention the attempted pass,intended for Mackay who had made a great run down the left flank in an attempt to get behind the Thai defence.There is an inherent danger in making runs like that for ,if the ball does not reach you & your mid-fielder has not done his job & supplied cover you are going to be punished by an organised break.The pass WAS intercepted & quickly sent forward to the Thai attacker wide on the right. No cover for Mackay from midfield meant Spiranovic was drawn to the flank runner,he in turn pulling Valeri into attempting to become the second defender but the quality of the cross cut out those two & Neill & found the left winger who had completely lost Wilkshire.Obviously you have never seen the Italians playing their infamous defensive set up but you can take it from me that goal was a text book "break" as practised in that system.The Thai team carried out their plan very well,& could even have been deemed unlucky, but.credit has to be given.On the other hand Saudi were at home & had to try & win so the two games cannot be compared,as the 2 opponents were set up on a completely opposite game plan.Even the Australian set-ups in both games show this as well, for at home we attempted to play with 2 strike men and attacking midfielders when, v Saudi, we had two well drilled centre - backs guarded by 2 defensive midfielders. Did you not notice that between them Valeri & Jedinak only managed 1 strike between them in the whole match,a surefire giveaway to how they were set up.You really have to look at the big picture in today's international football & remember there are 20 players on the field all attempting to play the systems set out for them by tactical coaches. What you say about squad depth is true but remember,in the scheme of things,Thailand & Saudi are actually regarded as "minnows",( a word I don't like),but there are still better teams to be faced & it is hoped that in these games our team will continue to register the improvement beginning to show.jb
Johnno
Guest
It's all about the big OG. He made all the difference the big OG in defence. GO THE BIG OG , GO THE OG OG OG.
PassandMove
Roar Pro
True enough, Thailand were excellently organised. But they really only attacked once, which resulted in a goal, and were only able to attack because of individual and tactical errors by Australia.
Qantas supports Australian Football
Guest
I think you have not given Winnie Schäfer due credit. Thailand are no longer easy-beats. Australia were up against a well organised defence.