Time for a technical rethink at Adelaide United

You're getting further off topic. All this started because you said Mike had an underlying message of Australia adopting a Dutch system. You then went onto who is responsible for 4-3-3. I have agreed that the Dutch didn't invent it. What I have been saying (while getting off topic a bit in the process) is that the Dutch made 4-3-3 popular. You cannot say that isn't true. I have not once said that the Dutch model is the best or that Australia should be copying the Dutch. I said they have been successful in the past and that is why the FFA is going down that path. My honest opinion is that good coaches, whether be Dutch or otherwise, don't come cheap. Coolen and Van Schip are average coaches that would probably get jobs at lower table teams in the Eredvise. A-League clubs are better off going with up-coming Australian coaches because they are cheaper and now decently educated thanks to restrictions that Han Berger has put in place. So by saying this I believe I'm agreeing with the theme of Mike's article.

Mag 11 No counter argument.???? You have to be kidding. In this debate I have pointed out case after case of where tactical development has taken place before AND after the early '70's which I admitted was the height of the Dutch "influence". Let me try another angle. In 1957 Holland started it's first full time professional football league.Compare that with Chapman"s first move to make the centre-half part of a back 3 around 1924, the widely accepted "start" of the move away from W-M. Are you asking me to believe that in those 33 interim years not one of the major countries playing the game made an attempt to turn these developments into some form of educational program for their players.????? Sorry I can't believe that.However I do think the great strides forward Dutch football made between 1957 and 1974 when they appeared in a WC final nothing short of miraculous and deserving of the highest praise. Let me give you another piece of interesting information.Around 10 years ago a good friend of mine asked me where his son,who had received offers from high profile clubs in Europe, should go to get the best coaching. Being a bit out of my depth but wanting to help,I rang a fully qualified coach employed by the German FA to teach in lesser football countries. His answer was instantaneous. Now you are obviously an intelligent person and I know you would probably have expected him to answer in a predictable way,knowing that Germany are the most successful international team in World Cup history.His answer --------- France !!!!!, and he went further and nominated in his opinion the 2 best football academies in Europe,Strasbourg & Auxerre. So you see THAT is my forum stance,not an anti-Dutch diatribe but recognition that development is a cyclical thing and at this moment in time we should probably be following the Spanish model. Cheers again jb.

The success of youth development and it underlying system of system of play and philosophy has no relevance as to whether is is fair to call 4-3-3 Dutch. As you said, this is off topic :-) I'll assume you lack of counter argument to mean you concede that it is fair to say the Dutch played the biggest role in making 4-3-3 popular even if other countries played roles in influencing them.

Mag 11 -A well thought out & debated reply. There is some evidence that by "sticking with their 4-3-3" they have managed to consistently produce some excellent players during their "golden age" of the '80's but it is also true to say that that same supply line has slowed somewhat in recent years.That poses the question. Today what country does have the best (if there is such a thing) production line and more importantly ,what makes it tick????. Taking the European Super league & the EPL as examples one would have to consider it to be somewhere in Africa & yet,when one goes to that other "measuring stick" the World Cup there are very few African teams make their mark regularly in that comp.In youth World Cups they have a slightly better record,Ghana,Nigeria,Ivory Coast & Cameroon jumping to mind but still the doubt remains,so,to sum up,you and I differ slightly in our overall view of the game,you believe in a numerical system basis for teaching youth,I am still old fashioned enough to believe there is a deeper force at play based on economic reasons,that is, where kids play with a ball all day for their parents can't afford any other toys. After these skills are learned,not in SSG's,but on dusty waste grounds, these same kids appear to have a distinct advantage over the "manufactured" systems of our expensive coaching academies. The debates will go on of course but all I ask is that they be approached with open minds that take in ALL facets of the games development over the years.Cheers for now jb

I'm not discounting any the influences you have mentioned. All I am saying is modern era it is "generally accepted" total football revolutionised football. I never said that the belief of the masses is correct. I'm not disagreeing with most of what you have written. You correctly point out that earlier influences played a huge role. The only thing I pointed out is that the Dutch made 4-3-3 popular (you correctly pointed out that the Dutch were not the first to play 4-3-3). And, the reason they made it popular is the sustained success Ajax and the Dutch national team had playing that system between 1970-1974. And, this is a system they have pretty much stuck with since then. Yes, Brazil from 1958-1962 were more successful and just as dominant. However, their system varied and was more reliant on the individual brilliance of their players. Furthermore, they have changed systems as they have changed coaches. There doesn't appear to be mandate to favour a particular system in Brazil. 4-3-3 seems to be a part of Dutch youth development and it has been that was for so long. Not many countries have legislated a system and philosophy for so long. Therefore, I think it is fair to refer to 4-3-3 as being Dutch. They may not have invented it and they aren't even the best at playing it these days. However, they made it popular and stuck with it for so long. Australia are trying to replicate what the Dutch have done over the past 20-30 years with their youth development. You cannot say this is not true. The true origins of the system do not really matter in the context of what Mike mentioned in his article. I don't think his use of the term "Dutch style" is incorrect, which is the point I have been trying to make.

Mag 11 - Don't wish to have a long debate about these issues previously discussed but one thing intrigues me about youer reply ( and the apparent views of many others). Why do you and your age group think the history of the games development starts in 1974.????? You do mention the Austrian influence in the 20's but seemingly ignore the Russian influence of the late '40's,the Hungarian influence of the '50's,the Brazilian influence of the '60's, the Italian influence of the '70's, all preceding the Dutch influence of the '80's,followed by the French of the "90's and the Spanish influence of today.Of course over all that time we have the Germans whose influence stretches over the 60 years as their results in World Cups prove. Get my point??? Why the emphasis on the "Dutch system"??????? It's a myth perpetuated by those to lazy to research. jb

Yes, there are instances of 4-3-3 used with success before the Dutch used 4-3-3 in the 70s. Not arguing with you on that one. Also agree that fluid movement was also used with success before the 70s; you correctly point out the Austrians in the 20s using what we now call the "false 9" (I don't have to flip the pages you speak of because I do remember those examples). However, being the first to use something does not mean you get the generally accepted credit for it. For example, Apple recently released iCloud on iOS 5. However, the use of the cloud has been around for years. Apple are just the first to make it easy by building it into the operating system, which has made it useful to the masses. Similarly, 4-3-3 and positional interchange were used before the 70s. However, the Dutch made the most compelling case with "total football". That's why they get the credit.

Mag11 - Interesting comment obviously using Wilson's wonderfully researched book as a reference point. Go to page 127 & you will see two diagrams of the Brazil 58/62 World Cup team's formations hinged around the movement of 3 players,the indefatigable Zagallo , & adaptable centre-backs Bellini '58 & Mauro '62 who, with their constant movement ,gave the team a fluid formation of 4-3-3 when defending & 3-3-4 when attacking.This was the earliest move away from the much vaunted 4-2-4 played by Brazil in the early 50's & was actually a shrewd use of Zagallo's stamina allowing the change to occur. Wilson also debates well the origins of the term "total football" in fact blaming the name as being a tendency of the time for the Dutch press to christen everything "Total something or other". Students of the game will take you back much further to find the roots of the term for it was around 1920 a couple of "rebellious " coaches Meisl (an Austrian) & Hogan (an exiled Englishman) began their debate that was to start the tactical revolution in football. Meisl,a keen student of human movement, actually came up with a theory called "Danubian Whirl " that stated if 10 players of equal physical,mental ability,& fully trained in the skills of the game they could actually play in any position thus reducing the amount of running for they could stay where their run had taken them & the rest of the team would "whirl" to maintain the "shape" of the side. Remember,this was a theory only, but there are many who say it is the base idea that has seen an almost non-stop changing of tactical formations since 1924 when Chapman moved his centre-half into a back 3 shape. As a rather strange twist to this Ernst Happel, the great Austrian coach who is credited with introducing 4-3-3 into Holland with Feyenoord,actually played for Austria under the tutelage of this same Hugo Meisl.All these four coaches mentioned,Meisl,Hogan,Chapman,& Happel were all devout believers in movement, movement of both players & the ball & surely that thread can be followed right through to Brisbane Roar's total domination of the HAL these last 18 months. jb

I agree with that, and I think the improvement in local coaching stocks in the last couple of years is almost the best thing the A-League has thrown up recently. lets hope there is substance to it, and its not a flash in the pan..

Thanks jmac...totally agree that formations are just starting positions. Coolen and JVS would appear to be average Dutch coaches. They could probably get jobs in the Erevidise coaching mid to lower table teams. Lavicka at least knows how to keep a team compact. Don't get me started on Ferguson. I think it has got to the point where Han Berger has Australia coaches educated pretty well. Foreign coaches should only be employed if they have had league or national team success overseas.

great post Magnificent 11. "sometimes I think I could coach better than him (I obviously cannot)." actually, don't sell yourself short.. I think you've made a great point here, which is the formation is just the starting point and on top of that comes whatever style you play both with the pill and without. if a team plays so statically and slowly and with such lack of cohesion as the australian youth teams of today, then it doesn't matter where the coach is from or what formation supposedly from which nation is played, you won't get far. I'm not sure what's going on - is it the coach, is it the message not getting through, is it the players lacking the ability to understand or implement. dunno. but, we are seeing more and more these days teams with dutch managers who play a 4-3-3 that simply doesn't seem to work. look at us under pim, look at the saudi's (although admitedly they need more time).. look at our youth teams, AU, melb heart.. the anecdotal evidence is becoming compelling, and it all ties in to what jb is saying above, I think. dutch does not necessarily equal quality or a good fit.

I loved reading your analysis over at pass and move. nice work.

I had a quick look through the Total Football chapter in Inverting The Pyramid by Jonathan Wilson. It says Michels was the father of total football. In my skimming I couldn't find the actual formation. However, there is a picture of the formation played by Ajax against Juve in the 1973 European Cup final. It is 4-3-3. Yes, Michels had already left by then but it says his successor, Kovac, didn't really change the system. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure the Dutch played 4-3-3 in the 1974 World Cup. Michels was the coach there. Also, Cruyff's Barca dream team of the early 90s played 3-4-3, a variation of the 4-3-3. Hiddink while coaching Australia played 4-3-3 and switched to 3-4-3 when the opposition played one up front and Australia had decent amount of possession e.g. 2nd leg of the qualifiers versus Uruguay. This is also what he preferred to do in his last spell at PSV. I can come up with at least another 5 examples of Dutch coaches, van Gaal, Rijaard etc, playing 4-3-3. My point is that it is commonly accepted that the Dutch pioneered the Total Football philosophy. It works best with 4-3-3 because the space is evenly distributed, which lends itself well for positional interchange. I have not read the FFA's National Curriculum (but it's on my list of things to do). However, I can say without doubt that the football played by the various youth teams under Versleijen do not use positional interchange to maintain possession. There is a distinct lack of movement of the ball and sometimes I think I could coach better than him (I obviously cannot). Brisbane Roar do use positional interchange in wide areas e.g. left back, central left midfield and left wing are often exchanging positions, dragging their markers out of space to allow others to take advantage (lots of 3rd man running). So far, I haven't seen much of this in any of the other A-League teams. To tell the truth, a good proportion of the EPL, UCL, La Liga, Bundesliga etc that I watch does not contain much of this. My point is that Ange (and his Brisbane coaching staff) appear to be doing an exceptional job. That makes coaches like Coolen look bad. In reality they are probably about average.

Mike - There is an underlying thread in this article that you may think there has been "a pup" sold to the FFA with the introduction of a brand "new" curriculum for the whole of Australian football based on the" Dutch system" as it is so often erroneously labelled,while at the same time leading to some very highly paid positions within that system being filled by "Dutch" identities of somewhat lesser backgrounds in that countries football hierarchy. If that is what you think why not come out & say it ?,for, when one examines the REAL background to their claims re. their "system" one registers some mammoth doubts. Let us examine some of these claims.----- "Dutch 4-3-3" ?. Personally I always thought 4-3-3 a natural development from 4-2-4 as practised by Brazil (1952/56) & actually introduced into Holland by the great Austrian coach Ernst Happel when he used it at Feyenoord in the early 1970's, not only to "stifle" the mighty Ajax's 4-2-4 as used by Michels, but to win the European Cup before them.. Michels was quick to introduce the system after that and went on to great heights with Ajax &Barcelona. You will note again these dates,Brazil 1952,Holland 1972, (Another thing to be considered about these dates is that truly professional football did not occur in Holland until 1957, 5 years after the Brazilians were playing 4-3-3). Whose 4-3-3 ?????? "Small sided games for Juniors" - This idea was actually generated after a psychological assessment of junior footballers aged 6-16 was undertaken in England in the late 1960's. The initial findings of those assessments found that youngsters from 6-12 were,broadly speaking ,motivated to play football by a desire based on 2 main aspects,getting a kick at a ball as often as possible or even better ,scoring a goal.With a desire to better basic skills in a tighter playing environment & meet these 2 base motivations, the SSG was developed, giving kids a much better chance of "getting a kick" or even better "scoring a goal". An English coach,Eric Worthington, who was employed under a "Rothman's sponsorship", introduced SSG's into our country in 1974, 28 years BEFORE our first Dutch Director of Coaching.That same assessment found that kids began to change around 10-12,becoming more aware of teamwork,positional play,& with this, the desire to "win a game" began to take hold hence the change to larger teams,grounds,& a more serious competition at that age. Why are these occurrences not given much publicity in today's game?. Is it a determined policy to ignore what has gone on in the past & produced what is commonly known as our Golden Generation, ie producing kids who went on to make a name for our country in the Under Age world competitions of the 1990's?. Or is it,as you suggest, an underlying ploy,now that the available money has skyrocketed, to provide lucrative employment for people who may not be so fortunate in their homelands. Results to date,not only in the HAL, appear to make this a distinct possibility. Keep digging Mike. jb

Hello Mike, What specifically would you have changed?

Fussball. Sorry, but I can't resist this. Didn't you claim in a recent blog that you only comment on articles that relate to MVFC? Sofar today, I have read two on this web site (both relating to the Roar's endeavours), where you have expressed an opinion. Not that I mind, because that is what these blogs are for. It allows anyone to express an opinion about any subject(football wise) or any club or event. I enjoy them, in spite of some of the crap that is espoused by some posters. I also enjoy most of your comments on this particular site because they are usally intelligent and moderate and historically correct. However, when anyone dares to criticise the Victory you do tend to go over board. Also your posts on TWG are not of the same standard and you tend to try and hog the debate too much. (Fig) jam the ether waves to use an expression. However, that is your perogative. Freedom of the press is a wonderful institution. I look forward to your future contributions, even those that are critical about the Roar or other clubs. Be passionate, loud and proud but perhaps a bit more restrained at time.

Some good points Mike. However, I think Coolen has some valid points. Adelaide dominated the first 20 mins. They pressed high and caused Brisbane a lot of problems. Furthermore, they appeared to have at least an equal share in possession during this period. The problem, as I see it, is that they were not fit enough to maintain this intensity for the entire 90 mins. Brisbane appear to be the only team who can do this at the moment. Coolen did correctly point out that his team was not fit enough in the post game interview. However, he had a 6 month pre-season so he only has himself to blame if they are not fit enough. A-League teams should be trying to pinch Ken Stead and Rado Vidosic from Brisbane. Ken is the one who came up with Brisbane's football-related fitness program. Rado has been there since day one and you may remember that even in season one Brisbane played the best football (just couldn't finish). Rado also started the football program at Cavendish Road High, which has since been copied by Kelvin Grove High. These schools have provided the majority of the Brisbane-based talent that has passed through the Roar over the years e.g. Kruse, Vidosic etc (although no Brisbane players in the current Roar starting line-up). Ange, has definitely added something to the Roar but I don't think Roar will lose to much if he gets pinched by Urwa Red Diamonds (rumoured to be chasing him). Rado and Ken are well qualified to take his place.

Some nice football from Brisbane it's a pitty there going to play in front of 10 - 15,000 all year and get 50 odd thousand to this years G.F i'll work it out one day .

Yes, didn't Slory look happy to be coming off a few minutes before half-time. I'm surprised his fluro-bib he was putting on didn't still have some of his team assistants fingers still attached to it after he snatched it off him ;-) A lot of teams are 'pressing' this season. You will have to do it all game and do it well against a Roar that are super-rich in confidence in playing out the back: they are even doing it with some flair now. Give the Roar too much space, and they will triangle pass through you like the proverbial hot knife through butter. Pressing with man marking and overloading the midfield might slow them down...maybe. Adelaide may have been poor in parts, but equally the Roar players were brilliant. Regardless of the defenders form, some of those passes for Berisher could not have been more perfect.