Jim Magilton, in his post-match press conference for Saturday’s scoreless Melbourne Derby, defiantly argued he’d found a couple of positives he can build on, including a first clean sheet in 13 games and seeing out the last 15 minutes with a man down.
But on the evidence of his work so far for the Melbourne Victory, particularly in the past two games, he’ll need to produce significantly more over the next couple of months to have any hope of landing the permanent gig next season.
Against Gold Coast United in Launceston last Wednesday and against the Melbourne Heart on Saturday, Magilton used a 4-4-2.
As I’ve argued before on this column, it’s not so much the formation itself but the deployment of the formation and the personnel in it that has been his problem.
The biggest issue has been his use of a flat four-man midfield, a system no-doubt familiar to him from his time in the UK.
Among it’s many problems, at least as far as the Victory are concerned, is that it asks far too much, from a defensive perspective, of the wide men, Harry Kewell on the left and Marco Rojas on the right on Saturday, especially with the defence sitting so deep.
Starting these two in the same line, or just a touch advanced of Grant Brebner and Leigh Broxham, means that they are playing far too deep and shouldering too much defensive responsibility.
In the past two games it has meant that Kewell, in particular, has been too isolated from the front two, Archie Thompson and Jean Carlos Solorzano.
This contrasts to the three or four games before Launceston when he seemed to be used higher, in a 4-2-3-1, and had more of an influence in the front third.
What has also been evident in the past two games is that Kewell doesn’t appear to have been given license to roam across the forward line, where he can link with the likes of Thompson and Solorzano. He has essentially been working in the left corridor, up and down.
With his extra defensive burden in the flat four, it was perhaps no surprise the find Kewell replaced an hour into the derby.
On the other side, with Rojas sitting too deep, it was the Heart who took the initiative, with Craig Goodwin having a splendid debut.
The other major issue with a straight midfield is that the opportunities to play angled, diagonal balls to players in advanced positions are limited. Little wonder players have been guilty of circulating the ball slowly, or knocking it long.
As well, the system meant that Kristian Sarkies has a field day, able to pick up the ball, in space, without any pressure. He was then able to pick his pass, prompting the Heart’s control of proceedings.
The fact Magilton stuck steadfastly to a system that wasn’t working, and didn’t have the means to adjust things to wrestle the control from John van ‘t Schip was perhaps the most worrying element for Victory fans.
Coming into the game it seemed fairly obvious to this pundit that the Heart manager would play three at the back, releasing a fullback into an advanced role.
It’s a tactic he has adopted previously, the aim being that he controls the opponent by leaving one spare at the back.
Soon Goodwin, nominally a left back but playing mainly in an advanced position, was foraging forward down the left.
Magilton might have been able to force the youngster back, into a defensive position, by changing his own formation to a 4-2-3-1.
It wouldn’t have been too hard, even with Carlos Hernandez on the bench. All Magilton had to do was push Kewell into the middle, behind Solorzano, and move Thompson to one flank and Rojas to the other.
By doing this he would have forced van ‘t Schip to drop Goodwin into a more defensive position, limiting his impact in attack and asking more questions of him defensively.
It likely would have given the Victory a greater share of control. As it was, the Heart dominated, Ante Covic coming to Magilton’s rescue, not for the first time.
The fact Magilton evidently didn’t even see the opportunity to adjust the formation to wrestle some control spoke volumes.
The question for the much-maligned Victory board and particularly the man said to be pulling the strings, Ian McLeod, is whether anyone has the ability to see this, and assess Magilton’s work.
While the club clearly has a multitude of issues, including an aging and imbalanced squad, players on long-term contracts and the lack of a football director, sorting out the managerial post remains high on the agenda.
At this stage, Magilton has done little to state a case.
nearpost
Guest
So Magilton drops Broxham, Brebner out through suspension - in comes Milligan and suddenly Victory improve....nay win! If only Memhet had done the Coaching Badge we Roarers have done - he'd still be in a job and in the six!
Roger
Guest
Clayts, you talk about how poor they are every other day. I promise to pull you up on it next time I see it.
Roger
Guest
Thanks for explaining Tony, that makes more sense. I guess it gets tiresome as a fan to read barrage after barrage of criticism week-to-week, especially when there are teams that sit below us on the table, and other teams who have played worse in the given week. Why no articles about the other teams? Why no analysis of where they went wrong? Why no post-mortems? All I'm saying is that the reporting is getting more and more skewed against Victory, and it doesn't seem to matter what the outcome of the game is, only that Victory are worthy of further criticism. It reminds me more of a piranha frenzy than balanced views and reporting. Just my 2 cents!
Roger
Guest
Hahaha, nice. Sorry to hear about the football community and their lack of support for CCM. At least CCM are kick-ass this year ;)
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Clayts I don't get this fascination with other HAL teams. I'm so focused on MY team I don't have time to assess the pros & cons of other squads or managers. AUFC is in a worse position on the ladder, has a great squad and also changed managers this year - but, hardly a word is written about AUFC. BRI lost 5 in a row this season & MHT hasn't won for 7 games - but, hardly a word is written about BRI & MHT. And, what do you mean by "constant talk of 'we’re the biggest club' tripe"? By any criteria, MVFC is the biggest football club in Australia. And, we're the biggest because all our stakeholders have worked damn hard to get us to the top - it's not something we had bestowed on us simply b/c the club is based in Melbourne. In fact, in Year 1, MVFC was part-owned by the FFA b/c we couldn't arrange enough finance. So, we - the stakeholders - have every right to be proud of how we've helped our football club to reach the top: on the field, in the stands & in the media. Perhaps, if non-MVFC fans concentrated more on promoting & supporting their clubs and less on attacking MVFC we would see the other 9 HAL clubs starting to become profitable, well-supported and well-known across the Australian sporting landscape.
Clayts
Guest
Spot on, Mid
Clayts
Guest
Not sure where I have been banging on about poor Victory players? Might have me confused with someone else mate? I agree than Foschini and Cernak have been starting, but for how long has Celeski been out/not at his best? Kemp has only been playing in the last few weeks and the others I thought were pretty much fringe players that depth would have catered for. Sort of like Brisbane playing Fitzgerald/Brattan/Meyer when they had their injuries...Or Goodwin coming in for Heart. They are the "depth" players I was talking about. My point was the players Heart had out were way more damaging than the players Victory had out. I don't relaly think that is up for debate actually.. But agree to disagree
Clayts
Guest
Fuss, Its a discussion forum isn't it? I think it is healthy for the league for supporters of other teams to take an active interest in teams other than their own. I take an active interest in just about every team. MVC is just easy pickings at the moment because of a combination of ladder position and the constant talk of "we're the biggest club" tripe. I guess you can't have it both ways. It will pass though. You guys will win a couple of games and the criticism will stop
Brendo
Guest
Another good article Tony The biggest concern I have around Migilton at this time tactical nous. Playing a flat floor against the much younger and fleet of foot heart was asking for trouble. When you also consider the two central midfielders in his flat floor are not quick, have a tendancy to turn the ball over and rarely venture beyond half way line it is even more confusing. I just cannot see how he can afford to play two up front with cattle he has at his disposal. All season we lost the midfield battle and even bling feddy can see ther lack of mobility and turnovers are costing us. As fussball said 5 games may be too early to take away conclusions but I really want to see some strategies that address the problems and at the moment Magilton seems unable to come up with any.
Wilier
Guest
Big deal. Mvfc has been playing like sh!t. All the decent fans know it and say so. The first step to fixing a problem is admitting that you have one. Unfortunately for mvfc it's the board and the lack of a technical director. You should have kept Gary cole and got rid of muscat.
Wilier
Guest
Spot on bela. We move the ball too slow at the moment). As for the knockers of mhfc, I would much rather watch my team play well and lose (like against ccm) than offer nothing and win (like against Wellington in morwell).
Midfielder
Guest
Fuss Correct .... I would go a tad further and say some of those MV draws could easily been victories...
Midfielder
Guest
Roger Quite pleasant beaches, lakes, rivers etc.... Australian hidden jewel TBH... however from a football sense the reports about the club from the learned football community has at times make me wonder aloud at the collective wisdom of the the said same learned football folk... and despair will they ever understand... however I have grown a thick skin regarding the slings and arrows sent they way of Coast and have learnt to feel sorry for those who criticise with their keyboard with little knowledge and soul...
Tony Tannous
Expert
Fuss, it's good to hear from you... Can't recall if I wrote about Ange's first 5 games, but I do recall reflecting and enjoying his early work, particularly his work at reshaping the squad and getting rid of some of the old guard. This was not a popular view at the time (quite the contrary), but I remember sitting there nodding at the time. Of course circumstances are different at the Victory, with many players on long term contracts, making it difficult to move them, but I just haven't seen anything remotely impressive in his five games to suggest he has the makings of a manager that will deliver. As I recently wrote, in this summary of Postecoglou's early work, the devil is in the detail; http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/tannous-opinion-display/Before-the-Roar-run/42888
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Tony is there much to be learnt about a manager's technical work after 5 games in charge of team he inherited mid-season? Perhaps there is? Do you, by any chance, happen to have your notes analysing Ange Postecoglou's technical work after his first 5 games at Brisbane Roar? I wasn't a member of this Forum in November 2009, so I'd be keen to read what you said after Ange's first 5 games after taking over Brisbane during the season. Just to jog everyone's memory, Ange's first 5 games yielded: W:1 D:1 L:3. Makes Jim Magilton's 5 match results look pretty good. Your analysis may prove to be spot on but ... after 5 games? Come on give him a break.
Tony Tannous
Expert
Thanks for the sentiment re the piece Roger. Regarding your question about my motivation from writing about the Victory, I had not written about Magilton since his arrival, wishing to have a look at his technical work over a few games before casting a view. Whilst in Melbourne over the weekend for the derby I had a chance to have a look at it live, and had many a great football conversation, often with Victory fans, and a question I kept getting asked is should Magilton stay on. This, in a way, is a reponse to that question. I understand there has been a fair deal of criticism of the Victory since the derby, but I'd argue much of it is justified. They've a mountain of issues to overcome and getting the manager right is a big part of the puzzle. Hope this sheds some light.
Bela Guttman
Guest
The current difficulty for Heart does involve Fred but not in the way that you think. Heart's scoring difficulty stems from a lack of ball speed. When Fred is in midfield he creates speed and opportunity through many one touch diagonal balls that open space for players like Mate. At the moment Heart move the ball much too slowly and by the time the ball arrives in the front third the player with the ball is usually faced with 6+ defenders sitting deep. Nobody else in the Heart squad has the technical ability to play the diagonal defence splitting ball. Although Babalj has been compared to Viduke, one striking difference is that Babalj is not a true box striker and really works best coming out deeper like a false 9. This also limits the opportunities when the box is packed with defenders. Dugandzic is a running player who's effectiveness is reduced as soon as the space closes and the game slows.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Jim Magilton has been in charge of MVFC for 5 matches so let's compare the results of Jim Magilton & John van't Schipp during this period. HAL results last 5 weeks Jim Magilton: W:0 D:4: L:1 John van't Schipp: W:0 D:2 L:3 Based on the FACTS, John van't Schipp is a bigger loser - much much bigger loser - than Jim Magilton in the HAL and, hence, MHT board - quite rightly - decided last week that John van't Schipp's services were no longer required and he's out the door.
Roger
Guest
I take your point, I guess it just gets a bit tiresome reading multiple articles per week, with many many comments, about how poor Victory are.
Stevo
Guest
Based on TWG last night, Big Jim Magilton is living up to Fozzies expectation - a loser.