In the end, it took one decent cross and a six-foot-four substitute to send the Socceroos to the World Cup. So does that make coach Holger Osieck a tactical genius or a millstone around our neck?
For Socceroos fans of a certain vintage, there must have been a four-letter word on the tip of collective tongues – Iran.
For 82 increasingly angst-ridden minutes, it was hard not to think back to a certain Melbourne night in 1997 when Team Melli knocked Australia out of the World Cup amidst unspeakable drama.
But then veteran Mark Bresciano did what Tommy Oar and Robbie Kruse had failed to do all night and finally clipped a decent ball into the box.
The fact Nagoya Grampus striker Kennedy was on the pitch to nod it home was thanks to Osieck.
His decision to replace Tim Cahill with a player who hadn’t featured for the national team for 19 months was met with vocal recriminations from Cahill himself.
But ultimately, the man nicknamed Jesus was indeed the Socceroos’ saviour and for all his prodigious talent in the air, it’s interesting to ponder whether Cahill would have conjured the leap necessary to head home Bresciano’s lofted cross.
The following morning’s headlines lauded Osieck as a “tactical genius” – not all that surprisingly given tight newspaper deadlines – though it’s hard to see what other options the Australia coach had.
He’d already sent on youngster Tom Rogic to little effect and, not for the first time this campaign, it was instead Melbourne Victory veteran Archie Thompson who seemed to produce a galvanising response when he entered the fray.
Short of deploying stopper Sasa Ognenovski as a makeshift striker, what else was Osieck supposed to do other than introduce Kennedy up front?
He waited until the 77th minute to do even that against a tiring Iraqi defence, although memories of that infamous MCG meltdown 16 years earlier mean it was probably wise to leave it late.
The irony is that if Kennedy had failed to put away Bresciano’s cross, it wouldn’t have even mattered.
A draw would have been enough to see the Socceroos progress as Group B runners-up, owing to Jordan’s 1-0 defeat of Oman.
Kennedy’s late goal may have added to the on-going Socceroos narrative – always valuable from a box-office perspective – but it also glossed over the fact Australia struggled to beat what was practically Iraq’s youth team.
There were plenty of Johnny Warren scarves in the stands and the great man once said that Australia should aim to win the World Cup, not just compete in it.
But how on earth can we possibly win a World Cup when we’re nowhere near the best team in Asia?
When Asian players train harder, are more disciplined, have access to better coaches and facilities and quite simply want it more, it’s hard to see Australia ever becoming the region’s dominant nation.
We don’t even bother hosting World Cup qualifiers on proper pitches – the surfaces at Etihad Stadium and ANZ Stadium were an absolute disgrace – so what right do we have to think we can ever match it with the big boys?
As it stands, the Socceroos are staring down the barrel of annihilation in Brazil.
Is that Holger Osieck’s fault? The German is a convenient scapegoat, but he’s not exactly responsible for the faltering production line of talent.
Nor has he made the same mistakes as his predecessor Pim Verbeek, who would arguably have snubbed domestic-based players such as Thompson and Mark Milligan.
Yet for all Osieck’s belated achievements – and seven points from nine in three high-pressure games is nothing to sniff at – is he suddenly the “tactical genius” required to take Australia to the next level?
Or has he merely got the Socceroos, like an annoying Irish band once sung, running to stand still?
King Kong
Guest
If the cricket coach is fired right before the Ashes Test today because of "There has been a school of thought that the South African was not tough enough to oversee the generational change in the Australian team, and he has been made responsible for a team culture that has gone backwards this year" then why FFA will not fire this Holger.
Punter
Guest
JB, no difference in opinion. I now understand a little bit more of your frustration at the lack of activity in something we all understand & appreciate will take football in this country to another level. Australian teams have strong structures, strong will to win, they are keen to learn & are very disciplined, however we do really lack in the technical department as shown against the Asian teams.
NUFCMVFC
Roar Guru
To be fair we blitzed the first group this time, difficulties came in the second group, and the draw was rather lopsided in that we had the hard home game versus Japan along with away wcq's in the Mid East in 2012 and the remaining home games in 2013. A different draw could see us winning home games versus Oman in 2012 etc, build up points and be psychologically more comfortable. A lot of the perception of us as strugglers is psychological We haven't won anything yet, a big performance in 2011 and we have only been knocked out of the Asian Cup by Japan so far We are slipping though which will need rectifying, but at least we aren't Saudi Arabia who used to qualify but now get knocked out in the first (3rd AFac) group A-league has a long way to go, but j league and k league have big head starts. A-league is more sophisticated than 2005 so the important thing is we are heading in the right direction at least
NUFCMVFC
Roar Guru
It's a tricky question, on the one hand we need players at the heart of Europe to have a good quality lineup that can be competitive in tournaments played in top notch conditions and on good surfaces etc But on the other hand we do need to have players capable of understanding how to play in the mid-east and Asia in order to help us qualify in often awkward mid-season conditions Agree in the sense that during the old NSL days it was very much a case of Europe or bust with nothing in between so players would have to really strive to make a success of it. Now they can become decent but leave Europe at earlier stages to maintain income levels like Holman now but earlier Lucas Neill or merely above average, leave e league, not quite cut it in Europe but go mid-east like Carle perhaps or Carney. I can understand Bresc, at the end of his career or Cahill going to leagues which aren't as intense in order to preserve the remaining length of their careers Holger has to work with what he's got, not his fault there is a talent vacuum occurring and new players aren't replacing the talent of the old, hence he's sticking with Neill at the back. People go on about young talent but it is experienced heads that navigate the pressure of wcq's and young players need to learn from that There is some hope for the future, Kruse, Rogic and perhaps Oar look like they may become capable
j binnie
Guest
Punter. Thanks for the reply.You are right,but wrong, in some of your statements???. & it all gets back to coaches & their comprehension of what they have been taught, in other words good education.. Many of our GG have admitted to having played in SSG's in their junior years but as you say my gripe is with the football governance of the time who could not see the "forest for the trees" & having lived through one debacle, I am just a little worried we are facing another.Why? You mention finance & it is here my worry begins. In the last 8 years we have had 5 very highly paid coaches, & their respective staffs, in positions set up ostensibly to educate our coaches,& through them, the players at our grassroots level.I will leave you to work on just how much that amount would be but don't stop till you get into the millions.To befair,two of thise highly paid coaches have given us some return as they have taken our senior teams to WC Finals. Compare that to the original set up in 1974-1980 where the major cost was met by a cigarette company & State federations, that amount of money pales into insignifcance & yet ,as I said ,some of our GG admit to having been part of that original experiment. Back to today. Where is the evidence that our coach eduction program is working for, as I said,I have yet to find evidence in the school & junior clubs I have visited but the most disturbing factor is when I hear our Director of Coaching say publicly on TV a couple of months ago that he is not best pleased with the progress being made & ever so softly adds another 5 years on to the time he expects to see results !!!!. That may fob you off, but it does nothing for me,for as I have said before, we can train students to become teachers in 3-5 years ,why the difference in teaching a coach how to teach our kids. Apart from that difference of opinion keep up the good work. jb
j binnie
Guest
Slick as.- Have just read your reply & am afraid I have to smile just a little at the detail you go into with numerical combinations that are probably near the truth but more than a little out in the "time line".First of all Chapman at Arsenal was the first to tinker with his defence back in the mid 1920's & it is widely recognised in coaching history that was when the move towards differing formations in player deployment began.I will try to roughly inform of such moves & date them. Russia by 1945 had developed a formation that saw forwards in the great Dynamo team interchange at will but still playing with a backline of 3, 2 fullbacks and a centrehalf.They played an undefeated tour in the "home ' of football but their tactics were ignored. though the W M formation ,or numerically, 3-2-2-3 was by now widely accepted away from the 2-3-5.. Coaching in Europe & South America was now in the full throes of change & it is in South America this change was most evident,4-2-4 becoming the "in" formation for player deployment in the early 1950's & is usually credited to one Feola as the "refining" coach.Brazil used a loose 4-2-4 in winning the 1954 WC, but by1958 had changed this to a fluid 4-3-3 mainly due to the fact they had an indefatigable left winger in Zagallo who was perfectly capable of dropping into midfield as a defender when out of possession & moving forward again when possession was won.hence individual player movement was becoming more important to the system in vogue.. Meanwhile in Europe the change had developed in a different manner with pre & post-war Austria starting to use a deep lying centre forward, a tactic quickly copied by the great Hungarian team under Sebes.They thrashed England twice in '53 & '54 & this time the penny dropped & England started to examine how the "continentals" were playing. It was a long hard road for in Italy "catenaccio" had been developed by Rocco & others but Ramsey prevailed & introduced his wingless wonders in 1966. So we moved to a rigid 4-4-2 as the "in" formation.You will note the total absence of Holland as a "coaching power " in any of these developments. By now,with the big Italian clubs playing their defensive strategies & coaches like Stein & others coming up with ways & means of beating it, the emphasis changed slightly away from theoretical deployment into how fit players could be made to foil a defensive structure In the early 70's Holland emerged as a coaching haven their team of '74 and '78 brought systems into a new era.By using outstanding players they used a fluid 4-3-3 converting to a 1-3-3-4 when in possession,the extra 1 being the goalkeeper who actually took up the position of "sweeper" as his mates,Cruyff in the lead ,poured forward. Both of those Dutch teams had traceable connection back to Austria & it is there you will find the genesis of Tactical Development in a theorist,Hugo Meisl, & an exiled (from England) coach, Jimmy Hogan who began to tinker with what, up to then, had been your unshakeable 2-3-5, from the 1920's in England,at that time recognised as the "home" of football. Cheers mate jb
SlickAs
Guest
When talking about the SSG's, I meant not only that but the whole new national carriculum including 4-3-3 and the coach licencing. It is a rejuvination. Sure, back in the 70's I remember the small fields for the U8's, you can't put 7 year olds on a full sized pitch. But when I was a junior in the 70's once we moved to full sized pitches as 10 year olds or whatever, we played 2-3-5. Yep, remember that? At kick-off, the wings line up on the half line as forwards, then a centre-forward in the middle and an inside-left and inside-right on either side. Remember those positions? 2-3-5 was obsoleted in the 50's by the WM formation, but these old-bugger coaches and vested interests thought they knew better and insisted on teaching kids starting out 2-3-5 because "it is the basics". This despite the fact that by the 70's the dutch were playing total football, 442 was well established, etc. I don't see much has changed with the current roll out, only now the old-buggars have 4-4-2 welded on and think thier "old school" methods are just as good. "None of this is new, we always did that" conservatism. As a digression for the youngsters: why is a centre-back sometimes called a "centre-half"? Let me explain 2-3-5. For 50 years or whatever until Hungary flogged England at Wembley in 1954 with Hungary playing a WM, football was played 2-3-5. Each player in the 2-3-5 had a number on their shirts to mark their positions. The goalkeeper wore the number 1 through to the left winger with a number 11 and 9 was the centre forward, etc. We still refer to the positions by these numbers. You could work out who you were supposed to be marking by the number on their shirt. So here is how it lined up: ----------- Keeper ---- Full-Back Full-Back Right-half Centre-half Left-half Winger Inside Centre Inside Winger Centre-half as a central midfielder? Yep. See what happened when they moved over to the WM was that they played 3 across the back dropping back the centre-half from midfield. WM means that the defenders were shaped like a M with and the attackers shaped like an W. Trying this in text: Winger ----- Centre-forward ---- Winger ---- Inside-left -------- Inside-right ---Left-half ------------Right-Half Full-back ----Centre-half ---- Full-Back ------------- Goal keeper The full-backs moved to the left and right from their traditional positions and the centre-half dropped into the middle into the back line. Later upon 4-4-2 they added a second centre-half to the centre of defense. That's why centre-back's are also called "centre-halfs" on occasion and left and right backs are also called "full-backs"
Punter
Guest
JB, like I said I respect your opinions but your implication in your original post was that SSG have been around since 1975, but now you are saying that it was implemented, but never followed through due a lack of funding. So we have not had a history of using SSG to help our footballers improve their game technically. So the idea that the of SSG is beneficial to the improvement of our footballers is something we both agree on. The new direction of the FFA is to have more SSG for our youths & I think at present the coaching structure & education is kept at the elite level of the grassroots. I think you will find the reason why when you wander around the schools & Junior football matches & not find this SSG properly administered is the same reason it never took off in the 80s, is the funding required to educate the coaches. Cash flow is still a big problem with the FFA & football in this country. The age old question do we build the A-League & spend our money there & hopes the growth will help the grassroots or do we spend the grassroots at the expense of the A-League. While a country like Japan were far more willing to invest & hence why they are so technically more gifted then our players.
j binnie
Guest
Punter - I have in my possession a "soccer" magazine printed in 1976 in which there is an article written by the then Qld Director of Coaching one Dennis Ford explaining the benefits to be had by using SSG's as a huge step forward in teaching kids under 11/12 the techniques & ball control necessary in gaining the game's basic skills, ie receiving,dribbling,shooting/passing.tackling,& heading. This idea had been brought from England where a study done on the physiological & psychological examinations of juniors found that up to that age kids were not receptive to team aspects of the game but were motivated more by the fun in kicking a ball &, even better,scoring goals.The idea of SSG's were simply to cut down on the pitch size that had to be covered by short legs while at the same time allowing a kid the opportunity to get more touches at the ball.with the reduced area & number of players. You see in 1974 we had a National D of C whose mandate was to coach coaches all around the country.He quickly appointed a coach based in each state who had to start running coaching courses for coaches around their state,This idea did get off the ground but then the government of the day decided that smoking advertising would no longer be tied to sport &,as Rothman's were paying the top man's wages the governors of our game quickly ran for cover, followed by State Federations who were paying their D of C's. So an excellent idea almost died on the vine but in small areas around the country the idea had caught on & stuck. Come 2005 & again, under new management we again have a new D of C appointed who promises to come up with a master plan to cure all our ills.The main factors in the plan appear to be we must use a 4-3-3 formation (1974 Socceroos played 4-3-3) and use SSG's to give our kids a better football education the same SSG's my club was using in 1980 !!!!!!! Come 2013 & as I wander around schools & junior football matches & talk to teachers or club officials I find that there is little or no contact being made down at the grassroots. You then go on to say your club uses SSG's on small fields,that's great but you must also know that there are set methods in running a session for players as young as say 9.Firstly the coach must be able to break down a skill & be able to demonstrate to the kids.There are many exercises to keep the kids interest but also the fun aspect can never be forgotten so it is better to program the session into "fun times" with "rest periods" used for the demonstration & repetition of a skill. Sorry to go on a bit but your question is close to what I consider a huge problem in our game. Cheers jb
Griffo
Roar Guru
@Matsu Agree, particularly last paragraph. Also you reminded me of a saying: Perfection can never be reached, but if you give up trying, you will never get close.
dasilva
Guest
My view is that you judge the team in terms of results you judge the manager in terms of content After all the point of the game is to kick more goals than the opposition. Whoever does that deserves the victory. IF one team has one shot on target and scores and the other team has 100 shots on target the keeper saves, than that team that wins deserve to win as they delivered in the point of the game However, the content is what managers should be judge on because the content is what the manager has influence on and the manager doesn't have 100% control over the factors that led to the result. The manager may be able to structure his team to dominate possession and to produce numerous chances and create solid defense and restrict the oppostiion to a few chance. However the manager can't control (beyond selection and substitution) whether the striker will miss the chance, hit the post, deflect into goal etc. If the team played well and loses, the manager still deserves credit because he maximised the performance of the team. To sum up, the result (with the exception of referee mistakes) is always fair to the teams playing but it's not always fair to the managers.
fadida
Guest
Much prefer you when you're talking sense like this Fuss :)
fadida
Guest
Agree completely da silva. Loved the Joshua Tree and all that came before it. It all started to fall apart when Bono started to wear hats :)
fadida
Guest
Zooropa is the Prosinecki of albums. Genius to some, big fuss about nothing to others :)
dasilva
Guest
I'll say downhill after Zooropa I think that album is underrated
dasilva
Guest
I'm somewhere in between Their last 15 years is no where near the peak form of U2 However there's a big difference between not as good as your peak period to bad music in general U2 has just written decent albums in the last 15 years (although I quite dislike No lines in horizon and I think Pop is mediocre). It's definitely no where near as good as tehir peak period but it's not bad music either. In any case, I always believe that music should be remembered for the peak period In the end 100 years in the future would the historians remember U2 for Pop or would they remember them for Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby and my personal faovurite Boy etc. great albums endure, bad or mediocre albums fade. As long as an artist release one great album in their career they become immortalised, no matter how many bad albums they make afterward they will always be remembered indefinitely.
gumpy
Guest
Well the FFA could do considerably worse than replace Holger with Marcelo Bielsa, if I may be so bold.
AGO74
Guest
“it is a huge disrespect to call Iraq easy-beats.” I myself didn’t call them that. They were probably the third-best team in the group. Mike - Iraq WERE the worst team in the group. They came last by 4 points. This was nowhere near the Iraq vintage of 2007-2011. Based on your "possible" comment re Iraq being the 3rd best team - I could reasonably argue we were the best team in the group as generally over 180 minutes against Japan I would say we were the better team. Apart from a one on one point blank save from Schwarzer, please tell me of any other occasion in open play he was seriously tested.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Yeah, Middy, saw that & smiled. Haven't we come a long way in 18 months, since Palmer packed his bags & Tinkler got upset! There's no dispute: 1. Participation: football is the No. 1 sport for kids (5-14) & adults (15 & older) 2. TV viewing: football is the No. 2 sport in all the 5 major capital cities 3. Football is the sport that has a per capita reach that is consistent across all of Australia It was reported: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/football/david-gallop-puts-rivals-on-notice-as-tv-bosses-eye-off-the-socceroos/story-fn63e0vj-1226666530722 Nine Network managing director Jeffrey Browne confirmed all three commercial networks were likely to bid for broadcast rights to the code when they're next available. He said Nine was not in a position to bid for the most recent rights as it prepared a cricket deal. "I would think by the time that comes around next time you'd certainly have a lot of interest from the Nine network and certainly (multi-channel) capacity and I know you'll have interest from Ten and I'd be surprised if you don't have interest from Seven as well," Browne told a Sydney FC business lunch yesterday.
fadida
Guest
@matsu - I'm a fan of looking at the content, not just results in order to improve. Win = genius seems to be the way analysis goes here sometimes though :)