Despite the disappointing loss to South Korea on Saturday, the Socceroos are not in crisis mode, and an earlier date with Japan is nothing to seriously lament. But if the aim was to top Group A then Postecoglou has to realise that he got it wrong.
In a lot of ways finishing second and facing Group B winners China instead of Uzbekistan in the quarter-finals could be a blessing in disguise. A semi-final place is in no ways a given, but there’s no doubt the Socceroos have the easier opponent.
It doesn’t hide the fact, however, that the team Postecoglou sent out against the Koreans was not good enough to beat them. And it doesn’t bode well that the team have failed to deliver against one of their direct rivals for the Asian Cup.
Winning instils confidence, and the boost of taking three victories into the knockout rounds, including one against a quality opponent, cannot be underestimated.
Thankfully the loss doesn’t spell disaster, but Postecoglou has to ensure it doesn’t happen again. He has to learn from this match, otherwise there will be a next time.
The Socceroos manager knew the importance of the South Korea match, and knew that avoiding defeat was required in order to stay away from playing tournament favourites Japan before the final. In true Ange fashion he refused to choose a defensive line-up and go for the draw, which should be commended, but he also failed to play his best side in order to ensure a positive result.
Before a whistle had sounded Postecoglou had put himself and his team in a difficult position. Win, and he would be lauded a genius, his vision to rest players vindicated by the squad proving its depth. Lose, however, and he would have to take the blame, and from seeing the team sheet the latter always looked on the cards.
Unfortunately, Australia proved that the squad depth is not quite there yet. Tomi Juric, James Troisi and Nathan Burns were injected into the starting line-up in place of Tim Cahill, Mathew Leckie and Robbie Kruse. All three failed to stake a claim for a spot in the first eleven, with Juric and Troisi in particular well off the pace.
Troisi was the weak link in the first half, clearly not keeping up with a midfield that was otherwise buzzing – both with and without the ball. He did well to fashion an opportunity for himself in the 36th minute, but failed to hit the target.
Juric was also found out. There is little doubt that he’s a bright hope for the future, and he will eventually find himself installed as our star striker – his flick on for Kruse in the second half evidence of his potential.
But this match showed that he’s still not up to leading the line. His first touch was poor, and his sloppy control meant that a number of half-chances weren’t capitalised on. His inexperience was evident and he needs more game time, both at club and international level.
Burns, meanwhile, was at fault for the first goal, failing to track his man, though the team as a whole switched off. He showed glimpses of his ability, however, particularly a mazy run and shot just before his substitution.
Going into the break at 1-0 down, it was clear that change was needed. Yet Postecoglou refused to budge, too steadfast in his belief of his players to see that it wasn’t working. One of Ange’s greatest traits is the confidence he instills in his players, but that unwavering support can’t overrule common sense.
He eventually made the substitutions, the first decision to pull off Troisi spot on. But by then it was too late, South Korea had already been given the opportunity to organise their shape and structure, and they were too settled for Australia to truly trouble them.
It’s also been glossed over that Korea were denied a clear penalty when Trent Sainsbury collected Lee Jeong-hyeop without touching the ball. That happened between Leckie entering the field and Cahill and Kruse coming on as a double sub. If Australia had gone 2-0 down, the late response would have looked more foolish.
Full credit to the Koreans, they carried out their game plan superbly, particularly considering the injuries to key players and an obvious struggle to deal with the heat. They were thankful for wasteful finishing, Kruse’s shot in particular should have been converted with the keeper making a routine save, but they still dealt with all the Socceroos could muster.
Again, this is just a lesson to be taken on board. Postecoglou, despite his burgeoning reputation in Australia, is still inexperienced at international level, and is still growing into the role. This bump is not catastrophic, it just needs to be used as part of the learning curve.
In a game like this, the strongest team should have been sent out. Taking control of the match – on the scoreboard not the possession stats – should have been the overall aim before then taking off star players to give them a breather.
There were still plenty of positives though. Sainsbury and Matthew Spiranovic continue to improve their partnership in the centre of defence, Mat Ryan’s distribution was absolutely superb, and Mark Milligan was an able replacement once again for injured captain Mile Jedinak.
Massimo Luongo also put in another impressive shift, though his set pieces still leave a lot to be desired. McKay was decent without excelling, and it would have been nice to see Marco Bresciano get a run in this match if Postecoglou was truly looking to use the full extent of his squad.
But the loss was still a blow. We can talk about how the team missed plenty of chances, and how the pitch wasn’t conducive to playing football, but it was still a loss.
Postecoglou’s gamble failed to pay off, let’s just hope he doesn’t make the same mistake twice. He would do well to observe experienced coaches in similar positions – the only changes Louis van Gaal and Jorge Sampaoli made in their final match of Group B at the Brazil World Cup were enforced, despite qualification for the knockouts already assured.
The team still has the quality to win this tournament, the optimism from the Kuwait and Oman games has not suddenly disappeared, and facing Japan should not be feared. If fans are arrogant enough to think a semi-final spot is a certainty, then they should have confidence that Postecoglou will lead the Socceroos to victory against the favourites, whenever and wherever that might be.
JR Salazar
Guest
Dear Ange, You got a chance to fix this. DON'T MESS UP. Signed, Me.
Hand of God
Guest
We also have to recognise that our backs are even more inexperienced than our forwards, and "parking the bus" probably won't even work. Better to go down swinging.
Hand of God
Guest
Because, Melbourne in their love of true football were only willing / able to offer up the 30,000 seat AAMI Park. If you'd given the FFA Etihad you might have more of a look-in.
TK
Guest
My comment on this game is limited to a couple of observations. The korean team seemed very comfortable playing their game. I went to the match and then watched the second half on telly when i got home as i was interested to hear the commentary. My view at the match was that Australia still lacked class in a couple of areas despite improving in many others and trying very hard on a very steamy night. The finishing and creation of genuine chances has already been discussed here, but it hasnt been noted that the socceroos were pretty woeful at freekicks, corners and crosses generally. In terms of maximising chances it was hard the believe how poor the ball delivery was with balls too short, too long, kicked into the closest koreans knees or kicked out behind goals - creating no threat at all. There were increasingly audible groans of exasperation in the crowd the longer the game went on and this continued....with many players guilty too, not just one or two. Interestingly the commentary i listened to at home made it sound like it was one way traffic for the socceroos, but my impression at the game was the koreans executing a well organised plan based around solid defence, while still countering when the opportunity was there. It looked like we were out performed by a team that was mostly pretty happy with what was going on despite australias consistent attacking. I would also add that we really need to get some coordinated chants for the socceroos...i reckon there were maybe 3000 korean fans in the 48000 strong crowd and they gave the other 45000 socceroos fans a lesson in team chants and noise for their team.....mostly because the aussie fans didnt know what to sing apart from aussie, aussie, aussie, oi, oi, oi and the olé, olé, olé chant. Note that I think it would be unreasonable to blame Ange for this problem. Perhaps a songsheet with every ticket, beer, pie or ice cream would help out despite being terribly contrived. We see the national team so infrequently we have to start somewhere and this tournament would have been a great chance to get some team songs established for the future. Ahh hindsight.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I actually thought McKay was one of the weakest points, regularly giving away the ball. Juric looked good a lot of the time, but just was slightly off with his final touch a few times. I think a team like the one that finished the game would probably be optimal. Cahill on for McKay, Leckie and Kruse on for Burns and Troisi. Tim Cahill has played most of his club career in that sort of midfield position where he can make scything runs into attack and come from nowhere to get his head on the ball. Having Juric up front and Cahill in midfield may give a good option. I think this article overall is way too hard on Ange though. There was reason for him having faith, they were actually playing well, not just maintaining possession but actually doing something with it and created a lot of chances on goal that they really should have scored a few goals. Often a team can dominate possession but not do much with it, but Australia not only had 67% possession, but 14 shots to 9, 6 on target to 3, including 11 from inside the box to 5, so they weren't just padding their shots tally by taking long pot-shots from well outside the area either.
Towser
Guest
Punter,don't know where you get the idea I was talking about strikers falling out of trees,all I was indicating is that If the Australian Strikers were playing at a higher level of club football, they would already be atuned to creating and converting "clear cut chance's"in a tightly organised defence. In other words what we are asking is can a National team coach help develop players from training camps and actual International matches to step up from being( to quote jb) a player that " creates chances" to a player that "create' s clear cut chances and indeed just as importantly players who can convert those clear cut chances. Watching UAE and the lad jb mentioned last night Omar Abdulrahman(potentially a Superstar if he can step up in Europe) there was the subtle line shown between creating clear cut chances and chances. Had this lad had better quality strikers to receive his radar like passes,UAE could have had 4 or 5 goals and therefore the team was creating "clear cut chances". Instead as he was only half of the equation, UAE were creating chances only. In my experience of International football(different from Jb's perspective although often reach the same conclusions) the International coaches in Europe generally get the finished product. In other words the clubs produce the players and the National team benefits. Ange has players of certain quality to mould into an International team of substance. Now Ange has stated something outside my experience in International football,that is he believes that a player can be improved through representing his country as a footballer,to the point that he can after a while under his tutelage step up at club level.that's why I mentioned the " I scratch your back you scratch mine" scenario. So that's why I believe Juric is not going to China,Ange had a word in his ear. Do we have proof that this approach could work,maybe if we consider Massimo Luongo. He states he has improved under Ange and the proof of the pudding will be how much longer he stays at Swindon before he graduates to a bigger and better club. Ryan looks to have improved also and could be on the mov, is it his Belgian club or Ange?
Ginger71
Guest
how is a potential 6 games a long tournament.
Ginger71
Guest
its very blinkered to only have one philosophy on how to play and nothing else. The aim of the game is to win, be it via ugly methods or beautiful methods. If your dominant philosophy is not working because of field conditions, playing conditions, whatever, you need to change it. Whats the point of having 700 passes in the game if none of them hit the back of the net.
Paul
Guest
Ha ha very funny.
Paul
Guest
That's awfully generous of GE, don't suppose they're still bitter from their defeat to the Wanderers that they'd love nothing more than for the Chinese team to feel at home in Brisbane.
AZ_RBB
Guest
The Newcastle AC2015 semi final is now sold out of its original 23k allocation. Let's see how they go about adding seats.
punter
Guest
JB, I think you have me wrong, I think I can appreciate a certain style not to my liking. I can see & appreciate a Chelsea play a very expansive attacking style against say a Swansea & change that style to suit when playing say a Barcelona or Real Madrid. I've seen the Socceroos play a very physical aggressive football over the years, we punched above our weight & have a never say die attitude even against the best teams in the world, but apart from the odd player or 2 we lacked the technical ability. What I like about Ange is that he is developing (at least trying to develop) from the top down players that are comfortable with the ball at his feet, players who can run at teams & players who can make runs to create space & hence able to the ball at speed in attack. Once we get these type of players & then you add the natural Australian game of physical aggression, able to punch above our weight with a never say die attitude, we could be a very strong footballing nation able to play different styles to suit the nature of the game/tournament.
j binnie
Guest
Shuan - This an extremely well put and debated opinion."Ange's style" has been around for a long long time and appears regularly being used by teams down through the history of the game. However during that time there has also been developed systems of play to counteract that style of play and whether right or wrong many appear to have decided these "new" developments are not pretty to watch and therefore should be banned,or discarded into the waste basket. You cite Nathan Burns as an example in your comment and I agree the lad has some very good close control that allows him to beat a man easily but I have also seen ,at coaching courses, many fine dribblers given the task of passing 3 properly positioned defenders fail miserably to accomplish that task, the time and space factor does not allow for 3 properly positioned defenders to be beaten. Now the question has to be put,how often did our lads create a chance that saw them with a clear run on goal,Nathan's shot was made under extreme pressure as was James Triosi's and even Juric's ball over the bar was a result of extreme numbers of defenders surrounding him. So we are left with Kruse's attempt that you rightly say was set up by some extremely clever ball movement by Juric. So we are left with the message you are trying to get across,we must improve on those traits being shown out on the wider areas of the field and see them honed to higher degree so that they will be successful in a purposely packed defensive area presented by a team playing that mode of football. An interesting problem. Keep up the good work. Cheers jb
j binnie
Guest
Punter- Having watched this game at the highest level for the last 60 years I have learned to recognise there has been many ways developed into deploying players into how they should play the game. So the question of who I would prefer to watch does not really enter my head,when that whistle goes I tend to watch what is happening on the field and compare the two teams and how they are approaching the task at hand. If I were to watch Brisbane Roar and compare them with Real Madrid,Bayern,Chelsea or Barcelona I would probably give up watching any local football. Similarly if I were to compare our Socceroos with some of the great international teams I have seen,Hungary,Argentine,Italy or Brazil I would probably stop watching the Socceroos,!!!!! Now I know, that you know, that is not how it works.When I watch the Socceroos today I don't compare them with Germany or Argentine, I look at what I see and try to assess what is happening on the field of play,no more ,no less, and I get much pleasure if I see some sort of improvement in what is trying to be achieved. Unlike you I appear to be able to measure some sort of achievement and skill in playing the game even when a team does not play a style to my liking,and that too is part of the game today and my "liking" or "not liking" is not going to change that state of affairs . Cheers jb..
Uncle Junior
Guest
Last night's match Iran vs UAE was so similar to what occurred on Saturday night in Brisbane. UAE only needed to draw to finish top of the Group. In football, we are so used to seeing cynical coaches in such situations take no risks and offer nothing. They try not to lose the match rather than have the confidence to go out and win the match. I applaud both UAE and Australia for going for the win. It shows coach and players were not intimidated by the opposition and put faith in their own ability to win. It's up to fans to decide if they prefer to watch their team playing football, or trying to stop the opposition from playing football? I'm happy to lose to South Korea if we play our system of proactive football. And success will come when we play this type of football with no mistakes. It's not a matter of Ange using an alternative strategy against stronger opponents. It's a matter of Australia executing Ange's strategy to perfection.
Qantas supports Australian Football
Guest
Don't be ridiculous---you know Melb City will never let the boy go. He is not for sale at any price... ;)
punter
Guest
JB, look at it this way; As a neutral, which team would your prefer to watch? UAE. As a result for a fan? Iran Based on what we saw, who has the better future? UAE. Who would Socceroos least want to face? UAE So 3-1 to UAE.
punter
Guest
JB & Towser, I don't disagree with what you say, but you talk as if strikers fall off trees all the time. Outside of Viduka, the Socceroos in it's history never had a high quality striker. I am struggling to think of a truly world class striker that did not come from Europe, Sth America or Africa ever. Now don't get me wrong, I love a journeyman like John Alosi now for Socceroos. I am thinking how many times under Pim & Holger, the socceroos were outplayed like Korea was & Iran last night by UAE, but managed to win with strong, discipline defence & we would sneak a goal like Korea & Iran & I felt unsatisfied. I certainly don't think we are the finish product & having watched a lot football, I know we are a long way from it. However, I am pleased with the direction of where we are heading, we are starting to groom younger players, we are playing pleasing football, we have a direction, where the previous few coaches were purely result orientated, no long term foresight, similar to many big companies & governments now. Do we have the players & ability to beat the best teams in the world, no, even the better teams in Asia, well we went very close the other night. But we are looking to produce more highly technical players, so we can fill those holes we are currently lacking. As far speed of attack needs to improve & strikers, I cannot agree more. But as a sprinter you must be happy to break 10 seconds in the 100 metres, before you contemplate breaking Usain Bolt's WR.
Shaun Dyas
Roar Rookie
Australia will play a lot worse than this in games and still win. They largely dominated the match and this could be born out in the possession stats. Whilst possession in games is not everything chances were created and on another day they could have easily found the back of the net. As for this idea of picking a so called 'best team', I think the best team was picked for this game. Australia against a strong defence needed mobility and guile, not predictability. Too often the issue for Australia is that we become far too predictable when we play with the likes of Cahill, Kruse etc from the start. They need space in behind defences to weave their magic and against a packed defence this was never going to be allowed. This is why Ange went for Burns for example. He is brilliant at beating his direct opponent (which you did mention with his mazy dribble) and then occasionally the next man. Against any packed defence you need the ability to pull them out of shape and this only occurs in 2 ways, efficient and fast ball movement (unlikely on that poor Suncorp surface) or the ability to beat a player. Burns is the best in the squad at being able to skip past opponents and his selection was clever and cunning by the manager. Australia created far more chances earlier in the game than they did with the Cahill, Kruse combination. The best chance for Kruse was the ball provided by Juric who i also think you have been particularly harsh on. Australia against the physical Korean defence needed not only a player who was strong in the air but also one who could provide a consistent threat in behind which is something that Juric is far better able to do than Cahill (especially with the latter being 35). All of the better performances from Leckie come from games against the bigger opposition faced in Ange's tenure (think Chile and Netherlands). This was simply due to the fact that those teams pushed on and left us with space in behind to exploit. if you need proof of this, watch any moment in most matches when Leckie is lined up one-on-one with his opponent in or near the byline or sideline. He rarely goes past his opponents in these situations and if he wants to develop further for both his club and country, this is one part of his game he really needs to improve.
Daniel Hackett
Roar Rookie
"Ange got it wrong" - no he didn't! Focus on he big icture and that is winning the tournament. We'd already qualified for the next stage which was a much of a muchness in terms of teams we'd face (or as you've pointed out we've actually got the easier team) so why run the players into the ground?! "the team Ange sent out wasn't good enough to win" - were you even watching the match we were the better team and created more chances. It was only bad luck and finishing which prevented us winning this game (as well as a signle brainsnap defensively) . "Burns didn't stake a claim" - again, wrong. With the exception of the defensive lapse Burns was brilliant rarely gave the ball away and set up a couple of good chances. Those 2 runs into the box he did were awesome as well, last player that did that for Oz was Kewell in his prime. Superior player to leckie who lacks the technical ability to play this game style.