Just seven months ago, Ange Postecoglou officially earned the mantle of worst Socceroos coach ever.
There was little doubting he was the right man for the job, but two wins from his first 12 matches in charge made him statistically the most unsuccessful Australia boss, with a winning percentage of just over 16 per cent.
But that stat was futile – like so many stats are in the numbers game that football is becoming.
Though results hadn’t improved, there was a buzz around the Socceroos setup that offered plenty of promise heading into the Asian Cup; an obvious transition from the pair of 6-0 drubbings against France and Brazil a year earlier.
Tonight’s match against Kyrgyzstan represents an opportunity to cement the security that the Socceroos now enjoy. Following volatile tenures under Holger Osieck and Pim Verbeek, this is the most cohesive Australia has looked in years.
As his first full international season in charge comes to an end, Postecoglou will look back on a campaign with just as much pride at the stability it has yielded as the silverware garnered.
There is a sense of comfort that the current Socceroos squad – slight tinkering aside – will see out the road to Russia in 2018. If not for enforced changes, the line-up in Bishek would be almost identical to the one that lifted the Asian Cup in Sydney.
And there is an aura of positivity among the current crop, that they truly believe in the cause. The days of a disjointed unit seem distant and recent performances have given a sense that there is an understanding right across the park.
Mass Luongo, though absent this week through injury, has been a key to improving the fluidity of the Socceroos’ attack, while the defence is slowly moulding into a solid structure, albeit with the back four far from set in stone.
Mathew Leckie has made great strides under Postecoglou, and will be a crucial element should the Socceroos get to Russia, with the next three years giving him a chance to add goals to his vibrant game.
Tim Cahill has deservedly maintained his place, despite calls for him to make way for the next generation. Postecoglou has acknowledged the need for change, but also the need to select a starting line-up based on quality, not age.
The rocky road that threatened to derail the Socceroos’ good work in the mid-2000s has been navigated and Postecoglou admits there are elements of a club culture that has made things secure, without promoting complacency.
“We’ve made some progress there, for sure. Even the new ones that come in get indoctrinated pretty quickly by the other boys,” he said in Fairfax Media. “We’ve got a pretty comfortable setup. I never want them to be too comfortable, because it’s not a club side. And as I keep telling them, the next game isn’t for a couple of months and there’s no guarantees they’ll be part of that. They’ve got to make sure every time they come into camp they give a good account of themselves.”
Among the obstacles for tonight’s qualifier include a pitch that makes Suncorp Stadium look like the Emirates and a preparation made difficult by the enigma that is Kyrgyzstan’s football team.
The bumpy pitch will be of little concern to Postecoglou, who has refused to use it as an escape route should the Socceroos under perform.
And, if anything, the unknowns they’re walking into have made the players more alert than usual.
“It will be a challenging game. They’ve had a win away from home, which is a good confidence boost for them. They were well-organised defensively,” Postecoglou added.
“They’ll be exciting about playing us. For them, it’s an opportunity to stamp their mark on their World Cup qualifying campaign and where they want to go as a nation. We go out to dominate the game, but that’s regardless of the opponent.”
While the Socceroos line-up is yet to be confirmed, it largely selects itself. The backline will present Postecoglou with the greatest headache.
Ivan Franjic and Jason Davidson have almost become mainstays in the fullback positions, but neither managed to play regularly for their clubs last season. That has opened the door for Tarek Elrich and Aziz Behich to step into contention and give Postecoglou a decision to make.
Elrich, a model footballer in all respects, has opted to remain in the Socceroos camp despite the tragic death of his brother Adham last week. His commitment to the jersey is to be admired, as is the environment that has allowed him to feel at home some 11,000 kilometres away from his family.
“It’s about giving people the space, and Tarek has certainly had that the last couple of days,” Postecoglou said. “He’s had great support from the players and staff. The only thing I said to him was that if at any point he wants to go home he can, no repercussions. That can be tomorrow, it can be the day of the game. It’s a personal thing and far be it from me to try and comfort, console or steer a person in that situation.
“He feels pretty good at the moment in terms of being here. He’s spoken to back home obviously and he’s comfortable with where he’s at. If that changes we’ll get him home as quick as possible.
“At the moment he feels good about being here surrounded by the players and staff. It’s a good environment and hopefully he’ll get back home in the next couple of days and be with his loved ones.”
While three points is expected to be a mere formality in Kyrgyzstan, the Socceroos will be determined to put on the type of well-rounded show that will bode well on the path to Russia.
Steve
Guest
"Your comment that BSkyB can outspend BT is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard and demonstrates you have limited awareness of financial markets, financial news, capital investment, etc." Well, for a starters BSkyB DID outbid BT - there is no argument there. BT could in theory outbid BSkyB, but the fact they didn't should lead you to believe that they are not YET confident that IPTV is the more valuable content delivery medium, otherwise they would have invested more and outbid BSkyB. The point is, the financials are not YET there for IPTV. "Traditional TV is dying a slow death. Maybe you missed the latest earnings downgrade issued by Nine Entertainment last week?" Agree, they are dying a SLOW death, but they are no dead yet and it is STILL THE DOMINANT PLATFORM. Pay-TV is dying MUCH SLOWER THAN FTA also. Apologies for the caps, I just am not sure you actually get it so wanted to make it crystal. Only one person in this conversation is talking nonsense and has NFI what they are on about (but believe they do), and that person is not Mister Football or myself. But please, carry on making a fool out of yourself as you did with the FIFA conversations or the gambling ones from earlier this year.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Thanks Steve. The points we are both making are stating the bleeding obvious yet someone on here is trying to make out like they are privy to some amazing knowledge which no one else could possibly understand, when what they are saying is pure dribble. Notice that you and I are talking about the relative value of the the different parts of the TV rights (both right now and for the next few years), and someone else has attempted to move the discussion to the value of the respective organisations involved - as if that was somehow relevant to the original point being made. Let's just take that as an effective throwiing in of the towel.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
So, you are exposed for talking absolute nonsense about financial matters & your rebuttal is "Just give up."? If you want to engage in grown-up debate get your facts right. Your comment that BSkyB can outspend BT is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard and demonstrates you have limited awareness of financial markets, financial news, capital investment, etc. Traditional TV is dying a slow death. Maybe you missed the latest earnings downgrade issued by Nine Entertainment last week?
Steve
Guest
Firstly, Telstra half own Foxtel. Secondly, sure BT might be worth more than BSkyB, but they aren't going to throw good money after bad. If anything, because they could spend more, but can't financially justify it, it is even more or a reason for why traditional TV at this moment is still the dominant platform. Just give up.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
"And that is because BSkyB have the capacity to outspend BT and purchase the rest of the content" You may want to review the financial accounts & market caps of the 2 companies you mentioned BT's annual revenue is double that of Sky. BT's market cap is double that of Sky. You're kidding yourself if you think Sky can outspend BT on anything. It would be like saying Foxtel can out spend Telstra. That's just ludicrous.
Steve
Guest
BT Sport has YouView, which is a set top box. It is not strictly IPTV, as per the implication of an OTT service such as YouTube offering streaming. Content may be additionally streamed via apps, but you will find that a minority of viewing is done this way. BT is a telco, as is BSKYB and even Foxtel is considered a telco (it is owned 50% by Telstra). Even assuming BT Sport were in fact IPTV, the comment about BT Sport's fee per game is ridiculous in this context. The fact is yes they only bought 25% of content, because that is all they were able to pay! And that is because BSkyB have the capacity to outspend BT and purchase the rest of the content, exactly the point Mister Football was making!. The "fee per game" comment is therefore completely irrelevant to the argument. I am absolutely confident that in the next decade or so, IPTV will become the primary distribution method for sports content. And while it is increasing in importance (off a low base), it is still some way behind the traditional methods of TV when it comes to sports content - the points Mister Football was making. It will catch-up, but it is not there yet and while the traditional medium of TV (mostly Subscription but FTA for some sports) still delivers such financial windfalls to the current content owners (i.e. Sports Associations) then that is where the majority of sports content will be delivered. The change will happen as fragmenting of the TV market continues, that will then reduce the revenue and profitability of traditional TV network, thereby meaning these networks have less of a capacity to outbid online sites for sports rights. Additionally, infrastructure needs to improve (which it is, although a FttH NBN would be significantly better!). At this stage, though, the BSKKYB's, Fox Sport's, and hell even Channel Nine's and Channel Seven's of this world are still willing to stump up massive dollars for sports rights. To Bondy's comment earlier about 50% of 18-30 year olds not watching content on TV. The context is important here, as it depends on what content. For Sport, it is north of 80% who still watch on TV, as opposed to other devices. For documentaries it is less in turn and for TV series, it is again less in turn.
Michael
Roar Rookie
Fox did show that series (not that I think anyone watched it!). I do think we deserve better than a one hour delay though...
AZ_RBB
Guest
Shame their team isn't replicating that energy. Poor half from Japan.
Bondy
Guest
AZ_RBB The joints full and jumping, I wish we were like that ....
AZ_RBB
Guest
Just kicking off now on Fox I believe
Bondy
Guest
Ben of Phnom Penh Go Guam . I note also the Japanese are about to kick off against Singapore the Japanese are to short to bet on too at $1.05 ,drats although expected ...
Steve
Guest
Mister Football, you are 100% correct. As someone in the industry, you are the only one in this conversation that sounds like he actually knows what he's talking about. A few others here seem to think they know a lot more than they actually do.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
"But of that 5.14 billion pound TV rights deal, BT is only 960 mill pounds, i.e. less than 20%." Such glib analysis may work with the asinine folk on other forums, but it won't go unnoticed on football discussion boards. At the very core, BT and Sky have bought totally different content. The EPL rights sold as 7 different packages - based on kick-off time. BT & Sky have not bought any of the same matches. So your comment about 20% is nonsensical. Of course BT paid less. They bought fewer matches and bought the cheaper time-slots. EPL rights in the UK: 2016-2019 Total: £5.13 billion for 168 matches BT: £960m for 42 matches/season Sky: £4.17 billion for 126 matches/season So, BT paid 18% of the total fee & broadcasts 25% of the content. When you factor in the fact that Sky bought the more expensive packages - with higher-profile fixtures & more valuable viewing time-slots, the difference per match paid by Sky & BT is negligible.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
But of that 5.14 billion pound TV rights deal, BT is only 960 mill pounds, i.e. less than 20%. So as of right now, for the most popular football league in the world, the online rights are worth less than 20% of the overall TV rights deal. That sounds about right doesn't it? I expect the next AFL deal will also have an online component worth around 20% of the deal (was around 10% last time). The point remains the same: for the last deal, and the next deal, online rights will be a fraction of the total TV rights deal, it's edging up slowly, but it is still well short of 50%. Or do you still disagree?? I honestly don't know what the point is you are trying to make. The value of the online portion currently remains well, well short of the value of traditional TV rights.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
This gives me great hope that we might be able to outlast Bangladesh when the time comes.
Ben of Phnom Penh
Roar Guru
For any who may be feeling a sense of complacency, Guam are 2-0 up against India at the 83rd minute........
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
"On the question of the Premier League broadcast deal, earlier this year they announced a TV rights deal worth 5.14 billion pounds – that’s TV money." No. The figure you have mentioned is for 'broadcasting EPL across the UK". BT is a telco. It is not a PayTV operator in the traditional sense, like Foxtel. From reports I have read, BT Sports is viewed via the internet (IPTV, mobile apps) or you can also watch BT Sports via a Sky set top box. No different to what BeIN sports does in AUS. BeIN doesn't have set-top boxes. It delivers content via online platforms, via the Foxtel set-top box, or via Fetch TV set-top box. So, when BeIN can broadcast the Copa America, MLS & Bundesliga across AUS via online platforms and traditional TV platforms. BTSports does the same for EPL across the UK. Since BT is also an ISP, BT can also bundle its EPL content with its broadband offerings.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Fussball On the question of the Premier League broadcast deal, earlier this year they announced a TV rights deal worth 5.14 billion pounds - that's TV money. Are you saying here that you reckon the online rights are getting more than that? Really? So even with the most popular football league in the world, they appear to be getting the most broadcast money from TV (not by a little bit either, but by a lot).
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Fussball My first ever article on the Roar was dated 19 January 2010. Now my mathematics may not be as good as yours, but by my reckoning, that is at least five years ago. What do you think? Is it possible that I was thinking about a discussion I had at that time with someone called Figjam? Apologies if I have confused both of you. Either way, please don't make out that I have never accepted the growth of online media (when I myself was involved in the very earliest days of Web 2.0 in a professional capacity). My point always has been (and it remains at this very point in time), that FTA and Pay TV is a much bigger slice of broadcast revenue right now, and will be as well for the next TV deal. And even if online media represents the greater percentage of value in the deal which follows the next one, a potentially fragmented market might end up diminishing the value of the total rights (now that of itself is a serious subject worthy of real discussion).
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Bondy I don't doubt your numbers, nor do I doubt that traditional TV is following a similar course to print media, but what I can say with confidence is that it will be slower and more long tailed than what happened to print media. Right now, if you and I were negotiating media rights for the next five years, traditional TV will still be much larger in percentage terms than online media. Sure, the value of online media will have grown from the last deal (around the 10% mark last time), but it will still be under 50% all up. Maybe the deal after it might reach parity or even overtake it. Will it still be the same overall value in real terms at that point? Will we enter a period where the various media will be so fragmented that no one will have the numbers to pay big bucks? Is that the point when the AFL will drop the middle man and sell the rights directly to the viewer via AFL Media? These are all interesting questions.