Like all Australian football fans I stayed up on Tuesday night expecting a routine performance from my beloved Socceroos.
Our strongest starting XI away to Thailand. That screams control and composure but instead it brought disorganisation and despair.
I had to go to sleep that early Wednesday morning with a long school day ahead of me, pondering frustratingly “How did we let this happen? A 2-2 draw in Bangkok?” I don’t think I was the only one that laid in my bed that Tuesday night and couldn’t help but fear the worst, and to be completely honest, it brought a tear to my eye, imagining us absent from the World Cup in Russia.
So much so that a Twitter rant simply wasn’t enough to show my frustration and disappointment with this team that looked completely dejected, complacent and overall, shameful.
So where do we start. Like many would say, saying that your goalkeeper was the best on the park is not a good thing. For a side coached by Ange Postecoglou, his reliability on his marauding fullbacks, he’s got a concerning selection process. Brad Smith is a decent option, like Alex Gersbach, in defence, he needs some work, but going forward he is average.
You might be thinking, just average? He isn’t up to scratch. Perhaps two out of six crosses in a match will actually hit the head of an Aussie and even then it’s not on target or it sprays over the other side for Robbie Kruse or Aaron Mooy to collect.
Smith is learning obviously but I feel he has gone long enough under the protection of being ‘the new boy blooded in’. He needs to shape it up before the long line of backups we have start yanking on his shirt.
The same can be said about our right fullback in Milos Degenek. Saying this selection concerns me is a dramatic understatement to the point where in fact it angers me. Since Degenek’s last Socceroos camp (the matches for Saudi Arabia and Japan in October) he sustained an injury keeping him out for three matches and before the Thailand match he only had 45 minutes of football in him, playing as a No.6.
Putting it plain and simple, Degenek is about as natural as a fullback as wearing a Versace suit to the 7/11. Anyone with a football brain could tell that in that match, he struggled, you could tell in the first five minutes of the second half that this was not going to end well when he was cornered not once but twice in two minutes in his own half.
Mark Rudan referred to it in the preview of the match as a ‘problem position’ and went about it suggesting Rhyan Grant in the squad, Rhyan Grant? What irritates me is the inability for pundits and fans to be able to criticise their own players and instead suggest easier solutions like a player who has played six good A-League games.
The solution to this problem, is on the bench! Josh Risdon is the only natural right back in the squad and for some reason he is left on the bench. Why risk honing in on Degenek to keep him ‘Aussie’ in an unnatural position?
The obvious starting player has triple the amount of first grade games and has played right back his whole career. I believe we should be keeping players like Smith and Degenek and keeping them involved in Australian football but when it comes at the price of making the World Cup then it prompts the thought of their use altogether in this campaign.
Aaron Mooy, Matthew Leckie and Tom Rogic are a different story however. Yes they were quite off the pace and inconsistent but we didn’t get control of the game, that is the environment that they thrive in and the entire second half we were outplayed.
Mooy, Leckie and Rogic are safe and there is hardly any criticism rather than a poor run of form. The same can’t be said for Robbie Kruse though.
From the get-go he looked unmotivated and showed little interest with his movement and runs as well as being caught offside in around four goal-scoring opportunities. Once again, his delivery’s were shocking, at points in the first half, not even raising his head to pick out a man and with almost every move he made down the right, it ended in a corner.
His rawness from club football is transferring to the national team, it never sued to, but it’s finally catching up to him. Four out of the 20 appearances he has made since the World Cup campaign started against Kyrgyzstan have been starts for Leverkusen. If Postecoglou’s philosophy is ‘play and play well’ at each of their clubs, then what is Kruse doing in the squad let alone in the starting XI?
Even worse is the incapability once again of pundits criticising our players. During the first and second half I heard Andy Harper say “He’s looked alright tonight Robbie Kruse, been on his toes”, that is ridiculous commentary, being on your toes means nothing if your final ball is useless, you’re offside half the time we are attacking and lose the ball in midfield countless times.
Yes Robbie Kruse is a big player, doesn’t mean I am afraid to say he is not at his best and he does not to deserve to be in that starting XI, hasn’t deserved it for some time and if he continues to put performances in like that, our chances of getting on the big stage get slimmer and slimmer.
The performance on Tuesday was appalling; there is no doubt about it. The next step here is making sure we do not drop points against Iraq since UAE are now level on points with us, it’s almost a four-horse race, this road to Russia is long and the potholes will keep emerging in its aftermath if we don’t fix it soon.
j binnie
Guest
Punter - Thanks for the "counter argument" though to be honest I am finding it hard to isolate the 'counter "part of your discussion. Let me try to explain. You use the term 'possession football', a term widely used in all aspects of media today ,but sometime I reckon without too much real comprehension as to what is actually meant when the term is being used. If you go back to the basics of football performance a team is subject to 2 main areas of performance, defending and attacking. Now as you are well aware a team cannot "attack" unless it has the ball so "attacking strategy" is based on what can be done when in possession, hence the term "possession football" was erroneously born into football vocabulary. Contrary to that when a team is not in possession they cannot be deemed to be playing attacking football so the defensive strategies have to be based on how the ball can be won back, high pressing,close marking etc etc. Now you and I both know there is no "in between here, a team is either in attack mode or defensive mode and depending on the standard of the players being used these modes will be deemed to be from good to brilliant or at worse mediocre. Coaching has morphed along these lines and it is just common sense to work out that the shorter in distance a pass the better chance of success in reaching it's intended target, so that, at the high levels of the sport, the "long ball" has all but disappeared from the strategy of the better teams That brings us back to where we are at today in our game. When a team is "in possession" and thus attacking, watch for how often "telling passes" are made,not those that accomplish nothing except "holding possession" but are passes that take the attacking players nearer their opponents goal, that is the measure of a "telling" pass. When defending watch for the player who continually ball watches instead of picking up and marking his nearest opponent thus cutting down on the options avaiilable to the man playing the ball.. Punter ,you know football is a very simple game, it is only people that make it difficult. Cheers jb.
punter
Guest
Yes exactly, like I said the criticism is warranted, they were woeful on Tuesday night, even withstanding Thailand played well. However we are playing a new style, we don't have the players to pull it off yet. But no pain no gain.
144
Roar Guru
I think that is just about how everybody is feeling right now! If any Australian is calling for Ange's head or even questioning his ability in the job is an absolute nutter!
punter
Guest
However to go to a Plan B, you have to be able to know you have Plan A correct. Pointless blaming the plan when you haven’t executed the plan correctly. We need players who are comfortable on the ball to even consider plan B.
punter
Guest
Time will tell!!!!! In Ange I trust!!! But I do not disagree with the criticism.
stu
Guest
The responsibility given to AP and the coaching staff in this match has been raised by some, and your comments here add to an issue I am not sure is easy to change. I personally think AP has backed himself into a corner, he implemented a style at BR that worked as no one else here was doing it here, but he has never struck me as having a plan B. He has built a persona I don't really think is him and honestly think he has a fear of change. Sadly I am getting the impression that AP is a guy who lived for that moment of change at BR, but as you discuss time has moved on.
punter
Guest
JB, good argument, here comes my counter argument. Firstly Socceroos were woeful on Tuesday night, hard to argue against. AP is trying to play a certain style (you call Barcelona FC 4-5 years ago), I called it possession football. Cannot agree with you more, we do not have the players to play this style, never in our history have we had players to play this style. However as you mentioned elsewhere, the pocket Dynamo in the Thai Midfield & the UAE's wonderfully gifted Omar Abdulraham plays a very Barcelona style. These guys are not Spanish or Brazilians. The question is why a bigger footballing nation like Australia, we have never been able to create a player of this ilk. Now against Japan, which some posters are also critiquing (and reason too), it was the first time in a very long time we dominated the Japanese in the field of play. What let us down & the difference between us & Japan is they had Honda & Karawa (again players we don't tend to produce Kewell & Dukes withstanding), players of high technical skill who can counterattack with fluency, speed, their transition from defence to attack is breathtaking. Let's remember even during our glory days, the Socceroos for 10 years put on a strong re guard effort to stop wave after wave of Japanese attack (2001 AC Final withstanding). We never dominated play like we did in Japan game. Now to further emphasis what I'm saying, some other poster said Atletico Madrid is the best British style around, not think about that, ummm, yes they do not have the resources to match it with the Barcelona's & Real's, so they have to look at another way. In their coach Simone, you have a street fighter. This guy would not have been out of place in the mean streets of Glasgow or Liverpool. What makes this team Atletico Madrid better then most British sides playing their style, each & everyone of their players are highly skilled, they are comfortable on the ball, they can play out from the back & can play possession football. they can rest when they have the ball. Now if they tried to play possession football against the Barcelona's & Real's they would probably get beaten, but they have the ability to mix it up, play possession, counterattack, long ball etc. To have the options you need players who have the technical skills, we have 3 players in midfield who has got technical ability Rogic, Mooy & Luongo, but there is no leader there. It's the final third where we are lacking, Kruse was on his way, but has gone backwards, Leckie does a great amount of work but had poor ball skills & CF, we have nothing dynamic there. We need to keep playing a possession type football if we ever want to move on to the next level of football being played now. Or we could just play the long ball like the British national teams. No pain no gain.
144
Roar Guru
Nemesis, I'm hoping your comments of my opinion and others as well is not hinged on the fact that you think we "sit on their couch and pretend to be a footballer playing video games" We are all entitled to our own opinion and you do make some good points! But, besides the "Kruse plays for a big club" and the whole humidity argument it doesn't cut the Kruse mustard. it was hard for all the players and its never something you can get used to. I know it is hard to play in humidity and i don't need to put the boots on and go for a run in the heat of Bangkok to understand that. if you want to go ahead, I'll watch.
j binnie
Guest
There has been a growing tendency in these columns to single out certain players when looking for a scapegoat for what could only be described as a dismal performance by the supposed pick of our players for the national team. The reason I say "supposed" is that there are many different opinions as to who are our best players but, as under our system ,there is only one selector,,the spotlight has to focus on the "best 11" chosen for this game by the national coach AP. For some time now it has been apparent that AP favours a style of play as performed by a Barcelona FC team of 4 or 5 years ago, a style that almost demands a certain class of player if continued success is to be achieved,and maintained year after year. The question is, do Barca ,or Real Madrid play the same style of game today or tactically has the game moved on from high quality tic-a-taca.???? Everyone with a modicum of tactical football nous knows the answer to that question so that another couple of questions have to be raised (1) Did AP ever have the standard of players available to "copy" the Barca system ? . (2) In pursuing his "dream" has AP actually been left behind by other teams who now favour the all action, retreat and defend in numbers, until possession is regained and then embark on fast direct breakaway action????. When watching this game v Thailand it would be difficult to place this Socceroo team into a tactical slot. They used two midfield players ,very similar in style, but also very similar in pace,neither of whom could be said to be "quick" across the middle third so slowing down the transitiion between defence and attack. They also appear to use "wide" players like Kruse and Leckie who one has to assume are there to get behind a defensive line and supply cut-backs or crosses into the danger areas but apparently do so with no specialist "target man" to whom they can aim, a player constantly causing problems for an opponent's central defence. AP has been in the national job for 3 years and during that time he has "played" the "public role" very well,making the types of statements that the average fan like to hear,but statements,that, as time goes by ,have a nasty habit of coming back to "bite him on the bum". Such is his "you have to be playing club football to get a place in my team". As a sole selector AP didn;t have to make that statement,it could have been an understanding between him and the players he selected for unfortunately AP does NOT pick the Leverkusen, Bournemouth or Valencia teams ,(to name a few) so immediately. his first choice players. come under unwarranted analysis Is it too late to "fix" these problem areas?. Of course it isn't but what is important is that flaws in selection or system of play have to be recognised and corrected otherwise despite a lot of good work,and good money being spent,we could be back to where we were those 3 years ago. Cheers jb ,
Amrit
Roar Guru
Consistent first team football - that's what it's all about for Kruse. Maybe a switch to Denmark or Holland, as some proposed.
stu
Guest
Nemesis, the caviet you have placed on opinion will always be subjective to the reader. I imagine you will remain frustrated with comments made for some time.
Griffo
Roar Guru
Nicholas, at least Ryan and Kruse have publicly mooted a January loan or transfer to other clubs to get more consistent first team football. The self assessment is that 'I need more game time'. It is left for the NT coaching staff to decide whether they deserve a place in the squad or not. Unlike park football, I don't think any player in the NT would be needing some sort of motivation to perform for that particular game. It is quite simply form, conditions and, lets face it, the opposition on the night. Again it is left to the coaching staff to decide for the next game if they deserve a spot. What needs anaylsis is the selection and tactics, and whether assigning spots automatically is affecting team performance, or other factors are at play.
144
Roar Guru
Not calling for Ange's head, in fact its far from it, I'm calling for the players to simply step it up at club and national level simply because there is a world cup on the line!
Caltex & SBS support Australian Football
Guest
Yes I agree, Nemesis, "Sh1t happens" and sometimes everything just works against you on the night. This was a set back for sure, but we are still undefeated---that says a lot more about this team, manager, than what happened last night. It's ironic that Holger, was put under the hammer by the same detractors and he made it through the qualifiers. So, what do these same posters want now, Ange to be replaced like they did, calling for Holger's head in 2014 with only one more qualifier to go? My message then was, don't panic, and stay the course, the same advice I will give them for the remainder of this campaign.
Fadida
Guest
I agree with all you have said above Fuss. Unlike many I didn't think a win v the Thais was a certainty. They were really good. This was a rational point from you :)
Fadida
Guest
Agree with this Nicholas, form, fitness and confidence are at the heart of his woes. I'm always happy to criticise player if it is justified, I do think sometimes that players are accused of lack of work or motivation if they are playing badly. Usually this is not the case (exception being Carney at the Jets!)
Nemesis
Guest
stu, absolutely punters can have an opinion. But, let's make it a reasonably rational & informed opinion. Yes, I thought Robbie had an awful match. I thought everyone who started had an awful match. Maty Ryan at least improved as the match progressed, the other 10 starters did not. Milligan & Burns were super when they came on. Why did 11 players play badly? I don't know. What I do know having played the game is that each of those 11 players were giving 100% when their lungs were empty and their legs must've felt like lead. If you play football, maybe, you've felt like that. You would have noticed the pained look on the lads' faces. But they kept at it. No one gave up. Yes, it was a bad result. Yes, we played badly. It happens. It's world cup qualification. Every nation on the planet wants to get invited to the finals. No one is going to give us a free ride. Not the Faroe Islands, not Thailand. No one.
stu
Guest
Nemesis, your comments are relative to any professional player. We all agree that he did not play well I am sure. The question behind the scene would be and still remains, with 10 day preparation for a specific event what was the assessment of the coaching staff. Any player, in our out of form will play if selected. In my opinion, the guy did play so bad that I could not accept the lack of bells ringing in the lead up to this game. In regards to opinion by any contributor to these pages. If we apply your opinion on the punters (and in his day and age we are classed as the 'customers') there would be no or very little point having a forum. As soon as an individual is paid for their services, they will be scrutinised. If we as punters or our boss in the workplace says nothing, no improvement occurs and the comfort zone is maintained.
144
Roar Guru
with countless offsides and no successful crosses almost anything could be at the heart of his bad performances be it the weather, injuries or any other excuse that fans want to hold up for one of our most talented but dreadfully inconsistent performers. It did seem at times he was just careless, would lose the ball, throw his hands up and walk away with his back to the ball, i saw it a few times and that to me is a sign of a player who is really struggling and his career is stagnating at the moment. Playing for the national team should offer a piece of motivation which i think it does but he just looked a little deflated in periods of the game
Fadida
Guest
Kruse was terrible, for the umpteenth game. However it is nonsense to suggest he looked "unmotivated". I have no issue with any players predominance being criticsed, however a poor performance doesn't equal lack of effort, which I have read a few times since the game. Our players worked hard. Unfortunately Mooy and Kruse were shocking. There are reasons for this, and this is where the emphasis could be