One imagines that stepping out onto the pitch at the Shahid Dastergdi Stadium on Thursday was rather what it might be like to walk across the surface of a pot of jam.
An unpleasant yield would occur underfoot, a horrid sinking feeling mirrored by the one that gnawed at the pit of the stomach of many Socceroos supporters when they saw Ange Postecoglu’s starting line up.
The pitch issues were anticipated, seen in advance, an irritating adversary to clean football that should have been prepared for.
The back-three formation, with no recognised wing-backs, was something very few saw coming.
On a surface that made any sort of flowing cohesion very difficult, playing with what was essentially a front five, designed to overload the Iraqi defence and play through them, was a questionable approach.
The fact that Matthew Leckie and Robbie Kruse were selected to fill those crucial wide positions, spots that heap almost as much defensive responsibility onto those occupying as attacking, also meant that the system immediately exposed gashing wounds down the Socceroos flanks, there to be exploited.
Leckie and Kruse are not keen defenders, especially the latter, and if not for the wasteful profligacy of the Iraqis, the Roos would have deservedly lost this game.
Take this example from the first half, before either team had scored.
The beginning of this clip shows the advantages of Ange’s system on display.
When in possession, the two flanking centre backs were supposed to split into full back positions, with one of either Mile Jedinak or Mass Luongo dropping into a defacto second centre back position. This allows a controlled, pressure-less method of passing out from the back, as well as the support to prompt the wide players, Leckie and Kruse, to apply pressure high up on the Iraqi flanks.
Luongo attempts to find Leckie, in fact, with a long ball. But with Luongo having misplaced his punt, and subsequently pushing too far forward – he is an attack-minded player after all – all it takes is one smooth transition, completed in three passes, and the space behind the advanced and lingering Kruse is penetrated dangerously.
Suddenly, the back three are outnumbered, with the sluggish Jedinak and the drifting Luongo incapable of even slowing the surge. Neither central midfielder is mobile enough to stifle sudden transitions like this; there is no N’Golo Kante in the national team.
Additionally, Bailey Wright and Milos Degenek are not really suited to suddenly morphing into full backs when back-tracking; both play largely as centre backs for their clubs.
Think of Antonio Conte’s system at Chelsea; he has Cesar Azpilicueta, a full back by trade, as one of his back three. The Iraqis neglected to play in a keen overlapping run on the left, instead shooting high and wide. A warning, but one that was not heeded.
The most puzzling thing about this glaring flaw in the system is how simply it might have been rectified.
Instead of playing two defensively unsound wingers in these positions, why did Postecoglu not decide to play, for example, Rhyan Grant, to whom he awarded a maiden cap, on the right? Then, if not Brad Smith or Aziz Behich, perhaps Craig Goodwin, who could easily have been called up, on the left? We have the players to fill these specific roles, and yet they were overlooked in favour of less suitable candidates.
Grant has spent all season demonstrating his knack for timing forward runs – not to mention his incredible stamina to hustle back when needed – so as not to leave terrible holes like Kruse did here, and continued to do all evening.
Perhaps the defensive rotation was supposed to be executed more in the manner seen in this clip.
Luongo can be seen deliberately positioning himself as a temporary full back while Kruse is being involved in the play.
The reasoning behind instructing Luongo do this, however, is shoddy; this appears to be a role almost purpose built for Mark Milligan, who is an extremely versatile defensive player. Instead of sticking him at centre-back, his ability to read the defensive side of the game could have been put to better, more active use.
Luongo, whose willingness to shoot and pass with ambition – his goal in the Asian Cup final comes most pleasingly to mind – might have been more valuable further forward, perhaps at the expense of Jackson Irvine.
This defensive cover-shuffling seen above was not adhered to, however; just a few minutes later.
You can see Kruse quite clearly defending in the manner a highly advanced traditional winger would – a winger that has the security of a full back behind him – apparently completely ignorant that that was not the role he was filling.
A simple lofted ball is chipped down the line, and from the aerial duel a totally free Ali Adnan can collect the knockdown, with Luongo arriving too late on the scene. His cross is miscontrolled, another let-off.
To makes things worse, Kruse – and Leckie on the other side – were not contributing much to the attack. Leckie scored Australia’s goal, from a corner, but it was not enough to totally conceal how his work in open play had so disappointed.
He and Kruse both made some very bad decisions in attack, multiple times attempting to pass over the boggy surface instead of shooting. Nothing about this game implied the national team’s current goal shortage will be relieved by any of the players in the starting line up.
Let’s fast forward to the Iraqi equaliser.
Here, a long kick is met by a stern Iraqi header, after which the ball is neatly worked through four Socceroos on their right flank, before being crossed and met at the far post.
A series of bad defensive rotations occur. Degenek is lured too wide, and fails to contest the header, which compels Milligan to step out and be beaten by Adnan rushing down the wing. Jedinak is drawn toward Adnan, and that forces Bailey Wright to slide over to pick up Jedinak’s man.
Meanwhile, we can see earlier in the clip that Brad Smith, a fresh substitute, has the opportunity to race back and add to the defensive numbers on the weak side, but chooses not to, a decision born of pure indolence.
He would likely have applied some pressure on Ahmed Yasin, away from whom Wright was drawn, and who eventually had a free tap in at the far post. Smith has never been known for his defensive instincts, despite being nominally labelled as a defender.
He has also not played for Bournemouth for some months now, and may not have had either the sharpness or fitness to realise and execute what he needed to in that moment. Or perhaps – as Kruse had also demonstrably been unaware of – he had not been told to play with defence firmly enough in mind, in spite of the fact that he was brought on to help protect a slender lead, or the more obvious fact that the system very much depended on it. The blame for that falls on the coach.
So much of the evening was made muddy, in all senses of the word, from the intentions of the manager and the nature of his formation, to Mass Luongo’s shorts.
This result now puts a staggering amount of pressure on the Socceroos’ upcoming home games against the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Just as the drone of vuvuzela will haunt my nightmares, this result, and the tactical blunders that contributed to it, might come back to haunt Australia.
FootOverHand
Guest
That's saying players aged eight started from the NC inception, it was rolled out in NSW 6 years ago, so those players would be 14 now. Ages below that have games/activities centred around technique and control, but it's mostly about having fun and getting the kids on the ball. U8 start playing small sided games and becomes a bit more structured.
Ruudolfson
Guest
Ange should be 4-2-3-1 in defensive transition and 3-1-3-3 in offensive transition. -------------Ryan/Langerak------------ ----Degenek------Wright-------Sainsbury----- --------------------Jedinak(drop as a CB in defence)-------- ------Luongo----------------Irvine---------------- ------------------Troisi(No.10 or second striker)------- --Kruse------------------------------------Smith-------- -----------------Juric--------------------------------- I like Ange's system but he needs to be more emphasis when we lose the ball, and i think the foundation is good it just needs some tweaks here and there.
Nemesis
Guest
"Why is it you ,like many others, intimate that the National Curriculum only influenced 6 year old at the time of it’s inception." Surprised by your question, jb. It's pretty well accepted that technical development for football must start at age 6 years old. Arsene Wenger famously gave his view: If you don't have good technique by age 12, you'll never have good technique. I'm not an educator, but, I've spoken to friends who are highly qualified educators (PhDs in education, plus long careers working with kids) and they all agree that technical skills must be developed at a young age - they're not even talking football; any technical skills (playing a musical instrument, art, skiing, golf, cricket, swimming, tennis) Running, strength (crashing & bashing into opponents) can be taught at any age. But any activity that requires high technical ability requires teaching at a young age.
j binnie
Guest
FootOverHand- Why is it you ,like many others, intimate that the National Curriculum only influenced 6 year old at the time of it's inception. I would have thought it would have been aimed at covering every age group that were involved in junior football, 6 up 14, at that time. No???? . jb
Eddy
Guest
Well said RealFootball!
Stevo
Roar Rookie
Agree with you. We were being out-coached by a simple and effective tactic as you describe and this was commented on during the game. But we changed nothing of substance and continued to play on regardless.
FootOverHand
Guest
Agree 100%
FootOverHand
Guest
The players picked/omitted could have been the difference to how it was played, I just find it strange that with only 2 day's preparation, Ange thought they could learn his new formation. And why does Kruse who has had two games in as many years, or Smith who has played maybe twice this season keep getting starting roles, or even picked?
FootOverHand
Guest
Players coming through the National Curriculum would only be 12, 14 at the most and the 14 yr olds would only be from NSW.
Realfootball
Guest
Because Ange doesn't do that. He will never change strategy during a game, and I have been watching his teams for a long time.
Midfielder
Guest
I am questioning the degree of experimentation in key matches with little regard to the pitch nor the em and flow of the game. You have a team for two to three days before a key match... being fair this is not if measured by players a mega squad... You are aware the pitch is beyond poor. The em and flow of the game was we were being killed by long balls into the outside channels .. Arguably in Sainsbury our best defender on the bench... we had a couple of lucky escapes... 25 minutes to go at what point to you go to a back four to tighten up what has been happening all night... So i greatly question why change systems on a potato patch, with poor weather, and when its not working and you have the lead why not revert to what the team is used to playing...
Realfootball
Guest
Thanks Pauly. That is exactly what I was saying.
Steve 66
Guest
Have to agree, Craig Goodwin would have been a great inclusion to the squad. He could have played that wing back role really well. He played it three weeks ago against Feyenoord when Sparta Rotterdam beat them in a huge upset. Defended really well and kept their winger quiet as well. Earned Erividise player of the week with that performance. Getting plenty of game time and was left out of the final 23. ?. Then Ange brings in Burns, who against Ange's so called mantra of, if no game time no play, over Goodwin. Goodwin is a winger first and left back second. Surely Kruse has used up all his Ange brownie points. ? Just hoping some of the guys find some form on Tuesday and can get us out of the poo for 3 points.
Lee
Guest
Ange does the best he can with the cattle he hath at his disposal. Let's face it, the current Socceroos are decidedly average. Moody for example who is touted as quality by many is not even playing top flight asso football at udderfield (at the locals refer to it as). As I have stated before on these threads I would like to see the Socceroos qualify as it means that more youngsters in Oz will play asso foot instead of cricket and rugby union. This means that my team will continue to dispatch the hapless wallabies and the Aussie cricket team. The damage being done to other Australian sports by the growth of asso football across this sunburnt land is enormous. Whilst it is good for me it is a shame for Australian sports' fans as the Socceroos will never win the FIFA World Cup but they are merely reducing the chances of the Aussie cricket and rugby teams winning their World Cups.
Fadida
Guest
Agree totally JB. Wing backs have to be defenders first, not wingers shoehorned in. Troisi definitely needs to support Juric
Fadida
Guest
Agree Pauly. A Plan B v Iraq would have been to revert to a back 4, Smith into left back. It was a change clearly needed. Oh, and Fuss, if you check the match thread you'll see a number of us saying just that at the time, not in retrospect.
RouwarmT
Guest
"Already I’m impressed by the technical levels of u17 & u20 teams" I watched every Australian game at AFC U16 and U19 championship and while their technical levels are indeed a massive improvement to previous year they're lagging behind other nations and I'm not sure the gap is closing anytime soon. Both teams crashed out at the group stage last year.
Pauly
Guest
Nem, what they mean is a Plan B that can be executed DURING the game when it is apparent Plan A is unsuitable. Hiddink did exactly that during his short stint, with game plans for every scenario.
j binnie
Guest
Much analysis going on on the "new" system but very little comment on how the same system has been tried,and at times found wanting, in many areas of top football , Holland's national team,Manchester United,Chelsea and now the Socceroos,with the only obvious success at Chelsea, under Conte. Why is this the case when many of the players are top class professionals who one would think would be totally adaptable to change.? When playing 3 at the back ,it has been normal to use three previously recognised quality centre - backs,thus leaving the erstwthile wing backs more freedom to attack on the flanks with both being fast strong runners with the inherent ability to work and help in midfield if required. This tactical change can be seen as a direct attempt to create "high press" in the most populous area of the field where 70% of the action and most ball winning takes place.. This being the case what is to be done with the former glory men in football, the fast ,entertaining wingers of yesteryear.? The answer is ,nothing, they are no longer required.. With up to five men in midfield the space created by the "sacking of wingers" is there to be exploited by whoever is making the runs forward. Is this a new tactic?, of course it isn't ,England won the World Cup in 1966 amid huge ballyhoo from the media and were christened the "Wingless Wonders". So where did the Socceroos system go wrong the other night.?,That is not so easily analysed due to conditions and the players selected for the job. First of all there was a complete absence of wing backs as described above.The team continued to work with 2 wingers out wide, thus isolating the central striker who struggled all night against no-nonsense defenders. In midfield, we had four players ,one of who was a debutante trying to make an impression,,the other lacking the real pace to generate attacking moves on his own, and the other at the rear of the diamond well aware of his imagined responsibility in staying put in front of his back three!!!!! So what did we get, a new system perfectly workable,but peopled by the wrong players ,in the wrong positions, on the night., Go back to England '66.They, playing at home ,used two strikers,Hurst and Hunt and left it to the tireless Ball and Stiles to negate the German midfield playmakers while Peters, a skillful playmaker in his own right,,aided and abetted by the classic long ball use of captain Moore,beat the most fancied team in World Cup final history. It's all in choosing the best plan, and fitting the right players to the task at hand. A Socceroos team to play this plan at home on a good pitch ???? Langarek ; Back 3 - Sainsbury,Jedinak &;Wright (or Spiranovic for his height); wing backs- Grant & Smith; ,playmakers - Mooy, Milligan & Luongo ; front strikers - Juric & Troisi. These players would naturally fit into that system . Cheers jb.
Nemesis
Guest
Totally different formation to previous matches. Totally different Starting XI to previous matches. What else do you want from Plan B?