The Victory have a few things to think about this week – the task of beating Sydney FC in the grand final is a colossal one, like being asked to repel a massive, Earth-bound meteor with a Wiffle bat.
That’s what the momentum Sydney have hauled into the season’s ultimate game feels like; unstoppable, and it’s laughable to even try to halt it. And yet with an abrasive enough atmosphere the whizzing meteor might be whittled away, charred down to a crisp, arriving at the saviour, bat in hand, as barely more than a pebble.
It feels as though this is what Melbourne must do. Instead of rushing out to meet the Sydney juggernaut with some grand counter-plan, to fight their dominance with some daring, audacious riposte, the Victory must think smaller. Stifle, spoil, clog, and hope, these are the bywords of the evening, as negative as it sounds.
Perth’s evisceration in the semi-final stands as a warning for the Victory, a handy demonstration of what happens when an inferior team attempts to take the game to Sydney with pluck and confidence alone.
Although, Melbourne almost succeeded doing this in March, in a game that ended as a 1-0 Sydney win – but Melbourne should really have scored the opening goal. They had three chances to do so, all crafted by targeting Michael Zullo’s susceptible wing, using the potency and play-making of Marco Rojas to apply telling, sudden pressure there.
A first-time diagonal ball, a lofted straight clip, and a regulation skidded pass all activated Rojas suddenly, who did the rest as he so beautifully does.
These were all sudden, ambitious passes that caught Sydney napping. The latter two ended up handing two golden chances to Jai Ingham, but he wasted them. You can see in the third clip how out of position Rhyan Grant is on the weak side flank; the Sydney fullbacks, both of them, offer at least one or two opportunities like this every game.
But it would be unwise for Muscat to assume Sydney will begin the grand final in the same lackadaisical manner they did the March encounter.
Again, the semi-final’s opening skirmishes, where Perth took things brazenly to Sydney’s defence, are a good preview. Sydney eased back on their heels, calm and stoic, and then dug in a little, repelling their upstart opponents after a short while.
It bears remembering that Sydney have only seen the ball bulge their own net a dozen times in the league this season; their defence is immaculate, and even when it isn’t, it’s here that the quality of Danny Vukovic becomes so vitally important.
Why would the league’s best defence need a great keeper, considering how few shots he’d be asked to face? The various times Vukovic has come to the rescue this season, like in the second clip above, answers that question with aplomb. Vukovic is not separate from the defence. He is a vital part of what makes it so good.
When the Central Coast Mariners scored twice against Sydney in the second half of their January match – a 3-2 win for premiers – they did something no team had done or would do again; score more than once in the second half against Sydney. That result, although obviously still a win for the Sky Blues, stands out as odd, slightly haywire and reckless, considering the controlled grind the rest of their season has been.
In truth the Mariners scored two goals from three shots on target – one unwittingly assisted by Filip Holosko, the other coming from a counter-attack that targeted the advanced Sydney fullbacks in a very similar manner to that second Jai Ingham chance above.
The crucial thing here, though, is the shot-to-goal efficiency the Mariners managed, which is a rate that cannot be expected from Melbourne in the grand final, and that’s even assuming they have Besart Berisha at his lethal best, not his air-swinging worst.
Basically, in their last match, once Melbourne had missed those three great chances, their appetite for the contest faded. They had no secondary system, and Sydney proceeded to stroll to victory, the 1-0 scoreline of which was a cosmetic mercy belying the Sky Blues’ dominance.
Melbourne might hunker down this time with attrition on their minds and – with the added adrenaline of an away grand final pumping through their veins – carry this determination through to the final whistle.
Central to this effort must be the nullification of Milos Ninkovic, something Muscat must make his priority. Recently Jose Mourinho deployed Ander Herrera in a specific man-marking role on Chelsea’s Eden Hazard.
Herrera is a hugely versatile, diligent player, and his shadowing of Hazard effectively removed the Belgian’s attacking threat from the match. Herrera was allowed rare permission to focus entirely on his very specialised role, and Mourinho’s Manchester United won the game.
Carl Valeri might be used in a similar role on Ninkovic, with a firm duty simply to trail the Serbian maestro wherever he roams on the pitch – and he roams far and wide – and with special instruction to impart as much physical trauma as the rules permit. Valeri is a strong, tall, athletic midfielder who would relish the role.
The line-up must be tweaked to compensate, with Fahid Ben Khalfallah replaced by, say, Rashid Mahazi, who would push back into a midfield three completed by Valeri and Leigh Broxham. A front three of Rojas, Berisha and James Troisi would really only be a front 2.5, with Troisi given the daunting task of moonlighting as a midfield rover, pressing the deeper Sydney pair of Josh Brillante and Brandon O’Neill.
Troisi is the owner of the league’s best motor, and the Sydney pair, especially Brillante, will be responsible for a huge amount of creative responsibility if Ninkovic is tied up by Valeri.
Finally, Broxham will have to provide cover for his fullbacks, because if their Sydney counterparts rev forwards, a dangerous overload will occur. Jason Geria and Daniel Georgevski can both be highly suspect when it comes to tracking runners.
Again, we can look to the teams’ last meeting, and Bobo’s winning goal for evidence of this. The entire time Sydney are making progress down the far side Bobo is utterly unmarked on the other flank, with Geria jogging nonchalantly behind him.
Geria has prodigious acceleration, but for some reason he appears unconcerned, and even as Bobo taps in the goal Geria coasts on listlessly. This will not be acceptable in the grand final, and if Geria cannot motivate himself in those surrounds, Broxham’s assistance will be even more vital.
As for the Victory’s attack, well, it largely relies on Rojas and Troisi crafting something for Berisha to finish off. Set pieces, extra time and penalties are the Victory’s friends. It’s depressing to say, but trying to go toe-to-toe with Sydney has not succeeded for anyone yet and it’s unlikely to on Sunday.
All of this will not go off without a hitch. A lot of it depends on the Victory players bringing not just a clear understanding of the system and their role within it, but that intangible will to win as well. If Brillante roosters in another piledriver from distance, the whole thing might be rendered moot.
But it does seem as though an aggressively defensive system gives the Victory the best chance of, well, not losing.
Justin Mahon
Guest
I will eat my hat if Victory play negatively. They never have and never will. It's been the mantra from day 1 at the club. On occasion we have been outplayed and struggled to impose our game style. Sometimes we've have the possessions and lacked sufficient creativity, but that's football. Sometimes you're just not good enough! This may be the outcome on the weekend, but anyone predicting a Victory team to park the buss haven't watched much A-League football.
Cool N Cold
Guest
The number of goals does not reflect the defensive setting up and defensive strategy. One of the examples is the EPL 2015-16 season. Leicester scored 68 goals, the third on the table. However, their strategy was defensive. The second highest score was 69 of Tottenham while the highest was 71 of Manchester City, merely 3 more.
Nemesis
Guest
I'm pretty sure that's how it also works for private citizens who declare themselves bankrupt.
mattq
Guest
that voluntary admin thing is total bs. so you just get to reneg on contracts and debt and start again. no regard for who gets burnt? the world's mad.
pauly
Guest
Didn't he try that during the 1980s?
Waz
Guest
Can't argue with anything you've said. But I would argue with anyone that suggests football should buy a tv station lol
Nemesis
Guest
From all reports Ten Network loses money because it has over-spent on content that is not attracting enough viewers. I don't watch FTA tv so I don't know what content. The most recent report I've read suggests Ten Network needs to enter into voluntary administration, which would void all the existing contracts & reboot. "Media analyst Peter Cox told The World Today that Ten should consider going into administration to properly restructure the company. "Then they'd be able to break a couple of their very big contracts for supplier programming that would save them up to $100 million a year. "So I don't think it's all necessarily bad news for Ten." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-27/ten-network-struggles-to-survive-after-another-big-loss/8475774
Waz
Guest
C10 just lost $232m in the first half year of trading and is reliant upon shareholder funding to continue operating; if "FOOTBALL" owns 70% and it loses that amount again it would have to fund $150m+ ... how would you propose football does that? A more sensible option would be for the HAL to take that $35m investment and maybe develop a streaming service as the EFL have done (iFollow?) which if it got 100,000 subscribers at $150 each would generate $15m .... only without the major risk of owning a terrestrial TV station that's going down the tube
Nemesis
Guest
Thanks for the link. I must say I was wrong. The bits I randomly scrolled through on that link show Victory playing a much higher line & more aggressively than I recall. Brisbane not as dominant as I remember; but they did create lots of chances. Only Lawrence Thomas & the woodwork denied Brisbane a trophy.
Cool N Cold
Guest
"Victory were totally smashed on the park. Did they try to play defensively? Or were Brisbane totally dominant?' Nemesis, watch yourself, how defensive MV was in the match on 4 May 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1qvwFVWUjY
Nemesis
Guest
Wow. That's not bad strategising, Middy. Sounds good to me. Of course, the other option is Frank Lowy could buy the Ten Network with the spare change in his wallet.
Lionheart
Guest
Nemesis, cut and paste your reply from here: 'and Roar is another'
Lionheart
Guest
Thomas (gk), Geria (Murnane 83’), Deng, Gallifuoco, Galloway, Nigro (Pain 73), Finkler, Makarounas, Valeri (c) (Bozanic 60’), Howard, Ben Khalfallah - Young (gk), Hingert, North, Brown, Donachie, Corona, McKay (c), Petratos (Lustica 73’), Oar (Henrique 60’), Maclaren, Broich The match report says it was an exciting game Nemesis. My memory really was Roar blew it, two sitters missed, more than MV drew it. But Muscat was quite open in saying he was out to play negative, anything to stop Roar getting the Plate. Honest, there are some clubs that invariably give us exciting games and MV is one.
Midfielder
Guest
N please read and love your thoughts.. TOTALLY OUT OF LEFT FIELD AND MAYBE TOTALLY MAD AND ARGUABLY A CRAZY QUESTION. Read something today about league. Then through .... consider this ... Each of the ten clubs puts in an additional 3.5 million dollars into an investment company called for want of a better word """FOOTBALL""" so thats 35 million. FFA borrow 35 million to also invest in """ Football"" This means the investment vehicle "FOOTBALL"" has 70 million dollars. Football buys between 55 & 70 % of channel 10. Ten then buy the rights to Football for say 15 million per year ..
Midfielder
Guest
N FYI taken from 442, excellent article on media in the conversation... hope you enjoy.. https://theconversation.com/chasing-the-audience-is-it-over-and-out-for-cricket-on-free-to-air-tv-76792
Nemesis
Guest
@Lionheart I recall that match. From my memory, Victory had to play 36 hours after arriving in Melbourne after travelling to South Korea for an ACL match. That match was in a regional town with the only transport a 2 hour bus trip from Incheon International Airport. So, Victory played a reserve & youth team against Brisbane. Brisbane were aiming to win the Premiership and they fielded their strongest line-up. Victory were totally smashed on the park. Did they try to play defensively? Or were Brisbane totally dominant?
Lionheart
Guest
I realise that you outright refuse to accept any non-praising comment about MV Nemesis, but recall a match last season, final round I believe, v Roar. Victory played the most negative game possible, with their three rows of buses parked in front of goal. Muscat himself said that MV would defend their record to the death. Not on our turf, he said, would Roar score and win the Plate. But good luck on Sunday anyway.
Caltex & SBS support Australian Football
Guest
After the Rugby match on Saturday night, the middle of the pitch will be quagmire and I can't imaging any close control constructive football coming out of there. The only parts to the field that will be playable will be down the flanks with crosses into the box. Be prepared to go back to watching old time football with long balls down the flanks and crosses into the box. I suspect that, this may suit SFC more than Melb Vic. However, both keepers will be prepare for this and they will deal with it. I hope this will be an entertaining match, but all signs indicates that, this match could end up being a scoreless draw (but hopefully, entertaining end to end football). Be prepared for 120 mins, of true old fashion, battle of wills and minds football---in the end, the best penalty takers, will win the match.
Nemesis
Guest
Absolute nonsense. You think Ange Postecoglou's system was defensive? With Ange as the coach, in 2012/13 MVFC finished 3rd on the table and were the 2nd highest scoring team int the competition. Victory scored more goals that year than WSW who finished top. But, defensively, Victory were hopeless. The team coached by Ange conceded 45 goals in the season, which was equal 3rd worst defence in the ALeague. So, even if you don't watch ALeague, just use your common sense and you'll figure out what sort of football Ange had Victory playing
Cool N Cold
Guest
Nemesis, You always appear to protect MV. However, your sayings are wrong always. You said, "In 12 years of football, Melbourne Victory has never intentionally set up to play negative, or defensive, football to grind out a result." However, actually, under Ange Postegoulus, MV played defensively with counter-attack as the main tactic. Do you still remember the formation of 4-2-2-2? This is a famous formation that Ange Postegoulus invented.