Let's take a more sophisticated approach to the Socceroos

It's one of the best stadiums in the world in terms of setting, accessibility, amenities, aesthetics, history.

Cool &Cold- there are many books written on this subject (I actually had my first contact with Hugo Meisl's theory in a "human movements in the workplace" lecture at tech. college). One of the best books written on football tactics in recent times is a title called "INVERTING THE PYRAMID" written by a journalist in England called Jonathon Wilson. The reason I can say it is very accurate in content is I have been lucky enough in my life to see many of the teams (and systems) that he analyses. His investigation and research are of the highest order although as his title suggests even his book ,first published in 2008 has now become somewhat "dated" as we are now another 9 years down the track and still the "innovation" in tactics continues unabated. The title of the book covers from the favoured 1-2-3-5 formation (a pyramid) in the early days of football,to the sometime 1-8-1-1 (an inverted pyramid) often presented by the "Catenaccio" as developed by the Italians in the early 1960's, especially after they had scored the opening goal in any game. Hope this info. is of some help,I know the book will fill many gaps in your knowledge. Cheers jb

JB, Can you introduce me a book that talks about those thing you have said. Or, have you authored any book?

Coll'n Cold This is neither the time nor the place to go into a detailed explanation of football systems and how they are supposed to "work". Suffice to say that we apparently have come the full circle from 1926 when Herbert Chapman first introduced the centre-back into his Arsenal line-ups.Before that time a centre -back was widely called a centre -half making him one of 3 halfbacks used in the old 2-3-5- formation. Forget Wiki and it's opinions. They are comparatively new additions to the football tactical revolution and in fact they show their naivety when they talk about attacking and defensive players in different parts of the field.. Today at the higher levels of the game an "attacker " is best described as a player in a team that has possession of the ball and conversely a "defender" is a player in a team trying to win back possession.of the ball. To find the sources of what I will call the numbers game you have to go back much further than the days of laptop computers. Here is a rough calendar of outstanding occurrences in tactical thinking. 1926 Chapman introduced the third back. 1934 Miesl theorised his Viennese Whirl 1945 Arkadiev and Maskov began to play around with "organised chaos". 1950 The Hungarian wonder team under Sebes,brought "new" line-ups to the game 1956 The Brazilians under Feola introduced the 4-2-4 lineup. 1960 The Italians under Rocco and Herrera developed "catenaccio" 1966 England under Ramsey introduced the "wingless wonder" concept 1972 Holland introduced their version of Meisl's concept with their mis-named "Total Football" 1986 By this time both Brazil and Argentine had altered their systems to firstly 4-3-3 under Zagallo and Bilardo who favoured the 3-5-2 line up. So ,as you can see there is nothing actually "NEW", rather it is "significant changes"in tactical formations but it is unlikely any of the modern coaches you mention will be remembered in tactical history for any contribution they made with something radically "NEW". Cheers jb.

ps According to wiki: "Using a 3–4–3, the midfielders are expected to split their time between attacking and defending. Having only three dedicated defenders means that if the opposing team breaks through the midfield, they will have a greater chance to score than with a more conventional defensive configuration, such as 4–5–1 or 4–4–2. However, the three forwards allow for a greater concentration on attack. This formation is used by more offensive-minded teams. The formation was famously used by Liverpool under Rafael Benítez during the second half of the 2005 UEFA Champions League Final to come back from a three-goal deficit. Ex-Juventus coach Antonio Conte implemented the 3-4-3 at Chelsea FC in the 2016/17 Premier League season. In order to properly counteract the additional forward pressure from the wing-backs, other sides, including Ronald Koeman's Everton and Mauricio Pochettino's Tottenham Hotspurs, have utilized the formation against the Blues."

Interesting ....

I just read your comment further below. Don't bother answering. Whatever you say would be a total waste of my time to read,

The Saudi government/football federation may be subsidising them. In that case, what's the problem?

We absolutely need the win, but I'm not too concerned with the goal difference. The Saudi's have two difficult games to finish with. We have one difficult one and one that should be easily winnable. If we win this game, I'm pretty confident we'll finish above them on points. Draw, however, and I'm not sure we can make up the 3 points difference. Lose and it's all over.

The only one talking rubbish here is you, Waz. It's a simple question...who should we have played and where? I'm interested to know who you think we should have played out of who was available on those days and where you would have had the team play five days before the Thailand game. For a sometimes knowledgeable and insightful poster you seem to have very little idea of how the international football calendar actually works.

I am not an expert. However, WM is 3-2-2-3 while AP's formation is 3-4-3. With WM, the forwards are very far away from the full backs. Am I right?

Off topic, but very important news for any Football fan... BREAKING... Foxtel launches new Streaming Platform to deliver in High Definition & compatible with Google Chromecast http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/foxtel-in-brand-relaunch-and-internet-tv-offer/news-story/92872d2d64cb6ac6bd137c9a067da7b7?login=1 ----------- Look like Foxtel has finally realized the world is changing and if they ignore online viewing customers they'll end up like print media & VHS recorders.

Very true Ben, good, perfect, flat surface and cool conditions. This is what Ange, would be hoping for and he is going to get it in Adelaide.

Yes JB, I was only 10yrs old in primary school class, when our school English teacher taught us the system (Sydney Australia) and we won the combine schools premiership with it---my first major trophy as a school boy; my position in that team was referred to as an "inside right" (forward); great times and I still reckon it is the easiest of all the systems to teach the youngsters.

if they wanted an intense atmosphere...play at Hindmarsh with 17000, if you want to play in a library with 35000...play at the cricket oval. It would seem $$$$$ are more important in this decision ?

You don't have to apologise. I've only ever passed through the "town" but I would guess that most of them feel about Sydney as I do, which is, in my case, that I only go there when I have to, for business, and I get out as fast as I can. Amazing how many people from Sydney treat their residency as an extension of their ego, Narcissus gazing into Sydney harbour.

"Adelaide can deliver a flat pitch on which to play the game which will be crucial as a packed defence won’t allow the extra time need to control/direct the ball that the Sydney Football Stadium demands" Agree with that, just unfortunate that the stadium is a cricket oval. Anyway, as long as the surface is good then hopefully we can make the most of it and win the game.

A town yes, with a smooth playing surface and decent crowd. Luckily for Sydney in the FFA's eyes money outweighs quality. Fortunately for the Socceroos Adelaide can deliver a flat pitch on which to play the game which will be crucial as a packed defence won't allow the extra time need to control/direct the ball that the Sydney Football Stadium demands. A chance for Rogic, Mooy, Irvine and the like to showcase their skills? I am looking forward to it.

Cool n Cold -You do not have to be a professional coach to analyse football tactics and formations, you only have to know where it all started, and more importantly, the reasoning behind the changes. It is actually based on a study of human movement and how that movement impacts on players energy levels. It actually began in Austria where a student of sport theorised, (note the theorised word) that if a player ran forward with a ball ,say twenty yards and instead of running back to "his" position he stayed where he was and continued to play there until the next time he could move forward with the ball,where the process would be repeated. His team-mates would simply move to accommodate his attacking run.Thus a players energy usage would be reduced by 50%.during 90 minutes. Remember this is a theoretical discussion but the theory became known as the "Viennese Whirl", or "Meisl's Theory." Hugo Meisl himself always admitted that it would be nigh impossible to get 10 outfield players with the same physical,psychological,skill, and discipline factors to make it work but it is widely thought that with increased fitness some of the facets in the theory could be incorporated into team football. There is little doubt today that players are being asked to do more work than they ever did in yesteryear, with the result ,the game is faster and more methodical than it was in the old days, and it is not unusual to see "forwards" tracking back into their defensive areas to help out when they are tryng to win back ball possession. Cheers jb.

Caltex - Glad to see someone else has noticed. The father of "WM"is widely recognised as being Herbert Chapman who before joining Arsenal had been toying with moving his centre half,(as the name suggests a mid-field player,) back into a position between the two existing "full-backs" thus creating a "back three". All this experimentation was being done in the early 1920's. History tells us that his experimentation proved successful especially at Arsenal,and his ideas were widely accepted and showed in the spread of team structures playing WM formations., three backs, four midfield players, and three attacking forwards. This formation was used worldwide until the late 1940's early 1950's when the Eastern Bloc countries,Russia and Hungary in particular, began to toy with formations as their players,many still in the armed forces, became fitter and faster. As you say ,it would appear we have now come the full circle since those days. Of course ,many of our modern coaches would not have seen "WM" played. Cheers jb.