In 2013, Ange Postecoglou arrived as the Socceroos head coach with a clear mandate. Australia needed to shed it’s rough and tumble nature, upgrading to a slick passing game.
More importantly, it needed an identity, one which could be respected among the world and show Australia as the footballing nation it aspired to be like.
Postecoglou was the man for the job, his steadfast belief in his principles had seen him achieve widespread acclaim in the A-League, the expansive list of titles achieved at Brisbane Roar and the work at Melbourne Victory underline it.
And so far, most would claim the regeneration of the Socceroos featuring this new mentality has been a success.
The Socceroos appearance in the Confederations Cup started in a 3-2 defeat to Germany. This comes on the back of unconvincing games against Brazil and in qualifying.
The Germany team was experimental by any standards, with German coach Joachim Low looking to find the next generation of Germany talent to take with him to the World Cup next year.
Julian Draxler led a youthful line-up which did enough to suggest Germany won’t fade away anytime soon.
Young stars Julian Brandt, Leon Grotezka and Joshua Kimmich will ensure it.
A loss to Germany is hardly an embarrassment, they are the reigning World Cup champions, aspects of the defeat are subject to questioning.
Specifically, the formation of three defenders, two holding midfielders, an offensive quartet and a lone striker (3-2-4-1).
The score-line flattered Australia, their two goals came courtesy of reprehensible goalkeeping by Bernd Leno rather than any endearing play.
The defence was especially troubled in the first half with the back three of Milos Degenek, Bailey Wright and Trent Sainsbury struggled to cope with the Germany onslaught down the flanks led by a magnificent Julian Brandt.
It is here most Socceroos fans will find the point.
Three at the back does not work for Australia and potentially never will. Possession for possession’s is unerringly pointless.
(AAP Image/Ben Macmahon)
Some of the best teams in the world play three at the back, think Italian powerhouse Juventus for the best example. Defence in Italy is a badge of honour, a clean sheet is revered and defenders are some of Italy’s well-regarded players.
Juventus are helped by having a back three consisting of Andrea Barzagli, Leonardo Bonucci and Giorgio Chielleni. The BBC as they are affectionately known, are among the best defenders in the world today – if not among the best of all-time.
Bonucci has the ball-playing skills of a classical playmaker, for a central defender to possess his passing range and finesse is staggering. Chielleni is akin to a brick wall, stout and resolute, a throwback to a bygone era where defenders tackled hard and rarely afforded their attacking counterpart room to breathe.
Barzagli has a sharp mind and proves to be an adept reader of the play, he is rarely out of place, his timing is faultless.
Every one of these defenders has the skills to play as part of a formidable back three, they require these physical and technical capabilities to match an increasingly offensive game.
Bailey Wright, Trent Sainsbury and Milos Degenek are capable by Australian standards but are far removed from the BBC, if a case study is needed.
None of the trio look comfortable on the ball which creates problems not withstanding their lack of defensive marking. A system which needs everything to work suddenly has loose foundations.
Aziz Behich was given headaches all night by the Germans, the targeting of his flank left Matthew Leckie to play most of the first half as a fullback. Julian Brandt played a special game and showed his talents but Australia’s left-hand side was pummelled and exposed yet again.
Despite a better showing in the second half, Behich and Leckie proved unable to run two-ways and keep up with Low’s relentless side. It’s hard to see Australia coping better with the speed of a powerful and fast Cameroon side in the next game.
The midfield, Australia’s strong point featuring Aaron Mooy and Tom Rogic, struggled to gain a foothold in the game or provide any offensive spark with their possession. At times the passing was futile and seemed to emphasise that in the game of possession, quality not quantity is king.
Ange Postecoglou is a strong-minded coach and will most likely stay the course with his heavily offensive formation. His mandate is to give Australia its identity which will become its legacy from one generation to the next.
(AAP Image/Lukas Coch)
Yet, while the passing philosophy and modern formation are admirable it denies Australia of it’s natural strengths. The physicality and resolute attitude which was synonymous with the Golden Generation.
A more stable foundation featuring a back four does not mean Australia should do away with the identity it is desperate to establish, but would allow for a stable defence.
A concession Ange may not make, but to speak plainly, the defenders at his disposal may not be able to carry out this vision of an in-vogue back three. That is not a slight on the Socceroos, the reality is that only the very best can carry it out and they are in a league of their own.
Additionally, a compromise between possession and becoming more direct utilising Matthew Leckie and Robbie Kruse’s sublime pace would maintain the Socceroos identity and highlight its strengths.
Surely a worthy consideration if the country wants to match it with the best.
The regeneration is on the right track and, exempting 2006, has come on leaps and bounds considering the travesty of the iterations previous.
The Ange Identity just needs a tweak to help Australia match its ambitions.
Nemesis
Guest
@Redondo I've got my views about how I like football played. My preferred structures will vary depending on where the ball is & which team has the ball. But, I'm not the national coach so speculating about what I'd do, or how I'd like it done, is a waste of time unless it's accompanied by drinks with mates. What difference does it make for me to write thousands of words about how I'd coach the National Team? How does it solve anything? For sure, I can understand articles being written: Sack Ange. But, to go on and on about: Ange should change his philosophy is simply ridiculous. He won't change his philosophy, so stop wasting your time.
j,binnie
Guest
Nemesis.- I only came in direct contact with Ron in a friendly match, we,note we, arranged for Jimmy Shoulder's 1978 Socceroo squad against a Queensland select. At half -time the Socceroos were leading 3-0 and coasting. We had 2 local players sitting on the bench,both fast,strong and ultra aggressive ,and to utilise that "aggro" against a defence led by Eddie Thompson we made the changes, and Eddie,who was not renowned for his calm demeanor under pressure,reacted exactly as we foresaw, and the game finished 4-4 with Queensland very much on top. Now the reason I mention this is that Shoulder did not travel with his team and sent Ron,his assistant, as the man in charge. Now Ron for all his knowledge of the game,could not in any way affect how Eddie would re-act to these two "bulldogs" playing in direct opposition, but re-act he did and the game" turned" on that factor. That brings us back to systems and tactics.The use of those two "tearaways" in the second half,replacing another two ,probably more adept ball playing footballers, turned the game in our team's favour and that is what good tactical thinking is all about, fit the players into the system to do the job required,but make sure they are capapble of doing the job. Cheers jb
Midfielder
Guest
Steve No disrespect intended you post indicates you have become aware of Smith since I posted his article SBS published yesterday. Maybe I am wrong maybe you are aware of his career and countless achievements. There is a reason he is held in such high regard, by I would say everyone in Football especially players over say 35. I don't wish to revisit his CV, but hhhhmmmmm eeeerrrrr big call from me but if I had to choose a person to explain how a teams plays and what they they do and I had a choice between, say Kevin Muscatt, Craig Foster, Bozza and Smith... i would listen to Smith and many would. Again no disrespect intended on my part here, but when someone of his stature says something its IMO and I suggest in the opinion of many within the Football family a very knowledgeable and experienced opinion by one of Australia's most astute technical analysis and coach. So it worth breaking down what he says. His major point was we are not defending as a unit, and he said the midfield was where the problem arose. Further he indicated that he believed a system change would not make a big difference, essentially he was saying at the level we are playing our mids need to better understand """defend as a unit""" far better than what they do.. I personally learned a lot reading his insights and I hope SBS or 10 pick him up as an analysis as when you hear the man speak he has a knack of explaining the complex where new folk can understand... something both Fozzie and Bozza struggle with.
Redondo
Roar Rookie
Nemesis I think you've misinterpreted the emphasis in Ron's article. He's not saying the system/formation is not important at all - he's saying, in the context of young players learning how to play, system/formation is not as important as other aspects of the game. He explicitly says that system/formation is more relevant at the professional level. In any case it's not a binary thing - are you saying that the system is so irrelevant that the coach could just tell the team to scatter wherever they want? Or that 1-9 is an option? Or 9-1? That's absurd so I doubt you mean that. So somewhere between the absurd and the conventional (like 4-4-2 or 4-3-3) lies a formation that suits the context the coach faces. The context includes the available players, the opposition players, the opposition formation, the state of the game, what's riding on the result etc. And the context changes dynamically during the game. The conversation here is about trying to understand why Postecoglou has chosen this formation and these players at this stage of World Cup qualification, especially given the relatively weak performances it has produced. We have every right to speculate because Postecoglou can't be too free with his explanations. For example, he can't say "I've gone with a back three because all the fullbacks I could use in a 4-3-3 are total crap". And he can't give away too much about his tactics or he's giving the opposition coach a free ride. Because he can't say too much we have to fill the gaps. I'm here because others who know more about football are telling me things I didn't know before. I'd disappear quickly if all I ever read here was 'Go Ange', in either of its senses i.e. onward, or, go away.
Fadida
Guest
The system is fine Mid, if you have the players..... There is a reason very few elite teams can implement it successfully
Fadida
Guest
It is you who don't understand Fuss. I doubt you've ever coached. I have both coaching qualifications and experience. You just parrot opinion and frequently miss the point. Noone is saying the formation doesn't work (for better sides with better players) but that the implementation is poor and the players unsuited. JB points out Luis as the type of player suited to a 3. Bailey Wright and Degenek not so. Why? Because as Ron Smith points out(therefore for you it is gospel) the 3 must be able to move into midfield facing forward. They can't. I won't go any further because it gets too complex for the likes of you, with no coaching qualifications or experience
Fadida
Guest
How many times to I need to say his system is wrong?
Midfielder
Guest
JB Great post really do enjoy reading your understanding of the game.
Midfielder
Guest
Thanks for that great reading. What the Smith article did for me was to explain whats going wrong with our team of late. Essentially he said in a nut shell that at this point in time the back 3 are not being screened by the midfield and in the 3-2-4-1 formation I assume its mostly about the 4. Also in some was about the 2 holding mids ... when the should drop back and do they mark space, runners or players .. I also picked up Smith believed another system would not change things that much... its our players better understanding when to track back, and what to do when they do. As an aside 3-2-4-1 is not a bad shape it needs the outside players at the 4 level to be very aware. Often this can be fixed by having a captain in a deep lying mid say a 6 or a 3 or 4 centre back constantly telling the mids what to do and where to go.
Nemesis
Guest
I had some wonderful professors at Uni - the best thinkers in my professions. But, would they have succeeded in the business world? Doubt it. Teaching theory is critical to every trade & profession. So the best anatomy lecturers may never be the best surgeons; the best Law lecturers may never be the best litigators, the best mathematics professors may never design a rocket that goes to Mars, etc. etc. The modern day Coach is more than just a tactician. He is a manager of men. I don't know Ron Smith, but, perhaps, he's the best educator of Coaches. To me that's the vital job. Educators - in every trade, or profession - are vitally important and their knowledge of the underlying trade, or profession, is (most often) far superior to the rank and file in the trade, or profession, because the educators keep up-to-date with latest research, trends & changing paradigms.
mattq
Guest
he also helped me pick the right wood once at Bunnings Belconnen. The man knows his stuff!
Nemesis
Guest
jb & Midfielder You will both enjoy this blog by Ron Smith (many of the keyboard coaches on this forum won't understand the content, or the implications) Ron's concluding paragraph is very interesting (& happens to coincide with my views!) Are systems really important? in my mind systems of play are not that important; there are more important things to focus on such as: - the number and quality of forwards runs to threaten the last line of defence - moving the ball quickly towards goal once possession has been gained - being able to press your opponent in their half of the field or deny them opportunities to pass forwards or shoot at goal when you have been forced, or choose to defend deep - how to get most of the team in the opponents half of the field when possession is regained in your back third. Full blog is worth reading for full context: http://www.thefootballcentre.com.au/blog/view/changing-the-system-or-our-thinking-about-systems
Stevo
Roar Rookie
jb, maybe somewhat colourful but my comment clearly was not about Ron as a person but his achievement as a team coach under the weekly grind of competitive professional football. Yes he appears to be well regarded for his knowledge and a thorough gentlemen by your account, but putting players on the field in the most effective positions whatever system you choose with whatever cattle you have at your disposal, appears not to have been his strongest point.
j,binnie
Guest
Mid - I have known Ron Smith since the late 70's and a thorough gentleman he is. As you say he lives for his football but as Stevo so crudely points out,Ron has never been a great success as a competitive coach and I don't put this down to lack of knowledge on his part but rather in his physical attitude to the game. Now unless you have coached at a high level you may find this a bit hard to comprehend ,but believe me there are times in a competition coach's life when he has to show a bit of "b.....d" when handling players, and to be honest I don't really think that "talent" is in Ron Smith's demeanor. He has worked hard at the game and is regarded as an excellent statistical analyst ,so his opinions are always worth listening to, but the intricacies of those particular opinions and how they are achieved, could well be beyond the "ken" of the average punter who posts his comments on this site. Ron is well respected in coaching circles not for his past record in competitive football, but more for his knowledge and know how. Cheers jb.
j,binnie
Guest
Nemesis - Ron Smith was not born yesterday and being of sound football mind he knows quite well that goals are created and scored ,not in transition to use his words,but when someone in the team in possession makes a mistake ,gives away possession and the now attacking team move the ball into a scoring area and put the ball in the net. That brings us back to that age old argument,what would the score be if the perfect game of football were to be played, that is no "mistakes"????. Think carefully about the answer to this. He also mentions centre backs moving forward to help out in the middle no doubt thinking about players like Ernst Ocwirk ,(Austria) and Franz Beckenbaur (Germany), world class players who,listed as centre backs,liked nothing more than to slip forward into a more attacking role. These two masters of the game actually played their football before the Dutch coach Michels,aided and abetted by the maestro Cruyff, took this style of play ,to the next step and had players like Jongbloed,,Krol, Cruyff and Neeskins,slide back and forth constantly when in and out of possession, and giving the press guys the misnomer "Total Football" Just last week we had a glimpse of this tactic when the Brazilian coach cared to pick a noted ,"back three" centre back ,David Ruis. as a defensive midfielder against our Socceroos, and we saw how a world class player can adjust and perform no matter where he plays. As I have said all along football tactics are in a constant state of flux and only the real innovators get their names up in lights when the changes are of some significance. That is why I tried to relate to you the "major ' changes in tactics in another comment on this site the other day. It is not about fitting players to a system because that system is being used elsewhere, it is about using a system that fits the players you have available. Ron Smith has been around long enough to know that this is true. Cheers jb.
Midfielder
Guest
Redondo I don't think you that far off the mark although I would have said it differently. What I picked out of the article is in the 3-2-4-1 system we are playing its essential we defend as a unit. Juric did this all night and drove the keeper mad and he pressed high all night and ran his socks off he must have a big engine as he went all night. The wide mids in the 3-2-4-1 i.e. the two wide players in the 4, need to drop and cover more, and I think the two inside mids in the four across the middle need to track bad a bit more. Personally I would love both Rogic and Troisi in the centre of the park but neither seems that into tracking back hhhhmmm . I not here to pick apart AP's system, he has a CV equal to any coach his age in any sport. I actually like forming my own opinion and looking at what some experts say... Smith did say we broke down in midfield and to me that was obvious especially the lost balls ... but I read Smiths article as one of explaining where the players are falling down not the system as such.
Midfielder
Guest
Last line should read... hhhhhmmmmm I don’t think provides the respect that Smith’s CV and lifetime of work deserves …
Midfielder
Guest
Steve In Football analysis and technical understanding Smith would rate among Australia's best ... It was quite clear what he said, its not the fault of the back 3, its the midfield not doing their bit to protect the back three. Maybe our players don't quite have the awareness yet of where to go and what to do. But Smiths bleeds Football, bleeds coaching and analysis and has one of Australia's greatest understanding of technique and shape [not me saying that but lots and lots of Football folk] so to say he has not coached a champion winning side hhhhhmmmmm I don't think provides that Smith's CV and lifetime of work deserves ...
Nemesis
Guest
Give me a break. Ron Smith specifically said many goals in football come from errors in transition, regardless of the formation. Germany smashed us at WC2010. We played a traditional 4 at the back & the German wide attackers took Chipperfield apart. Tom Rogic's goal was created by Germany losing possession in transition. I wonder if the German fans think Low's playing 3 at the back is to blame for an errant pass in midfield?
Redondo
Roar Rookie
Nemesis - I read Ron Smith's comments as a polite criticism of the way Australia is playing its new system. Firstly, the midfield and wing backs are not tracking back in defence as they should be. Exhibit one is Mooy for Germany's third goal. Secondly, his comment about more chances being created in transition is directly relevant to previous comments we keyboard warriors have been making. In recent games Australia's 'attacking' moves have been breaking down on Australia's side of halfway because the back 3 (excluding Sainsbury) aren't capable of playing out from the back safely.