The Socceroos’ Confederations Cup fate is out of their hands after labouring to a 1-1 draw with Cameroon in St Petersburg.
Ange Postecoglou’s side played without spark against the African champions but earned a point when Mark Milligan converted a penalty to cancel out Andre-Frank Zambo Anguissa’s first-half finish.
Australia now head to Moscow to play Chile, where they must win and have another result go their way to reach the semi-finals in Russia.
Once again, the Socceroos failed to produce a performance to be proud of, losing the bulk of the battles and the shot count 19-5.
They did at least start more confidently than in their first-up loss to Germany but their ascendancy faded, leaving only Cameroon playing with the urgency that the do-or-die match required.
The African champions were superior both in the air and on the deck.
Impressive youngster Christian Bassogog enjoyed a couple of early sighters, exposing Milos Degenek’s lack of pace.
The Socceroo defender was then found wanting for the opener, when Zambo Anguissa beat him to a long ball and dinked an effort over rushing goalkeeper Mat Ryan.
It was no less than Cameroon deserved.
Australia picked up the pace in the second half.
Mat Leckie sent a pair of dangerous balls into the box but they were wasted by Tomi Juric and Tom Rogic.
The match swung again and on 57 minutes, Australia received a life.
Vincent Aboubakar sent a shot both narrowly wide and through Zambo Anguissa’s legs just a metre from goal with Ryan beaten.
The move should have put the game on Cameroon’s terms but instead, a driving run from Gersbach brought Milligan to the spot.
The impressive 20-year-old was brashly tackled in the box by Ernest Mabouka and the Australian skipper converted.
Postecoglou threw on James Troisi, Tim Cahill and Jackson Irvine looking for a winner.
It wasn’t to be, with only a result against the odds against tournament favourites Chile likely to save Postecoglou from criticism of the team’s showing in Russia.
1FreeThinker
Guest
I enjoy reading these comments. You have your hearts in the right place. I have specific thoughts about this game but forgive me for making my first foray into this arena, one of a broader perspective. Football is our "fourth football" or our "fifth (sixth?) sport". Football 1 is played (kind-of) in all of two countries, Football 2 is playing in 14 countries. Sport 1 is played by 10 countries. Given our commitment to these other sports it is easy to see why "we win stuff" more frequently that in Football. When do we get the chance to consistently (relentlessly) play the likes of Germany, Cameroon, Chile, Brazil, Japan, England, Spain, Holland in these other codes. Even having said this: The Kangaroos often struggle now, the Wallabies are mid-table, the swimming team have their mediocre meets, the cricketers ... etc etc. I love watching the socceroos play, I love seeing Ange's (clear) plans unfold. I've been seriously spoiled over the last month ... win, lose or draw!
Lionheart
Guest
Steve, your reply to Nemesis above starts 'you really are a condescending piece of work' (itself a fairly condescending comment), then you jump in with this on his next comment. I'm a neutral here, but I do suggest you perhaps could allow a few of his opinions expressed on this opinion website to simply 'go through to the keeper'.
j,binnie
Guest
Realist - possession figures tell us what team has the ball under control. Those figures are amassed when the ball is being passed backwards or sideways between team-mates as well as trying to go forward ,which is actually the main aim of the game. So "possession" in itself is not a good measure of how a game is being played,it is what a team achieves WITH that possession that tells who is "controlling" the game. jb
Roarfan
Guest
Ok that's fair enough. He will still be good in the dressing room
Nemesis
Guest
"We were comprehensively beaten for the full 90 minutes but you wrote the we dominated Brazil in the first half, with less possession than Cameroon had against us this morning." You claimed AUS had 28% possession in the 1st half against Brazil. There is no evidence of this. There is evidence that AUS had 42.5% possession for the whole match. This makes it even less likely that AUS had 28% possession in the 1st half. You are basing your comments on an ALT-Fact.
Realist
Guest
We were comprehensively beaten for the full 90 minutes but you wrote the we dominated Brazil in the first half, with less possession than Cameroon had against us this morning. Do you still stand by your claim above that a team must have possession to control a game, but Australia dominated Brazil with less possession? Or will you do what you usually do and try to distract away from any points when you are known to be wrong?
greenbridge1930
Roar Rookie
"FIFA PlayStation"TM haha, that is a new one I haven't heard of :)
greenbridge1930
Roar Rookie
"But, it’s pointless & ridiculous for me to think my system would be any better than Ange’s system." Yes, obviously Ange and his coaching staff will not be reading these posts. But without productive discussions like "What if we pick him?" and "What if we play like this?" how monotonous would sports be? I'm really confused as to why you choose to post on The Roar when your idea of football is to talk to yourself and ignore other posters and listen to the robotic-like interviews of modern day players and managers.
Cool N Cold
Guest
I did not want to get involved in this debate/discussion. Since, there are other arguers, I like to say a bit. Ball possession is one of the measures only. Only with possession rate, the match cannot be described fully. Anyhow, for this particular match of yesterday (Cameroons vs Australia), if you have watched the full match, Cameroon was in control. The reasons are number of shots, corners, and area of the played. Despite the pressing and keep exchanging of the ball, most of the time the ball was played in Socceroos' half. Also, Cameroon had more shots and chances. Only that when the stupid coach of Cameroon switched to a more conservative/defending play, the socceroos players could got control of the match at the early part of the second half. However, once socceroos got level in goals again, 1-1, Cameroon players got control of the game again by playing more aggressively. Overall, many say that Cameroon controlled the match. Watch the whole match is the best way to find out.
Nemesis
Guest
"It was displayed on the tv during the telecast which many people saw. If you don’t want to accept truth, then that is your decision." I was at the stadium. And, I certainly don't believe your alleged statistic. If you can provide the source of your statistic I'll accept it. EDIT: The possession for the whole 90 minutes was AUS: 42.5% BRA: 57.5% So, using the basic laws of arithmetic, if AUS had 28% possession for the 1st half it means AUS had 57% possession in the 2nd half. Based on what I saw: AUS did not have 57% possession in the 2nd half. We were comprehensively beaten in the 2nd half How are your stats looking now?
Realist
Guest
It was displayed on the tv during the telecast which many people saw. If you don't want to accept truth, then that is your decision.
greenbridge1930
Roar Rookie
"I don’t care if you disagree with my opinions." Likewise, other posters like myself do not care if people disagree with our views. But what we do care is when posters like yourself persist in telling outnumber views are wrong because we are somehow inferior in our knowledge of the game in Australia. Because we follow another code in Australia. Becaude we support another club in Europe. Because we do not attend every single home game of the A-League.
Nemesis
Guest
I've not seen that stat of 28% possession for Australia in the 1st half. Where can I review that information?
Realist
Guest
But you said Australia "dominated" Brazil in the first half when Aust had only 28% possession. Now you are saying you need the ball to control the game. Surely if Australia dominated with 28% possession, then Cameroon more than dominated Australia with 46% possession.
punter
Guest
No, next year.
Nemesis
Guest
"You can control the game without the ball…" I've no problem if you think that. But, I disagree. You need the ball to control the game of football. However, you don't need to control a game of football to win, or even score.
Fadida
Guest
Don't get too technical Steve, you'll lose him
Fadida
Guest
Century of goals? :)
Redondo
Roar Rookie
Nemesis - what do you get out of the discussion if you only ignore what everybody else thinks? Including yourself it seems, when it comes to questioning Postecoglou's approach.
Fadida
Guest
You know you've really got him checkmate greenbridge when he will accuse you of having gained your (lack of) knowledge from playing "FIFA Playstation"TM and being a "keyboard warrior" :)