Unlike the Melbourne troposphere, Ange Postecoglou was under heavy pressure.
As frigid rain pelted the Victorian capital, the national manager was no doubt feeling the heat; his team needed a big win over Thailand to be assured of automatic qualification.
Saudi Arabia were playing in Jeddah at 3am (AEDT), and to leave his team’s chances hanging by a narrow win or – heaven forbid – a draw, would make for a sleepless night.
A win over Thailand by less than two goals would mean any kind of Saudi victory over an already qualified Japan would ensure a third-placed playoff for Australia.
The first half was 45 minutes of torture, as Australian attacks were brought billowing up the pitch, sweeping toward a footballing crescendo, every angel trumpet and demon trombone building to a divine acme, only to stop jarringly at the point of climax.
Twice Australia hit the post. A shot was cleared off the line. Another was deflected away by a flying Thai limb, dangling fortuitously in exactly the right parcel of air at exactly the right millisecond.
The shot count, at halftime, read 14-3 in Australia’s favour. The possession, 74 to 26 per cent, in Australia’s favour.
The home team, bayed on by a sopping, shivering crowd, had complete control of the game. But thanks to bad finishing and bad luck, they couldn’t score.
The Socceroos, in a distinctly attack-minded line-up, complete with six personnel changes, were much more fluent – albeit against highly inferior opposition – than they had been in Saitama. Tim Cahill, stationed just behind Tomi Juric and in front of Tom Rogic, and Mark Milligan, moved from the defence into a role that lingered between the back three and the midfield, functioned as key linking players.
The isolation Robbie Kruse suffered against Japan was not present, and Rogic, aided by Cahill’s link-up play and Aaron Mooy’s intelligent distribution, was blazingly prominent. The passing errors that plagued the defence against Japan were but sour memories, with Milligan’s recessed presence offering a vital pressure release.
It was, on the part of coach Postecoglou, an expertly theorised and sensibly implemented tactical reshuffle.
[latest_videos_strip category=”football” name=”Football”]
And yet it bore no fruit, even as the game edged out towards the hour mark, by which time Australia had survived a Thai penalty appeal that should really have been given. Australia’s previous high in World Cup qualifying, as far as shots registered in a match goes, was eclipsed before Cahill was substituted for Kruse in the 56th minute.
The demeanour of the game had not changed; Australia were still passing their way up to the Thai penalty area at will, only to find themselves stifled or thwarted at the critical shooting moment.
Sinthaweechai Hathairattanakool, the second-choice Thai keeper, was repelling every shot that wasn’t blocked by a teammate or hit waywardly. Chanathip Songkrasin, Thailand’s best player, was a quicksilver threat on every counter attack. The squeals of Thai supporters pierced through the rumbling groans of the Australia faithful; the atmosphere was tense.
Alex Gersbach was substituted, replaced by James Troisi, an act emblematic of Australia’s desperation. That desperation was further frayed when Rogic hit the post again, somehow.
Then Mooy whipped in a swooping cross, which was met by Juric charging in like a battering ram. His glanced header shattered the wretched parity, and Australia took the lead. The roars of relief reverberated around the nation. Jamie Maclaren was brought on to consolidate things further; more goals were still needed. Postecoglou was, at that point, fielding more natural attackers than he was any other type of player.
A header from Trent Sainsbury was cleared off the line, and Rogic forced another fine save from Hathairattanakool. Mat Ryan tempered the situation by gifting the Thai attackers the ball straight from a short goal-kick, an utterly inexplicable error that fortunately went unpunished.
The next minute, an agonising game of pinball occurred in the Thai goalmouth, with Socceroos flying in to try and force the ball over the line, to no avail. This was strikingly open football, with the shortcomings of the Thai team dovetailing with Australia’s reckless thirst for another goal.
That recklessness was then brutally punished. With nine minutes to go, the Thais sauntered up the left flank, with Australia beleaguered and panting in pursuit. Milligan was, suddenly, outnumbered, victim of a Thai overlap. Perapat Notechaiya, free in the box, crossed for Pokkhao Anan, who struck a shot onto the underside of Ryan’s crossbar and in. It was unstoppable. A single moment of lurching over-extension was exposed, and suddenly the outlook was as bleak as the Melbourne skyline.
Australia pushed forward again, with simply a win now top of the agenda, never mind the scoreline. A series of corners, won by Mooy, tallied up, and from the final one Mathew Leckie speared the ball home through a mass of bodies. Australia took the lead again, and AAMI Park sighed again.
There was still, though, the feeling that a victory by a single goal margin would not be satisfactory.
Australia poured forward, with Troisi, Mooy and Juric all shooting powerfully from distance. Both teams’ passing was ragged, the players stumbling through fatigue. Milligan was stained in mud. Leckie could barely pass the ball. The referee blew the final whistle, the Roos 2-1 winners.
This was not the emphatic scoreline Australia needed, and the Saudis – playing a few hours later – now knew that any kind of win would send them through to the World Cup automatically.
Luck was not on Australia’s side, as on another night any of the Socceroos’ 45 – yes, that’s forty-five – shots might have made it 4 or 5-0. Postecoglou and his team, who should never really have been in a position of such precariousness, were forced to wait until the wee hours of Wednesday morning to find out their qualification fate.
Ed: Saudi Arabia’s 1-0 win over Japan this morning means both teams automatically qualified, while the Socceroos continue on to a two-leg, home-and-away qualifying route through Asia and North or Central America.
Albo
Guest
But we were playing a team of footballing "midgets', and yet our aerial game was pathetic, with one decent cross all night for the Juric goal. We should have surely used our dominance of stature to overcome their wall of defensive numbers in front of goal ? We had the aging, but aerially superb goal scorer in Tim Cahill not found once with a decent cross ? And the other obvious flaw, we still persist with playing in our attacking roles, long time proven failures at scoring goals ( Kruse 56 matches for 4 goals, Leckie 45 matches for 5 goals ) just when goals are most needed ?
Cool N Cold
Guest
To my memory, there is only one national team, which plays one single tactic, can win 4 world cups. That one is Italy. Brazil has changed a lot since winning their first world cup. Can a single tactic enable socceroos conquer Syria and perhaps Honduras?
Redondo
Roar Rookie
Why blame the coach? Let me list some reasons: 1. He shifted to an unfamiliar system during qualification - highly risky. It takes club teams months of training and games to adapt to this system and the national team only has a few days every few months to get up-to-speed. 2. The new system requires very fit and skilful wing-backs who can attack and defend in equal measure. Ange then consistently selected wing-backs who aren't particularly skilful (Leckie, Smith, Behich), or, who are chronically short of game time (Smith). In Leckie's case he is only adequate in defence and the added defensive work blunted his attack. In Smith's case (partly due to the fact that he rarely plays) his attack and defence were poor and he looked out of gas several times. For whatever reason, Ange regularly omitted Gersbach even though he was very good the few times he played, and he's skilful, playing reasonably regularly, and he can attack and defend. 3. The new system requires good a good ball-playing back 3. We have Sainsbury and that's it (Spiranovic unfit most of the time). Milligan had to be drafted in to cover this shortage. The coach has to choose a system based on the available players. 4. Regardless of the system, Ange cannot adapt during a game. He insists on playing out from the back even though the players he selects struggle to hold the ball and struggle to pass quickly and accurately. And the players they try to pass to often seem not to have a clue how to make space so the defenders can pass to them safely. If the opposition is pressing hard then avoiding the press by passing out of danger is not 'bad' football - it's just tactically sensible. 5. In addition, the whole team is familiar with 4-3-3 - if the opposition is successfully countering 3-4-3 or 3-2-4-1 then Ange could easily revert to 4-3-3 to disrupt. He never tried. If anything, towards the end against Thailand he opted for an even more unfamiliar 2-4-4 (that's what it looked like). 6. Against Thailand he started with Cahill but played him behind the striker rather than up-front and the target for crosses. He's 37, out-of-season, and rarely creates for others so it was just a waste of an attacking player and a waste of Cahill's prime skill.
chivasdude
Guest
There is a lot of criticism of Ange's change of playing style. But what cost us immediate qualification was the was the 2-2 draw against Thailand in November 2016. That I think made him re-think the playing style. Note that the change in playing formation came after the draw against Thailand. Before this change, we had won twice and drawn 3 times. That is 9 points. After the change, starting with the game against Iraq in March this year, we won 3 times, drew once and lost once (to a very good Japan at home). That is 10 points. We scored the same number of goals (8) before and after the change but let in 1 more goal after. So, who is to say that the change in formation cost us? I say that the draws cost us immediate qualifying. Ange moved to a more attacking formation to try and score more goals and win more games. This may not have succeeded as he had planned, but I understand why he did it. Maybe we just don't have the cattle either at back of in front? Why always blame the coach?
clipper
Guest
Although don't think the powers to be would be happy if USA didn't qualify
Tom
Guest
Absolutely. This is where Ange's stubborness comes into it. He wants to run before he can walk. We have the players to pick from and they're asked to play like if they were world beaters.,But they're journeymen. So you have to play according to their capabilities. They means the coach have to be flexible. In his interviews he revealed that he has personal issues,going back ten years when he was in charge of the young ones. He should have left that behind instead of carrying that chip on his shoulder.That impacts on his ability to the the job now. It became a vendetta now against the establishment and the media. Criticism is unacceptable. If Thailand,minnows in world football can do this to us , what justification is there for his system? He should be able to tweak options as per opponents Bosnich is right,no plan B or C , only his way or the highway. The highway but it doesn't lead to Russia.
Cousin Claudio
Roar Guru
USA would be a big drawcard and would fill the MCG or ANZ if it was the final qualifying game. One of the good things about not qualifying directly is the couple of extra playoff games and a couple more million for football.
Cousin Claudio
Roar Guru
I've been watching the Footyroos for 30 years and this is the worst squad ever. The Squad of 74 would beat these hopeless pretenders by 10 goals. I've never seen a national team so disorganised and lacking commitment, drive and hunger like these fools. You'd think they were playing park football and not desperate for the chance to play in the world's biggest sporting contest. Absolute crap play, nothing to do with luck. Any team in the world could beat the Footyroos now, even my beloved Bankstown Berries. They are so predictable now, you know exactly what they are going to do and that the coach will never change tactics. All you have to do is press them hard in their own half till they give away possession, which they do half the time and then counter attack with speedy wingers and midfielders who flood the penalty area. Simple easy way to beat them. Its probably a good thing if we don't qualify, it might lead to some drastic changes and perhaps some improvements. WIn the world cup? You must be joking!
Brian
Guest
Why is being technical the benchmark. Colombia and Mexico have been technically good for years and never made a semi between them. The Germans are less technical but much more successful. They are focused, quicker, better finishers, bigger, fitter, more organised. Lots of ways to skin a cat. We were better then Japan in 2006 when we beat them, and indeed 1997 confed cup. That 97 group 20 years ago made the final, Ange didn't win a game and that is somehow better. He lost all 3 World Cup games this after 4 points in 2006 and 2010. Worst ever effort Now he's added worst ever qualifying campaign since Hawke was pm and the Socceroos were about as well known as our water polo teams I give him some credit for the Asian cup but how much more of this can we take. He's failed lets move to someone that might work.
Nemesis
Guest
"If you can’t score 4 or 5 against Thailand at home, how are you going to compete in Russia against the best in the World?" Are people really so ignorant about football? Particularly, international football? Only a few days ago, in Toulouse in a crucial WC Qualifier, France couldn't put even 1 goal past Luxembourg. France's starting XI cost their current clubs around A$650 million. Luxembourg's starting XI cost their current clubs: A$45,000.
B.A
Guest
Yes, and a good team would have put more chances away against a second string keeper and a minnow nation. If you can't score 4 or 5 against Thailand at home, how are you going to compete in Russia against the best in the World? Nobody can say Australia deserves to be in the World Cup based on that performance.
Griffo
Roar Guru
I think that is sensible. A knee jerk sacking would do far more damage. Being a little unpredictable and flexible with a plan B would be better from Ange. Last night reminded me a lot of playing against 10 players - you think you have an advantage but you have to work for it and be even more clinical and effective in attack. Goals don't score themselves. The Thais were great defensively. And at the end we became desperate, and therefor ineffective. A (potentially) four legged playoff will fray the nerves, but we are still in it. Not so impressed with the implication the country is against the players or the team as a whole. But it comes back to being able to critique and discuss what hasn't happened. Ange clearly has to educate us more on the type of discussion he wants ;-)
Punter
Guest
W are also in stage of transition whether you or I agree with transition or not.
Punter
Guest
Can't argue the atmosphere was poor.
AGO74
Guest
Wasn't he the last defender though? I know there was another defender a few yards away but honestly I don't think the defender would have got before attacker short on goal.
Torchbearer
Guest
It was done by drawing balls from a bowl in apublic ceremony in st Petersburg two years ago...no conspiracy.
Fadida
Guest
They finished behind a very poor Saudi team Punter, if you are looking at a "poor index"
Josh Barton
Roar Pro
This is the most logical move from them. Our fate is now entwined with Ange's.
Midfielder
Guest
smh reporting Gallop has said AP will not be replaced and is in charge of the team to the WC.
Punter
Guest
Yep