Ange Postecoglou is at the crossroads of his Socceroos coaching tenure. After failing to obtain direct qualification to the 2018 Qatar FIFA World Cup, he has been singled-out by many as the major culprit.
However, is such critical analysis warranted?
The current criticisms pointed toward Postecoglou generally fall under the following accusations.
1) Persistent in deploying a formation with three in the back despite the ongoing struggle;
2) Inability to get the right result when it matters
Simply, these two accusations are irrefutable.
When the team needed a win in Japan (or a draw as a bare minimum), they failed to do so. The attack during rare sustained period of possession was cumbersome. Players tended to take one too many unnecessary touches before releasing it.
Support in counterattack was non-existent despite knowing that these opportunities present the best chance to score. The defence was riddled with turnover, and Matt Ryan’s erratic distribution didn’t add any confident to the backline.
The end result against Thailand was part unlucky and part naivety. The unlucky was the number of times the Socceroos hit the woodwork. However, luck, or the lack of, is never an excuse. In football, players make their own luck.
No one in a gold shirt attempted to create their own luck with sufficient frequency on Tuesday night. More importantly, the team’s reckless wastefulness in the final third wasn’t due to the lack of luck.
The accusation of naivety rests on Socceroos’ tactical approach. Despite the clear height advantage compared to the Thai defenders, it was surprising to see such a limited supply of long balls into the box. Even when there were long balls, they were often too late (so that the defenders were able to settle and crowd out the box) and lacking in quality.
Cahill’s deep positioning was equally baffling. Rather than leading the line and utilising his great leap as a scoring threat, his heat map in the first half told a story of playmaking in deeper positions.
Since the Asian Cup triumph in 2015, this team has been marred by an inability to get a result when it matters. Every team goes through a cycle, and Australia is currently in the midst of an identity crisis.
Postecoglou’s intention is clear. He wants to implement a more expensive approach in the Socceroos – playing out from the back, crisp short passing accompanied by constant player movement. The concept of normative right or wrong doesn’t exist in football. If the team is winning, then the approach is right. Unfortunately for Postecoglou, the Socceroos is struggling.
(AAP Image/Julian Smith)
By abandoning the gritty and pragmatic version of the Socceroos, the team has been left with a system that many of the players are still uncomfortable with. Rather than allowing the backline to send a simple long ball to the number nine up the field, the defensive unit were instructed to play the ball out and in this process become their own worst enemy.
Matt Ryan and some of the central defenders are not natural passers. They lack the temperament, technique, and mutual understanding needed to advance the ball in such a high risk high reward method. And in fairness to the defensive unit, all three qualities are sorely absent in all areas of the pitch.
The predictability of our playing style, resulting from Postecoglou’s stubbornness over style, is exposing the team. The current style has benefitted neither the offence nor the defence.
In all of the recent good performances, the Socceroos abandoned their expensive mentality and reverted back to a more pragmatic approach. The match against Chile in the 2017 Intercontinental Cup was a prime example. The players were physically combative, played by their instinct, and pragmatic in offence.
Although the result wasn’t ideal, the performance was brave and honourable. In a game where most expected thrashing, the Socceroos gave the South American champion a real test.
The point is that all successful teams in the world have an identity. They are successful because they are the best at executing a particular set of skills and tactics. At the moment, the system doesn’t cater to the strength of the players at Postecoglou’s disposal. The team is sure of who they are and who they want to be.
Postecoglou’s vision for the team is noble. However, his vision is incompatible with too many players. Whether it be personality or technical ability reason, the under-performance of many players indicate that the current system is stifling rather than realising the true potential of these players.
There is no shame to be that bash-and-grab team in Asia and in the World Cup. Not all teams in the world have to play like Brazil or Barcelona. Just as nobody is going to discounts Leicester City’s premiership win because of their direct, counter-attack football, no one in Australia will show any less respect to a combative, pragmatic, never-say-die Socceroos.
Stuart Thomas
Expert
Should be Tuesday.
144
Roar Guru
"Players tended to take one too many unnecessary touches before releasing it." This simply brings it all back under the umbrella argument of perhaps the Socceroos simply underestimate our Asian opposition. We needed to go to Japan and get at least a point, a point and we were happy but why did we have to go to Saitama and go guns blazing, open ourselves up and pay the price. Now moving to our performance against Thailand. Rogic, Leckie, all these players were taking six or seven or even eight touches before releasing the ball. Tim Cahill deployed at No.10? Honestly, why in god's name do we think Cahill is still fit enough to play No.10, for the last 4-5 years he has been our striker.
Realist
Guest
Are we confident to suggest that Ange has the technical know how to even coach 3 at the back? Players follow instructions given to them from the coach.
j,binnie
Guest
pacman.- To buy those "Rolls Royce type of engines" for your team costs a lot more than even the FFA could afford,but a good analogy nevertheless.Cheers jb.
j,binnie
Guest
Thanks Caltex - Ok, a play on words it is not a "modern" system just a " recycled" idea from the mind of a football professional from yesteryear,nearly 90 years ago.. That was the point I was making. Cheers jb..
Nemesis
Guest
"Ronald Harker saw something the more highly qualified people – ie the designers and builders of the plane – didn’t – and knew there was a better solution" What makes you assume Ronald Harker wasn't appropriately qualified in this field? Nothing I've read from anyone on this Forum suggests they're qualified to do anything at professional coaching level, other than hold Ange's water bottle. So, no matter how much you people on this Forum pretend you would be a better National Coach than Ange, it doesn't impress me. I find it absolutely ridiculous. But, it's the 21st century and we have people who think shooting guns will stop a Hurricane, so everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Cool N Cold
Guest
I have studied more on CONCACAF 5th round. It seems USA will qualify automatically without the play-off matches. They face Panama at home and then the last placed "Trinidad and Tobag" away in the last match of the group. So, socceroos are more likely to face Panama or Honduras should they pass Syria. However, socceroos had problems even dealing with the ranking 130 Thailand.
pacman
Guest
You are on the money northener. Saw this on occasions whilst employed in regional Commonwealth Public Service departments. Lack of field experience led to many extraordinary and incorrect decisions by the experts in Head Office. Never an acknowledgement that they got things wrong. Too pig headed I guess. But corrections were quietly made.
northerner
Guest
You're still missing the point entirely. Ronald Harker saw something the more highly qualified people - ie the designers and builders of the plane - didn't - and knew there was a better solution. He put a different engine in the same airframe and came up with a superior airplane. That's the whole point of what JB is saying - that the engineers, planners, coaches, don't necessarily know everything and don't always put the best components together. Sometimes, it takes someone on the periphery to see what those close up miss.
damo
Guest
He's probably quite 'expensive'
Nemesis
Guest
'he knew enough about both the Mustang airframe and the Merlin engine, having been a test pilot for both" So, he had experience in the field? He wasn't sitting at a desk working in a totally unrelated field? Sounds like he was well qualified to advise on this subject matter. Good work.
northerner
Guest
Nemesis: the point here surely is not whether the "bright spark" had formal engineering qualifications but whether he was right. He wasn't in fact an aeronautical engineer, but he knew enough about both the Mustang airframe and the Merlin engine, having been a test pilot for both, to see the possibilities of combining the two - a possibility which the aeronautical engineers responsible for the design and production of the Mustang had never considered. Classic case of thinking outside the box. The "local clown" understood that this new combination of two very good components would make a superb aircraft, better than the one the Americans were producing. And he managed to convince the RAF, the Ministry of War, and ultimately the US Army, that he was correct. From that point, planning and production of the Mustang incorporated the Merlin engine. And I believe that's the point JB is making - that changing key components, whether of a football team or an aircraft, can improve performance.
pacman
Guest
Simple. Ange needs to find some Rolls Royce engines to replace the sputtering, out of tune Holden motors that he is using.
pacman
Guest
@Lionheart. Yes!
Cool N Cold
Guest
ah...
Rolly
Guest
Great article very true ..Naivety and pigheaded would be good words to describe Ange .too stubborn to change .play to your strengths and and change the play depending on your opponents .Ange dosent have the players he needs to play his system, so what does Ange do still play to his system .the results speak for them selves .
Lionheart
Guest
Yeboah? Big call given his lack of game time this season, but great that he's now in the Bundesliga after a fine season last year.
Lionheart
Guest
one thing you can be assured of, the pilots would have trialed it and fine-tuned it in the training airspace over Britain, not on bomber escort missions over Germany.
Caltex TEN & SBS support Australian Football
Guest
Yes it is modern; recycled of course (WM formation 3-2-2-3), but modern to (variants 3-5-2) to what we have had for the past 50 years. JB, think of it as mens and women's fashion---it's just an endless cycle of what was past to present. Cheers
j,binnie
Guest
Caltex - "This breathtaking modern style" You have to be joking. A back 3 was first used at Huddersfield Town back in the early 1920's when Herbert Chapman was the manager and introduced his "deeper lying " centre- half, Huddersfield actually won 3 top league championships using the system but by then Chapman had moved on to Arsenal where his 3 man defensive line was the embryo idea of what became the WM formation (3-2-2-3) that was to last until the Hungarians tore the system apart at Wembley in 1953. My friend there is very little in our game that can be classed as "modern" Cheers jb.