Thanks, Ange, but it’s time to say goodbye

100% loyalty to Ange

Firstly this article is pretty poor and one only hopes it is the first attempt by the author. Secondly I began trying to read all the comments but it just became monotonous. The same sentiments expressed over and over in a slightly different way. Then again I am probably about to do the same. Some of you seem to be defending Ange, others pointing out deficiencies and others simply putting down either of those two camps. Has anyone mentioned that regardless of whether you agree with Anges' tactics or not he is a total hypocrite who couldn't lie straight in bed? Take his comments when he first came into the role - Players had to be getting regular time at their club or they would not be considered. An ultimatum he gave to Cahill to name one. Then look at the players he has used - Sainsbury,Smith most obviously and countless others who do little more than warm the bench on their best days. Or his statement that he wants to see Aussie players go to European leagues to develop but then chooses players bench warming in Asian leagues. I could go on with his double speak and contradictions but I'll put this one to you. Prior to the KO v Syria Ange stated he wanted to play 3 players in the No10 role. He then said unfortunately Mooy was the one to miss out. So at that stage he rated Mooy the 4th best No10 in the team. (let's completely overlook that he generally sets the team up with Mooy,Luongo and even Rogic occasionally as Defensive Mids) That means Kruse,Troisi and Kruse are the 3 top ranked Attacking Mids. Now Brad Smith goes down in a MOM performance and Ange rushes Mooy on, moves Kruse to the left and uses Mooy in a 3 man AM role. Mooy is now within 5 minutes at least the 3rd ranked No10 because there were plenty of other options rather than bringing on Mooy. At the match Ange praises Mooy and tells us he is one of his special players. Does this mean he is now No1 or No2 with Rogic as Australia's best No10? No because Ange goes on to say he made the right decision benching him.......so around and around we go. Sure tactically you make changes to get a result but Ange conceded with his actions within 5 minutes that he had made a mistake not playing Mooy, then refused to acknowledge it. This in itself sums the guy up.....too arrogant, stubborn and full of self-importance to conced he may have been wrong. For the record Mooy played pretty darn well in an overcrowded midfield but his corners bar 2 or 3 were piss poor. So to answer a few questions posed here - Yes I believe many people on this site and involved in Football in this country have a far better knowledge and understanding of the Socceroos than Ange has. Being the incumbent coach does not make him the smartest man on the continent. If anyone wants a full analysis of his deficiencies in the way the team is structured I am quite capable of providing it without any emotional content. The key is simply using the best players to the best advantage of the team to achieve a result. It ain't gotta be pretty, it ain't gotta be the best 11 players.....just best use of the skill sets on offer as a group. As someone else put it when teams like Iraq and Thailand can break down our structure and show us up what do you think the better technical sides in the world will do?

People keep critizing him on having 3 only at the back and not starting Mooy and not listening to Sainsbery. Okay, let's see what the formations we had long time ago. Referring to the match Australia vs Uruguay in youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm4L40vte7s), the starting lineup of Australia was a 3-3-3-1 formation. You can see this at 5:04 of the video. To my memory socceroos played 3 at the back in the match vs Iran in 1997 also. So, 3 at the back or 3-2-4-1 or 3-4-4 is just controversial. However, the blame is that why sudden change to 3 at the back at the mid of the tournament. So, is it really that critical to change the formation at the mid of the tournament? The answer is the result. It is because Australia drew Thailand. However, if result is the ultimate end, the qualification process is still alive.

Squizz - As I said to punter above,that is why we should never "win" a game in our heads using near things or shots on or off target. Would Ryan have saved that shot if it had been 6 inches to the left????, we'll never know, so why bother to speculate. Cheers jb.

punter - Exactly and that is why games should never be "won" by the amount of near things. Cheers jb.

The stats show we had 70 goal attempts in our 5 games with a back 4 (45 against) for 9 goals. We had 83 in the 5 with a back 3, of which 45 were at home v the bottom placed Thais (50 against,) for 8 goals. At best it's a 13 shot improvement over 5 games, if you chose to ignore that more than half came in one game. We scored less, conceded more, despite having 3 of the last 5 games at home compared to 2 of the first 5. Progress?

'it could be argued we could have been out of the WC if that free kick that Syria took at the end of normal time, had been 6 inches to the left.' It could also be argued that if it had been 6 inches to the left we would all be celebrating Maty Ryan's save since he had everything inside the post covered.

jb i totally agree. I made myself hoarse shouting at the TV: play the early ball. That move was executed beautifully & i can't understand why this cannot be replicated regularly. The team i enjoy most at international level is Germany under Jogi Low. The simplicity of their pass & move is delightful.

Very interesting opinions here. Just to be different, I am going to address a different aspect, namely, how we are dealing with, according to the statisticians on this site, the inordinate number of forays we make into opposition penalty areas? My son, resident in England for the past ten years, and a frequent TV viewer of A-League matches, has quizzed me on more than one occasion regarding the predilection of our A-League teams entering their opponent's penalty area and, on not identifying an obvious avenue to scoring a goal, recirculate the ball back to half way, or perhaps even the keeper, in an endeavour to mount another attack. He points out, and I wholeheartedly agree with him, that by refusing to shoot for goal when in, or close to, your opponent's penalty area, you are diminishing your chances of scoring. You are, in effect, ignoring an opportunity to score, or to profit from a deflection or rebound. As a supporter of Brisbane Roar, I can see from where the Socceroo philosophy emanates. I was more than once disappointed by the number of goal scoring opportunities squandered by Brisbane Roar with the desire to keep possession. But this is the style of play adopted by the Socceroos. Even when we do shoot for goal, the attempts appear to be measured. No venom. No screamers. No opportunities created to score from rebounds or deflections. No player positioned to look to profit from rebounds off the woodwork or an opponent. Is this due to not wishing to surrender possession? I suspect the answer is "yes'! The Socceroo's shots at goal are "measured". They are not full blooded! Many football luminaries, including prominent Brazilians, have pointed out that you can't score if you don't shoot! This philosophy was probably best summed up by North American Ice Hockey star Wayne Gretzky who famously stated: "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take". We need to start scoring goals! Are we capable?

Had those inches be in our favour in the Thai game, we would have top the pool & not have to go thru a playoff, would be be having these conversations. So you know better then most JB, the difference between a hero or a villian is only a matter of inches.

JB, there is a lot criticism of Ange, some as you have clearly pointed out are valid & over our discussions I have pointed some out as well, other criticism is plain witch hunting from fans & media alike. Those figures don't paint a very attacking team, however, I have watch a lot those matches & we have created a lot of goal scoring opportunities both Saudis games, both Thailand games, etc, only against Japan did we struggle, we are creating far more then those figures suggest, now why are we not converting? Our players are not good enough, strong, park the buses defences or plain bad luck? Take your pick. Personally, I prefer that we create & not score then not create at all. So I would say yes we have an attacking mind, are we quick enough in transition to hurt the better teams, no. However, with this attacking attitude has brought about deficiencies in our defence & it''s here that I feel a lot of the criticism is valid. When team gets the upper hand we need to absorb the pressure. We are not doing that.

Nemesis - Irrespective of who was involved this was a classic bit of attacking football right out of the coaching book into how to breakdown a "stacked" defence . When Rogic played the ball towards Leckie that man was already on the move and his pace immediately put his opponent under pressure,but the fact that instead of trying to beat the full back and get clear, he simply laid what is known as an "early ball" across and behind a retreating defence leaving Cahill with the simplest of tasks in " losing" his sole marker and "doing the deed." My big question "Why with 76% possession did we have to wait 109 minutes for a repeat dose?". Cheers jb.

Lionheart- When you are involved in a competItion played over 4 weeks involving 4 or 5 matches against similar ,if not better, teams, "rotation" becomes very important. When you are playing in a sudden death game that has as it's prize progress into the next round, the pendulum swings slightly over to playing what you regard as your "best team". It is in this area AP has supplied ammunition for his critics. The replacing of Smith,a fast running ,aggressive wing back after 10 minutes with a ball playing creative midfielder who is not the fastest player in the squad left a lot of quite intelligent people legitimately wondering what was going on. The fact that Mooy played a reasonable game did help the situation,but can you imagine the criticism if he had had a stinker Food for thought. jb..

"the Socceroos coach reflects a focus on what his players can do on a football pitch – not what they can’t" is astute, much more so than than some, but I do fear his final words are more wishful thinking than observed fact, at least based on the evidence I see. 'However his tenure finishes, it has promoted a more developed sense of thinking when it comes to Australian football'.

Lionheart -Thanks for the reply but I'm afraid we have to part with differing opinions when it comes to allocating " brownie points" for shots at goal,chances created , and near things. If we were to do that across the board it could be argued we could have been out of the WC if that free kick that Syria took at the end of normal time, had been 6 inches to the left. Now I did not criticise AP for those figures I gave you I simply used them to highlight what has happened in Socceroo games over the last 12 months and the figures don't reflect SUCCESSFUL, all out attacking, football. That word "successful " is all important for, football is not decided in shots, shots off and on target, chances created , or "near things". Goals are what count and to win you have to score more than you concede The Socceroos have only achieved minimum figures in that department this last year. To get close to your heart,can you start to imagine where the Roar would have finished in the league in recent years if they had converted all of the chances and near things they created.? The mind boggles. Cheers jb

Good comment Melange. Yes, you are quite correct, Popa was on a yellow and Hiddink feared a red so got Harry on quick as - there's a good doco on that match with Arnie and Gus telling it as it was. And yes, they highlight the lucky goal by Bresch courtesy of Kewel miskick, and the plan to sub on Spider Kalac for Schwarzer (who was the hero of the pen shootout, would Kalac have saved those pens?). Talk about a hypocritical media, and a bandwagon full of "fans".

Punter - Those figures were addressed to Lionheart based on the statement he had made concerning a back 3 and how it was performing. They were in no way pointing the finger at AP, but the figures do reflect a more realistic picture as to what has happened in the last year. AP has never hidden behind his words when he said he was going to change the way Australia plays, and all those figures pointed out was that in games played, the team has,in competitive games, attained an average score line 1.58 goals to 1.08 goals. Now you and I over that last year have been told the Socceroos were playing a far more open game than before and yet those figures do not reflect that happening, Not counting draws the lowest score in football is 1-0 ,next up is 2-1,and the Socceroos average lies between those figures. To me and my thinking I don;'t care whether the Socceroos win a game 1-0 or 5-4, a win is a win but let's not kid ourselves,those figures don't reflect all out attacking football. To answer your question,I don't criticise AP,he was offered a job he could not refuse and the only problem I have had was when he has been forced to bite back words he made in the early days re. "you miust be playing regularly for your club etc". Those were words and thoughts he would have been better keeping to himself. Cheers jb..

the figures show nothing, and no, I have not missed a minute of the Socceroos. I've even watched a few replays from previous campaigns. Erratic - that's a subjective assessment, again.

Exactly, "come and get us", and they did, an away goal after 5 minutes

confusion and indecision – two words that well describe the team over the last 12 months Certainly I have not heard a single player say that. But of course, pundits watching on TV can see and have an insight that even the players and coach don't get. From what I've seen, players are often left on the bench without explanation. not least to motivate them. Listen to Cahill and a few of the players speak before you judge.