- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
It’s happening far away, out of sight to the casual observer, but Tim Cahill’s World Cup case is steadily putrefying.
Yesterday, the striker was banned for three matches, admitting to a violent conduct charge while playing for Millwall in a loss to Fulham on Friday. It was Milwall’s first loss in the league for 14 games; the Lions are pushing for a playoff spot, three points outside the top six, and Cahill has been at the club for all but one game of that unbeaten streak.
On the surface – which, in truth, is the closest the majority of Australian fans tend to look at the Championship – it all looks rosy. The standard of the English second division is higher than that of the A-League, and if Cahill is on a team doing well, that can only be good for his World Cup hopes, right?
Well, no, because even if we discount the thuggery that led to yesterday’s ban, Cahill’s impact on Millwall’s success has been so minimal as to be almost irrelevant. He’s played 28 total minutes in Millwall’s last eight games, sitting out two of those matches entirely.
He is yet to start a game. He has not scored, or assisted for the club yet, having arrived at the end of January. He has more bookings this season than he does shots, or key passes. If Bert van Marwijk chooses his World Cup squad based on form, and Cahill continues like this at Millwall, then there will be no conceivable argument available that would convince anyone to select Cahill over literally any of the other striking alternatives.
No one likes Millwall, and they don’t care; no one should like Cahill’s chances of playing a leading role at his fourth World Cup, and he really should care.
So if Cahill is to be selected, it will be based on reputation; the lingering view is that Cahill’s recent performances for the Socceroos are good enough to justify his inclusion.
How sound is this view? He has started five of the last 12 Roos games, scoring two goals, a good return for a run of that size. But the larger view shows he’s scored just three goals since June last year, a run of 21 matches in which Cahill was present in the squad.
In 14 of those 21 games, Cahill was used as a substitute, or not at all. His age has meant the sight of Cahill starting and finishing a game has become a rarity over the past two years, which isn’t surprising.
His recent form for the national team – and this is what has actually stoked the lingering confidence in his ability to deliver – has been punctuated by two excellent performances in crunch matches, against Syria in October last year, and then in November against Honduras, the match that sealed Big Tourney qualification.
He scored twice against Syria, a wondrous individual performance, and played the full 120 minutes of that extra-time thriller. When the World Cup kicks off, it will have been a little over eight months since that Syria game.
At what point do the few great, important Cahill performances for the Roos become too stale to be brought out in his defence?
Of course, a large portion of people who argue for Cahill’s inclusion cite a lack of alternatives as the main compelling factor. Yes, Cahill is clearly not the ideal number one option, but in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
How sound is this view? Well, Tomi Juric, who has been the Roos’ first-choice striker for a while now, is playing regularly for FC Luzern, starting 21 of 27 league matches, with seven goals and six assists, along with a couple of Europa League goals.
He’s scored twice as many Socceroos goals as Cahill since June 2016, although his misses have made a deeper imprint on the memory.
Tomi Juric of the Socceroos celebrates a goal. (Photo by Michael Dodge/Getty Images)
Jamie Maclaren moved to SV Darmstadt 98 last July, but spent more time on the bench than on the pitch. For a while, it looked as though his move to Europe was – like so many other Australians who leave the A-League – perhaps made a little prematurely, and would end up hurting his career more than helping it, but then a loan move to Hibs materialised, and things have changed.
He’s started seven of 11 league games for Hibs, and has scored four total goals, including a biggie last week against Scottish juggernauts Celtic. His fortunes have been revived.
Nikita Rukavystya scored ten goals in the recently completed Israeli Premier League season, and was selected by van Marwijk for the friendlies against Norway and Colombia. Both he and Maclaren haven’t really made an impression for the national team, albeit without having had much of an opportunity to do so. Andrew Nabbout – admittedly not a traditional striker – can also point to his club form this season as reason enough to be considered for Russia.
Naturally, how the manager decides to arrange his team, and under what system, will in turn decide which striker is picked. Does van Marwijk want a pivot-point up front, to hold the ball up and lay it off to a streaking Matt Leckie, or Daniel Arzani?
[latest_videos_strip category=“football” name=“Football”]
Then Maclaren’s stock drops and Juric and Cahill’s rise. Does he start Robbie Kruse, whose off-the-ball running and angled movement are his primary assets? In that case Rukavystya’s pace and directness might muddle things.
Does he want an off-the-should poacher, who can appear to tap home sudden, incisive counter-attacks? Well, recent evidence suggests Maclaren is his man. Van Marwijk experimented – unsuccessfully in my view – with Jackson Irvine as a sort of bullocking, vertical No.10 against Norway.
He’d need a striker who can step out onto the flanks, or back into midfield, and make room while still contributing to the attack in that case; Cahill seems the best candidate here.
How to proceed in that regard is a whole other conversation, into which a host of other factors must be included. But when comparing all the striking candidates on their current merits, and making sensible projections as to how these merits will change between now and June, it’s hard to see Cahill being the preferred choice.
We may have to wipe away our rose-tinted spectacles at some point.