Five talking points from Socceroos vs Denmark 2018 FIFA World Cup

The Socceroos have eeked out a 1-all draw with Denmark in their second match of the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Here’s five talking points from the match.

Once again Australia perform as a footballing nation
Can people please stop saying that Australia isn’t a footballing nation?

I mean, seriously, we are a football nation. We very much are a football nation.

We literally have millions of participants of the game, along with millions of viewers of our national team on the world stage, and for the second World Cup game in a row, we have taken the contest to more highly fancied European opponents.

At this World Cup, in two games in a row, we have played disciplined, skilled, fast-paced, highly entertaining football that has pushed our opponents to their own limits.

For all the talk about having an ageing midfielder as our main goal scoring option, no defence, and no truly world class players, this World Cup (as with the 2014 version, and as with the 2010 version) has again shown that we have talented players.

Trent Sainsbury has been a world class central defensive pillar, Aaron Mooy and Mathew Leckie have been world class, and Andrew Nabbout, Daniel Arzani, and Tomi Juric have been more than ample focal points and goal scoring options up front.

We need to stop selling ourselves short, and remove this mindset that football is some hobby that we participate in on the side of our more important domestic codes.

If four World Cup qualifications in a row and strong performances in every tournament can’t prove that we are a footballing nation, I’m not sure what ever will.

Yes it was disappointing not to finish off Denmark with a second half performance in which we dominated, but dominate we did.

As a much greater mind than I said: if Iran and Japan can beat their more fancied opponents, why can’t we?

Why can’t we indeed.

Eriksen the Great
France scored two goals against us off a VAR inspired penalty kick and an own goal. So Denmark were able to do what France could not, score against us themselves from open play.

And what a strike it was.

Christian Eriksen’s strike was world class, and for any avid follower of the English Premier League, his quality was no surprise.

The lead up play though, the touches, the movement, and that final strike, were sights to behold, and the very reason that you stay up late at night to watch a sporting competition on the other side of the world.

If you actually watch a particular angle of the shot from behind Eriksen, the strike is of such forceful and violent execution, Mat Ryan in fact gets his hands to the ball to absolutely no avail.

He gets his hands in the general vicinity of the ball, because so fast was the bullet-like shot, that the ball is through Ryan’s hands by the time he gets them in place. And Ryan reflexively gets in position with enough time to make the same.

Nobody has ever complained when Australia concedes goals simply for the reason that the other team scored. The issue has always been about making the opposition earn their goals.

A shot like that from Eriksen gave Denmark everything that a shot like that deserved: a World Cup goal.

(Photo by Robert Cianflone/Getty Images)

VAR: Friend to Australia?
And speaking of the VAR, after all the pain and agony of an A-League season riven with VAR controversy, after the controversial VAR intervention in our first World Cup match to rob us of a potential outcome, is Australia now friend of the VAR?

As Australian players screamed for a penalty for yet another handball, the referee waved play on, and to be honest, the Socceroos seemed relatively at peace with his decision.

The moment the referee’s hand went to his ear though, you know something was up, and to the referee’s credit, he took one view, and immediately pointed to the spot.

Even awarded a yellow card for Youssef Poulsen.

So was it a penalty? Probably. Sorry, the fact that it was awarded, from a metaphysical point of view, yes, it was a penalty.

But I have seen them given, I’ve also seen them not given. In this match, we saw both, for the same incident.

The issue though is again about the VAR intervention itself, not necessarily whether the call was ultimately right.

Remember, for all the talk about arms being away from the body, unnatural position, the rule is in fact quite clear.

Handball is “a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm.” And that is just the first step.

The hand then has to move “towards the ball.” Specifically, the ball mustn’t necessarily move towards the hand.

Now whether it was or it was not a handball, there appears to be little debate, and aside from myself and Craig Foster, I haven’t heard many argue that it wasn’t a handball.

But by the same token, at the time and in the moment, it didn’t necessarily look like a handball, and the Australian players seemed content to play on.

So when the play continued happily, and the VAR intervened, had it in fact overturned a clear and obvious error?

I’m not convinced.

Once again Arzani precedes Cahill
For three World Cups in a row, when the chips were down, when we needed something to drag us off the canvas, that gold number 4 jersey was always on hand to give us something.

In tournaments gone past, in these types of matches against France and Denmark, the time would have been ripe in both of those matches for the ageing warrior to warm up, take off his bib, come on, and save the day.

Instead?

It was the new dawn who was given that opportunity.

Daniel Arzani was the great unknown coming into Russia.

Would a few A-League appearances adequately prepare a young body for the rigours and demands of international football? Not just international football, the greatest prize in football: World Cup football.

The answer is a resounding yes.

The young man was in everything when he came in, coming close to nabbing a winner himself, his incisive runs and dribbles reminding this writer of a young Harry Kewell over 20 years ago lighting up the stage.

If ever there was a changing of the guard for this team, our game against Denmark was it.

Here is hoping that we will see Tim Cahill against Peru, in some capacity.

For now though? We will hopefully see him, but his time has passed, and certainly, we no longer need to see him.

(Photo by Robert Cianflone/Getty Images)

Fate out of our hands
So come our final game, our fate will not be in our hands.

We will be in a position where even a convincing win may not be enough if, as expected, France and Denmark are facing each other where a mere draw is enough for the both of them.

Bert Van Marwijk will be frustrated by our inability to score from open play (two goals, both penalties), and against Denmark, we needed a strike to give us the goal that would have given us three vital group points.

The unfortunate loss of Nabbout to a seeming World Cup ending shoulder dislocation was a sad ending for the striker, and a head scratcher for the coach.

And more frustrating is that as we look to Peru with hope, where we will need goals, but have fewer goal scorers, we should have instead been looking to Peru in command.

A point against France, and a win against Denmark, while such margins are miniscule, in a World Cup, the size of the margin matters not.

The fact of the matter is that after 180 minutes of world-class performance, we have not provided the world-class scoring to top it off.

And we head to our third match against Peru, hoping that they have beaten France, or hoping that France are in the mood to win all three games.

And the thing about hope is that it can be as uplifting as it can be devastating when that hope is all for nothing.

In Russia, our team deserved more than mere hope. So hopefully, after 270 minutes, we have a win and a passage to the round of 16.