In 2010, Pim Verbeek took the Socceroos to the World Cup finals in South Africa on the back of an almost perfect qualifying campaign.
As he headed into the final game of the group stages, he had garnered one point for the side with even a win in the final game not guaranteeing passage to the next phase. This was on the back of a tactics nightmare against Germany, and one almost brilliant tactical performance against Ghana.
In 2018, Bert van Marwijk heads into the final pool game with one point, knowing that even a win in the last game may not guarantee passage to the round of 16. This has become the situation due to one almost brilliant tactical performance against France, and a tactical nightmare against Denmark.
The similarities end there to an extent. The 2010 team was all Verbeek’s, he had them for the entire qualifying campaign and the team were undefeated in the final phase, conceding only one goal in the process.
The 2018 team is one van Marwijk has come to ‘caretake’ between the departure of Ange Postecoglou and the eventual ascension of Graeme Arnold.
Nonetheless, the team has his blueprint; gone is the back three and high-pressing favoured by Postecoglou. In its place is the more familiar 4-2-3-1, a deeper, more defensive set-up, which almost gave the Socceroos what would have been a deserved point against France.
Andrew Nabbout looks on for the Socceroos. (Photo by Robert Cianflone/Getty Images)
However, having not secured that point, things needed to change against Denmark. Performance-wise, they certainly did.
Tactically, they didn’t. When Christian Eriksen scored an eighth minute cracker, the mindset seemed to be “don’t concede a second.”
Fair enough, but once achieved, and once the Socceroos equalised from the penalty spot through the ice-cool MIle Jedinak, there was only one team in this realistically.
That was the time for van Marwijk to take the game by the scruff of the neck. The introduction of Daniel Arzani for Robbie Kruse was a step in the right direction, albeit too late for my liking. But when Andrew Nabbout succumbed to a shoulder injury, it was a scenario tailor-made for Tim Cahill.
I know, that’s hardly an original refrain – many fans and pundits have shouted the same thing from rooftops around the country. It’s no disrespect to Tomi Juric, but his game is not one suited to going in search of a winner. He’s a target man, needed to hold the ball up and try to bring others into the periphery.
With Tom Rogic on the rampage and Matthew Leckie and the fresh Arzani causing headaches down each Danish flank, that wasn’t what was needed.
If that was a head-scratcher, the substituting of Rogic for Jackson Irvine was a mystery worthy of Agatha Christie. Once again, this was not a scenario made for Irvine’s talents. He’s a box-to-box midfielder who would be a perfect addition to a side protecting a lead with 20 minutes to go, if not from the beginning of the match.
When it’s 1-1 and a win is vital, and the opposition is on the ropes with their star player unsighted since the opening ten minutes, and your bench also includes the likes of Mass Luongo and Dimitri Petratos (not to mention that man Cahill again, who has filled the Number 10 role in the past), the only conclusion to be arrived at was that van Marwijk didn’t know his personnel well enough.
Which brings us back to Tim Cahill. Given the howls of protest over his non-appearance were at Optus non-appearance-of-picture levels, it may be that the Prime Minister is sitting in The Lodge wondering whether his intervention is needed again.
Tim Cahill (AAP Image/Dean Lewins)
With 16 clear deliveries into the Danish penalty area from wide positions, the law of averages suggests that the Socceroos all-time leading scorer may well have got on the end of one of those late in the game.
Otherwise, why take him? There have been suggestions that Cahill’s desire to get on the pitch is motivated by individual goals – that is, to score in a fourth successive World Cup.
This has been held up as some kind of detriment, that Cahill is selfish. News flash – he’s supposed to be selfish, and those personal motivations gel completely with the team desire – that is, to score the goal necessary to have taken all three points against the Danes.
Which is not to say he would have, but due to van Marwijk’s puzzling reluctance, it means we may well never know, just like in 2010.
joeb
Roar Rookie
This guy van Marwijk doesn't want Australia to progress to the next round. You'd have to be brain-dead to think he does. Didn't the Roos defeat his team the Netherlands in recent times, twice, so for BvM this is square-up get even time. And he's doing a hell of a good job by not allowing Cahill to play. Meanwhile Gallop, Lowy and the FFA (who should shoulder the blame for this world cup disaster) have handed Arnie a Herculean task -- qualify us for 2022 Arnie... and if you walk out in disgust as Ange did, well, we'll simply hire another Dutchman so that our campaign can once again be derailed. Cahill was instrumental in helping the Roos qualify for Moscow 2018, yet his reward now is to be completely left out of the action -- Cahill is "our" Ronaldo! He has to play! He must! So Gallop's and Lowy's and the FFA's "in our wisdom" decision to appoint this Dutch fellow ahead of Graham Arnold following Postecoglu's dummy spit walk out is proving a disaster for Australian soccer... What to do? Sack the Dutchman immediately and call in Arnold right now, or Kevin Muscat or John Aloisi or Tony Popovic or even Paul Okon, but this conniving shrewd two-faced Dutch bugger must go immediately because if Cahill had have played in both matches thus far for 30 or 40 minutes there's every chance we could have beaten France and Denmark and be top of our group.
Nemesis
Guest
I've only read the headline and my answer is: No. Australia went toe-to-toe with the strongest nation in our Group in 2018. We were finally beaten with an own goal with 10' to play. In 2010, under Verbeek, Australia was blown away by Germany within the opening 20'. We played like timid losers and we lost heavily. We did not play like timid losers vs France. Yes we were measured & reactive; not proactive. But we were organised & functioned as a unit. Let's wait for the final match vs Peru. If we beat Peru, we'll end with exactly the same Group results as Verbeek & Hiddink. In 2006, Hiddink got a 2-0 loss vs Brazil (strongest ranked nation in the group) and 2-2 draw vs Croatia. We beat the lowest ranked team in our group, JPN. Under BVM we've lost 2-1 against the strongest team in the group and 1-1 draw vs Denmark.
apaway
Roar Guru
The comparison is with where the team stands going into the last game. The article was not a comparison between the two as coaches. As for the non-playing of Cahill: I did state in the article that the non-playing of Luongo was more of a puzzle in those last 15 minutes against the Danes.
apaway
Roar Guru
With respect, that isn't the question at all.
MQ
Guest
Coincidentally, I just wrote on another thread that if there are any socceroo fans out there who are unsure of what quality finishing means, they ought to have a look at how Lukaku goes about it.
shirtpants
Roar Guru
And while it's fun to discuss tactics and offer criticism etc - at the end of the day BvM has seen and knows a lot more about this squad than we do, especially how they are mentally and physically at present. A lot of it boils down to the frustration that we could have had more than we do but we are still in with a decent chance.
Fadida
Guest
BVM has done well to this point. We are in a really hard group, the lowest ranked team by a distance. Arguably we deserve 2 points and could have had 4. We are greater than the sum of the parts. Postecoglou jumped ship after a very poor qualifying campaign. Less than the sum of the parts BVM had had very limited preparation time, time in which he's had to actually organise the team, something they haven't had for some time. We'd be out now had Ange stayed in, probably having scored 3 and conceded 8. Verbeek had along period with his team. There is no comparison. BVM is seeing Cahill in training into and doesn't feel he'd make an impact. Neill Harris at Millwall saw him in action and thought the same. I felt the last 15 was the time to throw him on, but BVM, a WC final making coach doesn't agree. On this occasion I'll defer to his judgement :)
Fadida
Guest
Agree
anon
Roar Pro
Bert's had 6 games with this group. I don't remember this criticism of Ange when we were struggling to qualify for the World Cup, drawing with the likes of Thailand (and getting outplayed), nearly losing to a war-torn Syria. I don't remember any criticism of Ange when he was playing his pet players. The whole qualification campaign was an utter disaster. Against many minnow teams where we could barely score (with Cahill), or win with authority. It was like the media where too petrified to question Ange. Playing Bert's style of soccer we would have qualified top of our group. Could you imagine how bad it would have been for soccer in this country if we hadn't qualified for the World Cup? Would have set the game back years. And Ange nearly blew it playing pet players, stubbornly playing a style of football ill-suited to us because he was angling to be coach for a European club. Used the national team as his own selfish experiment. The question shouldn't be should x player have played against Denmark, but what the heck was going on for the last three years under Ange.
Eddie Otto
Roar Guru
The bottom line is is Football you need a goal scorer. I have see plenty of teams this WC play great football and dominate periods however they lack the killer instinct in the box and quality to get the goals. Morocco were excellent in both games and failed to score a goal. Australia have performed really well and been tactically sound for mine. However if you don't have someone up front with the quality then you end up frustrated.
Kangas
Roar Rookie
BVM has made great improvements , but Cahill should have come on and arzani needs to come on at least at half time .
BrainsTrust
Guest
Verbeek went in with old and useless players in Moore,Chipperfield and Grella. That cost Australia with goal difference in the first game.
Griffo
Roar Guru
It has been noted that BvM sole aim is to navigate out of a tricky group. That may yet occur - with a suitable impressive goal scoring performance against Peru - but it may not. For now BvM has a game plan at play for the group stage, and given his short prep time, he looks to be going with something that has the least amount of risk. It just may be Cahill doesn’t figure into those plans. Yet. The answer to your question is no. I think Verbeek would have lost that game against a poorer France by a greater margin, where BvM may only have lost 2-nill against Germany in 2010.
stu
Guest
the management of a team is not simply based on the 'name' behind a selected player. there will be so many issues going on in the background that the average punter knows nothing off. My thought on Cahill was nothing much more than a free pass as a mentor. I suppose the final judgement will rest with Craig Foster, if he attacked the coach as he did in SA, then there you have it.
bob
Roar Rookie
Whilst every man and his dog has jumped on the Timmy bandwagon, what is puzzling is the lack of game time for Luongo who seemed to suit BvM's style quite well in the warm up games.