Matildas take big step towards Olympics

Polkinghorne has been a great asset - however her reflexes are not as sharp now and may prove a pivotal weakness against top teams imo

Yes Redendo, you could see with every bad pass Polkinghorne, Kennedy and Kellond-Knight hit, they lost more & more confidence & their passes started to go more sideways then forward. Yes the passes were poor, the forwards & midfields were not moving as much as they should have, Van Edmond was non existence until that goal, Brilliantly set up by Simon. yes even Kerr, Raso & Foord was not making themselves available. Our first touch, ahhhh, both Matildas & Socceroos could do with a Ninkoviette or a Ninko mate. Though Mooy is pretty good.

I don't think there overrated, I think their undermanaged, and under coached and as such are underperforming. As for the the Asian cup, well we did draw with SKorea and Japan so it wasn't a poor tournament, in the thailand game I think the Matildas were already thinking about Japan, and didn't turn up to play, sure it's poor excuse to the game, but we didn't have a bad tournament.

What we do is improve the technical qualities of the kids starting out. At the u17 World Cup, the Aussie kids aged 15, 16, 17 were technically as good as our opponents: Ecuador & Hundary. I'd also suggest we were not too far behind Nigeria, but they were far superior physically. Just bigger lads at that age. France were at an even higher level - technically & tactically. So, we don't give up. We strive to be better. And, we are getting better. Watch the Y-League Grand Final. The kids there on both sides have terrific touch, ability to shield the ball, dribbling. The way they caress the ball is similar to watching Futsal.

I suggest you watch the Group matches & Knockout matches at Asian Cup 2018, under Stajcic. It was the first time I realised the Women's team might be over-rated. We were awful. In the semi-final Australia played Thailand. Thailand were leading 2-1 with 2 minutes of stoppage time to play. Equaliser came at 90+1. Extra time no more goals, so Australia relied on a penalty shootout to beat Thailand. This was under Alen Stajcic's coaching.

Good question Punter. I think possession-based football is the way to go, but the tactics have to be tempered to fit the available players, and the possession has to have a point, not just be a stat you can point to. From what I've seen of them, Polkinghorne, Kennedy and Kellond-Knight are shaky under pressure. They can play out but they need those upfield to reduce the pressure on them by forcing the opposition to cut back on the effort and numbers the opposition devotes to doing the pressing. That means the team needs to create uncertainty by mixing up the way it moves forward. Currently, it's too predictable and opponents can reasonably safely target the Matilda's backline and defensive midfielders with a high press. China had 6 players doing that in the Matilda's half last night, consistently forcing the ball back or wide and then picking off the players receiving the short forward passes. The problem last night was the back 3 often had no option other than a wide, sideways pass, and the fullbacks often had no option other than to turn the ball back to the back 3. And, playing out from the back relies on the whole team forming a lattice of viable passing options so the ball can be moved safely upfield. As Caltex points out elsewhere, last night the Matilda's forwards didn't give the back 5 decent options. Kerr, Ford and Raso stayed too wide and too far forward to be easily hit with passes, so they rarely were. And van Egmond was well-marked and totally ineffective. But, in the end, it does come down to touch (as you often point out). Sydney can counter a press because they have players with great touch, like Ninkovic and Baumjohann, who move centrally to receive short or long or rifled passes from deeper players - typically McGowan and Brattan. Because Ninkovic and Baumjohann can handle even the high-speed passes, they drag defenders to them and allow the fullbacks to go forward down the wings. And, in combination, that opens up space for Le Fondre and Barbarouses behind the defence. I wasn't so confident about Corica when he took over but the way he has Sydney playing is a great illustration of effective possession football. They can go forward short or long, and wide or through the middle. And they only faff around holding the ball when they are settling the game or defending a lead late in a game. So the Matildas need two things: a Ninkovicette in midfield, and, Milicic to have a word to Corica.

Sometimes recognising that the ugly game is reqiured, is the key to winning the game.

Funny the malleability we saw under stadjic has dried up under milicic, it basically shows a lack of flexibility in milicic's game plan. But hey we beat Taiwan 7-0, so all's well.

Milicic is definitely from the Ange school of thought, as a matter of fact, any school of thought these days of any great team. play out from the back. Or more importantly have the 1st touch that is near perfect, then look up for options. The Matildas stuck to the game plan of Millicic, the question is why because like the Socceroos we do not have the players capable of playing out from the back, why not, when pressed our first touch is poor. Now this is the way to go, but if we don't persist how do we get better, how do we find players suited to this type of football. Redendo, this is the question I posed to you & others, what do we do? Do we persist & get caught out like we did/should have a few times yesterday & hopefully improve. Or do we go back to out strengths, relying more on our physical ability. Notice the drop in the Matildas form as co-incided with the change the European women (with rich clubs) rise in recent years, where playing out from the back is very normal & their first touch is excellent.

Although I shouldn't have to validate my position on a comment board, I did because maybe jumping on people is a stupid thing to do, when the comment is justified. As for bronze.. at this moment i would take it, 18 months ago the question would have been what happened? I'm not saying doing there best isn't important, but if the game plan is wrong questions need to be asked.

Did not watch the game due to other commitments. However, there are certain factors not mentioned in this article or posts that could have delivered a reality check. Firstly, the tournament was transferred from China to Australia due to the Coronavirus issue. China lost their home advantage, whilst we gained ours. Secondly, four China squad members (including two rated as stars) missed the trip as they were in quarantine in their home country. Thirdly, the China squad arrived in Brisbane on 29 January, but were quarantined in their hotel until 5 February. Hardly the acclimatisation process they had in mind. Certainly not ideal. Simply a reality check that should have been delivered in the article.

Great analysis Griffo---yet it was only in the last four minutes of extra time our girls decided to play to their full potential. How many times do you see that happen anywhere in the world game?

Flexibility is not Ante's thing, so I guess you'll get your wish.

Well summed up RK, both re Kdog's comments and Milicic's tactics.

I think he should have played his best eleven over the last two games not the last game. 7 changes for the last game could have been a factor. Who knows? But that static movement was unusual from the girls---it was only in the last 4 minutes we had every player moving and busting their butts with and without the ball.

Credit to China who executed a tactical plan almost to perfection. A bit of luck, a correct call, and better finishing and the narrative around the match could have been very different. China's press was a circular formation with a line of 2-front, 3-behind, that would collectively shift sideways and link up with a wide-midfield player to reduce the passing lines. Rarely was a Matilda in the middle of this circle of forward press, and this was kept up for most of the match. At times we did break through this, especially early, but we turned the ball over in defence or midfield far too many times. We did have meaningful attack but again China's defensive line were good enough for the most part to reduce clear cut chances to a few. Whether the girls were having an off day or not, they were facing a challenging opponent that were not allowing them space, applying huge pressure on the ball, were very physical, and reducing the normal play of linking from defence to midfield with short passing. And we were guilty of adding to our own defensive pressure by some soft back passing to Williams, chiefly Polkinghorne but also Catley, which were nearly punished a couple of times. Still we had to play through all this: we made our own chances, some close, with some good defence when it mattered (Polks with a block around 5-10 minutes before China's goal when the trigger was being pulled). And when going behind we didn't panic, or hoof it long. We found a result (this time) which is what good teams do. There is much improvement as always, chiefly strategies when moving out of defence and the passing when using the sweeper-keeper position, when a team applies a press. China have probably applied a tactical template others, like Vietnam, may look to use in future, but if that doesn't work there still needs to be a Plan B against our attack. If Vietnam's defence is suspect then we'll punish them. A draw was all we needed and sometimes you need a little luck to get a result. China may feel hard done by in this game but they had their chances. The Matildas deserved their result as much as China didn't deserve theirs. For in this mini-tournament collectively it showed the Matildas edged China overall and deserve to face Vietnam. And as a Novocastrian I'm totally pumped they are playing in my backyard and can't wait for this match. Two more games to qualify for Tokyo. They've got this. It's in their hands after all.

All true Caltex. The midfield was one big hole most of the time, with everyone spread wide or forward. It looks deliberate i.e. it's what Milicic wants.

We didn't win - we were lucky to draw and could easily have lost by 2 or 3 goals. Better teams will kill us if we persist with the mono-focus on 'playing out from the back', which in practice is really just playing sideways at the back.

Redondo – the front third were static and created no options for those at the back to play to on more than one occasion I care to remember. I saw holes in the midfield where the front third could of dropped into to receive the ball; they didn’t. Also to discourage the high press the back four need to play quick safe one touch passes at the back—this quickly discourages the high press, they didn’t; they were hesitant in that, because of the lack of movement from everyone. I think also some of the girls looked under done, Milicic made 7 changes, and Sam Kerr looked liked she is still carrying an injury—she wasn’t working nearly as hard enough off the ball, as she normally does.

"Y?" Because it's a typical anti-football comment from those who follow other football codes. Your second comment should have been your first and only one---and no one would have jumped on you. Please remember there are those out there who would like to see our Aussie girls fail for no other good reason other than for their own insecure selfish reasons that are un-Australian. Even if we only get a bronze, it will be a success story they can be proud of.