Match stats/analysis for recent Socceroo games

[Alex M]

Good points made, Alex M.

There has been little analysis in Aus which tactics the opposition used against Aus. They forced Aus to play a certain way in different games.

I think only Turkey didn't have a game plan against us (unless that plan was simply we have better players so we will win). In the other games the USA pressed early and got on top of us and it took us half a game to get back on track. Unlike other people I think an improved performance after a break is a sign of good coaching. Paraguay went super defensive and were happy with the point. We didn't need to win so there was no point trying to go all out and exposing yourself. Egypt was a pretty even game. We handled the game part ok but the penalty efforts were poor and exposed a bit of our lack of experience. I get the feeling that a lot of analysis is overly critical of certain aspects of our game because they don't like the person or under critical because the person is a favourite of theirs. The truth about our WC performance was that we performed at about the expected level. Maybe some people had higher expectations because we over performed last time around. The Asian Cup was a more accurate reflection of where we stood at the time. I think with another 6 months experience we have a fighters chance of winning the Asian Cup and would be disappointed with an exit before the semi finals, although sometimes you can't do much about your draw.

 

[erogenouszone]

I have always viewed Irvine as a curate's egg type of a player with positives and negatives
Negatives: 1.Ordinary first touch
2. Limited passing range
3.Lack of pace
4.Guilty of many turnovers due to 1 and 2
5.Can be a traffic cone in defence.
Positives: 1.Leadership skills
2.Surprising but welcome ability to appear in the box and score goals
3.Often puts in great tackles despite 5 above.

He has done well and at least can say he has played in 3 WCs and in Bundesliga 1
I feel he should be thanked for his efforts and no longer be selected for the Socceroos-maybe give him a run in one of the Brazil games and then that's that.

See he does well at club level because he's not used in the way that the Popa system demands.

 

[JS96]

Volpato probably did more than McGree would've. If McGree starts, we don't score either goal against Turkey. Okon probably passes short to McGree who is in Irankunda's place and Metcalfe likely isn't on or in the area either.

McGree is underutilised and underperforms for Australia. The next Asian Cup has to be his tournament.

 

[LFC]

cheeez Quicky, some comments make us sound short sighted more so shallow eh.

 

[Quicky]

cheeez Quicky, some comments make us sound short sighted more so shallow eh.

I think Decentric is papering over just how poor that US game was. Someone else made a comment about it being the players not coaches. The players were a factor too so thats not wrong.

I think it misses just how cleverly Pocchetinos 3-5-2 exposed our midfield. They had an outnumber of one or two in midfield at all times and McKennie and Tillman destroyed us. It created the pressure that broke our defence, caused the own goal.

Selection was being too clever. Leckie and Velupillay were poor but they got selected over better players and, I think it's fair to say, their performances were predictable.

We looked nervous and mentally shot early and I think the coach has a role there too.

 

[Keeper66]

I think Decentric is papering over just how poor that US game was. Someone else made a comment about it being the players not coaches. The players were a factor too so thats not wrong.

I think it misses just how cleverly Pocchetinos 3-5-2 exposed our midfield. They had an outnumber of one or two in midfield at all times and McKennie and Tillman destroyed us. It created the pressure that broke our defence, caused the own goal.

Selection was being too clever. Leckie and Velupillay were poor but they got selected over better players and, I think it's fair to say, their performances were predictable.

We looked nervous and mentally shot early and I think the coach has a role there too.

Yep, we certainly were poor in that first half.

I couldn’t believe that he would not start Irankunda and Metcalfe after the team performance against Turkey. I mean, what was rationale for changing the starting lineup at all. I find it hard to believe anyone could argue it was rotation to rest players, given that each of the group games were 6 days apart (game days were Saturday v Turkey, Friday v USA and Thursday v Paraguay).

And bringing in both Leckie, who I’ve always thought was a good player in the past, but not after very little game time in the A Lesgue season, and Vellupilay who also had very little football, was a crazy move for which I have not heard anyone provide any good justification, including Popovic.

 

[Quicky]

Yep, we certainly were poor in that first half.

I couldn’t believe that he would not start Irankunda and Metcalfe after the team performance against Turkey. I mean, what was rationale for changing the starting lineup at all. I find it hard to believe anyone could argue it was rotation to rest players, given that each of the group games were 6 days apart (game days were Saturday v Turkey, Friday v USA and Thursday v Paraguay).

And bringing in both Leckie, who I’ve always thought was a good player in the past, but not after very little game time in the A Lesgue season, and Vellupilay who also had very little football, was a crazy move for which I have not heard anyone provide any good justification, including Popovic.

I'm trying to rationalise here, but I thought they were brought in for their pressing. I think Popovic wanted to press their defence, cause turnovers, and he thought Leckie and Velupillay were his best options for that.

The outnumber the USA had, and their quality in midfield, meant we couldn't effectively press them. They just had too many midfield options open always and they had time because of it. Then speed to play behind us.

It also didn't work because while Velupillay is quick against most teams, he wasn't as quick as the US players. Ditto Leckie.

It just created a heap of confusion around pressing triggers and we kept getting dragged out of position in two minds whether to press or drop.

Italianos failed press, the first in a chain of mistakes that lead to the opener, is the obvious example of it in the game.

We'd have been far better off playing our more dangerous forwards and making the US defence defend. Try to get in behind their one-paced defence.

 

[ClockworkOrange]

I think it’s simpler. Popa was playing tournament football. He just wanted to get through the USA game with a 2-0 loss at worst and rest some players for Paraguay. Worked out perfectly and we even got a better draw than if we’d beaten the US and finished top. Unfortunately, we blew it against Egypt.

 

[Decentric]

Volpato probably did more than McGree would've. If McGree starts, we don't score either goal against Turkey. Okon probably passes short to McGree who is in Irankunda's place and Metcalfe likely isn't on or in the area either.

McGree is underutilised and underperforms for Australia. The next Asian Cup has to be his tournament.

I don't think McGree underperforms for Aus, JS.

I don't see him play at club level, but he is our best forward in terms of defensive duties.

He constantly positions himself well to be the second defender in optimum positions to support the wing backs, when Aus cedes the ball in the opposition Ball Possession phase of play.

McGree makes timely tackles, effects more frequent intercepts, and easily causes the most turnovers of the attacking line in data I've compiled. Of course he is more experienced than any of the current others - Metcalfe, Villupillay, Toure, Irank, Volpato, Yengi. And better at his defensive duties than the experienced Mabil and Hrustic.

I think this WC showed Toure, Irank, Volpato, to be a bit better than their attacking teammates in an offensive context. I suspect Toure was carrying an injury. Hence , Popa didn't play him as much as expected.

If McGree was at the WC, we could have had another superior attacking outlet for the the front 3.

 

[Decentric]

I'm trying to rationalise here, but I thought they were brought in for their pressing. I think Popovic wanted to press their defence, cause turnovers, and he thought Leckie and Velupillay were his best options for that.

The outnumber the USA had, and their quality in midfield, meant we couldn't effectively press them. They just had too many midfield options open always and they had time because of it. Then speed to play behind us.

It also didn't work because while Velupillay is quick against most teams, he wasn't as quick as the US players. Ditto Leckie.

It just created a heap of confusion around pressing triggers and we kept getting dragged out of position in two minds whether to press or drop.

Italianos failed press, the first in a chain of mistakes that lead to the opener, is the obvious example of it in the game.

We'd have been far better off playing our more dangerous forwards and making the US defence defend. Try to get in behind their one-paced defence.

In response to me 'papering over' the USA/Roo game, it was almost a dichotomy. The first half was a shocker. The second half was much better from Aus.

The first half was poor in execution by Aus. Everything came off for USA. The American coach, Pottechino?, devised a similar game plan to Turkey, with Full Pressing and intensive Squeezing in the Aus defensive half. The difference was that the US defensive line was decidedly superior to the Turkish defensive line. It held Aus out.

I suppose it was high risk, high reward.

Then in the second half, USA didn't need to Squeeze as intensively in their attacking half, because they were 2 goals up. They could afford to stay more compact in a Half Press, making it less risky to concede a goal. Unlike the first half when they often had 8-9 players in the Aus defensive half trying to disturb Aus build ups. They did this very effectively in the first 45 mins.

Also, Italiano may have been culpable for being dribbled around by the blond haired winger, but he did a lot of other good things over the WC when he was on the pitch.

Leckie doesn't have the extreme pace he used to have. He was a poor choice, but we don't know the state of other players in the squad in terms of injury, or muscle soreness from the first game against Turkey.

The second half against USA was not bad at all from Aus, but it was too late.

 

[Keeper66]

I'm trying to rationalise here, but I thought they were brought in for their pressing. I think Popovic wanted to press their defence, cause turnovers, and he thought Leckie and Velupillay were his best options for that.

The outnumber the USA had, and their quality in midfield, meant we couldn't effectively press them. They just had too many midfield options open always and they had time because of it. Then speed to play behind us.

It also didn't work because while Velupillay is quick against most teams, he wasn't as quick as the US players. Ditto Leckie.

It just created a heap of confusion around pressing triggers and we kept getting dragged out of position in two minds whether to press or drop.

Italianos failed press, the first in a chain of mistakes that lead to the opener, is the obvious example of it in the game.

We'd have been far better off playing our more dangerous forwards and making the US defence defend. Try to get in behind their one-paced defence.

The pressing may well have been the reason, but I have never considered Vellupilay to be a player who is good at pressing. I think Metcalfe would have been a much better option for that job. And I think in the past Leckie may have been a good pressing option, but not at his age and after having so little football in the season.

But yes, we should have been trying to put more pressure on the slow USA defence.

 

[Decentric]

I think it’s simpler. Popa was playing tournament football. He just wanted to get through the USA game with a 2-0 loss at worst and rest some players for Paraguay. Worked out perfectly and we even got a better draw than if we’d beaten the US and finished top. Unfortunately, we blew it against Egypt.

The surprise against Egypt is that Aus faded after 90 mins, whilst definitely having more scoring chances than the African team in the first 90 mins.

Ostensibly, Aus were one of the fittest teams, according to the coaching staff and the players.

 

[JS96]

I don't think McGree underperforms for Aus, JS.

I don't see him play at club level, but he is our best forward in terms of defensive duties.

He constantly positions himself well to be the second defender in optimum positions to support the wing backs, when Aus cedes the ball in the opposition Ball Possession phase of play.

McGree makes timely tackles, effects more frequent intercepts, and easily causes the most turnovers of the attacking line in data I've compiled. Of course he is more experienced than any of the current others - Metcalfe, Villupillay, Toure, Irank, Volpato, Yengi. And better at his defensive duties than the experienced Mabil and Hrustic.

I think this WC showed Toure, Irank, Volpato, to be a bit better than their attacking teammates in an offensive context. I suspect Toure was carrying an injury. Hence , Popa didn't play him as much as expected.

If McGree was at the WC, we could have had another superior attacking outlet for the the front 3.

I'll take a bit of defensive hassle from him. Definitely share that data. I think we're best in those transition moments. Otherwise McGree's ROI given what he does at club level is poor. He's had good games against Mexico and got a good assist against Japan. I know he got the assist for Leckie against Denmark but Leckie owned that goal. It's the stop starting nature of his international career that is also frustrating. I think to see more fruit we just have to play him again and again.

https://www.transfermarkt.com/riley-mcgree/profil/spieler/428061

 

[JS96]

The surprise against Egypt is that Aus faded after 90 mins, whilst definitely having more scoring chances than the African team in the first 90 mins.

Ostensibly, Aus were one of the fittest teams, according to the coaching staff and the players.

I think the wing subs were wrong and too early. We should've brought Devlin on.

 

[grazorblade]

I'm trying to rationalise here, but I thought they were brought in for their pressing. I think Popovic wanted to press their defence, cause turnovers, and he thought Leckie and Velupillay were his best options for that.

The outnumber the USA had, and their quality in midfield, meant we couldn't effectively press them. They just had too many midfield options open always and they had time because of it. Then speed to play behind us.

It also didn't work because while Velupillay is quick against most teams, he wasn't as quick as the US players. Ditto Leckie.

It just created a heap of confusion around pressing triggers and we kept getting dragged out of position in two minds whether to press or drop.

Italianos failed press, the first in a chain of mistakes that lead to the opener, is the obvious example of it in the game.

We'd have been far better off playing our more dangerous forwards and making the US defence defend. Try to get in behind their one-paced defence.

I agree they were in for their pressing. We got turnovers in dangerous positions. But it meant we really only had 1 path to goal and as u say vellupilay are quick against asian teams, but arent quick enough against usa to provide a threat on the counter.

Even if we start irvine and herrington we have a set piece threat (tho our delivery was awful)

 

[grazorblade]

I don't think McGree underperforms for Aus, JS.

I don't see him play at club level, but he is our best forward in terms of defensive duties.

He constantly positions himself well to be the second defender in optimum positions to support the wing backs, when Aus cedes the ball in the opposition Ball Possession phase of play.

McGree makes timely tackles, effects more frequent intercepts, and easily causes the most turnovers of the attacking line in data I've compiled. Of course he is more experienced than any of the current others - Metcalfe, Villupillay, Toure, Irank, Volpato, Yengi. And better at his defensive duties than the experienced Mabil and Hrustic.

I think this WC showed Toure, Irank, Volpato, to be a bit better than their attacking teammates in an offensive context. I suspect Toure was carrying an injury. Hence , Popa didn't play him as much as expected.

If McGree was at the WC, we could have had another superior attacking outlet for the the front 3.

I thought metcalf was better defensively? We almost never concede a chance down his side.

Mcgrees finishing is poor for the roos, particularly in the asian cup, but the rest of his game is similar excellence to his club performances

 

[grazorblade]

The pressing may well have been the reason, but I have never considered Vellupilay to be a player who is good at pressing. I think Metcalfe would have been a much better option for that job. And I think in the past Leckie may have been a good pressing option, but not at his age and after having so little football in the season.

But yes, we should have been trying to put more pressure on the slow USA defence.

He was good on the day, probably knows poppas system

 

[JS96]

I agree they were in for their pressing. We got turnovers in dangerous positions. But it meant we really only had 1 path to goal and as u say vellupilay are quick against asian teams, but arent quick enough against usa to provide a threat on the counter.

Even if we start irvine and herrington we have a set piece threat (tho our delivery was awful)

In hindsight I'd love to try it again. Butterfly effect probably sees at least one of the USA goals not going in.

 

[ClockworkOrange]

The surprise against Egypt is that Aus faded after 90 mins, whilst definitely having more scoring chances than the African team in the first 90 mins.

Ostensibly, Aus were one of the fittest teams, according to the coaching staff and the players.

I think Popa deliberately played not to lose in that second half. We were on top and he made defensive subs.

 

[Decentric]

I thought metcalf was better defensively? We almost never concede a chance down his side.

Mcgrees finishing is poor for the roos, particularly in the asian cup, but the rest of his game is similar excellence to his club performances

No, McGree is better again, according to my stats compiled.

Metcalfe and Villupillay are the next best defenders in the forwards, but McGree causes so many turnovers.

Another good defensive forward is Juric. Against Curacao, Juric and McGree kept a bigger number of defenders busy, hence they struggled to play out, because Juric and McGree's use of space in closing them down was so good.

Toure contests a lot of physical duels, and keeps the opposition CBs busy with contesting so many 1v1 and 1 v 2 contests.

Irank loses concentration with his defensive duties in comparison.

With the gift of a few second looks, Irank did better as a central striker in the WC than I first thought. Although he is more suited to the flanks.

Hadn't really considered McGree's finishing. I can't remember him ever scoring a goal for the Roos. He has made some decent assists though.