Match stats/analysis for recent Socceroo games

[Decentric]

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

I can't remember the subs now.

 

[Keeper66]

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

Certainly Volpato should never have been replaced when he was. He was the player causing the most problems for Egypt, and he certainly did not look like he was running out of gas. Taking him off really released the pressure on Egypt.

 

[Decentric]

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

I'm not sure I agree with bringing Devlin on in that game, JS?

However, I feel sorry for CD in that he is doing very well in his club career, a bit older than a few players, and he is now facing a whizz generation ( by Aus standards) of younger central midfielders that he will be competing with for Roo selection.

They are a lot younger, but appear to have a much higher ceiling - Okon Jr, Robertson, Bozinovski, Sicluna, the young SFC player of African descent who has just moved to Europe, Teague, possibly Yazbek, etc.

 

[Barca4life]

I still cant get over Popa not playing the same front three against Turkey for the rest of the World Cup, if anything it proves is he not the best coach around that could coach our team for that reason let alone tactical reasons but to be honest we got better Australian coaches than him providing if they available on a budget of course that I would take over him.

Any component manager would have played the same front three in the next game against the USA, if anything we should play a 4-2-3-1 that would fit Volpato and a fit Riley McGree in there and play Metcalfe as a No.6 with Okon.

We got enough talent to make us functional in attack excluding limited ball players like Irvine in the midfield area to be a good team that is also good to watch.

 

[Decentric]

I still cant get over Popa not playing the same front three against Turkey for the rest of the World Cup, if anything it proves is he not the best coach around that could coach our team for that reason let alone tactical reasons but to be honest we got better Australian coaches than him providing if they available on a budget of course that I would take over him.

Any component manager would have played the same front three in the next game against the USA, if anything we should play a 4-2-3-1 that would fit Volpato and a fit Riley McGree in there and play Metcalfe as a No.6 with Okon.

We got enough talent to make us functional in attack excluding limited ball players like Irvine in the midfield area to be a good team that is also good to watch.

One of the things the Socceroo coaching staff kept stating publicly, was that they were best able to appraise which Roos were struggling with workloads and fatigue, Barca.

Early on in the WC, Popa said Volpato was way behind in terms of fitness. I'm not sure collectively how fit Toure, Irank and Volpato were all at the same time ? Irank can be a bit shaky defensively, in that a team defends from the front. Don't know Volpato's game well enough ATM to make a judgement on his defensive capacity.

Metcalfe isn't as good defensively as O'Neill as a DM. AO makes an enormous number of tackles, intercepts and causes frequent turnovers.

Metcalfe is a good ball carrier at pace. Grazor has suggested he could be an option for Wing Back. Good idea. Somebody else on the forum ( Quicky, JS, PJ ?) has mooted Villupillay too as a WB, which also seems like a good idea.

Both would be more attacking than the likes of makeshift WBs like Rowles and Trewin, but the latter two are solid defensively as WBs.

 

[Barca4life]

One of the things the Socceroo coaching staff kept stating publicly, was that they were best able to appraise which Roos were struggling with workloads and fatigue, Barca.

Early on in the WC, Popa said Volpato was way behind in terms of fitness. I'm not sure collectively how fit Toure, Irank and Volpato were all at the same time ? Irank can be a bit shaky defensively, in that a team defends from the front. Don't know Volpato's game well enough ATM to make a judgement on his defensive capacity.

Metcalfe isn't as good defensively as O'Neill as a DM. AO makes an enormous number of tackles, intercepts and causes frequent turnovers.

Metcalfe is a good ball carrier at pace. Grazor has suggested he could be an option for Wing Back. Good idea. Somebody else on the forum ( Quicky, JS, PJ ?) has mooted Villupillay too as a WB, which also seems like a good idea.

Both would be more attacking than the likes of makeshift WBs like Rowles and Trewin, but the latter two are solid defensively as WBs.

It sounds like an excuse to not use them but even then you don't have change a winning team.

We weren't the same attacking threat after the Turkey tbh.

 

[Keeper66]

It sounds like an excuse to not use them but even then you don't have change a winning team.

We weren't the same attacking threat after the Turkey tbh.

Plus there were 6 days between games, and the coaching and support group pre-WC were beating their chests about how fit the players would be.

 

[patjennings]

Plus there were 6 days between games, and the coaching and support group pre-WC were beating their chests about how fit the players would be.

To me it just highlights the inherent problems in the Popovic regime.

Andrew Clark was the Sports Science for years under Arnie and was wanted by clubs around the world as well as AFL and NRL. We never had a problem like this under him or his replacement.

Under Andrew Clark: The sports science framework was simple, deeply integrated with the head coach, and focused entirely on matching the physical baselines players were hitting at their clubs.

Clark didn't try to reinvent how a player lived their life when they arrived in camp. Instead, he built a meticulous, massive network tracking up to 100 players in the broader pool.He spent his weeks constantly talking to high-performance staff at clubs across Europe, Asia, and the A-League. When a player landed in camp, Clark didn't force a new fitness philosophy on them; he seamlessly continued the exact training metrics they were hitting at their club. This eliminated the risk of over-training or sudden exhaustion

Under Tony Popovic & Leigh Egger: The squad experienced a sudden, drastic shift to an uncompromising fitness regime. This regime essentially forces players to rapidly change their body composition, weight, and defensive running loads. This seems to be what lead to what Popovic called flat performances.

Popovic is notorious for micromanaging everything his players do. Egger's philosophy explicitly focuses on sleep, body mass, and lifestyle, which perfectly mirrors Popovic's old-school obsession with discipline.

Popovic and Okon have both been accused over the years of being poor man managers. Mile Jedinak, was employed as the set piece specialist but we under-performed in the World Cup there as have other teams where he had that role. Juric was a traditional shot-stopper - no modern keeper. So no work would have been done on sweeping.

Foxe I don't know enough about what he was doing.

All up the whole of the management team looks to be a set up that says yes to Popovic and not challenge him.

Surely we should be looking at the best management ensemble to take the team forward rather than minions to just agree with the head coach. i.e. These staff may be ok in their place but they aren't adding to the overall whole - just falling into line. A more diverse set, properly managed group, should lead to a management team greater than the team manager.

 

[dr. bellows]

To me it just highlights the inherent problems in the Popovic regime.

Andrew Clark was the Sports Science for years under Arnie and was wanted by clubs around the world as well as AFL and NRL. We never had a problem like this under him or his replacement.

Under Andrew Clark: The sports science framework was simple, deeply integrated with the head coach, and focused entirely on matching the physical baselines players were hitting at their clubs.

Clark didn't try to reinvent how a player lived their life when they arrived in camp. Instead, he built a meticulous, massive network tracking up to 100 players in the broader pool.He spent his weeks constantly talking to high-performance staff at clubs across Europe, Asia, and the A-League. When a player landed in camp, Clark didn't force a new fitness philosophy on them; he seamlessly continued the exact training metrics they were hitting at their club. This eliminated the risk of over-training or sudden exhaustion

Under Tony Popovic & Leigh Egger: The squad experienced a sudden, drastic shift to an uncompromising fitness regime. This regime essentially forces players to rapidly change their body composition, weight, and defensive running loads. This seems to be what lead to what Popovic called flat performances.

Popovic is notorious for micromanaging everything his players do. Egger's philosophy explicitly focuses on sleep, body mass, and lifestyle, which perfectly mirrors Popovic's old-school obsession with discipline.

Popovic and Okon have both been accused over the years of being poor man managers. Mile Jedinak, was employed as the set piece specialist but we under-performed in the World Cup there as have other teams where he had that role. Juric was a traditional shot-stopper - no modern keeper. So no work would have been done on sweeping.

Foxe I don't know enough about what he was doing.

All up the whole of the management team looks to be a set up that says yes to Popovic and not challenge him.

Surely we should be looking at the best management ensemble to take the team forward rather than minions to just agree with the head coach. i.e. These staff may be ok in their place but they aren't adding to the overall whole - just falling into line. A more diverse set, properly managed group, should lead to a management team greater than the team manager.

Fascinating. Thanks, PJ. I think Jedi was also the set-piece coach under Ange at Spurs when they copped a lot of criticism for their deficiencies in that area. Also been wondering about transition from Crawley to Juric, although not sure if that was direct.

 

[Cunningstunt]

To me it just highlights the inherent problems in the Popovic regime.

Andrew Clark was the Sports Science for years under Arnie and was wanted by clubs around the world as well as AFL and NRL. We never had a problem like this under him or his replacement.

Under Andrew Clark: The sports science framework was simple, deeply integrated with the head coach, and focused entirely on matching the physical baselines players were hitting at their clubs.

Clark didn't try to reinvent how a player lived their life when they arrived in camp. Instead, he built a meticulous, massive network tracking up to 100 players in the broader pool.He spent his weeks constantly talking to high-performance staff at clubs across Europe, Asia, and the A-League. When a player landed in camp, Clark didn't force a new fitness philosophy on them; he seamlessly continued the exact training metrics they were hitting at their club. This eliminated the risk of over-training or sudden exhaustion

Under Tony Popovic & Leigh Egger: The squad experienced a sudden, drastic shift to an uncompromising fitness regime. This regime essentially forces players to rapidly change their body composition, weight, and defensive running loads. This seems to be what lead to what Popovic called flat performances.

Popovic is notorious for micromanaging everything his players do. Egger's philosophy explicitly focuses on sleep, body mass, and lifestyle, which perfectly mirrors Popovic's old-school obsession with discipline.

Popovic and Okon have both been accused over the years of being poor man managers. Mile Jedinak, was employed as the set piece specialist but we under-performed in the World Cup there as have other teams where he had that role. Juric was a traditional shot-stopper - no modern keeper. So no work would have been done on sweeping.

Foxe I don't know enough about what he was doing.

All up the whole of the management team looks to be a set up that says yes to Popovic and not challenge him.

Surely we should be looking at the best management ensemble to take the team forward rather than minions to just agree with the head coach. i.e. These staff may be ok in their place but they aren't adding to the overall whole - just falling into line. A more diverse set, properly managed group, should lead to a management team greater than the team manager.

What you claim are things none of us could possibly know. It makes it sound as though the starting point is Popa is bad, and works backwards so everything he does must also be bad.

 

[dr. bellows]

Fascinating. Thanks, PJ. I think Jedi was also the set-piece coach under Ange at Spurs when they copped a lot of criticism for their deficiencies in that area. Also been wondering about transition from Crawley to Juric, although not sure if that was direct.

How much can be achieved by the set-piece coach and goalkeeping coach in the NT setup to correct player deficiencies?

 

[dr. bellows]

Or is it more about selections?

 

[Keeper66]

How much can be achieved by the set-piece coach and goalkeeping coach in the NT setup to correct player deficiencies?

Certainly the set piece coach is very important in setting up defensive structures for set pieces, and all the different options for attacking set pieces. These have very little if anything to do with player deficiencies, but are about tactical planning and execution. So having a good set piece coach is very important.

I wouldn't expect the GK coach to be able to do a lot on correcting player deficiencies, although they could work on it. The keeper coach is more about putting the keepers through training routines.

 

[patjennings]

What you claim are things none of us could possibly know. It makes it sound as though the starting point is Popa is bad, and works backwards so everything he does must also be bad.

I think you are missing the point. If there is a point it is that any review of the World Cup has to look at all of the management and team. Indeed I have trouble with Football Australia's role in his selection and more importantly his extension before the tournament..

Why should you not know? All of this is in the public arena.

Popovic's is known for his detailed control of all aspects. It is what many of his supporters claim is his greatest strength. I'm just saying that there is a duality there. If you control every detail then you are responsible for every detail.

By picking a management team that basically says you are the messiah and know everything then you better deliver.

The choice of a traditional keeper as the GK coach that does not push sweeping as an essential part of a modern keeper not only is a disservice to the keepers it locks in the sitting deep, defensive philosophy that Popovic uses. The choice basically says we aren't looking at multiple ways of playing - we have one way and that is it.

The choice of the Strength and Conditioning team also feeds directly into Popovic's detailed control.

Neither appointment adds to the 'brains trust' - they are essentially implementers of Popovic's direction

I had trouble with Popovics squad selection (which many did), his in tournament team selections (which many did). But in reality when you dig deeper his management choices made this almost a fait accompli.

At the end of the day the World Cup review has to look at everything. We had our easiest group ever with four mid-tier teams. We had our easiest knockout opponent ever. We in reality made the top 32. Something every Socceroo team has done since 2006.

We arguably had access to a cohort that is at worst the best since 2010.

We under-performed compared to many of the previous teams - that is the reality. It can't and it shouldn''t be swept under the carpet by saying what a 'brave coach' Popovic is. In fact, the same blowtorch should also be applied to Football Australia.

Everything should be examined - we need to improve - not stagnate. If you can't review performance then no lessons are learned.

 

[dr. bellows]

Certainly the set piece coach is very important in setting up defensive structures for set pieces, and all the different options for attacking set pieces. These have very little if anything to do with player deficiencies, but are about tactical planning and execution. So having a good set piece coach is very important.

I wouldn't expect the GK coach to be able to do a lot on correcting player deficiencies, although they could work on it. The keeper coach is more about putting the keepers through training routines.

Yes, tactical. Agreed. But also a bit of both. I seem to recall Vicario getting a fair bit of stick for his vulnerability at set-pieces, flapping at corners, a bit indecisive. Tactical smarts and clarity might have helped but also working on his own game, although limited what the NT goalkeeping coach can do compared to club coach, as you point out.

 

[dr. bellows]

Certainly the set piece coach is very important in setting up defensive structures for set pieces, and all the different options for attacking set pieces. These have very little if anything to do with player deficiencies, but are about tactical planning and execution. So having a good set piece coach is very important.

I wouldn't expect the GK coach to be able to do a lot on correcting player deficiencies, although they could work on it. The keeper coach is more about putting the keepers through training routines.

Thanks for that. I was thinking more about the individual than the collective but I'm sure you're right that it's mostly about the group in the NT setup because of limited time. I'm not sure how you solve one of the problems we had - poor delivery - unless you adjust selection for it.

 

[JS96]

I'm not sure I agree with bringing Devlin on in that game, JS?

However, I feel sorry for CD in that he is doing very well in his club career, a bit older than a few players, and he is now facing a whizz generation ( by Aus standards) of younger central midfielders that he will be competing with for Roo selection.

They are a lot younger, but appear to have a much higher ceiling - Okon Jr, Robertson, Bozinovski, Sicluna, the young SFC player of African descent who has just moved to Europe, Teague, possibly Yazbek, etc.

Okon was the fresh legs. He was alright. Irvine was actually quite fit and concentrated in this game. Even with the raving on from our staff about how fit we were, we were tired even with the 6 day break. It really didn't make sense. I felt Devlin could've played a part with all his energy and Mabil was also underutilised.

The biggest crime was not playing Irankunda wide.

 

[Keeper66]

Thanks for that. I was thinking more about the individual than the collective but I'm sure you're right that it's mostly about the group in the NT setup because of limited time. I'm not sure how you solve one of the problems we had - poor delivery - unless you adjust selection for it.

Because that poor delivery happened just about every time (except for the goal against Egypt being the only good one I can remember), being a floated delivery to the back post where Souttar or another tall player was waiting, I can only surmise that this was the tactic that the Socceroos were using for set pieces (corners and wide free kicks). I'm sure the players that were taking the set pieces were more than capable of putting in flatter deliveries into different areas. I think the set pieces were taken as planned, but they were never going to work. Floating a ball to the back post gives the defenders ample time to block runs, pick up players, etc, so it doesn't matter how good the receiving players (Souttar etc) were, they were unable to do much with them.

So I don't think the delivery in itself was poor, more that the tactic was poor.

 

[Cunningstunt]

I think you are missing the point. If there is a point it is that any review of the World Cup has to look at all of the management and team. Indeed I have trouble with Football Australia's role in his selection and more importantly his extension before the tournament..

Why should you not know? All of this is in the public arena.

Popovic's is known for his detailed control of all aspects. It is what many of his supporters claim is his greatest strength. I'm just saying that there is a duality there. If you control every detail then you are responsible for every detail.

By picking a management team that basically says you are the messiah and know everything then you better deliver.

The choice of a traditional keeper as the GK coach that does not push sweeping as an essential part of a modern keeper not only is a disservice to the keepers it locks in the sitting deep, defensive philosophy that Popovic uses. The choice basically says we aren't looking at multiple ways of playing - we have one way and that is it.

The choice of the Strength and Conditioning team also feeds directly into Popovic's detailed control.

Neither appointment adds to the 'brains trust' - they are essentially implementers of Popovic's direction

I had trouble with Popovics squad selection (which many did), his in tournament team selections (which many did). But in reality when you dig deeper his management choices made this almost a fait accompli.

At the end of the day the World Cup review has to look at everything. We had our easiest group ever with four mid-tier teams. We had our easiest knockout opponent ever. We in reality made the top 32. Something every Socceroo team has done since 2006.

We arguably had access to a cohort that is at worst the best since 2010.

We under-performed compared to many of the previous teams - that is the reality. It can't and it shouldn''t be swept under the carpet by saying what a 'brave coach' Popovic is. In fact, the same blowtorch should also be applied to Football Australia.

Everything should be examined - we need to improve - not stagnate. If you can't review performance then no lessons are learned.

The one known thing mentioned is Popa's high expectations off the pitch and in training. He talks about it, former and current players talk about it. Every other point is speculation. Fitness coaches, Juric, man-management, yes men.

The point about easiest group/knock out opp ever. That is true. But the rest is not. Despite it being easier, we were favoured to lose every single match and go out with zero points (the draw v Paraguay came in slightly shorter than Paraguay winning after it was established both teams could progress with a draw). This is a better achievement than making the top 32 by qualification alone because he got out of a group stage. It is slightly less of an achievement compared to Guus and Arnie because there are more teams.

We don't have to diminish the achievement or speculate about unknowns to make legitimate criticisms.

 

[Decentric]

I think you are missing the point. If there is a point it is that any review of the World Cup has to look at all of the management and team. Indeed I have trouble with Football Australia's role in his selection and more importantly his extension before the tournament..

Why should you not know? All of this is in the public arena.

Popovic's is known for his detailed control of all aspects. It is what many of his supporters claim is his greatest strength. I'm just saying that there is a duality there. If you control every detail then you are responsible for every detail.

By picking a management team that basically says you are the messiah and know everything then you better deliver.

The choice of a traditional keeper as the GK coach that does not push sweeping as an essential part of a modern keeper not only is a disservice to the keepers it locks in the sitting deep, defensive philosophy that Popovic uses. The choice basically says we aren't looking at multiple ways of playing - we have one way and that is it.

The choice of the Strength and Conditioning team also feeds directly into Popovic's detailed control.

Neither appointment adds to the 'brains trust' - they are essentially implementers of Popovic's direction

I had trouble with Popovics squad selection (which many did), his in tournament team selections (which many did). But in reality when you dig deeper his management choices made this almost a fait accompli.

At the end of the day the World Cup review has to look at everything. We had our easiest group ever with four mid-tier teams. We had our easiest knockout opponent ever. We in reality made the top 32. Something every Socceroo team has done since 2006.

We arguably had access to a cohort that is at worst the best since 2010.

We under-performed compared to many of the previous teams - that is the reality. It can't and it shouldn''t be swept under the carpet by saying what a 'brave coach' Popovic is. In fact, the same blowtorch should also be applied to Football Australia.

Everything should be examined - we need to improve - not stagnate. If you can't review performance then no lessons are learned.

I thought the detail in your previous post was pretty impressive, PJ. Not sure how you have gained such meticulous and detailed insights?

I agree with the premise that a total management/performance team should be greater than the leader.

However, after watching all the replays I was pretty pleased with the overall performance over the 4 Socceroo games- apart from one half.

What a few others won’t acknowledge is all our opponents had more aggregate value in transfer markets than the Roos.

So 2-0, 0-2, 0-0, 1-1 in normal and extra time isn’t too bad.