Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Poppa Out

Alex M said:
You don't think we showed fight? We had a good win against Turkey, got the result we needed against Paraguay quite comfortably (who went on to eliminate Germany) then matched Egypt and lost on Penalties and Egypt went on to give Argentina quite a fright. You are either very hard to please or you're allowing your dislike for the coach to cloud your judgement on what the players did.
Click to expand...
From what I' ve read, Zimbos reflects the prevailing view of the vast majority of the forum. For them anyone is a better coach than Popa, and previously Arnie. Both have got Aus out of the group stages at the WC with modest cattle, but most on G and G aren't happy.

I've just watched the replay against Egypt. Aus was on top in the second half, until the last 3 mins after Toure played a shocking unforced error that gave Egypt a corner.

In Extra Time, despite Aus supposedly being the fittest team, Egypt outplayed us. I'd like to think I'm not a bad sport, but the ref was terrible! Not biased, like the US, but incompetent.

So often in the extra time, an Aussie broke clear of Egypt with the ball, then was hacked down, but with no yellow card. There was no consequence for Egypt stifling Aus accelerated attacks with cards.

Yet once an Egyptian marginally fouled a Roo, and was yellow carded! There was no way it was a yellow, only just a foul. Why do useless refs, and inexperienced ones, or corrupt ones, like the German refs officiating the US/Aus game, get to officiate? Off forum, most agree, but think there are a lot of other onfield issues we need to address as well.
 
Last edited:
zimbos05 said:
How many times do I have to say it. It's not a dislike for Popa, it's a dislike for the tactics. I said it on the podcast too. The same people out here calling for Milligan to be in the set up are the same ones disagreeing with what I said, even though Milligan is of the same viewpoint.

I never said that Popa is accepting that qualifying is good enough. I simply said, why can't we go to tournaments and be more attacking and with intent. We always go in and are passive and negative, and then we just go, "it's a success because no one expected us to win a game". So what. You play the situation in front of you. USA were beatable, Paraguay were beatable. Stop letting rankings dictate how a game should go because we saw so many games where rankings meant shit. This is my point. We look at a ranking and go, "oh, they are 20th and we are 25th -or something like that- so a draw is fair". No. It's been 20 years since the golden generation and we still don't have a clear identity or structure, and we still come out of every tournament going, "oh well, we tried, that's all you can do".

The point doesn't because what are you classing as elite level? If so, then not many teams fit that bill and therefore doesn't really back up your point because then the argument would be that majority of the teams don't have players at elite level and yet did the same or better. For example, Egypt has 3 players playing at elite level, yet beat us.
Click to expand...
Roughly 2500 players spread across:
1. 5 UEFA Big Five league clubs.
2. 30 Big UEFA clubs outside the Big UEFA Five leagues.
3. Brazil and Argentine leagues.

It may not be perfect, but a workable definition of elite club football.

From what I've read:
Turkey $750 million
USA $650 million
Paraguay $250 million
Egypt $200 million
Aus $127 million,

are the players' aggregate transfer values of our WC opponents relative to ours?

If so, why are so many Roo fans here so critical of Aus performances?
 
kiro kompiro said:
@Zimbos. "Attacking intent" is vague and can mean different things.

For me the biggest attacking mistake Popovic made was isolating NI as a number 9. If NI played as a wide striker in a front three or as a second striker in a 442 then that would have fixed the issue of attacking intent.
Click to expand...
Like NI as an abbrevation for his long second name!
 
Popa's biggest mistake for me came in the Egypt game when he took Irankunda off and replaced him with his former club teammate Toure.

The pair played alongside each other at Adelaide United for years and the other bit of stupidity was playing Irankunda as a centre forward.

The bloke is far too short to be a CF.

I would've moved Irankunda to the wing and Toure to CF.
 
Decentric said:
Roughly 2500 players spread across:
1. 5 UEFA Big Five league clubs.
2. 30 Big UEFA clubs outside the Big UEFA Five leagues.
3. Brazil and Argentine leagues.

It may not be perfect, but a workable definition of elite club football.

From what I've read:
Turkey $750 million
USA $650 million
Paraguay $250 million
Egypt $200 million
Aus $127 million,

are the players' aggregate transfer values of our WC opponents relative to ours?

If so, why are so many Roo fans here so critical of Aus performances?
Click to expand...
I'm not a big fan when people use values and such. Values are so inflated in Football. Take Egypt for example, their $200m is made up mostly by 2-3 players. In a squad of 26, that's not really a true indication of the squad worth and quality.

Also, values are overly inflated depending on who is buying. The same player signed by Brighton is bought for less than if they were being bought by United. Just look at Spurs this season for example. Spending silly money on players. Not even negotiating. It doesn't mean those players are worth that value or have the talent of that value. Was Anthony worth $80m? Never. Yet put his value on paper and you assume he should be better.

Fans are critical because many of us have spent decades hearing the same thing. That we battled hard and that just getting out of the group stage is a major success. We want us to progress. We want us to be the dominant team in Asia. We've watched us struggle against Indonesia, and lose to UAE. We want us to be more than just making up the numbers. We watch as Cape Verde take it to Argentina and DR Congo challenge England, whilst we press the snooze button against an extremely shit Paraguay side, and just shut off in a knockout game against Egypt. These are sides for the taking, but we just go, "no, we are ranked lower, or our value is lower, so we can't challenge"

I don't think it's too much to be asking us to stop holding on to the battler tag, and actually want us to go further.
 
zimbos05 said:
I'm not a big fan when people use values and such. Values are so inflated in Football. Take Egypt for example, their $200m is made up mostly by 2-3 players. In a squad of 26, that's not really a true indication of the squad worth and quality.
Click to expand...
Fair point, Zimbos.

I didn't know about Egypt's value being centralised with 3 players?

I might chase up their club backgrounds. You would have to accept the entire US and Turkish teams being worth a lot companed to the Roos though? Even Paraguay?
 
Decentric said:
Fair point, Zimbos.

I didn't know about Egypt's value being centralised with 3 players?

I might chase up their club backgrounds. You would have to accept the entire US and Turkish teams being worth a lot companed to the Roos though? Even Paraguay?
Click to expand...
Again though, even if I accept their values are more, does not mean they are instantly better players.

I find values to be a false metric to judge by. Antony was bought for $80m, was never worth it, but on paper that would make it a better player than most - which is/was not true. His value quickly dropped, but that's the point. Transfer fees and wages are not always a true reflection of a players quality.

Spurs are spending big money at the moment, but I wouldn't say the players they are buying are worth the fee they are spending.
 
Decentric said:
From what I' ve read, Zimbos reflects the prevailing view of the vast majority of the forum. For them anyone is a better coach than Popa, and previously Arnie. Both have got Aus out of the group stages at the WC with modest cattle, but most on G and G aren't happy.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say anyone is better. We just think that could have shown more. That we left a fair bit in the dressing room. I think there are better options, but I would certainly not be jumping at anyone.

We also agree that there are off field issues, but we don't see that as an excuse to play negative football. We can still be positive and attacking, whilst working on the off field issues at the same time.
 
Decentric said:
Roughly 2500 players spread across:
1. 5 UEFA Big Five league clubs.
2. 30 Big UEFA clubs outside the Big UEFA Five leagues.
3. Brazil and Argentine leagues.

It may not be perfect, but a workable definition of elite club football.

From what I've read:
Turkey $750 million
USA $650 million
Paraguay $250 million
Egypt $200 million
Aus $127 million,

are the players' aggregate transfer values of our WC opponents relative to ours?

If so, why are so many Roo fans here so critical of Aus performances?
Click to expand...
What we are critical of is not the performances so much, but the tactics Popovic used and the way he (mis)used some of the players which many believe prevented us from having better performances. The strong belief is that we could have gotten better results and played better football by being more proactive and trying to take the game more to the opposition. The times we did this to some extent (Turkey game, 2nd half v USA and parts of the 2nd half v Egypt), we looked much more likely to score without giving the opposition more scoring chances. So we did show that we can do better, it's just that it appears that Popovic did not want us to play this way consistently.

None of this is a criticism of the players, who presumably were doing what the coach told them to do. Yes they do not have the same transfer market value as other teams, but this is largely a meaningless statistic and is dependant on other factors apart from the ability of the individual players, as other posters have noted. And we don't have many players playing in the big leagues it's true, but the Australian team is certainly one that has shown over the years that the team is mostly greater than the sum of the individual parts.

I'm sure Popovic used the tactics and players he did because he believed it was the best way to get results, but what many are saying is that they don't agree with Popovic's approach and would have liked to see us play with a greater attacking intent.
 
zimbos05 said:
How many times do I have to say it. It's not a dislike for Popa, it's a dislike for the tactics. I said it on the podcast too. The same people out here calling for Milligan to be in the set up are the same ones disagreeing with what I said, even though Milligan is of the same viewpoint.

I never said that Popa is accepting that qualifying is good enough. I simply said, why can't we go to tournaments and be more attacking and with intent. We always go in and are passive and negative, and then we just go, "it's a success because no one expected us to win a game". So what. You play the situation in front of you. USA were beatable, Paraguay were beatable. Stop letting rankings dictate how a game should go because we saw so many games where rankings meant shit. This is my point. We look at a ranking and go, "oh, they are 20th and we are 25th -or something like that- so a draw is fair". No. It's been 20 years since the golden generation and we still don't have a clear identity or structure, and we still come out of every tournament going, "oh well, we tried, that's all you can do".

The point doesn't because what are you classing as elite level? If so, then not many teams fit that bill and therefore doesn't really back up your point because then the argument would be that majority of the teams don't have players at elite level and yet did the same or better. For example, Egypt has 3 players playing at elite level, yet beat us.
Click to expand...
I dislike the style and setup as well, for aesthetic reasons. But playing haramball isn't equal to accepting qualifying is good enough. It is as legitimate a way of playing. Opening up to go forward doesn't mean you tried harder.

Cape Verde didn't win a match and were knocked out at the same stage as us without making it to penalties. A marginally worse WC. 3 points in the group stage. Theirs was the only group where 3 points got you second place, and a zero GD 3 points has you out as a third place team.

Our WC feels worse because of how the Egypt match played out. It felt like they were there for the taking. We were pressing them hard trying to find an equaliser and then seemed to go back into our shell after we scored. But Egypt changed as well, they were happy to defend deeper and allow us more ball to minimise their risks when they were in front and adjusted when they conceded.

patjennings said:
Largely - that is it. But my main point is more about the picking a squad that is capable of playing multiple ways. I like a pragmatic manager, you don't try to out tika-taka Spain like in 2014, you don't decide the only way to play is with three centre-backs (that is an option) as we did in 2026. I don't mind Australia being ultra-defensive when it needs to be - but it shouldn't be a default - either should all out attack.

You pick a squad that can play multiple ways against differing opponents and can adapt with injuries and suspension. To my mind being an ideologue in that way you is purely something that is a managers problem, not a quality of players problem.

Popovic picked some young players like Beach, Herrington (that after their seasons any manager would have) and Volpato (who was finally landed but was already approached) and Okon-Englster (who if he was picked should have been as one of the front two in his box midfield where he defensive frailties don't get exposed as much). This is not mind blowing in refreshing the squad - that had already happened under Arnold.

Popovic also deserves credit for qualifying. But the suggestion that it wouldn't happen under Arnold is also ludicrous. Given Saudi Arabia's run we may well have gone through at the same time, then there were two other rounds.

Now look at the 2006 squad

Goalkeepers: Mark Schwarzer, Zeljko Kalac, Ante Covic
Defenders: Lucas Neill, Craig Moore, Tony Popovic, Stan Lazaridis, Michael Beauchamp, Mark Milligan
Midfielders: Tim Cahill, Brett Emerton, Vince Grella, Josip Skoko, Marco Bresciano, Jason Culina, Mile Sterjovski, Luke Wilkshire
Forwards: Mark Viduka (Captain), Harry Kewell, John Aloisi, Josh Kennedy, Archie Thompson

This squad is different in the obvious way - their quality

But more importantly it is a squad that can play a number of ways. You can play three at the back, you can play 4 at the back, you can throw caution to the wind like in the Japan win and overload the attack.

The point is that it is a squad picked for a tournament, not for a particularly way of playing, but to adapt to various scenarios.
Click to expand...
I don't really get the multiple ways of playing through squad selection you have talked about. Doesn't this come more through setup? Who was left out would have opened up alternatives in how we play?

We had the youngest starting side at the WC. Granted Arnold debuted some of these guys, but Popa integrated them into the squad and starting side. Toure played 1 minute under Arnold. Irankunda played 175 minutes. Some of that is just timing and injuries. But the qualifiers you give seem to be attempting to downplay the debuts. Herrington came from nowhere, Beach was a shock selection to start, Okon was not expected to start and was picked from nowhere, Italiano was brought in. 4/11 is pretty big surely? Maybe someone else does this, maybe they don't. Not in a million years would I have picked this from Popa.
 
Let's not forget picking and starting Leckie, screwing up the Triantis and Segecic situations, and not picking several of our players of choice (for me Balard).

Then there was the ridiculous use of Irankunda which totally wasted his potential.

And how about taking off Beach when he was having a blinder and feeling ten foot tall?

These are not the works of a football genius.

I'm giving him a pass mark for the tournament but some better player management and selection, and building the team around our best attacking options would have pleased me far greater.
 
Cunningstunt said:
I dislike the style and setup as well, for aesthetic reasons. But playing haramball isn't equal to accepting qualifying is good enough. It is as legitimate a way of playing. Opening up to go forward doesn't mean you tried harder.

Cape Verde didn't win a match and were knocked out at the same stage as us without making it to penalties. A marginally worse WC. 3 points in the group stage. Theirs was the only group where 3 points got you second place, and a zero GD 3 points has you out as a third place team.

Our WC feels worse because of how the Egypt match played out. It felt like they were there for the taking. We were pressing them hard trying to find an equaliser and then seemed to go back into our shell after we scored. But Egypt changed as well, they were happy to defend deeper and allow us more ball to minimise their risks when they were in front and adjusted when they conceded.


I don't really get the multiple ways of playing through squad selection you have talked about. Doesn't this come more through setup? Who was left out would have opened up alternatives in how we play?

We had the youngest starting side at the WC. Granted Arnold debuted some of these guys, but Popa integrated them into the squad and starting side. Toure played 1 minute under Arnold. Irankunda played 175 minutes. Some of that is just timing and injuries. But the qualifiers you give seem to be attempting to downplay the debuts. Herrington came from nowhere, Beach was a shock selection to start, Okon was not expected to start and was picked from nowhere, Italiano was brought in. 4/11 is pretty big surely? Maybe someone else does this, maybe they don't. Not in a million years would I have picked this from Popa.
Click to expand...

The squad picked to cover 3 centre backs and 2 wing backs so we took 10 defenders.

The 2006 side had 7 defenders (one that could play as a midfielder) and two midfielders that could play as defenders in a 23 man squad. I

it also had five specific forwards one that could play as a midfielder. Three of the midfielders could also play in the front line.This is all in a 23 man squad.

Even if you pick a traditional 23 man squad to suit your preference you still have three extra spots to bring in game changers. I'm not going to pick names I'm just saying it was a squad selected to play a rigid system and lacked adaptability.
 
Mr Cleansheets said:
Let's not forget picking and starting Leckie, screwing up the Triantis and Segecic situations, and not picking several of our players of choice (for me Balard).

Then there was the ridiculous use of Irankunda which totally wasted his potential.

And how about taking off Beach when he was having a blinder and feeling ten foot tall?

These are not the works of a football genius.

I'm giving him a pass mark for the tournament but some better player management and selection, and building the team around our best attacking options would have pleased me far greater.
Click to expand...
One thing im really curious about is he seemed to try more out of the box selection decisions for the roos than he did for his clubs

I wonder why? Did he feel the team was outmatched and felt the need to try a hail mary?
 
Cunningstunt said:
I dislike the style and setup as well, for aesthetic reasons. But playing haramball isn't equal to accepting qualifying is good enough. It is as legitimate a way of playing. Opening up to go forward doesn't mean you tried harder.

Cape Verde didn't win a match and were knocked out at the same stage as us without making it to penalties. A marginally worse WC. 3 points in the group stage. Theirs was the only group where 3 points got you second place, and a zero GD 3 points has you out as a third place team.

Our WC feels worse because of how the Egypt match played out. It felt like they were there for the taking. We were pressing them hard trying to find an equaliser and then seemed to go back into our shell after we scored. But Egypt changed as well, they were happy to defend deeper and allow us more ball to minimise their risks when they were in front and adjusted when they conceded.
Click to expand...
I don't think making it to penalties is a sign of success. Cape Verde got more positives out of their loss than we did out of ours.

Our WC feels worse because there was more we could have given, and didn't. We left so much in the dressing room, and then he made that stupid goalkeeper decision. They were there for the taking, and he switched up to not go for it.
 
Well Decentric the thread is called 'Poppa Out' so you can't blame the thread for not wanting to buy the man roses. The manager should never be above criticism, and obviously many of us here feel that he did not achieve the most out of the squad or the games that we had.

For me it comes down to whether I think Poppa value added to the team performance.
*Negative defensive football that I find hard to watch at times. This runs counter to the National Curriculum research that found proactive, possession based football is our future if we wish to develop and improve as a footballing nation in the long term. Can negative football work at times, sure it worked against Turkey. However, then sticking with that Plan A the whole time through seems defeatist, lacking in belief in the players and set up to try and not lose rather than to try and win. The players were trying to work with the system they were given. The system though runs counter to the research showing how we should be playing, and what works to advance in the long term and through tournaments.
*32 shots and 2 goals vs Cabo Verde 31 shots and 4 goals against Argentina and Uruguay, teams ranked higher than say Turkey, Egypt and Paraguay. Player value Cabo Verde 54.5euro Vs Australia 77.5euro. So, even by your own metric of player value dictating performance we underperformed in terms of shots and goals scored. If instead we based it on Fifa ranking, then well Canada had 84 shots and are one spot below us. Sometimes these stats can blind us, it doesn't matter if we have 5 passes in the attacking third if none of them result in a shot for example.
*Player selection. NI as a sole striker? Ryan last minute penalty taker without any communicated plan? Toure as an uninspired/injured striker? Using one squad spot for Leckie?
*Lack of attacking options and planning. Our set piece performance was not good. Our attacking planning seemed to rely on individual brilliance, not on any kind of planning or much organisation. It feels as though we are training to defend and then expecting the players to figure out how to score by themselves. It was truly fantastic seeing the interplay between Bos and Volparto because it felt so rare.

I want to see Australia improve, both in the short and long term. Having such a defensive coach hinders our ability to develop. It isn't silly to be ambitious and hope to see your country improve over the years, but I don't think Poppa or his style is the solution for that. Instead I'd rather see someone more pragmatic, or at least someone who believes in proactive, possession style football even if we don't play it all of the time
 
McZero said:
Well Decentric the thread is called 'Poppa Out' so you can't blame the thread for not wanting to buy the man roses. The manager should never be above criticism, and obviously many of us here feel that he did not achieve the most out of the squad or the games that we had.

For me it comes down to whether I think Poppa value added to the team performance.
*Negative defensive football that I find hard to watch at times. This runs counter to the National Curriculum research that found proactive, possession based football is our future if we wish to develop and improve as a footballing nation in the long term. Can negative football work at times, sure it worked against Turkey. However, then sticking with that Plan A the whole time through seems defeatist, lacking in belief in the players and set up to try and not lose rather than to try and win. The players were trying to work with the system they were given. The system though runs counter to the research showing how we should be playing, and what works to advance in the long term and through tournaments.
*32 shots and 2 goals vs Cabo Verde 31 shots and 4 goals against Argentina and Uruguay, teams ranked higher than say Turkey, Egypt and Paraguay. Player value Cabo Verde 54.5euro Vs Australia 77.5euro. So, even by your own metric of player value dictating performance we underperformed in terms of shots and goals scored. If instead we based it on Fifa ranking, then well Canada had 84 shots and are one spot below us. Sometimes these stats can blind us, it doesn't matter if we have 5 passes in the attacking third if none of them result in a shot for example.
*Player selection. NI as a sole striker? Ryan last minute penalty taker without any communicated plan? Toure as an uninspired/injured striker? Using one squad spot for Leckie?
*Lack of attacking options and planning. Our set piece performance was not good. Our attacking planning seemed to rely on individual brilliance, not on any kind of planning or much organisation. It feels as though we are training to defend and then expecting the players to figure out how to score by themselves. It was truly fantastic seeing the interplay between Bos and Volparto because it felt so rare.

I want to see Australia improve, both in the short and long term. Having such a defensive coach hinders our ability to develop. It isn't silly to be ambitious and hope to see your country improve over the years, but I don't think Poppa or his style is the solution for that. Instead I'd rather see someone more pragmatic, or at least someone who believes in proactive, possession style football even if we don't play it all of the time
Click to expand...
Actually, I like your referral to stats comparing Cape Verde.

I’m keen on proactive football too, but I’d rather be competitive with Popa’s defensive game plan, than unsuccessful playing more proactive football.

You’ve raised some good points, MZ.

Notwithstanding, given the technical quality of most teams, particularly in the late rounds of the WC, there is no way we can match them playing expansive football. Hopefully, it will improve as the younger gen of whizz kids gain experience.

Haven’t seen you post before. Welcome to the forum.
 
grazorblade said:
One thing im really curious about is he seemed to try more out of the box selection decisions for the roos than he did for his clubs

I wonder why? Did he feel the team was outmatched and felt the need to try a hail mary?
Click to expand...
Popa might recognise greater long term, higher ceiling level with his less experienced players?

He would have evaluated them relatively in training.
 
Decentric said:
Popa might recognise greater long term, higher ceiling level with his less experienced players?

He would have evaluated them relatively in training.
Click to expand...
Leckie and even vellupilay in the usa game were older players which was a strange decision

Ryans sub was defensible but apparently redmayne got weeks notice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top