Decentric said:

The last sentence must be something to do with Toure nursing an injury.

Click to expand...

I think so but then I'd have played Yengi or even put Irvine as a false 9. Irankunda simply had to be wide.

Decentric said:

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.

Click to expand...

No one on here has ever disputed that our opponents had higher aggregate transfer values. This is largely irrelevant though in analysing how Australia performed at the World Cup. Most of us here are wanting Australia to perform better, because we strongly believe they can perform better with the right player selection and tactics. Taking the approach that we did well because we finished ahead of teams with a higher player market value is quite a simplistic, even puerile, argument.

Cunningstunt said:

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.

Click to expand...

First paragraph. Man-management. This is a common complaint about both Popovic and Okon over the years. nothing new here. Juric's coaching style is well known. Eggers approach is also well established across both football and multiple sports. Yes men - I can give you - maybe more a case of picking people you know are not going to challenge you because their align to your thinking - still a problem I would think.

Second paragraph. It is what it is, with a cohort that most people including on here, claim to be the greatest since the golden generation.

Third paragraph - there was no speculation - simply a reflection and I wasn't looking to denigrate their effort. God knows I wish I had achieved as much as any of the squad or management team in my chosen field. Probably more a concern that their seems to be an acceptance that the review seems to be - 'brave effort - let's move on'.

Decentric said:

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.

Click to expand...

I do agree that the first half against the US was our worst half by a long way. I don't agree that I was happy with the overall performance but that is coloured by what I thought was the initial squad selection so can probably agree with you in that context.

The last point about value I find terrible misleading as it is more a reflection of a long term undervaluation of Australian and (for the most part) non European or South American players.

Decentric said:

Agree with the last sentence. A point well made, PJ.

In the past when I was in the loop, a technical analysis of the Roo campaign would have been conducted by the Football Aus Tech Dept, and, the FIFA Tech Dept.

At the same time you are applying negative criteria, whilst it is possible to apply more positive criteria, to evaluate the Roo 2026 WC campaign.

IMO our last 2 WCs have been relatively more successful than our last 2 Asian Cups.

Click to expand...

I have to agree and also hope but fear that the trend doesn't continue. We should win our RD16 - but not guaranteed - then likely South Korea in the quarters. Not a gimme - but winnable. Then Japan in the semis. If we get past them we get Iran (not a FIFO team as they were at the World Cup) for the first time since 1997.

We are a top 4 team in Asia but conceivably be knocked out in RD16 or QFs. Equally we have beaten and drawn Japan in qualifying - albeit with little luck.

JS96 said:

I think so but then I'd have played Yengi or even put Irvine as a false 9. Irankunda simply had to be wide.

Click to expand...

It's disturbing that Popovic can't recognize this obvious truth

socceroosmad said:

It's disturbing that Popovic can't recognize this obvious truth

Click to expand...

It will be interesting to note how he is played at his new club.

Keeper66 said:

No one on here has ever disputed that our opponents had higher aggregate transfer values. This is largely irrelevant though in analysing how Australia performed at the World Cup. Most of us here are wanting Australia to perform better, because we strongly believe they can perform better with the right player selection and tactics. Taking the approach that we did well because we finished ahead of teams with a higher player market value is quite a simplistic, even puerile, argument.

Click to expand...

I think the more childish arguement is to ignore the reality and pretend that our players are actually much better than what everyone else in the world thinks.

Alex M said:

I think the more childish arguement is to ignore the reality and pretend that our players are actually much better than what everyone else in the world thinks.

Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone is arguing that our players are better than what everyone else in the world thinks, I’m certainly not. My belief is that the team can play better than it did, if it wasn’t being restricted under Popovic’s selections and tactics.

Keeper66 said:

I don’t think anyone is arguing that our players are better than what everyone else in the world thinks, I’m certainly not. My belief is that the team can play better than it did, if it wasn’t being restricted under Popovic’s selections and tactics.

Click to expand...

Exactly spot on.
Stupid comments previously just stupid.

patjennings said:

First paragraph. Man-management. This is a common complaint about both Popovic and Okon over the years. nothing new here. Juric's coaching style is well known. Eggers approach is also well established across both football and multiple sports. Yes men - I can give you - maybe more a case of picking people you know are not going to challenge you because their align to your thinking - still a problem I would think.

Second paragraph. It is what it is, with a cohort that most people including on here, claim to be the greatest since the golden generation.

Third paragraph - there was no speculation - simply a reflection and I wasn't looking to denigrate their effort. God knows I wish I had achieved as much as any of the squad or management team in my chosen field. Probably more a concern that their seems to be an acceptance that the review seems to be - 'brave effort - let's move on'.



I do agree that the first half against the US was our worst half by a long way. I don't agree that I was happy with the overall performance but that is coloured by what I thought was the initial squad selection so can probably agree with you in that context.

The last point about value I find terrible misleading as it is more a reflection of a long term undervaluation of Australian and (for the most part) non European or South American players.

Click to expand...

I don't want to seem like I am attacking you when I disagree. I like your posts and they provide me good insight but I think you have a blind spot with Popa.

The easiest group part you often lead with. If it isn't acknowledged we were expected to get 0 points, despite it being easier than previous groups, it is a line that emphasizes the negative and purposely ignores what was achieved. It suggests the agenda is to be able to say Popa bad and his results have not been good enough. (Side note about expectations. We are biased with this playing group and where we stand. The neutrals, neutral pundits, betting odds and transfer market values all expected us to get 0 points. Only rankings had us above Paraguay. Qualifying and getting four points was an upset and above expectation. Whatever this cohort goes on to achieve, they are much more potential than final product at this stage of their development).

The other aspects like Juric, Egger, Yes men. I still don't know what the basis for any of this is. And I care to follow this type of stuff way too much so am genuinely interested.
The pros/con part is true for this. So if Crawley had remained GK coach, his focus on sweeping meant less time on shot stopping and Beach didn't make the save so we lose to Turkey. Clark remains conditioning coach and because he lacked the discipline we fade and lose late to Paraguay. There is too much conflict amongst the coaching group, things get missed and so on. Any of this is just as plausible but my conclusions are still completely made up.

My overall point is not Popa is great. To be clear I am a WS founding member but I prefer the Ange style and would have gone with Muscat over Popa if he were available at the time. The biggest criticism and discussion should be around the philosophy and style being implemented and is this the right thing to take us forward. There are criticisms of individual decisions made which were probably wrong, but I don't think any of these were particularly bad in the moment.
The AC will be more of what we have seen, against weaker teams. Does he get extended to the next world cup? I would want the discussion to be about transitioning the style to being more proactive. He has done this in the past after he won the ACL. I am still unsure, but I think it will depend on who else is available at the time.

Alex M said:

I think the more childish arguement is to ignore the reality and pretend that our players are actually much better than what everyone else in the world thinks.

Click to expand...

Why put a limitation if they capable of doing more than it’s parts, you don’t believe the players are good enough then?

Barca4life said:

Why put a limitation if they capable of doing more than it’s parts, you don’t believe the players are good enough then?

Click to expand...

I think we do perform better as a team than the individuals that comprise it. We have a top 50 playing group and a top 30 team. For the first trime in a while we have players with he potential to be better than that, but they aren't there yet.

Cunningstunt said:

I don't want to seem like I am attacking you when I disagree. I like your posts and they provide me good insight but I think you have a blind spot with Popa.

The easiest group part you often lead with. If it isn't acknowledged we were expected to get 0 points, despite it being easier than previous groups, it is a line that emphasizes the negative and purposely ignores what was achieved. It suggests the agenda is to be able to say Popa bad and his results have not been good enough. (Side note about expectations. We are biased with this playing group and where we stand. The neutrals, neutral pundits, betting odds and transfer market values all expected us to get 0 points. Only rankings had us above Paraguay. Qualifying and getting four points was an upset and above expectation. Whatever this cohort goes on to achieve, they are much more potential than final product at this stage of their development).

The other aspects like Juric, Egger, Yes men. I still don't know what the basis for any of this is. And I care to follow this type of stuff way too much so am genuinely interested.
The pros/con part is true for this. So if Crawley had remained GK coach, his focus on sweeping meant less time on shot stopping and Beach didn't make the save so we lose to Turkey. Clark remains conditioning coach and because he lacked the discipline we fade and lose late to Paraguay. There is too much conflict amongst the coaching group, things get missed and so on. Any of this is just as plausible but my conclusions are still completely made up.

...

Click to expand...

TBH - before the squad selection I thought the group was wide open and any team could have got 9 points or could have got 0 points. After squad selection I though we would struggle and was thinking we may sneak through as a best third.

The easiest group is simply a fact as is the easiest knockout opponent. You may read it as a negative attack - I see it more as providing context.

As far as far as the yes men comment I have walked that back to some extent. It is probably a bit more about picking people that aligns with your viewpoint. i.e. - they will be yes men because they agree with your philosophy. Is that any better. I don't think so. It just leads to group think a lack of alternative views.

As for keeping we won against Turkey 2-0 - they had one great chance and Beach had one great save. We were never going to lose that game on keeping no matter who of the 3 were keepers. And the point of and old fashion purely shot stopping GK coach is that it just reinforces the one way to play - sit deep and you don't have to sweep.

Clark never lost discipline - the point there was more about a tailored program for each player tied to their club training i.e. the club where they had the form that got them in the squad in the first place.

Cunningstunt said:

My overall point is not Popa is great. To be clear I am a WS founding member but I prefer the Ange style and would have gone with Muscat over Popa if he were available at the time. The biggest criticism and discussion should be around the philosophy and style being implemented and is this the right thing to take us forward. There are criticisms of individual decisions made which were probably wrong, but I don't think any of these were particularly bad in the moment.

Click to expand...

You will have noticed over the posts that I also have questioned the way he was appointed in the first place and his renewal before the World Cup. That is another point that should be reviewed.

I just think that we really do not review our World Cup performances. We might as well say we are happy with just turning up and there is no need to question everything. When we win the damn thing we can have that attitude - until then saying that is the best we can do is a recipe for mediocrity.

That is not limited to management and the squad - that is about the whole football ecosystem. From the Football Australia board right down to the players at the lower levels. How do we improve? Is it better facilities, is it more participation, is it P & R, is it cheaper fees, should we be encouraging futsal training, more SSG?

No - we say brave effort - let's move on.

TBH - I was sick of seeing the fawning over Popovic when he was first appointed and had an (expected) good run and how incredble his stats were. I haven't seen anyone posts his stats recently. So I will and compare him to his immediate predecessor.



Arnold had his detractors - which he deserved at times - but he didn't throw his players under the bus (they arrived unfit so I sent them home) or his staff (the players seemed flat). He wore the decisions himself even though he had a more collegiate management group.

With respect to reviewing World Cup performances, which I completely agree should be done, does Football Australia actually have anyone with the football knowledge or experience to critically review national team performance? As far as I can work out we don’t have a national technical director, or anyone football-specific outside the national team coaches. Heather Garriock, god help us, seems to be the designated football expert there currently.

patjennings said:

TBH - before the squad selection I thought the group was wide open and any team could have got 9 points or could have got 0 points. After squad selection I though we would struggle and was thinking we may sneak through as a best third.

The easiest group is simply a fact as is the easiest knockout opponent. You may read it as a negative attack - I see it more as providing context.

As far as far as the yes men comment I have walked that back to some extent. It is probably a bit more about picking people that aligns with your viewpoint. i.e. - they will be yes men because they agree with your philosophy. Is that any better. I don't think so. It just leads to group think a lack of alternative views.

As for keeping we won against Turkey 2-0 - they had one great chance and Beach had one great save. We were never going to lose that game on keeping no matter who of the 3 were keepers. And the point of and old fashion purely shot stopping GK coach is that it just reinforces the one way to play - sit deep and you don't have to sweep.

Clark never lost discipline - the point there was more about a tailored program for each player tied to their club training i.e. the club where they had the form that got them in the squad in the first place.



You will have noticed over the posts that I also have questioned the way he was appointed in the first place and his renewal before the World Cup. That is another point that should be reviewed.

I just think that we really do not review our World Cup performances. We might as well say we are happy with just turning up and there is no need to question everything. When we win the damn thing we can have that attitude - until then saying that is the best we can do is a recipe for mediocrity.

That is not limited to management and the squad - that is about the whole football ecosystem. From the Football Australia board right down to the players at the lower levels. How do we improve? Is it better facilities, is it more participation, is it P & R, is it cheaper fees, should we be encouraging futsal training, more SSG?

No - we say brave effort - let's move on.

TBH - I was sick of seeing the fawning over Popovic when he was first appointed and had an (expected) good run and how incredble his stats were. I haven't seen anyone posts his stats recently. So I will and compare him to his immediate predecessor.

Manager	Total Matches	Wins	Draws	Losses	Win %	Draw %	Loss %
Graham Arnold (2nd Stint)	57	37	11	9	64.91%	19.30%	15.79%
Tony Popovic	18	10	4	4	55.56%	22.22%	22.22%

Arnold had his detractors - which he deserved at times - but he didn't throw his players under the bus (they arrived unfit so I sent them home) or his staff (the players seemed flat). He wore the decisions himself even though he had a more collegiate management group.

Click to expand...

You'll get no argument about the FA and need for proper review. Or any of the whole of football stuff.

The context is we were expected to lose, despite being in our easiest ever group. Leaving this out it seems like wanting to make it look bad.

I think we have talked about the squad before. I don't see anyone left out who would have made a material difference to the results or how we might have setup. It still isn't that hard to get selected for Australia. Despite some good recent transfers, if you play in a big 5 league or at a big club in a smaller league, you will get picked. The guys who did this were all picked. I am happy to change my mind if you can make the case for someone outside this.

I just disagree with you on leaving Rene in charge. Probably because I saw the start as close to dire. A pass for Bahrain at home and Indo away was 4 points.

Maybe Ryan makes that save. Maybe the 6cm height difference means he doesn't. 1-1 is a completely different game.

I don't think Clark was doing anything revolutionary. Maybe he got 1 or 2% more, if he was actually better, these are all guys who are very good at what they do. In terms of individualised programs. Egger did that. I remember reading these articles at the time. He also didn't work with Popa previously, Feyenoord the previous 5 seasons, which I did not know.



I like the data. I pulled out Round 3 qualifiers and WC matches (the competitive matches Popa has coached). Excluding friendlies, AC and other qualifiers. Like for like competitive matches, although for both qualifiers and WC Arnie had a slightly higher level due to the expanded WC.
Arnold

Popa

I would argue they compare pretty well. Fawning (I would argue grudging acceptance) over the results in qualifying was probably valid given no losses. Probably never beating Japan away, Saudi at home we had better chances and didn't win. Bahrain away you could argue was a poor result. I don't think anyone, media or fans, were fawning over the style of play.

patjennings said:

TBH - before the squad selection I thought the group was wide open and any team could have got 9 points or could have got 0 points. After squad selection I though we would struggle and was thinking we may sneak through as a best third.

The easiest group is simply a fact as is the easiest knockout opponent. You may read it as a negative attack - I see it more as providing context.

As far as far as the yes men comment I have walked that back to some extent. It is probably a bit more about picking people that aligns with your viewpoint. i.e. - they will be yes men because they agree with your philosophy. Is that any better. I don't think so. It just leads to group think a lack of alternative views.

As for keeping we won against Turkey 2-0 - they had one great chance and Beach had one great save. We were never going to lose that game on keeping no matter who of the 3 were keepers. And the point of and old fashion purely shot stopping GK coach is that it just reinforces the one way to play - sit deep and you don't have to sweep.

Clark never lost discipline - the point there was more about a tailored program for each player tied to their club training i.e. the club where they had the form that got them in the squad in the first place.



You will have noticed over the posts that I also have questioned the way he was appointed in the first place and his renewal before the World Cup. That is another point that should be reviewed.

I just think that we really do not review our World Cup performances. We might as well say we are happy with just turning up and there is no need to question everything. When we win the damn thing we can have that attitude - until then saying that is the best we can do is a recipe for mediocrity.

That is not limited to management and the squad - that is about the whole football ecosystem. From the Football Australia board right down to the players at the lower levels. How do we improve? Is it better facilities, is it more participation, is it P & R, is it cheaper fees, should we be encouraging futsal training, more SSG?

No - we say brave effort - let's move on.

TBH - I was sick of seeing the fawning over Popovic when he was first appointed and had an (expected) good run and how incredble his stats were. I haven't seen anyone posts his stats recently. So I will and compare him to his immediate predecessor.

Manager	Total Matches	Wins	Draws	Losses	Win %	Draw %	Loss %
Graham Arnold (2nd Stint)	57	37	11	9	64.91%	19.30%	15.79%
Tony Popovic	18	10	4	4	55.56%	22.22%	22.22%

Arnold had his detractors - which he deserved at times - but he didn't throw his players under the bus (they arrived unfit so I sent them home) or his staff (the players seemed flat). He wore the decisions himself even though he had a more collegiate management group.

Click to expand...

I wonder if we value ball players compare to other football countries?

I noticed alot of discourse from the media, fan views, grassroots culture and even referee styles we favour the hard working players but we diminish players that have close control and creativity of course the physical side is important espeically at the top level but there countries out there still technically better than us so its a difficult question to answer in general.