Welcome!

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

Sign Up Now!

Match stats/analysis for recent Socceroo games

Keeper66 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are right in regards to Garriock's role. People can argue about her qualifications for the football role - but that is the real question. Her role as part of the board should be one of oversight - not of an operational role.

TBH - if you are doing a proper review it should be independent of Football Australia and review Football Australia role as well. People have criticised my position on extending Popovic until the Asian Cup and that at the moment is fair enough since the Asian Cup Cup is so close to the World Cup. However, in future the Asian Cup will be moving to 2032, 2036 etc.

If either case the six months period subsequent to a World Cup is the right time for a major review of the football ecosystem, to make adjustments and to reset before the whole cycle begins again. That is separate to interim performance audits.
 
Cunningstunt said:
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.
Click to expand...

I really don't want to make individual cases - I'd rather look at the squad overall - though there were a number of individuals chosen that I wouldn't have considered. We were going into a tournament where we knew we had 3 different opponents that played fairly different styles of play. did

If, as you say, we are not expected to beat anyone of them, I also assume we do not expect to dominate any of them. So then squad selection should not be about imposing our style of play above any of them. It should be about building a squad that is adaptable. We built a squad to play one way. To paraphrase Paul Okon at the World Cup (and everywhere he has had a coaching role) plan B is to do Plan A better.

Now if you are replacing players in the game to do Plan A better the questions are multiple.

1) Why is there only a Plan A
2) If the replacement players are do Plan A better why weren't they on the field to start with.
3) Why did we only pick a squad that realistically was set up to play that Plan A with its emphasis on defence and holding mids.
4) What players could have been picked to make a change to games against different opponents in different scenarios.

That last point is the important one. Even if you pick a traditional 23 man squad to play your Plan A, we now have the luxury of three extra players. They can be your Plan B, C and D,

Popovic talked about the squad saying why can't it be us that makes history, while concurrently picking a squad that has one route to goal. That may get us out of the group but it was never going to get us much further. We essentially went in with no-one that could add anything different (with the exception of Volpato who essentially replaced an injured McGree.

As I said - before squad selection I saw four mid-tier sides - all of which could aspire to get 9 points and could equally end up with 0 points. After squad selection I thought 4 points and a best third as our ceiling. As it was 4 points got us a second after a poor performance by Turkiye. By that measure the squad did reach their ceiling, Australia did not.
 
patjennings said:
You are right in regards to Garriock's role. People can argue about her qualifications for the football role - but that is the real question. Her role as part of the board should be one of oversight - not of an operational role.

TBH - if you are doing a proper review it should be independent of Football Australia and review Football Australia role as well. People have criticised my position on extending Popovic until the Asian Cup and that at the moment is fair enough since the Asian Cup Cup is so close to the World Cup. However, in future the Asian Cup will be moving to 2032, 2036 etc.

If either case the six months period subsequent to a World Cup is the right time for a major review of the football ecosystem, to make adjustments and to reset before the whole cycle begins again. That is separate to interim performance audits.
Click to expand...
I think if we move the Asian Cup we should treat them as two separate cycles. Currently I see the Asian Cup as a part of this cycle. Definitely worth a review after the Asian Cup. It's the perfect time for a detailed review with a bit of a break before things get serious again. We, the general public, have no real idea what the next cycle will look like in terms of competitive matches. It could involve nations leagues and separate qualifying cycles for Asian and World Cups. Your idea of an external review makes sense to me, but I doubt our administrators would expose themselves to that.
 
Alex M said:
I think if we move the Asian Cup we should treat them as two separate cycles. Currently I see the Asian Cup as a part of this cycle. Definitely worth a review after the Asian Cup. It's the perfect time for a detailed review with a bit of a break before things get serious again. We, the general public, have no real idea what the next cycle will look like in terms of competitive matches. It could involve nations leagues and separate qualifying cycles for Asian and World Cups. Your idea of an external review makes sense to me, but I doubt our administrators would expose themselves to that.
Click to expand...
If the review is done internally, who would do it?
 
patjennings said:
I really don't want to make individual cases - I'd rather look at the squad overall - though there were a number of individuals chosen that I wouldn't have considered. We were going into a tournament where we knew we had 3 different opponents that played fairly different styles of play. did

If, as you say, we are not expected to beat anyone of them, I also assume we do not expect to dominate any of them. So then squad selection should not be about imposing our style of play above any of them. It should be about building a squad that is adaptable. We built a squad to play one way. To paraphrase Paul Okon at the World Cup (and everywhere he has had a coaching role) plan B is to do Plan A better.

Now if you are replacing players in the game to do Plan A better the questions are multiple.

1) Why is there only a Plan A
2) If the replacement players are do Plan A better why weren't they on the field to start with.
3) Why did we only pick a squad that realistically was set up to play that Plan A with its emphasis on defence and holding mids.
4) What players could have been picked to make a change to games against different opponents in different scenarios.

That last point is the important one. Even if you pick a traditional 23 man squad to play your Plan A, we now have the luxury of three extra players. They can be your Plan B, C and D,

Popovic talked about the squad saying why can't it be us that makes history, while concurrently picking a squad that has one route to goal. That may get us out of the group but it was never going to get us much further. We essentially went in with no-one that could add anything different (with the exception of Volpato who essentially replaced an injured McGree.

As I said - before squad selection I saw four mid-tier sides - all of which could aspire to get 9 points and could equally end up with 0 points. After squad selection I thought 4 points and a best third as our ceiling. As it was 4 points got us a second after a poor performance by Turkiye. By that measure the squad did reach their ceiling, Australia did not.
Click to expand...
I don't agree or disagree with a plan b in principal but I think it would have been wrong in this case. International football where time is limited it is a compromise. England switched to plan b after they went up against Argentina, could not execute it as well and lost. Maybe it allows you to push Egypt harder in the second half and get a winner. Maybe the trade off for us training for a plan b, rather than continuing to improve plan a, could easily have been losing or drawing with Turkey and not getting out of the group.

We could have easily gone further with this squad, setup and tactics. The same way we beat Turkey. The same way we beat Japan. The same way Arnie won two matches. It was just never likely in the same way the Turkey win was never likely.

It isn't a very compelling argument to say there are magical players who exist who could have changed the squad to the point we win all three matches, but then being unable to name them. It's not even fringe selection decisions, but guys who are clear difference makers to give us a chance to win all three games. The guys who missed out were either young, flawed, not getting minutes, playing at a lower level, some combination of these (as were a lot of the guys selected).
 
Cunningstunt said:
I don't agree or disagree with a plan b in principal but I think it would have been wrong in this case. International football where time is limited it is a compromise. England switched to plan b after they went up against Argentina, could not execute it as well and lost. Maybe it allows you to push Egypt harder in the second half and get a winner. Maybe the trade off for us training for a plan b, rather than continuing to improve plan a, could easily have been losing or drawing with Turkey and not getting out of the group.

We could have easily gone further with this squad, setup and tactics. The same way we beat Turkey. The same way we beat Japan. The same way Arnie won two matches. It was just never likely in the same way the Turkey win was never likely.

It isn't a very compelling argument to say there are magical players who exist who could have changed the squad to the point we win all three matches, but then being unable to name them. It's not even fringe selection decisions, but guys who are clear difference makers to give us a chance to win all three games. The guys who missed out were either young, flawed, not getting minutes, playing at a lower level, some combination of these (as were a lot of the guys selected).
Click to expand...

As I said I didn't want to highlight particular players because I thought it was more about squad balance. But your point is exactly why you could pick others so I will give an example.

We picked others that are young (or old and injured), flawed and not getting minutes and playing at a lower level. We had two physical CFs in Toure and Yengi and played an inside forward there for most of the time. What about a fox in the box type like Archie Goodwin. We couldn't afford a different type of striker because we selected too many defenders and holding mids. Was he ideal in Popovic's setup - no. But that is the point. If we are chasing a win and plan A is not working I think he adds something different than bringing on Velupillay to replace a tiring player for instance.

Would he have made a difference - I don't know. But from a tournament selection point of view he offered something different.

Compare to 2022. Forget the quality of player - we had three CFs. A hard working defend from the front with good aerial qualities with Duke, JMac the poacher and Cummings the track back to pick up the ball connector. i.e. they had different roles,
 
Last edited:
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...
Is it childish or just a different opinion?
 
Quicky said:
Is it childish or just a different opinion?
Click to expand...
Different opinions but mine is that it's more childish to think that the rest of the world has it wrong about the quality of our players. I wasn't the one who first used the term (although I put it in different words).
 
Alex M said:
Different opinions but mine is that it's more childish to think that the rest of the world has it wrong about the quality of our players. I wasn't the one who first used the term (although I put it in different words).
Click to expand...
You were first to use the term childish, in response to me using the word puerile. And puerile has a more nuanced meaning than simply childish.
 
Alex M said:
Different opinions but mine is that it's more childish to think that the rest of the world has it wrong about the quality of our players. I wasn't the one who first used the term (although I put it in different words).
Click to expand...
That doesn't make those opinions childish. It's a pretty condescending take tbh.
 
Quicky said:
That doesn't make those opinions childish. It's a pretty condescending take tbh.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Play the ball not the man, we all have different views and thats ok (i agree with your main point are cattle was weaker btw. Curious where we end up in 2030)
 
Keeper66 said:
You were first to use the term childish, in response to me using the word puerile. And puerile has a more nuanced meaning than simply childish.
Click to expand...
Not really.
Quicky said:
That doesn't make those opinions childish. It's a pretty condescending take tbh.
Click to expand...
I didn't use the term first. Perhaps you should look up the world puerile. You may even find this conversation there as an example. Then look up condescending while you're at it.
 
Last edited:
patjennings said:
As I said I didn't want to highlight particular players because I thought it was more about squad balance. But your point is exactly why you could pick others so I will give an example.

We picked others that are young (or old and injured), flawed and not getting minutes and playing at a lower level. We had two physical CFs in Toure and Yengi and played an inside forward there for most of the time. What about a fox in the box type like Archie Goodwin. We couldn't afford a different type of striker because we selected too many defenders and holding mids. Was he ideal in Popovic's setup - no. But that is the point. If we are chasing a win and plan A is not working I think he adds something different than bringing on Velupillay to replace a tiring player for instance.

Would he have made a difference - I don't know. But from a tournament selection point of view he offered something different.

Compare to 2022. Forget the quality of player - we had three CFs. A hard working defend from the front with good aerial qualities with Duke, JMac the poacher and Cummings the track back to pick up the ball connector. i.e. they had different roles,
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying now. Setting aside whether any of these guys were ready. The period when he might have been able to work on an alternate plan would have been in the friendlies. But even then there were still quite a lot of new guys coming in who didn't know the existing system. I think he got better value out of continuing to improve the system.

I don't think guys who are only as good or slightly worse bring us better results in a different, less practiced setup just because it is a something different. There are trade offs attempting to do this and the Turkey result was a fine margin. You lose this match far more often than you win it. Maybe against Egypt it lets us change things up and get a winner before penalties. But being worse at the primary setup means you easily draw or lose to Turkey and don't get out of the group.
 
Alex M said:
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.
Click to expand...
A point well made.

If it hadn't been for the updated coach education in Aus, the national team would not have been able to play better as a team unit, than the individual players who comprise the team.
 
Alex M said:
Different opinions but mine is that it's more childish to think that the rest of the world has it wrong about the quality of our players. I wasn't the one who first used the term (although I put it in different words).
Click to expand...
I agree with your opinion that the rest of the world is correct on Aus player quality, Alex, but I don't think Quicky is childish for expressing a different opinion from what we believe to be true.
 
Decentric said:
I agree with your opinion that the rest of the world is correct on Aus player quality, Alex, but I don't think Quicky is childish for expressing a different opinion from what we believe to be true.
Click to expand...
Nor do I, but you need to go back a post to in the chain to keeper to see it's origin. It was keeper who referred to arguments that we performed OK because we beat teams with more valuable players as such. Mine was a comparative post rather than an absolute one.
 
Alex M said:
Nor do I, but you need to go back a post to in the chain to keeper to see it's origin. It was keeper who referred to arguments that we performed OK because we beat teams with more valuable players as such. Mine was a comparative post rather than an absolute one.
Click to expand...
I defended Quicky, not Keeper.

I have disagreed with Q on many issues football, but I also see merit in the positions he proffers. Q has also started some excellent threads on G and G, like top Aussie scorers overseas/worldwide. We essentially disagree on Popa's tenure, and who he selects for the national team. Q is a valued, proactive member of the forum.

Conversely, Keeper posts a lot of pedantic , negative and 'gotchya' posts. He never starts threads proactively, but can find plenty of negatives in those who do.
 
Last edited:
I was fascinated by Scotland at the WC, because so many Aussies overseas play there. It has a lot more context to analyse the national team, where the Scottish national team players are selected from which leagues, because so many Aussies play in Scotland.

However, aside from goalkeepers, only 1 Scottish player, was selected from the Scottish league, who play in teams outside the Old Firm, Rangers and Celtic. There was a token CB from Hibs.

All other outfield Scottish players selected, play in England, with a surprisingly large number playing in Italy, about 3 or more in the current squad, and up to 7 in recent games before the WC.

Essentially, Scottish coach Steve Clarke does not the rate the Scottish domestic league at all - with only 1 outfield player selected outside Rangers and Celtic.

Also, the Scottish national team were a lot more technical on the ball than most teams/players in the Scottish league.

The off the ball movement to support the ball carrier, was a lot better too.

There were more ball players in the Scottish national team. It appeared more of the national team play football on better, less muddy pitches than Scotland in winter. The Scottish national team also played football on the deck, and were able to carry out rhythm changes.

The other surprise was the Scottish team at the WC, wasn't as dominant in 1v1 physical duels against Brazil and Morocco, as their rugged national league indicated they would be.

Clarke used technical criteria for players' skill set on the ball, movement off it to support the ball carrier, as being paramount for selection criteria, over physical 1v1s and ability to win second balls in the frequent transitional play on show in the Scottish domestic league.

The Scottish national team were able to sustain possession for long spells against quality opposition, whereas most Scottish domestic teams struggle to do this against each other.

To me given Scotland's mediocre performance against Haiti, and improved performances against Brazil and Morocco in the second half, indicated they weren't very well prepared compared to teams like Aus.

Sadly, Aussies playing in Scotland rarely compete against the best Scottish players, playing in England and Italy, with a few Scottish individuals playing in Croatia and Saudi. There must be a low number of players in Scotland who play international football.

Petar Petrov, a guest on G and G Podcast, who is a professional scout, rates the AL, Scottish league and League 1 on a par.
 
Decentric said:
...

Petar Petrov, a guest on G and G Podcast, who is a professional scout, rates the AL, Scottish league and League 1 on a par.
Click to expand...

League 1 and the Scottish League (assuming you avoid injury) gives you proximity and eyes on you from the other English and European leagues and much longer seasons.
 
patjennings said:
League 1 and the Scottish League (assuming you avoid injury) gives you proximity and eyes on you from the other English and European leagues and much longer seasons.
Click to expand...
This is a point that Quicky makes, but they may play too much.

Years ago Raymond Verheijen conducted evidence based research at the amount of football played and injury.

The Dutch , Portuguese play a 34 game home and away season, to the best of my knowledge, and Belgium play 30. Grazor and others may have posted it here.

The 40-50 game season is probably considered too long, with players receiving inadequate rest, and not being fresh enough for international football. Of course if one is a bench player, or reserve, a 40-50 game season is btteer than an AL 26 game season.

An AL 26 game season, plus ACL 8-12 game season, add a few Cup games, is closer to ideal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top