Welcome!

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

Sign Up Now!

♔ ♕ ♚ ♛ Australia U17/U20/U23 National Team Tournaments & Discussion Thread ♔ ♕ ♚ ♛

melbcityguy said:
You probably understand tactics better then me. But 442 you want two midfielders who are creating can't be all on algaich.

Val is more of a six id play him behind two other midfielders.
Click to expand...
What they were doing with having 2 central midfielders and no designated number 10, like in a 4-2-3-1, or 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle, was one would sit and the other go forwards to join the build up as it advanced closer to the Iraq goal.

Valadon usually sat whilst Alagich advanced further forwards in the last 3 Asian Cup games. This is a common practice in 4-4-2s.

Last time in some earlier qualifiers I seem to remember Valadon and Bozinovski bossing the midfield against arguably inferior teams. I think Alagich played in a more advanced position as a number 10, creating a specialist attacking midfielder, in a 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle in Ball Possession.

In Vid's current 4-4-2 both in Ball Possession and Ball Possession Opposition, he relied on the central strikers dropping back into midfield. Once again, one would drop whilst the other stayed high when the ball was in the central attacking third, or defensive third.

In the earlier qualifiers in Ball Possession, IMO the specialist number 10 worked better.
 
So, would a draw have ended being better - giving us the Uzbeks and not South Korea?
 
Quicky said:
To be fair to Overy he is being played out of position in a pretty dysfunctional team.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it is dysfunctional, Q. Far from it!

Apparently, the Chinese coach claimed Japan and Aus were the best teams with the ball in the comp. I've only seen 4 teams, so I can't pontificate.

There has been a fair bit of rapidfire passing and moving in tight spaces with the Olyroos so far. This means the ball carriers have had to have pretty good vision, and quality technique to do this.

Moreover, the supporting players have to have moved into optimum passing lanes to support the ball carrier to succeed in this facet of play. So in this aspect of play the Olyroos have often been cohesive. Valadon was particularly effective and it often occurred in the middle third of the pitch.

IMO quite a few problems occurred in Ball Possession Opposition as a team unit in the defensive half. The team shape in BPO often wasn't optimal.

The second CB next to Paull over the 3 games, possibly struggled with marking individually, and as part of a team unit.

Ditto the left backs, who weren't used to playing there.

Moreover, the midfielders probably didn't clean up second balls when the Aus CBs won heading duels as well as they could either when defending in the Aus defensive pen box , resulting in too many opposition shots from range.

There were also quite a few mishit, or/and poorly anticipated/misread runs to balls played into the box in the Aus attacking third.

The shooting wasn't great either.

Structured possession was a strength though in the back two thirds of the pitch. It is a consequence of effective teamwork.
 
Decentric said:
I wouldn't say it is dysfunctional, Q. Far from it!

Apparently, the Chinese coach claimed Japan and Aus were the best teams with the ball in the comp. I've only seen 4 teams, so I can't pontificate.

There has been a fair bit of rapidfire passing and moving in tight spaces with the Olyroos so far. This means the ball carriers have had to have pretty good vision, and quality technique to do this.

Moreover, the supporting players have to have moved into optimum passing lanes to support the ball carrier to succeed in this facet of play. So in this aspect of play the Olyroos have often been cohesive. Valadon was particularly effective and it often occurred in the middle third of the pitch.

IMO quite a few problems occurred in Ball Possession Opposition as a team unit in the defensive half. The team shape in BPO often wasn't optimal.

The second CB next to Paull over the 3 games, possibly struggled with marking individually, and as part of a team unit.

Ditto the left backs, who weren't used to playing there.

Moreover, the midfielders probably didn't clean up second balls when the Aus CBs won heading duels as well as they could either when defending in the Aus defensive pen box , resulting in too many opposition shots from range.

There were also quite a few mishit, or/and poorly anticipated/misread runs to balls played into the box in the Aus attacking third.

The shooting wasn't great either.

Structured possession was a strength though in the back two thirds of the pitch. It is a consequence of effective teamwork.
Click to expand...
I think you highlighted our positives in that we kept possession okay in the back half. I think you're right that our defense has been very poor out of possession. Playing defenders out of position doesn't help.

What wasn't mentioned was effective forward transition and chance creation has been almost non-existent. There were 0 shots at goal to half time. 0! That is dysfunctional imo.

Very hard to win games when you can't create chances but also defend so poorly when you lose the ball. We got lucky yesterday. It was do or die so we got positive and Iraq left it open with all that stupid time wasting.
 
I don't personally think the Uzbeks would have been easier. They've had pretty stellar performances over the years from their youth teams which hasn't always translated to their senior team.

They've finished in the top 4 in the last 4 u23 asian championships and this cohort made the round of 16 at the u20 world cup in 2023.
 
Quicky said:
I think you highlighted our positives in that we kept possession okay in the back half. I think you're right that our defense has been very poor out of possession. Playing defenders out of position doesn't help.

What wasn't mentioned was effective forward transition and chance creation has been almost non-existent. There were 0 shots at goal to half time. 0! That is dysfunctional imo.

Very hard to win games when you can't create chances but also defend so poorly when you lose the ball. We got lucky yesterday. It was do or die so we got positive and Iraq left it open with all that stupid time wasting.
Click to expand...
The game against Iraq had both teams with few shots at goal. Did Iraq have a few shots in the first half? I can't remember? All the 3 games are blending into each other except the last 30 mins I watched this morning against Iraq.

I thought I mentioned the problems with the ball in the attacking third. It was pretty poor! I don't usually do it, but I went to bed just before midnight when I usually stay up, because the game was a bit tedious.

Got up early watched the 3 min highlights, thinking we had lost. It was surprise at the end.

What do you think, Q?

Was it better to go to the Asian Cup with possibly a third string team, as opposed to the best team, but still qualify for the last 8 with them?

Or would it have been good to go with close to full strength with Circati, both Bos brothers, Beach, Iran, Mo Toure, Yazbek, Bozinovski, Adamson, Matthews, Okon Jr, Youlley, Robertson, Clayton Taylor, Esposito, et al?

A few years ago when another forum member rekindled my interest after I was despondent about the senior Asian Cup exit against South Korea, by pointing me in the direction of the Aus U23s and all the young players in the AL.

I find it fascinating from the u23s in the Asian Cup 2 years ago, which players have kicked on - and which have stalled a bit. It is very hard to predict. Kevin Muscat stated this at a workshop I attended.
 
Capac said:
I don't personally think the Uzbeks would have been easier. They've had pretty stellar performances over the years from their youth teams which hasn't always translated to their senior team.

They've finished in the top 4 in the last 4 u23 asian championships and this cohort made the round of 16 at the u20 world cup in 2023.
Click to expand...
Interesting post.
 
Decentric said:
What they were doing with having 2 central midfielders and no designated number 10, like in a 4-2-3-1, or 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle, was one would sit and the other go forwards to join the build up as it advanced closer to the Iraq goal.

Valadon usually sat whilst Alagich advanced further forwards in the last 3 Asian Cup games. This is a common practice in 4-4-2s.

Last time in some earlier qualifiers I seem to remember Valadon and Bozinovski bossing the midfield against arguably inferior teams. I think Alagich played in a more advanced position as a number 10, creating a specialist attacking midfielder, in a 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle in Ball Possession.

In Vid's current 4-4-2 both in Ball Possession and Ball Possession Opposition, he relied on the central strikers dropping back into midfield. Once again, one would drop whilst the other stayed high when the ball was in the central attacking third, or defensive third.

In the earlier qualifiers in Ball Possession, IMO the specialist number 10 worked better.
Click to expand...
China played with a 5-3 rather than 4-4 block which meant there was more space in the middle and less space on the wings. We needed to use the central areas more, we were playing into their hands constantly going down the wing

we mixed it up against iraq but struggled to produce much. The context of the game might have made a difference to how we played since a draw was enough
 
upcoming draws,
Thursday May 28th 2026: AFC U20 Asian Cup 2027 qualifying draw

AFC U20 Asian Cup 2027 qualifying held between August 29-September 6th 2026.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top