Match stats/analysis for recent Socceroo games

[Decentric]

Just on the point about established players as opposed to potential players, I think most of the U 23s I've mooted are playing senior pro football ATM?

Given Geria's performances against China and Japan, with Arnie, and probably few on here mooting Geria as a Socceroo prior, including me, one never knows how a player will perform at national team level?

Rhys Williams was a fan favourite, but didn't have the sustained Socceroo career most of his advocates would have hoped for. Was he playing Championship? Conversely, Mark Milligan, mainly an AL player, had a long, successful Socceroo career.

 

[Decentric]

I'm going to post Popa's formational changes in the China ( reviewing stats etc ATM) and Japan games.

..........................................Gauci


..............Geria.................Souttar.............Rowles/Burg
Miller..............................................................................Behich

.......................O'Neill....................Irvine

.........Goodwin...............Duke................McGree/Iran

A 5-2-3 in the Defensive Transition ( in the 5 -6 seconds when Aus first loses the ball) and the defensive shape in Ball Possession Opposition. when in the attacking half, and just over the half way line in the defensive half of the pitch.

Then it evolved to a 5-4-1 in the defensive third of the pitch whilst still in BPO.

Then a 3-4-3 when we won the ball again in Attacking Transitions ( 5-6 seconds after we regain the ball) evolving to Ball Possession in the middle third of the pitch.

Then a 3-2-5 when the full backs push up high in the attacking third.

I'll show them in detail next.

 

[Decentric]

Then the formation evolves to a 5-4-1 as Aus spends longer in Ball Possession Opposition and retreats back towards the Aus defensive goal.

.............................................Gauci

Miller..............Geria...........Souttar..........Rowles/Bur .........Behich

Goodwin..............O'Neill..................Irvine............McGree/Iran

...........................................Duke

 

[Decentric]

Next the Aus formation evolves to a 3-4-3 flat midfield as the ball is won back and the build up progresses up the pitch.


.................................................Gauci

....................Geria...................Souttar..............Rowles

Miller.................O'Neill......................Irvine...................Behich

................Goodwin............. Duke..................McGree

 

[Decentric]

Finally as the full backs push up and overlap into the attacking third, or occasionally underlap, the shape evolves to a 3-2-5.

............................................Gauci

................Geria...................Souttar.................Rowles

........................O'Neill.......................Irvine

Miller...........Goodwin.........Duke............McGree........Behich

 

[Decentric]

One might notice the formation is conducive to inherent triangles as soon as Aus recovers the ball and has possession. The flat lines are easier to coach too, as opposed to the inherent midfield triangles (attacking and defensive) in the the two preferred 4-3-3 formations, or the midfield triangle in the 3-5-2.

 

[Quicky]

Team selection is set-up to favour the defensive shape in the 5-2-3.

I have an issue with Miller as RWB. He isn't great offensively and defensively can be over eager and naive.

It's something that could perhaps be fixed by Strain or Metcalfe but both have had injury issues recently.

The formation sacrifices a midfielder and leaves us NQR offensively with our right sided width.

It puts our central midfielders under a lot of pressure, which doesn't get the best out of Irvine.

If we persist I think we need some combo of Luongo-Balard-O'Neill-Robertson-Baccus.

Against Japan it was defensively rock solid but left us completely ineffective offensively.

It was a formation that suited to situation after the teams poor form and Arnies 'resignation' but I hope we evolve from it.

 

[Decentric]

I have an issue with Miller as RWB. He isn't great offensively and defensively can be over eager and naive.

It's something that could perhaps be fixed by Strain or Metcalfe but both have had injury issues recently.

The formation sacrifices a midfielder and leaves us NQR offensively with our right sided width.

It puts our central midfielders under a lot of pressure, which doesn't get the best out of Irvine.

Looking at the China replay ATM and compiling data. I'm up to the 52 min mark.

Miller has been far more effective against China than Japan.

The difference was the level of Squeezing ( like squeezing an orange) intensity. China kept a pretty compact Half Press ( only really trying to win the ball back as the build ups entered their defensive half) with Moderate Squeezing. I cannot get over how much more effective Miller was against China? His aerial power was decisive too.

Against Japan they applied a Full Press with more intensive Squeezing. Our players often had far less time and space on the ball and coughed it up quickly. Miller in particular looked quite cumbersome on his feet, against nimble Japanese players closing him down so effectively.

I've had a good look at Geria as right sided CB for the Socceroos and think he was close to the best Socceroo over the two legs under Popa's tutelage. I watched him at RB for Melb Vic. Haven't seen him bomb on like Atkinson does so well, but ATM I think Geria may be our best RB option.

NQR? Not sure what this means, Quicky?

Irvine has serious limitations as two touch passer and mover in tight spaces. This is despite being one of our few players playing Big Five, or at one of the 30 -40 powerhouse UEFA clubs at smaller leagues.

Against Japan Jackson Irvine was more effective when Japan had the ball, then when we had the ball. In team ball circulation in tighter spaces he gets into effective body position to one touch in a sequence, but can't back up with successive two touch and one touch rapidfire pass and move sequences.

The midfield wasn't under as much pressure , because the two wide players in the attacking trio tucked in when we lost the ball in support.

You make a valid point that our midfield appears short a player when we have the ball though. If O'Neill had a better technician next to him, with faster handling speed, like Aaron Mooy, Mark Milligan, Grella, Culina, Jordi Valadon, Jake Hollman or Rhys Youlley, I don't think it would be much of an issue.

 

[Decentric]

Against Japan it was defensively rock solid but left us completely ineffective offensively.

It was a formation that suited to situation after the teams poor form and Arnies 'resignation' but I hope we evolve from it.

I wonder if this was due to Japanese quality, that exposed our weaknesses?

As opposed to the 3-4-3 formation and its variations?

That Japanese team is the best team I've ever seen in Asia. Fair play to them! I think they are FIFA ranked 16 ATM. I think we will see Japan in the top 10 soon, notwithstanding the idiosyncracies of FIFA rankings.

 

[grazorblade]

Team selection is set-up to favour the defensive shape in the 5-2-3.

I have an issue with Miller as RWB. He isn't great offensively and defensively can be over eager and naive.

It's something that could perhaps be fixed by Strain or Metcalfe but both have had injury issues recently.

The formation sacrifices a midfielder and leaves us NQR offensively with our right sided width.

It puts our central midfielders under a lot of pressure, which doesn't get the best out of Irvine.

If we persist I think we need some combo of Luongo-Balard-O'Neill-Robertson-Baccus.

Against Japan it was defensively rock solid but left us completely ineffective offensively.

It was a formation that suited to situation after the teams poor form and Arnies 'resignation' but I hope we evolve from it.

definitely would like to try metcalf their - a back three in theory makes it possible. Hope poppa tries it!

 

[grazorblade]

I wonder if this was due to Japanese quality, that exposed our weaknesses?

As opposed to the 3-4-3 formation and its variations?

That Japanese team is the best team I've ever seen in Asia. Fair play to them! I think they are FIFA ranked 16 ATM. I think we will see Japan in the top 10 soon, notwithstanding the idiosyncracies of FIFA rankings.

Japan are 15th on ELO. Even if top 10 is hard on fifa rankings, they can probalby manage it on elo

 

[grazorblade]

"The difference was the level of Squeezing ( like squeezing an orange) intensity. China kept a pretty compact Half Press ( only really trying to win the ball back as the build ups entered their defensive half) with Moderate Squeezing. I cannot get over how much more effective Miller was against China? His aerial power was decisive too."

Miller also just scored a header for his club. Having multiple targets on top of souttar could make our set pieces more effective

 

[Decentric]

I've just completed the match stats for the Socceroos v China WCQ game, which Aus won 3-1.

Defensive Half Passes completed; Aus 160, China 72.

Defensive half passing accuracy; Aus 94%, China 79%.

Attacking half completed passes; Aus 410, China 82.

Attacking half passing accuracy; Aus 92%, China 77%.

Total passes accrued; Aus 570, China 154.

Possession based on passes; Aus 81%, China 19%.

Balls played into the pen box; Aus 45, China 17.

% of balls played into the pen box on the ground; Aus 20, China 4.

Shots at goal, Aus 13, China, 2.

Shots on target; Aus 5, China 1.

Keeper intercepts; Aus 5, China 9.

Keeper saves; Aus 0, China 1.

 

[Decentric]

Unlike the Japan game, Aus dominated the stats and territory against China.

Yet Australia won easily against China on the scorecard, but managed to draw with Japan, with Japan dominating shots at goal - and - balls played into the pen box.

Aus had 44% possession based on passes against Japan, whilst they had 81% possession against China.

 

[grazorblade]

Unlike the Japan game, Aus dominated the stats and territory against China.

Yet Australia won easily against China on the scorecard, but managed to draw with Japan, with Japan dominating shots at goal - and - balls played into the pen box.

Aus had 44% possession based on passes against Japan, whilst they had 81% possession against China.

We are a much better team without the ball than with it! But glad for a nice win v china

 

[Decentric]

Didn't record how many chances Goodwin helped create, in terms of assists for shots on goal against China. But his foray onto the pitch for a few mins against Japan and receiving the Yellow could be decisive against Saudi. Goodwin's suspension could be hard to cover.

Aus had a defensive pass accuracy of 94% against China and 92% against Japan. This is good in both games, particularly against Japan's intensive Squeezing and Full Pressing so high up the pitch.

Australia broke up a lot of Chinese build ups in both the defensive and attacking halves.

Gegenpressing worked effectively against China, but Aus was more circumspect against Japan. They preferred to conservatively focus on holding team shape when Japan had the ball in the defensive half. So Aus only Squeezed moderately and played a safer Half Press ( really only focusing on winning the ball in the Aus defensive half).

The penalty for swarming on the ball, in intensive Squeezing, is if the team isn't broken up in the 6 second Attacking Transition, the aggressive team Squeezing, like Japan applied, can backfire.

3 Japanese players closing down 1-2 Aussies, can leave holes in the team shape, if Japan didn't succeed in winning the ball quickly in Australia's Attacking Transtions and early in Aus's Ball Possession phase of play - that is the 6 second period when Aus won the ball.

However, it worked a lot for Japan in the first 6o mins. Then Japan ran out of gas a bit.

Also, I didn't record the number, but China played a lot of long, high balls at Aus, that Souttar often repelled with his head.

Live, it seemed Japan dominated territory and possession, but later in the game Aus must have had more ball as Japan weren't fresh enough to intensively Squeeze.

The stats were 44% possession to Aus, 56% possession to Japan.

So Aus were much more effective at keeping the ball in their Defensive Half against Japan with 94% passing accuracy, than China were against Aus with only 79% passing accuracy in the Chinese Defensive Half.

 

[Decentric]

We are a much better team without the ball than with it! But glad for a nice win v china

Just with the last post, Aus achieved 92% passing accuracy in the defensive half against Japan's superb intensive Squeezing and Full Pressing.

This was a pleasant surprise!

The good news is in this week's AL round young player, Jordi Valadon, kept the ball much better than Socceroo Brattan did for MacArthur against Vic. Valadon and Teague ran the show.

On the ball there are far better younger ball players emerging than Socceroos, Brattan (the best), Irvine and Yazbek ( did well), against Japan, and even McGree and Hrustic.

 

[grazorblade]

Just with the last post, Aus achieved 92% passing accuracy in the defensive half against Japan's superb intensive Squeezing and Full Pressing.

This was a pleasant surprise!

The good news is in this week's AL round young player, Jordi Valadon, kept the ball much better than Socceroo Brattan did for MacArthur against Vic. Valadon and Teague ran the show.

On the ball there are far better younger ball players emerging than Socceroos, Brattan (the best), Irvine and Yazbek ( did well), against Japan, and even McGree and Hrustic.

I think 2003, valadons year, is when you really start to see a real jump in quality. I guess those players will be nearing their prime in 2030. Next cycle will be very interesting

 

[grazorblade]

Didn't record how many chances Goodwin helped create, in terms of assists for shots on goal against China. But his foray onto the pitch for a few mins against Japan and receiving the Yellow could be decisive against Saudi. Goodwin's suspension could be hard to cover.

Aus had a defensive pass accuracy of 94% against China and 92% against Japan. This is good in both games, particularly against Japan's intensive Squeezing and Full Pressing so high up the pitch.

Australia broke up a lot of Chinese build ups in both the defensive and attacking halves.

Gegenpressing worked effectively against China, but Aus was more circumspect against Japan. They preferred to conservatively focus on holding team shape when Japan had the ball in the defensive half. So Aus only Squeezed moderately and played a safer Half Press ( really only focusing on winning the ball in the Aus defensive half).

The penalty for swarming on the ball, in intensive Squeezing, is if the team isn't broken up in the 6 second Attacking Transition, the aggressive team Squeezing, like Japan applied, can backfire.

3 Japanese players closing down 1-2 Aussies, can leave holes in the team shape, if Japan didn't succeed in winning the ball quickly in Australia's Attacking Transtions and early in Aus's Ball Possession phase of play - that is the 6 second period when Aus won the ball.

However, it worked a lot for Japan in the first 6o mins. Then Japan ran out of gas a bit.

Also, I didn't record the number, but China played a lot of long, high balls at Aus, that Souttar often repelled with his head.

Live, it seemed Japan dominated territory and possession, but later in the game Aus must have had more ball as Japan weren't fresh enough to intensively Squeeze.

The stats were 44% possession to Aus, 56% possession to Japan.

So Aus were much more effective at keeping the ball in their Defensive Half against Japan with 94% passing accuracy, than China were against Aus with only 79% passing accuracy in the Chinese Defensive Half.

Did we geigenpress or high press? Im not an expert but my understanding is the difference is a geigenpress involves the cbs and is more a high block than a high press (a high press has cbs standing at the half way line and the gap between the lines is higher)

Just asking because it would be interesting if popa goes that strategy, it can be high risk and takr a while to get right and can hurt if it goes wrong! See perth glory so far

 

[Decentric]

Did we geigenpress or high press? Im not an expert but my understanding is the difference is a geigenpress involves the cbs and is more a high block than a high press (a high press has cbs standing at the half way line and the gap between the lines is higher)

Just asking because it would be interesting if popa goes that strategy, it can be high risk and takr a while to get right and can hurt if it goes wrong! See perth glory so far

Oh dear! Really good question, Grazor?

This might take a lot of explanation.

A Full Press denotes where a team presses on the pitch.

Full Press is high up the pitch well into the opposition's defensive third.

Half Press is setting up to win the ball the from the half way line back to a team's own goal.

Partial Press, or Fake Press, is a deep Defensive Block not far out from one's own defensive pen box.

The press categories don't describe the level of intensity of Squeezing within the Press. Hence, a team could play a Full Press, not Squeeze much and be fairly easy to play through.

A Full Press also requires CBs to push up close to the half way line to keep the team shape compact enough to play through the lines. The keeper needs to come out some distance from the goals and play as a sweeper.

Gegenpressing implies Full Pressing and intensive Squeezing, by trying to disturb build ups quickly into the opposition team's Attacking Transitions, in the 6 seconds when they win the ball, after turning over the attacking team's possession deep in their defensive half, not far from their defensive goal.

Gegenpressing and a Full Press with intensive Squeezing implies the same thing.

Hope this explains it?