Welcome!

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

Sign Up Now!

World Cup Qualification Thread for 2026 - Socceroos/Asia

JS96 said:
Watching replay on YouTube. Didn't realise how many risky ball losses Miller had. He headed a throw backwards in the box. On an unlucky night we'd have paid for such things but thankfully we cleared. Degenek really tidy except for the slip at the end.

A few times on the break we took the wrong option. Behich often passing back when with Bos, he'd go forward and play a one-two and keep going down the line to cross. We need more of that.

The game was managed well in the end but there were a number of poor ball decisions.

After Ryan parried that corner off the line. Teague was surrounded by 3 and held up the ball to then pass it on. Annoyingly we had space and went back. If we can set plans for set plays then surely we need instructions for moments like that to break and play it forward.

It'll be interesting to see this system again Japan as we hardly strung passes together last time.
Click to expand...
How u getting the replay on youtube? Vpn blocked for me

Live I thought our transitions could improve, as could our ability to win those contested phases of possession
 
grazorblade said:
How u getting the replay on youtube? Vpn blocked for me

Live I thought our transitions could improve, as could our ability to win those contested phases of possession
Click to expand...
Hmm interesting. I'm just on my standard German home ip. No vpn. Such a catch 22 now.

Live stream not available when live itself due to Sportdigital TV having it on but they upload the replay without barriers. Does it work in the UK? UK now has matches paywalled.

 
JS96 said:
Hmm interesting. I'm just on my standard German home ip. No vpn. Such a catch 22 now.

Live stream not available when live itself due to Sportdigital TV having it on but they upload the replay without barriers. Does it work in the UK? UK now has matches paywalled.

Click to expand...

Amazing works for me too
Live it didn't work
 
erogenouszone said:
That game was a Popa template through and through. The 2nd Half was extremely frustrating as I felt we gave them way too much respect. China are rubbish even with the slight improvement that the Brazilian and a couple of the younger subs gave them.
Click to expand...
Watching just before I felt China actually broke past our midfield and got into gaps a lot. We defended well and perhaps at the stadium it didn't appear so threatening. It looked so on TV. The angle showed they had space to do things.
 
Underuse of Goodwin is something. We got results and that's what matters. Positive is no one is is safe so this should keep players hungry.

The attack is obvious. Geria to narrow Boyle to Irvine and and peel off. Decent when space is afforded. Now imagine that with a forward facing technical able bunch like Toure, Irankunda and Robertson/Nisbet. I really do hope something is brewing.

Also the half paced moments where firm square balls and movement are needed are made for Metcalfe and Bos. Those two just have to be the wing backs. Bos skinned 3 Japanese players on a long run.
 
grazorblade said:
Wonder what path is best for our fifa ranking. You would think automatic qualification, but fifa moves in mysterious ways
Click to expand...
Good question, because on face value, more games (but being successful) means more rankings points. Friendlies count too, but not as much as qualification games. I think to counteract this, this is why repechage stages all seem to be single round robin groups, or single elimination knockouts (rather than home and away), except for the final Asian playoff to determine the intercontinental playoff position for Asia.
 
Decentric said:
RMIB posted a response to a post I made some pages back. I can't find it. He made some good points re fans critiquing coaches, like Popa, for the Socceroos.

Rightly or wrongly, I believe some posters on G and G, not our Socceroo hating posters from the right wing nut job forum who troll G and G, but genuine Socceroo fans who always appear disgruntled with whomever the Socceroo coach is - at any given point in time. For the record I think all of Ange, Bert, Arnie and Popa have been effective coaches for the Socceroos. I thought Holger was the wrong coach - which was raised a lot in national coaching conferences with Han Berger.

For the first 2 games in this WCQ round, the final round, Australia lost to Bahrain (with stats showing we should have won decisively), and drew with Indo in Jakarta. Again the match stats showed we should have won in Jakarta.

Then Arnie quit. He said he had lost the plot since the Asian Cup. I admire his honesty.

I don't believe Popa has had enough credit on this forum for:

* In 6 games since taking over from Arnie, Popa has accrued 3 wins and 3 draws. In doing so, he has turned the Socceroo WCQ campaign around. Aus is now 2nd on the table by 3 points. I think some posters on G and G should be more positive about Popa's tenure, given these results and the turnaround.

* Popa has had considerable success selecting A L players that Arnie ignored, like Geria, Villupillay, Borrello, Matthews, Caceres, Taggart, Teague and Arzani. All have showed they value add to the team based on performance. If you disagree on any of these players, I'll set out why they have been an asset. On the other hand, Brattan struggled against the best team. How about some Popa love for his AL selections?

* Arnie ( and I agree with almost everything he did and said) perplexingly said because Strain, Miller and Gethyn Jones were injured, and Atkinson was clubless, he had to play Circati at RB. How did he fail to identify Geria, now one of the Socceroos best players? Geria is far better than Geraint Jones as RB too.
How about some plaudits for Popa for the Geria selection as a Right CB in a back three? In 1 v1 stats, Jason G is the best ball winner in the team in those 6 games when he has been on the pitch.

* Popa's 3-4-3 flat midfield in Ball Possession, manifesting as 5-2-3, and 5-4-1 in Ball Possession Opposition has worked well, in terms of results. It is a conventional Dutch KNVB formation and a derivative of the 1-4-3-3 system. Why are some so sceptical?

* Senior players like Irvine and Ryan, claim Popa's attention to fine detail for game plans, and even diet, is quite a step up. That it has value added to players individually - and - as a team unit. How about some more Popa love?

* Popa has moved away from selecting players in the Scottish league, outside the Old Firm. Only 3 players from Hibs were in the recent squad. It is the antithesis to Arnie. Popa's decision has brought more success.

* It appears to me, that some posters rationalise that any player playing anywhere in Europe, has to be better than any A L player - and - our veteran Socceroos.
UEFA is diverse and heterogeneous. There is a chasm between the UEFA Big Five league clubs, as well as the Big 30- 40 clubs who play in Lower UEFA Leagues, but regularly play Champ and Europa league football on the one hand ( Ajax, Sporting Lisbon, Benfica, PSV, Porto, Feyenoorde, Young Boys, Anderlecht, maybe Celtic, et al) , and the rest of UEFA.
Recently I've seen a lot more Italian Serie A teams play, and Scottish league teams. The difference between most of the Scottish league teams and Serie A teams, is enormous in quality ( sorry Lurker). AL teams play a style of football much closer to Serie A teams, than Scotland does. Having said this, Celtic play superb football.

* There also appears to be a prevailing view, that there are these amazing Aussie players not selected, or in Socceroo squads, who aren't getting Socceroo game time. That they are far better than the Socceroo incumbents - Popa just can't see it though.
Any coach sees how players perform relative to each other in camp. Some combine much better with each other, than other players. There was a profound difference between Behich and Davidson at LB a few years ago in terms of playing fluently and cohesively with players around them when they played Socceroo LB.
Experience is absolutely paramount. Some veteran players like Irvine, Ryan, Behich and Goodwin, may be peaking in their 30s. Their bodies are holding up, and their experience means they make few mistakes, and make good decisions, plus have very good positioning in a team context.
Their game sense continues to improve. Moreover, they mentor inexperienced players around them. They may have great leadership qualities too.

End of rant.
Click to expand...
Good post Decentric. It shows another variation on the whole Popa world.

If you want find a post from someone I find it useful to click on their name/picture then you get to select Recent Activity.

As far as I have read, most people acknowledge that Popa has been a huge improvement on where Arnie had left us. If that was all the forum offered I would find it boring. It is the individual's focus on so many different parts that make it entertaining and educational reading. Where one person focuses on the absence of Nisbet, another focuses on the keeper and another on the defensive nature of the second half formation, and so on.

The selection of players is less about the merits of those chosen (who generally do get acknowledgement when they perform well) and more about the greater perceived potential of other individuals. It is rarely a black and white argument saying he should not have picked a particular player - it is suggesting that on form and perspective other players deserved the chance to be the one we are applauding selection of.

We could say "that is an unexpected selection - I will watch with interest how that develops in a game" or we can say "WTF is Popa doing - that player has obvious weaknesses and failings unlike this other player". The first sort of comment is not really worth discussing on a forum. The second brings in everyone's opinions on the player selected and the alternative offered.

We have to expect that people will criticise - few people post online to say that something was OK. There is little drive to do that. What we want to publish are the bits that we think are wrong, that in our own eyes and experience can be done better, and perhaps we will find validation for our thoughts and ideas. It is quite addictive to post your own thoughts (as Mono said a long time ago) and there is something in having both agreement and dispute when the other parties give reasons for their own perspective (as opposed to the old "Tard", "Loser", "You are" discussions we have seen in the past). In this forum the acceptance of your right to hold and voice your opinions are pretty safe. At the same time none of us will get away with a statement that someone else disagrees with unopposed.

The opinions we see on Popa's selections and tactics tend not to totally bag out everything about him. What they do focus on is the aspects that seem to clearly need improvement in each of our own diverse perspectives.

Against China we got a win by dominating constructively in the first half. We could have continued that way in the second half and kept the game out of China's hands, but Popa's mentality of "we have got this let's hold it" is open to much criticism - in my eyes especially because we have proven to be untrustworthy over time as a total defensive group when we try to shut up shop.

I doubt anyone believes our defence is rock solid (let me have it if anyone disagrees ;)). So why would we rely on that when we have better options to continue with the first half strategy? Especially when this was the last game in the window and saving legs is not a factor. We have 5 subs available these days so second half blockouts are nothing like they used to be. The opposition will simply bring on fresh legs to probe our structure until they break through. Popa is known for this protective strategy and it deserves criticism and discussion - but that does not also mean that the people arguing against his methods find him totally unworthy.

Most people support alternate player selections on the basis of how they have seen a player performing. It is a bit simplistic to think they are arguing their case purely because they are playing in a tougher league. No-one says "Bob is shite but he is shite at a great club so pick him". Club and league is a relevant factor in terms of opponent skill but the players people get behind first and foremost have proven themselves in some capacity with their play.

To use your Arnie example, I also have huge respect for him saying he lost it. But remember that many of us on this forum had been pointing that out and calling for change long before it got to that point with him. An example of where the perspective of the average unqualified punter could be argued to be more sound and to have greater decision making clarity than the qualified certificated manager. Over simplified for sure - but you get my point.

To my eyes, the 'general' consensus on this forum is that Popa has done great work compared to where we were, has gone a long way to restoring pride in the green and gold on field, and now we can look to the next stage of our development - beyond the failings that we experts argue back and forth.
 
patjennings said:
Pim also got a lot of stick and apart from the game against Germany proved he was a high quality manager.
Click to expand...
I felt very sad that Pim received so much stick from overly emotive pundits, like Foster and and Bozza, over the Germany result. He left defined by an immature Aus football media, ranting about Germany.

Only Gerard Whately thanked Pim for his tenure in the media. Apart from me, when I wrote for Stattoz and Science Of Football.

Pim was our most successful WCQ coach in Asia, and went within a whisker of qualifying for the next round, accruing as many points in the group stage in the 2010 South A WC, as Guus did in 2006.
 
Decentric said:
I felt very sad that Pim received so much stick from overly emotive pundits, like Foster and and Bozza, over the Germany result. He left defined by an immature Aus football media, ranting about Germany.

Only Gerard Whately thanked Pim for his tenure in the media. Apart from me, when I wrote for Stattoz and Science Of Football.

Pim was our most successful WCQ coach in Asia, and went within a whisker of qualifying for the next round, accruing as many points in the group stage in the 2010 South A WC, as Guus did in 2006.
Click to expand...
I think people got spoiled by Guus and the GG. Alot of the uninitiated expected attractive wins by a team of legends to continues, they didn't realise ( or didn't want to admit) the GG was too old and there was little in the pipe.

Edit: thinking about it, it is almost identical to the Matildas current issues.
 
RIMB said:
Good post Decentric. It shows another variation on the whole Popa world.

If you want find a post from someone I find it useful to click on their name/picture then you get to select Recent Activity.

As far as I have read, most people acknowledge that Popa has been a huge improvement on where Arnie had left us. If that was all the forum offered I would find it boring. It is the individual's focus on so many different parts that make it entertaining and educational reading. Where one person focuses on the absence of Nisbet, another focuses on the keeper and another on the defensive nature of the second half formation, and so on.

The selection of players is less about the merits of those chosen (who generally do get acknowledgement when they perform well) and more about the greater perceived potential of other individuals. It is rarely a black and white argument saying he should not have picked a particular player - it is suggesting that on form and perspective other players deserved the chance to be the one we are applauding selection of.

We could say "that is an unexpected selection - I will watch with interest how that develops in a game" or we can say "WTF is Popa doing - that player has obvious weaknesses and failings unlike this other player". The first sort of comment is not really worth discussing on a forum. The second brings in everyone's opinions on the player selected and the alternative offered.

We have to expect that people will criticise - few people post online to say that something was OK. There is little drive to do that. What we want to publish are the bits that we think are wrong, that in our own eyes and experience can be done better, and perhaps we will find validation for our thoughts and ideas. It is quite addictive to post your own thoughts (as Mono said a long time ago) and there is something in having both agreement and dispute when the other parties give reasons for their own perspective (as opposed to the old "Tard", "Loser", "You are" discussions we have seen in the past). In this forum the acceptance of your right to hold and voice your opinions are pretty safe. At the same time none of us will get away with a statement that someone else disagrees with unopposed.

The opinions we see on Popa's selections and tactics tend not to totally bag out everything about him. What they do focus on is the aspects that seem to clearly need improvement in each of our own diverse perspectives.

Against China we got a win by dominating constructively in the first half. We could have continued that way in the second half and kept the game out of China's hands, but Popa's mentality of "we have got this let's hold it" is open to much criticism - in my eyes especially because we have proven to be untrustworthy over time as a total defensive group when we try to shut up shop.

I doubt anyone believes our defence is rock solid (let me have it if anyone disagrees ;)). So why would we rely on that when we have better options to continue with the first half strategy? Especially when this was the last game in the window and saving legs is not a factor. We have 5 subs available these days so second half blockouts are nothing like they used to be. The opposition will simply bring on fresh legs to probe our structure until they break through. Popa is known for this protective strategy and it deserves criticism and discussion - but that does not also mean that the people arguing against his methods find him totally unworthy.

Most people support alternate player selections on the basis of how they have seen a player performing. It is a bit simplistic to think they are arguing their case purely because they are playing in a tougher league. No-one says "Bob is shite but he is shite at a great club so pick him". Club and league is a relevant factor in terms of opponent skill but the players people get behind first and foremost have proven themselves in some capacity with their play.

To use your Arnie example, I also have huge respect for him saying he lost it. But remember that many of us on this forum had been pointing that out and calling for change long before it got to that point with him. An example of where the perspective of the average unqualified punter could be argued to be more sound and to have greater decision making clarity than the qualified certificated manager. Over simplified for sure - but you get my point.

To my eyes, the 'general' consensus on this forum is that Popa has done great work compared to where we were, has gone a long way to restoring pride in the green and gold on field, and now we can look to the next stage of our development - beyond the failings that we experts argue back and forth.
Click to expand...
In turn excellent post, RMIB.

Like Pim's achievements, I hope Arnie is remembered for getting Aus to 11th in the Qatar WC. I often look at the football media from opponents - Peru, Denmark, Argentina - all waxed lyrical about the quality of the Socceroos after playing them and Arnie's talent as a coach. This included Messi.

I was devastated after South K knocked us out of the Asian Cup. I thought SK totally outplayed us, and we had little to look forward to to improve - re playing cattle.

Then good old Grazor was constantly in my ear about the quality Aus U 23s and U20s. Watching this whiz gen in Aus u23s, Aus u20s and the AL, some who've ready appeared at senior Socceroo level - Irankunda, Circati, Bos, Teague, Villupillay, Yazbek, Matthews, et al - with heaps more whiz kids to come, has really made me optimistic.
 
RIMB said:
Good post Decentric. It shows another variation on the whole Popa world.

If you want find a post from someone I find it useful to click on their name/picture then you get to select Recent Activity.

As far as I have read, most people acknowledge that Popa has been a huge improvement on where Arnie had left us. If that was all the forum offered I would find it boring. It is the individual's focus on so many different parts that make it entertaining and educational reading. Where one person focuses on the absence of Nisbet, another focuses on the keeper and another on the defensive nature of the second half formation, and so on.

The selection of players is less about the merits of those chosen (who generally do get acknowledgement when they perform well) and more about the greater perceived potential of other individuals. It is rarely a black and white argument saying he should not have picked a particular player - it is suggesting that on form and perspective other players deserved the chance to be the one we are applauding selection of.

We could say "that is an unexpected selection - I will watch with interest how that develops in a game" or we can say "WTF is Popa doing - that player has obvious weaknesses and failings unlike this other player". The first sort of comment is not really worth discussing on a forum. The second brings in everyone's opinions on the player selected and the alternative offered.

We have to expect that people will criticise - few people post online to say that something was OK. There is little drive to do that. What we want to publish are the bits that we think are wrong, that in our own eyes and experience can be done better, and perhaps we will find validation for our thoughts and ideas. It is quite addictive to post your own thoughts (as Mono said a long time ago) and there is something in having both agreement and dispute when the other parties give reasons for their own perspective (as opposed to the old "Tard", "Loser", "You are" discussions we have seen in the past). In this forum the acceptance of your right to hold and voice your opinions are pretty safe. At the same time none of us will get away with a statement that someone else disagrees with unopposed.

The opinions we see on Popa's selections and tactics tend not to totally bag out everything about him. What they do focus on is the aspects that seem to clearly need improvement in each of our own diverse perspectives.

Against China we got a win by dominating constructively in the first half. We could have continued that way in the second half and kept the game out of China's hands, but Popa's mentality of "we have got this let's hold it" is open to much criticism - in my eyes especially because we have proven to be untrustworthy over time as a total defensive group when we try to shut up shop.

I doubt anyone believes our defence is rock solid (let me have it if anyone disagrees ;)). So why would we rely on that when we have better options to continue with the first half strategy? Especially when this was the last game in the window and saving legs is not a factor. We have 5 subs available these days so second half blockouts are nothing like they used to be. The opposition will simply bring on fresh legs to probe our structure until they break through. Popa is known for this protective strategy and it deserves criticism and discussion - but that does not also mean that the people arguing against his methods find him totally unworthy.

Most people support alternate player selections on the basis of how they have seen a player performing. It is a bit simplistic to think they are arguing their case purely because they are playing in a tougher league. No-one says "Bob is shite but he is shite at a great club so pick him". Club and league is a relevant factor in terms of opponent skill but the players people get behind first and foremost have proven themselves in some capacity with their play.

To use your Arnie example, I also have huge respect for him saying he lost it. But remember that many of us on this forum had been pointing that out and calling for change long before it got to that point with him. An example of where the perspective of the average unqualified punter could be argued to be more sound and to have greater decision making clarity than the qualified certificated manager. Over simplified for sure - but you get my point.

To my eyes, the 'general' consensus on this forum is that Popa has done great work compared to where we were, has gone a long way to restoring pride in the green and gold on field, and now we can look to the next stage of our development - beyond the failings that we experts argue back and forth.
Click to expand...
I LOVE it when you climb on the sop box brother ... great post.
 
Keeper66 said:
I've just re-watched the whole second half followed by the first 10 minutes of the first half.

Observations:

1. From the start of the 2nd half Australia pretty much went to a 541 formation in a mid to low block as soon as China had control of the ball, and allowed China to try to work the ball forward. In the first half, when China had the ball Australia went to a 343/523 formation in a high to mid block and worked hard to win the ball back. Of course China were looking to go forward more in the 2nd half, but even so it was clear that the instructions to Australia at half time must have been to go to a more defensive formation in a deeper block. That in itself is not a problem, rather it was that when we did win the ball we were unable (or unwilling) to get players into space in higher areas and retain possession and look to build attacks.

2. The best chance China had (the shot saved by Ryan) came from Teague being unaware of a midfielder running from deeper, and allowing him to drift past and get the ball unchallenged in the penalty area. I noticed in Teague's last game for MV that he was culpable a few times defensively also. When O'Neill came on he looked much sharper and intense defensively, albeit at the last part of the game when China had tired. On this basis, I don't think I would be starting Teague against Japan, where their midfielders are always looking to make runs into space between the lines to create chances. Teague looked quite good on the ball, but not so good when needing to defend.

3. Both Boyle and Velupillay were very easily knocked off the ball, and were very weak in one-on-one contests. Borello was better at holding the ball, but was too often left to plough a lone furrow up front so if he received the ball and tried to protect it, he often had little support close to him and ended up being outnumbered by defenders. Boyle's first touch was also poor quite often. I find it a little amazing that he played almost a full game, he was pretty much a passenger out there.
Click to expand...
Excellent post, Keeper.

Had similar views watching live, and I'm at the 14 min mark accruing stats on the replay.

If all were fit and available, we have better physical 1v1 duellists than Boyle in the squad. Usually, Boyle has a decent first touch, but saw a few instances where he, Nishan V and Miller lost the ball from heavy touches at critical times. How does Boyle survive in the rugged Scottish league? He is so easily overpowered physically.

Compare him to a Leckie ( a powerhouse) or a Goodwin, Borrello, who uses his body superbly, or Duke. Arzani uses his body better than Boyle too - shielding, tackling, shoulder barging.

A former NPL player I coached, texted to say Nishan V had a poor game, compared to against Indo. I agree. Although the stats sometimes show up subtle qualities in players.

There was little defensive impetus from Nishan V and Boyle from the front, although Boyle did do some good tracking of runners. This enabled China to push on to us more in the second half.

Thought Borrello was good though. He fought for every ball, showing good body strength, and closed down space energetically, athletically and tirelessly, when they had the ball.
 
Last edited:
Decentric said:
In turn excellent post, RMIB.

Like Pim's achievements, I hope Arnie is remembered for getting Aus to 11th in the Qatar WC. I often look at the football media from opponents - Peru, Denmark, Argentina - all waxed lyrical about the quality of the Socceroos after playing them and Arnie's talent as a coach. This included Messi.

I was devastated after South K knocked us out of the Asian Cup. I thought SK totally outplayed us, and we had little to look forward to to improve - re playing cattle.

Then good old Grazor was constantly in my ear about the quality Aus U 23s and U20s. Watching this whiz gen in Aus u23s, Aus u20s and the AL, some who've ready appeared at senior Socceroo level - Irankunda, Circati, Bos, Teague, Villupillay, Yazbek, Matthews, et al - with heaps more whiz kids to come, has really made me optimistic.
Click to expand...
on option you may wish to consider is that it is a sign of a mature football media that pundits in these countries chose to compliment their opponents in a tournament, let alone one as "weighty" as the World Cup ... Saying your opponent was rubbish and the win was easy is to diminish the endeavour of your own national squad and perhaps a sign of weakness...
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
on option you may wish to consider is that it is a sign of a mature football media that pundits in these countries chose to compliment their opponents in a tournament, let alone one as "weighty" as the World Cup ... Saying your opponent was rubbish and the win was easy is to diminish the endeavour of your own national squad and perhaps a sign of weakness...
Click to expand...
Could be true, Mono.
 
huddo said:
I think people got spoiled by Guus and the GG. Alot of the uninitiated expected attractive wins by a team of legends to continues, they didn't realise ( or didn't want to admit) the GG was too old and there was little in the pipe.

Edit: thinking about it, it is almost identical to the Matildas current issues.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. GG and Guus got a whole lot of people who have passing, superficial knowledge paying attention. I thought from the moment the Matildas hype started it felt almost identical to the hype with the GG.

I remember being in the car with my old man who was listening to one of those talkback sports shows on AM radio. It must have been just after the Asian Cup in 07? They were talking about Viduka and his possible retirement. One host said, could someone else step into his role? The other bloke said, I think you are selling Archie Thompson short if you think Mark Viduka is irreplaceable. These were two Rugby League hosts and it shows the cut through the GG had. But boy did it highlight the lack of football knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top