Asia fails and sticking with a France v Argentina final

27 June 2014

With the match-ups for the knockout stage complete, other than Spain’s early and humiliating exit, there’s actually been very few surprises overall for the tournament. Only Group D where both Italy and England failed to progress from the group, at the expense of Costa Rica and Uruguay, could you point to a surprise. Maybe Portugal in Group G is a small surprise at finishing third behind Germany and the USA.

The small upset in Group D means the earlier prediction of one semi final being Argentina vs Netherlands is all the more likely. The Dutch face Mexico then either Costa Rica or Greece, while Argentina must navigate past Switzerland and then either Belgium or USA. For either to fail to reach the semi, that would be an upset.

Knockout Stage Matches

Left Side

BRA v CHI
COL v URU
FRA v NGA
GER v ALG

Right Side

NED v MEX
CRC v GRE
ARG v SUI
BEL v USA

Despite the tougher run for both teams, I’m sticking with Brazil and France to reach the other semi. Brazil plays Chile and then either Colombia or Uruguay. Interesting that four of the five South American qualifiers play each other, meaning three can’t make the semi. Argentina stands alone for South America on the right side of the draw. The fact Brazil plays its fellow South Americans should be comforting to them. The times Brazil have been knocked out early it’s been by Europeans. Their opponents will be very familiar and most will play in the more open South American style that will suit Brazil.

The lower part of the left side should see France and Germany brush past Nigeria and Algeria, respectively, to then meet in a quarter final. Forget about France only securing a 0-0 against Ecuador in the final pool game as a case against their legitimacy as a contender With any luck, France could have scored the same bagful that they did against Switzerland and Honduras. They seem to have the fire power to break down Germany.

From the semi finals, I expect Brazil to crumble under pressure, from both the burden of being host and the fear of France’s attacking prowess. The Dutch defence has already been exposed as suspect, so expect Argentina to get through.

In the earlier preview, I cheekily said the team in dark blue to win the final, thinking both France and Argentina coud be wearing a dark strip depending on who is drawn as the nominal home team. Except, France’s dark blue is their home strip, and Argentina’s is their away strip, so there’s no clash. France will be in dark blue against the faint stripes of Argentina. It looks like it’s France to win the World Cup!

While France might be the prediction, who do I actually want to win? As always, a new team would be great. Based on the draw, Colombia vs Netherlands would suit perfectly, with the Dutch to win. So many near misses, including such a narrow loss to Spain four years ago, it’s time they won. If Colombia are the designated home team, Netherlands will just happen to be in dark blue too.

Asia’s failure – we’re not alone

All four Asian teams finished last in their group and could only accrue a total of 3 points between them. That’s courtesy of a draw each from Iran, Japan and Korea. Australia, in the toughest group, finished with nothing. While it’s disappointing, it should not be surprising, since Asia is still a fly-weight on the world stage. Only in the home World Cup in Korea and Japan did Asian teams excel, with Japan reaching the quarter finals and Korea finishing fourth.

Before anyone points fingers at querying Asia’s allocation of four spots at the World Cup, Africa and Europe can hardly claim a strong success rate from their allocation either. Three of 5 African teams bombed out, with the other two likely to be swept aside in the first knockout game. Excluding Algeria – an Arab team – it’s three of 4 failures from a region that was so widely hyped that Pele famously predicted they’d win a World Cup before last century’s end. They’ve gone backwards. As for Europe, seven of their 13 teams failed too. Europe, especially, benefits from a weight of numbers, and who’s to say that if more Asian teams were in the World Cup, some would not progress?

Asia’s small allocation meant they could not spread their numbers throughout all groups, and therefore have a team in all the weaker groups (even if three of them actually did have a reasonable draw). Does this mean Asia’s allocation should be altered? No. The only change should be that its half spot is linked with Oceania. This was part of the bargain for allowing Australia to enter Asia – that effectively Australia would not take a spot from the traditional Asian teams. At worst, such teams would finish fifth, and play against New Zealand. That happened for 2010 when Bahrain lost to NZ, which left no room for Asia to complain. For 2014, FIFA as they always do, re-jigged the rules to suit the more powerful confederations, meaning a random draw for cross-region playoffs that saw Asia face South America and Oceania face CONCACAF.

The World Cup is meant to represent the best teams in each part of the world. Ideally you have 8 teams from each approximately 50-team quadrant (Europe, Africa, Asia/Oceania, Americas) at the World Cup. Until all regions mature to a relatively equal standard, the best approach is continue performance based with a minium of four. Ideally this process should be more transparent so to end the ritual squabbling for spots. You do that by allocating spots based on an average of top 16 of the previous three World Cups. Meaning if Asia/Oceania had two teams in the top 16 for the last 3 World Cups, they get six spots. If Europe begin to average only 6 teams in the top 16, then their total spots should be 10.

Full site: socceroorealm.com

Advertisements

Reality check as Spain outclasses Australia

24 June 2014

Arena da Baixada in Curitiba, Australia 0 – Spain 3

Amazing how the nation’s mood swings. Before the tournament, no one gave Australia much hope of achieving anything against Spain. During the tournament, after the good performances against Chile and Netherlands, and with Spain at a low ebb after two losses, Australia believe it had a good chance for a result – at least a draw, to see it avoid finish bottom of the group. The initial feeling prevailed as the current world champions showed the gulf in class between Australia and the top teams, and delivered a reality check about Australia’s overall status on the world stage. In the end, the group table read Australia in last place with zero points and a -6 goal difference. Who’d have thought that pre-tournament? Basically everybody.

It was not just the calibre of player that saw Australia outclassed; they were utterly destroyed tactically. Spain allowed them plenty of room for the opening 20 minutes of game, allowing to pass around the back-line, allow a little space in midfield. When it came to the final third, it was total denial, crushing all attacks, and looking dangerous on the counter attack. Then Spain put their foot down. The pressure went on higher up the pitch, and Australia soon conceded its first goal.

The second half was little different to the first. Some freedom at the start, then exploited by the end. You only need hear the blathering Craig Foster in the commentary box one minute commending Australia for playing so well, and then the very next minute, after Spain score their second goal, Australia are being “handed a football lesson”. While Foster was a total trainwreck in the commentary box, cheering and coaching almost every single moment in the most embarrassing and cringe-worthy display ever heard on national television and should be sacked from any future postings, his nonsensical drivel at least illustrated the reality that Australia was facing. Indeed, it was a football lesson. Not just for the periods that led to the goals, it was a lesson over the entire match.

Such was Spain’s dominance, Australia did not have one single, decent attempt on goal. The total of four shots on goal were longer range and speculative – mostly out of frustration to get anything closer off – and never forced a save. The midfield was riddled with turnovers – often very cheap ones. Final balls often went straight to a Spanish player. Many of these passes were not even under pressure, hinting at a tired team or simply a team wary of sensing pressure.

For the third game in a row, Australia conceded 3 goals. All three goals were as a result of the defence torn apart – almost seemingly at will – with the goal-keeper staring down point-blank shots on goal. Jason Davidson was caught out for two goals, giving too much space on the Spanish right for Juanfran to receive from Andres Iniesta and cross to an open David Villa for a nice back-heel tap in, and then failing to move up with the defensive line for the third goal. That second error saw Juan Mata played onside in almost a mirror image of the goal by Robben van Persie in the match against Netherlands. The second goal was a defence splitting pass by Andres Iniesta, who simply was allowed too much time on the ball. The jury is still out about purging all the experienced defenders for this World Cup. Just that touch more experience and maybe half of these 9 goals are avoided.

Final Player Ratings

Goal-keepers

As is often the case, goalies are generally judged by their mistakes, and Mathew Ryan played almost exactly to the level you’d expect of a goal-keeper playing in the Belgian league. Holland’s winning goal would have been stopped by a higher calibre goalie. Overall, he was solid, making several great, reflex stops, without being the total security that you hope from your national team goalie.

Stoppers

In truth, Mathew Spiranovic and Alex Wilkinson did well. Especially Spiranovic, who’d been very inconsistent in his earlier Socceroos career when paired with senior defenders like Lucas Neill. Quite possibly being senior defender this time and giving him the marshalling duties has helped. While Neill might have helped plug some of the gaps this tournament, he wasn’t needed as stopper. There’s also Rhys Williams and Curtis Good – both injured prior to the World Cup – to push for a return.

Full-backs

Ivan Franjic supplied good crosses, while his injury replacement, Ryan McGowan, supplied the cross for Tim Cahill against Netherlands and defended well. No faults there. Jason Davidson, on the left, is the interesting one. Solid on the ball and at tight-defending; almost hopeless with positional awareness. He’ll need to move to a much higher club level than a mediocre club in the Dutch league, where he’d rarely face the testing offence that you get at international level. This position is where Neill might have been handy. He played much of his club career with Blackburn Rovers at right back, and may have been able to adjust with a left back posting. We’ll never know. Otherwise, Australia had few options there, and the position overall is still a problem.

Defensive midfielders

All three used – Mile Jedinak, Matt McKay and Mark Milligan – all serviceable. This area was always the area that Australia did not lack, and it showed.

Attacking midfielders

Tom Oar on the left disappointed with his touch, passing and even his pace was off. Without the pace, his small stature became a liability as he was often bustled off the ball. Other than against Croatia in a warm-up game, he has failed to really achieve the potential the nation has hoped. Mark Bresciano in the centre still has nice touches and passes. Unfortunately, he is let down by lack of pace, often dithering on the ball, and his shooting boots were way off. His substitute, Oliver Bozanic, did well enough to suggest a future. On the right, Mathew Leckie was a revelation, constantly beating defenders with pace and quick dribbles. He needs to improve in final passing situations and decision making to polish his game. Substitutes used in midfield of Ben Halloran and James Troisi were serviceable for the limited time they had and against the class they faced.

Forwards

Tim Cahill is not a forward despite his exploits. Coach Ange Posteglou summed up the reality of the selection in a press conference saying Cahill is among the best in the world… with his head. That seemed a slight on his foot skills, which is probably right as they have deteriorated over time, making it a valid reason not to use him in midfield. His strengths are forward with his head, his shooting boots, and is general ability to be a nuisance. Leckie was tried forward in the second half against Spain and looked much more dangerous than Adam Taggart, who was tried in the first half. Leckie could be the future. Regardless, the situation now is Australia’s biggest liability is in attack. Postecoglou said post-Spain that he wants Australia to be feared next time. That can only happen with a quantum leap in quality of strikers. Just imagine Arjen Robben and a Robin van Persie on Australia’s team. Results could have been blistering. One salvation is the injured Robbie Kruse waiting to return the national team. Also Joshua Kennedy, who was sadly omitted from the final squad. Just his presence, at least another aerial option to Tim Cahill, can be invaluable.

Coach

Ange Postecoglou is all class and nailed almost everything asked of him. No one really expected Australia to gain any points from this tournament, so the disappointment felt when Australia actually did finish with nothing reflects more on the in-tournament possibilities that arrived. Reality is the players are just not at the required level yet. Ange’s big test is the Asian Cup early next year. Situations will be reversed with Australia the team pressuring the opposition, with the opposition trying to create the surprises. Performing well will be a given. Winning will almost be expected.

Tournament Prediction

Being away for a month on holidays just prior to the World Cup meant no time for predictions. Here’s a brief version.

As often is the case, it’s the draw that counts. Also, teams that have “struggled” in the group stages and still won (like Argentina), no reason to write them off.

France have been the most impressive team so far, and have a soft draw, and should eventually meet Brazil in a semi final. Brazil’s main challenge to reach the semi is crossing with Group D, where Costa Rica’s success has consigned either Italy or Uruguay to second spot and a tougher path. Either way, Group D seems weak, so Brazil should cope with any of those teams. Germany, if it wins Group G as expected, could be bigger spoiler. If it in finishes second, it’s thrown onto the opposite side of the draw.

Netherlands are the most impressive team on the other side of the draw and should face Argentina in the semi final there. Belgium is the team that could surprise. While not excelling as some pre-tournament hype suggested, they have still won both games.

Despite the potentially tough draw for Brazil, and the home-team pressure, they should at least make the semi final. From there, they fall to France. The other semi really should be Netherlands vs Argentina. With the Dutch defence being a little suspect, expect Argentina to prevail. So France vs Argentina in the final, and an image is appearing. It’s whichever team is in the darker blue!

That is Brazil 2014 – The 20th World Championship of Futbol

Full site: socceroorealm.com

Shattering loss and elimination in a case of “what if”

19 June 2014

Estadio Beira-Rio in Porto Alegre, Australia 2 – Netherlands 3

Out and not disgraced, Ange has made us proud

Australia is out of the World Cup after sensationally losing to Netherlands, and then followed Spain losing to Chile, confirming both teams as the first teams eliminated from the World Cup. It was a shattering loss after Australia was 2-1 up, had a glorious chance to score a third, had another glorious chance at 2-2 to retake the lead, only to be bitten hard on the backside with some slightly sloppy defending, eventually losing 3-2.

Most shattering about the loss is that despite Australia’s excellent effort for most of the tournament – all except the first 20 minutes against Chile, really – Australia has absolutely nothing to show for their endeavour. It’s one thing to compete well; it’s a whole new level to produce a result. It leaves a hollow feeling, and the country seems, as a whole, to have moved on from the pride of playing well against the many predictions, to a big case of “what if”. The biggest regret you can ever have from a competition is “what if”. Australia goes home with a big one.

Defence was spotlighted as the area to address heading to this match, and sadly, again, Australia conceded three goals. You’ll never get results conceding 3 goals a game. While there was none of the nervous chaos against Chile, there was still the hint of inexperience that partially allowed the final two goals, while Mark Bresciano’s errant pass when under no pressure saw a steal and quick break for Arjen Robben to score Holland’s first. Tim Cahill immediately answered back with a spectacular volley, to effectively cancel out that mistake. From there, it was what if Tim Cahill did not over-hit his pass to Mathew McKay on the break to allow him a close shot on goal or better crossing chance for a chance at 3-1. What if Tom Oar’s cross to Mathew Leckie was at a convenient height, rather than at his chest to allow an easy save and keep the score 2-2. What if Jason Davidson learnt from his previous problems of poor defensive awareness, and not play Robin Van Persie onside for the Dutch equaliser at 2-2. What if Mathew Ryan managed to save the difficult dipping, a swerving shot from Memphis Depay that saw the Dutch take the lead. So frustratingly, that goal came directly from a counter attack from the Leckie miss. Australia scores that, it’s 3-2 to them. Instead it’s 3-2 to Netherlands. What if. What if. What if. It plainly sucks.

The one area of true pride that can be gained from this tournament is with coach Ange Postecoglou. He typifies everything that it means to be Australian – a good, and decent, Australian. Ambitious while being respectful. Confident while being realistic. With the Socceroos humble place in the world of football, it allows these great attributes to shine. Too often, in other sports, in which Australia dominate, the “respectful” and the “realistic” part of the equation goes missing, to the point that we become obnoxious bullies and spoiled brats. Ange keeps these virtues in harmony primarily by strength of his own personal character. Even at Brisbane Roar with the two championships and that record undefeated run, he remained the statesman and a servant to the greater good, to that of the sport. With the Socceroos, he takes that to service to another level, to the good of the country. He’s made this fan most proudest of our team probably ever. Australian of the Year? Prime Minister? A knighthood? While the instinct is to cheer wildly for that, Ange just wouldn’t have a bar of it.

Tim Cahill has played his last World Cup game. He copped a yellow against Holland in an unnecessary and reckless foul. That’s Cahill. It’s part of his character. On one hand there’s the bravado and cheek and irresistible attribute to pop up for a goal at the most opportune possible. On the hand there’s the arrogance and petulance and frustrating attribute that can harm Australia’s greater good. Note his red card against Germany in the last World Cup that saw. Cahill might say his greater good are the goals, and without his flaws, he just wouldn’t be the player he is. Maybe he’s right, and he bows out with the best goal of the tournament so far. It was a wonderful volley on the end of a sweeping cross from Ryan McGowan, and immediately after Holland had taken the lead. He’s been simply irrepressible, right to the end, and will be greatly missed.

Mark Bresciano picked up a hip flexor injury and is unlikely for the next match, meaning his World Cup career is over. He could count himself lucky to get a third tournament – being the only senior player with Cahill to survive the rejuvenation purge, and that’s despite playing in the Qatari league and coming of a four-month FIFA suspension and injury concerns. Whether it’s age or simply a result of playing in those rubbish Middle Eastern leagues, he was often caught dwelling on the ball, most particular this game that led to the Netherlands’ first goal. His touch was off, his speed lacking and his shooting was disappointing. Either way, it must be a blanket rule from now on that anyone in such a substandard league automatically disqualifies themselves for the Socceroos. In Oliver Bozanic, there’s a worthy option as a successor. Immediately when he came on for Bresciano’s after 50 minutes, Bozanic created the penalty opportunity that saw Australia equalise.

Ironically, Australia gets its wish of facing World Champions, Spain, in the final group match with Spain having nothing to play for. The prediction – or hope – was that Spain would be already qualified for the second phase. In actuality, they lost their second match too, losing 2-0 to Chile, to arrive at the final group match dejected and disconsolate in a battle to avoid last place in the group. Australia only needs a draw to achieve that target. It’s nothing less than they deserve.

Full site: socceroorealm.com

Australia vs Netherlands – Preview

18 June 2014

Defence must hold up

As strange as it seems, especially after reading all the “must win” claims in the media, Australia does not need to beat Netherlands in their second group match   tonight. Presuming Spain beat Chile, that leaves both Spain and Chile on 3 points, Australia on 0 and the Dutch on 6. The equation for the final match in the group is for Australia to beat Spain, and hope Netherlands beat Chile. If Australia snag a draw tonight, then they could afford Netherlands and Chile to draw the final match. It will come down to goal difference, and that’s where conceding the extra goal against Chile will hurt, and where the Dutch demolition of Spain helps.

Defence will be an even bigger key than it was in the first match. In light of the national exuberance that Australia prevented itself from being destroyed and, indeed, “competed” adequately for 70 minutes, the big issue entering this tournament was defence. It failed. That this fundamental tenet of the game be ignored because the rest of the match was reasonable, is wrong. Defending will be the test in tonight’s match, not whether Australia can have its moments and create a few chances. Because most likely, it will.

Reality is that Australia has been competing on the world stage for at least two decades. It was only 13 years ago that they defeated world champions France and subsequent world champions Brazil on the way to a third place at a Confederations Cup. They’ve already reached a knockout stage of a World Cup once, and nearly did it again four years ago. Despite the novice nature of some of the team, Australia are not putting out amateurs on the pitch like 30 or 40 years ago. These are all full time professionals players, many of whom with decent and long established European experience.

Maybe it’s been the media that’s lulled the players – and most fans – into this thinking of Australia is suddenly a “minnow” again, and honourable losses are acceptable. Thankfully, coach Ange Postecoglou has not been consumed by this faux pride, repeating in many interviews since about his disappointment at letting an opportunity slip. Quite possibly, the major opportunity for a win is gone. It wasn’t Spain or Netherlands in that first game. It was Chile. Despite the flawed FIFA rankings often cited, Chile are hardly a world power. They’ve only have been to the round of 16 twice in their long history at the World Cup, and never passed it. Usually they fall at the group stage. Before the tournament, Chile was the match against we hoped to draw, if not win. Now the results must come from the real big boys of the group.

Australia’s record against the Netherlands is statistically good at 2 draws and 1 win. In truth, both the two draws could easily have been a battering. The first was a 1-1 in Rotterdam in the lead-up to the 2006 World Cup, and the other was a 0-0 in Sydney towards the end of the Pim Verbeek era. Poor shooting, good goal-keeping and good luck kept Australia in both the drawn matches. Even the 1-1, Australia’s goal came from a penalty, which was saved only for Tim Cahill to win the pounce on the scrimmage for the rebound. The win, in Eindhoven, and under Verbeek, was a good, recovering from an early goal conceded.

With Ivan Franjic injured, Ryan McGowan will most likely take the right back spot and will offer more defensive surety at the expense of attacking prowess. It was Franjic that set up Cahill’s goal, and the one disallowed for offside. Maybe Ange will tweak his attacking options, as Tom Oar was poor on the left wing against Chile. Mark Milligan will miss the game through injury, which should not harm the team’s prospects too much as he’s merely one of several moderately good players available can fulfil a deep midfield role.

It can’t be emphasised enough. Defence is the key, and will be severely under the microscope. It simply must hold up. Then the Dutch could get frustrated, and leave a few gaps for Australia to exploit. With the hammering of Spain under their belt, they go into this match expected to win. It will be hard to suppress this over-confidence, so the best way to use it against them is to keep them under pressure. That will be done by seeing a zero next to the Netherlands on the scoreboard for as long as possible. Quite simply, nothing will be as galling and disappointing in this match than if Australia lost by a couple of goals and conceded early. Nothing.

Full site: socceroorealm.com

Disappointing loss to Chile despite the promise shown

14 June 2014

Chile 3 – Australia 1

We as a country must be at a low ebb if we are “proud” of a 3-1 loss to a team in which hoped for a better result. After conceding two early goals, it was disappointing not to convert one of the several chances created in the second half, and then even more disappointing to concede another goal in injury time. The goal Australia scored came courtesy of a Tim Cahill header that brought the game to 2-1 ten minutes before half time. Post match it was odd to see all the studio and commentary “experts”, along with most fans, beaming with pride at the “performance” despite the sickly feeling of the final goal and the lack of converting the second half renaissance into something tangible. It harks back to the era of 20 or 30 years ago when Australian teams were indeed proud simply to get close to quality teams – to play well enough and not be annihilated, and regale in our “brave losses”. Are we back in this situation again?

Thankfully coach Ange Postecoglou didn’t buy into this nonsense of a good performance. While proud that the team did not capitulate after such a poor start that many anticipated in such a scenario, he was far more disappointed that nothing was gained at the result. He is not in Brazil for “performance” and getting style marks. This is not figure skating. It’s a score based game and scoring is the quintessential measure of a result at such a tournament. Yes, even with the somewhat experimental and youthful team, that does not absolve the greater responsibility of achievement. After all, if you are not driving for a result at the pinnacle tournament of the sport, when will you go for it?

Australia will rue the horrible start to the game. Two goals in two minutes inside the first 12 minutes almost made the mission hopeless. Against fears of the inexperienced defence unravelling and an avalanche of goals conceded, Australia regained composure, and gradually worked back into the game. No doubt Chile also relaxed, with their objective of maximum points from this game before they face the tougher opposition of Spain and Netherlands well in reach. When Cahill scored, the pressure returned on Chile, further enabling Australia to have an impact in the game. Cahill had a goal denied after being just offside, he also had a penalty claim for a shirt pulled ignored, and Mark Bresciano had a low chance from a volley that was well saved. The shirt pull on Cahill was far worse than that seen in the game involving Brazil and Croatia that saw Brazil win a penalty. The difference? Cahill did not throw himself to the ground. You wonder why players “cheat”.

While Australia could craft a few good chances, defence proved the issue. While unlucky for the first goal that the rebound fell to Alexis Sanchez, Mile Jedinak could be pinpointed for not charging at the ball to make a clearing header. The second goal was a mess, with the defence dragged to the right side of the pitch, leaving huge gaps on the left for Jorge Valdivia to exploit and score from mid range. The final goal came from a quickly rebounded goal kick that caught the defence out of shape, especially with Australia pushing for an equalising goal. Also, just after 70 minutes, Chile broke through for a one-on-one situation that could have been curtains for Australia had it not been wrongly adjudicated as offside.

In the group’s other game, the Netherlands destroyed Spain 5-1. With the Dutch being Australia’s next opponents, there simply cannot be any defence lapses. The Dutch victory also has interesting ramifications on the group. While mathematically it makes Australia’s task to progress more difficult as now four points will almost certainly be the minimum required to qualify, it might see a somewhat relaxed and over confident Dutch team enter the game. The pressure on them to beat Australia won’t be near anything as high had they suffered a loss to Spain. Of course, Netherlands have yet to beat Australia at senior level, even if that statistic comprises of only a handful of non-serious games. Continuing that streak will be handy.

Full site: socceroorealm.com

Australia vs Chile – Preview

13 June 2014

On paper, Australia’s team is rubbish and they have no hope in this World Cup. Compare to 2006 when the attack was comprised of Viduka, Kewell and Emerton, with Cahill in support out of midfield, in 2014 it’s Leckie, Vidosic and Oar, with Cahill thrown out of position to lead the line. The defence was tight in 2006 with Neill and Moore at their peak. Now it’s the unconvincing Spiranovic, with either novices Wilkinson or McGowan as his partner. Midfield has only seen a minor decline, with Jedinak and Milligan as serviceable as Grella and Culina, and probably a tad better creatively, while Bresciano is still around, albeit in a greatly reduced capacity. Australia was always a defensive liability out wide with its converted midfielders of Chipperfield and Wilkshire. Davidson and Franjic are on par, at least defensively, and that’s where it will really count in Brazil. Other than the retirement of Viduka, the squad largely remained for 2010 in South Africa, and accrued the same number of points in their three games as they did in Germany.

Since Ange Postecoglou took over as coach, Australia has shown little to suggest the heavy defeats against Brazil and France that saw Holger Osieck sacked won’t be totally avoided. While 6-0 losses are unlikely, the team has still looked vulnerable in defence against the moderate opposition it has played so far. A 1-0 home win over an under-strength Costa Rica was put into context by a 4-3 loss to Ecuador in London. The four goals all coming in the second half after Ecuador made a raft of changes, including the replacement of their experimental defence with their first team regulars. Most recent results has been the uninspiring 1-1 draw at home against South Africa (again, defence easily breached for the goal conceded) and a 1-0 loss to Croatia in Brazil.

The issue with this team will be largely psychological: are the scars of those two thrashings healed? While the old guard of Neill and Ognenovski are gone, the replacements have never hinted at being superior. Like most of the team, they’ve been picked as part of a rejuvenation philosophy, not that they’ve usurped the incumbents. The pessimistic hue over this team remains, especially that once the defence is breached, it could be a goal avalanche. The novice defence just doesn’t inspire confidence against the calibre of teams that Australia will face. Not that much is expected of them either. Ange’s big challenge will be to inspire them. Even if he masters that, then there’s the problem of goals. Cahill is a poacher more than anything. The lack of creativity and individual brilliance, the lack of a lethal edge anywhere in front of goal, and even the lack of a dedicated out and out striker in the team (Kennedy’s omission was shocking), will make scoring difficult. As much as Australia’s opponents are tough going forward, they are just as tough at stopping, and are unlikely to be troubled by the moderate opposition.

The one salvation for Australia is the group composition itself. If Spain can dominate as expected and win all three games, that makes the spot for second much more open. If Netherlands and Chile draw their match, then Australia could advance with just two draws. It would come down to the team pushing Spain the closest. Winning a match would obviously make the second phase more attainable, especially if Australia’s other two matches are narrow losses, or even a draw could be gained. Facing Spain last could be advantage if they are already qualified and potentially relaxed. Also, given the tightness of the group and the low regard of Australia, Chile (especially) and Netherlands (especially if they are belted by Spain in the first game) will have all the pressure on them. If Australia snag a goal, they could indeed surprise. It’s just a shame that these peripheral issues will be the dominant force for Australia to advance, and not sheer footballing ability. Unfortunately, that is the reality of it.

Full site: socceroorealm.com