-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
FIFA World Cup 22
- Thread starter Baloo
- Start date
Not sure what people were expecting. Huge gulf in class between these sides. It's like thinking Samoa should have beaten Aust at the Rugby world cup.
If we were more aggressive you are likely looking at a 6-1 or 6-2 scoreline. They would have carved up our defence if we played higher. Going into half-time 2-1 down was the killer. Should have been 1-1. Perhaps that may have created a little hesitancy from the French.
If you really drill it down the best teams play a almost completely one touch games. We don't. Too many times pressure or even perceived pressure forces a poor touch. People arguing we should be more aggressive fail to see we simply don't control the football long enough to be more aggressive. How many times do you see the best teams pass it backwards from the opposition half all the way back to the goalkeeper who is forced to welly it down the field?
If we were more aggressive you are likely looking at a 6-1 or 6-2 scoreline. They would have carved up our defence if we played higher. Going into half-time 2-1 down was the killer. Should have been 1-1. Perhaps that may have created a little hesitancy from the French.
If you really drill it down the best teams play a almost completely one touch games. We don't. Too many times pressure or even perceived pressure forces a poor touch. People arguing we should be more aggressive fail to see we simply don't control the football long enough to be more aggressive. How many times do you see the best teams pass it backwards from the opposition half all the way back to the goalkeeper who is forced to welly it down the field?
good post. all fans always like their team to attack more- whether it Football, Aussie Rules or cricket, but sometimes when you know your beat containing the loss is the best result.
most of the first half we did well controlling the ball, we didnt make mistakes, and we sent some good attacking balls forward. then the mistakes came, as they always probably would and France took over.
we just need a win and a draw now from our next 2.
A lot saying it would have been worse if we were aggressive.
You don't need to be aggressive with the ball, but you can be aggressive defensively.
Harass, chase, limit opposition time on the ball etc. Even with outclassed teams you could always rely on the Socceroos to do that.
We did none of that. Just blithely sat back waiting for the French to come at us. Giving them as much time as they wanted.
Result they picked us apart - and scored 4 goals in second gear.
Little doubt with more defensive intent we could have reduced that. Just look at the difference with a team like Saudi Arabia who actually made things difficult for the opposition. Take a leaf out of that book.
You don't need to be aggressive with the ball, but you can be aggressive defensively.
Harass, chase, limit opposition time on the ball etc. Even with outclassed teams you could always rely on the Socceroos to do that.
We did none of that. Just blithely sat back waiting for the French to come at us. Giving them as much time as they wanted.
Result they picked us apart - and scored 4 goals in second gear.
Little doubt with more defensive intent we could have reduced that. Just look at the difference with a team like Saudi Arabia who actually made things difficult for the opposition. Take a leaf out of that book.
Spot on Smoking. Arnold is a dud; always has been always will be. But he is part of the FFA Sydney football mafia; jobs for mates.
No doubt there is a chasm in class between the two countries. But to me it is about intent and the way you want to play. I'd rather lose 6-0 by trying to win than lose 4-1 parking the bus. You talk about glaring holes in defence; well they were still there even though we played boring and insipid football. You play that conservatively you should be salvaging a draw or a close loss; not a 4-1 thumping. It was painful to watch. The majority of possessions just seemed to be a backwards pass. Ryan was the busiest player on the pitch for us; not for defending the goals but for chasing back passes from his defenders.
I don't blame the players. It's on Arnold; he's a dud.
Spot on Leysy. It was an insipid performance most likely inspired by an insipid coach.
Big difference between Australia and the Saudis was who they were playing. Argentina thought they would cruise to win, look at how they attacked, they were either constantly offside (which in itself is complacent) or they came back on themselves and tried to deliver the perfect ball at a 45 degree angle into the box. They rarely tried to get around the Saudis down either wing, it was almost like they were looking for the perfect ball through the centre of the field. France were totally different, they were never going to be complacent having seen Argentina already lose earlier in the day, they kept their shape and attacked down the flanks. They ensured they got crosses in from dangerous positions, not therefore requring the perfect pass. They used the pass and skill of Mbappe and Dembele perfectly, which was always going to drag the wingers back.
Who was supposed to attack for Australia? Their centre mid was Irvine, Mooy and McGree (I'd say only McGree is really an attacking player and lets be frank, he plays in the Championship, by himself, he was never likely to be able to unlock a defence as good as France have). With both wingers having to play deep to protect the full backs from the pace and skill of Mbappe and Dembele, Australia were always going to surrender possession and allow France to have the ball in their own half and even 10m or so into Australias defensive half. Had they broken that shape more, then Griezmann would have had even more time.
The Saudis capitalised on sheer complacency from the Argies, that was never going to repeat itself in the same day of the WC.
What results did we get when we could rely on the socceroos to chase, harass etc?
we havent troubled good teams since the period around 2006 when funnily enough we actually had true world class players across the pitch.
sure we could have played better, but ultimately the player sitting on the far end of the bench for France there to pick up the others water bottles would be close to our best player, and no amount of bravado is going to change that.
It depends. Most cases I'd agree with you, but this is a league system.
If Australia lost 6-0 instead of 4-1, then finished level with say Denmark on 4 points at the end of the group stage, but Denmark lost 4-0 to the French (unlikely to happen I know) and Australia failed to qualify due to those extra 3 goals conceded, would you still be so bravado? I doubt it, and most likely you would be on here, slamming them for being so blaise against the French and not trying to protect and reduce the loss.
They went in there with clearly a defensive plan to limit the impact that the French had. They were probably hoping to keep the loss to 2 or 3 goals IMO, with the aim that they would target the Tunisia game in particular for a win and then try and grind out a draw with Denmark and hope that would be enough to qualify.
you might rather a 6-0 loss, but a 4-1 loss still gives us a slight chance to get through in goal difference if we draw our next 2. a 6-0 loss would not.
I am laughing at some of the comments suggesting we will get a result against Tunisia. They just held Denmark to a draw. Tunisia is no Vietnam.
the only way we can finish on 4 pts with Denmark is if we beat them and they beat France. and we draw with Tunisia.
Yeah I know that, but I was commenting on what Australia's plan would be. I think they would have expected Denmark to beat Tunisia, and therefore planning for a draw with Denmark and a win against Tunisia then they would have planned for 4 points and it coming down to goal difference. With a draw between Tunisia and Denmark it opens up opportunities for Australia if they can sneak a win out
I don't think anyone thinks Australia are going in as favourites, but you don't go to a WC without a plan of how to get out of the group stage. The Aussies would have planned for limiting the damage against France, pushing for a win against Tunisia and hoping to hold the Danes to a draw.
Planning for that, and actually realising it are 2 completely different things, but the comments were in relation to how they played against France. I have no doubt that they will be more attacking on Saturday, whether that results in a change of outcome, only time will tell, but at this stage, I would think most neutrals would expect Australia to finish bottom of the group, which in a way is good for Australia as they have little to lose by going for the win on Saturday.
all good. the point still remains that there is a strong chance that goal difference will be our only way into the knockout stages.
Arnold can *smile* right off.
He's taken Farina's title of worst ever coach.
Outgunned, outnumbered? It's the world cup. You don't try to contain in your first group match, you go all out for that win or to put as many goals in as you can. As Saudi proved, in the World Cup, anything can happen, but you can only win if you're trying to win.
He's taken Farina's title of worst ever coach.
Outgunned, outnumbered? It's the world cup. You don't try to contain in your first group match, you go all out for that win or to put as many goals in as you can. As Saudi proved, in the World Cup, anything can happen, but you can only win if you're trying to win.
<
Kangaroo Karaoke
|
RUOK ?
>
