Amateurish Thoughts On Brazil 2014: Australia vs Spain

• This was the kind of match I expected from the Socceroos before the tournament again, where nothing was particularly wrong with how they played, but that they were simply outclassed by a better team.
• To their credit, Australia tried taking the game to Spain. But the attacks always seemed to break down in the final third, before there was even a chance on.
• Without Cahill, Australia doesn't look to have any attacking option. Even the late addition of Bresciano showed that Australia might struggle for a while as they transition away from the "golden generation". At least for now, there are no obvious successors. Leckie had a good tournament
• All three Spanish goals were well-taken, including Villa's wonderful back-heel. I think this was easily Australia's best defensive performance of the tournament even if it still leaked three goals. At least this time, all goals came from quality play to unpick the defence.
• Matt Ryan doesn't fill me with any confidence as a keeper. His movement and positioning looks way too tentative and unconvincing. Is he really Australia's best choice?
• Spain finally looked like the team that won the last world cup - strong in attack, resolute in defence.

Amateurish Thoughts on Brazil 2014: Australia vs Netherlands

• The Socceroos looked like a unified team from the start, putting together long chains of possession that resulted in attacking opportunities. 
• On the balance of things, it would be fair to say the Socceroos had the best of the first half, with 3 clear-cut chances. Bresciano and Spiranovic could (should?) have done better.
• Robben's break and goal showed his talent. A strong run and finish, though I didn't quite get the central defender hedging his bets for a potential cross. Robben had so much space.
• Cahill's immediate reply would be goal of the tournament (so far - can it be surpassed?) for me if not for the Van Persie header in the Netherlands' last game. A sublime finish from Cahill, showing once again he deserves to be crowned Australia's Greatest Footballer Of All Time!
• The penalty could have gone either way (at least according to my reading of law 12), but I was more than happy it was given. Those 4 minutes Australia had the lead was honestly something I was not expecting before the hame started. 
• That said, Netherlands pretty much walked the ball into the Aussie net 4 minutes later. It was yet another time in the tournament so far that Australia looked utterly fragile in the defensive third.
• The third Netherlands goal was the killer. Matt Ryan had good vision on the shot and it was hit almost directly at him, so all I can fathom is that the late swing on the shot made the difference. It's a shame that it came only seconds after Leckie squandered a golden chance to put Australia in front.
• The selection of the Socceroos squad was aimed at building for the future, but it's hard to see past an Australian side without Tim Cahill and Mark Bresciano. I guess the game against Spain will show us our attacking prowess without Australia's Greatest Footballer Of All Time.

Amateurish Thoughts On Brazil 2014: England vs Italy

• England took a more direct approach than Italy, but they weren't really able to penetrate. Their speculative shooting from distance summed up England's strategy.
• Italy's first goal was brilliant set piece work, with Pirlo's dummy perfect for opening the space. Marchisio's drive was very well placed.
• England's immediate response was very well executed. Sterling's pass to Rooney, and Rooney's cross to Sturridge was very well executed.
• Incredible skill by Balotelli with the chip that was cleared off the line.
• Italy's attacking by crossing looked quite ineffective up until the moment a cross found the head of Balotelli.
• Apart from Sterling, Italy had England's measure in attack. Nothing England did really troubled the Italian defence after Italy took the advantage.
• Will Wayne Rooney ever score an international goal? Also, his corner kick was hilarious.
• It's a shame Pirlo's free kick deep in injury time cannoned off the crossbar.
• A fair result. England simply didn't have the attacking options to trouble the resilient Italian defence.

Amateurish Thoughts On Brazil 2014: Australia vs Chile

[Note: Socceroos fan]

• Australia seemed to have more than enough people behind the ball, just not in a very effective way. Chile's first goal was well taken, but the defence just wasn't up to the task.
• Chile's second goal was just good team football on their part. Australia had no answer to their open attacking style of play.
• It took 25 minutes for Australia to string together a play that looked like they were playing as a team. From then on, they were generally competitive.
• Attacking-wise, Australia are a one-trick pony. Put it close to Cahill's head and hope for the best. Worked twice, though once was offside.
• Good end-to-end football, exciting play from both teams.
• 3-1 was probably flattering to Chile - those first 20 minutes that really hurt the Socceroos. Outside of that, neither team dominated, though Chile looked more deadly going forward.

Amateurish Thoughts On Brazil 2014: Spain vs Netherlands

• The closing down strategy both teams employed at the beginning made for a scrappy opening exchange, bogged down in midfield. Barely any goalmouth action
• Sneijder's initial break was so beautifully timed that it was deserving of a better finish.
• Both sides used the offside trap, though it completely neutralised Spain while the Netherlands made it work.
• Live, the penalty looked soft but understandable. The replay showed it to be a blatant dive - disappointing that the #1 team in the world needs to resort to such tactics. Though as the game went that was the only time Spain looked like scoring.
• Van Persie's header (and the half-length cross) was unbelievable skill. An early contender for goal of the tournament?
• Both of Robben's goals showed immaculate ball control. He was unlucky not to get the hat-trick with that superb volley from outside the box.
• Odd to see Casillas make two crucial mistakes that led to goals.
• The Dutch 3-4-3 formation was great for their counter-attack style of play. Spain's 4-3-3 didn't look like it troubled the Dutch much at all.
• The second half especially had me grinning from ear to ear. What a display!

Amateurish Thoughts On Brazil 2014: Brazil vs Croatia

• The counter-attack system looked really deadly for Croatia. Their goal may have had some luck, but it was created by how well they broke down the wing. 
• It was refreshing to see a Brazillian side who kept their sense of flair in the game. That Brazil kept trying to create opportunities made the first half especially incredibly exciting. Brazil going a goal down did wonders for the attacking effort they put in. 
• Neymar's first goal was pure class. I can see why he's been hyped as one of the potential stars of the tournament. If that's how he's going to play, I hope Brazil can go all the way to the final. 
• The penalty looked soft on TV, though the angle shown made it look like there was something in it. No doubt Fred milked it. The angle I've seen in news reports makes it look a lot worse than how I remembered it live. 
• The penalty itself was anticlimactic, at least as far as the spectacle goes, as the battle between creative attack and resilient defence lost all momentum. 
• The game became really scrappy in the second half, lost the excitement and flair of the first half. Substitutions do that, I suppose. 
• Oscar's goal at the death was so audacious, yet so brilliantly taken. I suppose that's the kind of shot you can do being a goal up in injury time. I hope the world cup has many more goals like this. 
• Brazil were the better side on the day, and 3-1 seems like a fair reflection of the game. 
• That both teams (at least nominally) used 4-2-3-1 was slightly odd. Though both teams seemed to have the quality of players to pull it off, with Brazil making better use of wing-backs (especially Alves) out wide to have more play in the middle of the park. I wonder how Australia will do with that tactic tomorrow.

The Offside Rule... In Coin Form

A coin that explains the offside rule in football produced to commemorate the London Olympic Games has sparked criticism for getting the offside rule wrong. Except it doesn't. Reading the referee criticism, they've made an elaborate technical point about a rule change made in 1995 and that the coin would be misleading. The only problem is that the coin doesn't say that at all. Take a look for yourselves.

Nowhere on this coin does it suggest passing to either player would make it offside. Indeed, I think the most reasonable interpretation is that it's saying that if you passed to one player it would be offside while passing to the other player wouldn't be.

In other words, the coin got it right! To quote the designer of the coin:

With all due respect, I reject Mal Davies's interpretation of the coin (rather than his interpretation of the offside law). Nowhere on the coin does it say that the 'offside' player is committing an offence – that is a supposition entirely of Mal's creation.

The coin simply states that the player is 'offside' – which is true, irrespective of whether or not an 'offside offence' results from this scenario. Furthermore, there are clearly space limitations on the coinface so it was obviously impossible to go into the finer details of the offside rule.

I think this incident highlights an important point. If you're going to mouth off about something, it's first a good thing to check that it's not you who has misinterpreted the information at hand. A simple rule of thumb to follow is that if there's a charitable and uncharitable way of interpreting what was said, it's probably best to give the benefit of the doubt and take the charitable option.

Technology In Football

while there are many considerations for whether technology should be used in a particular sport, perhaps a case can be made on how much decisions can affect the outcome. If a bad refereeing or umpiring decision has a greater chance of affecting the outcome, then surely that would be an argument for technology being used.

Football (soccer), I think, is the sport most amenable to the use of technology to assist referees. The scores are low and decisions can have a great impact on the outcome of the game. For a long time, the game in Australia was considered by a joke because of problems such as diving - a strategy that stemmed from how important getting awarded a penalty can be. Feigning can get another player sent off, as well as disrupting the flow of play. At times, the stakes are just so high that cheating or mistakes by the referee can have such a profound effect on the outcome that if there's the capacity to reduce that then surely it's for the good of the game to do so.

It's not saying that the technology needs to be perfect, but to ignore that technology can assist in the face of mistakes by referees having such profound outcomes is not an ideal solution, for fans, teams, or referees. It's not for the good of the game.

What Our World Cup Tells Us

So the Socceroos are now out, left stranded from the calamity that was the loss to Germany. Despite a strong showing with 10 men against Ghana and beating a good Serbian outfit, those 4 goals the Germans scored in game one was the difference. So close yet so far, we couldn't get out of the group stage. And unlike France, our exit barely rates a mention on the world radar.

But before we engage in "what-ifs" and then consign the Socceroos (and Pim Verbeek) to the scrap heap, perhaps it is wise to reflect on what they did rather than what could have been.

This is the 2nd world cup we've made in a row, and the first one where we had to fight it out over more than just two legs. Getting through Asia was no lean feat, especially going in unseeded and being the first team (along with Japan and Netherlands) to qualify for the World Cup. At times it wasn't pretty, but we earned the right to be there. Back in 2006, we got there on effectively a coin toss.

In 2006 we got further, fans are still seething over the Italian dive that eliminated us. Then it was only Ukraine in our way and into the semi-finals! Whoops, engaging in a "what-if" again. Both world cups we ended on 4 points, through by virtue of a draw between the other two teams vying for 2nd place behind Brazil. We beat Japan while Croatia didn't. Thus we only needed 4 points.

Truth be told, we were lucky to get to the 2nd round. Japan might have been fortunate to get their goal, but the 3-1 score line wasn't reflective of the game. We had to come from behind twice against Croatia, good result but hardly a comfortable path beyond the group stages. Even in the round of 16, Italy played for almost half a match with 10 men and we barely had a chance.

This time around, Germany was our only down-point, the 1-1 draw against Ghana with only 10 men for 70-odd minutes was a rugged display. Serbia were tough and looked dangerous at times, but so did we and the result was well-deserved. Yet "first round exit" will forever be associated with Pim while Guus gets nothing but praise for guiding us to the 2nd round.


The 2011 Asian Cup in Qatar is only just over 6 months away and it's that event that should take focus. There's no point in talking about how Australia does on the world stage before we are Asian champions. A huge lot of media focus once every four years and the eventual dissection is only going to perpetuate Australia being a bit-part of the football landscape.

This World Cup if nothing else we should have proved to ourselves that we deserved to be there. Yet now that we are gone, what can we say about the impact on the game? Over the last few weeks, I've heard more about Harry Kewell's health than I know about my own. Very little about tactics, more about fitness of key players. To the uninitiated, merely another part of a sideshow that will now be relegated behind the weekly Aussie Rules and Rugby League.

Every 4 years the Olympics comes around, and coverage is pretty much purely in the pursuit of Australian gold - not the spectacle itself, but how many medals we won compared to the rest of the world. It's chasing national glory on the hard work of a few individuals. It's no surprise that most our medals are won in the pool, it's what Olympic sport gets coverage beyond the few weeks of glory. A winner in an obscure sport is a sideshow, we can bask in the glory of the DIY champion then back to the footy or cricket depending on the time of year.

Yet history shows that individual determination and the DIY attitude isn't enough. All nations that have won the world cup live and breathe football. Even the nations who have never won but are serious contenders all share this same distinction. How can we possibly hope to share in Johnny Warren's dream of winning the World Cup until we do this?

I forget, we aren't a football nation. Just a mix of football bandwagoners who can bask in the glory when our team does well and dismiss the sport on the grounds of diving and draws when it does not. We owe it to our team not to be bandwagoners hoping to add to a long list of sports we dominate already because we will never get there.

The wrangling over stadia for a hypothetical World Cup bid was pathetic. The NRL and AFL both turned it into a pissing contest, and for what exactly? It's unlikely that we'll actually get the World Cup, it was no more than an alpha male display. Yet another part of the sideshow...


As I said before, I'm going to enjoy this tournament regardless of the Socceroos lack of participation. The best football talent is on display, and if interest can continue to be shown even in the absence of Australian participation, perhaps more people can see why football is referred to as "the beautiful game".

They Just Expect Too Much!

In keeping with the theme of the World Cup, I want to talk about the one thing that perplexes me more than why anyone would think it a good idea to blow a vuvuzela: the English media's portrayal of their national team.

While there are 32 teams that enter the World Cup, we know that a few are just there to make up the numbers. Barring a miracle, they will be gone in the first round and serve merely as an appetiser to main course. Then there are a few nations that could get to the 2nd round or if they are lucky reach the quarter finals, but that's it. Then there are a number of nations who could be there come finals time. Even fewer are nations who could really go on and win it. While football can bring surprises, unexpected wins and failed expectations, realistically we have a fair idea of when a nation under or over-performs.

What perplexes me is that England keep getting put in that final category, the expectation on this team and every English team from my football memory is that they will add to the sole trophy they won in 1966. Yet they continually fail to meet the lofty expectations. Even the WAGs are used as an excuse for the persistent failure.

Yet it all makes sense if England are classified wrongly. They aren't world-beaters, nor have they really put forward a team for a long time that were capable of being so. The English media has it wrong, this World Cup especially given they didn't qualify for Euro 2008!

Perhaps this is being a little harsh, but I can't really see what justifies the pressure and expectation put on England. Where are their match-winners? Where will the goals come from? Who in the side can come off the bench and be a game changer? Back in 2002, there was so much press about David Beckham and that injury that could have ruined England's chances. And it did, because England has a David Beckham type character they put all their hopes in and that's it. This time around it's Wayne Rooney, who is on his day a world class player. But that's it!


Looking at other countries it's easy to see why they are put up as potential tournament winners. Spain: Euro 2008 champions boasting a line-up that could front any team in the world. Argentina: so blessed in talent that they can leave Inter's Diego Milito on the bench. Brazil: they could afford to leave Ronaldinho at home while still boasting a formidable line-up and 5-time winners. Germany: a great track record at World Cups. That's just to name a few.

It's important to remember that if you just take four nations: Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, you have at least one of the finalists from every one of the 18 world cups so far. They account for 14 of the 18 trophies. Another thing to consider is that every World Cup held outside Europe has had a non-European victor. While I have no reason to expect that trend to continue indefinitely (in 1994, a penalty shoot-out was the only barrier to it being broken) it's still a reason not to expect a European team to do well. My money if I were a betting man would be on Argentina.


But back to England, perhaps my anti-English bias has led me to ignore just what is so great about the team. I can't see them as being a serious competitor yet again. They are a quarter final team expected to compete with powerhouses who are more technically proficient and have a greater depth.

If they are bundled out tomorrow, I will not be surprised in the slightest. Even if they do make it through the group phase, it's only a matter of time until they inevitably exit and the media starts looking for an excuse. Yet without good reasons to expect them to emulate what happened in 1966, it's just creating unrealistic expectations for their adoring public. They are a quarter final team (at best) that are expected to be world-beaters. No wonder they have an irate fan-base!

A Fool's Hope

I love the FIFA World Cup, it's the one global sporting event I'm guaranteed to be excited about regardless of who is playing. Coming from a nation that admittedly is not a football powerhouse, most times I don't have to watch knowing the inevitability of watching my nation drop out - because we're not even there to begin with!

But this time, like last time, we are there. And that changes things as a spectator. While I would love Australia to win and hope they do, realistically I'm expecting them to exit. Because ultimately while teams in our position occasionally make fairy-tale runs, we're there to make up the numbers. I don't say that cynically, plenty of nations are there that won't win. But even to get that far (remember this is the finals, it takes years of hard work to qualify) is a fantastic achievement and something to be proud of our team for doing.

For years Australia was a big fish in a small pond, dominating a region of Island nations where the closest thing to a challenge was taking on the rugby nation of New Zealand. Getting to the 2006 World Cup at the expense of Uruguay and moving into Asia were huge for our development as a football nation. That we qualified for the finals and were among the first nations to do so (Japan and Netherlands qualified that same day) should be enough.

Nonetheless I'm still disappointed when we lose. The match against Germany was pathetic, they are a better team and traditional world cup powerhouse, but still it was painful to watch. Perhaps we as Australians aren't used to being a small nation in any sport, we're either world contenders or we just don't care. Football is something the whole world cares about and we aren't on top!

The atrocious time zones make watching games tough. I pushed sleep last night to catch the Socceroos draw with Ghana, wrapped in a blanket and staring intently at the television. It was a game we (as in Australia, collectively, expressing themselves through a sporting team) needed to win and we couldn't do it. But thanks to Serbia shocking Germany, qualifying is still a real possibility however improbable. If we can beat Serbia, we stand a chance of qualifying regardless of the outcome in the game between Germany and Ghana.


It's not guaranteed that if we win we qualify. We have to win convincingly, how convincingly depends on the outcome for the other game. If we lose or draw, we're out so those results aren't to be considered. So take the three outcomes.

1. Germany win - If I were a betting man this is the outcome I would bet on. If Germany beat Ghana, the margin in that game and our game matters. Ghana are currently +1 in their goal difference while we are -4. We have to get a higher goal difference or equal to where we score a greater number of goals. So if Germany win 1-0, we'd have to win by 4 goals against Serbia. A 3 - 0 score-line would mean we have to by 2 goals.
2. A draw - If there's a draw then we would need to win by 7 goals, maybe 8 if the draw is a 3-3 score-line. So it is possible but terribly unlikely.
3. Ghana win - We would only need to win against Serbia if Ghana manage to upset Germany.

Of course Serbia have a say in all this too, it's not just pure will on account of our Socceroos. But in sport it never is. But all is not lost yet, and it's not purely on the hope that things will go our way (unlike France who will be knocked out regardless of their result if Mexico and Uruguay draw). We can qualify regardless of the result in the other game and that's enough to give me hope. A fool's hope, but hope nonetheless.


Unlike fans of England, inevitable exit is an expectation rather than seen as a perpetual failure. Truth be told, I'm just happy our team is there. The performance last night was enough to show that we did deserve our place in the final 32 even if we don't go beyond that. Playing with 10 men for over half a man and holding our own against one of the best African nations going while showing the resolve we normally characterise with being Australian, it was something positive to take away. And when we do go out, there's still going to be enough great football to watch, but it will be different. Aussies are used to being passive observers of the world up, which is what we will go back to being the moment we lose. Until that time, I reserve my right as a spectator to engage in all the highs and lows and feeling robbed by dodgy refs that comes with being one!