A lot of discussion following that rather traumatic morning was about generational change in the socceroos …
Its an older team, and the talent doesn’t stack up to that of the 2006 (and probably 2002 as well) squad.
I also saw things this way before, but now, I don’t care about the average age of the squad, or of any particular player/s. What i care about is … looking at the group, does it appear that each player understands what their role is, and are they able to play their role in the group?
It appeared? this morning that the plan was to play a defensive 4 – 4 – 2 … 2 blocks of four, cede possession but limit the space and hit them on the counter … with that kind of plan – big, slower, but strong and smart guys like Og and Neill and Jedi should be okay …
6 goals to Brazil says the plan didn’t work out too well. And against a stronger opponent, ceding possession isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but i think i saw one aussie shot at goal … so in a defensive sense, the team did poorly, and in an attacking sense, the team did poorly.
if the plan was to sit deep and counter, then it does lead to questions as to why Kennedy was playing. Kennedy (who isn’t that old – 30 i think?) is tall and kinda awkward, and is not gonna scare anybody on the counter … nor is he gonna do the ridiculous amount of defensive work you would want from your lone striker when you are taking on a stronger team.
The young attackers Kruse and Oar didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory in this game either. Young or old, the only guy who I thought showed composure throughout the game was Bresc. Who is as old as the hills.
I worry about the age question and how much attention it is getting. The question needs to be “are we playing well?”