Nick Bendel
Today Asia…tomorrow the world?
June 18th 2009 06:24
For even the most passionate supporter, it is too much to hope that those words will be uttered come South Africa 2010. But what about some time off into the murky distance? Is it unrealistic to expect that the Socceroos will one day get to raise the coveted 18 carat gold trophy?
As the debate rages on about the style and substance produced by Pim Verbeek and his uber-efficient team, it is this issue of time that needs to be in the forefront of everybody’s minds. For the Dutchman was appointed to deal with today’s problems and yesterday’s traumas; tomorrow was to be largely other people’s domain.
When the moment arrived to appoint a successor to Guus Hiddink, FFA president Frank Lowy, having had decades of heartbreaking defeats and false dawns seared into his mind, concluded that the new man was to have one overriding priority: qualification for South Africa. How he achieved it was unimportant. The only thing that mattered was success.
With all eight games from the final round of qualifying now completed, it can be said that Verbeek has done a marvellous job. Using his vast knowledge of Asia, he proved himself to be a master of picking the right players and adopting the right systems in order to achieve the right results. The table tells the story: Australia finished undefeated on 20 points, followed by Japan on 15, Bahrain on 10, Qatar on 6 and Uzbekistan on 4.
So why, then, has he attracted so much criticism? The answer, ironically, is that he has become a victim of his own success. As the Socceroos methodically picked up point after point after point, people began to believe that there was an air of inevitability about it all. In other words, they formed the view that the substance was practically guaranteed- and thus that it was justifiable to carp about the style.
This is the view of those with short memories and narrow minds. In the days when soul-crushing defeats would be delivered with quadrennial regularity, how the relatively small band of Socceroos’ supporters yearned for a man like pragmatic Pim! Besides being a winner, he is experienced enough to understand just how tough Asia can be, and that no country- certainly not a newcomer like Australia- has a divine right to emerge from the lengthy qualification campaign triumphant. Each match- no matter how straightforward it looked on paper- was treated with the utmost seriousness and subjected to the most thorough of planning. Refusing to allow even a hint of complacency to creep into his mind, he refused to allow any to creep into his players’ either. Consequently, points were accumulated in every fixture.
His charges began with an impressive 1-0 victory away to Uzbekistan, followed by a four goal drubbing of the hapless Qataris in Brisbane. Then came an undeserved 1-0 win in Bahrain, a precious 0-0 draw away to the dominant Japanese, a methodical 2-0 win over Uzbekistan in Sydney, a methodical 0-0 draw in Qatar, a methodical 2-0 result against the Bahrainis in Sydney and finally a flattering 2-1 defeat of the Japanese at the MCG. In this way, 20 points were secured- some of them lucky, few of them pretty. And defensive formations, be they 4-5-1 or the preferred 4-2-3-1, were the rule.
This is the sort of summary to embolden Verbeek’s critics. Look how dour he is! Look how negative he is! But what these critics conveniently overlook is that those 20 points were not low-hanging fruit that was ripe for the plucking, but precious gifts that had to be earned the hard way. Consider how the table would have looked had the Uzbeks been able to snatch a draw in Tashkent, had the Bahrainis been able to claim the win they deserved in Manama, and had the Japanese been able to claim the win they deserved in Saitama and the draw they deserved in Melbourne. Japan would have topped the group on 18 points, followed by Australia and Bahrain on 13, Qatar on 6 and Uzbekistan on 5. In that case, Australia would have snuck into South Africa on goal difference. That Australia actually finished well clear in first place owed something to luck. But it owed even more to Verbeek’s strategies and tactics. And the essence of that planning was the very pragmatism that his detractors have been decrying.
So if percentage football has been responsible for the Socceroos’ qualifying for South Africa, does that mean that it should be embraced for evermore? And, more to the point, does that mean that it will one day lead to World Cup glory? The answer to both questions is no.
To understand why, we must return to the issue of time. For all our yesterdays, Australian children have been conditioned to play the wrong way. Essentially, they have been taught to kick and rush, in the expectation that their superior athleticism and competitiveness will win the day. The result is that for the players of today- even the best ones like Lucas Neill and Tim Cahill- their first instinct is often to boot the ball away. That is not to say that they always boot the ball away, or even that they mostly boot the ball away. Rather, it is to make the point that way then do keep possession, it is often a forced decision.
Kick and rush was fine in the old days, when the Socceroos were made up of home-based players. Back then, it was too much to hope that amateurs would be able to outplay or outthink professionals, and thus it was logical to emphasise such things as athleticism and competitiveness, where it was felt that it might be possible to secure an edge. That approach, however, could only take the players so far. While it allowed them to stick close to superior opponents and even occasionally upset them, it was never a recipe for long-term success. After all, if you look at the world’s footballing powers- Brazil, Spain, Argentina, France, Italy, Germany- they all do the same thing: they hold the ball. At the risk of stating the obvious, you can’t score if you don’t have the ball. That’s why the leading countries eschew kick and rush in favour of possession football.
There’s a lesson in there for the Socceroos. Now that the vast majority are overseas professionals, they should no longer be trying to outrun and outfight their opposition. Rather, they should be trying to outplay and outthink them. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. When somebody is conditioned to play a certain way, it is very difficult to get them to change. Thus, while a master coach like Hiddink was able to raise the game of the Australians during his brief stint, he was only going to be able to raise it so far. He could counsel the likes of Neill and Cahill to better possess the ball, but he could never make it seem as natural for them as it does the likes of Xavi or Messi or Kaka. So while he could- and did- make the team better, he could never make the Australians play like Brazilians.
So, once again, we must return to the issue of time. To win a World Cup, Australians have to be conditioned to play possession football- that is, in the stylish manner that Verbeek’s critics are demanding. Today’s players, however, are essentially a lost cause, because they were raised with yesterday’s outdated methods. It is too much to expect a leopard to change its spots. The only hope is to ensure that tomorrow’s children are properly instructed. If and when that happens, it will result in the rearing of a generation that is capable of winning a World Cup.
Some may think this an impossible dream. Australian sporting history, though, suggests otherwise. At the 1976 Olympics, a nation for which sport is something of a disease suffered the ignominy of winning not a single gold medal. To ensure that such humiliation didn’t become a recurring pattern, the Australian Institute of Sport was founded. As part of its long-term vision, comprehensive plans were enacted, cutting-edge sports science embraced, expert coaches imported and serious funds injected. When all that was combined with the competitive spirit with which Australians are typically bred, it was perhaps inevitable that the performance of local athletes substantially increased. The result was that a decade and a half after Montreal, the green and gold began punching well above its weight. Having finished 32nd on the medal table in 1976, Australia finished 10th in 1992, seventh in 1996, fourth in 2000, fourth in 2004 and sixth in 2008. So by taking a long-term approach, Australia was able to transform itself from a sporting irrelevancy to a sporting power.
Given how international and competitive both the Olympics and the World Cup are, comparing the two could not be more valid. With that in mind, guess what ranking the Socceroos currently enjoy? They are 29th. If the FFA can implement a similar long-term vision- that is, enact comprehensive plans, embrace cutting-edge sports science, import expert coaches and inject serious funds- transforming the Socceroos from a footballing irrelevancy to a footballing power becomes a realistic ambition. That is not to say that Australia can become the next Brazil. But if Australia can produce a team that regularly makes the knockout rounds of the World Cup, it gives itself a realistic chance to one day become champions.
If the FFA can draw local inspiration from the AIS, for footballing inspiration it should be looking to Asia. In their meticulous way, the Japanese have instituted both a 100 year plan for the J-League and a 2050 vision for the Blue Samurai (which involves winning the World Cup). They are not just talking about becoming world champions; they are devising long-term plans to make it so. No one should therefore be surprised if they succeed.
Australia must learn to understand time in the same way that the Japanese have. Part of that is to understand that much of what was done yesterday was wrong. Part of that is to understand that with the mistakes that were made in the past, only so much can be done by Pim Verbeek today. But the most important part is to understand that with enough patience and foresight and investment, those magic words might ring true some time tomorrow. “And the winner of the World Cup is…Australia!”
| 27 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
Read More
Comments (1)
