Group C Predictions

This won't be entirely responsive to what you said, because I agree with the gist of your message. Nonetheless, I think there is a point that I like to make on the issue you allude to:

There are different ways a side is able to enjoy superiority in possession. Some of those ways are purely tactical and don't make a side better necessarily. For instance, it is basic simple math that if you have 5-6 players in an area competing against 3-4 players, you should enjoy a certain advantage all other things being equal. The problem is that when you use numerical superiority to establish superior possession, you inevitably leave yourself exposed in other areas.

A truly superior side in any match to me is the one that was able to create more chances than its opponent. Possession stats do often reflect which side is more determined to win (meaning believes itself to be the better side), and often (not always) the side that views itself being "better" probably has a basis for that belief. However, possession by itself means little unless translated into superior chances compared to what the opponent is able to create.

Here is another rule of thumb: a side that is not as much better than it thinks it should be on paper, often gets frustrated when it can't create more chances than it should and begins taking risks. That will then expose them badly to losing. Conversely, a side that is weaker and falls behind, and tries to compensate by committing a lot of players on attack to find goals, will often get beaten badly.

I hope in the World Cup, Australia adopt tactics that create the best chances for it to win -- and does well with those tactics. I wouldn't give two hoots if Australia were to play an open game against Peru and lose 3:1, as opposed to if Australia plays more intelligently and beats Peru in the process. My own view is that Australia can beat Peru and will probably not end up with less than a draw. But if Australia plays too loosely in the back, and tries to over-commit numbers upfront, its chances of winning will likely diminish. Especially if players like Guerrero are anything like they are billed to be.

 

Peru changed its defensive system in 2017. As I noted before, most of those players were recruited in June 2016 for Copa America / Centenario, and Gareca was testing the line–ups until March 2017.

As for Chile–Australia, it draw my attention the few number of scoring chances for Chile, and the amount of mistakes in Chile's defense. It's well known that Chile isn't particularly effective against teams that wait for them (Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay), but they're also known for not letting the opponent play (pressing all over the field), and using a large variety of attacking schemes within a single match; somehow, it seems that didn't bother Australia that much.

 

A team like Chile, or even Argentina to a lesser extent, suffer from the fact that they aren't physically very strong. They establish possession, yes, by technical merit in terms of switching play, passing quickly, and being good with the ball, but they also need to compensate through numbers. This systemic weakness can cause them problems in certain tactical schemes and find them exposed in the back when they can't out-muscle a side and drive them open physically or through crosses and the like. In this dynamic, they might end up putting more numbers than it is wise on attack and see themselves caught open in the back.

Iran beat Chile quite deservedly and it could (not would) do so again regardless of possession stats and the excuse about it being a friendly. Of course, the reverse would be equally true and in another match, Chile could win. But teams like Chile aren't typical of teams that out-rank Iran or Australia. They have a weakness that can be exploited better than some others.

Don't know enough about Peru, but I am generally of the view that Australia will have a good chance against Peru.

 

Somehow, I don't see Australia playing in the WC as they did against Honduras. And, if they defend as good as in their better presentations, it won't be easy to score a goal against them. What I don't know is how fast and effective is Australia's counter attack these days.

Sort of:

Hehe, where do you take such ideas from? Just because you've seen Chile's defensive line–up then all South American are the same? I mean, Mascherano is not likely to play in the defense in the WC, but in the midfield. All other SA's NTs have +1.80m central defenders (including Argentina), and most play (or have played) in top European leagues (they don't hire midgets).

Teams from Asia, Africa and Oceania hit an opponent so obviously that they get a red card right away (they're very naive in that sense). South American midfielders and defenders can –and do– play "Mr. Hyde" and maybe –only maybe– they'll see a yellow card. And this is a necessary acquired skill, because the need to stop –somehow– the likes of Neymar and Messi on regular basis.

 

It is not about their defenders, but the team as a whole, including their midfielders. And I got this idea watching Chile and Argentina in several different matches, including against Iran. Argentina are taller and stronger than Chile overall, but even they aren't all that tough physically. Against Iran, practically every set piece and corner was a dangerous chance for Iran. And despite their good skills, I saw them dispossessed of the ball on more than one occasion, being pushed off. You can perhaps see it for yourself in these highlights.


If you look at the highlights, you should notice that in the first half against Argentina, Iran mainly played bunker ball but even then, the set pieces we got gave us practically as many chances to score as Argentina go through all their possession. In the 2nd half, they were frustrated and Iran attacked (sometimes in numbers) on the counter and carved up their defense easily.
We played the same style we played against Argentina in the 2nd half, against Chile in the first half and the 2nd half -- until we were ahead 2:0. Some of our chances (and there were quite a few) started with the Chilean players being dispossessed of the ball. Others were on set pieces.
In the meantime, go check the average height of teams like Chile, Argentina and the like. They are generally among the shortest teams in the World Cup. As I said, I don't know enough about Peru in this regard.

This I agree. I have called it "football savvy" elsewhere, but whatever you want to call it, the South American (and Mexican) teams do well to offset some of their limitations. But they do have the limitations I alluded to.

 

I don't want anyone to get me wrong: a side like Chile in South America, or a side like Japan in Asia, are among the best teams in their confederations despite their limitations. They play very well and do offset their physical weaknesses quite well through their respective versions of "tiki taka". But those limitations do exist and they are among the things that a side facing them can try to adopt tactics to exploit.

Another point: a balanced side can certainly have some players who aren't tall or even physically strong. But the team as a whole will suffer if it is short and weak physically in more than 2-3 positions. Having 11 Messis on your team isn't going to make you a good side. You need players who can clear high balls on restarts in front of the defense in midfield. On set pieces and corners, practically the whole team needs to defend when it is the opponent which has the set piece or corner and the whole team needs to be involved when they have the corner or set piece to defend against.

 

We've been over this many times in these forums. Suarez blatantly cheated, turning the odds of a 100% Uruguayan loss into about 80%. Uruguay got lucky and Gyan missed, but for millions it was an egregious breach of football morality, and is what is remembered about Uruguay's 2010 World Cup. Hence the taint.

 

those were a couple of tough games. too bad the videoclip in the Venezuela game didn't show the torrential rain that the game was played in. in parts of the field, the ball didn't even roll. players were tripping up in the puddles. Peru had a chance to win the game right at the end, but Cueva's lunge for the header went just wide.

The Chile game in Santiago was also a tough one. After the game, everybody was divided on the tactics that the team used. Some people (such as myself) thought they should have defended the tie 1-1, but the coach brought in an attacker instead to get the win. With one less defensive player, Vidal was left open and he scored. But it was very brave of the coach to go for the win, in a "derby", as the visiting team, in a locale where they almost always lose. It was one of those learning experiences of a young team, but also a sign that there was a lot of confidence from the players and the coaches that they won't hold anything back. This is probably a great example of how WCQ in south america is so difficult, and to qualify out of there means that your team is completely solid and hardened and ready to play in any adverse conditions--especially for Peru, a team that went from last place to qualification.

...and to think: just in these two examples--out of the many in south america--had one point changed here and there, Peru could have qualified in 2nd or 3rd place and Colombia or Argentina would have had to face New Zealand or get eliminated completely.

 

The plane crash happened right at the end of 1987, going into 1988. Several members of the NT's starting 11 (or the ones that were considered to make the 11) were on that Alianza Lima team, including Guerrero's uncle (the starting GK) and the NT coach.
Needless to say, the team for Italia '90 just didn't live up to expectations and ended 1989 qualifying with zero points.

 

The only thing I know about Peru on this issue is that they rank 3rd from the bottom (above Saudi Arabia and Japan and below everyone else) when it comes to the average height of their squad. And while many smaller teams actually are very good, and there is statistically no real correlation between average height and football success based on the studies done on the subject, being shorter on average means that in some areas, you will struggle more even if you may offset that in other areas. A coach, trying to come up with tactics that accentuate his side's strengths and covers its weaknesses should be cognizant of it.

Aside from height, in terms of physical strength, here I accept that many South American sides are actually tough despite their physical limitations. That involves a bit of the "football savvy" they have developed, which may come across as playing "dirty" to others. Don't know anything about Peru on this issue per se, but I do find those South American teams that aren't physically strong or tall and who also don't appear to use this "football savvy" to be sides which can be tactically managed by an opponent in some ways.

As for Australia and Peru, my view in a nutshell on this issue is as follows: the system Australia used in the past didn't actually accentuate their physical strengths as much as it should have. Otherwise, Australia would IMO have had a better record against Japan, which often is able to play well against them and beat them too. (Against Iran, by contrast, while we don't get to play Japan that often, the times we have faced them Japan has had to visibly struggle physically, even if they have managed to partially offset that through their superior team work and passing). In any case, I expect that Van Marwijk to focus more on Australia's physical attributes. Hopefully that doesn't mean they will resort to hack and such things (Iran, which is famous in Asian football for its physical strength, is actually quite clean cut otherwise and doesn't engage in hacking so that is not what I am referring to. Van Marwijk, however, has shown with Holland to not be above even resorting to hacking if that is needed. But I don't hacking will be required: there are tactics which can make Australia physically imposing against a side like Peru. And that is what I think Marwijk will be after.

 

The point about Uruguay in 2010 isn't to me so much about semantic and whether we call what Saurez did cheating, but the fact that Uruguay would have lost against Ghana (and deserved to lose) but for an intentional handball which prevented a 100% goal. If Saurez had not committed that intentional infraction, Uruguay would have lost.

Overall, Uruguay is one of those sides which, to put it politely, use their "football savvy" to get more from their side than they deserve based on the rules of the game. It is endemic to their football culture and not any particular player. I see it quite often in different contexts all the time. They have been taught it is okay to play in a way that others would consider dirty. If anything, that intentional handball isn't even representative of what their dirty play consists of as that was at least in broad daylight. Often, it is a lot more underhanded. Of course, not all Uruguay players are like that. Cavani is not the same as Saurez and there are plenty of others players for Uruguay who might feel a bit differently on the subject. But too many Uruguay players are like that, including many who are totally unknown but happen to have been raised in a football culture that has told them its okay to 'cheat'. And by cheat, I don't mean intentionally break the rules in open daylight. I mean the kind of underhanded things they do all the time and which seldom gets noticed except by players who face them.

 

@Iranian Monitor
You make it sound like it's the 1st time short players play against tall players. At the highest professional level, all players understand what their strengths and limitations are, the coaches know--and they still play at the highest level.

All players and coaches, by this point, should know exactly how to play to their physical and technical limitations. The ball doesn't stay in the air for all the 90 minutes.

 

I don't think that is what I am saying. I realize that every tactic has its counter-tactic and many limitations can be covered. What I am suggesting is this: Van Marwijk, unlike some other Australian coaches, will try to zoom on the physical aspects of the game and Australia's comparative advantage versus Peru in that department. For instance, I don't consider it coincidence that his first comments after he observed the Australian league and players was as follows:

https://asia.eurosport.com/football...-in-russia-van-marwijk_sto6507939/story.shtml
Second round minimum for Socceroos in Russia - Van Marwijk

 

Look at the brains on van Marwijk: 'Australians are physically strong... let them play in a way so they have a chance to win'.

All the coach has to do is sit down and let the Australians do their thang.

That guy might be over his head, if he thinks physical superiority will give him an edge. Second round minimum?

Peru kept in check Conmebol teams who rely on their physicality. So scratch that approach against Peru.

Maybe van Marwijk thinks that physical superiority will help him against Denmark and France. It surely must be one of them, since he plans to be in 2nd round, at the minimum.

 

I hope his players agree.
Just because a player is big doesn't mean he'll want to play physical. It'll be interesting to see how the round of friendlies go in march for Australia, because if that initial performance is poor, some players may not be in line with Van Marwik's game. And Van Marwijk may have to go look for new players in a very short time. This is the big danger of changing coach so late. Though I wouldn't know how much the new style will change from the previous style, and may also depend on the number of veterans on the team and how quickly they adapt, not only to the coach, but also to the increase of physical play which puts them more prone to injury. But nobody really knows until they play their first match together.

 

Australia will be a lot more physical, including against France, where they will likely do a good bit of hacking as well. Their game plan will be to kill off the game against the French and escape with a draw. The approach towards Denmark will depend on a lot of things, including how each did in their opening game. But against Peru, you can bet: Australia will be seeing to exploit its physical and aerial advantages. They will look to score on restarts: a goal-kick won in the air, quickly flicked to a player, and 1-2 more touches to look for a goal. Combine that with corners and crosses and look for headers, while making sure all restarts are won and high balls are played in front of Peru's defense. Look also to set pieces. But nothing fancy upfront or anything that would require the team to move too far afield from their goal. Instead, congest the midfield stripe and don't let Peru see much of the ball to build up, and when they are dispossessed, quickly go for a goal. That is the script I anticipate against Peru and I think it can work.

 

That would be just fine.
Let them get a few yellow/red cards during their opening game, so they become less effective against Denmark.
They should be dead on arrival once they face Peru.

Just remember, tall brawlers get to 2nd round, minimum. Oh van Marwijk, such a brilliant genius!

 

Argentina's beautiful, breathtaking run in Mexico should never be labeled "tainted", except for bitter losers. Argentina were always going to beat England in that match, but it's so exquisite the way Maradona f-them up and the lingering hurt that it gives them. As an Argentina fan, I would not have it any other way.

 

Physical limitations? Most tall and heavy athletes have but a few positions in a football squad, and most look like traffic cones when engaged by faster players enjoying a lower center of gravity. So, if anyone has a "physical limitation" is the oversized player, not the way around.

I did mention how rough players are in South American matches. I wasn't meaning that's Peru's way, but several of the others. Lugano is a "nice" example (and by no means a rare case):



(Be glad that your NT doesn't have to qualify in CONMEBOL.)

So no, South American players are not afraid nor at disadvantage when some extra "physicality" (or they wouldn't be professional football players). Actually, is the rest of the world who complain about South Americans... so maybe you have the wrong picture, or an inverted one.

Anyways, Peru gets no advantage from such "display", and goes for fast passes, thus lowering the physical contact occurrences as to maintain the pressure:

You should lower your "Captain Tsubasa" intake. Also, why didn't someone think of that when playing against Guardiola's Barza? Tss tss, dumb coaches, what do they know.

 

I feel I need to clarify, as decent posters as yourself, @Iranian Monitor and, giving him the benefit of the doubt, @Hayaka, have questioned my opinions.

I don't think that the forthcoming tournament or any other in the past, is played by a team's historical pedigree alone. Of course the main reason for success or failure will always be the quality and character of the squad that competes at the tournament. However, a culture of consistently playing the game at high level since early age is what yields such quality to be competitive at a tournament. A consistency across generations is what makes a tradition, and at least until now, the World Cup is not a tournament where different random teams will make deep runs from one edition to the next.

Based on present quality and their pedigree, I expect France to top the group. However, there is enough of both ingredients in Peru and Denmark that each could pull off an upset against the group favorites. I like to root for the underdog most times, so I will predict Peru and Denmark to go through.

 

Really? Give me an example of another footballer doing the exact same thing in that situation. If "any other footballer" would do it, there must be lots of examples.

Not that Danish players are paragons of fair play, but I can't imagine any Danish player doing that. For one thing, they would be condemned by the Danish people for giving the country a black eye.

The sad thing for the Uruguayans is that they went out in the next round anyway, so they really didn't gain much from the cheating, and took a significant hit in terms of their image. Eight years later, it's still being talked about.

What is the England 1990 thing all about?[/QUOTE]

It has been done at least once in the WC before, by Spain against ironically Uruguay at WC90. And guess what, Ruben Sosa, the penalty taker for Uruguay, shot it over the bar. The match ended at 0-0, but had Uruguay beat Spain they would have faced Yugoslavia in the round of 16 instead of host and powerhouse Italy.

 

Really? Give me an example of another footballer doing the exact same thing in that situation. If "any other footballer" would do it, there must be lots of examples.

Not that Danish players are paragons of fair play, but I can't imagine any Danish player doing that. For one thing, they would be condemned by the Danish people for giving the country a black eye.

The sad thing for the Uruguayans is that they went out in the next round anyway, so they really didn't gain much from the cheating, and took a significant hit in terms of their image. Eight years later, it's still being discussed.

What is the England 1990 thing all about?

 

[/QUOTE]

That is weird. Somehow, my words ended up in your post.