Commentary on the Commentary

As expected, another round of 'redemption' themed articles, praising the difference between Australia's performances against Thailand and Saudi Arabia, without identifying exactly what the difference was. Lynch and Cockerill come close, talking about Holman being preferred to Cahill, and Kennedy's improvement, without stating what he improved on. PM readers will know Kennedy actually ran around against Saudi, abandoning his attempts to play "the grass is made of lava" by staying on the chalk of the 18-yard line during the match against Thailand. Holger also abandoned his experimentation, restoring the balance to Australia's play; (Holman from LM to second striker, McKay from LB to LM and Zullo to LB)

Cockerill's article can be found here:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/09/09/holger-osieck-deserves-some-praise-for-australias-resurgence/
And Lynch's here:
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/football/holman-safe-bet-as-osieck-keeps-cahill-up-sleeve-20110907-1jxug.html

LATER ADDITION:
And here's Lynch again, voicing the view that Australia are seized by the overwhelming need to cross from deep when they belatedly realise Josh Kennedy is, in point of fact, really freaking tall.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/football/kennedy-boots-the-longball-theory-20110907-1jxui.html

As PM have stated again and again: Holger put out an unbalanced team against Thailand, and Kennedy and Cahill remained static - therefore crosses from deep were the only outlet. Kennedy created space and dragged defenders out of position against Saudi as well as playing in a balanced team, with Holman and McKay restored to position where their movement did not expose Australia.