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

Commentary on the Commentary

Davidde Corran has provided a succint summary of the selection issue surrounding Cahill and Holman, whose best position for the national team is as the second striker in Holger's 4-4-2/4-3-3 hybrid, but offer slightly different interpretations of the role.
He also illuminates the possibility of playing Cahill in a midfield pair, but rightfully discounts that option as a restriction of Cahill's goal threat which is a large justification for his inclusion in the team.

It can be found here http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/09/08/holger-osieck-and-the-cahill-conundrum/

Commentary on the Commentary

I'm sorry but...it's time for another Commentary on the Commentary!

Craig Foster and Les Murrary posted a Shootout on TWG, analysing Australia 3-1 Saudi Arabia, which can be found here.

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/video/513154/Shootout

Commentary on the Commentary

Philip Micallef posted this article on TWG, examining what Australia have to improve on.

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/philip-micallef/blog/1071647/Chinks-appear-in-Socceroos-armour-
More or less got it spot on, specifically pinpointing McKay's position, lack of width, Valeri and Kilkenny's culpability in the goal conceded and indicated problems with Cahill and Kennedy. Micallef also added low quality of crossing, and also recognised McKay's central role in creating Australia's goals. (He also did it concisely and succintly, without the aid of diagrams poorly made using Microsoft Paint)

Congratulations Philip, you are the only pundit to have got their analysis of Australia's performance against Thailand completely right, and more over, actually suggested concrete and applicable solutions.

As an aside, having only 1 out of 5 pundits able to identify specific problems and suggest specific solutions, is a terrible return.

Commentary on the Commentary

This installment of Commentary on the Commentary will be a short response to Robbie Slater's article which appeared in Fox Sports. In the next few days, Pass and Move will debut a new feature; Player Analysis. The first ever Player Analysis, will feature Tim Cahill, and will be a more complete attempt to refute Slater's article. It can be found here.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/socceroos/fox-sports-analyst-robbie-slater-says-no-to-tim-cahill-playing-striker-for-socceroos/story-e6frf4l3-1226129118463

Two of Slater's tenuous assertions about the Thailand game is that Australia played poorly because we passed the ball too slow and that Australia's goals were opportunitic, and ultimately the product of luck.

Commentary on the Commentary

I'm sorry, something has to be said. Craig Foster has written an incredibly descriptive article about his holiday to Brazil. Or something like that. A couple of these paragraphs sound like a tour of the departure lounge at Tullamarine Airport, rather than an informative analysis of WHY and HOW Thailand frustrated Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/football/socceroos-stall-on-the-tarmac-20110903-1jrex.html?rand=1315060213375