SA Footy

Plenty of debate on SEN this morning on how and what the Socceroos achieved at WC2014. Callers gave their reasons and were then asked for a rating out of 10, so thought it might be interesting to see how this Forum saw it.

For mine:

Positive
I was expecting us to score either 0 or 1, and thought we'd concede 10-15, so at worst it could have been 0-15 and best case 1-10. We finished 3-9 which is well ahead. We put mileage into players we'd hope to be better for the experience in future international games. We played some very good patches of football. Our cattle's combined professional salary probably equals (or close to) the amount of 1 player in each of our group opponents to highlight the gulf in individual quality.

Unknown
Selection - Plenty of plusses, bit we'll never know what differences Wiltshere, Kennedy, Neil, Schwarzer etc might have made, particularly the latter when our keeper unfortunately had a well below par tournament.

Negative
We failed to collect a single point, despite having more than reasonable chance in both of the first two games to do so. Thus from a results perspective, comparing against both previous campaigns and other nations, it's poor.

I guess to some extent we wont know the success of selection strategy until the Asian Cup is over, or possibly even WC2018. But for mine, at this stage, I'd rate the overall package of WC2014 for the Aussies at - 6/10

Score = 6/10

Spot on!!

The 6/10 rating is perfect imho

I can see how people may say the Socceroos have gone backwards since 2010 but the 2014 socceroos most certainly batted above there average

People have to remember we simply lack the cattle! Tim Cahill our best player is at the wrong end of his career, with the next being Mile Jedibak who is the only socceroo in the squad playing in any of the major European leagues.

Compare that to Spain side where not only do u have to be in the worlds best leagues you have to be those leagues best sides to even get a look in

Are we good enough to actually have made the World Cup if they hadn't changed the groupings, gifting us entry?

RustyCage wrote:Are we good enough to actually have made the World Cup if they hadn't changed the groupings, gifting us entry?

Possibly, under our old system we would of got Mexico in the playoff.
Australia did the right thing and moved into the Asian confederation, Oceania was going nowhere and by joining Asia our football is on the rise. We now get some quality opponents in qualifying and playing and hosting tournaments like the Asian cup can only be a good thing

World Cup gold for the young Socceroos?

Following the end of the Socceroos involvement in the World Cup in Brazil, our review of media coverage for the players over the first two weeks of the tournament shows, as expected, that Tim Cahill has easily the highest media profile of any of the players and would clearly be the most valuable sponsorship property, there are several players with far higher profiles now than they had before the Cup, some of them Australian-based.

Player


Press


Radio


Television


Web News


Social Media


TOTAL

Tim Cahill


941


5,234


9,747


4,316


18,504


38,742

Mile Jedinak


311


1,671


3,129


2,182


13,627


20,920

Ivan Franjic


242


439


1,884


1,156


5,200


8,921

Mark Bresciano


358


736


811


1,654


3,258


6,817

Mark Milligan


195


256


1,271


715


1,011


3,448

The captain, Mile Jedinak, who plays in the English Premier League, has the benefit of both the captaincy and playing in the highest profile overseas competition to build on his higher profile, while Brisbane Roar player Ivan Franjic seems the best placed of the domestically-based Socceroos to gain sponsorships from his involvement in Brazil, even though he had to come home early following an injury. Young players like Mathew Leckie and Tommy Oar did not receive as much buzz, despite their key contributions. Nevertheless, despite playing overseas in leagues not followed strongly in Australia, with the Asian Cup coming up in Australia next year they have another chance fairly soon to lift their profiles, particularly if the Socceroos can win that tournament.

JK wrote:Selection - Plenty of plusses, bit we'll never know what differences Wiltshere, Kennedy, Neil, Schwarzer etc might have made, particularly the latter when our keeper unfortunately had a well below par tournament.

This is the essential part of any discussion in term of success or failure in Brazil - the future.
I think we need to perform well @ home in the upcoming Asian Cup - minimum Semi Finalist, but I would see (in terms of Media & Public support for the code) nothing less than a Final appearance as a failure. I am sure the FFA does too.

I like that we have a 'new breed' & will be interesting to see if Cahill plays in that Tournament - think Breschiano is doubtful too.
Will be interesting if all players are made available by their European Clubs.

Yeah, I think 6/10 is appropriate.
I worry about our defence - needs an addition, somewhere, not sure who.
Keeper is also a concern.

How can you give a team 6/10 when they never got single point
On that basis England would be at least 7 or 8 out of 10 And we were the expected flops.

johntheclaret wrote:How can you give a team 6/10 when they never got single point
On that basis England would be at least 7 or 8 out of 10 And we were the expected flops.

Agreed, we deserved a 4/10 at best

johntheclaret wrote:How can you give a team 6/10 when they never got single point
On that basis England would be at least 7 or 8 out of 10 And we were the expected flops.

Different expectations and different stages of our cycles mate .. As you would know Soccer/Football is or has been well down the pecking order in this country, so we're still growing. As you often refer to, you guys invented the game and have arguably the best league in the world. If you're talking just results then sure the Aussies don't score 6/10, but I think there's a lot of other factors that need to come into play.

johntheclaret wrote:How can you give a team 6/10 when they never got single point
On that basis England would be at least 7 or 8 out of 10 And we were the expected flops.

Because we didn't cop the expected belting most thought we would get and we were leading the Netherlands and could have won that game, something that even the most
Optimistic of us never thought would happen.

England on the other hand would have at least wanted to make it into the second round to even talk about it being a success.


I think our whole strategy was to gear up for the Asian cup. Not playing the older experienced players was a good thing in that regard. The big time experience in the younger legs will be valuable.

6/10 seems about right.

bennymacca wrote:

johntheclaret wrote:How can you give a team 6/10 when they never got single point
On that basis England would be at least 7 or 8 out of 10 And we were the expected flops.

Because we didn't cop the expected belting most thought we would get and we were leading the Netherlands and could have won that game, something that even the most
Optimistic of us never thought would happen.

England on the other hand would have at least wanted to make it into the second round to even talk about it being a success.


I think our whole strategy was to gear up for the Asian cup. Not playing the older experienced players was a good thing in that regard. The big time experience in the younger legs will be valuable.

6/10 seems about right.

Still reckon 6/10 is a little high, im probably going a 4/10. Still very suspect at the back and aside from Timmy there looked no one capable of scoring, really need to unearth a young striker in the coming years.
Was good to get some games into the the younger guys and hopefully by time Qatar comes around our squad will look far better.
Still not sold on Ang as the gaffer, really need a boss with world class experience.
Real good bunch of kids starting to ply their trade around Europe hopefully they are ready in 4 years time