| France v Australia 10:11 - Jun 16 with 7126 views | GloryHunter |
Luongo not starting. On the bench. [Post edited 16 Jun 2018 10:14]
|  | | |  |
| France v Australia on 20:31 - Jun 16 with 2105 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
Imagine we outlawed penalties and just had direct free kicks from the spot of the foul instead.
Would result in less diving I reckon. |  | | |
| France v Australia on 23:43 - Jun 16 with 1989 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
| France v Australia on 20:31 - Jun 16 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Imagine we outlawed penalties and just had direct free kicks from the spot of the foul instead.
Would result in less diving I reckon. |
Does anyone have any good stats about penalties? Year by year? Are there more now than before? |  |
| |
| France v Australia on 11:13 - Jun 17 with 1800 views | timcocking |
Luongo should feel aggrieved.
His coach bottled it and went for Jedinak who, whilst a solid player, is surely past his best, whereas Mass is smack in his prime and playing well. More mobile and more creative than Jedinak. |  | | |
| France v Australia on 11:57 - Jun 17 with 1785 views | isawqpratwcity |
| France v Australia on 11:13 - Jun 17 by timcocking |
Luongo should feel aggrieved.
His coach bottled it and went for Jedinak who, whilst a solid player, is surely past his best, whereas Mass is smack in his prime and playing well. More mobile and more creative than Jedinak. |
Unfortunately local pundits were praising Jedinak to the skies for his performance, citing:
...his 'leadership' (seemingly most embodied by his team huddle after the game, but also his generally longer captaincy credentials);
...his stoicism taking a free-kick straight to his head without making a meal of it;
...his dead-ball skills, especially the penalty sang-froid.
If Marwijk is considering Jedinak and Luongo as an either/or proposition, rather than somehow accommodating them both in the same line-up, we may possibly not see Mass this competition, barring a Jedinak injury. |  |
| |
| France v Australia on 11:59 - Jun 17 with 1782 views | ElHoop |
| France v Australia on 15:59 - Jun 16 by QPR_John |
When is a touch not a touch. If the touch was enough to deflect the ball then the ball was played end of story. If you make a tackle then you cannot help but touch the other player so unless dangerous which this clearly was not not a foul. If this was a penalty then any tackle is a foul [Post edited 16 Jun 2018 16:03]
|
He didn't make a tackle though. He didn't get the ball. Depends to some extent what you call a tackle I suppose. For me a tackle in football is getting the ball off of the opponent. An attempted tackle is anything else and was what happened yesterday. If the defender had got the ball, that would have been fine, if he had missed him completely, that would have been fine. As it was he tried to make a tackle, failed to get the ball and brought down his opponent in the process. For me that should always be a penalty. The touching of the ball was the difference between it being a yellow or red card offence, not the difference between it being or not being a penalty. |  | | |
| France v Australia on 12:51 - Jun 17 with 1760 views | ozranger |
| France v Australia on 11:57 - Jun 17 by isawqpratwcity |
Unfortunately local pundits were praising Jedinak to the skies for his performance, citing:
...his 'leadership' (seemingly most embodied by his team huddle after the game, but also his generally longer captaincy credentials);
...his stoicism taking a free-kick straight to his head without making a meal of it;
...his dead-ball skills, especially the penalty sang-froid.
If Marwijk is considering Jedinak and Luongo as an either/or proposition, rather than somehow accommodating them both in the same line-up, we may possibly not see Mass this competition, barring a Jedinak injury. |
Unfortunately, I have to agree. Australian journos tend to write the positives when it suits their bosses' agendas. They choose not to be neutral. Jedinak did practically nothing in this game warrants his position above Luongo. For all we know, and given the Cahill situation, the manager was told to play Jedinak by the FFA when it was leaked that he was not to play and Sainsbury was to be the captain. That, unfortunately, would not surprise me. The penalty was not well taken and if the keeper had dived the other way he would have saved it, 100%. As much as I have worked with many of these pundits, both as a journo and now as a photographer, I don't have a lot of respect for what they have to write, not who they are, but what their bosses' agendas are.
I am hoping that Jedinak was played because they wanted a solid (built) player in that position and think Luongo is lightweight. And, thus, given the now need to win the next two games, the more mobile and better thinking Luongo will play. We shall see. |  | | |
| France v Australia on 15:03 - Jun 17 with 1699 views | QPR_John |
| France v Australia on 11:59 - Jun 17 by ElHoop |
He didn't make a tackle though. He didn't get the ball. Depends to some extent what you call a tackle I suppose. For me a tackle in football is getting the ball off of the opponent. An attempted tackle is anything else and was what happened yesterday. If the defender had got the ball, that would have been fine, if he had missed him completely, that would have been fine. As it was he tried to make a tackle, failed to get the ball and brought down his opponent in the process. For me that should always be a penalty. The touching of the ball was the difference between it being a yellow or red card offence, not the difference between it being or not being a penalty. |
Cannot agree but it's just an opinion. You say he did not get the ball then go on to say he touched it. Touching the ball makes no difference if the tackle is deemed dangerous this was not dangerous so not a penalty. If you bring in various levels of touch where is the line. [Post edited 17 Jun 2018 15:06]
|  | | |
| France v Australia on 17:53 - Jun 17 with 1650 views | ElHoop |
| France v Australia on 15:03 - Jun 17 by QPR_John |
Cannot agree but it's just an opinion. You say he did not get the ball then go on to say he touched it. Touching the ball makes no difference if the tackle is deemed dangerous this was not dangerous so not a penalty. If you bring in various levels of touch where is the line. [Post edited 17 Jun 2018 15:06]
|
Yes it's just an opinion obviously. If the striker has still got the ball then the touch of the defender is irrelevant - the tackle was a failure and any consequential effect on the forward has to be punished as if the tackle had never happened. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| France v Australia on 18:07 - Jun 17 with 1639 views | TacticalR |
@ozranger 'I am hoping that Jedinak was played because they wanted a solid (built) player in that position and think Luongo is lightweight. And, thus, given the now need to win the next two games, the more mobile and better thinking Luongo will play. We shall see.'
I also assumed not playing Luongo was based on the assumption that a defensive performance was needed against France.
I really hope the Australian management team are aware that Luongo has begun to get goals from playing further forward and can provide more midfield creativity if he is not too tied up with defensive duties (or at least defends from the front - that's how he disrupted Sheffield United). |  |
| |
| France v Australia on 18:58 - Jun 17 with 1609 views | ozranger |
| France v Australia on 18:07 - Jun 17 by TacticalR |
@ozranger 'I am hoping that Jedinak was played because they wanted a solid (built) player in that position and think Luongo is lightweight. And, thus, given the now need to win the next two games, the more mobile and better thinking Luongo will play. We shall see.'
I also assumed not playing Luongo was based on the assumption that a defensive performance was needed against France.
I really hope the Australian management team are aware that Luongo has begun to get goals from playing further forward and can provide more midfield creativity if he is not too tied up with defensive duties (or at least defends from the front - that's how he disrupted Sheffield United). |
I wish. He has been "labelled" by the Oz management and press as a defensive midfielder. Trouble is that there is no "Scowen" in the team to release Luongo. If Oz had another true centre back then Milligan could be freed for the holding midfielder. If they are playing wingbacks then that would allow for Luongo to perhaps get in a more attacking formation along with Mooy and poster-boy "Rogic".
As I said, the fact they need to win the next match must surely turn the tide to being an attacking formation than a defensive looking one as per the France game. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
