Public opinion is a fickle thing. When Adelaide United made it past cashed-up Kashima Antlers and Bunyodkor to secure a place at the Club World Cup in December, football forums were awash with messages of congratulation (or self-congratulation), hailing the growth made by the A-League, the battler spirit of Aurelio Vidmar’s boys, the supremacy of Australia in Asia, etc.

Now, after a crushing loss in the final at the hands of a technically superior and tactically immaculate side, the roof seems to be caving in. We’re miles behind the Asians, apparently. Australian football is in need of a radical overhaul (or was it “in desperate need”?). The A-League is rubbish. It’s all a Les Murray-esque crisis.

As always, the truth lies squarely between the two. The progress of Adelaide through the tournament was fascinating (and often very exciting) to watch, and it said a great deal about where Australia stands in relation to the rest of the continent. Time for some reflections.

The major lesson to be learnt from the whole experience is that physicality, a tough defence, and a never-say-die spirit will indeed serve A-League clubs well in Asia…up to a point. It was clear even against Kashima and Bunyodkor that Adelaide were facing sides that were, man for man, technically better. But the resoluteness of Angelo Costanzo, Sasa Ognenovski and Eugene Galekovic (hitting a purple patch at the right time) was absolutely central to Adelaide’s success.

The contribution of Ognenovski deserves a more lengthy tribute. Signed just prior to the Champions League, the big man proved a superb foil for Costanzo, providing the sort of strength in the air and shrewd positioning which Michael Valkanis evinced occasionally, but never quite enough. In both games against the Chinese side Changchun in the qualifiers, not to mention the home fixture against Pohang, Adelaide would never have kept a clean sheet but for Big Sash.

And then there’s Costanzo. He has been arguably the finest defender in the A-League since its inception: positionally aware, elegant on the ball and reliable in the air, you could not ask for a better leader at the back…in the A-League, at least. His absence was felt so, so keenly in the second leg against Gamba: had he been there, you could argue that Adelaide would have conceded neither of the two goals they did.

So, put crudely, Adelaide got to the final on their defence. Vidmar’s tactics were truly bizarre at times in the opening stage, and the side was affected by injuries throughout, but five clean sheets were enough to see them through. Then Bruce Djite and Nathan Burns went on their way, and the team was forced into a reorganization for the knockout stage. They adapted admirably, and again it was desperate defending that saw them over the line against Kashima, while Bunyodkor’s profligacy in front of goal did them plenty of favours in the semi-final.

In Gamba, they finally came up against a side that looked both skilful and cohesive, as indeed they had throughout the competition. In Yasuhito Endo, Hideo Hashimoto and Michihiro Yasuda (among others), Gamba possess players of true international class, and in Akira Nishino a coach who managed to combine a commitment to flowing football with sound tactical organization. Without any doubt, the finest side was victorious in the Asian Champions League.

But before we go off the deep end laying into the 5-0 aggregate losers, let’s take a look at the difference between the two sides.

Gamba Osaka are a well-established club, with a youth system, an experienced coach, a 15-year history of top-flight football, and a turnover that utterly dwarfs that of Adelaide

Adelaide United have a thin squad, a neophyte coach (who, despite some of the praise heaped upon him, was shown up badly at times during the campaign), and a three-year history of professional football.

The 5-0 scoreline may have accurately reflected the difference between the two teams (it did), but the tawdry ruminations on the ineptitude and backwardness of the Australian game are totally out of order.

The technical “issue” is plain to see, and the FFA have at least gone about addressing it. And for those who decry the quality of our youth, it’s worth keeping in mind that just prior to Adelaide’s return leg against Gamba, the Young Socceroos qualified for the World Youth Championship in Egypt next year…the first time an Australian youth team has made it through Asia. Among those who missed out, incidentally, were China, Saudi Arabia and Iran

Adelaide’s efforts deserved to be celebrated, and their shortcomings against Gamba need to be acknowledged…but not lambasted or ridiculed. In the final analysis, they have done Australian football proud.

Any criticism of Pim Verbeek and his charges must be muted after Wednesday night’s performance. After all, they have started the final leg of the World Cup qualifying campaign with an away win in difficult conditions, with an injury-ridden squad. A fine achievement indeed.So then, what can we take from the game?

First of all, the defence. It’s strange that Chris Coyne has come in for so much criticism since his elevation to Socceroo status: when it has mattered, he has done fairly well on the whole, and against the Uzbeks he was simply excellent. Dominant in the air, and quick to cover for Scott Chipperfield when he went forward, Coyne put in the most pleasing performance of the night from a fans’ persepctive.

Central defence is certainly a problem area for the Socceroos. Michael Beauchamp and Patrick Kisnorbo have been found wanting at international level, and Jade North is in wretched form of late. Coyne is certainly not a long-term solution, but given the paucity of options at Verbeek’s disposal at the back, he could yet be a vital contributor for us during this campaign.

Lucas Neill also put in a fine performance in Tashkent. It’s nice to see him coming close again to his Germany 2006 form, after a listless performance at the Asian Cup. Behind the central two, Mark Schwarzer was his usual solid self, although once or twice he again gave ammunition to those critics who suggest that he doesn’t command his area quite well enough.

Chipperfield’s return to the green and gold has been welcome. It was a credit to Verbeek’s preparation that Chipperfield was clearly given instructions to bomb forward early: in tandem with Mark Bresciano, he caused the Uzbeks’ most vulnerable player, right-back Islom Innomov, plenty of concerns. The Basel man did run out of legs towards the end, however, and needed his colleagues to cover for him more than Verbeek would perhaps have liked.

Luke Wilkshire’s was a spotty performance. He did provide the cross for the goal (as indeed he did against Holland earlier in the week), but there were times when his defending was clumsy in the extreme, especially in the second half. He is not a natural right-back by any means, and in fact that lack of a specialist full-back of any description could come back to haunt the Socceroos during the campaign.

Given Australia’s injury worries in midfield, later exacerbated by Jason Culina’s illness, Verbeek deserves credit for the re-organisation in that area. With Carl Valeri and Jacob Burns as the central men, there was clearly never going to be any great commanding presence there, so the outside men (Bresciano and Emerton) often moved inwards to give them some much-needed support…as did Chipperfield and Wilkshire at times.

Yet the period at the beginning of the second half, when Uzbekistan began to dominate completely in that area, was telling. Was Verbeek perhaps regretting his choice of Jacob Burns as the last back-up midfield grafter in the squad at that point? Burns has proved time and again that he is not of genuine international standard, and while, in fairness, Verbeek could hardly have expected to have to use him in such a crucial game, his deficiencies were clearly shown up when the opposition began to assume command.

Next time, it would be preferable to see Neil Kilkenny or even Stuart Musialik in the “reserve anchor” spot in the squad.

The Uzbeks certainly improved when Timur Kapadze (who should patently have been on from the beginning) arrived to reinforce the midfield, and towards the end the left-winger Jasur Hasanov began to trouble Luke Wilkshire considerably. All in all, Australia’s second-half performance was not pretty.

To the forward line then. Was the decision to omit Kennedy justified?

In a curious way, I think so. The Uzbeks are clearly the most “European” of the sides we are likely to face in this final qualifying round, and with defenders like the imposing Alikulov, Kennedy may not have had the aerial impact that he had against, for instance, Qatar in the previous round. Instead, Kewell’s clever touches and movement were hard for the Uzbeks to master, and although Holman’s touch in the final third continues to infuriate, he too kept the home defence on their toes. Not a bad reshuffle from Verbeek, all things considered. Kennedy, though, should certainly take the field in the other games.

A terrific start then…but, as Verbeek himself was quick to point out, it’s only a start.

The squad picked by Pim Verbeek for our friendly against Holland in Eindhoven and our crucial opening qualifier against Uzbekistan is a case of no surprises – in more ways than one.Several of those picked on rather dubious reputation are there again, including Mark Milligan, who is still yet to find a club and whose performances in China did little to inspire confidence. And what on earth is the point of including the desperately mediocre Jacob Burns when we have three sufficiently dour midfield grafters already in Grella, Valeri and Culina?

Brad Jones and Michael Petkovic, both of whom have given plenty of evidence that they are not really of international standard, get the customary call-up. Not that the reserve goalkeeping positions are of critical importance, given that Mark Schwarzer is still almost certain to start.

On the plus side, it’s good to see Scott Chipperfield back, and pleasing to note that Richard Garcia seems to have forced his way into the 2010 reckoning at long last.

But, again, was there really no room for Nicky Carle?

I would be the first to argue that some of the calls for Carle’s inclusion in the past might have been premature. However, Verbeek’s continued refusal to make him part of his plans just defies logic. He is still the only Australian player other than Harry Kewell capable of producing genuine surprises, and is the perfect man to introduce when the team is creaking and in need of a spark.

Likewise, Nathan Burns, a player with the potential to provide the sort of invention the Socceroos have sadly missed in late years, has been left out, although his erstwhile club colleague Bruce Djite makes the cut…despite his poor performance against China in June.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Verbeek has something of an aversion to unpredictable players. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing when it comes to selecting one’s starting eleven, but there must be a place for such players when things aren’t quite going according to plan.

Verbeek has had a pretty easy time from media and fans thus far; even his lethargic approach in Kunming in March was hailed as a tactical masterclass, which it emphatically wasn’t. The match in Tashkent will be a tough test indeed, and if Australia find themselves searching for new ideas in the final half-hour and having no-one to turn to, we’ll know who to blame.

Graham Arnold, however, does deserve criticism, and plenty of it. He let Australian football down badly in China. But I feel that many of the opinion pieces produced since the departure have focused, by and large, on the wrong things.

The non-selection of Bruce Djite and Nathan Burns became a veritable obsession for the would-be opinion-makers of Australian football in the lead-up to the games (and, indeed, during the tournament itself). The team may, indeed, have done better with the two ex-Adelaide youngsters in the fold. The basic problem, though, was not selection, but attitude.

Arnold could have made a reasonable case, pre-Olympics, for the omission of the former Adelaide flatmates, even if he instead chose to offer the absurd pretext of “the heat”. Burns’ performances for the Olyroos had never hit any great heights, although he may well have done much better had Arnold been wise enough to use him where he belongs, in the centre, rather than on the wing, where he tends to drift out of the game.

Bruce Djite’s performance against China in June was woeful, and probably tipped Arnold in favour of the lively, if raw, Nikita Rukavytsya. In the event, Djite belied his earlier form with a bright start to his career in Turkey, but Arnold was not to know this.

Of the others, David Williams was perhaps a little unlucky to miss out, but none of the other hopefuls being touted by the usual suspects at SBS and elsewhere had really done enough to merit a spot. The selection of the over-age players was baffling, but perhaps – as has been darkly hinted – a consequence of the top players’ mistrust of Arnold’s acumen.

Nevertheless, the squad was quite an able one. But Arnold’s general deployment of the team gave exactly the opposite impression.

Against Serbia? No real attempt to play the ball through the midfield at all. Instead, a succession of lofted balls in the direction of Archie Thompson and Rukavytsya, two players who are hardly noted for their suitability for a target-man role. The Olyroos had Matthew Spiranovic and the outstanding Adam Federici to thank for avoiding embarrassment in their opener.

Against Argentina? The most limp, craven, defeatist performance I have ever seen from an Australian team. It was extraordinary that so many commentators detailed how much better the Olyroos looked than against Serbia: a few tentative balls into midfield, followed by a nervous backpass, constituted no real improvement on route one, and our so-called “organized defence” would have been breached countless times had Argentina’s stars been on form. One thing is for certain: the many adjectives applied to Australia’s performance by a compliant local media (“gallant”, “brave”, “spirited”, etc.) were thoroughly undeserved.

It was, as Les Murray quite accurately pointed out in his withering SBS column, a return to the days when Australia went into games expecting to lose, in the sure knowledge that the local press would see a narrow loss as a triumph.

These players, as we saw quite clearly against the Ivory Coast, deserved much better. With nothing to lose against the Africans, we finally saw that, surprise surprise, these A-League graduates could actually put together a few decent passing moves, could actually hold their own against a top-class side (which had, incidentally, outplayed Argentina in their opening game…rather putting the lie to the idea that there was a colossal gulf in class between the Argentinians and the others in Group A).

Had Mark Bridge been placed sensibly at the point of the attack rather than lurking needlessly in midfield behind the hapless, out-of-form Rukavytsya, it might even have been a different story against the Ivorians. But the Olyroos lost the plot in the second half, and the late addition of Nikolai Topor-Stanley as an emergency striker (!) was a fair reflection of just how defence-heavy Arnold’s squad was.

The lesson to be drawn from the campaign, and particularly the final game, is surely that an attitude of confessed inferiority – which Arnold undoubtedly instilled in his troops, implicitly if not explicitly – is not only useless, but not worthy of Australian football anymore. These kids had fought their way through two qualifying stages, in a daunting variety of conditions, against opposition they scarcely knew. Why should they have gone into the Olympics with damage limitation as the basic modus operandi?

Two instructive comparisons: Australia’s game against Argentina at the 2004 Olympics, and our encounter with Brazil at Germany 2006. In the former, the opposition and the scoreline were the same as in China, but there the comparison ends. Frank Farina’s Olyroos took the game to the eventual champions, and gave them perhaps their toughest test of the tournament. Arnold’s charges played come-and-get-me.

Guus Hiddink’s Socceroos were not to be overawed by the stellar reputations of their opponents, and approached the game in a thoroughly positive, confident frame of mind. If not for some weak refereeing, Hiddink’s men might have emerged from the AllianzArena with a well-earned result.

Arnold does not have the excuse of poor preparation or unfamiliarity with the conditions, as he did at the Asian Cup. He got his wishes in terms of preparation this time, and the blame for Australia’s insipid efforts lie squarely at his door.

Let us hope that future Olyroo managers, should they reach the tournament, instill a little more self-belief in their squad.

Firstly and most obviously, the winners-only system for the first-round groups has been sensibly abandoned (as it was for the first round of World Cup qualifying in Asia, incidentally). The profusion of dead rubbers that habitually results from such a format is ruinous for gate takings, and by allowing the top two to progress from the opening groups, the AFC will surely be helping the clubs to offset the expenses of an ACL campaign (an important factor for Australian clubs).

Just as a side note, a traditional top-two progression from the opening group would have allowed Melbourne Victory – believe it or not – to advance to the Round of 16 in the current competition, had it been played under the revised ACL format!

Now to the matter of the revised allocations. Although, at first glance, the eastern side of the draw seems absurdly weighted in favour of “the big three” (Japan, China and South Korea), it makes sense in a way. Group F of the current competition has been a complete joke, with both Thai entrants Krung Thai Bank and the hapless Vietnamese club Nam Dinh conceding 27 goals over the course of six games. In Adelaide’s group, Binh Duong have been similarly uncompetitive.

The Vietnamese clubs clearly don’t belong at this level of competition, although admittedly the new allocations seem a bit rough on the Thais, given Chonburi’s commendable performances. But Thailand has fallen foul of the AFC’s tough new “professionalism” requirements, with the result that they have to battle it out for a repechage place in the group stage. Uzbekistan and Qatar have suffered the same fate in the western half, the former having particular grounds for disappointment following the exploits of Kuruvchi in this year’s Group A.

Australia, too, was given a less-than-favourable report card (what on earth does the word “threadbare” mean in that context, incidentally?). Some of the demands therein will be impossible to achieve by October this year (the promotion/relegation stipulation, for instance, which is a very long way off). Some compromise of sorts will no doubt be reached; there is no way that the AFC will bar Australian clubs from participation in the new competition.

So the groups will at least be competitive, even if the competition loses some diversity as a result. And although the Australian teams will no longer have a “bunny” in the group to swipe relatively easy points from, the move to two group qualifiers should offset this up to a point.

One innovation right out of left field is the guaranteed presence of an Indian club in the western half of the competition. TV revenue coming into play? Perhaps, but is interest in local football on the subcontinent (let alone the standard) really all that strong? Cricket’s IPL has been a roaring money-spinner, but I’m not sure if the ACL would prove a similar cash cow in India.

On the subject of Champions Leagues: felicitations to Manchester United on winning the European version for the third time. Not one of their best performances this season, but over the course of the competition they’ve shown themselves worthy of the honour, by and large.

Written by Mike Salter

Read more of his thoughts at The Football Tragic

A little over two years ago, a similar situation was playing itself out in Melbourne, with Archie Thompson desperate to jump ship to PSV Eindhoven, where Guus Hiddink – his national team boss at the time – was supposedly going to lick him into shape for the 2006 World Cup. As it happened, of course, Thomspon was a complete cipher both with PSV and the national team in Germany…not that he could have known this at the time.

Like Thompson, Djite has taken an unseemly swipe at his A-League employers, and like Thompson, Djite has now gotten his European wish. But although the hasty press dash by Adelaide’s CEO looks like a cave-in on Adelaide’s part, they may in fact have done a neat bit of business.

Melbourne Victory’s steadfastness in the Thompson case was perceived by many, at the time, as arrogant and self-defeating intransigence. In hindsight, it seems fairly clear that they actually provided a good example to other A-League clubs in dealing with the European market: they refused to be bullied into releasing their prime asset on unfavourable terms.

Adelaide United appear to have learned the lesson well.

Whether Bruce Djite is a prized asset for Adelaide is open to debate. Personally, I would rate him as promising, but a long way from the finished article. Yet Djite clearly considers himself a rare catch, and Adelaide, by their not-so-subtle initial over-valuing of the Olyroo striker, have craftily conveyed that impression as well.

And consider this for a moment: Djite has had only two injury-interrupted seasons with Adelaide, he has yet to establish himself in the senior international side, and he had only a year of his contract left to run. Given all of the above, the rumoured $500,000 transfer fee for the Olyroo striker constitutes an excellent deal for Adelaide, I feel.

The idea, of course, is enormously tempting. Many fans of the old NSL like nothing better than to belittle the standard of the A-League, contemptuously dismissing even the better sides as by no means comparable with the great NSL sides of the mid-nineties. And even now, there are those who will claim that the more decorated state league sides – even in their current, emaciated incarnations – would knock off the “plastic” A-League teams, given half a chance.

Bring it on, then? Well…there are a few problems.

Firstly and most obviously, the A-League and state league seasons do not align, as I’ve pointed out on this blog many times before (strangely enough, it’s a point that people still wantonly ignore). Organising a cup competition around existing competitions would be an absolute logistical minefield.

Secondly, a truly national cup competition (as opposed to, say, the Tiger Turf Cup in NSW) would involve considerable expense in terms of travel and accommodation. We’ve already seen how this factor has served to delay the introduction of a youth league; as with the youth league, these expenses would scarcely be covered by gate takings (let alone TV revenue, were a deal to be struck).

But the most nagging concern is that some of the bitterness felt by the “excluded” state league clubs might spill over onto a more public stage. The South Melbourne v. Melbourne Victory friendly last year provided enough of a PR embarrassment; an escalation of the hostilities in the case of a genuinely competitive game is not hard to envisage.

As for Lynch’s idea of the winners being allotted a spot in the Asian Champions League…frankly, it’s farcical. Somehow I think the AFC might have a problem with Kashima Antlers or Gamba Osaka playing at Jensen Park.

In the long term, a cup competition would be great. But not just yet, thank you very much.

Written by Mike Salter

Read more of his thoughts at The Football Tragic

The friendly against Ghana will really test the depth of the national team as basically the whole first-team will be unavailable for one reason or another. This game, even more so than the game against Singapore, will provide an opportunity for the A-League players to step up. The game will really test whether these domestic players have what it takes to adapt to the level of tactical sophistication required to play under Verbeek’s system.

They will also be facing a much stiffer test with Ghana being a far superior side to Singapore. While the Black Stars will themselves be missing several key players, including Essien and Muntari, the Africans will surely test the Australian defence much more than Singapore or China. Additionally, given that the weather should be ok for the game, the excuse of playing on a water-blogged surface should also be irrelevant for this game.

Give the above, this game will also be seen by many in the squad as a real opportunity to step-up against a quality opponent while the majority of the European contingent is away. And given the much tougher second stage of qualifying, presuming that Australia makes it through, Australia will really need a handful of this squad to make the step-up and become genuine alternatives or back-up options to the current first-team.

The defence

I’m expecting Verbeek to start with a flat back-four with the central pairing of North and Beauchamp. They both need match time and should Neill be unavailable for the qualifiers, this pairing is the most likely alternative. As a possible surprise move, Verbeek could start with Spiranovic and move North to the right. There are logical seasons for starting Spiranovic as he has been more involved in the first-team for Nuremberg over the last few months than Beauchamp and there should already be a level of understanding between the two Nuremberg teammates. Carney should slot into his usual position of left-back.

Whatever the defensive line-up is, it will be a fairly inexperienced back-four that will have to live without the experience of Neill. While the inexperienced defence looked fine against Singapore, the nation ranked 128 in the world was never really expected to cause much trouble. It will be interesting to see how Beauchamp and North hold up against a nation that is currently ranked 14, particularly without experienced players around them.

The flanks

In terms of the full-backs, the over-lapping runs of Carney and Emerton were a really threat in the game against Qatar and they provided a constant outlet for Australia from defence. In the game against Singapore, Adam Griffiths look unsure when getting forward from right-back while North is also a much better defender than attacker. I think with Carney on the left, unless he is given instructions to stay back, you will see a bias with the left flank combination of Carney and Troisi, who I expect to start, being used a lot more than the right flank. With Sterjovski pulling out, Australia really doesn’t have a natural right winger in the squad. Holland was used on the right against Singapore but he was mainly ineffectual in an attacking sense.

I’m expecting Kewell to play as the central attacking midfielder with Culina on the right although the PSV man is much more at home in the centre of the park. You could switch Kewell and Culina around which will allow Kewell to cut into. In any case, the attacking midfield trio of Troisi, Kewell and Culina shouldn’t be restricted in their movement. They should have the licence to roam and interchange positions which can have the affect of dragging defenders out of position.

While Kewell’s struggles at Liverpool have been well documented, the fact that Culina hasn’t been able to hold down a regular starting spot at PSV this term is probably less known. Culina has only started 9 league games while making another 9 appearances off the bench. Given the impressive form of Carle and Garcia, Valeri’s assured performance against China as well as the return to form of Burns, Culina and Kewell might come under some real pressure to hold their places in the team, especially if they do not perform against Ghana. The squeeze could be further put on Culina and Kewell if Verbeek switches to a midfield four for the qualifiers. It is fantastic that emerging Socceroos are starting to pressure the incumbents who were probably considered un-droppable not too long ago.

The midfield

I’m expecting Verbeek to go with five in midfield. I’m expecting this because Verbeek likes to control the game and dictate possession as evident by the tactics used in all three games that he has been in charge. Against China, I think he showed that he is willing to compromise our chances of scoring if we can control the tempo of the game and starve the opposition of possession and genuine chances. I think Verbeek will also be keen to test whether this squad of Socceroos will be able to exert the same level of control over the opposition as the first-team regulars did over China.

I’m expecting Australia to play a pair of defensive midfielders with Valeri bring paired with Jedinak. Watching the crispness of Valeri’s passing game against China, you get the feeling that he can offer a bit more than Grella in relation to bringing the ball over the defence. The style of football we played against China didn’t really allow Valeri to exhibit the full range of his passing ability but you saw glimpses of it during the game. I wouldn’t be surprised if Verbeek assigns Jedinak with the job of winning the ball, closing down the opposition and protecting the back-four while giving Valeri a bit freedom, to be the first or second passing option out of defence and be the fulcrum from which the ball will be played from the back.

The forwards

Verbeek only has a few striking options at his disposal. The number of strikers unavailable for various reasons is length: McDonald, Kennedy, Burns, Djite, Thompson, Holman and Garcia while the squad is also without the experience of Aloisi and Viduka. The strike force consists of Bridge, Allsopp and Joel Griffiths.

If Verbeek plays a front two, you’d expect the big Allsopp to be paired with either Bridge or Griffiths or he could go with Bridge and Griffiths given that they are former teammates. If Verbeek goes with the lone striker, Allsopp is probably the player most suited to the role given his size, strength and ability to hold up the ball. However, I think the most likely candidate for this role is Griffiths. During the Jets’ Championship year, Griffiths usually lead the line alone. Given that he is also better with the ball at his feet than Allsopp and is quicker by a few gears too, you’d expect Verbeek to go with the striker that is most likely to push his way into the Socceroo squad out of the trio selected.

The substitutes

If that is the starting line-up, out of the substitutes, I’d expect Topor-Stanley to get some game time given the lack of left-back options, as well as Adam Griffiths, James Holland, Leigh Broxham and probably Mark In terms of a predicted result, I think it will end one all. But this game really isn’t about the result.

Australia v Ghana – 23 May 2008 – Sydney Football Stadium 8pm on Foxsports

Buy Socceroos tickets here !

Written by Peng Chen

Read more of his thoughts at his Aussie Football Blog

The huge popularity the sport has gained in the last few years can now also be found in the online world. Simply Google the words Blog + Socceroos, A-League or Football and you can find literally hundreds of Australian Blogs and sites on the topic of Football.

Every man and his dog wants to put his views forward on the local game. Hundreds of Blogs and websites come and go almost daily but these Aussie Football Blogs remain active due to the large readership of these blogs.

Another reason for this explosion in Football Blogs is the fact that for many years, football fans (no not soccer anymore) have been starved of proper coverage in the media. Too much attention has been given to the other codes. Fans have taken to the pen and have recorded their thoughts and opinions in blog land.

Below are some of the most popular blogs on Australian Football:

The Football Tragic – http://thefootballtragic.blogspot.com/
Mike’s posts can also be found here at Real Football.

Confessions of an A-League Junkie – http://penaltyspot.blogspot.com/

Australian Football – http://australianfootball.wordpress.com/

Football in the Capital – http://nearpost.blogspot.com/
Football blog from the ACT

Matt’s Football Blog – http://mattwintersfootballblog.blogspot.com/

MVFC Blog – http://www.mvfcblog.com/

Once again, the Olympic football tournament is not of paramount importance, and a training camp in Townsville four months out from the tournament should not take precedence over fixing a place of employment for the forthcoming season.

The argument advanced by his new agent in the piece linked above:

It’s believed that Brookes yesterday made the case that his player’s priority had to be finding a club in recent weeks as he was without a deal and hence had no income…

…seems fair enough to me.

Milligan remains an enigma. His form can be infuriatingly unpredictable: he can put together an immaculate series of displays at the back, combining calm elegance on the ball with excellent reading of the game and intelligent, crisp passing, and then produce an absolutely shocking performance, such as that we witnessed against Perth Glory in December.

After Milligan’s fine run of form in the first season of the A-League, I jokingly suggested to my Well-Informed Covite friend that at least we’d have him for a few more months before he went to Europe. Two months and several Milligan howlers later, a text message from W.I.C. assured me that we’d have him for a few more months before he went to Blacktown.

Even his brief spell with the Socceroos at the Asian Cup was marked by such Jekyll-and-Hyde form: after a magnificent display against Thailand, he gifted the Japanese their only goal of that miserable quarter-final with a trivial error.

It probably is time for Milligan to take the European plunge. Like a few other young A-Leaguers, he appears in danger of stagnating if he stays any longer. Arsenal is surely a pipedream, but a good, patient Euro manager, a tougher league, and a longer season could all help him to realise the potential that he so clearly possesses.

Written by Mike Salter

Read more of his thoughts at The Football Tragic