Sports

Why Bert was not (completely) wrong to leave Tim Cahill on the bench

Related Story: Australia's World Cup dreams still alive after Socceroos draw with Denmark Related Story: How the Aussies performed: Socceroos' player ratings against Denmark

Tim Cahill's ability to dominate the discourse of Australian football is quite remarkable.

Even without setting foot onto the pitch at this World Cup, his name is all over social media and back pages the country over. Not the impossibly talented Daniel Arzani, not the wildly impressive Mat Leckie but, inevitably, Cahill.

That's not really a surprise, of course, given he is Australia's greatest ever goalscorer and has been responsible for pretty much every moment worth remembering in Australian football for the past decade or more.

But despite his past and the abilities he no doubt still has, the cries of derision in the direction of Bert van Marwijk for leaving him on the bench in Russia are at best overblown, and at worst give a window into the sort of mentality that has held the Socceroos back over the years.

Tim Cahill watches the ball during training

Before discussing the merits of Cahill's argued inclusion in this game, it's worth pointing out that these complaints are not coming from the man himself. Quite the opposite, in fact, as Cahill was one of the first on the pitch after the full-time whistle barking encouragement to nearly every Australian player.

He has embraced a mentoring role in this squad, has taken Arzani under his wing and has not made a single dissenting noise. His presence in that camp, regardless of his playing time, is invaluable.

Naturally, as the match against Denmark drew towards a conclusion and Australia desperately searched for a winner, the cries to "get Timmy on!" grew louder and louder, and turned to anger at the manager after the full-time whistle.

But there are perfectly legitimate reasons why Cahill has not been making appearances, let alone starting. First of all, he's hardly played any football for about nine months, and to expect anything more than a very brief cameo is completely unreasonable and unwise.

When Andrew Nabbout went down with a shoulder injury with 15 minutes to play, many people assumed his replacement would be Cahill. But, as he was against France, Tomi Juric was the man summoned.

The thinking behind this is pretty simple. For Australia's front three to work properly, it needs to prioritise pace and movement both on the counter and when against a set-up defence.

Often times Nabbout has looked not quite up to the level in this World Cup technically, but his willingness to run the channels, press the opposition's back four and stretch the defence to provide space for Mat Leckie, Tom Rogic and Robbie Kruse to work in has often been effective.

Matthew Leckie celebrates his goal against Czech Republic with Andrew Nabbout

Cahill doesn't exactly do this. He's a finisher, he waits for his chances and he very often takes them. But he does not contribute to Australia's overall play in any meaningful way, meaning all that build up play you think he will be getting on the end of could very easily dissipate when he comes on the field.

That gives van Marwijk a hell of a dilemma — do you try to keep control of the game but perhaps lack the finishing touch, or do you make the Hail Mary play by bringing on the man for moments while potentially handing your opponent back the initiative?

Hindsight may suggest he should have opted for the latter. But there's every chance that it could have backfired too, and had it been Denmark making the running in the last 15 the outcome could have been much worse for Australia.

Some will say to leave your most famous goalscorer on the bench for the sake of team balance is overcomplicating the game, but football matches are more often decided by shrewd coaching decisions and tactical manoeuvres than desperation plays.

It doesn't mean Bert was 100 per cent right or 100 per cent wrong, but it means his decision was completely logical and justified.

Tomi Juric on the ball for the Socceroos

The bigger question to ask is why Juric got the nod ahead of Jamie Maclaren, a player who Australia is so hesitant to give an opportunity at the level and arguably suits the Socceroos' style of play more than the bulkier Juric. As the conversation moves towards the Peru game over the next few days, the bigger debate should be Maclaren v Juric, not Cahill v anyone.

In saying that, if ever Cahill is going to be unleashed at this World Cup, the last, desperate stages of a match against Peru could be perfect. That game has the potential to be open and frantic, especially if both teams are playing for something in the last 10 minutes, and at that point the gamble would be much more worth taking.

But the point stands — lambasting van Marwijk for not playing Cahill is too easy an answer. There are so many better things to be discussing and debating after a cracking match against Denmark, and you can bet Cahill himself would agree.

Original Article

[contf]
[contfnew]

ABC .net

[contfnewc]
[contfnewc]

Related Posts