I have always been consistent. I thought both ex-ante and ex-post Australia should have gone through to the final 16. Last nights results showed anything can occur after that.
We should have drawn against France and beaten Denmark. We did not. Why?
It is clear former "Aussie" Bert did not understand the personnel he had or they way Australia plays.Nor can he change his thinking.
He has said he underestimated the playing group,. hoe can this be? It can only be because of the limited time he had with them.
He relied only a small number of players. Nabbout is a clear example of not thinking through on his tactics. Nabbout could only harass defenders which he did well however harassing defenders does not take a lot out of them. Attacking them does and McClaren was much better in doing this than Nabbout. Also Nabbout showed he was well out of his depth.
moreover this would have helped when Cahill was brought on.
Rogic is a fine player when he has space. He was never going to have space against France. Irvine was easily the better selection to start .Rogic can score a goal from nothing so unless he is completely buggered he should always stay on.
We had few attacking options. He could have chosen McClaren, Leckie or Rogic. Nabbout was a strange selection against Denmark when we had to win. He was never going to score. He never was in position when a cross came over.
Very few teams cam back from losing a goal yet sitting back and attacking later simply was asking for a goal to be scored.
Arnie is now in charge and hopefully will still be there when the world cup is in Qatar ( what a disgraceful decision).
Our aim should be getting into the final 16 as a minimum. Getting there is not good enough
I should end by saying if Ange was still in charge we would have had two glorious losses and one bad one