Score should have been 3-0.
2006-06-12 04:12:13 · 8 answers · asked by robbob 5 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ FIFA World Cup (TM)
When I replay some of the possessions Japan had, they definitely did not quite push the ball as they should have in the second half. They made runs, but didn't feel a sense of any urgency with an Australian team that is very unpredictable. They should have scored one more goal prior to the 80th minute to shatter Australia's hopes. If you watch any other team up with a 1 - 0 lead, they impose their will or at least attempt to. Japan sensed the game got slow, and they didn't feel the Australian attack coming on, so they just settled on responding rather than making Australia have to continue to respond. It was mainly inexperience and inability to handle 4 strikers. I attribute this to the tactful advantage Australia has with their coach. As good at coaching as Zico is, he is definitely inferior to the tact of Australia's Hiddink. Zico should have crowded the midfield rather than substitute for a striker again.
I think the main thing to take away from this match is not anything about Japan. I do not think they had a real chance anyway (check my answers on questions...What do you think of Japan). Hiddink merely proved why he is a genius again and gave us a reason to be confident in Australia and have hopes for them. He took Korea and Holland to the quarters or beyond in the last two Cups and now seems very promising to make Australia the dark horse of the tournament. As for Japan, they should not be satisfied with a goal or a lead only. They have to make sure they keep setting goals for themselves a little at a time, because that's the only way they succeed. They are not really favorites, so can't be lax...it may already be too late...I certainly think it is.
2006-06-12 04:36:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Arrogance doing what? I think Zico was wrong in the strategy of keeping the score in 1-0, the better defensive is offensive as someone very smart said.
2006-06-12 11:23:46 · answer #2 · answered by pelancha 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i disagree. japan were the better side for 84 minutes. they were more comfortable with the ball, they were adjusting the pace of the game to their liking and even winning 50-50 balls. they should have been 2 or 3 up by the time australia scored, but they werent, and they didnt adjust to the aussies' pace toward the end.
credit to guus hiddink. he made a similar substitution a few months ago against uruguay, bringing in harry kewell to create an offensive spark. australia turned 80 mins of mediocrity into an amazing finish.
2006-06-12 11:28:57 · answer #3 · answered by sakka 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no arrogance, Socceroos were the better team even before they scored. Japan were a little unlucky though, with Australia attacking, their defense was a little stretched.
2006-06-12 11:19:43 · answer #4 · answered by Kizz . 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not arrogance, but inexperience!
3 goals in 8 minutes... just 6 minutes before end game!!!
2006-06-12 11:21:10 · answer #5 · answered by soccer_mind 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but a more fair result would have been a draw. The referee was atrocious and should be left out of the rest of the finals.
2006-06-12 11:48:59 · answer #6 · answered by achatter77 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yah they did, they went thought they would win and the BOOM 3 goals in like 5 minets.
2006-06-12 11:18:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
2006-06-12 11:25:39 · answer #8 · answered by idontkno 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋