27 June 2006

Australia v Italy

Just a short post on tactics. During this game I heard one of the commentators ask why Australia wasn't attacking more often with 10 minutes to go and taking advantage of having 11 players versus 10 Italians (who were content to sit behind the ball and counter attack).

The Aussie tactics were actually very logical. Why take too many risks with 10 minutes to go when you would have an extra 30 mins extra time with the same advantage against a even more tired 10 man Italian team. Their caution made perfect sense especially when you consider the Aussie fitness regime meant they probably would have been the fitter team in extra time.

Nobody could have predicted that Italy would succesfully cheat to win a penalty with literally seconds to go with a very clever dive.


  1. It was a silly tackle though. Made it so easy.

  2. You could argue it was penalty because the Aussie player didn't stay on his feet, but did it really 'warrant' a penalty? Looking at the incident it is clearly a dive. We seem to be accepting that this sort of thing is now ok, so used to it we have become. A few years back nobody would have hesitated in calling the Italians cheats, now we say it was a clever dive.

  3. The Australian player was as much as fault as the Italian really. He misstimed his challenge - made no contact with the ball - which prevented the player from running past him. Does that not sound like a penalty to you?

  4. The Italian could easily have stayed on his feet. It was clearly a dive. You are basically saying that tackling should be outlawed in the penalty area. That incident wouldn't even have been a foul in basketball!