Queensland Roar 1 Adelaide United 2

The sweet tones of English voices were very much in evidence on the train to Milton. They and continentals seemed to be making up a significant proportion of the crowd. I should think they were thinking, as I was, that it would be a poor substitute for proper football, but it's the only game in town. I wondered what they thought of the "code of conduct". I suppose movie theatres and concert venues do have these things, but they don't display them particularly prominently. Asking football fans not to use "abusive language" is wishful though, as the silverhaired matron next to me yelling "bbbbbuulllllshhhhhiiiitttt" at the referee showed. But the crowd was for all the cursing goodnatured and satisfyingly partisan. They screamed for penalties when the Roar front men fell over; they cheered the mascot (a tireless guy in a gaudy lion costume) and chanted his name (at first I thought they were yelling "boring" but it was "Roary"), which made a pleasant change from what crowds in England generally have to say to the mascots; and they chanted mostly positively (they could hardly taunt the opposition very effectively because they were so sparsely supported -- Adelaide is a long way from Brisbane and you'd have to fly in to watch the game).

The football was ordinary, the first half passing in huffing and puffing. The Roar lacked width (which the lady next to me, clearly a cognoscente, pointed out each time we attacked), which was not a good way to use their pace. Brosque, a hotly tipped forward, was anonymous, lacking the physical presence to impose himself on the defence. Baird, bigger and stronger, lacked the ability to do much with the ball when he did get it. He could do with losing a few kilos because he found it a struggle to outpace Adelaide's defence, even when put clean through. Indeed, the Roar could do all round with stripping fitter: they are often caught out by hard-running sides, with their defence, far too eager to push forward, exposed by a quick ball through. Part of the problem is that they play with a sweeper, and it doesn't work. They lined up against Adelaide in a weird 5-2-3 formation, which left them light in the middle of the park. (Not to mention that if you play with five at the back, the wing halves are expected to get forward, and neither was particularly willing. The right back was far too slow and timid to go past his man, and had no interest in using the wide open spaces on the Roar's right.) They competed well enough in the first half, Murdocca particularly prominent, and Carro looked a useful schemer, but they lacked anyone willing or able to put the foot in. Seo, often the guy who makes the midfield tick over, was used in defence, and this wasted his ability to distribute in midfield. The Roar would look a lot stronger if they played with a flat back four that defended deeper (no side in the league has the ability to break down a determined defence), with a holding midfielder, such as Seo, or even sweeper Gibson, in front of them, looking to break up attacks and to be an outlet for the defence, which against Adelaide often struggled to find one. With a man further forward to link defence and attack and men out wide, this would fix the Roar's frailty at the back and allow them to stretch opposition defences. Their football is all too often too elaborate, when their asset of pace is better used with a directer style. They could look at Arsenal for a model, although they lack an Henry of course. The Roar had plenty of opportunities in that first half, but converted none. They didn't make too many clear chances, trying to run and pass it through a strong defence, rather than look to get it wide and try them with crosses, which might have suited Baird, who is willing to get stuck in, if not much else. The couple of chances they did have they spurned -- or rather Baird spurned, on one occasion falling over when clean through, to the groans of the crowd.

Adelaide's counterattacking football began to pay dividends in the second half. Rech headed a nice goal from a rapid move that had allowed him to get free and unmarked. Queensland equalised with a nicely taken goal by Brownlie, and the game seemed to drift after that. However, another break late on let Alagich, who had begun to stretch a tiring Buess on the Adelaide right, take a whack at goal. Higgins' halfhearted parry fell to Pantelis, who gleefully smacked it into the auld onion bag.

Had Queensland turned some of their good first-half possession into goals, or even a goal, maybe they would have got away with a win, but my impression was that overall Adelaide were a better side, who lasted out the game a little better.

The referee, much abused by the crowd, had a reasonable game. He might have given Queensland a penalty when Baird went down under a strong challenge, but I had a good view and I wouldn't have given it.

Murdocca was the Roar's best player. Carro looked useful and Baird tried hard. Buess is very solid, but didn't see out the match too well.

posted by Dr Zen @ 11:10 am