Yes, it would be nice to operate only on the premise of producing good performances with results of little consequence, but in the real world how long are such philosophies tolerated?

Certainly I would rather watch Barcelona than Burnley but realise that the quality of individual player required to play with such style and assurance is rare indeed.

On Sunday, I watched Greek champions Olympiakos play Arsenal in London and though they are undoubtedly full of good, capable players, they had to settle for a mission of damage limitation. Not by choice, not by philosophy but in the face of a more powerful, potent foe. It worked for 80 minutes.

Had they opened up and been "brave" enough to try to outplay their rampaging rivals, they would have copped half-a-dozen goals in all likelihood.

Surely that is the practicality of coaching in the real world, analysing the strengths of your own side, comparing them to those of your opponents and devising an appropriate plan to achieve the best possible result.

Every coach of repute who has held positions of importance in our game has emphasised the need for our elite players to be playing regularly at the highest level possible.

Remember Guus Hiddink's interventions on behalf of Archie Thompson and Luke Wilkshire to secure European deals?

Pim Verbeek makes no secret of his preference for players appearing regularly in European leagues because, like Hiddink, he is realistic enough to know there is no better preparation than that garnered from intensive on-the-job training.

I'm all for changing the way we coach and educate our young players, but at 18 or 19 it's already too late.

The FFA has implemented a plan to change our culture with small-sided games entrenched in our early age groups.

This is not rocket science nor some great new invention but something that many in football have been advocating for decades.

Its success is surely dependent on the coaching resources we allocate to it.

I have no doubt that Hiddink is a world-class coach but I'm even more sure he is a world-class realist. He came, squeezed every ounce out of his squad, looked at the talent of the next crop and promptly departed.

Did his presence and the World Cup run boost the game in Australia and improve our reputation globally? Absolutely yes.

Did he change the face of the Socceroos? I'm not so sure about that one, temporarily perhaps, but if I may play devil's advocate, let's examine the last World Cup campaign.

Drew with Uruguay 1-1 on aggregate, and won penalty shoot-out. A historic result.

Defeated Japan 3-1 after trailing until the last eight minutes. Changed that match by throwing on a big physical presence in Josh Kennedy, scored from a flick-on from a long throw, then out-muscled opponents. A new way to get results against Asian opposition?

Drew with Croatia to make second round, when we again threw on a physical presence and Harry Kewell equalised from a flicked-on cross.

Lost with honour to powerhouses Brazil and Italy.

A good, solid campaign no doubt, but filled with fairly familiar characteristics.

Certainly Australia kept the ball better than we ever had and were able to apply defensive pressure further up the pitch.

Why? A secret system, or a team trained to their absolute limit some players took six months to recover disciplined and physically capable of applying pressure and having the mobility, fitness and nous to keep safe possession when under pressure?

Have you ever wondered where we would be if Uruguay's genius Alvaro Recoba had scored after 20 minutes in 2005 in Sydney? Eight times out of 10 he would have.

I will go to Sydney on Saturday and hope to see a fascinating, entertaining match. With the Dutch the masters of the 4-3-3 and Australia a disciple, the game must surely end in a stalemate?

I'm thinking the class of Sneijder or the pace of Babel for Holland, or the uncanny knack of late arrival from Tim Cahill for Australia might prove decisive, rather than which side best understands a tactical formation.

In my heart I hope so.