Teams of the Decade #1: Greece, Euro 2004
This Greek side achieved perhaps the most astonishing thing in the history of international football. There have been one-off shocks, games that went against the favourites because of a particular set of circumstances. USA 1-0 England in 1950. Senegal 1-0 France in 2002. But those things can happen; shocks in football happen because it’s such a low-scoring game, and dominance doesn’t always equal goals.
But never before has a team so unfancied gone onto win a major international tournament. Available at odds of up to 250/1 and having never won a tournament game in their history, Greece’s march to wining Euro 2004 was unquestionably the tactical achievement of the decade.
Remember them as negative, defensive, cycnical and unimaginative if you like, but it’s interesting that this only became the prevailing mood when Greece actually looked like winning the thing. In the opening game, where they beat Portugal, they were widely praised for their football. Slick passing, plenty of players attacking and generally positive play, the first game upset was treated like the Senegal victory two years previously, a great start to a tournament.
Admittedly, Greece didn’t play quite such wonderful football in the knock-out stages. But you have to marvel at quite how effective their strategy was:
Quarter-final against France (the holders) – won 1-0, header from a right-wing cross.
Semi-final against Czech Republic (the best team in the tournament) – won 1-0, header from a right-wing corner.
Final against Portugal (the hosts) – won 1-0, header from a right-wing corner.
To beat the holders, the best team and the hosts in successive rounds – by the same scoreline, by scoring in the same way – doesn’t happen by accident. It happens through immense tactical wisdom and careful deployment of tactics to suit each game.
Cast your mind back to 6th October 2001. In the 93rd minute at Old Trafford, David Beckham sent a majestic free-kick over the ball and into the net to secure England’s place in the World Cup Finals at the expense of Germany. Depending on your memory, you might remember that England were playing Greece, and you might remember that actually, England played awfully, struggling to create chances and being outplayed for the entire game.
You probably won’t remember this, but that was Otto Rehhagel’s first game as the manager of Greece. The side was in crisis, but that game showed Rehhagel had an idea of how Greece could beat better teams, by playing a strict man-marking system. They may have only got a draw, but for a team in such an awful situation, it went down in Greece like a victory.
For a side painted as rigid and boring, Greece did brilliantly to adapt their shape to suit different opposing formations – the only constant was to make sure they had a spare man at the back. Against France they set out with what almost a cross between a three- and four- man defence. France played two forward players, and therefore Greece used two man-markers with a sweeper. Trezeguet played centrally and was marshalled by Kapsis, Henry tended to move to the left and therefore the right-back, Seitaridis, stuck to him throughout. The left-back, Fysass, was free to venture forward, whilst the right-sided width came from Zagorakis. Interpretation of the formation the newspapers the next day varied between a three- and four-man defence – but in a way, that was the point. Greece’s system used strict man-marking and was therefore dependent upon the movement of the France players. Since France’s side was so lopsided, Greece’s defence was too.
Meanwhile, playing four relatively central midfielders restricted France’s ability to keep possession. The shape effectively used seven defensive players, but the runs of the Fysass and Zagorakis created their best goalscoring opportunities and meant they attacked with five men, and it was no surprise when Zagorakis provided the cross for the only goal of the game.
They kept a similar shape for the game against the Czechs, who also featured two upfront. Although they were overrun by the Czech’s attacking threat early on, they pulled off the same trick again – Dellas heading home a Silver Goal.
Then, they faced a completely different challenge against Portugal in the final. Portugal played 4-2-3-1 with Pauleta as a lone forward, meaning that had the Greeks kept to a three-man defence, they would have had a surplus of centre-backs and been weak either in midfield, or in wide areas, where the Portuguese full-backs looked to get forward. And so Rehhagel switched to a more traditional four-man defence, retaining a spare man at the back. The full-backs marked Figo and Ronaldo relatively high up the pitch. They matched Portugal 3 v 3 in midfield, with Basinas and Katsouranis sitting deep and Zagorakis providing some kind of attacking presence – although the Greeks missed the real quality on the ball of the suspended Georgios Karagounis and rarely threatened in open play.
Further forward, Vryzas played the lone striker role and held the ball up – and was supported by two players; Stelios Giannakopoulos, a fairly traditional winger who stuck to his flank and forced back the dangerous Portuguese right-back Miguel. The opposite full-back, Nuno Valente, was less of a threat, and so Angelos Charisteas (more of a forward) was fielded tending to play towards that side of the pitch, although he became a forward when Greece had the ball, and right-sided width came from the excellent Seitiaridis.
Could they do it again? Of course they could. Charisteas was again the hero, and Portugal rarely looked like breaking the Greek defence down. For the final 15 minutes, Giannakopoulos was replaced with Stelios Venetidis, a left-back – and Greece effectively sat with eight defenders in front of their box. Felipe Scolari, the Portugal manager, never looked to challenge Greece’s determination of having a spare man at the back – a switch to two forwards may have asked questions, but he brought Nuno Gomes on for Pauleta, rather than changing Portugal’s shape.
Not many teams switch between a three-man and four-man defence so easily, and most managers would have stuck to the “Don’t change a winning team” theory having put out France and the Czechs. But you should change a winning team if the circumstances require it, and Rehhagel believed that as the underdogs, Greece should let their shape be dictated by that of the opposition.
Rehhagel stuck to the two key components of any successful tactical deployment:
Firstly, he played to his own side’s strengths. They had solid, reliable defenders and a hard-working midfield, with little attacking talent. To play open football would have been suicidal. They defended solidly, then countered at speed with numbers – and their set-piece organisation was superb.
Secondly, he changed his team to nullify his opponent’s strengths, and to stifle their main threats. The system against the France and Czechs wouldn’t have worked against the Portuguese, and vice-versa.
He maximised Greece’s strengths and nullifed his opponents’ strengths, to produce the biggest shock in international football history – and that is why this Greece is at #1 on this list.
A brief analysis of their victory over France:
And a fan’s eye view of the final victory over Portugal:
Teams of the Decade #1: Greece, Euro 2004
“at the expense of Germany”? Would that be the Germany that lost to Brazil in the final? : )
Indeed, but within the qualification group it meant that England won, so Germany had to play a playoff. Of course, they qualified eventually.
Ah! Thought I’d spotted a rare error there – should have known better!
@ZM: Great review. I would like to add/correct your Greek formation analysis/diagram above. There should be a forward arrow on Seitaridis as well. He had an equal -if not more – right to pull forward using his speed as Fyssas on the left had. This was crucial to Greece’s strategy: Starting an offense from the deep defense’s right/left sides keeping the middle filled-up and dense ready to fill the first defensive line.
..self correction. I think I see this on your second diagram though. My bad..
Very nice piece of analysis.
It does go to show that collective strength can exceed the sum of individual talents when tactics are deployed effectively.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Karthik , Iain Macintosh and Jack Baker, Zonal Marking. Zonal Marking said: NEW ON ZM: The wait is over….ZM's Number 1 side of the last decade is… http://bit.ly/dbfmT7 [...]
Called it
methodmann on March 25, 2010 at 8:00 am
I don’t think the Top 20 is supposed to reflect necessarily the best sides – just the most interesting ones from a tactical standpoint.
Its a long shot, but I think you could make an argument for Greece taking the number 1 spot – they won an international competition with a set of mediocre players by setting up in a manner that people could not deal with. Is there a better example of a system enabling the sum of the parts to be so much greater than the individual components?
I remember Roy Keane at the time saying, in reponse to the outcry against the Greeks’ tactics, that it was the best thing to happen football in years, as it showed that unfashionable teams of modest abilities could better teams full of high profile superstars through teamwork and intelligent tactics.
I think the mainly unjustified bad press that Greece received after their win was in part motivated by the fact that the mass-media appeal of football has become centred around the worship of individuals to a large extent. Greece’s success, with a team full of relative unknowns, was a triumph for the collective over the individual which, in the era of the first Madrid Galacticos, maybe wasn’t what some people viewed as the pinnacle of football.
“Is there a better example of a system enabling the sum of the parts to be so much greater than the individual components?”
.. further down it is mentioned that ‘the whole is more than the sum of its parts’ .. but you did put so much better .. the .. ‘enabling’ .. attribute .. so novel and profound .. an address to .. the whole .. what you put as system instead .. and I will go on to refer .. the whole .. the system .. as .. the team .. and football .. is a team sport .. and if that has not sunk in .. for any one involved in football .. then it is fair to say .. that any criticism against Greece’s win of the tournament .. is merely .. sour grapes.
It is short-sighted to go on about players being .. mediocre .. untechnical .. unfancied. The formations .. the tactics .. in a game are for any team, coach to follow .. they are not the privilege of any particular team. In the said tournament, teams were outplayed by Greece as no-one of the other teams coaches was able to match Rehagel’s .. and I would say creative .. setup of his team’s play .. equally matched by Greece’s players .. who absorbed and responded so well .. to their coach’s plans. None of the other coaches that Greece played against .. managed to outsmart Rehagel .. to counteract his tactics .. as they ought to have .. and taking into account .. that they had so many fancied players .. it would have been a doddle .. to do so. But they didn’t. So quit moaning .. whoever does so. The present article .. though late .. but better late than never .. has given due credit to a much maligned achievement.
“The improbable, the inconceivable, and almost impossible has happened.”
probably justified as number one. I hadnt thought of them. extremely defensive formation it was, but extraordinary not to concede a goal against Czechs, France and POrtugal. Has any other ‘lesser’ international team tried this approach in tournament football. Also, its a wonder Rehagel hasnt taken on bigger jobs.
Rehagel did not need a bigger job other than getting a team to respond so well to his tactics. He brought a team from #94 is 2004 to a current #10. What else does a couch want? Divas?
This side brought back all the old tactics and put it in a modern form. They man marked, played a 3 man defense, had a spare man at the back and depended on the wings for quick breaks. The last few paragraphs summed it up:
“Firstly, he played to his own side’s strengths. They had solid, reliable defenders and a hard-working midfield, with little attacking talent. To play open football would have been suicidal. They defended solidly, then countered at speed with numbers – and their set-piece organisation was superb.
Secondly, he changed his team to nullify his opponent’s strengths, and to stifle their main threats. The system against the France and Czechs wouldn’t have worked against the Portuguese, and vice-versa.
He maximised Greece’s strengths and nullifed his opponents’ strengths, to produce the biggest shock in international football history – and that is why this Greece is at #1 on this list.”
My brother’s friends, who’s born in Greece, bet 10 Euro on Greece and won about 3000.
This doesn’t have anything to do with their tactical display, but since you mentioned Greece’s odds.
300/1, then? Bloody hell!
Well, 299/1 if you want to be pedantic.
That is true, although I’ve never seen a bookie offering odds of ??9/1 for anything!
I think it was 300/1, but I’m not quite sure. I’ll ask him about it next time I see him.
If you want to get really specific he actually bet 100 Swedish Kronor (about 10 Euros in todays’ exchange rate) and won ~30000.
It’s going to be interesting to see how Greece will play in the World Cup. If the odds are as good, maybe I’ll make a bet of my own…
Oh I get it; It’s good tactics when Greece do it but it’s a victory of football when Chelsea do it and lose.
Only joking, very well written article
.
The difference is, Chelsea choose to play negatively with world-class players who cost millions at their disposal.
Greece don’t have those resources, and for them to beat, let’s face it, what were much superior teams to win a major international competition was one hell of an achievement! That they did so with intelligent formations and varying tactics throughout makes it all the more impressive.
I was only being cynical. What Greece achieved was magnificent
.
Hi i am from Greece,and i’m telling you that here we say about euro 2004 that “the gods were sleeping” meaning the imposibility of such a thing to happen.22 players un-technical(if not all surely the most of them)non expirienced in such competitions(since 1980 in euro and 1994 in mudial)had make the miracle of the decade,that this site had wrightly pointed.Yes of course it was Rehagel’s work and yes of course it was a kind of “close you’re eyes because it gonna hurt you” football,so bad for tele-visioners,and funs of good football,but hell it’s worked!Yes it’s worked!
Its a disgrace to Football that Greece won that tournament. And i cannot understand how you as a Football fan, are able to applaud and give any credit to such a negative team.
Many other great teams and great players deserved to win Euro 2004 (Figo, Rui Costa, Nedved….ect) None of which are Greek. I think that tournament is a black point in Football history, and i hope no team will ever be able to win anything playing in that style ever again.
Cheers
I don’t understand how a football fan would not be able to give ANY credit to them – they did win the tournament!
That’s exactly the point though. A team without any individually great players managed to consistantly beat teams that had much better individuals throughout the tournament. How did they do so? Surely not down to luck alone, or simply doing nothing other than defend?
The systems that Rehhagel put out flummoxed other international managers and teams. It perfectly suited the disciplined, workmanlike attributes of the Greek team, and was adapted to negate the strengths of its opponents.
Fittingly, it was the Greek Aristotle who said that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. This Greek side is the perfect example of this in a footballing context. And if this was not caused by their system and tactics, (it was certainly not a result of a collection of world-class players), then was it simply luck?
The fact that they drew with Spain, beat Portugal (twice), France and the Czech Republic, and scored in every single game, would suggest that tactically they were spot on, aiding them to win a tournament that realistically they hard no right to seriously be competing for.
I agree with every word!
Greece winning Euro 04 reminded everyone two things that were forgoten about football:
1- It’s a team game. Spending all the money you want doesnt guarante that you will have a good team.
2- Hope to all small, weak teams that with enough concentration and effort can achieve anything. Smaller example is Porto winning the Ch. L.
Speaking as a portuguese, I have to say that as much as it hurt me then, I fully agree with ZM’s choice. A brilliant achievement by Greece.
Like I said before: I found the Portuguese fans to epitomize the term “sports fan”. They where civil and supportive of their team but embracing the Greeks after their “loss”. They where the true winners and example of how people should view sports: as a celebration of the human mind and body. AS A CELEBRATION OF THE HUMAN MIND AND BODY
Perhaps we should just automatically award the cup to the team of whoever was named Best Player in the previous season ?
If underdogs never win and upsets never happen, then who cares.
….if u don’t win, u don’t deserve to win…u mention Portugal – they lost two games from the Greeks in the same tournament! this means that Greece was better than Portugal at that specific period….I’m not saying that players such as Karagounis & Katsouranis are better individuals than Christiano & Rui Costa but the Greek TEAM was better than the Portuguese TEAM…another point is what u define as “better”…more efficient/more skills/more what???
PS: I totally agree with Nick W’s comments….
I understand that many football fans cannot understand nowadays the value of this achievement by Greece. This is because, as mentioned by the ZM and other commentators as well, the competence of a football side is estimated almost entirely by the money a team has spent to create its roster and by the individual value of the member players (the talent is also usually reflected by the money the team has spent to sign them – usually but not always I would say)
But the real beauty of football is that it is a team game. You can sign the best players in the world and still have a mediocre team, fancy surely but ineffective. Real Madrid has this season some of the best players in the world for example, but the course of the team up to this point does not live up to the expectations from players of this caliber. To my opinion this is because they are not a team yet.
It is a good thing to realize that people who know about football like the ZM editors remember the fundamental values of every team sport and make some spot on choices.
Yeahs..its a big disgrace….a “negative” team that WON the Euro
Figo, Rui Costa, Nedved and others were on “positive” teams…that FAILED
GREECE EPIC WON
live with it
I think it was a disgrace for the “better” teams not to win with their arsenal of talended players.
@constantine: I like the use of ‘arsenal’ in your comment! Unintended pun or a knowing wink…? Whatever be it, thoroughly appropriate though…
I agree with Simz, this decade was full of enterprising, attacking sides and flair players and for such a dour team to win first place, without actually having any clear tactical innovation devalues this list. They were well drilled and physically fit, but tactically brilliant? I don’t believe so.
Of course they were tactically brilliant, that’s exactly how they won the tournament. No side this decade has played such a strict system of man-marking, with zonal marking (in open play) pretty much universally used, so to say they had no tactical value is a remarkable thing to say.
Like Wass said, they were just very fit and physical.
Let me remind everyone something, in the Group Stages, they First beat Portugal because of a very questionable penalty call and because Scolari didn’t start either Ronaldo or Deco.
Second game they DRAW with a very very mediocore Spain team who had a starting midfield of Exteberria-Baraja-Albelda-Vicente (LOL) and who didnt even make it past the Group stages.
Third Game they LOST to Russia who hadn’t scored before that game. They ended up edging Spain in the group because they had more GOALS FOR. I don’t see anything brilliant about that, do you?
The goals they scored in the knock-out stages clearly shows that they won because they were just very physically fit and had a height advantage against most teams. Again there is nothing tactically brilliant about that. Being tall is not tactical or brilliant.
Quarter-Final: Against France, Headed Goal from after a cross from the right wing. Total shots 11-5 to France, with Henry grazing the left post twice.
Semi-Final: Against Czech Republic, Headed Goal from a corner. Total shots 16-9 to Czech, with Rosicky hitting the crossbar, and baros and koller missing sitters. And lets not forget that they were the first and LAST team to win a game by a SILVER goal.
Final: Against Portugal, Headed Goal from a corner. Total shots 17-4 to Portugal, Greece having one SHOT ON Goal (being the goal) and ONE CORNER which lead to that goal. One Shot, One Corner, One Goal.
I think i have made my point
Cheers
Looks like Greece deserved to go win those games, if only for the efficiency of their finishing
It’s amazing that you write all that and then claim it wasn’t down to tactics. Do you genuinely think they just won because of luck?
How a ‘height advantage’ isn’t part of tactics anyway, I don’t know. If a side the play on the counter-attack pack their side with quick players, that would be seen as good tactics – so why is it not the same to pack the team with tall players if you’re relying on set-pieces for goals?
when you play a counter-attacking style….its FOOTBALL! you have to make plays pass the ball be creative. Not just run to the touchline and wish for a corner.
ZonalMarking,
I think the reason why I, and Simz, are on the opposite side of the fence is probably because of a different interpretation of your list. Tactical brilliance comes with setting up a team, no matter how skilled the individuals are, to counter the inertia of the opposite team by two ways;
- Stopping the opposing team from playing their natural game.
- Imposing its own attacking style on the opposing team.
Granted the two do not always balance out, but for a team to be proclaimed as ‘tactically great’ I believe that they need to have a healthy dose of both.
I don’t believe Greece did that, it was an anomaly.
They set out every game, perhaps maybe the opener, not to concede.
Only that and nothing else.
In their post-group stage run they were never behind. That is why you cannot place them so high at your list.They never had to go to a Plan ‘B’of attacking because they never fell behind. When they did they lost.
No one is arguing that their achievement was astonishing. It really was and we can sit and quote philosophers all day about the importance of team work but the fact of the matter is their chief tactic was to spoil.
If you claim their defensive acument to be solely their reason for greatness then why the absence of Glasgow Rangers (from their UEFA Cup Run) from your list? They were a copy of Rehhagel’s Greece with their ‘thou shalt not pass’ attitude. It is extremely telling that their only significant attacking organization and tactic came into the force when the ball was dead at set-pieces.
Well done to Greece but to claim that this was a triumph of tactical brilliance is wrong. It was a triumph of coaching and drilling individuals with specific rules removing any sense of free thinking. Normally these teams never win anything, Rangers showed that after getting horribly outclasses in the final, for Greece it was just the perfect storm.
Not to take away from the way the Greeks maximized the talents at their disposal (the epitome of tactics), but I think the really contentious matter is the silver goal victory. Despite the endeavor and tactical acumen of the Greeks, the Czechs were better and got shafted by a rule that was changed immediately afterwards. I think they would have equalized with another period, no problem.
Interesting point – but hey, they were the rules. Also I don’t think you can say that the Czechs would have scored ‘no problem’ – they didn’t do it in 105 minutes, so doing it in 15 was no formality.
Actually, unlike the first 90 minutes, Greece had a few scoring opportunities and played better than the Czechs in extra time. There is no reason to assume that the silver goal saved them.
Well i think that i should remind you that even though Czechs were much better they didn’t score and that has nothing to do with the rule
and i don’t think that they would manage to score even if they had 15 more minutes to do that.You should also remember that in the extra time Greece had more chances to score so maybe they were physically stronger.
Pure speculative position. It does not count.
“they First beat Portugal because of a very questionable penalty call ”
It was a penalty.And after all you are forgetting Greece scored 2 goals and Portugal just scored in the end when nothing mattered.Besides Greece had got a draw vs Portugal a few days before that with a very questionable referee favoring Portugal all the way.In all 4 last matched between these 2 teams Portugal has 2 defeats(in Euro2004) and 2 draws,still NO victory.
“because Scolari didn’t start either Ronaldo or Deco”
The only Greek player that reached UCL final,Zikos wasn’t even called along with other big Greek stars like Georgatos.This happens in all teams get over it,the coach decides who plays,who’s on the bench and who’s watching tv.
“a very very mediocore Spain(…)who didnt even make it past the Group stages”
They were eliminated because their Group had the 2 best teams of the tounament that actually reached the final.
“a starting midfield of Exteberria-Baraja-Albelda-Vicente (LOL)”
Still much more expensive-well known etc than Zagorakis-Basinas-Karagounis-Katsuranis.
“edging Spain in the group because they had more GOALS FOR”
Still you insist that Greece was the ultra defensive while Spain and other countries play offensively.LOL
Vs France you forget how Zagorakis ridiculed Lizarazu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOEN3fF5WHc and you assume the French defenders were unable to stop a tall forward.Oh,and you seem to mention the opponents chances to score but foget the greek ones like Karagounis’ one(Barthez holding the ball just as it was crossing the line).
“Against Czech Republic, Headed Goal from a corner”
Oh,yes…Greeks score cause they are tall.Koller(2,02 tall) was a dwarf I guess.
“the first and LAST team to win a game by a SILVER goal”
Still better than winning in the penalties as so many others.
According to you one who fails to score in 15 chances is better than one who scores with just 5 chances.I’d say it’s the other way round.And especially in the final the hosts can’t claim they were surpisd,caught unaware or something.Besisdes they were the HOSTS,that should have made it easier for them.
SiMz you are forgetting one thing
Football is a game between two opposing teams,not 22 individual players
We may not have quality players like Zidane,Figo,CR or even Rocisky and Baros but we went to the roots of the game and we won
It’s all about teamwork and tactical superiority
Euro tournaments are not excibition tournaments
You say it’s a disgrace to Football that Greece won the tournament,i say it was a disgrace to Football that “better” teams than ours couldn’t overcome us
Rehaghel had worse players than ALL of our opponents yet he worked hard and he presented a TEAM that defensively eliminated all our opponents and offensively it steadily produced at least one goal per game
And all these,having worse players than France,Portugal,Spain and the Czechs
That’s tactical superiority my friend and it’s part of the Game
Working your set pieces so you score easy goals it’s part of the Game
Working your defence set-up to minimize the opposition’s chances it’s part of the Game
Working so you cover tacticlly your weaknesses and maximizing your strengths it’s a part of the Game
I agree with John G below about the “facts” you presented
I just want to add that Jan Koller is >2 metres and Michalis Kapsis that man-marked him in the semifinal is ~1,80 metres
I don’t remember if Koller won a single header that night
It’s ALL about tactics my friend,not having the tallest players
@ ZM
The draw (2-2) against England was the SECOND game Otto had as Greece’s manager
The first was a humiliatind defeat against Finland (5-1)
Good work on this article mate!
Cheers
Yes your point is clear … even now the Helenes are confusing …it is clear that you do not understand the application of terms such as Tactics, Physicality, Strategy,Technic,Practice, all deriving from the Greek Language
welcome to watching football …hahahaha
questionable penalty? Did you see Colina’s (rated as the best referi ever mind you) face after he gave the penalty? Interesting to see how Seitaridis steels the ball fron diva Ronaldo and then forces him to clip him down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMeYIWlWbgQ
Btw I did not se one bit of boring Greec in this game and the one against France. I saw alot of talent and speed fron the Greeks side. They had 5 players on the attack at any scoring opportunity.
Their tournament win was all tactics, the fact they beat France, Czech Republic and Portugal in a row without conceding and scoring from the “same” method speaks volumes about the success of the teams tactics I think.
It’s not like they had the best strikers, wingers, midfielders, defenders or goalkeeper (in fact they were “outclassed” in every aspect).
Agreed: On the offensive side they were definitley outclassed. in some positions I think the were rock solid in terms of raw talent. Goalkeeper, defensive positions and defensive midfielding were rock solid. But it was the tactical approach that generated the winning opportunities that I think we all agree upon.
Very impressed with your choice of Greece for (tactically remarkable) team of the decade. I was surprised at the time by how much resentment it generated, but I think it was important to show that, yes, collective strength can beat individual talent. I disagree strongly with SiMz and Wass, above, and consider the view that they promote to be a kind of football snobbery, and, yes, to lack a real knowledge and understanding of football, particularly from a tactical point of view.
I was expecting to see Guardiola’s Barcelona at the top of this list, and it’s fair to say that they would probably have deserved it too, achieving some remarkable things and in an incredibly visually pleasing way. But the important thing about management is that you have to get your teams playing to their strengths, which Rehhagel did. I’m surprised that no-one enjoys the fact that Greece embarassed and defeated Goliaths of modern football, but, most importantly, that they showed the weakness of a system of attacking which is often based intrinsically on letting good attacking players just do their thing. I have no doubt that Portugal, France and the Czech Republic could have beaten Greece if they had deployed their players more wisely. That’s what’s interesting here. It’s how a set of clever, adaptable tactics can snuff out the threat of any group of players unless they have an equally clever gameplan to stick to.
SPOT ON
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Zonal_Marking: NEW ON ZM: The wait is over….ZM’s Number 1 side of the last decade is… http://bit.ly/dbfmT7...
how are Greece doing recently? I’ve heard of more of their players now as a few are playing abroad, and Olympiacos has some good ones, so why can’t Rehhagel even earn a point at the last Euros? Is it outdated or has the novelty worn off?
You are correct. They failed miserably at Euro2008 because they did not execute TACTICALLY correct as they did in Euro2004 which I think was the point of this study. As far as were they are today they are ranked #10 in the world. Still a young team. They are learning.
Remarkable article (on an astonishing site btw) – I remember well the utter bafflement of myself and my friends as we watched Greece win that competition. And yes they won it by out-thinking their opponents. I didn’t like it at the time but I’ve got older and wiser since then. Mostly older.
Love this site!
A bloody awful afternoon it cost me, that final. Me, clad in Portugal’s colours in a dutch pub watching the match on TV. In the end the patrons ended up buying me a couple of beers to wash out my pain and I managed to make a couple of friends, so not a total loss, I guess.
It’s an outstanding choice as the team of the decade for a tactics website. Of course others would be more catching, with better players, etc, but in terms of tactics, this was the pinnacle. Obviously the tactics couldn’t work forever, which is the reason Greece would never repeat that feat, but on the course of a 4-week tournament it was perfect. It is maybe telling that the only match they lost was against Russia (if memory serves) and that they would have been out of the knock-out phases had Vryzas not scored their solitary goal on that match.
A curious point here is that this tournament showed how tactically inept Scolari actually is (I believe his victory in 2002 is a result of other factors). He lost the first match against Greece and then went to lose the last one as well by playing exactly the same way (even if with other players). Some years later Scolari ended up again not beating Greece in a friendly match, where Rehagel repeated the system and Scolari showed he had learned nothing from years earlier.
Yeah I totally agree with that. Between the first and last matches he just switched certain players (Deco for Rui Costa etc) but it was the exact same shape.
Was the subsequent friendly you mention the one where Karagounis scored two wonderful free-kicks? Remember watching that game and really enjoying it.
I was at the final supporting the Portuguese for what felt like the last throw of the dice for the golden generation, and I tend to agree with Joao’s analysis of Scolari too.
I can’t help feeling that Rui Costa would have done a better job than Deco in that final. Deco did not take well to the attention he received and became visibly discouraged in the time-honoured Brazilian style. I think Deco is great at running at defences and pulling them out of shape, but to me Rui Costa was the master of a kind of sixth sense that can get the ball out of impossible positions or see passing angles that are so tight you wouldn’t believe the ball could get through if you didn’t see it happen. Perhaps the setup of the match was more suited to Rui Costa than the opening match result suggested. Lord knows how many times he had found himself trying to break down teams that parked the bus at San Siro.
I think at the beginning of the tournament, a loss to Greece was considered a disaster and the change in personnel reflected a panicked reaction to ‘turn it around’ before qualification for the second round was at risk. So Rui Costa was benched in favour of Deco and the results improved, in inverse proportion to the quality of opposition. Rui scored a cracking goal against England and looked in good form.
If memory serves yes, that was the match. Unfortunately for us…
That’s the most correct thing someone has ever said. The fact of matter is that in every single one of those 3 matches with Greece, instead of playing in the usual 4-3-3, Scolari has chosen a 4-2-3-1. Two defensive midfielders!!!! Against Greece??!!?! I mean if Portugal plays with 2 defensive midfielders against such a defensive team, how is it supposed to play against Engalnd, Spain or Brazil?? With 5 or 6 maybe….
Btw, I found the Portuguese fans to epitomize the term “sports fan”. They where civil and supportive of their team but embracing the Greeks after their “loss”. They where the true winners and example of how people should view sports: AS A CELEBRATION OF THE HUMAN MIND AND BODY.
Definatly deserve to be ahead of last year’s Barca if we are talking tactical masterpieces. Lets face it I could coach that team and be successful. As others have said its one thing being technically sound with players like Xavi, Iniesta and Messi at you disposal but a very different thing with those Greek players ( I cant even remember their names which shows how good it was)
Although I’d prefere if we didnt see a repeat of the Greeks at this year’s world cup from a football purists point of view, it was good to see such a strong example of how a well drilled group of players can overcome the superstars of world football.
Love this site more every day btw
“This Greek side achieved perhaps the most astonishing thing in the history of international football”
more so than Denmark in 92?
Yup.
That Denmark had some very gifted players (Brian Laudrup, Peter Schmeichel). Michael Laudrup, who refused to play due to conflicts with the coach, was among best footballers of his generation. Denmark also had a record of decent performance at competitions during eighties, for Greece that was the first competition they qualified for after USA 94 where they were an absolutely worst team of the competition (scored 0 conceded 10)
I agree with that. Remember in 1992 it was only an eight-team tournament, too. Denmark may have failed to qualify but they were nevertheless a good side – Greece were backed by absolutely no-one…they were seen as the fourth most likely side to get out of their group!
Before Euro’ 2004 Greece had never won a single match in an international tournament!!!
Denmark had qualified for the 84, 86 and 88 finals. That their victory was treated in Britain as such a huge upset was down to 2 things; the general arrogance of British media whereby most smaller countries are automatically rubbish, and the general idea that Germany were completely unbeatable. 92 was an upset, but 2004 was genuinely astonishing.
Very interesting. As a Korean I am naturally very interested in how the Greek side plays – it is imperative that we get at least 1 point from that match! Anyway, I see that Rehagel is still the manager for the Greeks – do they still play a similar formation/style? Also, what do you attribute their utter failure in Euro08 (0 points and a defeat to a complete 2nd choice squad, albeit Spain) to?
As a side note I was holding out some hope that you would explain the WC semi-final Korean side led by Hiddink, but in hindsight I understand the omission considering the fact that our opponents’ red-cards was our most intriguing tactic. Superb achievement comparable to Greece’s 04, nevertheless!
Great website, keep up the flawless work!
That’s a good call on Hiddink, I’d love some ZM analysis on him! Especially the superb performances by Russia in the Euro 2008 tournament (mostly without Andrei Arshavin!)
Not a very fancied team, but the tactics were fantastic (iirc). Was it not a narrow, defensive 4-1-4-1 turning into a racy 3-4-3 on the attack, with the full-backs Anyukov and Zherkov turning into full-blown wingers while the “1″ defensive midfielder (Semak) dropped backed into a CB role to make 3..
ZM,
I think that an analysis of coaches and their preferred tactics would be incredibly interesting. I know someone had commented suggesting writing about individual players, but I think that is an area that is already saturated with information. Instead it would be more interesting to examine coaches and how they have adapted their tactics to different teams. For example, Rafa’s transformation of both of his teams to a 4-2-3-1 (while his greatest success came using the previous system) contrasts remarkably with Hiddink’s ability to develop tactics based on his players’ strengths which was exhibited with South Korea, Australia, Russia, and probably others. Granted, it’s your site, you have done brilliantly so far, and you have every right to do what you wish with it.
I would also like to see something like this
Thanks for the suggestions, that might be an interesting thing to do over summer post-World Cup
I can take a shot at that: the total failure of 2008 was because football is a game of MIND BODY and PHSYCHOLOGY. Greece is a young team. They simply did not handle well their prior success. Having said that they have had some impressive wins after 2004 (qualification for EURO2008 and WORLD2010) not easy feats considering the opposition and that’s why they are ranked #10 in the world right now. What Ranhagel and the mostly new Greek team will do for WORLD2010 is anybody’s guess.
Awful team and football to watch, mind.
I think Italy 2006 deserves a mention in this series…The early 2000s Galaticos as well…
Good call re: Real Madrid 2000-2002. Two European Cups in three years plus a La Liga with a team stuffed full of egos is quite an achievement, even if they subsequently failed to recreate the successful formula.
Ah yes, when Real was actually playing well. Question is, was it the team of superstars or the coach? Vicente Del Bosque. Two European Cups, two Spanish league titles, one European Super Cup and one World Club Cup in four years. Sacked 48 hours after leading the club to the Spanish championship. Interesting. Now he’s coaching the Spanish national team…23 games, 1 loss. Coaches deserve more credit like in Greece’s case in 2004.
[...] decade is remembered as “negative, defensive, cynical and unimaginative” — but Greece’s win in Euro 2004 “was unquestionably the tactical achievement of the decade,” marked by manager Otto Rehhagel’s willingness to throw out shapes that had worked [...]
fair play to the greeks, but my god, watching them was like doing penance (apart from the performance in the opening game).
you have to give them massive credit for pulling it off, but it said a lot of unflattering things about the state of international football in 2004 that such a limited outfit could actually go and win a tournament.
the czechs were very unlucky in the semi-final, especially with nedved getting injured. but portugal were a disgrace in the final, as were france in the last eight.
a portugal-czech republic final could potentially have been a classic. instead we got the portuguese predictably wetting their knickers against a team who they had no idea how to play against. it was a terrible final because portugal completely failed to rise to the occasion.
I was lucky enough to attend all three of the matches you address, and I’ve rarely admired a team’s tactics quite so much. Unlike Jonathan above me, I’d say the final against Portugal, in particular, was just magnificent to watch — it seemed almost inevitable by that point that Greece were going to win it, somehow; their belief matched their coach’s tactical acuity, and they really deserved the title.
I also really admire the Greek federation for keeping Rehhagel on through their failure to quality for WC 2006 and the struggles at Euro 2008; it’ll be interesting to see how they perform in South Africa.
I certainly agree with this. It was a genuinely impressive and enjoyable game to watch, even though they didn’t do anything fancy. I think the point that lots of people have forgotten (perhaps considering this is a tactics blog) is that Greece were also the best in terms of their energy, tenacity, desire etc etc. They played with intensity and humility, unlike some of the grander opponents they dumped out. It’s also important to remember that the success of teams like Greece and Chelsea require tactical innovations by creative, technically gifted teams, which just contributes to the continuous evolution and improvement of the modern game.
Well, I’m flattered by this choice as a Greek. I don’t know if I would have made the same choice, probably not, so to avoid the wrath of non-Greek football fans.
The truth is that only in 2 games during the tournament Greece wasn’t better than it’s opponent. The 2nd game vs Spain and the semi vs Czech Republic. So how come did “we” win these two games?
Versus Spain, it was our opponent’s fault. After the 1-0 and a little bit of a thrust in the first 5-10 minutes of the second half, the Spaniards got “bored” of the match. They thought they got it sorted out and this dis-attention cost dearly at them.
In the semi, it was just luck. But only for the first half. During the second half the Czechs were a lot less dangerous and during the extra-time the tables were turned. Before the silver goal, Greece had three important plays that could have scored. From the third one came the (right-wing) corner kick that resulted in goal.
And one correction: the game versus England it was the first not friendly match for Rehaggel. His first ever match on the Greek bench, a friendly match at Helsinki against the Finns, was a disaster: 5-1 loss. Even if it was his first match there were cries to fire him immediately. Even worse in the qualifying to the 2004 tournament, Greece had started with 2/2 defeats: in home against Spain and away against Ukraine. There were also calls (mainly from the press) to fire him. Fortunately enough, the federation didn’t!
I’d like to mention here that Greece had only taken part in one Euro tournament before 2004 (in 1980) and earned only a single point! They also took part in WC 1994 (0 wins, 0 points, 0-10 goals)! That makes it even more remarkable!!
For sure Greece were underestimated in Euro 2004 and Greeks took full advantage of it! This is the magic of football! And no one mentions here that this miracle inspires all small teams in every tournament! The David against the Goliath! I’m quite sure this victory is widely mentioned as an example of how a smaller team must play against a favourite!
50% tactics, 50% greek gods, thanx for the memories zonal.
After the tournament here in Greece many people thought that this could be the beginning of major changes in Greek football. Changes like the will of the Greek football federation and of the politicians to “clean” football from the “godfathers” who rule it and from the drugs taking violent “fans” (private armies controlled by those in charge of the teams) who have established a ghetto, a field of unlawful behaviour around Greek football that does not allow other people to go and watch the sport they love fearing for their health or even their lives!
Six years later one thing can be said for sure. Nothing has changed, and considering that we will never get a similar opportunity, nothing will……
P.S. excuse my english
[...] Teams of the Decade #1: Greece, Euro 2004 Posted on Μαρτίου 31, 2010 by deltacv Teams of the Decade #1: Greece, Euro 2004 | Zonal Marking. [...]
Interesante, no va a continuar con este artнculo?
Kicker
This article is absolutely right. I’m Portuguese and I remember this match was frustrating to watch, even more than the opening one where Greece won 2-1. On the final 20 minutes when we were attacking it really seemed we were facing a 20-man defense…
that’s right because we have a really hard working team with high concentration especially in important matches against higher reputation teams and that is something you are going to see in the world cup this summer…..ΠΑΝΑΧΑΙΚΗ ΡΕΕΕΕ
Oh my god. I cant wait for the World Cup. Yesterday my girlfriend asked me WHAT is the World Cup. I don’t understand. I support Greece since i am Greek but i want Argentina to win that thing.
PS:Navajo re?
And some luck given by the Greek gods too….xD
Excellent article–and a brilliant choice, as biased as I may be. But I agree with one of the posters here, that it was a perfect storm for Greece, and but for Vryzas goal against Russia, and a post-hit from Rosicky in the semi-final, we would have been out for sure. In the knock-out rounds, we played precisely about 90 minutes of brilliant football, and the rest was mostly luck.
The Czechs really were the team of the tournament, and I felt bad when they lost–it was a joy to watch them play. But in extra-time, we subbed on Tsiartas and Giannakopoulos who galvanized the team and added attacking precision. Keep in mind Dellas was denied a goal just before the one he did score from a fantastic cross from Tsiartas (once again).
I still live (and was there in 2002) in Korea and have had a chance to watch the team play–I don’t think they really need to fear this summer, unfortunately. Otto’s negative tactics only became positive when he had the players to actualize them–this squad is one of our weakest ever. In the opening game, it’ll be down to who’s the worse team. We’ve got a strong defense and virtually no offense–Korea has the exact opposite.
And Let’s be honest–Korea was outclassed by Italy (who chose to sit on a 1-goal lead) and in actual fact, beaten but for at least 2 dodgy calls in both that, and the Spain match. Not to take anything away from their tactics and fitness, but they did the best they could with what they had. Same as we did.
I remember watching Euro 2004 and apart from the Czechs it was like watching grass grow. Not just Greece. I even remember going to sleep while watching these games, maybe due to the time difference but also definitely due to the type of football being played.
And as much as Greece deserve credit, I am glad that no one tried that again in Euro 2008. If they tried it failed. There is a growing trend in attacking football, the high scoring Champions League games show that and it is a fresh change from the parked bus teams like AC Milan, Juventus and Inter earlier in the decade.
Football is first and foremost a form of entertainment to the fans, regardless of how coaches and players view it. If you don’t have fun watching it, it’s hard to marvel at the tactical geniuses out there.
[...] Otto Rehhagel’s man-marking Greek side could be seen, perhaps more than anything else, as a monumental tactical triumph. It has not proven an influential tactic, frankly appearing to be more of a one-off. As the UEFA [...]
[...] Otto Rehhagel’s man-marking Greek side could be seen, perhaps more than anything else, as a monumental tactical triumph. It has not proven an influential tactic, frankly appearing to be more of a one-off. As the UEFA [...]
But what they did was still ‘tactical’, even if you didn’t like it.
Ok SAY we agree on that. it was tactical.
But then how in the world does that make them the best team in the decade?!
Brilliantly Put.
Thanks Wass.
I think your two principles of what ‘tactics’ are is debatable to say the least – but they did impose their own style of play on the opposition. Their objective was to score from crosses and corners, and that’s what they did. It might not have been pretty, but to say that it wasn’t tactical just doesn’t make sense IMO.
Rangers may have done well to get to the UEFA Cup Final but it was hardly Greece winning Euro 2004…
“In their post-group stage run they were never behind. That is why you cannot place them so high at your list.”
So they should be penalised because they had a great defence? That’s a pretty low argument…
“It was a triumph of coaching and drilling individuals with specific rules…”
Well said – a fitting No 1
You are right that Greece were fortunate to go ahead first in most games. But…
They fell behind to Spain and tied it.
They fell behind to Russia and then scored the vital goal that evened up the goal difference with Spain (not to mention almost tied it as well).
Some of the people in here fail to remember that Greece started the tournament with 300 to 1 odds. A team that did not qualify for a single tournament since 1994 and with no wins in any of the competitions they did qualify for!
Still they played the best football according to their powers and the fact that they outwitted opponents like France and Czech Republic it was mainly due to an amazing tactician called Otto Rehagel!! As for Portugal, which was considered a much better team and one of the favourites to win the tournament, they did not beat them once but twice!!!
Some say it was luck on the openning game of the group stage, but in the final as well?? You cannot criticize a team for being too solid as a group at carrying the managers orders word by word!
Given the roster the Greeks had and the history before 2004 their achievement was a miracle and it could not have been achieved by playing open attacking football!
You just described in very verbose and roundabout way: it is all about the way they tactically played the game. Everything you said about how to destroy, dynamically adjust formation and time your offense when needed is called: TACTICS.
No-one has suggested they are the ‘best’ team of the decade.
SiMz : The topic of this theme/discussion is about which the team executed tactically the best. It is not which team was the best. Get it?
Especially as the Greek side may well have become even more defensive for the second half of extra time.
And it’s not exactly as though the Czech were “shafted by a rule”. Both sides knew what they needed to do – hardly stacked in one particular team’s favour – and it was only the Greek team that managed to do so.
They missed a host of chances in that game as well. But nobody seems to remember they played quite well after going 2-0 down in that game.
It was Rehhagel’s killer blow that did it. He brought on the playmaker -Tsiartas- and Greece took the game to the Czechs. It was from his left-foot corner kick that Dellas scored the winner. He had also been brought on when Greece had gone behind to Spain and served the equaliser to Charisteas.