Inter 3-1 Barcelona: Why did Pep Guardiola play Zlatan Ibrahimovic?
It’s not often during his two seasons as Barcelona manager that you can conclusively say that Pep Guardiola got his tactics wrong – but tonight that was the case, as Inter take an important two-goal lead to the Nou Camp.
Both sides essentially played their standard formations. Inter were 4-2-3-1 with Samuel Eto’o and Goran Pandev wide, and Javier Zanetti continuing at left-back. Barcelona played a similar team to the first leg at against Arsenal – Zlatan Ibrahimovic leading the line, Lionel Messi behind him, Pedro in a wide-right role and Seydou Keita playing from in to out on the left.
In playing their tried-and-tested shapes, it’s fair to say that neither team significantly adapted their side to try and counter the strengths of the opposition. The result was that we had a far more open game than we expected – midfielders got time on the ball, full-backs were able to attack, and there were plenty of chances.
Referring back to the preview published on this site yesterday, it’s fair to say that the starting XI from Guardiola didn’t work. Playing Ibrahimovic upfront as a focal point for the attack didn’t suit Barcelona in this game, and played into the hands of Lucio and Walter Samuel, who dealt with the balls into the Swede comfortably throughout. Playing Ibrahimovic means that Barcelona play a slightly different way - and as a whole, that is a positive thing for the squad. Sid Lowe at the Guardian has commented that Ibrahimovic was bought so Barcelona were able to score goals they weren’t able to without him – his goal away in Stuttgart for example – and although Barca may be a slightly less prolific side in the forward positions, they arguably are more varied in their attacking options.
Tonight, however, the focal point Ibrahimovic offers was not needed. Barcelona’s passing style was slightly longer than usual – Xavi tried to hit surprisingly long balls into him with his back to goal which he failed to control, and Barca tossed crosses into the box for him to challenge for in the air, but on more than one occassion he went with his feet, rather than his head.
Playing Ibrahimovic backfired for three reasons:
1) It meant Barcelona changed their passing style and played longer than usual, meaning they were less fluid and suited Inter defensively.
2) It meant that Messi had less space to work in – against Real Madrid at the Bernabeu he thrived by playing infront of the Real Madrid centre-backs and on three separate occasions he reached through balls played by Xavi. Tonight, with Ibrahimovic taking up his space, he couldn’t play this role.
3) It meant that Barcelona were less secure defensively on their left-hand side. They were completely caught out for Inter’s third because Keita was playing relatively centrally and failed to track Maicon’s run. Had Eric Abidal been playing left-back with Maxwell infront, it’s doubtful that would have happened.
Barcelona’s switch to the system in the preview (and in doing so, taking a off striker (Ibrahimovic) for a left-back (Abidal)) when 3-1 down was surely an admission from Guardiola that his initial shape was wrong.
Equally, Mourinho played the game beautifully. Setting out with Pandev and Eto’o wide was slightly more attacking than was expected, and although Pandev found it difficult defensive against Dani Alves, the move worked very well in moving Alves narrow when Pandev made inward runs. Inter’s first goal was a great example of this – from a right-wing cross, Alves followed Pandev’s run towards the penalty spot leaving a huge gap at the far post, where Wesley Sneijder ghosted in unmarked to score.
It’s difficult to blame any single player without knowing Guardola’s instructions, but it’s interesting to note that Rubin Kazan manager Kurban Berdyev (until tonight, the only tactician to get the better of Guardiola in the Champions League this season), said he helped beat Barcelona because ‘I noticed that Xavi and Andrés Iniesta – key players in the team – almost never drop back to their own penalty box.’ Busquets, the left central midfielder was always going to be drawn to the near side of the goal from a left-wing attack, so Sneijder was probably Xavi’s man. If Berdyev noticed Xavi’s positioning in this manner, then it’s fair to say that Mourinho probably would have done too, and therefore the Pandev-in-and-Sneijder-out routine may have been a specific plan.
The second goal saw Barcelona caught out on the break down their weaker left-hand side, as previously mentioned, whilst the third saw Sneijder again unmarked at the back post in a not dissimilar fashion to the opening goal. Inter essentially exploited Barcelona’s weaknesses very well indeed.
Diego Milito led the line well
Another feature of the game was how often Barcelona were caught out from balls over the top. One cannot simultaneously praise Barcelona’s integrated pressing throughout the team and also criticize their tendency to play a high line – the two are basically mutually inclusive and it’s clearly a risk that Barca feel is worth taking. Inter looked to exploit Barca’s high line but didn’t do anything out of the ordinary to try and catch Gerard Pique and Carles Puyol out, they simply tried the ball over the top time and time again: Inter players were caught offside five times in the opening 25 minutes.
The final period of the game saw both sides revert from their starting XIs to the teams shown in the preview – Dejan Stankovic came on for Goran Pandev – and there were no goals. Indeed, the final minutes were rather what we had expected from the outset, a tighter, tenser game with Barcelona playing the ball around the Inter penalty area hoping for a killer ball, with Inter threatening mainly on the break.
It should come as no surprise that Gerard Pique played for much of the final ten minutes as an auxiliary forward, despite it being the first leg, for three reasons. Firstly, Guardiola had already brought on a defender for a striker and therefore moving a defender upfront made the side no more defensively open than he had started the game. Secondly, because an away goal in the final ten minutes here would have counted for more than a home goal in eight days time. Thirdly, because Inter were tired and slightly ragged at the back, and in three weeks time they will quite possibly play the most Catenaccio-esque football we’ll see in Europe all year.
As for Messi – Inter didn’t do anything special to counter his threat. One player – generally Cambiasso – stuck to him tightly when the ball was in and around the penalty area, but there was no specific man-marking duty and he wasn’t much of a danger throughout. Ibrahimovic taking up Messi’s space did a better job for Inter than a man-marking brief ever could.
A million things to discuss from this game, and the British media narrative will undoubtedly be “Mourinho gets his tactics right” – and he certainly did – but more crucial was the fact that Guardiola got his wrong.
This way for a ‘passes completed’ graph
Edit, 00:57:
Ibrahimovic: “I’d come back from a month on the sidelines and didn’t feel match fit.” link
Inter 3-1 Barcelona: Why did Pep Guardiola play Zlatan Ibrahimovic?
I just stumbled upon this website and it is truly great but can you explain how you came to the conclusion that Inter played 4-2-3-1?
Both Pandev and Eto’o were wide and it was no different from the 4-3-3.Please explain
There’s certainly a crossover between the two shapes (good idea for an article) but tonight was surely a 4-2-3-1 – at times Sneijder was closer than any other player to Milito, and Inter generally attacked with a front four, rather than three joined by a midfield runner.
It’s generally been referred to since Inter began playing it as a 4-2-3-1, or sometims 4-2-1-3 when the wingers play very attacking.
Thanks.
Keep up the good work
No worries. The average position diagram might be of interest: http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/ucl/2010/2000487_tl.pdf
Shows Sneijder on a relatively similar line to the two wide players, I suppose.
It was a 4-3-3 in possession of the ball. Without it, both Eto’o and Pandev dropped deeper into midfield and occasionally defense.
ZM has probably covered this before but I think its worth repeating, calling the Inter formation 4-2-3-1 is simplistic since it doesn’t fully explain the details and it really comes down to the roles and responsibilities each player is asked to do.
But you have to call it something, and 4-2-3-1 is as close to correct as 4-2-1-3 or 4-2-1-2-1, etc.
I think Inter plays in 4-1-4-1. Sneijder played between Motta and Pandev, marking Xavi. There was a 5 players line in Inter’s midfield. See that.
http://esquemastaticos.blogspot.com/2010/04/internazionale-3×1-barcelona-analise.html
I agree with Barcelona’s graphic. Spanish team played in 4-4-2.
Great work.
Good luck leaving 60 million Euros worth of player on the bench, even if you are Pep Guardiola.
He has done it in recent months (before Ibra’s injury), to be fair to Guardiola. Perhaps he wanted Ibra to make a triumphant return to the San Siro?
I love your website. You have made me infinitely more knowledgeable about football, and have added the dimension of formation analysis into my football watching. Thank you for that. What I also find satisfying is when I make an observation during the game, and then see it mirrored by you.
I understand why Pep put in Ibrahimovic — you allude to it, but, don’t explicitly say it, I think. Pep was expecting catennacio. When ground defenses are strong, you try to penetrate through aerial bombardment, i.e. send in long balls to Ibra, and get him to pop one in (and I understand the constraints this put on Barça’s typical shape). My question is, why wasn’t Barcelona successful at aerial bombardment? (and their only goal came from a moment of Barcelona’s usual style of play, plus Ibra acting as a screen/distraction, helped by Inter defending mistake)
Carlos, thats what the managers are paid to do. Ibra hasn’t played well lately even though he’s been scoring, Bojan has been playing well…its a tough decision and I expect to see Pep learn from it.
Were there really that many attempted long balls aimed for Ibra? I think that barca should have tried more long balls for him to try for in the air and hold up in order to use his advantages to the fullest.
Maybe the problem with messi falling too deep in order to get some action could have been counteracted with some more direct play towards Ibra?
Hmm, interesting way of looking at it – but I’m still not sure he would have got much change out of Lucio and Samuel. There probably weren’t that many long balls in the first half – might only have been, say, 5 – but it looked so unBarcelona (and didn’t seem to be working) !
It is pretty interesting that a lot of the of problems created by playing Zlatan are more related to the way the rest of the team plays; just how much the change in style is caused by his actions, for example if he is extremely vocal about getting the ball, I am in no position to say.
A major reason why Inter were willing to let him go, besides the great bit of business it was, is that the team simply relied on him far too much. The last season or two at Inter saw Zlatan being given the ball and expected to create and finish a large majority of the moves.
So not only did sale of Zlatan provide the money to buy Sneijder and Milito, plus the swap with Eto’o and probably a lot of the wages for Pandev, but it forced the Inter players to stop being, for lack of a better phrase, creatively lazy.
I think that Zlatan is an absolutely brilliant player, and that both teams came away from the deal better than they were before, albeit Barca did have to pay a lot, and as I said I can’t speak as to how much he is at fault for the change in play.
With the Inter team of last year and the year before I could see it being as a result of Zlatan being the dominant personality of the team, but with Barca I have to think that it is a direction from Pep, because I just can’t imagine Xavi being dictated to by another player.
Totally agree! Ibra is a creative and effective player who’s proven to easily handle Walter Samuel and more prominent tough defenders in Serie A.
Barcelona did not lose because of brilliant tactics of Inter nor failure of their offense.
Barcelona’s poor defensive performance this season continues to cause unnecessary pressure on the team to improvise scoring opportunities in order to compensate.
Sometimes in EUFA CL 0-0 or even 0-1 would be a good result away (as Inter will prove tomorrow).
Ibra’s personality plays against him, specially at Barcelona, and sometimes results in unfair, premature and superficial critical analysis.
Pep needs to creatively use players who are not schooled at Barcelona rather than attempting to adapt them to the superior but one-dimensional style; sooner or later other teams will figure it out.
He needs to learn to win strategically with the defense (e.g., 0-0) when necessary.
Barcelona fans need to lower their expectations of the midfield and offense since not all CL games must be won with beautiful passing ending in the opponent’s net. Of course, reaching this year’s CL final has more to it because of where it will be.
Too much credit is given to tactical superiority of Inter during one game, even though they are struggling to win their league this year (fortunate that Roma lost last game).
Tactics are crtical to winning games but they can’t be static and simplistic as presented here. To state that Ibra occupied Messi’s real estate is a bit naive – if true, then Barcelona should play without a center forward at all – that would give huge room for Messi!
The first game was a case of bad defense, efficient execution (and good fortune), the second game is likely to be decided by the mental toughness advantage of the winner.
Good luck to Barcelona and Inter. Both teams are great to watch though.
Playing aerial balls to Ibra was not working and it doesn’t suit Barca. Pep is the first one to say they’re “terrible” without the ball, playing a long ball to Ibra is basically playing up a 50/50. They just shouldn’t do it.
ZM, your preview is amazingly accurate – beside of Ibrahimovic.
I was genuinely surprised Pep went for him. It was nice when Stankovic came on for Pandev and the teams in the preview were, for those few minutes, 100% right
I also think that Pep got the tactics wrong by only using one substitute. There’s really no excuse in leaving an experienced finisher like Henry on the bench for the final 10-15 minutes. Even Bojan. I wouldve taken off Brusquets and moved Alves in his place — because Alves has shown he can play a central midfield role for Brazil Then you just have an improvised back-line of Maxwell, Pique, Puyol, and Abidal. Then have Henry or Bojan up front. I wouldve gone for Henry mainly for his experience in the big games — and while he hasnt been utilized that much this season. It is Henry after all. And he can more than handle 15 minutes off the bench.
That’s a very good point actually, and a bit of an oversight in the article. Surely Henry – whilst not being impressive this season as a whole – would have been worth the final 15 mins? I 100% agree with you there, although maybe at that stage would have withdrawn Keita myself.
I’m not so sure about Henry…there is a reason he hasn’t played much this year. He looks a shadow of himself – he’s lost more than a few steps, his shooting has been poor, and given this ref’s leniency to physical play, Henry’s recent (past four years or so) habit of gamesmanship would simply have resulted in lost possession and a possible Inter counter.
But Victor, Guardiola often prefers Busquets to more overtly defensive ‘volantes’ like Toure because he feels that Busquets’ ball control and passing range is much superior, suiting the passing game of Xavi, Messi et al. This makes it hard to pressure him off the ball (until he gets his Toninho Cerezo moments through a lack of concentration!) because he moves it on so quickly and accurately.
Now I think that Daniel, for all his qualities, is hardly a tactically astute player. Indeed, whenever he has played as a midfielder for Brazil it is generally as a second or third man alongside a more stationery holder. Asking Alves to sit in front of a defence and to make split-second decisions under severe pressure is akin to suicide. Even when he has played as a wide-ish midfielder for Brazil he always seems more comfortable when moving with the ball. With Barca, when he moves into central areas he becomes much less effective as the game becomes paused.
No, I don’t think Busquets’ presence was a problem tonight.
As you said I think it was a question of not having enough mobility up front through either Henry or Bojan.
I agree, Dani is not a midfielder, and definitely not a DM, and off-form the past few matches to boot. Bojan is not strong enough to be effective against a team like Inter away, even at Camp Nou, Arsenal showed that he can be pushed off the ball too easily. Unfortunately, Henry is done, he has absolutely nothing left to offer the team and the absence of an offensive-minded impact player at LW has been a thorn in Barca’s side all season.
Hi Roberticus. I agree with you. Daniel Alves is not a defensive midfielder. In Brazil, he is a right winger. In the graphic below, Daniel Alves would play in Elano’s (or Ramires) place.
http://esquemastaticos.blogspot.com/2009/09/interativo-esquema-tatico-brasil.html
Great Analysis. I thought Mourinho’s tactics were spot on but really Guardiola surprised me. I thought he would unleash Messi’s trickery on the Inter centre backs instead of playing Ibrahimovic. It certainly would have caused a bit more problems because Inter are excellent aerially but not the quickest on the ground.
By the way do you think Mourinho risked the game by playing Balotelli? His attitude stinks honestly and he doesn’t track back and Inter were taking on too much pressure at the end of the game.
I felt it was a risk — but maybe it was more of a challenge on Mourinho’s part. I want more blood. He probably wanted to see how Pep would react. I didn’t think it was a bad substitution — and he proved right since Balotelli almost scored that goal from long range.
Yes he is brave with his subtitutions. Good tactical win for him
After Milito went out, I believe Eto went to the center forward position. Balotelli would fill Eto’s former role as the pacey wide player. I think the point was to make sure Inter could still trouble Barcelona on the counter.
For the back tracking part, Abidal and Maxwell probably weren’t enough of a threat to play a defensive winger on that side (Compared to Pedro and Alves on the other).
I think it was a good move, it at least made sure that Barcelona had something to worry about. Without him Inter might have run the risk of giving too much initiative to Barcelona.
He did look dangerous out there, though he didn’t really seem to have too much of an impact. There was at least one counter attack that broke down with him. I don’t watch Balotelli much but if I had to describe his performance with 1 word it would be complacent, though it’s possible he just didn’t have enough time to get in a rhythm out there.
I feel the Balotelli sub was to come on for Milito since he was cramping 10 minutes prior. Had Milito been able to continue I don’t know if we would have seen Mario that early.
I think that Mourinho put on Balotelli after seeing the damage Theo Walcott inflicted against Barca coming from the bench at the Emirates. He has been back on the fringes of the squad since Walcott’s display and Mouriniho will surely use him from the bench for the return tie to intimidate Pep if nothing else. Plus as was rightly pointed out in the excellent article Xavi does not always track back adequately so using Balotelli in a central positon could cause Barca problems in the Nou Camp, thats if Mouriniho goes out all guns blazing which I expect he will
I am a bit shocked that Barça kept on sending high balls into the area even with the absence of Ibrahimovic.
It seems that Barça don’t have another way to dealing with through balls except making offside trap. The zonal control is very nice by Inter, even Xavi sometimes couldn’t find a target to pass the ball to.
Without another decent holding central forward, Barça had problem meeting narrow and tight defense – when Ibrahimovic didn’t work, Henry or Bojan probably wouldn’t help much either.
“Ibrahimovic taking up Messi’s space did a better job for Inter than a man-marking brief ever could.”
I loved this one, well presented!
But in the final 15 mins — you’re down 2 goals. You need to do something. You need finishers on the pitch. Look how badly Pique messed up on that golden opportunity. How would Henry have done there? Any goal toward the end is not gonna be anything special — it’s gonna be ugly. Just have Maxwell or Alves or Abidal send it in. I mean, I know Inter’s backline is imposing — but guy like Henry couldve done something. Or a crafty little guy like Bojan.
I really think the writing is on the wall for Barca. Will be very surprised if they come through — esp without Puyol and Iniesta. I’m not sure of Maicon’s status for the game, but if Messi took him out — there’s at least some hope.
Yeah, Pep should do something more, only on sub when you are losing, that’s a bit strange. I am just being curious that even put other guys on, it won’t help much.
Pique actually did quite well in the Inter area, this probably is their way of getting a tall ‘central forward’.
Having pique play as the central forward was a big risk. Xavi not tracking back down the center and stankovic holding the right side back left a lot of space on barca’s left. Meaning that one mario drift into center alongside etoo would create a outnumbering situation as puyol and whoever alongside him were no match for etoo’s pace and balo’s strenght.
Do you have the passing statistics as previously shown in other CL games? Im interested to see how many successful passes made by Xavi, Pique etc in this game compared to Arsenal game etc.
Indeed – coming in about ten mins!
Had a simple one,
Barça passes: 500+
Internazionale passes: ~150
Great tactical breakdown of the match yet again!
It would be interesting to know what Guardiola and Moruinho thought prior to this match. Perhaps both expected the other to come out with a different line up than what was fielded and decided to alternate theirs as a result. If Guardiola thought Inter would field a more defensive formation (Stankovic instead of Pandev) fielding an equally more reserved side (Maxwell at LB and Ibra) was a better way to get a result on the road?
And similarly, if Mourinho thought Guardiola would line up with their more attacking oriented formation (Maxwell in midfield, Messi in the center) he would counter it with with his own form of attack (using Pandev out wide). Or perhaps he predicted Ibra to start against his old team and set out to push their fullbacks back. Who knows what they thought really but it’s interesting to hypothetize their prematch thought process.
Either way, Guardiola misjudged the use of Ibra in this match. I’m surprised he took as long as he did to take him off.
Glad to see you show respect to the losing manager.
:S No disrespect intended – Guardiola has been praised (probably) more than any other manager on these pages and is a tremendous tactician usually – but tonight I felt he got it wrong.
I guess respect shouldn’t feature on these pages too much.. What I’m after is cold, hard tactical analysis!
“I guess respect shouldn’t feature on these pages too much.. What I’m after is cold, hard tactical analysis”!
Of course. By respect, I mean the lack of the opposite, instead of cold tactical analysis personal criticism of losing managers, something we see too much of in football.
From a purely tactical point of view, I think losing tactics are also too easily disregarded. A team can set out with perfect tactics and lose due to individual errors or bad refereeing.
That’s true. One thing I did mention watching the game was that when your sitting back defending, the one person you don’t want on the other team is Messi (and to a slightly lesser extent Xavi).
If Messi had “turned up” (although I appreciate the outrageously high expectations of him), I think Inter would’ve struggled. But as ZM pointed out the tactics were surely wrong, firstly in the inclusion of Zlatan limiting the effectiveness of Messi and secondly the half-time substitutions surely were an admission of a mistake?
Lastly I was surprised when chasing for a goal not to see Henry or Bojan, who do have a killer instinct in front of goal.
The criticism surely wasn’t personally levelled at Pep, more a direct indictment of his tactics.
I said before the game that Guardiola may play the right-heavy 4-3-3 again and he did, but why? It’s so unbalanced and the only reason it worked against Arsenal was because Arsenal lack the ability to close down space. (Even then Arsenal still managed to score 3 goals down Barca’s left flank)
Barcelona congested parts of the pitch too much, Pedro should have played on the left and Messi more right-ish than central. Keita has too much to do on the left.
Having said that Barcelona still have not found a way to combat defensive-counterattacking styles. Ibra (who was supposedly bought for his ability to provide a plan B) was subbed off. Pique caused Inter more trouble in the final stages than any of Barca’s attacking players.
As an Arsenal fan I know all too well how frutrating it is to face a team that defends in numbers, but pouring numbers forward and trying to pass your way through them isn’t the way to go. The best thing to do is play the ball to the defence and draw the opposition out of their own box, and play quick direct passes into the channels. Basically play them at their own game.
Good point, Carlton, about drawing defensive teams out.
Problem for Barca now is that Inter don’t have to attack initially in the second leg. And being a Mourinho team, they’ll be quite content to sit back and let Barca play with the ball among their defenders, if Barca choose to do this. So Barca will probably have to play the same way as today, which might open them up to the counterattack early on. If Inter get one (or two) early away goals, the tie will be dead and they’ll be happy to sit and contain for the rest of the match knowing the final is already booked.
I hate to blow this out of proportion, but Inter will be under it from the first minute in CN. This is going to be an awesome test of Mourinho’s ability to prepare his team mentally. I’m absolutely certain that they are going to be bombarded for 90 minutes. It will be fascinating to see if they have the calmness to deal with it because I don’t see Milito or Eto’o getting as much as a sniff, and the team is going to have to play that much better to pass.
As Mourinho said in the post match interview, a 2-1 loss in Camp Nou will be more impressive than a 3-1 victory in Milan.
No, Inter will have chances in the Nou Camp. Puyol is out of that leg, so Barca’s backline will be shuffled. It will only take one mistake and Sjneider to play a good ball through for Milito (if he can stay onside) or Eto’o – and I think Eto’o will gun for a goal in the Nou Camp. I think if Inter weather the first half without conceding (especially if they score) they will be content to close the game out for the second 45 mins, and will emerge on the other side as winners. The later it gets for Barca, the more risks they’ll have to take to score. That will play into Inter’s hands.
Exactly. If you thought Chelsea were negative at the Camp Nou (and that’s with no lead to protect), wait til you see Inter.
It’ll be the same story as it was tonight. I think the only way Barca can win is if they play counterattacking themselves. I remember Arsenal lost 3-1 away to Bayern in the CL in 05, in the return leg Bayern were content to just sit back and absorb everything we threw at them. Our only goal came through a long ball to Henry. That’s what Barca need to do, ironically they sold their best pacey outlet to their opponents.
I’ve seen enough football over the years to know that pushing up the defence and sending everyone forward is the worst thing you can do against a team that is content to just sit back and counter. Guardiola should know after the Chelsea semi last year.
I just didn’t think he’d go for the right-heavy 4-3-3 because of the threat of Maicon. In fact, I was convinced he wouldn’t. I thought he’d have a player in there (Maxwell, playing at left mid, ahead of Abidal) specifically to contain Maicon, but in the end he was afforded all the freedom in the world.
The passing stats from the Arsenal v Barca game in the second leg (where Barca played this shape) showed that the right-back Bacary Sagna completed more passes than any other player – so, presumably he was generally the ‘freest’ player – and therefore a similar shape simply afforded Maicon so much space.
The general consensus is that Inter will be bombarded in CN which more than not will be the case, however I personally cannot see Inter not scoring a goal. They will have the players, they will have the space and im sure Mourinho will implement the mentality to do the job.
Inter seem like team that has the right players in every position to cope with such a task.
ZM, on the formation diagrams, wasn’t it more of a 4-2-3-1?
This certainly seems to back that up
http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/ucl/2010/2000487_tl.pdf
Taking off Ibra was a strange decision, while he may have been taking up Messi’s space, it left them without anyone in the box. And as Pique showed, a tall physical presence was perhaps their best chance at breaking through Inter’s brick wall.
Which team are you referring to with the 4-2-3-1? Certainly Inter were (it sometimes seems like a 4-2-1-3 but as Barca had so much of the ball, it was a 4-2-3-1)…Barca I’m not sure what to call it. A lopsided 4-3-3 tonight maybe, although when Iniesta played the Keita role against Valencia it seemed much more 4-2-4 (although certainly close to 4-2-3-1).
Interesting point about the aerial threat late on. Someone above ^^ said that Guardiola got it the wrong way around – Barca should have started with the strikerless shape, then brought Ibra on, which seems to make sense.
Barca.
To me it looked like a lopsided 4-3-3 on paper, but the UEFA data seems to suggest it was more of a routine 4-2-3-1. Although you have to remember that UEFA’s data only takes into account touches of the ball and not general movement (hence Keita may have been stationed more centrally when Inter were in possession). Either way I’d just be guessing since I didn’t pay much attention to Keita during the game.
Anyway I think your passing statistics graph certainly seems to indicate that Maicon had some space down that flank.
To add to that, I think the lopsided 4-3-3 would have worked had Maxwell played instead of Keita. (in which case it would have been more of an orthodox 4-2-3-1/4-4-2 – which would have meant one less man in the middle but less freedom for Maicon to advance)
The formation he played tonight just seemed a bit naive. It was like he was expecting Keita to be part of a 3 man midfield AND a left winger at the same time.
I’m just wondering, who are you writing this article? And all that tactical preview and your formation forecast before the Inter-Barca match was just amazing; it is precisely accurate. Are you some kind of retired coach or something? Or a former assistant manager? If not, then why don’t you become one?
Keep up the excellent work.
I’m afraid I’m neither of those things – maybe a future one!
Thought Zlatan was necessary simply because Messi would’ve been dwarfed by Samuel and Lucio – both of who are fairly physical as well. Also, given that Xavi started way lower than he usually starts in the MF meant a holding striker was needed.
The other interesting thing I noticed as that Inter allowed the Barca fullbacks to bomb forward all the time, but covered the box to nullify any of their crosses… It served to
a) Decrease available space for Barca MF to thrive in and make Inter compact.
b) Take the (naturally attack-minded) Barca fullbacks out of position which meant that on the counter, Inter had less men to deal with… Indeed Milito had a lot of fun in the space vacated by Maxwell. Ditto for Sneijder / Pandev on Alves’ side.
Totally agree with you. Both of Inter’s fullbacks, especially Zanetti, kept coming infield. Consequently, every now and again, Barca found themselves with acres of space down either flank. As you mentioned, Inter defended the crosses really well. I’m just a little surprised why Messi didn’t go wider more often. He would’ve had the space to accelarate. And it’s one thing to defend against crosses coming into the box, but a whole lot more difficult to defend against a Messi scampering into your area.
Milito vs. Milito in the second leg.
Hi again ZM,
Great stuff as always – it amazes me how you come up with so many relevant points so quickly and with minimal detrimental effect to text quality.
On the match, I was really surprised that Guardiola did not have a player with a specific brief to get stationed behind Maicon (as your graph shows) – Maxwell’s brilliant exploiting of that space in the first goal shows a glimpse of what could have been if the lineup with him as left-winger had been used.
And, yes, prepare your briefing for the Camp Nou match previewing Inter in a 5-4-1 or worse. The catenaccio of the decade, that’ll be.
Yes, it was strange that whilst Barca were clearly slanted to their right, they often looked more dangerous coming down the left…
I thought that even after Ibra was subbed off Messi did not have a lot of room to operate. Messi touched the ball a lot, but hardly threatened and could not get off many shots. One side effect of playing Ibra is that numerous long balls in to the middle led to many turn overs and loss of possession.
The way I saw the match, Guardiola was relying on the brilliance of his individual offensive players to make the difference where as the Special One relied on the Barca back four to make mistakes, punishing them for playing two offensive minded corner backs.
Roger, The sub was just too late..
I think that by the time Ibra was subbed off, Inter had
the 2 goal lead, and just closed shop, and the way Barca was playing
it was going to be hard to break Inter down with the time left.
Its gonna be tough for Barca next leg, but if anyone can do it, they
can..
It was interesting to see when the both teams started pressing heavily: for Barca, right after their first goal, in order to try to wring a second one out of Inter right away (a standard tactic for them), and for Inter, after their second. The third was a perfect example of a smash and grab counterattack after a team loses possession.
Barca’s tactics certainly were backward. Inter clogged the middle and forced Barca to the wings in the last fifteen minutes. I haven’t seen Xavi and Messi look so frustrated in a long time.
I didn’t see the game but the possesion Barca had was incredible. Can Inter do this again at the Nou Camp? 4-2-3-1 vs 4-3-3 is an article that would be fantastic with most teams now going to one or the other.
Great analysis of Dany Alves’ mistakes while tracking back. That left side was exploited over and over again in the first half, with the attacking winger arriving late to receive a ball from either the loan man up front or the attacking center mid, which kept sucking dany alves in. Sneijder’s goal was the best example of that. I must say though that it’s the worst i’ve seen Barca’s backs play all season. Possibly from their exhausting bus ride? I think not… rather it was alves’ failure to track back effectively enough
I can’t help but feel we’re digging too far into tactics in this piece. Messi had his chances to influence the match, and indeed Barca had their late chances to get a goal back (Pique, penalty shouts etc.).
The layout of the teams meant that it was an open match, but I doubt the specifics played too significant a role in the outcome. Inter executed better, and Barca didn’t have the off-the-ball movement they normally would use to control the pace of the game.
I partially agree Ibra was ineffective, but not necessarily leaving him out altogether. If he’d dropped slightly deeper and contributed to maintaining possession and building, his performance may have been different.
“I can’t help but feel we’re digging too far into tactics in this piece.”
Sorry, that’s what you get here!
And yet I keep coming back, keep up the good work, ZM – regardless of whether or not I happen to agree with the analyses.
What I meant is that I didn’t feel the ‘tactics’ per se were as large an influence on the result as mentioned in the piece, and surely that distinction needs to be taken into account?
Agree. Obviously this site is about tactics, but in this case it seems the effects might be being overstated.
Barca did have quite a lot of those “almost chances”, where the ball just doesn’t fall right, an opposing player just gets a nick/block etc. Throw in the offside goal, possible penalty, was this really a tactical victory or was it just a bad day at the office for Barca?
I could see, on another day where Barca are clinical and things fall for them instead of falling for Inter*, a 2-4 or so result.
*few examples: Messi was probably fouled before the 2nd goal, and a Barca player *almost* got a toe onto the through ball. The tackle for the 3rd fell to a Inter player instead of a Barca one. The first goal wasn’t tactics at all, just Alves getting sucked in for no reason at all.
I agree with you. Hindsight is 20/20 always. No doubt that Inter were simply the better team today, but was it due to the tactics or simply player execution? The only tactical mistakes Pep made were: ibra shouldn’t have played, and new subs should have been brought it. Other than this, I believe it was the Inter players simply winning it through hard work, physical play and determination.
They simply moved the ball better than Barca through the middle. I’m not saying they made more passes or even more accurate passes, because they certainly didn’t. But they did make more meaningful passes/plays. A player can pass the ball 100 times back and forth not moving an inch or furthering the play, while others may make 3 passes that create a buildup to a scoring opportunity.
In war they say that the winner is always on the side of good. In football, they should probably say the same with tactics.
@ Matt,
about Alves getting sucked in, ZM has already commented on that.
Alves was tracking the run of Pandev and Sneijder sneaked in. That tactic was probably practiced before.
Agreed. I love the site, but there’s only so much you can do with tactics – the rest depends on the players and to a large extent luck. Barcelona had an off day.
Well, if one counts the nice chances of Barca, then one should notice that there are plenty of nice chances of Inter which ended up with nothing as well. However, all these chances went begging, and this is what happens on football pitch – you simply cannot score in every chance.
What Barcelona need if they’re going to play 4-4-2 is a left midfielder who can run down the side and cross and has good workrate so that he can contribute in marking as well. A player like (massively underrated) Malouda for example would be ideal. Hell, even a player like Marcelo for all his inconsistency would be great with his pace and skill on the ball. Look at how much open space there was on the left side and with Pedro,Messi,Alves all on the right, Maxwell used that space only once (in the 1st goal). Bringing in Abidal didn’t help much because his technique is really poor.
Thus they didn’t perform much better when Ibrahimovic came off. They need a pace injection.
ZM, I found the most surprising element of the match to not be tactical, but that D. Alves was so, so poor. His first touch wasn’t tight, his passes weren’t crisp, etc. He falls into that category of players you can get under their skin, which is a bit odd for a right back.
Maicon v Alves didn’t look like much of a contest today
To be fair, Maicon starts over Alves for Brazil. Apparently, there are some other folks who would agree with your last sentence
Well Maicon and Alves both messed up for a goal, so neither really covered themselves in glory. Maicon scored, Alves could’ve won a penalty. Not much in it. Didn’t think either played well really.
True both did have a hand in allowing a goal but it was the simple things Alves messed up that surprised me. Inter’s gameplan was to bypass playing the ball through midfield therefore eliminating Barca’s pressure and high line, so it’s not surprising that Maicon didn’t have more opportunities to shine.
Great analysis, as usual spot on. What amazed me the most was how Inter dealt with Xavi. If Mourinho saw the Real Madrid game, he probably knew that while a lot was being made on how Messi was unstoppable, it is Xavi the one he actually had to stop. As it has been said before he is their engine. And it also seems Barca depend a lot more on him for creativity since Guardiola changed the 4-3-3 that had been soo succesful since Rijkaard first implemented it. Today Xvi was being tracked by Sneijder up until he crossed half-field where he became Motta’s or Cambiasso’s responsability. When defending Xavi is usually not a matter of trying to take the ball away from him, but rather staing in front of him, so he cant receive comfortably and turn around. By nullyfing Xavi they neutralized Barca’s incisive passing, and therefore Messi as well (who never really received a ball with advantage). On Pedro’s goal they actually lost Xavi, who after taking a couple of touches sent a nice pass for Maxwell who made the most out of it. That is probably why Mourinho described the goal as their mistake. And they made sure that didnt happened again. It seems that without Iniesta Barca become a less threatening team, since Xavi is the one midfielder you have to worry about, instead of two creative forces from midfield.
From the amounts of long ball Inter played at the beginning it was also clear that Mourinho instructed them to play longs ball, instead of trying to keep posession and succumbing to Barca’s pressure as Arsenal did. In a way it was a similar approach to the one Hiddink had agaisnt them last year in the semifinals, where he constantly went for the deliberate long ball for Drogba.
..except that Chelsea played much deeper, in both legs. Credit to Inter; Barca had a full-strenght defence (unlike at Stamford Bridge) and Mourinho sent his men out to play a high defensive line. This was a very pro-active way to frustrate Barca, much different to Hiddink’s approach last year.
I’m just wondering why Messi wasn’t deployed on the left to take advantage of Maicon’s forward runs?
Didn’t actually get a chance to watch the match, but I’m definitely intrigued by the second half average position diagram, Zanetti is a lot more infield and there doesn’t seem to be a left back. Was that the case (he moved to defensive mid) or, as I suspect, he didn’t really get on the ball that much in the second half? as I know those positioning diagrams are based on when the player is in possession.
Zanetti switched to right back when Messi sucker punched Maicon and Chivu came on at left back.
One thing was salient tonight; Messi is usually brilliant centrally whether behind the striker or as a false No.9, but he entered the forest that was Cambiasso and Motta. Would it not have been more profitable for him to revert to his false outside-right role and really have tested Zanetti? Pedro could have reprised the same role but from the left, and Ibra centrally, who might not have appeared so lost (although I still would have preferred the mobility of Bojan/Henry over Zlatan regardless of whichever formation).
My thoughts on the second-leg; “If I were Pep Guardiola…”
——Milito—Pique———;
———————–Abidal;
Alves——Busquets———-;
—–Toure——————-;
——————-Xavi——;
—————————–;
Messi——————-Pedro;
———–Striker?———-;
My rationale:
1) Who is the anonymous striker?: the advantages of starting the more mobile and elusive Bojan or Henry are obvious, but neither their presence nor that of Ibrahimovic will have the most substantive effect on the overall system.
2)Despite being right-footed, Pedro provides width on either side of the attack. He can cut in or open the pitch. What an asset! He is noticeably more comfortable at being asked to reach the endline than is Messi, even when on his weaker foot. Look at his left-footed finishing tonight. His advanced positioning on the left flank will afford Abidal some reprieve from Maicon.
3) Messi at outside-right to exploit Zanetti/Chivu at left-back. As is his wont and as per the automatisms of this his previous role, he will indeed cut in but Inter’s defensive midfielders will find him more difficult to pick up when he is sneaking behind them horizontally or when he is running into their zone as opposed to loitering around there centrally. That, plus they will have to avoid being overrun by Barca’s runners through the middle, which brings me to ….
4) Yaya Toure: logistical swap considering that Keita risks incurring another yellow card and thus missing a potential appearance in the final. Yaya’s box-to-box running is as useful as is that of Keita, but whereas Keita’s more prolific attacking play has become discreet in recent months, Toure can offer this same quality but more centrally and even starting from the right-of-centre. This in turn will afford Dani Alves more 2×1 defensive cover down his flank (should Zanetti or Chive break forward). Yaya’s relocation to interior-right will also….
5) push Xavi to left-of-centre; and Xavi will be none the poorer for it. As long as he can play relatively central he is equally effective. And, we would see the added benefit of Inter’s marking duties being slightly ruffled.
6) Abidal instead of Maxwell; defends better (especially against Maicon) and yet puncutally attacks sufficiently well. Of course, Pedro ahead of him will offer the main concern for Maicon. The Canarian winger is also an extremely hard worker. But another thing which I feel has been overlooked by others here has to do with Abidal’s comfort with defending in central areas, especially around the box (indeed doesn’t he play at centre-back for France). This will be important for whenever Inter manage to switch the play across to Pandev’s (or Barca’s right) flank and if Alves is still making his way back from the attack; Barca’s central defenders plus their left-back will have to swing across and wait for the arrival of Alves (or Busquets to slot-in between the centre-backs) and who do you want guarding the rear post; Maxwell or Abidal?
7) Busquets retains his place: his ability to keep the ball rolling makes it more difficult for Sneijder to hassle the ball off Barca in this area. He could occasionally venture forward to combine in further triangulations providing Toure shuffles over to occupy his space. Hence the proximity of Yaya to Busquets in my illustration, whereby he’d act as an auxiliary central midfielder.
Please, any comments?
Roberticus, Pedro is ambidextrous, he scores Golazos with both feet(Tap in’s are one thing but Golazos WOW).I Saw him take consecutive corners with different feet from either side already !.I really thought he should have played on maicon’s side today.In the Camp Nou game, he repeatedly beat maicon with skill and kept him from attacking.
@ Jordi.
Barca badly need to open up the pitch at the Camp Nou and spread the play; “Go wide to go deep” and Pedro is crucial to this.
Also, regards Busquets as DM and the absence of Iniesta, I would add the following…
If you are not convinced by Busquets as a defensive midfielder, reckoning he’s too risque for the requirements of that position, then just drag Toure deeper and place Busquets more advanced and closer to Xavi, who was notably lacking the aid of another ball-playing midfielder in his sector.
It’ll be hard for them to go deep if Inter aren’t drawn out from the back, should they choose to sit and hit on the break. What they may be able to do though, and there were flashes of it tonight, is to dribble into the box and draw the penalty. A different ref might have given the Sneijder one (even though contact itself does not make a foul). The pressure is all on Barca to find solutions, and Inter can profit from any mistakes they make. Barca will have to play the perfect game in Barca – but if any team can do that, it’ll be Barca.
Agree with both; spread the play, dribble into the box more often. Inter look up to a few dodgy tackles in the box. I didn’t think they exploited Inter players’ lack of dexterity well enough.
Well, this actually is the formation I was hoping Guardiola would start with for this game.
The additional point is that since Inter had a 4-man attack (there were 3 players in the box for the first goal while Eto’o sent in the cross), playing Toure and Busquets will allow one of them to drop into defence so Barça have the spare man there.
For me this was a very important point, when Inter attacked the Barça defence was stretched as 4 defenders are covering 4 attackers whereas the back 4 is intended to provide a spare man in defence.
A key point ZM has ignored I think is how ineffective Keita was. The 2 formations were almost mirror images of each other except for it being Pandev vs Alves and Keita vs Maicon. In Barça’s formation it should have been Pedro who covered Maicon or given him enough work to occupy him defensively. There are of course a number of reasons why Pep chose this but it certainly didn’t work out because it robbed Barça of an extra man further back and also provided little in terms of attack untill the formation was changed.
Note: Sticking Pedro on the left would also have given Messi an inclination to start from further right.
Abidal naturally allows the Barça defence the ability to spread more laterally because of his ability to close down space fast. Abidal is always first choice and Maxwell would have started because Abidal has just come back from injury and hasn’t played any minutes since his return.
The importance of the striker would be in creating space for Messi, not reducing it as Ibra did in this game. Personally, I thought that he should be able to manage the task but if I never wanted him in first place, I can see Guardiola also running around with a 40 mill shoppping basket at the end of the season. 60 million, talk about providing different options, etc and at the end of the day he gets subbed after 60 mins and 3-1 down so Barça can go back to an unhindered passing game.
I figure Bojan should be the option for the striker role. He can play of the last defender pushing them deep enough to create a gap between the lines for Messi.
kamikaze,
good point about Keita.
He’s much better in games in which there are more spaces to run into, to latch on to second and third balls etc. Against a team like Inter, you need more midfielders who are adept at manipulating the ball in reduced spaces and this is not exactly Keita’s forte.
THat’s why I think it might be an idea to push Busquets further forward because in the absence of Iniesta he is the only other bona fide ball-playing midfielder for Xavi to associate with.
You can station Toure as the holder or play both him and Busquets as a central pair alternating duties… but I think Xavi desperately needs another playmaker in central areas(which Busquets is something close to)
Actually Roberticus, it was Toure who was used as an attacking mid by Pep this season. That is, till recently when Toure was played deep and Busquets pushed up.
Playing the 2 of them would mean the more attacking role could have been occupied interchangeably while both would be available when the defensive cover is necessary.
I like that line-up. It’s pretty much the only thing kind of logical he can do. Yaya as a DM with a player like Sneijder around who presses him is akin to suicide, but in a more offensive role, it makes sense. He also has a great shot, great ball control and could test Cesar better. It’s pretty much the only logical line-up I see.
I also don’t think that Ibra did his job that bad, but on a day when Dani had the stinkiest crosses ever, he got hardly any half decent ball and well, we could argue that Bojan might have made the better runs, but still.
It’s a real pity that Henry decided to end his career after summer 2009 and didn’t really tell anyone. Unleashing Henry of last season against Maicon who gives him some space, with Messi in center and Pedro on the other flank might have worked wonders, but the guy is not playable anymore.
Mahdi,
I don’t know whether it would be better to keep Yaya stationed as the deepest midfielder, since as you say, his passing can more easily interrupted under pressure, althouth by the same token he is much less likely to be bundled off the ball.
I guess the compromise would be to have both Toure and Busquets as a flexible pairing, alternating the holding and box-to-box roles.
Roberticus, I guess that this is what it comes up to. Good point also about Keite. I really really like him a lot but this wasn’t his game. In handsight we always know better, but maybe Maxwell would have been more suited to the interior role than Keita, Milito as CB and Puyol as LB. I really don’t know. The Cruyff Dream Team came back from a 3-1 defeat once against Kiev, this team should be able to do it too but they can’t certainly do that if they leave Ibra out of the game and play with 10 instead of 11.
It will depend on how deep Inter will sit and depending on that, Yaya and Busi need to alternate their roles. I didn’t really like Busi in the more advanced and Yaya in the holding role in Stuttgart but that was a different game on a small field.
This, by the way, is an illustration of the justification I’ve given above.
[url=http://this11.com][img]http://this11.com/boards/1271818796822951.jpg[/img][/url]
I mean,,,
http://this11.com/boards/1271818796822951.jpg
I have to disagree with your tactics. You argue their benefits well, but they would take away from the team in specific areas. Here are my points of disagreement, in order of importance.
1) Moving Xavi to the left interior position separates him from Messi and Alves. Without Xavi to combine with the latter two are forced to play more individually. All three players would suffer. It is telling that since Guardiola took over Xavi has never played on the left.
2) Toure cannot match the mobility, quickness, or quick passing that Keita brings. Keita also moves wide in possession very well and combines better with an overlapping fullback. In a game where Barça start two goals down, I don’t see the advantage of playing Toure.
3) Playing Messi on the right is an option, but it separates him from the goal. His recent goal scoring exploits were possible because of his move to the center in the pseudo 4-2-4. It seems clear the Guardiola prefers him there, and I can’t blame him. He is helped by Pedro on the right, because, as you say, he opens the field so well.
4) I do agree that occupying Maicon defensively is a concern, but given how lopsided I expect possession to be, I don’t think it is a priority. Inter do play a high line to stifle Barça’s midfield, so Bojan could be a useful alternative. He can start wide, and worry the center backs with his diagonal runs. He is a bit green for defenders of this category, and can be easily outmuscled, but offers mobility and penetration.
La Blaugrana:
re: moving Xavi away from Messi and Alves, yes I had thought about how that would interrupt a long-standing connection but even so, I reckoned it would still be worth it (Xavi to surprise Inter’s marking duties) and with minimal negative impact to teh Messi-Alves axis. Why?
- because Xavi would be barely left-of-centre and, depending on the movement of Busquets and Yaya, could frequently drift into a purely central area. Surely Xavi has the passing range to reach Messi and Alves from there! Indeed, when Messi inevitably cuts inside in the final third he would still have Xavi very close to him in a central area.
Again, I must reiterate that I prefer Xavi at right-of-centre as per usual but that these are mitigating circumstances and it will be improbable that Mourinho will not have designed some sort of semi-zonal-come-man-marking role to negate Xavi in his usual position. If the Xavi-Messi-Alves axis wasn’t working in the first leg, what makes you think that Mourinho will not try this again in the second?
Without hoping to sound stupidly obvious, I’m just trying to convey how Guardiola must try to thwart Inter’s plan of strangulation and yet without compromising Xavi’s comfort. I believe that in ’starting from’ left-of-centre, Xavi can still be at the heart of all things.
Toure vs. Keita: again, my main concern is logistical. Agreed that Keita is a preferable choice ahead of Yaya, but then don’t you want him to avoid picking up a second yellow and missing the final should they go through? This alone should be grounds for selection.
Now, in purely tactical terms, if we play Keita then Busquets must be the holding midfielder, whereas with Yaya we can add an element of role-sharing (between him and Busquets). Besides which, I really think that Busquets is needed slightly further forward to link up with Xavi.
Messi has become even better when playing centrally: agreed, 100%. But these are mitigating circumstances, and the perogative is to make the collective more fluid and cause Inter problems with marking. The only way I can see Messi being comfortably dominant on an individual level AND effective in the second tie is if he starts from outside right or if, maybe if, it is Bojan and not Ibra who starts ahead of him.
“….or if, maybe if, it is Bojan and not Ibra who starts ahead of him”
by which I mean, Messi would be in the hole behind the striker.
Pep needs to prepare to move Xavi into areas that Sneijder will not go and the DMs will be pulled out of position to cover. All too often it was easy enough for Sneijder to cover him deep in the midfield. If Xavi pushes up closer to the DMs, would Sneijder go with? If so, then Busquets will have plenty of space and time to pick out a good pass.
If Sneijder passes Xavi on, thats when Barca’s movement off the ball can create havoc, Xavi can check deep to receive the ball and will either be left by the DM or he’ll pull a DM higher up than they want to be creating some space between the lines.
1) If I was Inter I would give Barca the wings for 90 minutes, as their CBs are so comfortable with their aerial game that they can afford to do that. The middle in Inter’s final third would be clogged up as it was in the final 15 minutes of the first leg, with Sneidjer roving and trying to break up Xavi’s play and cause counterattacks. So the only route through will be through crosses from either wing.
I hate to say it, but I think you have to play Ibra because of his aerial game. Maybe if you pull him back as a false nine who can make short rushes into the box from just outside the D, that could work.
3) I was surprised at how well Zanetti stood up to Barca’s attacks. Even though their goal came from the left, it looked like Barca were basing most of their first half attacks against Zanetti. Whether he can do it again is another question.
7) Wasn’t sure about it at first, but I think having Yaya and Busquets out there at the same time makes sense in the way you put it out there. They haven’t been using Yaya enough.
I felt Inter did a fantastic job narrowing the pitch. This gave Messi less room, and it also made it very difficult for Barca to find the killer pass and play through the middle as they usually tend to do. Seeing this, I really expected Pep to use the wings a lot more, and use Messi to draw the wide players inside and then get the ball outside and try to work the ball into the box from the wings. I think Pedros first goal was a result of this as that chance and two crosses into Ibra were the only chances Barca had at all in the first half. Like ZM said, Messi did not have as much space as he is used to. Ibra was obviously part of the problem but I also think Messi should have dropped deeper and tried to make more runs from deep to try to influence the game. The second leg is very well poised! Like Mourinho said post-game, Barca could win 10-0 with their class. It will be very interesting!
I feel there were several factors that made Barcelona susceptible to Inter.
Barca play with great width, relying on their full backs to supply width in attack. This means that every pass that a Barca player makes is on average much longer than that of other teams, which tends to open up more space in the middle or on the other wing. The central space has been most successfully exploited by Messi, but since Barca played Zlatan as a lone forward Messi dropped back further, meaning that there were usually two defensive lines ahead of Messi as Motta and Cambiasso stayed in front of the defence. Barca were forced to play wide, but crosses that came in were generally dealt with.
How was that different from the way Arsenal played against Barca? Arsenal started with their defence too deep, with the midfield too far ahead, leaving a zone from which Barca could receive cutbacks or take long shots or dribble.
Barca play a pressing game. However, every Inter player had good confidence and technical ability on the ball, which often allowed them to retain possession under pressure, sometimes even opening up space by dribbling past Barca players. They also played long balls to their pacy forwards. This meant that they did not need much possession to fashion chances. Several individual performances stand out, such as Eto’o, Maicon and Zanetti. It should be no surprise that the quality of Inter’s full backs negated the wide threat of Barca as well.
Such a pleasure to watch Zanetti play so well. Incredible player.
I agree wholeheartedly. I love watching him play every time I see him. His composure, reading of the game and consistency are second to none. Messi (The Best Player in the World tm) gave him a brotherly embrace before the game and I imagine that’s not just because they went out to lunch together that one time. If Inter had a fit left back I would rather see him alongside Cambiasso in midfield than the aggressive but tunnel-visioned Thiago Motta. I’ll bet Mourinho wishes he had three or four Zanettis rather than just one.
All I can say is… wow. In my opinion, this is one of your best reviews – because of the detailed analysis.
I really would like to see you write an article on how Mourinho gameplans against his opponents without drastically altering his own lineup. Im sure you will have many, many readers for it.
Keep up the great work!
I dont understand why Pep Guardiola, did not play a striker in the last minutes, one could clearly see that they were lacking a man to target all that passing towards. He should hae taken out Pedro for Abidal and let Ibra stay there or at least bring some attacker as an impact player. One cant compare this Inter side and challenges Barca faced against them anywhere near to the Arsenal side, Arsenal were naive in their approach, and were always trying to play short pass back get the game moving in their way, which is almost impossible to do against Barcelona. Really it is impossible to get anything against Inter for Barcelona, because Mourinho will i think play his cards exactly right. Also this Inter team can well adapt to any tactic, with their strong mentality.
It is shocking to me, when looking at the UEFA diagrams, how tight Barcelona played. The average position of both Pedro and Messi were practically on top of each other. Obviously they weren’t like that in actual gameplay very often, but the fact that their AVERAGE positions were all so close to each other would seem to indicate (to me at least) that the formation didn’t quite fit the players. they were all in a sense battling over the same space. (You mentioned this with Ibra v Messi) But there was also conflict with Messi/Pedro Maxwell/Keita etc.
average positions can be deceptive. If a winger swaps sides and plays an equal amount of time on both, his average position will appear in the center. You see that in the second half diagrams for Pedro, Zanetti, and to some extent, Maxwell .
do you (or anyone else) have a link to these uefa diagrams?? i cant seem to find them on the website..
Great article and interesting comments as always. For me what stood out was:
- Messi driven deeper than normal, lessening his impact on the attack, probably as ZM notes to get away from Ibrahimovic. This meant Samuel and Lucio were comfortable enough to let Messi go and deal with Ibra should the need arise, while Messi got caught in midfield traffic and could not get his head up, or indeed face goalwards, for much of the game.
- Motta always there to step up into Xavi’s passing lanes, without really pressuring him in possession. Seemed like every time Xavi looked to play a ball into the attacking third, Motta was camped there in front of him. I think this rattled Xavi a little, and in the second half his rhythm broke down for a spell, at which time Barca looked very ordinary.
- Inter taking on Barca’s high defensive line by playing the ball behind quickly when attacking, not giving the Barca back four time to step up for the final ball. Milito was caught offside a few times, but they got their breaks in the end.
- For all the attacking prowess of Maicon and Alves, it was their defensive frailties that cracked the game open. Maicon was guilty of some horrid ball-watching and a pathetic attempt to block for the Barca goal, and Alves got sucked into covering an already marked player while leaving Sneijder alone at the far post.
- Finally, how about the comic cameo of Balotelli, loping around while his teammates killed themselves keeping Barca at bay? lol.
Xavi’s passing lanes were blocked as you say and he was extremely frustrated that he was unable to take control. There was one instance when he was thinking of a pass but had to play a short pass instead for Messi as the lanes were clogged. He reacted by screaming at himself and never looked in control.
I too noticed how Balotelli was running around missing shots. There was one pass which he miscued which if completed would have been a certain goal. But in the end, even he got back to defend in the end when even Pique was attacking.
穆里尼奥式胜利
This game of football is quite funny indeed. Just last week Barca was heralded as “one of the best evaaar.” Now a week later, they are only 1 point ahead in the La Liga race, with 2 very tough matches AWAY in the coming weeks against Seville (a team which made the first knock out round of the champions leage this year) and Villareal (a team playing great football). And they look to be out of the champions league with this debacle. They just went from the best eva to a team which may not win ANYTHING this year. This would be a drastic collapse of epic proportions…if it happens that is.
Barca are still a great team and still have a great chance to win all the titles. Mind you great teams arent only made up of cups and medals, its the way they play, way they have developed young talents, way they approach each game, that makes this Barca team great, the wins are only a effect of this all really – also having the greatest player in the world has helped them (all credit to Barca though). No one is calling them invincible or anything its just that the are well — brilliant.
Excellent work ZM, and my thanks for running such an interesting website.
I do disagree with your first two points about Ibrahimovic, though. He was ineffective; we can all agree, but I think it may be a symptom of problems elsewhere.
Messi and Ibrahimovic have combined well in the center before. This is not always the case, but when they are on the same page they can be a deadly combination. As you say in your analysis of the 4-2-4, the formation occupies the other defenders and gives Messi the chance to go one-on-one with his. Often this pulls the opposition midfield back to help, freeing up Xavi and Busquets to run the game. This did not occur last night.
Inter kept Xavi well away from their defensive line at all times. In fact, I can’t remember a single occasion when he had the ball beyond the Inter midfield. Without the threat of his (and Iniesta’s) passing, the Inter defenders did not have to worry about balls into space and were free to mark Ibra and Messi tightly.
Messi’s dropping deep was another symptom of the same problem.
It seems to me that Inter’s entire set up was designed to stop Barça’s midfield. Inter’s wide forwards closed down Barça’s fullbacks, preventing them from creating numerical superiority in the midfield. Inter’s high line and pressure on Xavi suffocated Barça’s ball movement and led to giveaways and counter attacks.
THIS was the problem to be overcome. I don’t think playing Ibrahimovic was necessarily a mistake.
I can’t wait to see how Guardiola plans to fix it.
Selecting Ibra also hampered the game of Xavi. He was looking for the looping balls for Ibra, which we knew (probably Xavi also did) were not working. He had to pass them sideways or towards the flanks without having the option of any move through the center. I for one didn’t see any triangles or one/two in the central areas of Inter Half. Despite an open game with time for midfield players, there wasn’t much fluency in Barca’s game in the final 3rd specially. I would give the credit to Mourinho but I think Barca never tested Inter that much. It was not a Barca-esq performance.
Dont’t think Barca can win 2-0 at Nou Camp, they will win but Inter will progress.
ZM: Looking forward to your preview analysis of 2nd leg already.
As always, great analysis ZM!
I agree with you that Zlatan was a bad choice today. He was stationary and not mobile at all, which is very essential at Barcelona. Due to this, he took Messi’s space centrally and more often than not, Messi had to drop very deep to get the ball.
Maicon was good, and I thought that the second half switch was to safeguard the left against Inter’s dynamic right. It also fielded messi upfront, but again, he had to drop deep to get the ball. Barcelona lacked dynamism today and its going to be difficult for them in the second leg. Mourinho will set up ultra defensively. Here is a shameless plug to one of the articles I wrote recently. It is on how Bojan et all help barca maintain fluidity that the likes of Ibrahimovic dont offer. It is not as good as ZM’s articles, but still…
http://arsenalcolumn.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/how-do-short-on-the-move-strikers-at-barcelona-help-break-the-bus/
@Roberticus- I agree with you that playing Messi in the wings will be a great idea. Zanetti is not as swift as him and it will attract one of the holders to him, which in turn opens up space in the centre.
first of all ‘analysis-very good’….bt i thnk blaming Pep for Zlatan is nt d ryt thng…In Peps view this was 1st Leg…n he wld hav xpectd a draw as d ‘worst case scenario’….so he expremntd wid zlatan..n hped dat he wld rightly rise 2 d occasion(nt dat Ibra is not a wrld class finishr)..,n above all Mourinho tactically did very well in countering Barca…n itz quite a adavantage for Pep as this is d MAX Inter n Mourinho can do(i thnk)..so he hs lotz of tym 2 thnk ovr abt d alternatives 2 b dealt with…
Wow.. Spot on.
The only thing i regret about this website is not knowing about it earlier.
my opinion is that is easy now to criticize Pep for his decision to start with Zlatan. what if Zlatan scored or did a good game? then Pep was a genius? i think that Pep was sure 100%that Zlatan was physically fit,and he counted on the swedish’s ambition to prove once again on Meazza that he is a top player. Usually players that are transfered to another team,when they come back for a game against the ex team and its fans,he has an extra ambition to prove. Regarding your opinion that Zlatan blocked Messi and took his space, i think that you might be right but when you make such decisions to play with a big,powerful and fixed striker, there are disadvantages meaning he is not creating spaces and does not ask the ball on free spaces with forward runs ,but also advantages and i give you one that Pep for sure thought about:he wanted to have Zlatan in between Samuel and Lucio, blocking them both and making them all the time focus on Zlatan’s abilities:power,with the ball on his feet but also on air. Playing without Zlatan and with Messi for striker, would have been a totally different approach of Barca’s last 30 m attacking strategy. Messi is more mobile but not a fix point and not a permanent danger in Inter’s central defending zone. harder to mark because he is on permanent movement but many time on areas of the pitch not dangerous. especially when playing against italians that are masters of defense.
More than a tactical misjudgement on Guardiola’s blackboard, I think the problem with was simply one of Ibrahimovic’s performance on the pitch. Had he been sharper, more mobile and less sluggish (he admitted himself last night that he’s not fully match-fit), he would have been far more effective at fulfilling the main function of the Barcelona 9 under the Cruyff/Guardiola scheme: el desmarque – finding space to move into (usually on the left these days) and opening up the defence by forcing them to cover him. In other words, when he’s on his game, Ibra doesn’t cramp the space that Messi needs; he creates it for him.
Food for thought: In the Liga match against Zaragoza last month, Ibrahimovic played the full 90 minutes. Although his finishing was ghastly, his work rate was commendable. And Messi scored a hat-trick.
from watching y’day’s game, i’ve realised this.
You can’t man-mark any of barca’s attacking players.
They hover about the whole pitch. For example, had Mou put Cambiasso on Messi, Inter wud’ve lost their shape with Cambiasso following Messi everywhere.
Zonal-Marking is the best, if you know what i mean
“the Pandev-in-and-Sneijder-out routine may have been a specific plan”
That was my exact conclusion after the game!!
I think Barca played a lot with the right, and Alves and Pedro weren’t that good as expected.Pedro had too many inaccurate passes and crosses from Alves were bad(that’s why it wasn’t hard for Lucio to dominate).A lot of passes from Xavi were aiming these 2 players, the space where Messi usually drop back and receives the ball to try individually was filled by Snejder and Motta and the team was blocked.I think Motta and Pandev’s positions were decisive in that game.I think Arg defenders Zanetti, Samuel know ways of stopping Messi’s dribbles and they won’t let him play in Camp Nou, so Barcelona have to try with the left wingers
Hahahaha.. I am loving this.
Barca made a huge mistake at the start of the season when they sold E’too and bought Zlatan.Its was a bad transfer both financially(I don’t think Zlatan’s value of 46million +E’too fee for a player who is known for for his poor displays in big matches can be justified) and tactically.Zlatan’s movement off the ball is always minimal and I thought Lucio and Samuel completely shut him down.The fact is Barcelona are not as good as last in last season when they had E’too and Messi scoring goals for fun , now its pretty much Messi alone who is scoring the goals.I bet E’too would have scored more goals if he was still with barcelona ,than zlatan,a big match flop
I agree in some way. I agree that Eto’o made Barca’s game more fluid and those two (and Titi) was a nightmare for a Defense Line.
I think the reason why Zlatan was bought was to break “bus parking” teams. After a year of being massacre by 4-6 goals from Barca, teams are going to play tighter in the back and play counters. Remember what happened against Chelsea last year? Barca was missing a target big physical front man to break those lines and score goals.
I do think that Zlatan is amazing but I agree with ZM that he is a bit stationary and not so mobile without the ball. This year, Barcelona is not playing as fluid as last year but maybe that’s because Zlatan still needs a year to adapt better?! Who knows…
To be fair, Ibra is just coming back from injury, has 20 goals this season (so does Pedro). Pep’s justification at the time was that the team needed to be ‘freshened’ up with some sort of change and that Ibra would be able to give the side something they were lacking.
Playing Ibra in this match didn’t work, but on the whole I think Barca would do the transfer again because it was another stamp of authority on the squad by Pep.
Great site and discussion, my congrats to ZM, it is exactly the kind of discussion I was looking for since time. I want just to point something that may have been important and that is Barcelona defense often lost track of Sneijder, not only with the Pandev-in-and-Sneijder-out routine. It seemed to me he was more often than usual the one receiving the final pass in counterattacks, like towards the end of the game when he misplayed a big opportunity. Keep up with this, it is a pleasure to read it!
clearly barcelona dominated possession and passing statistics, and certainly Inter spent much of the game defending off the ball – but ZM, do we think this was an attacking-intent formation? A counter-attack formation? Or, as against Chelsea, a play-attacking-players-to-nullify-fullbacks and therefore defensive formation?
I’m not sure how to classify this…
muy buena pagina lastima ke no este en español
ZM, I find it a bit disappointing the lack of an analysis on the system that Inter used to stop Barcelona. I am simply not convinced with the argument that Ibrahimovic’s inclusion left Messi without space. The thing that makes Messi the best player in the world and brings him above Ronaldo, is precisely the fact that he hardly needs space to make his influence felt. Besides, Messi already performed brilliantly this season when playing in this system and with these players. For some reason you mentioned that it is their standard formation. One other point against your observation is that Messi did play without Ibrahimovic later on and his influence was still almost non-existent.
One can simply argue that Messi had a bad day (possibly in part due to the long trip). Even the best in the world is allowed such “mortal” faults. Another explanation is the system that Inter had. It was the first time that I saw a combination of zone and help-side defence being played in football, since I usually see it in basketball.
It was amazing to see how fast Inter players would close down the player who was in position to get the ball (in opposition of having the ball) and how another player would immediately fill the vacant spot. It was seen countless times: Samuel moved forward to stay close to Messi and Cambiasso would fill in; Zanetti would do the same and Motta would fill in; Motta and Cambiasso constantly closed down Messi and Xavi with one being active and the other the “help side defender” (as mentioned in basketball).
It is highly effective but it needs to come out perfectly, otherwise it can fall apart quite easily, which is what happened with Barcelona’s goal. Maicon was beaten and thought that Cambiasso would cover. He did, but the presence of another player a bit deeper and more inside caught his attention and he moved to him, thinking that Lucio would take over. Then Lucio was distracted by the presence of Ibrahimovic and ended up not closing down Maxwell, who had all the time in the world to pick his target. The goal happened because a single mistake undid the whole defence. On the other hand, whenever it clicks well, it can be almost unbreakable.
The key, in the end, was to deny Xavi time on the ball and to defend deep. This way, any slalom by Messi (or another player) could be met with one defender after another (denying him the option of taking two or three at the same time, as he did against Arsenal) and Xavi’s laser-precision assists would not have space to fall.
One more thing: I doubt Inter will be ultra-defensive on the return leg. Certainly more defensive than last night, but Mourinho will certainly look for the away goal.
I think Joao has a very good point, and yes, most of the discussion has dealt with Barcelona system rather than Inter’s, focusing much more on Barcelona system’s flaws than on Inter’s achievements. I would like to read more analysis on what Inter did and how.
The really amazing thing Inter had done while defending is that they took their space so nicely. Not just simply pressing.
When one should mark/press a player, one do; when one shouldn’t, one held his positions perfectly well. This is the top most level of zonal marking. Only by doing this, they stopped a huge number of forward passing by Barça – in another word, they sealed the off-the-ball movement space for Barça players.
I think the main point was that Mourinho understood that, to make a pass, you need two players, one ball and some space between the players. He knew he couldn’t stop the passes (there’s too much space on the pitch to stop a team like Barcelona) but by defending deep and disciplined like Inter did, he could assure that the dangerous passes wouldn’t have either one of the players or the space in between.
i think with everything said and done one thing is very clear barca was playing a wrong system not because of choice but because of circumstances. if you look at the chart in the beginning about the two formations you can clearly see whats wrong you have zlatan as the front man then messi to his right then pedro to messi’s right and then you look at the left side and there is this huge space with no one. this is where iniesta plays and no matter how much we blame ibra for a lackluster performance it is actually the injury to iniesta that disturbs the balance of this barca side. now it can be argued that someone should have played in that position but i dont think there is currently any one in the barca side who can play the role iniesta plays.
This is very true, with the brilliance of Xavi, Messi and Ibrahimovic on the field it’s easy to forget the absence of, arguably, the best of them all, Iniesta. He would surely have made a difference.
For the fact that Barcelona were made to miss him, though, Inter deserve enormous credit. Arsenal didn’t face Iniesta either, but were still torn to shreds. Unlike Arsenal Inter were strong, confident, humble enough to recognise the superior technical ability of their opponents, brilliant without the ball and effective with it. Above all though, they gave absolutely everything for one another (Balotelli aside)
Thanks for the comment system change ZM, can actually find new posts!
Perhaps Barca’s biggest lesson of the night is simply that they need to enlarge the squad. A choice of an unfit Ibra, a 19 year old, and a guy who retired in his mind last year, is pretty poor!
João André Says: “[the defensive system Andre suggests inter played] is highly effective but it needs to come out perfectly, otherwise it can fall apart quite easily, which is what happened with Barcelona’s goal. Maicon was beaten and thought that Cambiasso would cover. He did, but the presence of another player a bit deeper and more inside caught his attention and he moved to him, thinking that Lucio would take over”
There’s definitely some flaws with this opinion. For starters the roles seem reversed, Cambiasso was beaten and he expected Maicon to cover. But this wasn’t a systematic breakdown, it was just terrible defending from Maicon. Maicon needed to beat Maxwell to the byline but instead hesitated and was caught in no man’s land.
Maybe Maicon was expecting something fancier from a Barcelona player or maybe it was just that defending isn’t his strong point, but Maxwell didn’t do anything special at all: He just got to the byline and softly crossed low for an easy goal.
This goal just didn’t much tactical significance. It was an inexplicable defensive decision from Maicon and it was a poor one no matter what defensive system Inter employed.
Tactically you could probably say that Barcelona exploited Maicon’s defensive weakness, but everyone knows Maicon’s strength isn’t defending and that’s why Cambiasso was so far to the right. But even this is point is pretty much a footnote as Barcelona was not able to consistently exploit this weakness.
Anyone who wants to see the goal again:
http://www.freesoccerhighlights.com/soccer/highlights/2010/04/21/inter-milan-internazionale-3-1-arsenal-sky-sports-highlights-uefa-champions-league-tuesday-april-20-2010/
If you look at the goal, you see that Cambiasso gives up the chase after noticing someone on the inside. Lucio does the same. It’s true that all started by Maicon not tracking back, but the following comedy of errors was due to the systematic support system existing in the team, which broke down because of one man not doing his job. By the way, I think Maicon’s a terrific defender, that’s why he gets the nod ahead of Daniel Alves for the brazilian national team.
to ZM: You are posting an interesting dilemma: To be prolific and predictable (mono-dimensional/high goal scoring) or to be less prolific and unpredictable in attacking (multi-dimensional/low scoring)? I guess the answer would be: it would depend on your opponent.
If you have a good opponent such as Inter to be unpredictable is a better strategy — as you sure would not bet on high scoring against them. So after the fact you are right. But before knowing the score, I have a feeling that Pep did the right thing playing a more diverse front, especially when all eyes are on Mesi .
Roberticus Says:
” Messi at outside-right to exploit Zanetti/Chivu at left-back”
Haven’t you seen the match man. Messi didn’t do anything against him. “The only way you can exploit Javier Zanetti is drug him, smuggle him to Sierra Leone and make him work 12Hours a day digging for conflict diamonds”
hope that guardiola plays in next game with marquez in centre he plays the ball better then milito. messi also needs to play as winger with pedro on the other side to make the ground open maybe with zlatan in the middle.
I think you are going a bit too far by saying Messi thrived at the Bernabeu. Apart from his goal, he was largely anonymous.
This weekend against Espanyol it was the same. Messi just isn’t a striker in a 4-3-3 type of formation. He needs someone to play high up the pitch in front of him so he can roam in the centre and on the wings.
And a front line of Maxwell-Messi-Pedro just won’t cut it. Ibrahimovic or Bojan need to play the CF role.
The problem with Ibrahimovic is that he is too static upfront so it was good to see him come deeper to receive the ball in the beginning of the match. Although his first touch and dribble aren’t as good as everyone makes out. In fact I would even say Eto’o had a better first touch and a better dribble. Something I wouldn’t have expected.
To me Barcelona has a big problem when dealing with teams that turtle around the area. When this is the case, Barça continues to try for through balls, but the space between the defenders and the goalkeeper is very short.
Against Chelsea, last year, they had Iniesta to score that all important goal. Against Inter, I believe that if they tried some shots from the edge of the box (where Inter’s defensive line was positioned at), they would draw Inter players out of the line creating spaces for quick passing and through balls. Barcelona really needs a player to fill this role and disrupt defenses that turtle around the box, specially teams that are so deadly on the counter such as Inter and Chelsea.
Many posts with sentences like “Ibrahimovic is a fantastic player but …”, “Zlatan is not fit just now…”, or something of that kind. If you have carefully watched all Barcelona matches this season, as I’ve done, you are likely not jumping at my jugular when I say the following: forget the playful young Zlatan with the Ajax, forget the cappocannonieri 2008-2009 when Mourinho couldn’t do much more than making the entire Inter to play for the Swede the whole season, the fact is that Ibra 2010 isn’t much better than what we saw last Tuesday. And I am very much aware that he didn’t get too many balls to play with in this game, all the same.
@Matt – at #97 has a great point. The scoreline, the tactical blunders of Guardiola, and the rarity of Barca being outplayed have so many people describing this as a huge defeat on every level.
I think Mourinho is much more likely to see it as I did. Despite outplaying Barca, despite winning the tactical battle, despite worst-of-the-season performances from Ibrahimovic and Alves, Inter’s win depended on refereeing decisions that could (and probably should) have gone against them. Milito was flagged for offside again and again–in the replay for his goal you can see him look to the linesman, knowing he was offside, and then celebrating only when it turned out not to have been called. The tackle on Alves in the penalty area–Mourinho knows this could so easily have been called correctly.
Without those two mistakes, Inter’s heroic effort and Mourinho’s tactical victory would have been in vain, and we would be talking about Barca’s away goals and the hopelessness of Inter’s task at the Camp Nou.
For me the biggest problem of Barca’s lost was Messi’s luck of space. We all know that if he has space he can do anything. And now the match was without Messi. He was nearly invisible. And Guardiola says that on his stadium he will be better. We will see. But if still Messi won’t be on the position he was always then Barcelona you lost!
Hello! aafkgee interesting aafkgee site!