Fulham v Atletico Madrid: tactical preview
Predicted line-ups
The tactical craze of the 2009/10 season has been deploying inverted wingers (that is, the opposite side to which their strongest foot would generally dictate), so it’s fitting that we have a European final that showcases two sides who take this approach to wing play.
Atletico, remarkably, have reached this final despite an abysmal European record this season, that stands at 2 wins from 14 matches. DLLDDL in the Champions League, DWDDDDWL in the Europa League. Moreover, this record is not even a surprising, harsh verdict upon their season – throughout much of the season, they have been awful.
They sit in 9th place in La Liga – disappointing enough as it is, but this is actually the first time in the entire season that they have found themselves in the top half of the table; for a month they found themselves stranded in 17th place in a genuine relegation fight. Replacing Abel Resino with Qique Sanchez Flores has seen them rise up the table and reach this final, but they are still far from a cohesive side.
The opposite could be said of Fulham. Frankly unable to match the raw talent Atletico boast, Fulham’s progress to Hamburg tonight has been based around a well-organised, disciplined defensive base, combined with intelligent, creative play in the final third. Roy Hodgson’s achievement has been to cram three clever, thoughtful attacking players into the same team. Many managers would find room for only two or three of Danny Murphy, Damien Duff, Zoltan Gera and Simon Davies, but Hodgson has found a system where he can utilize all four at once, with the focal point of Bobby Zamora playing as a fairly traditional targetman as a more direct threat.
As the underdog, one would expect that the onus is on Hodgson to adapt his side to Atletico’s, rather than vice-versa, but then Fulham have started each of their knockout ties as the underdog – and in each tie they have played the same formation, which has the ability to play primarily on the counter-attack, or to play a more outright offensive game and dominate the game in the opposition’s half.
Tonight, you would expect them to start with a counter-attacking style. Atletico’s system has pace on the wings and upfront, and leaving gaps at the back for them to exploit could see Atletico take a commanding advantage early on. Fulham’s start to the game will probably be similar to the gameplan away in Hamburg – which produced what was frankly a very dull game, but a good ‘half-time’ scoreline of 0-0.
That game was good preparation for tonight, not merely because the game is being played in the same stadium, but because Hamburg, too, play a system of inverted wingers, meaning John Pantsil and Paul Knochesky are at least used to the threat they will face tonight, and Fulham’s defence in Hamburg was notable for how narrow it played. Expect the same thing tonight, to force Simao Sabrosa and Jose Antonio Reyes down the line, rather than in onto their stronger foot.
In basic terms, Atletico’s system is very similar to Fulham’s. The main difference is arguably in the roles of the two central midfield players – whereas Dickson Etuhu is clearly the ‘tackler’ and Danny Murphy the ‘passer’, Paulo Assuncao and Raul Garcia are more well-rounded midfielders, although Garcia (whose position has come under threat from the cup-tied Tiago in the league) has more license to go forward. Their wingers are slightly more direct but certainly less disciplined, Forlan is less of a targetman and more of a poacher who likes through balls, and Aguero has more of a free role than Gera.
That said, this is basically the same formation playing each other. The problem was this match-up in the Hamburg v Fulham tie was that the pitch became incredibly narrow – with four wingers looking to cut inside and none of the full-backs providing a sufficient attacking threat. That could be the key tonight – which side manages to get its full-backs forward to better effect, or, to take it further, which set of wide players do a better defensive job against the opposition full-backs.
A tight, tense game will favour Fulham, with Atletico preferring a more open contest where their flair players have room to work in. Atletico will need one of them to have a star performance to win the game, otherwise Fulham’s resilience and cohesion could come out on top.
Fulham v Atletico Madrid: tactical preview
Edit: Baird is in the diagram, Pantsil is in the text. Apologies. More likely to be Pantsil.
Why no Dempsey here?
Zamora has been preferred to him, with Gera playing just behind. Zamora is a fitness doubt though. In the semi-final, Zamora pulled up just after half-time and Dempsey replaced him. Changes the way Fulham play slightly.
Before Dempsey got injured, they used to play him and Duff as wingers with 2 of Zemora/Nevland/Gera as the forwards. I hadn’t really noticed but it seems like Fulham found a system that works better with Davies and Duff instead.
The fact that Dempsey played in their last premier league match suggests that he’s not playing in the final (Baird is the only player in this preview that played in that game).
Dempsey might still start though if Duff can’t get over his knee problem.
Whether he starts or not, Dempsey will get on the field for sure
Ujfalusi – Perea – Dominguez – A. López
What about Ujfalusi?
Just saw your reply, I think its nailed on for Dempsey to start today
Sorry to be incredibly anal here, but can we just establish some clarity as to “playing wingers on the wrong side”, since there is clearly a difference between this happening in the midfield (like in a 4-4-2) and, on the other hand, in attack (4-3-3). For starters, in purist terms wingers aren’t even midfielders (or shouldn’t be, if properly deployed).
So, I see little correlation between Messi’s inverted positioning (in attack) and that of, say Modric for Spurs (in midfield)since they are occuring at different sectors of the pitch and with the aim to produce different effects.
A piece on the subject here, by Jonathan Wilson – http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/mar/24/the-question-inside-out-wingers – the final section concerns the differences you point out.
I appreciate the point and there is certainly a difference between a wide player in a 4-3-3, and a wide player in a 4-4-2, but I think it’s fair to have a blanket term for the two. There is also a further problem in the halfway house of the 4-2-3-1…would you describe him as a winger or a midfielder? And then 4-2-3-1 is so close to this 4-4-1-1 Fulham have been playing…
I’m not sure that there’s little correlation, though. For me, the inverted wide midfielder in the 4-4-2 and the inverted winger in the 4-3-3 have the same root cause – the rise of the attack-minded full-back.
Interesting that (under the broader definition of inverted wingers) we’ll probably see the same thing in the Champions League final with Eto’o/Pandev and Altintop/Robben.
“the same root cause – the rise of the attack-minded full-back”
That’s a valid point, but I can’t help but wonder whether the overlapping full-back is merely a side-effect or the prime mover in the wide player cutting in. Put another way: did the full-back’s advance cause the wide-player to cut in or did the wide-player’s inward movement encourage the full-back to overlap?! Chicken and egg.
For me, there is also a positive causational factor for the wide-player (midfielder) cutting inside and which exists independently of the full-back’s movement: the need to compensate for the lack of a specific playmaking No.10 in central areas. So when Pires would move inside for Arsenal, it was as much to provide a passing option behind the opposition’s central midfielders as to permit Ashley Cole to overlap.
In terms of the wide-forward cutting in, we already saw in the gioco all’italiana or even in the Argentine 4-3-1-2, the second-striker was usually a converted winger who would move from flank to flank, just off the centre-forward, and so the full-back was expected to advance in order to combine with him and the enganche for the purpose of making triangles.
I really think the desired objectives are different in both these cases, even if one of the effects (that of the overlapping full-back) are the same. In the case of the wide-creative midfielders, I think it is to generate more passing options in the midfield, whereas with the wide-forwards, it is to occupy as many channels of attack (outside left, insideleft, centrefw, inside-right, outside right) as possible.
With the 4-2-3-1, oooh, you have the point! We are splitting hairs to the minimal degree. In mitigation, the 4-2-3-1 can feature a central No.10 and so the urgency for the wide players to move in centrally becomes less acute; though of course, they may well engage in swapping of positions among the trio. Perhaps you could make this the subject of a future post? Such a dynamic must inherently be pretty demanding of the chemistry between its exponents since if both wide players and the trequartista converge centrally at the same time, a traffic jam will ensue!
In a nutshell: when Messi starts from outside-right of Barca’s attack, does he cut in to facilitate Alves’ overlapping runs? Primarily? I don’t think so. Arguably, the main benefit of such a winger moving diagonally into an inside-right channel is to threaten central defenders and to maximise his goal-scoring ability. That the full-back overlaps is an added benefit.
Also, in relation to Jonathan Wilson’s article: he mentions effective ways of thwarting such examples like Messi; putting right-footed Arbeloa at left-back for instance. To that we could add Zanetti in this year’s Champion’s League
…re: Arbeloa/Zanetti.
The crucial thing here is that either of these right-footed left-backs would be engaging Messi in considerably a deep area.
In the case of Fulham and Athletico, tracking the inward moving midfielders would perhaps entail more responsibility on the part of holding midfielders, as the full-backs will have to push up considerably to even engage with the playmakers, and if they follow them beyond a certain point, a corridor behind them is completely abandoned to the advances of an opposing full-back or else the lateral in-to-out movement of a striker.
There is a video interview with Graham Taylor on UEFA’s training ground website it which he highlights this particular aspect of Pires’ and Arsenal’s play.
Absolutely not. The attacking fullback has been around at least since Fachetti and before, and Inter didn’t play with wingers per se. Inverted wingers is also not a new fad either, and has been around as long as there have been wingers. Wilson may be a good historian and a decent writer, but his knowledge of tactics is at times suspect for someone held in high esteem.
What’s your obsession with constantly saying that inverted wingers is not a new thing? No-one claims it is not a new thing, merely that it’s been a distinct feature of this season.
Mainly because your articles keep implying that teams are only doing it this season, when that is patently incorrect. It was a distinct feature when I was playing, and it was a feature with Chelsea under Mourinho, and it was a feature with Utd’s and Roma’s “4-6-0″. I just don’t understand why you refer to it as a tactical craze of 2009/2010 when it isn’t.
I think you’re missing the point, mcgie76. ZM is not saying that said items were never
done before, just that this season, a lot of teams are deploying them, with a lot
of success; thats all.
I talked to my grand dad the other day, who is right footed, and he said he played
on the left wing in high school since it was easier to cut across and shoot it
with his right…
Precisely, you seem to misunderstand the use of the word ‘craze’, McGie. Saying something is a ‘craze’ doesn’t imply something is original, merely that it’s going through a phase of being popular.
In the late 90s in Britain, there was a ‘craze’ for schoolchildren to play with yo-yos, but no-one was claiming that it was the first time anyone had played with yo-yos.
If the word ‘innovation’ was used in place of craze you would certainly have a point, but otherwise it’s perfectly reasonable desciption.
I’ve gone to see Fulham play on many occasions, most recently when they hosted Shakhtar Donetsk. i’m also a keen follower of Atleti, and am not at all surprised by Quique’s good work so far. In the game against Shakhtar, Fulham struggled to deal with the quick passing, position exchanging and penetrating passes of the Brazilian contingent in the Ukranian side. What got them through, was their realisation that the best way to defend against these artists is to “throw rocks at them” as we say. They attacked an attacking team and exposed their defensive weakness. The same can be applied on Atleti tonight. The Madrid side are a nightmare on the counter attack, and with players such as Jurado, Forlan and Reyes, who are tricky, decisive and easily fouled, Fulham could struggle.
To win, i think the West Londoners should attack Reyes’ wing, play the long ball forward to Zamora and defend deep with different players tasked with fouling the the player with the ball on Atleti’s counter. It’s dirty and cheap, but can prove instrumental. As for the Colchoneros, their superior technical quality and quick passing (as Shakhtar did in the first leg at Craven Cottage). Atleti’s advantage in 1-v-1’s will result in one of Fulham’s fullbacks being sent off, probably Paintsil, who’s clueless in my opinion.
Hope its an enjoyable game, and may the better team win!
We aren’t a counter attacking side. There needs to be pace on the break to be a counter-attacking side. Thats not to say we don’t try to counter-attack. We just aren’t very good at it. Our release ball is long to Zamora.
The strength of the opposition midfield dictates whether we retreat into our shell or not ( though away games this happens regardless of who we play). If we are stronger in midfield we dominate possesion and can create chances.