Serbia 0-1 Ghana: Victory handed to Ghana, but they deserved the win
Serbian indiscipline played a large part in the scoreline, but Ghana were by far the better side and deserved their victory. Their performance was a continuation of their Africa Cup of Nations tactics – defend solidly, cautiously counter-attack, rely on Asamoah Gyan for goals.
Serbia’s side, in a 4-4-2 shape, was as expected, with Aleksandar Kolarov in at left-back the one slight question mark about personnel going into the game.
Ghana played their usual system – a 4-3-3, 4-1-4-1 or 4-4-1-1 depending on how you want to interpret it. Anthony Annan, the tough-tackling holding midfielder sat ahead of the defence and got a lot of time on the ball, whilst the midfielders looked to play short, quick passes and link with Gyan when attacking.
Ghana extra man crucial
The extra man in central midfield was essentially the crucial part of the tactical battle. Serbia’s two strikers played high up the pitch – Marko Pantelic sometimes moved to the left-hand side and Nikola Zigic chased the ball when it was lost, but they rarely looked to move towards the ball, instead looking to receive long passes from the full-backs.
Ghana not only had an extra man in midfield, they also utilized him well, playing short neat passes and forming triangles on the flanks to play around Serbia’s wide players. Although Ghana did look to counter-attack by playing the ball to the attacking three, they were intelligent enough to vary their approach when a counter wasn’t available. Rather than going down blind alleys and losing possession, they instead were happy to keep the ball in midfield,and therefore were able to dictate the tempo of the game.
Serbia passing wayward
Serbia’s approach was slightly disappointing considering they had been tipped by so many as dark horses. They continually hit huge passes from the defence to the forward two (and sometimes the wingers when they became advanced), which rarely succeeded – perhaps partially because of the Jabulani ball which appears to be causing all sides problems with their long-range passing.
Because Serbia had a numerical disadvantage in midfield, in theory this was probably the right thing to do – Ghana were getting nine men behind the ball and were excellently organised, with the two midfielders doing battle with Dejan Stankovic and Nenad Milijas, and Annan sweeping up behind.
In practice, however, it didn’t help Serbia. They continually gave the ball away cheaply and were prone to counter-attacks with neither Milijas or Stankovic really playing a holding role. It also meant the technical quality in midfield was bypassed; Milan Jovanovic and Milos Krasic will be disappointed with their performances, but in truth they were rarely receiving the ball where they wanted it, to feet on the flanks.
Kolarov and Ivanovic fail to support midfield
The discipline of Ghana’s wingers and the nature of Serbia’s long ball game also made it difficult for Kolarov and Branislav Ivanovic to become involved in build-up play – Ivanovic is a reluctant full-back but should have been used more. Kolarov looked to moved into attacking positions – which works quite well as Aleksandar Lukovic can play at left-back and so is happy covering on the flank, but Kolarov rarely influenced the game in the attacking third – which is unlike him.
Again, the extra man in midfield was a good insurance policy if Kolarov got past Prince Tage – Kwadwo Asamoah could move out to the flank to confront him, and Kevin Prince Boateng and Annan would cover in the centre, still 2 v 2 against Serbia’s midfield. Neither Milijas or Stankovic looked to break into the box, and therefore Ghana were never really in danger either from the flanks, or through the middle.
Raddy Antic clearly decided that the midfielder partnership wasn’t working, and brought on Zdravko Kuzmanovic to try and get the ball moving in a more intelligent manner. Serbia did start to impose themselves more on the game, having more possession in the second half, but it was Kuzmanovic who eventually gave away the needless, crucial penalty. In the meantime Lukovic had been dismissed for a cynical challenge, and Serbia’s defence did look slightly prone to counter-attacks – they were lucky not to give away more free-kicks by breaking up counter-attacks with rash tackles.
Gyan the man
Ghana’s use of one man upfront meant they struggled to make too many clear-cut chances, but Gyan’s intelligent running into the channels did cause a constant threat to the Serbia defence. Ghana only had three shots on target, and they all came from the Rennes striker. He also hit the post twice – once from a near post header on the right, once from a low shot from the left. Lone strikers need to be able to cause a nuisance to both centre-backs, and Gyan does that excellently.
Conclusion
Overall, it was an nice summary of why 4-5-1 / 4-3-3 formations often get the better of 4-4-2s. Ghana were able to dominate the centre of midfield and control the tempo, whilst their wingers kept Serbia’s full-backs out of the game. They relied heavily upon Gyan for an attacking threat, but with their defence looking relatively secure, one goal was enough – even if it was gifted to them by Kuzmanovic.
Serbia were extremely disappointing and their long balls were gratefully headed away by John Mensah and Isaac Vorsah. They played better in the second half when their approach play was more intelligent and they started to draw Ghana’s defenders out of position. Taking Zigic off and putting on Danko Lazovic switched Serbia to 4-2-3-1 and they looked more confident, even when they went down to ten men, they played better football with 4-2-3-1 than 4-4-2, and it wouldn’t be a surprise to see Antic start the next game – a tough contest against Germany – with this shape.
Serbia 0-1 Ghana: Victory handed to Ghana, but they deserved the win
I was surprised by people tipping Serbia when, like you say, their 4-4-2 with an immobile Milijas/Stankovic partnership was always likely to be exposed in this group. Surely more of the same against Germany (and maybe even Australia) unless they adapt the shape.
Personally I thought we matched Ghana, even with ten men. We were just horribly unlucky to concede the pen and have a man sent off. We need to start with 4231, because that 442 didn’t work with Ghana
I can’t figure out why Serbia have the dark horse reputation in general. Yeah, they had a good qualifying campaign, but so did Denmark. Ghana showed more skill, power, and endeavor; they look like by far the most effective African team at the cup. I look forward to seeing them play again.
I agree Ghana has been the best African team by far to this point- their work rate is excellent, smart unselfish passing to move the ball through the midfield, and well-organized defense (none of the atrocious marking on set pieces such as we saw from South Africa). However, their attacking options were one-dimensional, either long strikes from outside the box or aimless hopeful crosses. While their direct offense, built on strength and speed, may suffice against similar teams (or teams with lax defending), they are going nowhere against teams with more varied and clever options (i.e. Germany’s complete attack today vs Australia).
I was about to say something just like ZM’s last sentence; surely it would be worth trying to sacrifice one of the strikers and push Stankovic further forward?
Ivanovic and Kolarov going forward more often wasn’t really an option given how high up Ghana’s wingers were. Overall Serbia’s hesitant attacking approach was punished.
Thought Ghana were more of a 4-2-3-1.
Serbia were just not compact enough all round. Too big a gap between midfield and attack so the forwards got isolated and long balls were the only way forward but without the midfield runners to get onto the knock downs. Better when they went from a three to four line system but still not enough and Ghana exploited them down the flanks as the wide midfielders didn’t track back well enough – again not compact enough. Only the individual excellence of the Serbian back 4 kept them in the game. One thing I thought maybe could have been noted, or maybe I imagined it, at times the left midfielder for Serbia pushed right on to make it a three man attack in the first half. Plus Zigic and the other forward swapped around a bit between playing in the hole and not. In other words a bit more fluid than the report suggests but since there was no support it didn’t matter.
Ghana were very compact – a physically strong side who can run all day and therefore compress the pitch in defence and attack and the centre backs did a number on Zigic really well. Their one problem could be a lack of punch up front but I could see them giving England a really hard game if we play them in the last 16 as looks likely – Gyan would give a Terry-Carragher combination a torrid time with his pace and Asamoah plays in the hole where we don’t have a proper holder and Boateng moves into there. The best African side so far by a distance.
while serbia were disappointing i didn’t think they were that bad, and i wouldn’t say ghana dominated – i thought it was a very even match which should have ended in a draw and would have, but for an individual mistake.
pantelic was woeful though, i think zigic will lead the line against germany, kuzmanovic should come in and redeem himself alongside stankovic, allowing milijas to push further forward in a 4-2-3-1 as has been suggested.
if the service into zigic can improve, if he can hold it up well and milijas, jovanovic and krasic make runs off him, germany might struggle without a natural holding midfield player. i’m keeping the faith and sticking with serbia to win the group.
by the way, what are the rules for teams finishing on same points? is it head to head or straight to goals scored?
Goal difference, goals scored, then head to head
cheers, i guess that makes germany even stronger favourites to win the group. still reckon serbia might beat them though
Hmm, maybe I’m biased but I think you did not watch the second half…
Ghana had one half chance and did look absolutely clueless the last 35-40 minutes.
With all the attention Krasic was getting on the right, left side was owned by Jovanovic, then Lazovic.
Anyway, after taking six hours off and clearing my head, I have a question: how do you get Krasic involved if he’s constantly marked by two players?
Thanks…
It’s not necessary. If Krasic is being marked by two players then there is space somewhere else on the pitch. It is just a matter of exploiting that space.
I think a draw was the just result. I too disagree with ZM. Both sides had good chances. In fact Krasic had a superb chance just before the goal and could have given Serbia victory. If it weren’t for a soft sending off Serbia might have won the game.
Such are the margins in international football..
Regarding Krasic, and to a great extent Jovanovic, they simply need support from full backs going forward which they were doing great during qualifying and for some reason didn’t do at all in the game against Ghana. Simply put, while both are very good players, neither is the calibre of player to create a chance out of nothing without support, dribble past 3-4 players or anything if the sort. Serbia is woefully lacking in central midfield and the wing play was instrumental in getting them into World Cup in the first place. I guess Antic was afraid of counterattacks and instructed fullbacks not to go onto marauding runs into opponents’ half. Unfortunately, by doing that he also stifled practically only Serbian creative outlet. To tell the truth, as a supporter, the game was nearly painful to watch. I guess for a neutral it could have only been much worse.
Hah! “handed” indeed.
In my eyes, the game was one of the most balanced so far, with fairly attractive ball played by both sides. Both teams were well organized, technically skilled and moved the ball around intelligently. Both sides had nice build ups, but just lacked the final cutting ball. Which I guess is fairly well expected, since neither team has that attacking midfielder or forward who can provide that moment of magic.
It was pointed out that none of the forwards were scoring in this tournament, except for Germany. Lack of quality finishers (Heskey, Altidore, raise your hands)? Tactics?
Serbia had no build up play at all, they were just hoofing the ball forward hoping one of the attackers would connect. Ghana on the other hand at least tried, but the balls into the box were mostly abysmal. Still the Africans had the better scoring opportunities in this match, without the penalty they probably wouldn’t have converted any of them though.
This is partly to blame on the terrible referee, who would award a freekick to Serbia everytime one of their players slipped, stumbled upon his own feet, etc., while the Serbs could happily kick, punch and tug Ghana’s playmaker Kwadwo Asamoah.
Anyway, this defeat was pretty much the exit for Serbia already. Considering their traditional mental weakness it is highly unlikely they’ll get anything out of the match against Germany.
One thing about the Balkan mentality you sir need to learn. We are at our most dangerous when we’re down and labelled as out. It’s when we’re riding high that we become weak. So anything can happen with the Germans. Admittedly we’re unlikely to win, but if the Ghanains only draw with the Aussies, and we pull off a draw ourselves, we could still go through.
Trust me, as a non-neutral supporter, the first half was also PAINFULL to watch. Especially the lack of first touch by Pantelic, Zigic and Krasic. At this level, you have to be able to control thigh high passes…
WEll i’m not sure where this balanced thing and Serbia could have won is coming from. Ghana hit the woodwork twice and could have been three up by the first half. Dede Ayew missed an absolute sitter as well. Considering the fact that their playmaker Kwadwo Asamoah did not even have a good day. They must count themselves very lucky.
Unfortunately, the individual mistakes cost Serbia the game. Serbia had more chances alltogether; they just couldn’t profit. Even though they played a little better after the red card, the penalty cost them the game.