Italy 1-1 Paraguay: Italy dominate possession but struggle to create
Italy dominated the game but rarely provided a real goal threat, whilst Paraguay sat back, defended and were happy to rely on set-pieces. Marcello Lippi’s switch to 4-4-2 on the hour mark resulted in Italy looking a far better side.
Italy started out in a 4-2-3-1 shape, with Claudio Marchisio playing the attacking midfield role ahead of Ricardo Montolivo and Daniele de Rossi. Simone Pepe was a slight surprise on the right, so Vincenzo Iaquinta switched to the left. Domenico Criscito came in at left-back, so Gianluca Zambrotta started on the right.
Like Italy, Paraguay have experimented with various systems in the build-up to the tournament, but went for a fairly basic 4-4-2, with the Borussia Dortmund pairing of Nelson Valdez and Lucas Barrios upfront.
High defensive line from Italy
The most surprising thing about the two sides’ tactics was how high up the pitch Italy’s defence played. With Fabio Cannavaro’s lack of pace a major talking point ahead of the tournament, many expected Italy to drop deep and defend on the edge of their own penalty area, but Cannavaro was happy enough to defend high up, and overall had a very good game, looking to nip ahead of the strikers when they received the ball to feet, rather than let himself be turned and outdone for pace.
Paraguay didn’t look to exploit this high line, however. Both strikers tended to drop into deeper positions and look for a ball along the floor, whereas a pass over the top might have tested Italy more. Valdez did a better job than Barrios when receiving these balls, buying free-kicks, and one of them led to the first goal, where Antolin Alcaraz powered home.
A lack of inspiration from Italy
Both sides were pressing well in midfield, and hence both struggled to get the ball into dangerous positions to create chances. Italy were doing well in central midfield, with Riccardo Montolivo playing intelligent passes, and both the full-backs were getting down the line and becoming involved in play. The problem was, as we all suspected, creativity.
Marchisio was barely in the game. Despite playing as the central playmaker in a 4-2-3-1 against a 4-4-2, he struggled to find space between the lines and generally picked up the ball too far from goal. He rarely, if ever, linked with Alberto Gilardino and played simple, sideways balls – surely that was the domain of Montolivo? Mesut Ozil showed how to play that role yesterday by being the game’s central figure, but the game passed Marchisio by and it was no surprise when Lippi looked to replace him later on.
Gilardino’s movement was as good as ever, but with Iaquinta not the most mobile player and Pepe hugging the touchline, there was no-one there to exploit the space he created. Pepe showed some good skill on the ball and looked to be Italy’s best attacking outlet, but his final ball was often poor
Switch to 4-4-2 changes the game
The game took the same pattern for the first 15 minutes of the second half, and then Lippi had seen enough and withdrew Marchisio, putting Camoranesi on in his place. This meant Italy shifted to a 4-4-2 and suddenly, they looked a much better side. Montolivo grew in stature as he was able to play higher up the pitch with Marchisio no longer occupying his space, whilst de Rossi became an all-round dominant midfielder rather than one playing a reserved role in front of the defence. In Camoranesi and Pepe they had two genuine wide players who stretched the play, and the use of two strikers meant that Paraguay no longer had a spare man at the back.
The goal came from an inswinging corner which Justo Villar made a complete mess of, but overall Italy upped their game with their new shape, to the point where it’s difficult to explain in logical terms why it was such an improvement. Their passing was quicker and the movement of individual players was more intelligent, and yet this was when they no longer had a numerical advantage in the centre of midfield. The new shape simply suited their individual attacking players better. Credit Lippi for making the switch, or criticize him for starting with a shape that plainly wasn’t working?
Gerardo Martino moved to a 5-3-2 for the final 15 minutes of the game, presumably an attempt to regain their spare man in the centre of defence. In theory this should have opened up the game for Italy’s full-backs to attack, but by this time they were both tired and with Pepe and Camoranesi occupying the flanks, had less space to exploit. They rarely looked like grabbing a winner.
Conclusion
In a tactical sense, Italy’s two formations were of more interest than the tactical battle as a whole. Paraguay defended well in two banks of four and kept it tight between the lines, but they were clearly looking for a point. Nothing wrong with that, and Denmark and the US have both had a similar mentality and done interesting things tactically, but there was relatively little to remark upon from Paraguay here.
Lippi faces some big decisions ahead of the next game against New Zealand, decisions which will be more complicated should Andrea Pirlo return from injury. He’s often been used in Marchisio’s trequartista position in recent months and would surely replace the Juventus man rather than Montolivo, who drifted in and out but largely did well.
The fact that Italy looked so much better in a 4-4-2 than a 4-2-3-1 would suggest that this is the way to go for the next game, but then that might play into the hands of New Zealand’s three-man defence. Expect the unexpected from Lippi.
Italy 1-1 Paraguay: Italy dominate possession but struggle to create
Good read as always, ZM.
I do have one question here. It appears to me that most people (including me) think Gilardino played a very poor game. He rarely threatened the goal, if ever. Lippi seemed to agree with the critics and subbed di Natale in for Gilardino. On the other hand, you stated “Gilardino’s movement was as good as ever…”, can you please elaborate on this point? What was his main contribution to the game?
ZM I always think you really overrate Gila who to many serie A followers is a decent striker…nothing more.
I think Lippi is making a mistake in playing both Iquinta who has poor ball control and dribbling skills and Marchisio out of position.
My point of view too. Iaquinta is the worst forward Lippi brought to the WC. Di Natale has more agility, technique, composure in front of goal, ans surely would be the best partner for Gila.
yeah i think Di Natale and Pazzo should start the next match if Lippi stays with the 4-4-2
I agree. Gilardino seemed like a waste of a good shirt. Iaquinta looked much more dangerous, especially in the 4-4-2.
I think this is harsh on Gilardino. He dropped off well tonight but nobody made use of the space he made.
For those of us reared on the English game, there’s a trap that can be fallen into with Gilardino.
For Fiorentina and Italy, I always marvel at his ability to hold the ball up in the face of adversity.
This is perhaps the result of years wasted watching British centre-forwards having to deploy their second-touch as a recovery tackle.
But after a while, you do start to wonder if Gilardino could do something more with the ball other than just caress it. After all, he sees an awful lot of it.
Since rejoining la viola he’s got 34 goals in 68 games – not many Serie A strikers can boast of such a ratio. Also, as ZM often points out, he has a really useful understanding of how to make space for teammates.
Now, I’d certainly prefer if the Italy strike force was:
Totti
Cassano
Di Natali
Iaquinta
Gilardino
instead of the current group, but Lippi didn’t ask me.
Thought Montolivo did well tonight, I’m glad he stepped up. Perhaps not enough to keep Pirlo out on his return though. Marchisio will be seen as the scapegoat given his slightly ineffectual performance in the first hour or so.
Some still don’t seem to rate Gilardino, he moves so well but needs a second striker good enough to get on the end of his knock downs and provide decent link up.
This site is awesome.
Now, I have a similar question, but this one in regard to Paraguay’s forwards: it seemed to me that it was Barrios who did a good job rather than Valdez. Could you elaborate a bit on this one as well?
By the way, I really liked De Rossi tonight. Class.
Italy’s problem was similar to Holland, early today: two quality players that just can’t work together. Montolivo and Marchisio marked themselves on the first half. Marchisio was on Montolivo creativity space, and Montolivo not allowing Marchisio to tackle where he likes, further back and not high up the pitch. They were both uncomfortable.
Actually, I don’t understand why Montolivo plays so deep at Fiorentina too. He clearly isn’t the best marker, even Pirlo is more defensive-minded than him. In a 4-2-3-1, he has to be in center midfield, not alongside De Rossi. Maybe if Palombo went on Marchisio’s place, it would be different: Montolivo would be more comfortable, with less defensive duties, and De Rossi could be a bit closer to the opposite area.
About Paraguay: it was a very, very disciplined game. They closed down the italian midfielders and wingers for like an hour, their propposal was to score from a counter or set-piece, as they did. Unfortunately, individual errors give away games sometimes. If Slovakia x NZ play a poor game (like Argelia x Slovenia, Japan x Cameroon), it can be a push up for Paraguay to qualify.
I also don’t understand why doesn’t Lippi switch Marchisio and Monto’s positions since Monto is more creative and Marchisio plays best as a CM
Your digram answers some questions. Marchisio had very little space to work in, with the two opposing central mids blcking him up. Montolivo and De Rossi had plenty of space but didn’t use to create, trying consistently to go through Marchisio and the wide players but none could find space.
Good analysis ZM.
Paraguay played the last 10 minutes with 10 men since Santana got injured and no more subsitution was left. Interesting the move from Martino to put Caceres as a back(he did it in his club Libertad) with Bonet moving ahead a bit and Vera going to the center to help Riveros(poor game by the way) in the middle.
PS: I thank Lippi for having Di Natale as a sub during most of the game.
I’m not quite sure about your interpretation of Marchisio’s positioning during his time on the pitch. The “Player Influence” diagram from the “Total Football 2010″ iPhone application suggests that they were relatively on the same plane, with Marchisio playing slightly ahead and to the left of Montolivo; De RossI a little deeper, ostensibly in front of the defence.
Ofcourse, I realise the statistic aggregates – but is also confined to – all “on-the-ball” activity (passes, interceptions and tackles, primarily) which perhaps bears out your contention that Marchisio often had the ball too far from goal. Indeed, the illustration of his passes during the game indicate that he often drifted out to the left flank to influence play, and briefly on the right side during the second half until he was hooked.
In addition, there didn’t seem to be any positional distinction between Montolivo’s deployment in the first and second halves, respectively. Again, that probably reinforces your assertion that his influence grew after Marchisio’s departure, but I would just that it was Montolivo’s tactical disposition, rather than his position, which changed.
Evidently, I’m being rather pedantic, so it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge what a terrific job you are doing with the analyses. Keep up the fine work!
Would it be better for Italy if they change their formation to 4-3-2-1? Italy Starting XI would look like:
Buffon
Zambrotta, Cannavaro, Chiellini, Cristito
Montolivo, De Rossi, Marchisio
Pazzini, Pepe
Giraldino
Aside from swapping Iaquinta with Pazzini, what exactly is the difference between that and the starting XI yesterday?
Well, In 4-3-2-1 Marchisio would drop back to play as box-to-box Midfielder on the left, the position that would fit him better.
Nice post as always.
‘The fact that Italy looked so much better in a 4-4-2 than a 4-2-3-1 would suggest that this is the way to go for the next game, but then that might play into the hands of New Zealand’s three-man defence.’
One question that i have is that with a 4-4-2, the 3 men at the back for NZ would have their hands full as opposed to a 4-2-3-1. How would defending against two CF be easier than against one?
It is not the matter of defending that ZM is talking about. As he had explained somewhere in this site before, playing 3 defenders against 1 forward would leave 1 excess defender, which is okay, of course. But this also means somewhere else in the pitch, the team playing 3 defender would have one men less in the middle of the pitch which probably results in the opponent having more control of the game. Having 3 defenders playing against 2 forward erase that problem.
Great analysis as always ZM.
Thanks!!!
Because NZ probably will not want to attack much, just sitting deep and waiting for Italy. With a 5-3-2 NZ will have a spare man in central defence where three defenders meet two attackers, and the NZ wingbacks will concentrate on the wide midfielders. In central midfield NZ wil again have a spare man, craming the space, and their two attackers thrathening the Italian centrebacks.
When a 4-4-2 meets a 5-3-2 the only players with space to operate will be the Italian full-backs. Zambrotta and Criscitto are pretty good, and can create opportunities.
But, as ZM said, expect the unexpected from Lippi, so he might just do something else;)
Thanks again!!!
ZM,
I disagree that Paraguay were “clearly looking for a point”. For most of the game, even after they scored their goal, they looked to attack with quick breaks (albeit foiled by some poor passing). Their defence kept to their line but I would hardly say they were playing for a draw except during the last 10 minutes when they looked too exhausted to get forward.
But the central-midfielders showed no desire to link with the very high strikers! Correspondingly, Vera and Torres showed more enthusiasm for winning the ball than using it.
My expectations were very low, but I thought we (Italy) did alright. Their goal came from a mistake, but I guess ours did too, so overall a draw is probably fair, even though we created more.
I think all players in our back four played better than they have done all season, although they weren’t exactly tested tonight. Montolivo got better as the game went on, and De Rossi was great.
That leaves the other four positions, where we clearly have to change something before the next game.
I am not the biggest fan of 4-4-2 in general, however it seems to work best with the players we’ve got. I would like to see a Pepe-De Rossi-Montolivo-Marchisio midfield, with Di Natale and Gilardino/Pazzini upfront.
This would also give us some flexibility should we need to tweak things – Pepe could move forward and Di Natale drift wider to form a 4-3-3. I feel Gilardino had no service and no one to work with, he needs a striking partner. I feel if we’re going to stick with 4-2-3-1, you might as well play Iaquinta as centre forward.
Honestly, Paraguay game is almost below average. Some players just play hot ‘n cold and “happy go lucky” to see Italy press them so much
I guess Lippi will leave Camoranesi in for the next match, and probably have Pazzini or Di Natale from minute 1. we must win, and we may be in a position where we have to score as many goals as possible, but I do not expect Lippi to switch to a 4-3-3; indications will come from today’s NZ match. a big issue for the future (not NZ nor Slovakia matches) is Buffon situation though.
I was surprised with how much energy Italy brought to the field yesterday, in particular the impressive Pepe, but you cant help but feel Italy are lacking a little spark up front.
If your forgo comparing them to the class of 06 it is my feeling that Italy left some of its better strikers/forwards out of the squad. The likes of Cassano, Balotelli, Borriello, Giuseppe Rossi and even Totti are undoubtedly better propositions would have offered a different dimension and I fear this will come back to bite them in this tournament.
It has to be added that Paraguay played anti-football. As ZM says there is nothing wrong with defending but considering they only got into the opposition area once in the 2nd half it was a pretty negative approach which slowed the game considerably. A point gained by Paraguay, 2 points dropped by the Azzuri
Was it just me that thought Paraguay were very cynical? Lots of kicks after the ball had gone, very heavy challenges, trying to make out they’d been hit in the face etc.
From what I saw they carried it on through the match. Italy seemed to start to join in midway through the second half though
I thought this as well. In many ways, especially the first half, they *out-Italy’d* Italy, in the cynicism stakes..
An interesting thing to note is that Italy’s goal could probably have been prevented by manning the far post. Given Paraguay’s general strategy it seems an odd choice their coach didn’t put someone there.
I think Paraguay knew that they would predominantly be on the back foot and without possession so I find it interesting that they went for 2 strikers up front.
The natural instinct would be – play 1 striker and add an extra brawler to midfield to not get outnumbered, plus hopefully break up more attacks and maybe even get that cheeky boot into the hot-tempered Italians.
I think from an underdogs point of view it was interesting to see Paraguay persist with 2 men up front (albeit the harder-working choice of strikers). In a way the managers hand was forced because it is clearly Paraguay’s strongest area. But it allowed the long ball to become less aimless. One striker may have been isolated but with 2 there was always pressure on the high line of Italy. It also helped curb the full-backs getting too cocky.
I think it increased the workload on the midfield (who looked knackered in the second half), and it was stilla thankless task for the strikers, but I think it was a good solution to the problem of being “under the kosh”.
I still suspect at half time an extra midfielder would have helped protect the lead though..
I thought Italy suffered badly (in comparison with their ‘06 team) from the drop off in quality of their full-backs as much as their lack of a true playmaker. Zambrotta is not as good as he was (understandably, four years later) and Criscito does not hold a candle to Fabio Grosso, who was left out, I presume for having a bad season with Juve (again understandable, Juve had a dreadful season themselves).
Its a pity Santon, Grosso or the much derided Dossena aren’t in the squad if Criscito is the first choice left-back.
I am a serie A follower (Juve) and trust me when I tell you Criscito is WAY BETTER than all the 3 you mentioed. It was the kid’s first game and he himself said that he was nervous so give the guy a chance.
oh and Grosso is the slowest player in Juve right now,all he does is thump the ball forward these days
I’ll take your word for it. I didn’t realise it was his first game. He certainly look quite unsure and I think Italy requires its fullbacks a lot of the time to provide width and crosses.
Santon is returning from injury I presume and we all know Dossena can be a liability at the back but he does like to get forward, thats for sure.
Good read as always, ZM.
Thanks!
I really hoped that Montolivo could do more. He needs better teammates with better movement – intelligent movement.
Great site. A lot of useful information here. I’m sending it to some friends!
I’ve subscribed to your blog