Honduras 0-1 Chile: Bielsa’s men live up to the billing

The starting line-ups, with Honduras 4-5-1 and Chile 4-2-1-3
It’s been a World Cup dominated by defensive football so far, so Chile’s all-out attacking strategy was a welcome change. They deserved the win, but should have scored far more goals.
Chile started with a back four, a slight change from their usual system (more on that later). This meant that Rodrigo Millar came into the midfield, and played between the two permanent midfielders. Upfront, Humberto Suazo was unavailable, and therefore Jorge Valdivia, a much deeper player, started in the central forward role.
Honduras started with a shape that was broadly 4-5-1, arguably 4-2-3-1, 4-4-1-1 or 4-1-4-1 depending on how you want to view the roles of the central midfield players.
Chile respond to Honduras formation
With the greatest of respect to Honduras, they did absolutely nothing interesting tactically or technically throughout the game, and pretty much acted as a dummy 4-5-1 / 4-4-2 side for Chile to demonstrate their tactical versatility against.
Because Honduras started with the one up top, Bielsa did his usual in these circumstances – fielding a four-man defence, rather than a three-man defence. His logic was this is that he always wants one extra centre-back against the opposition forwards. If the opposition are playing with two strikers, he uses three centre-backs, if they are using one, he uses two, with the wing-backs dropping back slightly to become more conventional full-backs (although they still have a license to attack). This means that the shape changes from a 3-3-1-3 to a 4-2-1-3, with Millar playing as the second central midfielder.
Pressure high up the pitch
The first thing to note is that Chile’s defensive pressure started right from the front of the pitch. The two wingers stayed wide and put pressure on the full-backs, whilst Valdivia closed down the centre-backs, and Mati Fernandez occupied Wilson Palacios in the deepest midfield position. Further back, the two full-backs played extremely high up the pitch, forcing Honduras’ wide midfielders into their own half. Most teams in this tournament have been content to defend by sitting back on the edge of their own penalty area, but Chile try and play the entire game in their opponents’ half.
The main danger when playing like this is the threat of a counter-attack. Chile try to combat this in two ways. Firstly, the Chile full-backs/wing-backs get into extremely advanced and central positions, meaning the opposition wide midfielders had to track them into positions not suited to a quick Honduras counter-attack.
Secondly, they try and break up the play with tactical fouling in the final third when they lose the ball. Fernandez and Carlos Carmona both picked up cautions in the first twenty minutes because of this, but it had the desired effect of bringing the game to a halt and letting Chile get back into position – particularly the full-backs.
Chile often ended up with six players in the final third and this was causing Honduras all sorts of problems defensively. They looked particularly dangerous in wide areas, where the wingers and wing-backs have a great relationship – the wingers often stay wide and allow the full-backs through the middle, but sometimes the wingers come into the centre and allow the overlap.
Upfront, the front three sometimes interchanged and Valdivia sometimes dropped deep, making the Honduras centre-backs the only free players, and giving them no out-ball whatsoever, penning them into their own third of the pitch.
Alexis Sanchez was Chile’s brightest player and showed some great touches, but he often held onto the ball for too long and slowed the pace of attacks. Chile were at their most threatening when they played one-touch passes through the Hondurans, with the movement of five or six players simply overwhelming the defence.
The goal was slightly fortunate, but showed what Chile did well – working the ball into dangerous positions in wide areas. Sanchez got the ball, slipped it to Mauricio Isla, and he crossed for Jean Beausejour coming across from the opposite side. 1-0.
Second half switch in formations

After the break, Honduras went 4-4-2, and so Chile responded with 3-3-1-3
After the break, Honduras switched to a 4-4-2, with Edgard Alvarez moving forward into a striker role. Therefore, Chile no longer had their spare player at the back, and as soon as Bielsa realised the Honduras switch, he got a substitute warmed up and he switched to three centre-backs, with the introduction of Gonzalo Jara for Millar. The full-backs pushed even higher up to become wing-backs, and the shape became 3-3-1-3. Bielsa is essentially proactive in attacking – always keeping his ‘…1-3′ regardless of the opposition, but reactive in defence.
Because of the instant reaction, nothing really changed. Isla and Arturo Vidal were still pushing the Honduras wide players back into a position they didn’t want to be in, and the extra striker did no good because Chile still had a spare man – and Honduras were without a midfielder to actually get the ball forward into goalscoring positions.
Chile’s formation changed but their overall strategy did not – still getting six men forward, still pressing high up the pitch, and still holding a high defensive line. They had plenty of opportunities to increase their lead, but without Suazo look a less potent force – he’ll need to return for them to play to their full potential.
The final ten minutes saw yet another shift in the formations, as Honduras introduced a striker, Walter Martinez, for the central midfielder Ramon Nunez – meaning Honduras were now three upfront against three defenders. No spare man for Bielsa, so what did he do? He went back to four at the back again (this time, with the full-backs remaining defensive) by taking off Vidal and bringing on Pablo Contreras, a defender.
Chile saw the game out, but 1-0 doesn’t reflect their dominance.
Conclusion
Chile showed why so many people have been so excited about them, playing positive football and taking the game to the opposition both when they needed a goal, and when they needed to keep a clean sheet. Bielsa’s ability to shift between two systems makes for a great tactical duel, although it was a shame we didn’t see the favoured 3-3-1-3 from the start.
The lack of goals is a worry, for Chile regularly got inside the penalty area but failed to take chances. Nevertheless, in tactical terms, they’ve been the most interesting side in the competition so far.
Honduras 0-1 Chile: Bielsa’s men live up to the billing




Interesting analysis. How do you all think Chile’s system will hold up against swiss defensive stability and a Spanish team that should have the quality to dominate possession? Seems like their approach is tailor made to beat up on weaker sides like Honduras but if they can only get one against this level of opposition can they score on the Swiss and create anything against Spain? Could this be their highlight of the tournament or am I being very harsh? (Didn’t see the game, only going on analysis/playing devil’s advocate)
The Swiss-Chile game will be fascinating. They defended well against Spain by playing narrow, but I think Chile will stretch them more…
excellent! sums the game up pretty well. I hope that Chupete Suazo gets healthy ASAP because his goalscoring touch will be essential against the Swiss. I guess he and better decision making by Alexis Sanchez were ultimately the difference between a route and winning 1-0.
Considering Honduras did try to squeeze the game, Chile at least showed that the way to deal with a defensive opponent is pace and movement. Spain didn’t exhibit enough of that today, against an admittedly more determined and organised opponent. Fascinated to see how this group turns out now, especially from a betting perspective!
Don’t think Chile will get much chance against well-organised defense (e.g. SUI).
Sanchez is a nice attacking-stopper, for the Honduras side. I feel that Chile team try to gain attack advantage by simply outnumber the defenders somehow. Not a good feeling.
ZM, excellent analysis again. Indeed it’s been a breath of fresh air to watch Chile play in this World Cup. Just wondering about your observation on Alexis Sanchez. I can see your point in terms of him taking too many touches and consequently slowing the attack down, but I do think his performance is a wonderful thing for World Cup as well. Not only has this tournament been lacking in attacking play, it has also been lacking in exciting and skillful displays from the flair players. I think only Messi, Ozil, and Elia (briefly) have shown that. Thus it’s wonderful to watch Alexis Sanches taking ppl on and doing his tricks. And is it just me, or does he really play like C Ronaldo?!
Here are three more that showed great flair on the ball:
- Robinho (Brazil)
- dos Santos (Mexico)
- Gervinho (Ivory Coast)
other players that impressed me were these three holding midfielders:
- Yaya Touré (Ivory Coast)
- Annan (Ghana)
- S.Poulsen (Denmark, despite own goal)
I think you mean C. Poulsen from Denmark – he is the holding midfielder.
S. Poulsen plays the left back.
Eh you are right, he played left-back. I did mean him though, not C.
Guess if I’m adding defenders now, I should complete my defensive line. Will pick Ivory Coast center-back duo
- Zakora
- Touré
and Brazil right-back
- Maicon
Damit the one game i miss, of the world cup and i miss the most attack minded game. Gah, plus missed two of the players i always sign on FM (Fernandez and Sanchez). I guess there is always the highlights
. anyone hear about the Kiwi who put $40,000 on slovakia to win in the 87min (easy money!) well you have now. great article as always.
Sanchez is usually awfully hard to buy from Udinese
And it seems like Fernandez’ skills have been scaled down in latest updates.
Ollie, I don’t know where you are located, but all the WC games are available (both live and replays) online through ESPN3 (free through certain internet providers). Out here in San Francisco, the Chile game is being rebroadcast this evening at 7PM Pacific on Channel 66.1 (Telefutura, Spanish language). That’s how I’m going to watch it.
Chile should have won 3 or 4 nil. Great for build up play but lame at finishing it properly. Great for build up play but lame at finishing it properly.
So often we hear about a team being brilliant even though they’re having troubles converting. But shouldn’t being brilliant include scoring goals as well ? I don’t think that Germany dominated Australia much more than Chile did with Honduras. Can someone bring back Salas and Zamorano ?
Will dominating teams failing to convert (Chile, Spain, Slovakia, to a lesser extent England, France and Ghana) be a pattern of this World Cup ?
I’m sure we’ll blame it on Jabulani. By the way, it is me, or the standard of long range shooting is pretty low up to now, with many players hitting the ball too late on the rebound (or is the rebound too high) ?
“the standard of long range shooting is pretty low” written just as Forlan scored a wonderful long range goal…
That was a total fluke goal. Deflection + crazy Jabulani dip + lazy goalkeeping.
true, but seen live, before the replay, it looked great
I don’t think the sky high shots can be blamed on the ball. However, thinner air and the ball’s “improved aerodynamics” makes the ball travel further and dip much slower. That’s why most free kicks either hit the wall or over the bar. It is too difficult to get the necessary dip.
Ufff, we really miss Salas and Zamorano, specially now that Suazo is injured. I hope he get well for the match against Switerland, he is really necessary to score. I don’t think we’ll have the same opportunities we had today, so we need effectiveness.
I agree that in this WC the dominating teams are failing to score. It’s strange that, for example, Argentina only scored one goal (HEINZE!!!) when the sum of the goals converted by their forwards (Milito, Tévez, Messi, Higuaín, Agüero, Palermo) during the last season was about 150!!!.
I hope this pattern changes in the next matche, for the sake of football.
Right. Argentina too failed to convert their domination into goals.
Don’t wanna bring bad karma, but your point about the number of goals in club reminded me of France in ‘02, when they had the top scorers of 3 different leagues (Henry, Trezeguet and Cisse) but failed to score a single goal.
Great analysis. Chile played really well, with a lot of players in the attack phase. I particulary liked the pace of Vidal and Isla. They usually reached the back line of Honduras and made a good association with the wings. Moreover they responded well in the defensive phase, intercepting opponent passes and preventing counter-attacks. Also I would like to mention the great work Carmona did, covering the spaces and his neatness in passing.
About the next match against Switerland, Chile has made really good performances with similar opponents, specifically Denmark and Slovakia, so I’m confident about that match. Of course Chile will have to be more cautious on defense because the swiss has good counter-attack and, as they showed against Spain, are very effective.
I’m looking forward about the tactic that BIelsa will use on that match. I agree with ZM that he disposes the defense acordding the number of attackers the opponent lines-up, thus, if Switerland plays with 2, we’ll see the expected 3-3-1-3. Actually, I think that he will line up the players that played the second half, with Jara, Ponce, Medel in defense. The full backs will be Vidal on the left and Isla on the right. DM, Carmona. The trequartista will be Valdivia. The wings: Beausejour on the left and Sánchez on the right. And I hope, really hope, “Chupete” Suazo as centre-forward.
Chile can not lose that amount of goals. With the result of Spain and Switerland, a good goal average is essential.
Regards
Do you know what’s up with Paredes? Has he been hurt, too? I thought he played a couple of good friendlies and could perhaps have been more effective up front than the duo of Valdivia and Fernandez.
He was sick during the weekend, he suffered tonsillitis, so I THINK he wasn’t in his best physical condition.
Anyway, I totally agree with your opinion. Despite Paredes is a secondary striker, he is much more effective in the up front than Valdivia. But it’s not the first time Bielsa improvises Valdivia as a striker, he did it a couple of times before and the results were exactly the same: lack of goals despite dominating.
Great analysis.
Awesome piece once again. I only saw the first half and loved what I saw. I watched all of the Spain game and I kept asking, “When are they going to play 1-2s and not keep crossing the ball against the brick wall defense? It didnt really happen. I see Chile and their quick passing causing more problems for SUI than Spain did.
I still think Germany has been the most entertaining side thus far with Chile and Argentina close from the games I have watched. I think a preview of the the Chile vs SUI game would be a fascinating addition to the site.
It’s important to note that Honduras was without arguably their 3 top attacking players: Deleon, David Suazo and Carlos Costly. Tough break and tough to win in the World Cup without your best attacking players.
Having said that, Bielsa just demolished Ramon Rueda in tactics. How boring was Honduras 4-4-1-1 especially down only 1-0 for quite a long stretch. There seemingly was no plan B for Honduras, despite arguably owning some physical advantages in speed and size.
Switzerland vs. Chile, Hitzfeld vs. Bielsa, Defense vs. Attack. Cannot wait!
So far it’s been mostly the Latin teams that have proposed offensive attacking formations and tactics.
Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil.
Uruguay is not precisely offensive… they looked offensive today because South Africa played to counter-attack… but Uruguay was already prepared for that. You’ll see that in their game against México they won’t be the ones proposing the attacks.
The fact they lined up 3 forwards and 2 forwards last time is more offensive than 1/2 the teams in the WC.
I am not proposing they are some attack oriented machine by any means but they had the courage to start 3 legit forwards at the same time and didn’t pull them and protect their 1-0 lead.
what’s the problem about nowaday’s football? 5 years ago you would see better games… I mean, this world cup and the last one were so crappy in terms of offensive, classic football, when the game is supposed to be won by scoring why keep teams rather “not-lose” then “score a pile of goals and give the sport a meaning once again”? Whenever i play a game i want to win, this guys just want the money! sorry for my english in any way xD
If the trend continues (of bunker defensive tactics to stifle more offensively gifted teams), then an evolution in the rules might be necessary to encourage offensive play. For instance, eliminate 0-0 draws and have those games decided not by penalty kicks, but by shots on goal (going only to penalties if shots on goal are equal for both sides). Or perhaps simply award more points to the team with more shots on goal in a tie- the team with the most gets 2 points, the other team gets only 1.
You could initiate other rules to encourage the flow of play. If you saw the Portugal-Ivory Coast game, it stopped every 5 seconds for a foul. Insane! Maybe something like basketball where players can foul out, maybe 4 per game.
I would be more hardcore, not giving any points to draws by any circumstances, that way you would see those guys kicking the ball like chetaa’s. I’m Portuguese and I hate this team, firstly because the hole nation stops to watch the game and that just pisses me off because we need to get the hell out of the crysis but all that matters is the national team from dawn to dusk. secondly they just keep doing the same portuguese style, always crying for some foul that was not taken or something, i mean, losing 10 meters of field because they stand still waiting for the refree. Thirdly, we have no striker, Makukula is the only portuguese striker scoring more than 20 goals these season and he was not called, instead we have 9 defenders lol, liedson and almeida are good but they can’t score.Man, I miss Scolari…
Sure, low scoring games are bad for those who watch the highlights, but the number of goals scored is by no mean an indication of the quality of a game. I enjoyed this game much more than Uruguay trashing SA. The swiss put up a surprisingly good challenge.
There is no real trend for negative football. 2 years ago, Euro 08, had some brilliant attacking football.
i was talking about the world cups not about the euro, read please, i’ve been watching some games and you know what i’m talking about so i shall not feed any discussion’s
Great review as always ZM.
Any chance for a review of the Spain-Switzerland game?
Great analysis, but I wonder how the game would have been different if the Hondurans started with a three-man offense, or against, say, a Holland? Given Bielsa’s reactive defensive formation, against a 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 he would play four defensive-minded players at the back, leaving Chile in a 4-3-3, and my impression has been that a four-banded offense with real width high up the pitch was what is attractive about this team. In a 4-3-3 in this situation, it seems like Chile’s attackers would have to drop deep to get the ball, and the strategy would become knock-the-ball-in-behind-the-defense. It can work (as Germany showed against Australia) but only if the opposition is playing a high defensive line. That leaves an attack-minded 4-2-3-1, 4-2-2-2 as a pretty real threat. How do you think they’d solve that problem?
Does anyone know how Chile train? I was amazed that they were able to keep up their pressing game for 90 minutes. I am officially in love with their “defend from the front” approach, even if it fails miserably later. I was impressed with how they managed to liberate their fullbacks without weakening their defense. Isla’s energy levels are freakish. The team lacks quality in attack though. They kept making the wrong decision with the final ball.
This is the first team to really excite me and I wrote the whole team a love letter.
http://defensiveminded.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/chiles-intense-pressing-gamea-love-letter/
Chile did appear incredibly fit, and it’s going to be difficult for a possession-oriented team to wear them down. On the other hand, Honduras simply wasn’t accurate with sending their passes, and was often static in receiving them (allowing the hardworking pressing Chileans to easily poach the balls from behind).
I also thought Honduran players on the counterattack were too generous. Several times as they were streaking up the middle, they passed the ball to a teammate on the wing as they neared the box, but the supporting player was in a less advantageous position, well marked with no passing options, and the attack died. I think they would have done better to continue forward with pace, perhaps drawing a foul in the box, or at least getting off a shot against a scrambling frantic defense.