Why Brazil’s breakthrough was always going to come from Maicon
It was inevitable that Brazil would eventually score against North Korea, and it was almost as inevitable that they would do so through Maicon, their rampaging right-back. Here’s why.
Firstly, the diagram on the left shows general positioning of both teams when Brazil had the ball in midfield. Brazil have four attacking players who play clearly-defined roles, whilst North Korea effectively had eight defensive players – three centre-backs, two wing-backs, and three central midfielders, the central one sitting deeper than his two colleagues.
This meant that they were effectively able to double up on Brazil’s attackers, particularly at the back. Although they did not implement a strict man-marking system, some of their players naturally tracked their direct opponent. These are marked by a red ‘glow’ around the four players being marked.
The right-wing picked up Robinho, the left-sided centre-back picked up Luis Fabiano, the left-back picked up Ramires, and one of the midfielders picked up Kaka.
This left North Korea with two spare men at the back. But because Luis Fabiano plays slightly to the right, and was therefore picked up by the left-sided centre-back, the two spare men were the central and right-sided centre-backs. They had no man-marking responsibilities (marked by a green ‘glow’), and looked to cover for their teammates when Robinho, Kaka and Fabiano got past their man.
It caused a problem on North Korea’s left, however. Elano moved into wide positions and was up against the left-wing-back, but because the centre-back on that side was picking up Fabiano, he couldn’t directly cover for the left-wing-back, meaning North Korea were already more vulnerable on that side.
This hasn’t even mentioned the Brazilian full-backs yet. Maicon and Michel Bastos both looked to get forward, but Maicon did more effectively. Why? For two reasons. Firstly, because Bastos often found Robinho in front of him, taking up his space. Secondly, because Bastos was attacking into an area of the pitch where there were spare players – albeit a centre-back.
Maicon, however, was often left in oceans of space, and the player who probably should have been tracking him, the left-sided midfielder Pak Nam-Chol (marked by a blue glow) was afraid to venture from his midfield role. Here’s a photo from just before the goal:
Now, if you draw an imaginary line to halve the pitch into two halves, Elano and Maicon are the only players on the opposite side of the pitch to the ball. The Brazil formation is slightly unusual as it features two players in the centre-forward position at this point, but the basic shape remains.
Maicon has a lot of space ahead of him, and starts to move into it.
Here it is from another angle:
A couple of seconds later, the move has progressed and Brazil have a two-on-two situation down their right, but one of the two North Korean players is Pak Nam-Chol, no 4, who is struggling to get across to snuff out the danger. He points towards the space that needs to be covered, in behind the left-back, but it can’t be covered because the left-sided centre-back is not one of the spare defenders, he is instead concerned about his man (who appears to be Robinho rather than Luis Fabiano, at this point).
By the time Maicon shoots, he is ten yards clear of the left-back, whilst the North Korean midfielder who pointed out the space remains in exactly the same position as when Maicon was 30 yards from goal. None of the centre-backs have come across to Maicon, as North Korea have got used to maintaining their two free men at the back, and (unnecessarily) have four defenders against two forwards.
Maicon, as we know, smashed the ball into the net. He got time and space on the ball because that was the side where Korea were less well-stocked. Either the left-sided midfielder needed to track him, or the defence had to shift across to let one of the ’spare’ defenders pick up Luis Fabiano, with the left-sided centre-back coming to meet Maicon. Neither happened, and Brazil went ahead.
This highlights two problems in different respects:
Specifically, defences become too concerned with the threat from Brazil’s left, and don’t prepare for the potential problems from their right.
More generally, this is the major issue with 5-3-2 or 3-5-2 formation – it leaves the opposing full-backs completely free.
And for those who believe Maicon didn’t mean to shoot, here’s his goal against Portugal two years ago:
Why Brazil’s breakthrough was always going to come from Maicon
Beautiful pictures, I wish TV would use these sorts of angles more in their post-game shows.
Yea, where are you getting these in game views?
excellent analysis. love your work. keep them coming
Another thing to note is that Brazil view opposition corners and free-kicks as opportunities to score. The opposition defense is usually still getting re-organized and regaining their concentration and may have lost their shape or one player get’s caught out of position. The Maicon game after NK had a corner from which they countered,earned a throw-in and quickly swung it to the right.
Actually, ESPN’s been pretty good with photos. They have this app where they freeze a picture and then change the angles and are able to move players around to accentuate their possible movement. Gullit and McManamanannnnan had the exact same sequence that Z put up.
ZM, do you think the goal was an accident? I know its a silly debate, but even though Maicon shot it a bit off balance, it seemed like he wanted to use the outside of his right, seeing the space between the post and the keeper, instead of crossing it back. I thought it was brilliant; Steve McMannnannmmanna thought it differently…
On German TV, they showed a quick interview with Maicon where he said he intended to score. Was only translated though, so a bit hard what to make of it.
Oliver Kahn (Tv pundit nowadays) assessed it as intended for sure (prior to seeing the interview), mainly due to power of shot.
He also showed how the goalie made the error, not because of how bad the goal looked but rather that he had no need to expose himself there by stepping away from line.
You’re right, those are good, not at the level of this complete view, but quite good. Another thing is the commentators have been getting better as the days go by. I for one am enjoying their heartfelt attempt to bring solid WC coverage.
If noone on ZM comments has pointed it out yet it’s worth saying here:
Maicon scored in the Confed Cup and in a friendly against Portugal on similar shots, in fact Dunga pointed out as much post-game.
Here are the links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiAqy_jeCzw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G798eedF7Ro
Enough evidence I think to say that Maicon will go near post when off balance or forced by the angle.
It was intentionally. He knows the goalie is going to try and catch a possible cross, the “right” thing to do, so he smashes it.
Brilliant goal by a brilliant full-back.
I think he was shooting the ball. First, he kicks the ball off the outside of his foot- extremely unlikely in the case of a cross, because the ball is either going to knuckle or bend agains the goal, and he has very little space to let that ball bend out. Second, check out his eyes- he’s looking back into the corner of the goal, not up the field at runners. Third- watch his hips torque around the ball, which you need to do to get the spin you want against your move.
This particular shot was actually taught to my team by an old Dutchman, but more of as a straight, knuckling off-foot shot that was supposed to keep a defender honest so that he would either give you space or let you choose your turn off your body. Low backswing, head down, quick power through the outside of the off foot. For example, as a right footed player, a defender would limit my ability to get to that foot with any power. However, with a snap turn and shot to my off foot, I force him to give me space or be very, very cautious about challenging me to the ball- he has to be sure he’s going to bet me to it, or I’ll make him pay to the corner of my choice (in theory). Your turn and motion add force, giving the shot decent power despite the off foot.
What Maicon did was add a bit of physical magic to it. He shaped it by getting his hips swinging out towards the outfield, transferring massive shape to a ball that, to hit with any power, normally has to be hit very straight. If you try to shape it too much, you can scuff it off the outside of the foot. He managed to shape and power a ball as if he hit it off the instep of the other foot, an event I’ve only seen once in personal play (one of our guys had played his way on to UCSB’s team, and was tearing his old school team apart, and pulled that shot out at a crazy angle). Pretty amazing, but given how he did it, it had to be intentional.
Maicon goal was excellent but to tell you the truth, without taking any merit from the korean goalkeaper through the game it was 50% goalkeaper fault who should never have that BIG HOLE open. It is the first thing any goalkeaper around the world will cover and this time he missed
Yeah I think he was shooting too. The angle of his body, the way he kicked the ball and (what no-one seems to be mentioning) the power he struck it at all suggest he was shooting.
Like I said, Kahn mentioned power of shot the minute the game ended on German TV ;=)
The very fact that he hit it with the outside of his foot is the deciding factor in whether Maicon intended to shoot.
Yeah, but you can miss that timing and then an intended cross with inside of foot becomes a shot. (Obviously won’t happen as often with a worldclass player like Maicon ;=)
You won’t really mess up the power though.
I saw Cafu do this too once in a pre-season friendly between Milan and Chelsea. So it might be a surprisingly common thing.
Another consistent way to break a 5 man defensive line with a static defender in front of them, like Korea ran, is to have a DM make runs toward the center and either atract a center back or shoot from distance. In this scenario, the DM player coming from behind is often untracked.
For instance, this comes to mind (but I am sure that there are better examples out there): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHayiqQfcTs#t=1m36s
Today Melo had a lot of space for shooting oportunities, but failed miserably at them.
That is why we (brazilian people and press) bash so hard on the Gilberto Silva – Felipe Melo partnership. It’s not that we oppose two defensive midfielders on principle (the 4-2-2-2 played on clubs still have them, for instance), but that it is pitiful that neither one of them is capable of shooting when needed.
Many close games at the Qualifiers and Copa America were won by subs Daniel Alves and Julio Baptista doing just that. More recently, Ramires against Tanzania. It would be safer not have to wait for a substitution or a great play from Maicon every game.
Agree 100%. Melo actually had the highest pass completion rate of any player in the whole tournament, but can’t be relied upon to shoot from distance.
Dani Alves for Melo is one of the most interesting subs Dunga can make against stubborn, packed defenses
Now if Dunga had called upon Hernanes…
Hi Lucas,
I mostly disagree with you. I´m not that fan of F.Melo´s football but I must admit he did a good job today. His passes were good(http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/statistics/players/passelength.html) and he fought for the posession in the midfield with sucess and no cards (Ramires was booked just 3 mins after the substitution). I think that one of the tactical novelties Dunga presented after the private training sessions was precisely the introduction of Melo as “the surprise man”. For several times in the game (including the goal pictured above) Melo dispatched a long ball to the opposite side full back and ran into the penalty area. He is not a creativity fountain at all but his presence makes Brazil rock solid and even harder to beat.
I definetely agree that Melo had good passing today and that he tried to make runs (great improvements, specially compared to his recement performances), it is just that he usually isn’t very successful at them.
Ramires yellow card was unfortunate, but I still am under the impression that he can defend close to as well as Melo, while providing an actual shooting treat against stacked defenses.
I also agree that having a player like Melo on the midfield makes Brazil a hard team to be beaten by stronger squads, but against Korea you should be able to get away with running Ramires or Alves there, since you lose very little compared to what they can offer.
Many thanks for all the excellent, and expert, analysis ZM. They are making the tournament dynamic.
I await with interest to see how teams adapt to the revealed tactics of opponents, and to see which teams have more to them than the already revealed tactics.
Maicon applied a sublime finish which few other players, let alone other fullbacks, could equal. Or was the goalkeeper at fault for presenting too much at the near post?
I don’t think so, chels. The goalie did what 95% of them do in this situation.
The problem was that Maicon did what only 1% of the players in general (not only full-backs) do: to try the unlikely.
Lucky for Brazil that maybe another fullback in the world to try a shot from there would be…Daniel Alves.
Brilliant, ZM. As brilliant as Maicon. Great analysis, me and my dad were watching the game and from the start, we both said “go Maicon, go! Run like hell!” hahaha
Once again brilliant analysis, but by now that’s pretty much a given with your articles.
Either way, this is good example of the failings of a 3-5-2 in the modern game, especially one as conservative as North Korea’s.
The Korean left back started to track Maicon when he got the ball but then stopped for some reason. I think if he stayed with him and put him under pressure then Maicon probably wouldn’t have scored.
I guess this can only be fixed by 5-4-1, or to break it into four-bands 5-2-2-1. They’ll have both “attacking midfielders” pressing on the side-backs instead of leaving them free.
Another point that’s confusing is that, when their defensive-midfielder defends, they don’t really spread and make a line of 6-players like South Africa did at some points in the opening game, instead, everyone stayed in their position. If they did that, this wouldn’t be a problem since the left-back will be able to stop Maicon while the left cb will be pressing against Elano and the central back will be marking Robinho at that moment.
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/9894/81423196.jpg
You can see here that the DM isn’t doing anything in particular, while the LCB is worried about Fabiano as you pointed out. If as I mentioned above, they formed a line of 6-defenders, they’d be able to have an extra-man on the left to stop Robinho.
As Inter have demonstrated excellently in the Champions League this season, having a second line of defense is very important to close those gaps, and North Korea didn’t do it.
The problem with that is that it leaves the defense very vulnerable to a through pass, something Brazilians are very good at.
I doubt Kim Jong Il will look to kindly on Pak Nam-Chol after reading this analysis. I hope you haven’t cost the boy his life.
Ah, but fortunately for Pak Nam-Chol, there are two of him in the squad.
More excellent analysis. BTW, where are you getting the photos from?
As much heart as this North Korean side has, and they were admirable, the tactical naivete was very evident on that play. Their positioning is very much like one of a raw side still learning its trade and how to cope with different types of opponents. Brazil stretched them very easily and pinned them back with every attack. They never really came out of their shell as a team. The type of crammed positioning shown in your images are almost inexcusable nowadays when dealing with a side like Brazil who have such capable wide players. Live and learn for the North Koreans.
Less tactical naivete – their tactical plan was very effective. The problem, as ZM highlighted, was excessive fear of the Brazilian forwards. There was one free man on the left side who stayed to double team Robinho instead of rushing to engage Maicon, who was basically left to himself.
I think that can very much be attributed to being tactically naive and inexperienced. Not knowing how to positioning yourself effectively or cover space defensively is a sign of immaturity. That’s not to say they weren’t brave, they certainly were admirable in that respect. That goes hand in hand with the inefficiency of a formation like NK played. It simply doesn’t cover wide defensive areas properly
I’d be surprised if they weren’t extremely naive. Most of their players are amateurs who play for the DPRK army and haven’t seen any games outside DPRK since it’s illegal there. I’m not sure if the coach has been allowed to study foreign games either.
In my world cup preview about Brazil before the game I noted that Brazil will struggle against parked Buses. This was a primary demonstration. With only Fabiano being capable to play inside the box while the rest of offense setup count on demanding the ball in the space the offense cant click against ultra defensive tactics (aside of long shots and set pieces). A player like Baptista instead of Elano will serve them better as he can make the runs to the box which make the fullback crosses more useful and create more spaces with the opponents’ fullbacks narrowing their positioning to support the center backs or a holding midfielder moving back for the same reason.
The notable change in the second half was moving Elano to partner Fabiano at the begining of the second half which created more space on both flanks. We saw Robinho making more attempts from the left and with Elano keeping the LCB and LB busy, Maicon had that attempt and scored.
Hmm no offense, but you seem a bit ‘know-it-all’ from the way you form your articles. Like the heading for instance – like you knew that was going to happen as soon as you saw the teams line-ups. What happened this time doesn’t mean it would have happened again – simply applying tactical reasoning for a simple instance is stupid, because no manager does that, it’s impossible.
You could see from a mile that Maicon would be the one scoring, assisting or creating the play that would create a goal for Brazil. You could see it after ten minutes. He always had way too much space and time. Give Maicon the space and time and he will destroy you. Unfortunately for Maicon, his teammates didn’t make many runs in the first half but in the second half there was way more runs and he became even more dangerous. ZM is correct in his assessment.
What a stupid comment.
Ah well.
ZM, what do you think about the Korean goal? It seemed as if Maicon got a bit caught out there..
Have you ever heard of inductive reasoning?
Initially, Brazil started as shown. However, by the second half, they had change formation a bit: Robinho was given a free role (reason why he’s on the right on the stills) and Kakà had moved forward (reason why there are two forward, Fabiano and Robinho, centrally, with Kakà behind).
That had left the space also open for Bastos. In the last picture you can see how he is alone on the left.
Also, at that point Ramires was not yet on the field. The guy playing in the space behind Fabiano was Elano.
The big difference in the attack was, in fact, Elano. Unlike Melo, who was playing slightly to the left, Elano was making constant threatening runs through the centre-right. Remember that Ramires didn’t come in until 30 minutes after the goal, for Melo. So up to that point the attack on the left had only one guy: Bastos, since Robinho was moved to a free role closer to the center.
The two extra central defenders were no longer free, but constantly facing Robinho and Kakà. Bastos on the left was faced by Jong-Hyok, who did a superb job. Chol-Jin followed Robinho, Kwang-Chon stuck to Fabiano, and Jun-Il marked Kakà. Yun-Nam was the guy marking Elano, who had become a clear risk.
Nam-Chol, their left mid, was the guy providing balls to the forwards. So he could not pay attention to Maicon at all times. When Maicon ran, as you noted, no one was marking him. Nam-Chol could have ran back to mark him, indeed, but it was supposed to work otherwise: at that point he was supposed to stay with Elano and leave Yun-Nam chase Maicon. Which he tried to do far too late.
In the end, it was Yun-Nam’s mistake for breaking order. Nam-Chol stayed as spectator in the centre, In-Guk had come to mark Elano.
In part, I think the rabid attack by Yun-Nam for the Korean goal was out of frustration, knowing he had compromised his team by failing to react. What Nam-Chol is pointing is simple: “remember the plan! I stick to Elano now, you run to cover Maicon! Hurry!”
So no, he was not scared of leaving the centre: he was not supposed to. What did the Koreans in at that point was the mental rigidity of their left back, Yun-Nam.
Yes, was interesting how Brazil’s shape changed slightly as the game went on. Do you think that it was a deliberate shift by Dunga, or just Kaka and Robinho were allowed to drift around a bit?
It was definitely deliberate. I’ve seen all the games of the CONMEBOL qualification and when Brazil found a strong defense (Paraguay’s is the strongest), they always did two things:
a) Give one of the forwards a free role;
b) Change one of the DMs/CMs to a more wide position, or sub him.
In this case, the latter happened late in the game when Ramires came in for Felipe Melo.
One of the key problems with Kakà is that he needs space. Given the number of bodies in the attacking half, he was a non-factor yesterday. Even when give the free role in the second half, his tendency was to stick in the middle behind Fabiano and Robinho, right in the place where it was most crowded –the area where he used to play at Milan.
Frankly, he’s shown to be rather poor at adapting. He could have done much more by moving to the left and complementing Bastos like Elano was complementing Maicon.
Elano is my MOTM because he was the organizing force in the attack, and succeeded where Kaka did not.
In the second half I felt like they were playing a fairly classic 4-2-2-2 with Robinho, Elano and Kaka all taking turns moving wide. The constant interchange of who provides width is often done deliberately in a 4-2-2-2 to cause the sort of marking problems for packed defenses that helped lead to Maicon’s goal.
In this case, not only were forwards and attacking mids moving back and forth between the flanks and the center, but they were also switching sides, adding to the complexity of tracking players for Korea.
Credit where it’s due to Fabiano. For 2-0, it was his canny shift away from the box that dragged his marker, creating the space for finding Elano.
top analysis as usual (presume you mean elano not ramires in 4th paragraph). have you seen anything from portugal and ivory coast that gives you a clue as to how they will fare with n.korea’s shape?
lol Portugal got 6-2 at that game, i’m very afraid of the game against brasil xD Hope we get a draw against them and a win against the koreans, i just hope xD
There was enormous space along the right flank all match. Given this, why did Brazil not utilize this space more systematically all match? Brazil didn’t question N. Korea on that side of the pitch nearly as much or as early as it seemed apparent that they should be doing. That was very odd.
And in the end, when they did score off the open right flank it still required a moment of technical and creative brilliance.
Perhaps it was an issue of it being the first match in the cup. But Brazil didn’t utilize space well yesterday. Too much of the play ran through the middle. Kaka, Robinho and Fabiano were too clustered together centrally, Robinho and Kaka in particular as Robinho kept drifting inward. There was a clear weakness on the right that was not attacked early.
N. Korea’s plan was clearly to stay compact and maintain their shape. Brazil’s lack of width facilitated this, particularly in the first half.
Watching that asymmetric open space on the right, I did wonder how Brazil would have played if they had even a moderately more creative player in the midfield to distribute the ball. My sense is that Maicon would have seen much more of the ball out wide on the right and received it much earlier in the match. Dunga has played the two volantes based tactical system for a long period of time and to great success. Against a Spain or Germany there are clear advantages to this. But against a team that was determined to stay compact and very conservative in it’s attack, using those two “destroyers” together made it more difficult for Brazil to exploit the clearest opportunity they had on the pitch.
Question – if as you said full backs can be very effective in 4-4-2 vs 3-5-2, why did you think that France playing 4-4-2 (proposed by English pundits) against very defensive minded Uruguay would be a bad idea? They don’t have Maicon, but Sagna and Evra can do same damage too.
Well, the full-backs were getting forward anyway, in France’s 4-3-3. The issue there wasn’t really the full-backs, because they were free regardless of what happened ahead.
You could also argue they were in more space in a 4-3-3 than in a 4-4-2, as they didn’t have wide midfielders ahead of them.
MAICON HAS DONE THAT MOVE BEFORE AND SCORED – HE DID IT AGAINST PORTUGAL LAST YEAR, IT WAS A DELIBERATE MOVE
I don’t know if anyone has pointed this out yet (I’ve only scanned the article and comments, will read them in greater detail later) but anyone who’s watched Brazil since Dunga took over has seen Maicon make that exact same move before.
When scanning the article did the massive video saying “Maicon, Brazil v Portugal” not stand out?!
i think you mean elano not ramires
Hey Maicon, next time do it like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8UkwirffjQ
“It was inevitable that Brazil would eventually score against North Korea, and it was almost as inevitable that they would do so through Maicon, their rampaging right-back.”
If you had posted that before the match I would be impressed. As it is, hindsight is 100/100, congrats (not) .
Post your predictions on what is INEVITABLE *before* matches. Sorry for the snark but stuff like *inevitable* in football contexts is extra obnoxious unless used with some guts – before the event.
I think ZM means the inevitability was growing during the match – I certainly thought ‘hmm Maicon’s getting a lot of space here, not long before he gets an assist’. It wasn’t clear before the match because no-one could 100% say how Korea DPR were going to handle Brazil.
I think that ‘free’ Koreans (those who did not naturally track their counterparts) were to strict to their pitch positioning. As you said, either the central centre-half or central CB should simply move to the left to equal the presence of Maicon – but they should do it EARLIER than the moment Maicon was entering the box at full speed.
As the game flows, there are situations when a player cannot just stick to the tactics, but should use a common sense…
Btw, is putting Ri Myong-Guk so close to the penalty area line on the diagram a probe of English sense of humour?
Hey Maicon, next time do it like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8UkwirffjQ
“optajean:
129 – Maicon currently holds the record for most touches in a game at the 2010 World Cup: 129 v North Korea. Dynamo.”
just proves your point. great article
found your site on del.icio.us today and really liked it.. i bookmarked it and will be back to check it out some more later
so goood page… thanks admin…