Brazil 3-0 Chile: Dunga prevails over Bielsa in the tactical contest of the tournament
The starting line-ups
A fascinating game of two vastly different styles – with one clear winner.
Brazil were without both Felipe Melo and Elano through injury, and so Dunga chose Dani Alves on the right of midfield, with Ramires in a deeper, left-sided role. The rest of the team was as expected.
Marcelo Bielsa was missing the suspended Gary Medel and Waldo Ponce, the two first-choice centre-backs. He welcomed back Carlos Carmona from suspension, however, and was also able to call upon the fit-again Humberto Suazo upfront. Mark Gonzelez started on the left, and Jean Beausejour played the enganche role, with Mati Fernandez on the bench.
The most important feature of the game was pressing. No other international sides have as much focus upon pressing as these two, with Chile in particular defined almost entirely by their aggressive tactics in winning the ball high up the pitch, and denying the opposition space. They didn’t hold back from the start of this game, closing down all over the pitch and forcing Brazil into hurried clearances and long balls towards Luis Fabiano, and just like against Spain, Chile dominated the opening 20 minutes of the game, and even had more possession – something very rare against Brazil.
Their pressing in midfield was so strict and so intense, that it sometimes seemed like they were man-marking almost the entire Brazilian team. Every player had a man to close down – the diagram onthe left shows it well. Carmona was on Kaka, Vidal was on Alves, Beausejour was on Gilberto. The two wingers took care of Brazil’s full-backs, whilst Contreras and Fuentes dealt with Luis Fabiano.
One zone decides the game
The only problem was in the zone patrolled by Mauricio Isla, on the right of Chile’s midfield. His natural man to close down was Ramires, but this was complicated by Robinho’s drift into deeper positions, where Jara felt unable to track him. This meant that Jara effectively passed him on to Isla, which in turn left Ramires in more space than Bielsa would have liked, and he got more time on the ball than any other midfielder. Brazil were effectively adding another man to their diamond midfield and converting it into a pentagon, which overran Chile’s diamond through sheer numbers, whilst creating a surplus of Chilean defenders picking up Luis Fabiano.
The battle that decides the game: Jara (pink) has moved forward, Robinho (blue) hasn't tracked him all the way. Jara is not played in, and the move breaks down...
This seems to be an issue with Bielsa’s system. By so strictly and obviously wanting a spare man at the back (2 v 1 or 3 v 2, but never 2 v 2), and switching between 4-2-1-3 and 3-3-1-3 accordingly, he has allowed his last two opponents to give him a problem, as they both fielded players (David Villa and Robinho) in left-sided roles where it’s difficult to categorize them as a forward or as a midfielder. Chile’s system seemed slightly stuck in how to deal with a player like this, and it’s no coincidence that Robinho and Villa got a goal and an assist apiece. Granted, Spain and Brazil were the pre-tournament favourites and always likely to beat Chile, but their performances do offer a decent model for how to beat Bielsa’s formation.
Robinho v Jara
That right-sided zone was also key going in the other direction. Chile were attacking with their usual six players – the three forwards, the enganche, and the two wing-backs. This can often overpower opponents, but Brazil were generally defending with seven men solidly in front of their own goal – the back four, and the three more defensive-minded midfielders – Gilberto, Melo and Alves. This meant Brazil generally had a one-man advantage in the defensive phase of play, and Chile struggled to break through.
...suddenly, Brazil have got the ball forward, and Jara is way out of position, leaving Robinho in space to run at the Brazilian defence...
For a period in the first half, the whole match revolved around the game of chicken between Jara and Robinho when Chile had the ball. Jara wanted to get forward and join the attack, and was testing out Robinho’s defensive willingness. The first time Jara went forward, Robinho tracked him all the way. The second time he went, Robinho let him go free, and Chile had an overload on their right-hand side. The third time he went turned out to be the pivotal moment of the game.
Jara had steamed forward to provide an overlap, but was not used, and instead a poor cross was hit into the box. It was easily cleared towards Fabiano, who won the ball and knocked it down for Robinho, who hadn’t bothered tracking Jara. Suddenly, Brazil had their three flair players running at just three Chilean defenders, Bielsa no longer had his spare man at the back, and the ball was in the net with remarkable speed.
This came three minutes after Brazil had opened the scoring. That goal, a very simple header from a corner, where Juan used two of his teammates as a shield to get a free jump, could have been considered unfortunate. It was vaguely against the run of play, it was from a set-piece, it was a fairly unstoppable header. Chile could convince themselves that it didn’t reflect on the way they were set up, but the second goal was the real killer, because it underlined the fact that Chile’s all-out-attack style was playing right into the hands of Brazil.
Injuries help Brazil?
...it's three versus three at the back, and Bielsa is without his spare man...
Usually, injuries to first-choice players are a manager’s worst nightmare, especially in a World Cup. But today, Dunga may have been assisted by the fact he didn’t have Melo or Elano available. Not because they are bad players or would have had poor games, but because Dunga was ‘forced’ to turn to Alves and Ramires, two incredibly energetic players with tremendous stamina levels. Against Chile’s high-intensity, high-pace style, this was vital in making sure Brazil were able to compete physically, and in that sense they were probably better options tonight than Elano or Melo would have been.
Indeed, Alves and Ramires’ running and positional discipline caused Chile problems throughout. Those two essentially played as the ’shuttlers’ on either side of Brazil’s lopsided diamond, and meant that Chile’s wing-backs were forced to come inside to close them down, making their own diamond very narrow. Usually, the Chilean wing-backs are concerned with opposing wide players, and the fact they had to play much more centrally meant their wide, expansive game was much more difficult to maintain.
Full-backs key
Another area where Dunga played this game well was by telling his full-backs to push on forward. Chile’s use of high wingers often means opposing full-backs are subdued and fulfil exclusively defensive roles, but Maicon and Michel Bastos were both brave and forced Gonzalez and Sanchez into positions in their own third, far away from being able to influence the game in an attacking sense. Maicon was typically cavalier and linked up well with Alves, but Bastos had an equally good game – both when Brazil were attacking, and when Sanchez was running at him with the ball. Indeed, of the many positives Dunga can take from this game, the fact that the left-hand side of his defence was solid throughout (there have been questions asked) is an important one, for Juan and Bastos were two of the best players on the pitch.
...the Robinho-Kaka-Fabiano triangle plays its way through the Chile defence, and it's 2-0.
In the second half, many of Brazil’s most dangerous attacks came from ’surprise’ players. Lucio galloped forward more than once to prompt a counter-attack, whilst Ramires did the same. Brazil’s final goal came from a driving run from the Benfica player (something Melo never would have done) that opened up Chile’s side incredibly easy. It was almost as if Chile were so focussed on stopping the four Brazilian attacking players, that they hadn’t even considered the prospect of an attack from deeper. It’s also no coincidence that Lucio and Ramires were two players who had a decent amount of time and space on the ball, despite the Chilean pressing.
Chile tried and tried, but still couldn’t manage a goal. They probably deserved one for all their attacking intent, but ultimately they only succeeded in proving what a fantastic defensive side Brazil are. Dunga removed Kaka and Robinho for two defensive players, Gilberto and Kleberson, and Brazil shut up shop and saw the game out.
Conclusion
A wonderful game contested by two fascinating coaches. Both Dunga and Bielsa have created sides who play a distinctive brand of football, and have constructed formations that, on their own, have provided hours of debate. It was great to see them up against each other on the world stage, and it was also an open, attacking game – proving that tactical contests don’t have to be defensive, negative and cagey.
Chile are out. They were never going to win the World Cup, but they’ve won many friends for their exciting, attack-minded game. This is a wonderful young side that has a tremendous future, and hopefully the performance of the South American teams at this competition will spark a greater interest in football from that continent, and consequently, greater coverage of Chile.
Ultimately, a lack of individual quality was probably their downfall. They played an astonishingly attacking game, and yet only scored two goals in four matches. Suazo was not 100% fit, Sanchez didn’t show his best form, and all too often Chile got into the final third and seemed to run out of ideas.
Brazil look more impressive with every game. Chile’s system was perfect for them, but they took full advantage – it’s hard to draw any negative conclusions from this display.
Then again, at this stage four years ago they were looking fine, and then they crashed out with a poor display against France in the quarter-final, so the superlatives should wait. But they start Friday’s game against Holland as favourites, and should also be considered favourites to win the competition.
Brazil 3-0 Chile: Dunga prevails over Bielsa in the tactical contest of the tournament
Nice piece, was looking forward to another Chile break-down.
One thing that struck me with Chile’s attacks was how narrow they seemed. They seemed reluctant to use width going forward, passing inside alot, only to have their outnumbered forward/s swamped by the Brazilian defense.
Is this a constraint of their formation, or due to something else?!
It may have something to do with the general lack of height and aerial treath in the Chile team. I think all of Chile’s wide players realised that none of their forwards stood a chance against Lucio and Juan in the air.
I’m amazed at how you pick up all these plays. Are you able to see them in one sitting while you watch it live? It’s incredible that you’re just doing this as a hobby.
I agree someone should hire you on Espn, they need someone who understands the beuatiful game like you.
I agree, after moves you hope to catch something as the camera pans out to show who was where, but without replays or really good commentary I find it hard to get all the information I would want to know. You do a very good job of following everything.
Overall I was sad Chile had to face Brazil, it wasn’t a good match up for them, put them on the other side of the draw and they might have gone another round.
Sanchez was a slight disappointment this world cup, mainly because I had him in my fantasy team, lots of promise and very exciting but it didn’t quite happen for him…
If Chile had managed to get a goal in the first 20 minutes things might have been different but probably not.
It’s worth noting that the Robinho-Kaka-Luis Fabiano triad played 16 games together at the Seleção and, yes, Brazil won ALL 16 games when the trio were up in the pitch. They are proving to be very, very dangerous to any type of defense and even the ones that could handle them (like the overcrowded North Korea’s), can become vulnerable to a Maicon/Bastos bombardment in the flanks.
It will be interesting to see how Holland will fare against Brazil. Melo looks unable to recover and Ramires is suspended so I think Dunga will use Josué as a starter at his best kind of play, by man-marking Sneijder. Other than that, it will be a very interesting contest and we will finally see Holland’s defense being hammered by a top side. Let’s see if they can handle it. I have the impression that if Brazil scores first it’s game over.
That’s assuming Holland play an open game; remember, Van Maarwijk has proven willing to play in a more reserved way so far.
Plus, Van Bommel and De Jong are a tough as teak midfield.
But arguably Holland’s main strenght is the way they allow their front four to seemlessly interchange positions.
Great commentary as always. I usually have hunches about what is going on in these games, but I always check your analysis because I always find some nugget of insight that I missed watching my DVR.
The key to Holland v Brazil will be either Bastos or Ramires. Kuyt will surely try to stifle Maicon, but I don’t see Robben trying more than twice to follow Bastos on a forward gallop. If Van Persie and Sneijder can maintain reasonable pressure on the two more defensive minded mids of Brazil (likely to be Gilberto Silva and Ramires) they could really test Brazil’s pace in the backline. But having highlighted the left side of Brazil, one surely wonders if the positional understanding of Bastos, Ramires and Juan can stifle Robben– particularly if Gilberto Silva is pressed or Kaka runs down a few too many blind alleys.
The reason Brazil must be favored is that are comfortable without the ball as well as with it. Holland, perhaps not so much– even with Van Bommel and De Jong.
Tasty stuff on tap.
Just a slight correction: “They played an astonishingly attacking game, and yet only scored two goals in four matches.”
I believe they scored three goals. 1-0 Honduras, 1-0 Switzerland 2-1 Spain. Either way, a low return considering the amount of chances created. Definitely one of the most interesting sides in this tournament.
Great read ZM, thanks.
“The final question concerns which formation Chile will field. The 3-3-1-3 was so overrun in the previous games between the two, that a switch to the 4-2-1-3 would be not a huge surprise, though still unlikely.”…so prescient a comment in your preview..especially shown in the robinho goal when the 3 “centerbacks” were too splayed out to cope with the attack and eventual goal.
well done again!!! i don’t always gree w/ your estimates, but overall this site is A++++ in it’s knowlegable and stimulating assessment of this “violent chess match” of a sport.
I think Chile missed a trick by playing Beausejour as the enganche: he has proved most effective on the left-hand side of the front three, and the delightful, twinkle-toed Valdivia should probably have started in the enganche position: his passing and vision are exemplary. Gonzalez was disappointing, as he was against Spain, and Bielsa probably should not have started him. Also, Alexis Sanchez and Jara are equally culpable for the second goal – Jara for delaying the overlap (as the first poster has noted, it was surprising how late the fullbacks were in overlapping this game), and Sanchez for not having the awareness to see Jara’s run before playing the (very poor) ball from which Brazil broke at pace. The first goal showed how ZM was bang-on in suggesting Chile are not the best at defending set-pieces, something highlighted by Tim Vickery as well.
Interesting to see how Brazil come up against a very compact Dutch team: Van Bommel and De Jong have been excellent so far, and the midfield tussle between these two teams will be fascinating. I’m expecting the contest to be decided by the Maicon-Van Bronckhorst mismatch (Unless Kuyt is on the left and plays fantastically well both defensively and offensively). Any initial thoughts, ZM?
Van B seems to me the weak link in the dutch team so unless maicon gets injured brazil should have no problem
Even in that scenario(Maicon getting injured), they have Dani Alves as a cover for him.
It’s a shame that Ramires is suspended. And Melo is very doubtful for the clash — only 40% chance according to team doctors. As is Baptista.
So, Brazil’s midfield will be a bit undermanned, at least on the bench. The good thing is Elano will be available to start. The question now is whether Dunga will maintain Alves in the line-up or use Josue instead. I think he may stick with Alves to be honest, although he doesnt work quite so well with Maicon.
Players like Gilberto and Nilmar will be available as creative options…especially since Kaka is on the hook with a yellow card so he could well be substituted as the game progresses…naturally depending on the scoreline.
One question for you as brazilian team expert- Ramires got second yellow card, Melo is injured, who will start in position of Ramires/Melo? It seams this position can be extremely important for Brazilian defence because of Robben factor. Bastos loves to go for attack, so somebody from holding midfielders should cover him. Can it be what Gilberto will be moved to the left and Alves will start in the right side as holding midfielder?
Most likely Josué will cover the left side.
and it now looks like elano won’t play as anticipated. so that means Alves for Elano and Josue for Baptista. this would be somewhat ok, but our bench is getting quite thin now. only creative options are nilmar and gilberto off the bench. and neither really thrills me.
ZM keeps blowing my mind… very nice read, once again.
whoever made this site……..have my babies……no homo
Good report. However, Chile scored three goals in four matches, not two as you said.
On your Jara-caught-out-of-place graphic, you wrote “leaving Robinho free to run at the BRAZILIAN defence.”
Interesting read and valuable analysis, as always. Chile have just played the two tournament favorites one right after the other. This seems like an interesting opportunity to draw conclusions about both contenders/pretenders without lining up their squads on the theoretical chessboard. What lessons do you draw about each team and each manager from the way they took on Chile?
Obviously Brazil had more experience with this rather unconventional assignment, but I still felt that their showing demonstrated not only their tactical superiority and superior composure, but the ultimate trump of their un-solvable and razor sharp back 6 (regardless of whether it’s Melo, D. Alves, or Ramires on the pitch.
I wavered a little when the Germans failed to impress in successive matches against against the Serbs and Ghanaians, but after the last two days’ results I am feeling pretty good about picking Brazil 2-0 Germany in the final two months ago. Never, albeit in my short time on this earth, have I been more confident in a team’s likelihood of winning it all.
Great stuff. Can you elaborate more on the Brazilian defense? Today it seemed there was a wall of yellow everywhere, the Chileans seemed outnumbered by at least 3 men in the Brazilian half. I think it’s going to be very tough to score against Brazil if they defend like this. North Korea may be the only team to have scored against them at the end of the tournament
Ivory Coast?
Well. I wouldn’t say we were ever playing fine in 2006. Honestly, I was not at all confident when facing France. And while Parreira put out a good line-up, in theory, the fact that we never used a lone striker — Ronaldo started and a 5th MF in Juninho. It back-fired because we never used it before — and it was a drastic change. Add there were signs that we were struggling before. Very average games against Croatia and Ausralia. And a more than flattering 3-0 win over an Essien-less Ghana who had awful finishing — honestly not too different from this year’s Ghana, except Gyan is 4 years more experienced. Not to mention that Cafu, Ronaldo, and Roberto Carlos were out of form.
I don’t really see the same warning signs here. I really can’t say we’ve played a poor game thus far. We havent shown everything yet, although it doesnt help that we’ve picked up suspensions and injuries. Then again, neither have the Dutch, but it’s fair to say that we’ve been tested more in the run-up to the Cup and during the Cup. I’m expecting another classic on Friday.
Bielsa again picked his players badly. His tactics may be right, there wasn’t anything he could do about that, but the players…yes he could. Leaving Valdivia on the bench for Beausejour in an improvised position was a clear mistake: he was practically erased by Gilberto Silva. If Bielsa didn’t had any other option, ok, but he did and didn’t used it.
But frankly, nothing he could’ve done, with Brazil playing such a strong game. Andre Rizek, a commentator from Sportv (here of Brazil), compared our team with a snake: it stands there, almost if it was half dead, moving around quiet and slowly, and then BAM! One bite and that’s it, the poison is injected, and the prey is down. That’s what been giving confidence to brazilian fans: the incredible way the players define games as if it was easy for you, me, anyone.
Valeu Gus,
I agree; Valdivia offers far more vision and penetrative passing than Beausejour – who, by the way, would have been better employed than the wasteful Mark Gonzalez at outside-left of the Chilean attack.
Here’s to hoping we can see Valdivia back in the Brasileirão soon after his exile in the Middle East.
Even I, a SC Internacional supporter, want to see Valdivia back in Brazil (don’t care if it’s for Palmeiras). He is truly a playmaker, a “number 10″, in his peak, he can do what no one expects.
A fellow Colorado!
I also supporter Inter!!!!
I love Inter!!!
The thinking seems to have been for Beausejour to use his greater energy and physicality to close down Gilberto Silva, the worst passer in the Brazilian team. Chile must have been hoping to force him into mistakes but Brazil adapted by using Lucio in the Gilberto Silva role when in possession.
It was a huge risk by Bielsa and it backfired because without a playmaker his team gave the ball away in the final third and were punished.
I love Chile and their crazy approach but teams like Brazil will hammer them.
I agree with the energy of Beausejour, but Mati Fernandez could have done the same job pressing and letting his position for Mark Gonzalez.
Then after the half time, Valdivia could have been a more suited punsh player for the second half.
I think that Bielsa was wrong with this formation… I don’t think that Chile had a really great chance to defeat Brazil, but there was this tiny window to do it for the first time… and they blew it.
I was very dissapointed with the game of Alexis Sanchez also, he never used his speed to go further into attack. He always seemed to prefer the most static than the euphoric game that he’s used to.
Anyway, I think that Brazil did a superb job on the defensive side. There was always 2 or 3 guys over the attackers from Chile and when they had the ball, they pressed very fast to the side of Claudio Bravo, who wasn’t able to do much difference in the game.
I think the Dutch can really trouble Brazil. Robben, should he start on the right, could well expose Michel Bastos as a defensive liability. And Kuyt’s physicality and technique might blunt Maicon as an attacking threat down the right. Plus, Ramires is out due to yellow cards, and de Jong and Van Bommel have combined very assuredly so far. The Netherlands have yet to concede from open play, although their two penalty concessions fit their profile as a foul-prone team, averaging around 13 a game. Moreover, they seem to have finally shed both the mentality that puts aesthetics ahead of results and the petty disputes of yore. I was encouraged to see Sneijder allow van Persie to take a free kick in the second half, particularly after their on-field bust up at Euro 2008 and subsequent feud.
However, Luis Fabiano is in the kind of form that makes one think that he’ll eat Mathijsen and Heitinga for lunch. Going back to the group stage, this Dutch defense has given up at least 2-3 solid opportunities to each team it’s faced, but none of them had a finisher of his caliber. At the very least, he’ll keep them occupied and open up space for Kaka and Robinho, one would think. As impressive as the Netherlands’ streak is – they have won 23 on the trot dating back to a September 2008 reverse against Australia – they have yet to face a real world class side in that span. Worse, RVP has looked off the pace for much of the tournament and done little to suggest that he can unsettle Juan or Lucio. Huntelaar, though something of an anachronistic “goal poacher,” has looked livlier in his appearances and might pip vP to a spot.
But, just as the US ultimately succumbed to its habit of conceding early goals, I think the Netherlands will pay for its habit of allowing the opposition clear goalscoring opportunities.
All of these players have had, or will have, clear scoring opportunities against the Netherlands’ defense: Which one of these is not like the other?
A) Nicklas Bendtner, B) Shinji Okazaki, C) Jean Makoun, D) Robert Vittek, E) Luis Fabiano
2-1 to Brazil.
The Dutch central pairing could be horribly exposed against Brazil, considering that they had to rely on a few great saves by their keeper. In the second half Vittek kept on finding space, and if some of those offside calls went in his favor the game would have been very different. Bendtner actually never had any space against the Netherlands, but I was watching the game at 5 am so my memory might be hazy.
But I think you’re right that the Dutch could trouble the Brazilian defense with their 4-2-3-1 with rvp on the shoulder (he’s not as fast as can be, but he’s still intelligent and most of the Dutch points have come through him) and sometimes dropping deep and Sneijder making runs into the middle and Kuyt and Robben running behind the full backs, turning it into a Dutch 3-1 vs. a Brazilian 2-2. Also, the Dutch are the tallest team that Brazil has played so their physical dominance might come to end especially if that “typical German” Van Bommel continues his flirtation with the officials (my friends and I counted four times he winked today).
My guess is that the game will be played in the midfield with the attacks coming on loose balls played forward to the wingers/fullbacks.
The penalty against Slovakia wasn’t one that should have been given though. Camera angles clearly showed the striker decided to ‘link/hitch’ his foot into the goalie. Try watch a slow-mo, you will see.
Brazil really had that clinical striking you need to win a tourney like this. Chile played great in the first 30 minutes, and up to the final third of the pitch they seemed to play so fluid. But then there was this huge rock in the way of the goal – Brazilian defense.
To me, it feels that if Holland would go ahead 1-0, Brazil could always add something to their game to recover (e.g. aforementioned bombing of fullbacks). I am not sure the Dutch have this, if Brazil would go ahead 1-0 instead. None of their defensive 6 has any kind of scoring touch, only van der Wiel has shown some upside which I doubt he will be able to live when being forced to defend against Robinho.
So with that, I hope the dutch score the first goal, and Brazil will be forced not to play the snake (which I think is a very fitting symbol, especially given patience shown in all their games so far). Don’t we all want to see the all-out attacking Brazil that have to overcome a deficit? =)
Looking forward to the game.
“….all too often Chile got into the final third and seemed to run out of ideas.”
This happened w/ Bielsa’s Argentinian squad in 2002 as well. I wonder how both of Bielsa’s World Cup sides, so focused on attack and so prolific in terms of goals scored in qualifying, could fall so short in the tournament itself. Last time around, people said Argentina players just weren’t fit enough; this time, they may say Suazo and Sanchez were just out of form. But I wonder if there is some problem in Bielsa’s system here– I’m a novice in terms of tactics, so would appreciate any theorizing anyone could offer on this topic.
Many thanks to ZM for all the beautifully clear and illumating analyses!
Not sure about the 2002 Argentina side, but as regards to this team, they didnt score much because they clearly lack a world class finisher. They attack well and create good chances but run out of ideas in the final third as they have no one to convert the chances and half chances which mostly decides who wins the game.
i agree with Don, Chile have many playmakers, tricky wingers, marauding fullbacks and hard-working midfielders, but only Suazo to count on for scoring. They completely dominated Honduras & Switzerland but managed a solo goal against each side. Against Spain, this weakness reared its ugly head, as early possesion wasn’t translated into goals.
It doesn’t make sense to score so many in the eliminatories and “fail” in the cup, but this is football. I’m extremely dissapointed at Chile’s elimination, but proud of a team that has made its nation so happy. Chile played superlative football, everything you hear about the game, everything that attracted you int he first place. Its a shame the score was so depressing and doesn’t reflect who actually played football as we like it.
All respect to Bielsa, I love a man who sticks to his ideals
Chile was my favorite team to watch so far, love the play-style. And this is coming from a German ;=)
Being a young team, they ll have four years to find the right balance regarding aggressiveness & tackles and hopefully find a few more options for finishing, should their prime striker not be fit/ in form.
Hope Bielsa stays and we see more in the future, good luck!
There’s a rumuor that Bielsa would move to coach Mexico. Sad for Chile if that happens as i loved their performance in this world cup. They are the winners for me. Cheers!!!
Leaving physical issues aside, the fact is that a team that is constantly putting so many players on offensive roles many times it ends up denying those players the space they need and thus makes it easier for the defense. Finally, the lack of space generally forces his team to end up the play with a cross.
At least, that was frequent in Bielsa’s Argentina, who did not suffer against most South American sides, who have defensive frailties and/or lack height in their defense, but against European sides with tall central defenders with good heading skills, it was a recipe for disaster.
in my opinion it was 4213 by chile which also explains the jara-robinho situation. we didnt see much of isla on the wing because he played more centrally, with carmona, and it was jara running down the right. and change of formation proved fatal for bielsa as it left too much space for robinho on counter-attacks, whom no one else picked up there.
ZM,
I’ve heard rumours of Bielsa heading to Mexico to take over from Javier Aguirre (where Bielsa has coached club football before).
Also, there has been speculation of Manuel Pellegrini returning to coach his country.
Might we postulate, in terms of overall tactical approach and playing style, how both countries would stand to benefit from such respective appointments?
Regards Chile, you are right to argue that Bielsa has left this very young team with a tough, competitive streak and invaluable tournament experience.
Obviously Pellegrini is a million miles away from Bielsa tactically (more of a 4-4-2/4-2-3-1 man and his teams tend to play through the centre)but at least he will inherit a side who will nevertheless be comfortable playing an aggressive pressing game – much like a European club side.
This should be a very good foundation for their Copa America side next year (held in Argentina).
Now, as for a Mexico side under Bielsa; sounds like heaven!
Think about it; a much larger pool of players to choose from, many of whom play in one of the world’s highest-playing and best organised leagues plus a considerable overseas contingent to add variety.
In Guardado, Barreta, Vela and Salcido, Bielsa would immediately inherit wide players ideal for his system and who look best when playing at an aggressive, fast-tempo.
Also, there is the Dos Santos brothers for creative probing and in Javier Hernandez the potential great goalscorer that was so missing from this Chile side
Thanks as always for the analysis. I was thrilled to see Bastos get a good game in before the quarters. I hope he is feeling more comfortable with the team now (there were reports that he was a little isolated as the new guy) and I hope he puts in another good performance against the Dutch.
One silly/wishful prediction I made before the Cup came true today – Brazil had all 4 “full-backs” on the field at once: Maicon, Daniel Alves, Michel Bastos and Gilberto although it was only for five minutes. It seemed clear to me that with Gilberto in the game, Michel Bastos was even freer to go forward. I wonder if we’ll see that at all against the Netherlands.
I’m hopeful Kaka, Luis Fabiano and Robinho will be a little more in sync by that game too, there were times today when the pass was too strong or they just missed connecting or bumped into each other. If they fix that they will have good opportunities in the quarters.
A Netherlands x Brazil preview would be a big hit I’m sure. I hope you have a chance to write one.
Small break after today, so let’s keep fingers crossed =)
Bielsa showed why he is called “El Loco”. Playing such an attacking football against Brazil is just crazy.
Not just against Brazil. When basically the same story is repeated twice, consecutively, it can’t be coincidence or bad luck any longer. Both against Spain and Brazil good openings, fairly equilibrated match and then concession of a “cold” goal. Right after the goal, in both cases again, all-out kamikaze attack leading to maximal and unnecessary early exposure which soon resulted in 0-2 and more or less game over.
Praise to Bielsa where is due but while he surely is a good manager to build up a team and get good results in a long clasification series, he may not be the best coach for matches in the WC setting.
Sorry for my lack of exposure to Bielsa on club level but did he ever manage to create a similar style of football for a team in club football? I could see that to be extremely successful, especially given not having to win each game as in a knock out style tournament like the world cup.
Bielsa coached Velez Sarsfield last, way back in 1998 and won the primera division that year. He was given a managers job at Espanyol but he chose to coach Argentinian national team. Apparently he doesnt have much coaching experience at league level.
Thanks a lot.
I did some more digging myself, and found some great stuff written in Spanish (thanks google translate!)
Pretty crazy stories around the guy lol. True legend. Ideology of 11 attacking, 11 defending decades ago. And he apparently started at a local college but had to stop after he realized that his ambitions regarding training were too much for the amateurs not pursuing a football career
He also won the Argentine championship with Newell’s back in 1991.
Chile’s real downfall is the quality of players. Their play in final third was always lacking the bit of creativity and precision to make a goal happen. I really feel for this team. Great passion and great aggressive play, but in the end the players were let down by their own abilities and moment of madness (Villa’s goal).
Hi, I’m in China here. Love your analytical pieces on tactics. The only problem is that I couldn’t view the pictures on your site (since I think you made some adjustments to the site last time.)
I don’t know if it is only my problem or something is not right about your site?
Thanks!
Hey,
I can see them fine from Germany. They seem to be all hosted here: http://www.imageshack.us
Does your proxy allow to view pictures over there?
Enjoy the world cup!
Thanks!
I can see the problem now — the site hosting the images is blocked here!
Damn the GFW.
Ah thats a shame :/
As ever, ZM’s analysis is perceptive and intelligent, but I feel that he overestimates the effect of the teams’ tactical strategies. Brazil have tended to do well against open and attacking opposition in the past, and this game was no exception. The result flattered them, although it was of course pleasing to see Brazil play with measured assurance instead of with the stiff and inflexible caution that is more often the mark of Dunga’s approach to games. But I think ZM is right in pointing out that the absence of Melo and Elano turned out to be a benefit to Brazil: there was a lightness and elegance about the team that we haven’t seen before, and this may have been due to a slightly more ambitious midfield than we have come to expect from them. Brazil’s defence is first-class, and the Kaka/Robinho/Luis Fabiano triangle comes to life from time to time – but perhaps not consistently enough, or with persistent threat. One Brazilian journalist described last night’s team as being like a somnolent snake, biding its time to strike with power and venom. If he’s right, Brazil may win the competition, but they still have much to do if they are to prove his point.
The Netherlands, interestingly, are not unlike the current Brazil in that it is hard to make out whether they are simply a competent team or a very good one. Friday’s match may be revealing and exciting, or, as in the match against Portugal, Brazil might revert to dull caution.
I think Netherlands will prove much more difficult for Brazil’s defense. While Chile is aggressive, they are pretty direct in the final third. Netherlands is far more creative (than either Chile or Brazil), and their movement off the ball is more likely to pull Brazil out of shape. They also won’t be victims of the height mismatch Chile had, and with Robben and Sneijder, they have just as deadly outside shooters as Brazil.
My concern is Van Persie. I haven’t been watching him close enough to see what value he has off the ball, but with the ball, not only has he been ineffective, but he seems to be playing on a different team (his own) than the rest of the Dutch. I’d rather see another player start. I hope Van der Vaart is fit; he’s been quite good, more room to express himself here than at Real Madrid. And Dirk Kuyt has been phenomenal.
To me, Brazil are the New York Yankees of this competition, or the cyborg Oakland As of the Jose Canseco era (or, if you will, they are the traditional Germany of this competition). No disputing their talent at defending and counterattack, but one hopes they are sucker punched by a more clever side.
Wow…you are a brave man criticizing Brazil on a football tactics website! Dunga’s Brazil are the true team of tactic aficionados due to their highly systematized approach.
Saying that the Dutch have been pretty interesting themselves. The world has certainly changed since the 70’s now that the Samba Boys and the proponents of Total Football are 100% results orientated these days. The days of yore are over!
Meanwhile Germans are making a good case away from relying purely on goalkeeper performances…
The world definitely has changed. The answer to the question, which teams decision to abandon their roots, in some way or another, was a smart one, has yet to be answered =)
While I appreciate the tactical rigor of Brazil, the skill of their players, and the way that they play as a team working for each other, I can’t help but criticize them. I understand that the goal is to win the world cup, and I admit that when I play in the park for far lower stakes I’m still all about defense, but as a spectator, as a fan, I want to see the football Chile plays and I am very sad to see Brazil triumph.
I too am not a fan of this current Brazil side and wanted to see them lose, but didn’t think Chile were the team to do it.
Nothing against Dunga or the tactics, a side with players I liked more would get my approval playing the exact same way.
Excellent work, ZM! How do you guys see the difference, in tactical terms, between Robinho and Ronaldinho should he play in the tournament? Is Robinho more disciplined and better in positioning and pressing, which is why he was selected over ‘Dinho? I’ve never been convinced about his team work either.
Robinho is much faster than Dinho for a start, an essential element to Dunga’s counter-attacking system. Also he is good at and willing to run into channels, make decoy runs, and certainly presses more/ tracks back more than Dinho. His understanding with Kaka and Fabiano is also superb and proven, whereas Dinho was not able to develop such chemistry with his attack counterparts.
Funny thing is that german media were disappointet by brazil’s game…idiots.
Since Germany, for the first time in at least one generation or longer or ever, have a group of boys playing attractive positive football they might be already believing they are more Brazil…than Brazil.
Fools they are indeed =)
I was disappointed with Oliver Kahn in general on articulating himself in regards to tactics employed by teams he is not familiar with (read = almost all of them).
Three pundits were useful though, namely Jürgen Klopp (current head coach for Dortmund), Mehmet Scholl (former international, who will be getting his coaching licence in the upcoming season) and Urs Meyer (former referee at CL final & world cups). Also post-game analysis by Netzer (former international) was hilarious once again.
Klinsmann has been pretty good on the BBC, albeit he adjusts his responses for the English market quite clearly.
I haven’t heard anybody here in Germany being dissapointed by Brazil. We miss their spirit a bit yes. But most people a very impressed how they march through the tournament with total control in their second or third gear.
Question remains if they are able to switch to their 4th or 5th gear before it is too late. Robben will force them for sure.
Excellent article ZM.
I doubt, if the score line would have been the same if Valdivia had played the first 20 minutes.
Whatever, the big plus for Brazil is its Defence. They are not my favourites, but I doubt if any team can really break that defence.
A wonderful game?
One of the more one-sided in the tournament, I thought. Chile never looked like scoring. All of this tactical analysis is unnecessary in this instance (‘penatgon overruns diamond’; the World Cup as a game of paper-scissors-rock). Brazil have better players. End of.
But it’s a website about tactics, for God’s sake.
with respect, Michael, your stuff is excellent and we are all lucky to get to read it for free. i’m certainly bamboozled by it!
it does seem sometimes, however, that you are quick to try to back up your own preconceptions. chile are a case in point. you wrote them up and you are praising them to the last, bigging up the contest against brazil and their part in it. i’m not sure they deserve it. the bottom-line is they got battered 3-0 and never looked like scoring. whatever about shapes and apparent tactical intention, they had some defenders, some midfielders and some forwards. brazil also had players in these areas, the majority (or likely all) of them better than chile’s – this is what decided the match. it seems safe to assume there is no tactical variation available to bielsa that can make chile beat brazil.
“Ultimately, a lack of individual quality was probably their downfall. They played an astonishingly attacking game, and yet only scored two goals in four matches. Suazo was not 100% fit, Sanchez didn’t show his best form, and all too often Chile got into the final third and seemed to run out of ideas.”
I think he made that pretty clear myself
Tactics are very important and can/will make the difference when things are close and tight.
How often in tight encounters tactics are the difference over quality/mistakes (assuming its not a total mismatch and tactics are irrelevant… E.G me and 10 mates against professionals) don’t know, but why take a risk giving yourself a tactical disadvantage… You should always try to exploit tactics and the individuals, but both sides play with the same number of players, a numerical advantage in one part of the pitch means someone has to have the extra player somewhere else, I think you would try to put as much in your favour as you can!
charlie_m:
You see, there are people who not only watch football because of great individuals, but because of tactical aspects as well. Indeed, one of the greatest elements of the game is how the individuals line up on the pitch and how literally everything is ultimately affected by the line ups. A single individual performance, whatever it is, is basically a consequence of how each player is positioned on the field.
Half right. Tactics are vital, but do not explain the whole story. See the 2002 European Cup Final. Understanding tactical systems explain why Zidane is on the edge of the box at inside left, and why Roberto Carlos has been able to get forward to cross. This understanding does not explain how Zidane is able to volley the ball into the top corner.
You’re quite right about the importance of tactics, and how games are decided by them to a large degree. But skill cannot be ignored, as I’m sure you are aware.
You’re absolutely right and gave a great example. I didn’t make myself clear enough, as I’m not a native English speaker. In fact, what I tried to say is basically what you wrote: tactics and line ups do lead to situations/chances where individuals can exploit their skills; without proper tactics that would be much harder for them and we would hardly see many of them shine on the pitch. The outcome of a chance can be whatever though depending on the player’s skills.
Agreed, mate! You express yourself well, no worries about that!
That would make a great article, should start a blog mate. I am sure your sharp analysis of “Brazil have better players. End of.” will get you a following.
Would love to read your analysis of Brazil’s world cup match analysis against France in 2006 quarterfinals.
In reality, any intelligent person on the planet, including your likely (read = only) target audience of school kids in Brazil would not return once they graduate from elementary school.
Your lack of vision for the game is astounding, I hope no Brazilian elementary school kids will mind being abused.
…in my comparison in order to insult you.
Go easy on the guy, mate. He shot himself on the foot and probably is red-faced now.
Ya, you are right, and I apologize for my insult.
Okay in retrospect I shouldn’t have said that, sorry. The original comment already disqualified itself anyway.
I’d tell you how utterly foolish you sound, but everyone else has already done that. Instead I’ll point out two things:
1. If we accept that your premise is correct and no tactical approach could have led Chile to beat Brazil (I find it to be a dubious assertion, but let’s not quibble), then your explanation is still woefully uninformative. “Better” how? Better shooters, fitter, better dribblers, faster, better understanding amongst one another, stronger, better at conning the refs, better tacklers, more ambidextrous? I come here to be informed. I already knew that Brazil’s players were more highly regarded by uninformed commentators than Chile’s. People who patronize this site want to learn more.
2. Speaking of uninformed commentators, the mainstream football media (at least in English) is mostly as unenlightening as your “Brazil have better players” ‘analysis’. Incurious, boring commentary from surprisingly inarticulate pundits and match announcers leads an already-ignorant audience to believe that the game is all about heart and running and ‘bottle’ and that England is a good team who could win the world cup and that the important part of a manager’s job is not the team’s tactics but rather inspiring and motivating. I come here to find out more than.
After the disappointment of Argentina-Mexico I was delighted that this game was played how we all hoped. Chile set out to attack and looked very dangerous for the first 20 minutes and then Brazil settled into their stride after pinching an excellent headed goal.
Chile, whilst excellent going forward, do not seem to have a real cutting edge. Against Honduras and Switzerland they got into excellent positions but then didn’t manage to either score or create a good opportunity.
I know that this is probably down to Suazo being injured but I thought Chile were most impressive against Honduras when he didn’t play at all. Maybe Beausajour should have played down the left instead of the deeply infuriating Gonzalez and allowed someone else to play down the middle instead of Suazo, who I think was clearly off the pace.
Also ZM, I would like to question your suggestion that “Sanchez didn’t show his best form”. I think Sanchez has been one of the attacking stars of the tournament so far. He has looked quick, dangerous on the ball and decent defensively. I had heard of Sanchez before and knew he was good so wasn’t that surprised that he played so well but I think a lot of people who do not follow Italian football would have got their first glimpse of him this tournament. I actually think it was a real breakout tournament for him. Any bets that he will not be at Udinese for much longer?
Great read as always ZM. Chile’s pressing was extremely successful in disrupting Brazil’s passsing, against N Korea and Cote D’ivoire there passing success rate was 83% and 84% as a team respectively, but against Chile it dropped massively to 63%. This was successful in reducing Brazils attempts to build up slow methodical attacks but this Brazil team has also been extremely strong on set-pieces and devasting on the counter. My question is, in light of Johnathon Wilson’s piece about possession, is the best tactic against Brazil to sit back and let them have the ball and maybe play a winger high up against Bastos as when Melo plays he tends to look isolated and either look to counter or win from a freekick?
I think that the problem for Chile, as described in the article, was in some ways similar to England’s against Germany. Chile’s midfield can be understood as a diamond just as I felt England’s (albeit lopsided due to Gerrard coming inside) was against Slovenia and again against Germany with Lampard pushing on. Trouble with that against a side playing 2 defensive midfielders and an attacking midfielder is as ever the numbers game because you can’t mark both defensive midfielders and the attacking midfielder. Because the Chilean defensive midfielder had better discipline – and because of the pressing game was always tighter to Kaka to begin with – the problem was not the number 10 in the way Ozil was for England but rather the problem was with one of the defensive midfielders breaking forward unmarked – England’s problem was with being outpassed because neither German deeper midfielder actually ran forward much. I think ZM is right to say that Ramires was better than Melo for this match and it was this better ability to run with it that mattered.
re: Jara vs Robinho. What would be the use of a playmaker, if a wingback’s surge forward is made useless? It wasn’t as much a matter of tactical battle, but failed practice drills. Suazo isn’t tall, doesn’t jump high, takes corners instead of receiving them. Who is supposed to head those crosses? it’s either Chileans never drilled this, or they had panic attack. Bielsa can’t be that naive. Brazil have been favourites, except for the uninformed, and they still are. Chile weren’t that much prepared. Let’s now see if Brazil have substitutes to play the same characters/roles against stronger opponents. The same can be said about Holland
just as kaka made the sublime look so easy with his deft through ball, you’ve done the same with this analysis. fantastic stuff ZM, thank you for all your coverage
I’m sorry but I think that in a serious site like this one contributors should refrain from grandious glorification of good football playing. Kaka’s was a just a good ball to a Fabiano left totally free facing the goal by a Chilean defense that lost the marking. No more than that.
suggest you watch it again. the subtlety, disguise and timing of the pass were absolutely magnificent. if you can’t appreciate that, i don’t think you should be contributing to any football website whatsoever, ’serious’ or otherwise
Excellent analysis as always from ZM.
Chile have been one of the better teams to watch this tournament, and they lived up to ZM’s pre WC analysis of providing attacking football. In matches against superior opposition such as Spain and Brazil, it was wonderful to see them take the game against the heavyweights, even outplaying them sometimes. They are a fine outfit, though they seemed to lack a cutting edge in the final third.
Brazil look imperious in this kind of form, and it will take a monumental effort from any side to overcome them. Spain and Argentina look like the only sides that can stop them now.
Keep up the great work ZM!
I was thinking about the Isla vs. Robinho situation before the game, having read your analysis of his role against Villa in the Spain game, and wondered if he’d be more comfortable here considering Felipe Melo’s likely unwillingness to come forward into the space he’d leave if he tracked Robinho.
I think Melo’s injury, and Ramires coming in, was in the end a good thing for Brazil.
I don’t think Chile organise their attack well enough. Most of their attacking players are lack of an attacking plan. They were all over the place. They just try to take on defender and run forward, nothing else. Everyone would like to dwell on the ball for as long as he can, which slows down attack, and reduces their attack option. Bielsa should have taught them they need to put ball into space, they need to think about how to finish an attack – a cross, a through ball, a long shoot or whatever.
1st time poster, be kind…
I’ve heard Brazil being compared to Inter, and they do have a couple of Inter players so the comparison isn’t totally off. However, I feel that it more resembles Mourinho’s Chelsea team of 05/06 (correct me if I’m wrong).
The formation used by Mourinho then is the exact same one but mirrored. Just replace Fabiano with Drogba, Robinho with Robben, Kaka with Lampard, Alves with Joe Cole, Gilberto with Makelele and Ramires with Essien.
Although, to be fair, this is very much due to Alves coming into the team because of injury and if Dunga fielded his preferred players it would be slightly different and probably more defensive.
I don’t know if Dunga will stay with this type of diamond against Holland, but it does enable the team to play a kind of 4-4-2 and still not be overrun in midfield against a team playing 4-5-1/4-3-3 (I believe it should work well against the Dutch), as happened to England against Germany. Of course you need very good fullbacks to be able to do this. But when you’re Brazil that’s not really a problem now is it.
Chelsea had Robben on the right and Joe Cole playing on the left, but drifting inwards. This opened up space which was exploited by Ashley Cole. With Brazil’s setup being the same but mirrored this creates space for Maicon instead, which obviously is intentional.
We didn’t even see the usual short goal kicks from Chile. Without Medel and Ponce and with them having inferior defensive players replacing them, who possess massively inferior passing ability, Chile were more or less condemned to a heavy defeat if they were going to show any ambition.