Spain 1-0 Portugal: Villa eventually finds a way through, Portugal fail to respond

The starting line-ups
An intriguing game – Spain were comfortable by full-time, but struggled to find the breakthrough. Substitutions were crucial in the outcome.
Vicente del Bosque fielded a side unchanged from the win over Chile – a 4-2-3-1ish shape, with David Villa high on the left, and Andres Iniesta drifting in from the right. Xabi Alonso was fit to start, and Fernando Torres continued upfront.
Carlos Queiroz named an out-and-out striker in Hugo Almeida with two natural wingers either side. Pepe got the nod over Pedro Mendes, whilst Ricardo Costa was a slightly surprise starter ahead of Miguel and Paolo Ferreira at right-back.
The game took the expected pattern – Spain dominated possession in the centre of the pitch, Portugal looked to get men behind the ball, and played on the counter-attack. There were early shots on goal from Villa and Fernando Torres, but once the game settled down, Portugal kept Spain at arm’s length.
Spain were seeing more of the ball thanks to Iniesta’s drifts in from the right-hand side. This effectively formed a four-man midfield, which was able to pass around Portugal’s three fairly easily. They were rarely able to find a killer pass, though, because Portugal were well-prepared for this situation. Pepe, Raul Meiereles and Tiago focussed on closing down Xavi (first and foremost), Iniesta (as a secondary concern), and then Xabi Alonso. They were happy enough to let the deepest midfielder, Sergio Busquets, have the ball – the lack of pressure on him being reflected in the fact he completed an astounding 98 out of 106 attempted passes.
Spain struggle to find breakthrough
Of course, Buquets is not really the man to play a key pass, and so Spain were struggling to create clear-cut opportunities. He generally played the ball short to the three other central midfielders, who were quickly closed down. A better out-ball was often to Sergio Ramos on the right-hand side, and he got forward well, but his final ball was often disappointing.
Portugal did not defend as deep as many defensive-minded sides have throughout this competition, however (take Switzerland against Spain). They didn’t retreat to their own penalty area whenever Spain got the ball – instead, the midfielders stayed relatively high up the pitch, in a position to press Spain’s midfield immediately. Pepe was the man who patrolled the area Spain love to work in, just in front of the defensive line, and his positional sense here justified Queiroz’s preference for him (usually a centre-back) in the holding role.
Lack of width?
Iniesta and Villa’s natural tendencies meant Spain continued to suffer from a lack of width high up the pitch. This is not just an issue in terms of getting crosses into the box, but because the angle of through balls often becomes very difficult to play. Time after time, straight balls through the defence from Xavi and Iniesta trickled harmlessly through to Eduardo in the Portugal goal – the wet pitch wasn’t helping this situation. Of course, Spain’s triangles in the centre of midfield create different angles, but they were rarely able to construct fluid attacks in this area because of the discipline of Portugal’s central midfield trio.
Portugal were arguably the better goal threat, playing almost exclusively on the counter-attack. Spain’s preferred shape in the defensive phase is a 4-4-1-1; an obvious conservative tilt to the 4-2-3-1. But with Villa and Iniesta ending up in unconventional 4-2-3-1 positions when Spain’s attacks broke down, they were left exposed on the flanks. The defensive duties of Tiago and Meireles meant they found it difficult to support the attack – although the former’s well-timed run was the closest Portugal came to breaking the deadlock in the first half, when Casillas half-saved his rising shot, and Almeida couldn’t turn the rebound home.
Substitutions the turning point
The second half started in similar fashion to the first, with Spain getting the ball forward, but Portugal threatening more, particularly when Almeida’s cross hit Puyol and looped inches past the far post.
The defining moment of the game came in the 58th minute, when both sides made a single substitution, both involving the forward position. Spain removed Torres and put on Fernando Llorente in a straight swap, whilst Portugal withdrew Almeida and introduced Danny, pushing Cristiano Ronaldo upfront. Almeida had done quite well in the lone striking role, but his substitution probably owed more to fitness levels than tactical concerns – he looked exhausted in the game against North Korea after an hour and had to be taken off, and Queiroz was probably looking to remove him before his tiredness became an issue.
Immediately, the two sides looked different. Spain’s introduction of Llorente was the most obvious and crucial outcome, but equally Portugal weren’t able to retain the ball upfront and, of course, Ronaldo saw little of the ball.
But it was Llorente who changed things for Spain. He should have scored with a header from point-blank range from a superb Ramos cross – OK, he missed the chance, but he was already more of a threat than Torres. He was also more comfortable than the Liverpool striker with his back to goal – and his hold-up play led directly to Villa breaking the deadlock – also courtesy of a rebound, a marginal offside decision that went Spain’s way, and Simao’s lack of defensive awareness. The goal was slightly fortunate, but Portugal were asking for trouble by leaving Spain’s biggest threat free on in his favoured inside-left position.
Llorente’s introduction raises an interesting question about Spain’s best XI, even if you take a 4-2-3-1 with Villa and Iniesta on the flanks as mandatory. Sid Lowe has offered an interesting theory about Torres’ role in this Spanish system, describing him as Spain’s version of Emile Heskey. But if the Heskey role is what Spain need from their centre-forward, del Bosque will be considering the question of who is more of a Heskey – Torres or Llorente? In terms of raw quality, the debate has one clear winner, but if we’re discussing who can ‘do a job’ better, Llorente might just have the edge.
Spain see out the game easily
After the goal, almost nothing happened. Queiroz fiddled slightly with the team – bringing Mendes on for Pepe, and Liedson on for Simao. But little changed – not even Ronaldo’s position as a central striker, for he spent most of the final period of the game stranded upfront with little support. Queiroz was hampered by Portugal’s notorious lack of central strikers, and the fact that he had already removed Almeida (Portugal’s Heskey?). But his squad seemed to be missing one attacking option – no surprise, after he named a box-to-box midfielder, Ruben Amorim, as the replacement when Nani got injured before the tournament started.
Portugal fans must have found the exit incredibly frustrating, because there was no drive or spark from the players, and no real gamble from the manager. When Portugal were trailing England 1-0 at the quarter-final stage of Euro 2004, Felipe Scolari really went for it. He put on Simao for Costinha (a winger for a holding midfielder), Helder Postiga for Luis Figo (a striker for a winger), and finally, Manuel Rui Costa for Miguel (a playmaker for a right-back). Portugal got the equaliser and took it to extra-time. OK, it meant them playing Deco at right-back for half an hour, and playing in a crazy 4-1-1-4 system – but at least they’d got the goal, at least they’d got to extra-time. And even if they hadn’t have done, they wouldn’t have gone out with a whimper. Portugal’s exit from this tournament was pitiful for a side with so many good ball-players.
Talking of good ball-players, Spain’s tiki-taka killed the game when 1-0 up. It is the best defensive tactic imaginable, because they pretty much kept the final for the final half hour, and denied Portugal any way of getting back into the game. The 4 v 3 in midfield became all the more obvious when Spain didn’t actually need to get the ball forward, and proved how good Spain are at closing down matches. When was the last time they were ahead in a game, and went onto lose?
Conclusion
Does the end justify the means? The final 30 minutes saw Spain in cruise control, but the first 60 minutes were much more of a struggle – we shouldn’t forget that. Spain still don’t look completely comfortable with their starting XI, and the introduction of Llorente turned the game. The final section of the game gives the impression that Spain were always in control when they were dominating possession in the first half, but a side better at attacking than Portugal may have punished them on the counter-attack. Indeed, even goal-shy Portugal nearly did.
Regardless, we have to admire Spain’s persistence and their commitment to their way of playing football. Villa is deadly from the inside-left position, and for as long as he continues to be prolific, the identity of his strike partner might be irrelevant.
Portugal exit the competition having scored in just one of their four games. There was little cohesion from the attacking players, and the pre-tournament suggestion that the midfield was too functional and not creative enough turned out to be their downfall – despite Tiago and Meireles having good tournaments, they still needed a Rui Costa, or the Deco of five years ago.
They defended excellently throughout the tournament, however. Eduardo, Bruno Alves, Ricardo Carvalho and Fabio Coentrao are all contenders for the team of the tournament – Meireles may be another.
Still, they depended too much upon Cristiano Ronaldo, and with his patchy record for the national team in recent years, they might have to find a more varied approach if they are to improve on this underwhelming effort.
Spain 1-0 Portugal: Villa eventually finds a way through, Portugal fail to respond


If anyone asks – Japan v Paraguay will be up tomorrow. A combination of it overrunning, tomorrow being a free day, and the game being bloody awful…
Hahaha, I was going to ask for that game… but then again, yes, it was a horrible game. A repeat of Switzerland vs Ukraine in the last world cup.
OMG what a terrible game. I watched for the first 10 minutes and said “this is going to penalties” and didn’t watch again until the shootout. As bad as lower level kick and chase Mexican league games.
I’m hopeful Spain will put on an entertaining demolition of Paraguay on the way to their showdown vs Germany/Argentina, sure to be an exciting match.
Haha, I don’t think many people would mind if you didn’t write about that one, as you said it was a horrible game to watch… But hey, if you have time to write about it, then feel free to do so^^
But I think that Villa kept his width relatively well today. This is evident from how little Capdevila got forward: Villa was occupying so much of his space that he could never get forward. Compare this to S.Ramos who got forward A LOT during the game, b/c as you said Iniesta drifted inside so much to get involved in the build-up play (he was a lot more involved in the build-up play than Villa was).
I hate to see an offside goal decides an 1-0 game. Anyways, Queiroz’s subs are totally wrong (he said he planned to use Almeida to make Spain’s defenders tired and then begin “real attack”, but the plan was ruined by the goal. I don’t know how true this is…).
Are you really sure it’s offside? I have watched the replay more than ten times, and I still have my doubts. In fact, I think that the defender holding Llorente is breaking the offside.
In any case, Queiroz’s lack of ambition is to be blamed rather than this really close — and therefore, forgivable — decision.
Look carefully as Xavi passes the ball with his heel to Villa in off-side position. It’s a very tough call though.
tough call, especially if you take a look at the linesman’s position: he has no chance to judge the exact time the pass is being played, because the players stand in his line of sight. no one to blame i think.
The linesman was not in the correct position, you can see his angle on this pic: http://i.imgur.com/2QJeY.png
This pic then shows you the actual offside, which is a good yard: http://twitpic.com/212j77
So the linesman saw it as onside because he forgot to shuffle his feet to the side to follow the backline. Another candidate for going home I guess with Rosetti and the Uruguay-ghost-goal one.
To JBJ: You definitely can’t draw parallel lines to point out an offside when the picture is in perspective and the very marks of the grass are not parallel themselves.
Awful picture with the offside line not parallel to the 18 yard box. However I do believe it was offside, but as Seedorf says: Who cares. Spain are much more exciting than Portugal and there will be no more CR preening – we can all rejoice!
The red card was a disgrace as well though, so you could argue Portugal were hard done by…
Villa is 22 cm offside.
I saw it on a virtual replay
In my opinion it was so close a call that no one should lament about it. As far as I know, the rule is, when in doubt, decide in favor of the attacker.
In comparison to many other incorrect decisions we have seen so far, this one does not deserve a discussion.
Agree. It was offsides when looked at closely but it’s one of those decisions where you have to accept it going the way it did.
I had to watch the replay like 10 times in order to see the offside. That play was extremely quick, in fact, i didn’t even see Xavi doing the back heel pass, i thought Xavi just let the ball roll thru to Villa.
It is a tough call even for us watching the replay, unless you slow it dooooown.
Don´t agree. Imagine Queiroz could have pulled video evidence. – Yeah, ok, I´m willing to accept it for good, nevermind I suspected it offside then. But with the ongoing discussions, and this being a tactics blog, the situation at hand may give some food for thought in this sense.
Batvians, it’s curious that Hugo Almeida today in the Portuguese press has claimed that he wasn’t feeling tired when Queiroz subbed him.
Well, it is not a secret that players are not happy with Queroz’s tactic now, isn’t it?
Bad off-side calls are common in every World Cup, unfortunately. See Villa’s goal against Portugal today.
Notice also the difference in the reaction of the Portuguese vs the Mexican players.
I’m Portuguese, I’ve seen the play and I don’t think that was offside, and I belive that so did the players, or I can assure you they would have complained. Anyway, you can’t possibly compare this to the offside in Argentina’s goal. That was the most blatant offside ever, there wasn’t even one Mexican player between Tevez and the goal line, much less two.
Keep up the good work, ZM, excellent site, wish I could see the game through, as clearly as you do.
Villa was on-side after Iniesta’s pass, off-side after Xavi’s touch.
Also, FIFA probably started enforcing it’s “No Error Replay Rule” in the Stadium.
In a world in which the flag is supposed to stay down when in doubt that call is one that any defense needs to live with. It’s far from a “bad” call as the first poster in this chain said. Sure the freeze frame shows that Villa is moving forward and no longer completely in line with the second-to-last-defender but that’s a very close call one I’m ok with.
Fine. It wasn’t a “bad” call but a “questionable” call.
Anyway, no more replays of questionable calls in the Stadium from now on.
Yeah Luis, I feel the same way, ZM makes
me feel like an idiot sometimes, keep
up the great work ZM…
Rather ZM’s expositions have made me his disciple. I regularly am following this site. Btw which country are you from yaar?
I am not boasting but even I percieved the importance of Spain’s substitution when I was retrospecting about the game. I was sure ZM would have mentioned that as the turning point of the game and I was right when I checked the site.
I am improving
Just learned about your website at the beginning of the tournament and have really enjoyed the summaries…
Question: can Simao really be held responsible for Villa on that play? Looking at the replay, it seems to me that everything started when Xavi’s run through the middle was not tracked well enough – perhaps because it was somewhat unusual for him – which drew the rightmost back (presumably Costa) in to cover. That left Villa free, and in fact I was surprised that Iniesta didn’t play him in directly at that point. Simao may have been a bit slow to recognize the open man, but I find it a bit harsh to criticize him – after all, Spain only had four men forward, and I take it Simao would ordinarily be concerned with extra attackers (e.g. Capdevila) coming down the side.
Thoughts?
Letting Xavi run was Portugal’s first mistake, but the move didn’t seem overtly dangerous at that point. Ricardo Costa had to come into the middle, but Iniesta didn’t have the angle to play something Villa could run on to, and if he played it straight to him, Costa would’ve had time to make a challenge. (This doesn’t excuse Simao, who should’ve come back.)
Still, the real threat didn’t start until Iniesta’s pass came back to him. Credit to Iniesta for continuing to move after passing, but he was fortunate to get the ball back in a dangerous position. Even though Portugal had 6-on-3 in the middle, their organisation was cracked. Costa had to decide instantly whether to hold his ground or go after Iniesta. It only takes a few seconds to realise that going after the ball is a mistake, but he didn’t have a few seconds. It’s only at this point that Simao recognises he should be back. Iniesta threads the needle, Xavi flicks it on, Villa is a hair offside but nine times out of ten the linesman isn’t going to call that.
Yeah, the goal was fortunate, but when you have most of the possession you’ve got a lot more opportunities to be fortunate.
“When was the last time they were ahead in a game, and went onto lose?”
September 2006: Northern Ireland 3, Spain 2 (Spain led 1-0 and 2-1!)
Hehe, but that was under Aragonés. Fancy that.
Portugal were absolutely clueless going foward. Apart from a few occasions, they provided no threat to the spanish goal and didn’t even look like scoring. Ronaldo was ineffective and anonymous for the entire match. A very mediocre tournament by his standards.
Until the introduction of Llorente, Portugal seemed to me to be more likely scoring than Spain.
Agreed, Portugal seemed to have the better chances and was very dangerous on the counter-attack.
It’s not the players its the manager, queiroz never really wanted to win
He played not to lose and so he deserved nothing better.
He played to ‘not get embarrassed’, or so it seemed. The Scolari example really shows you the difference. Queiroz is weak, and afraid to attack.
Between the sword and the wall as they say.
The only sensible thing to do was to replace Ronaldo, not Simão. But if he had replaced Ronaldo and still lost, he’d be crucified by the whole World. So, in the end, he proved he didn’t have balls.
While Simão wasn’t being exactly fantastic, he was playing for the team, as usual. Making an effort!
We needed practical players who don’t quit, like Deco, Simão, maybe even Ruben. We did not need Pepe in the midfield (wtf!) to lose the ball, Ricardo Costa (another bizarro world choice) on the right. So that’s four central defenders playing, 2 of them out of place. It will never make sense no matter how Queiroz breaks it.
The best players for those positions clearly did not play, nor the second choices. The 6 needs not only to defend, but to build plays as well. Pepe can only perform the first against a team of this caliber.
And Ricardo Costa was beaten over and over by Villa. It could happen with Miguel or Ferreira here and there, but not this kind of constant beating. It’s not his fault, that’s not his position.
What we needed was a team to pull through, and we didn’t need a guy, as we say here, “a jogar à mama”, or in other words, nothing but wait for the ball.
This does not mean Ronaldo needs to be booed. When he sucks, he should not play, it really is that simple, same as the rest.
I would like to see someone try to remove ronaldo…he would probably refuse to come off (like W.G.Grace after he was out on the first ball, yes i know, cricket reference) and say “they came to watch me play not to watch portugal win”…for me as much as ronaldo lacked service today, he also did not make an effort to win the ball back and help the team, his leadership has to be questioned, how you can stand around and wait for someone to win the ball back after you lost it and the opposition is not 3 yards away after you just had a man sent off in the most crucial game on the biggest tournament is beyond me…portugal tried but it wasnt good enough
ZM’s pre world cup analysis was spot on…are you a one man show or a team? i cant imagine you get through all of this alone (and if you do KUDOS to you sir!)
Spains vulnerability on the transition of offense to defense will be their downfall at some point in this tournament. If Portugal would have just been a little more effective on the break and didn’t field Ronaldo they might have won this.
The player who should have been banned scoring a goal that should not have been given is the epitome of FIFA’s ineptitude though. Mind you, the Spaniards would have won this match either way after the dreadful sub of Danny for Almeida instead of Ronaldo, but still.
Anyway, Paraguay have great “fox in the box” strikers but nobody to service them and no counter attacking players to exploit Spain’s weakness. A contest between the 2010 Spain and the 2010 Germany should be very intriguing.
Wait, so you think Queiroz should have removed the one player on his squad who has the class and looked like he might actually do something to level the match? That’s crazy.
Ronaldo never looked like doing anything except losing the ball.
A weakness well known by most sides, if what Barça has to play against in La Liga and CL is any indication. On the other hand, the Blaugrana won a load of trophies in 08-09, and weren’t too shabby last season either. Not only that, Spain played the same way in Euro 2008. It got them the trophy.
Even as an Argentina fan, I feel for Mexican players, since Tévez was offside by a mile. But if Villa was offside here, it was a matter of inches within a fraction of a second. These plays are terribly hard to call even after a couple of video replays, nevermind live from the pitch. I don’t understand all the emphasis on Villa’s position, really.
ZM: you’re right about tiki taka as defensive system. The problem was when Spain began this WC thinking it could make them score first, which wasn’t the case. Score first, and then hold possession. Nicely done tonight.
Just to make myself clear, I only wanted to point out 2 things:
-Bad off-side calls are common in the WC.
-FIFA apparently decided that referee’s errors should not be replayed over and over in the Stadium’s big screens.
Having said that, I think Villa’s goal was a very tough call and Spain deserved to win.
Great site ZM!! Keep up the good work!!
FIFA decided that like 5 years ago?
Yesterday, the guy behind buttons messed it and let the replay be played on the screen.
Fernando Llorente(FL) vs Fernando José Torres Sanz.
and
Fabregas vs Fernando José Torres Sanz(FT).
Both Fabregas and FL looked better when replacing FT. For me personally FL was man of the match, i like to recognize unsung heros.
I rate FT very highly, i think he will find his scoring touch..eventually.
Well done to Vicente del Bosque for getting Spain this far, but i think they remain very narrow and exposed on the flanks(as this article points out), a situation that can be easily rectified.
Will be interesting to see if Vicente del Bosque persists with FT or does he give FL a starting berth.
Torres really shouldn’t be started in his current form (the same goes for Van Persie for the Dutch). It really takes a bite out of the Spanish offense.
To his credit, his first shot was on goal and well saved by the keeper.
van Persie is easier to excuse as Huntelaar isn’t on form either and is really the only ‘number 9′ type striker would would feel comfortable being the highest man on the pitch.
With Llorente (like for like swap) or Villa up top (with Silva, Mata or Navas on wing) being able to fill that position, Torres shouldn’t be on the field only because of his reputation.
Kuyt could play the 9?
Van De Vaart could, if fit. On the small side, but what matters is his movement off the ball and ability to link up and distribute in the final third with other players. I think Kuyt is best where he is; don’t mess with a good thing.
I know what you mean, esp nowadays with growing emphasis on defensive responsibilities of wingers… Kuyt is more of a goalscorer than Rafael though, might be worth considering depending on defence/opponent’s buildup…
But Van Persie, even when not in goalscoring mode, still gives you much all-round play than does Torres. His interchanging with the attacking midfield trio behind is vital for the way Holland create chances
You may be right. I haven’t been watching what VP has been doing off the ball. And why I think Pedro, who has a great connection with Xavi and Iniesta, would be a better fit than Torres.
no simao is not solely responsible, the main goal threat scored the defenders are also liable.
When Spain get a lead, they are almost unbeatable. It may be cliche, but with Spain its all about scoring first. The only two games they have lost over the last four years was against the US and Switzerland when they couldn’t break a wall down and gave a away a sloppy goal against the run of play.
It will be interesting how Paraguay will play. Will they play the way Switzerland, and US played and hope to bungle in a goal or hope for penalties?
ZM there is no need to do analysis on Paraguay vs. Japan. Its two crap teams, playing no discernible system other than hoofing the ball in the box and having 10 men behind the ball. The only thing that game showed was how bad Italy, Denmark, and Cameroon really were.
Alves and Coentrao make my 11, but I’d take Juan and Maicon for my back four. Keeper is interesting, as I’m not sure that any one has looked solid for the duration of all of the games – which is unusual and perhaps to do with the ball.
I’m trying to remember if Ronaldo up front was ever Plan B at Man Utd, particularly when they were being dominated in midfield? Nothing springs to mind.
I thought that Del Bosque giving his whole midfield 90 minutes today was a show of strength. But I still don’t see enough to hurt Brazil if (when) they meet them; in particular (and I realise this is only one small area of what will be a fascinating game) Lucio/Gilberto will be on Villa the instant he cuts inside Maicon – that is the only area where Spain have truly looked consistently dangerous.
I was watching Coentrao closely as media is linking him with my team (Munich). I think he played excellent in the first half, but sort of degraded in the second. Mainly precision on passes seemed off at the end.
Still a good game by him over all though.
Should Bayern clinch Coentrao and I will have to seriously consider starting “torcer” for your team. A double pleasure to watch, Lahm on one flank and the portuguese on the other.
I was expecting more association with Ronaldo, overlapping, breaking the balance on the left carril but while Coentrao tried it clearly wasn’t the number 7’s day.
I think it would be a good transfer. Munich has a talented young German in Contento that played some games in 2010 at left full-back, but in my opinion it is too early to rely on him for a full season with CL and all. Backup position is perfect for him.
Braafheid (with the dutch at the worldcup) didn’t have the best of games in Munich, while he might get another chance in training I doubt he will make the team.
Bayern also still has Badstuber who often covered the left full-back position for them, but in the opinion of many he is more suited for center-back and with Munich having liability issues there at times (e.g. CL final) I expect him to content for a starting spot as CB in the future instead.
With all that, the situation looks perfect for Coentrao. He should like the system, the chance to play for and develop under a great coach and play champions league in one of the top teams in the world.
Looks quite OK. Good luck in the dealing with Benfica.
Ronaldo played up front a few times for United in Europe. The most notable was away to Barca in the 2008 first leg of the semi’s where Ronaldo drew a penalty (which he then missed) and should have had one or two more penalties that weren’t called because it was in the Nou Camp.
The difference though being that United had quality ball playing midfielders in Carrick and Scholes and also Wayne Rooney playing on the left wing providing a outlet from deep and the link between defense and attack. Portugal had no such link.
I was disappointed when Nani was injured as he had a very good second half to the club season and would have provided another attacking option for the Portuguese. As it was, Ronaldo was too often isolated and without support and against three very good teams (Brazil, Ivory Coast, and Spain) it was too easy for those defenses to focus most of their attention on him and trust that Portugal didn’t have the options to beat them.
I would have thought the most notable time Ronaldo was up front for Man United was the CL semi and final of 09. In the away leg against Arsenal he put in a great performance as United tore Arsenal apart on the counter. Whereas in the final apart from the first 10 minutes he was dominated by Piqué and Puyol, the same thing happened in both clasicos last season. Basically whenever Puyol or Piqué are about he winds up stuck in one their pockets, even when it looks like he’s beaten them one of them flies in with a great last ditch challenge. Puyol might be getting on and make a few mistakes against lesser opponents, but he’s become an awesome big game player who turns it on when it’s needed.
Well, in the semi against Arsenal he played more in his natural position attacking inward from the right side, ot really up front on his own as he did today.
You’re right about the final that year against Barca. Ferguson liked to play him up top against Barca because his pace and power up top on his own could occupy both center backs and allow Rooney and Park on the wings to track Barca’s full backs and help on Messi. Pique especially was tremendous that match and Ronaldo suffered from a lack of service much the same way he did today. Still think the semi-final ties the year before was the template for Portugal’s plan today (not surprising considering their manager) but again Ronaldo suffered from a lack of quality service and assistance from his teammates.
The difference in the two teams was the link up from the defence to the midfield and the pace of that transition. Portugal today mostly transitioned through the wings. Sir Alex very rarely put him upfront alone, and whenever he did, usually the midfield had Park and Carrick in it. Park is very under-rated for the amount of brilliant build up play he usually does. Anyways..the point is, Man Utd’s midfield let Ronaldo play alone, they were quite better than Portugal’s.
I think Portugal missed Nani quite a bit.
He played up front a lot (and a few times by himself) – what I was really driving at was whether he’d been moved up there by Ferguson when Man Utd were behind and stuggling.
He played up there quite a bit (and a few times entirely by himself); what I couldn’t recall was if he had ever started further back and then been moved up front when Man Utd were behind and struggling – as Portugal were here.
I don’t remember that. The usual strategy was to change to 4-3-3 with Rooney and Tevez switching sides on and off and Ronaldo free to roam, usually collecting ball near the right flank and running in and creating space for the others.
Exactly – I think the usual reaction was to bring Ronaldo and Rooney closer together and another player towards them to make triangles. I’m a big fan of Man Utd’s old 4-3-3, and of Park who is a first class player. I love that Benitez has convinced the media (and even the Dutch!) that Kuyt is the same type of player! Always makes me chuckle
I really don’t rate Nani at all I’m afraid. When a team misses him, they are not to my mind WC contenders.
In my opinion, the change of this match picture sometime in the second half responded as much to Llorente’s entry as to Pepe running out of gas. He was nothing else than outstanding in defense, breaks and salida during the first and some minutes of the second. Great work commanding his mates also.
agreed. if the best player in the world was playing yesterday, he played for portugal and it wasn’t ronaldo.
Before the tournament someone criticized Del Bosque for being unable to make difficult decisions concerning Torres’ fitness and the need for two holding players. We’ll have to wait on the Torres situation. Del Bosque will probably continue to trot him out there even if he’s half fit. Sorry Llorente.
On the other hand, his decision to play Busquets is also an intriguing one. He’s covered really well, broke up a few counter attacks and didn’t try to force the issue when Alonso and Xavi weren’t available. He also covers Ramos’ forward runs. His long legs and deceptive quickness cause loads of fouls both real and imagined. Fabregas, on the other hand, might be able to break down some of the defenses even though they’ll crowd the middle. I’m for Busquets personally but the right situation may induce Del Bosque to change it up.
Personally, I thought the Spanish did a better job of getting into wide positions but Ramos and Villa chose to cut inside.
There is an other option. Drop Alonso and play Xavi deeper in midfield where he would probably be more effective at dictating play, with Fàbregas providing a more direct threat from the centre. And right now playing Torres is almost like playing with 10 men, either play Llorente or move Villa to the centre and Pedro on the left. The latter option would probably be better if facing fullbacks like Maicon, since Pedro offers more defensive cover.
Spain doesnt look like Spain with Busquets and Alonso both in the lineup. Xavi is too high up the field and it looks very unnatural. He gets crowded out of the game by the opposing teams holding midfielders, and like you said, doesn’t dictate the play anywhere near as much as a player of his quality should. When Xavi does drop deeper into midfield, his more natural position, Alonso looks lost and provides little. The more Xavi gets on the ball, the more Iniesta would be brought into the game as well I feel. Without Xavi and Iniesta pulling the strings in Spain’s midfield, this Spain team does not look anywhere near as dominant as they have in the past 2-3 years.
Alonso ran the show against Chile and Honduras, doing far more than Xavi but he was certainly sloppy today.
There seems to be calls for Xavi nearer Busquets and Fabregas in the hole. I’m not sure I agree. Busquets is a useful ugliness to the Spain team and I think it would be foolish to drop him and I don’t think one bad game means Alonso should be dropped – their midfield has not been exposed and I think the problem Spain have had have been their front three.
I thought Iniesta was murdering Spain in the first half with his constant wandering inside but it just about paid off in the end, so I guess his place has been earned again.
Paraguay are always generally a solid team and cannot imagine them trying much more than defending and the odd counter against a Spain team that stretch them keeping possession.
I guess the big selection question is still in attack – does Llorente take Torres’ place? Or does Villa move into the centre and bring Navas or Silva into the equation?
Seems to me it should be the former – provide a target, looks stronger and more physical than Torres, also fully fit and not sulking, especially against a rugged Paraguayan defence.
It would probably be a bad idea to move Villa from a role where he has been very effective. By moving him to the centre there is a danger he could be swamped by the centre backs… I would also go with Llorente. Regarding the midfield, Busquets is the closest Spain now have to Senna, but I don’t really see the need to have Alonso there, especially since it forces Xavi higher up the pitch. And by playing Busquets, Iniesta, Alonso and Xavi you have 4 players playing through the centre, there is very little width. Also it can leave their right flank exposed when Sergio Ramos attacks. You could drop Iniesta, though I feel he has been getting better with every game as he regains match fitness. I’d like to see Pedro on the right with Iniesta moving to Xavi’s current position and Xavi moving to Alonso’s. No longer could the opposition simply force Spain wide since they could fire more crosses at Llorente and Pedro would be extra cover on the flank. He can also cut inside and contribute to their “Tiki-Takaness”. It would give them more options, make them less predictable.
On form and fitness, Llorente is ahead of Torres.
And Spain need either of these two to give a physical presence against the centre-backs…
But Llorente’s downfall is his complete lack of mobility.. maybe Del Bosque is gambling on Torres gradually getting back up to about 80% fitness specifically for his movement.
Of course, Llorente does offer you hold-up play….
Tough call to make!
I’m surprised not to see mention of the other advantage to starting Llorente and benching Torres: Torres’ pace makes him a useful late-game sub who can torch tired defenders, and introducing him late would hide his lack of fitness. I would love to see Llorente beat up Paraguay’s central defense until 60-70 minutes, then Torres come running at them.
Rob – exactly what I was thinking! Pedro provides great pace and width, works very hard in the defensive phase, and is more versatile than Navas. Allows Villa to play closer to goal. And then Fabregas for Xabi Alonso will allow Xavi to start play from a bit deeper while allowing Fabregas to make those killer runs from deep.
I much prefer Yaya to Busquets at Barca, but Busquets is improving all the time and suits the Spain team well. He is also used to playing in this style, and with Pique, Puyol, Iniesta and Xavi. He sits a bit deeper than Alonso and is a bit quicker, providing better cover when the opposition breaks.
I still feel that Brazil is well set up to beat Spain, but I hope that the tiki-taka finds its rhythm
Busquets for me is extremely underrated. He is a very intelligent player, even if some people don’t really appreciate his extensive knowledge of football’s “dark arts”. Having given it more thought, by playing Fàbregas Spain’s play would still be excessively concentrated through the centre. They need more width which I think Pedro would provide from the right. Certainly if they persist on playing exclusively through the centre, versus Brazil they would come up against the Felipe Melo, Gilberto Silva, Dani Alves, Lucio & Juan wall and wouldn’t be taking advantage of Michel Bastos weaknesses at left back.
I agree with you on Busquets. And i agree with you that the midfield should be Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta with Pedro on the right and Villa on the left.
We’ll certainly find out how weak Bastos is against the Dutch. Likely no Melo and no Ramires to help him out with Robben either.
Great site!
Credit to Del Bosque for bringing on Llorente at the hour. Almost immediately scored off a header and made a good target for the final half hour.
“The defining moment of the game came in the 58th minute, when both sides made a single substitution, both involving the forward position. Spain removed Torres and put on Fernando Llorente in a straight swap, whilst Portugal withdrew Almeida and introduced Danny, pushing Cristiano Ronaldo upfront.”
Exactly. Queiroz started damn well, gotta give him that. But like you said, he never really gambled. Basically he retrieved his post player while Spain got their post player in. And that’s were it all started to go wrong (btw Almeida wasn’t happy leaving the pitch and stated this: “I wasn’t exhausted. I felt i could still give more”). Not only he had the best chances he was also ascending when he was subbed. Simão should have been be subbed, he’s not a game winner any more.
Spain started to play more simple and their attacking play was more direct, thus faster, and caused greater problems to Portugal’s defenders.
Danny was horrible killing counters with missed passes and Ronaldo is the opposite of a post player since he simply doesn’t play with his back to goal. But having Ronaldo and Almeida upfront can actually be very good, for the way they complement each other with Almeida’s altruistic nature and Ronaldo’s speed and improvisation.
My subs would have been: arround 60-65 minutes R. Costa out and Miguel/Amorim in, Simão out Veloso/Deco in. Ronaldo would drift to the left, Almeida would play centrally, Tiago would be the number 10 and Meireles and Veloso would be right and left midfielder in a diamond formation.
And that is no gamble. The sidebacks would bomb foward (Coentrão can bomb foward for 120 mins and Miguel would be fresh) safe in the knowledge they had two cultured and hardworking midfielders to cover for them. If Spain scored i would take Pepe for Liedson for my final “all in”, and ask for Veloso to play central and try the long range shot.
Is necessary play with Alonso AND Busquets? Could be Fábregas with Xavi and Alonso.
Alonso isn’t enough of a ball winner, plus Busquets knows his job and sticks to it, and his height is essential to a short Spanish midfield. The only reason people want Busquets dropped for Cesc is that Cesc plays for Arsenal (for now) and Alonso played for Liverpool, if neither played in England it wouldn’t be an issue. Busquets wins and maintains possession for Spain, he may not make killer passes but he seldom makes bad ones either. When you have Xavi and Iniesta around you then you don’t need to make killer passes.
Exactly, Visca.
Busquets is an excellent short-range passer when under pressure; and his touch is excellent too. Alonso obviously has a superior vision of the play and also possesses a better arsenal of long-range passing to Busquets (indeed to most footballers full-stop)but I still maintian that Busquets, due to his being reared in the Barelona cantera, is better at rapid short range passing under pressure than is Alonso.
Blue in the face having to defend him, but I’ll keep on doing so…
I also don’t get it. One DM is enough, eventhough Busquets is not Senna (btw, if going for one DM, I think Xabi Alonso is not that reliable as Busquets). Then, Spain would go for a 4-3-3 with Busquets, Xavi, Fabregas (after an hour of play, when Spain went ahead in terms of goals, he could be switched to Alonso).
Del Bosque is insecure though. And he might be right actually, even with 6 defensive players, Spain is still vulnerable.
I agree in part but I think Del Bosque feels that Busquets is too light-weight to play in the center with Xavi, who, while superior to Alonso on the ball is not nearly as good at reading and breaking up the opposition’s attacks.
Am I the only Spain fan who thinks VDB is misusing his players? I have many reasons for this:
1) The formation is supposed to have Villa on the left and Iniesta on the right. If you watch closely though you will notice that Iniesta is always inside of Villa, just a couple of meters away. This leaves the right empty – which obviously makes Ramos go forward (knowing that Busquests is covering). But is Ramos really the player you want attacking from the right? All he does is cross, which is only useful when he plays w/ Llorente.
2) Silva. I am a Valencia fan but I think that I speak for everyone who’s watched him when I say he’s probably one of the most creative in the Spanish national team. When you want to hold the ball you don’t necessarily have to play a 5 man midfield. You could play it like Luis Aragones did. Iniesta and Silva as inside wingers and Senna (Xabi as replacement) and Xavi in the middle.
3) Villa on the flank? Seriously? Of course Villa’s a great player, he can play on the left and still be effective. But why not have him up front supporting Torres? Play with the old 4-1-3-2, and everyone will be happy. I also read that Xabi Alonso and Xavi together without Busquets would be too creative, why? Xabi could (imo) adapt perfectly to being a defensive midfielder.
4) Busquets. Did ZM ever make an article about the beginning of the “dumb defensive midfielder”? Everyone has one nowadays, the midfielder who was only trained on how to mark and tackle, has absolutely no creativity whatsoever and just lives on making interceptions? Spain don’t need one. They can make Alonso into one and still have his creativity.
btw, a question: if you had a team, what characteristics would need to be in it to beat Spain? What tactics would you use?
Alosno isn’t enough of a ball winner to play with two other creative mids, and Busquets isn’t good enough distributing (or in general) to play without a deep-lying playmaker (who can also provide cover beside him). What made Senna so important for Spain in Euro 2008 was his ability to break up attacks and initiate the attack moving forward. This let Spain play Xavi and Iniesta AND three other attackers.
The team that’s going to beat Spain is Brazil. Portugal had the second best chance but without a player to transition from defense to offensive they didn’t create enough and without any top attacking player besides Ronaldo it was too easy for Spain to mark him with two or three men and dare others to beat them. A healthy Nani could have made a huge difference. Brazil don’t have the same problems. Brazil are just as strong in the center of defense as Portugal and even if they don’t have a single player of the class of Ronaldo (Kaka has been awful for the last year), they have Robinho and Fabiano to provide the multiple attacking options that Portugal did not. Plus they have Maicon. If they end up meeting in the final, my prediction is 2-1 to Brazil.
Oh Jonathan, no, no!
There’s a further discussion in defence of Busquets further down in the comments section.
Poor distribution? Barca’s cantera trained him to be a rapid and excellent passer (one of the reasons why Guardiola preferred him to Toure this year, given that the side had already slowed down with the arrival of Ibra). Busquets can acquit himself when asfixiated by rivals by triangulating with other midfield players- most defensive mids in the world can’t do this, they don’t have the technique.
Apologies for not making myself clear. I think Busquest is a very good player with a lot of potential and I would agree that he plays the ball very nicley for a defensive mid.
When I said distribution meant more that he doesn’t have the vision and distribution skills that would allow him to sit deep and initiate the play forward in the way that Alonoso does. Busquests is great in playing short triangles with Alonso and Xavi but not spraying balls up to the wings or playing weighted balls behind the defense.
Additionally, while he is excellent positionally, especially for someone his age, he doesn’t have the strength and tenacity that Senna did for Spain in 2008 and a midfield of Busquets, Xavi, and Iniesta would be too lightweight and in danger or being outmuscled by some of the more robust midfields in the tournament. Hence, Alonso is in to provide a bit more defensive weight to Spain’s midfield.
OK, I get ya.
Yeah, he doesn’t have the range of passing that Alonso has. It’s true that his forte is short passing- though I hope we’re agreed that by this we don’t mean simple 5-yard sideway passes. He’s hardly Scott Parker (whose game I actually like), and especially not Gilberto Silva.
Trained only to tackle?No creativity? None of you know much about busi do you? Till he debuted with the 1st team he was an attack minded midfielder “8″.Thats why he sometimes gets over ambitious and tries zidane pirouettes etc rather than keep it simple.That he has for the most part been able to transition seamlessly to the defensive minded midfielder pep has converted him to is amazing in itself.If he isnt trying to add to the attack its because hes disciplined and thats what he has been instructed to do.One of his best games last seasoncame when he was liberated and allowed to express himself in an attacking role.Do not mistake tactical instructions for a dearth in attacking ability.
Agree with you fully… More than what can be said of other posters on Sergio…
Spot on with your #4 about Busquets. As of today, regardless of what sort of player he may have been before, Busquets does nothing else than interceptions and a little of ineffectual ball touching in the early phase of the building up play. Moreover and as young as he is, Busquets has quickly developed in a very cynical player specialized in all sort of dirty tricks, targeting specific opponents to have them booked or sent off. His tackling is, more often than not, on the foul side but due to his mastering of it(training, training and training) he gets away with it all too often.
Now that FIFA and referees have largely succeeded in erradicating playing a-la-Gentile they would do well in turning their sharp eyes upon these fast proliferating low-degree-cancers of football like Busquets. I can think of Mark van Bommel as another player that to a large extent satisfies the clinical definition above.
Thank god someone has the same opinion as me. It’s about time to realize that Busquets is just an ordinary player, just like thousands of others around the world, who could easily be replaced.
He may be an ordinary player, but for real DIRTY job he is exceptionally good. Since there are many coaches that love to have one such figure in their midfields, Busquets will always find a job.
If we don’t want to see that disgrace becoming more common on the pitches, the way to go is by putting pressure on the referees (FIFA). Talking to the manager will never be enough.
yeah, gotta give credit to him for at least doing that properly.
It’s true that he’s doing the dirty job in this tournament, but whoever has been following Barça the last two years knows that Busquets is capable of taking more responsibility and has enough technical quality to do decent deep playmaking. Or at least that’s what I think.
I guess it’s just that Del Bosque has asked him to have this ugly role during the WC.
The criticism on Busquet just shows what high standards players have set in terms of passing and playing for Spain. Doesn’t play killer balls enough? You are out!
In reality, he could be a fine deep playermaker for most countries needing one.
Now as Spain does not need this, they should be happy to have a player in midfield excelling not just as playmaker but also defensively.
No team can have everyone on the squad being creative. When attacking with five to six men it is important that the center backs, the defensive mid and at least one outside back remain defensive. Xavi is a great player, but part of his role is that he can move sideline to sideline and touchline to touchline to find space and become the third point of a passing triangle. If all center mids had this flexibility then there would be a few counterattacks each game where the team was very vulnerable to breakaways in the center of the pitch. Busquests largely looks unexciting offensively because he needs stay put in case Spain lose the ball.
However I do believe that Spain should have three distinct central midfielders: a defender (Busquests or Alonzo), a passer (Xavi or Alonzo) and an attacker (Iniesta or Fabregas). With one striker and no attacking mid they lack either enough attacking presence in the middle unless Villa or Iniesta pull in from the left side in which case the width of the field collapses.
I feel right now that the Dutch are doing the creative possession game better than Spain, and that’s what it’s going to take to break down strong defenses. The two things Spain need to do better (other than start someone other than Torres):
1) Move the ball quicker. Still tiki taka, but faster, so the lanes moving forward don’t get closed down as quickly. The players are holding the ball longer than they do at Barca. Villa, in particular, always chooses first to test a solo attack. You can’t blame him, given his production, but Messi (at Barca) shows how deadly it can be to pass to teammates after drawing defenders.
2) The wingers (Ramos, Villa) need to develop the play more quickly when at the goal line working in towards the box (and, in support, the rest of the team needs to be moving off the ball, rather than just waiting for a cross or shot). The wingers were taking 3-4 seconds testing their markers to see if they could juke them. Save the patient development for the midfield. As soon as they receive the ball, they should become a charging threat, rather than wait for the defender to run out to meet them (and the rest of the defense closing down the top of the box). They both got off good shots and crosses on occasion, but I think they are wasting momentum there that could disrupt defenses and provide better scoring opportunities. Kuyt is doing that for Netherlands, quickly making a choice to exploit the territorial advantage before it’s closed down.
I’m surprised you didn’t mention anything about Ramos’ awful returns. He once again looked like the weak link in defense, being caught out of position in most of Portugal’s attacks. It was so blatantly obvious that I’m starting to think he’s actually instructed to play like this for some reason.
Capdevilla on the other side was keeping it tight and most of the time when Portugal was on counter it looked like Spain was playing a 3 man defense, with Pique covering as right back and Capdevilla pairing with Puyol in the center. Portugal clearly had spotted this since most of their attacks and all the counterattacks I can remember where coming down Ramos’ side.
As for Llorente’s sub, I believe it was an attempt to give width to the team that worked out differently than Del Bosque was probably anticipating. The problem with Torres being out of touch was that there was no one physically capable of outjumping Portugal’s CBs to make crossing a viable option, which in turn led to a predictable passing game through the center that wasn’t looking very promising. In that aspect it almost paid off instantly when he missed the opportunity to score from Ramos’ cross.
An even bigger problem for Spain however, was Torres’ movement. He was typically drifting to the sides, trying to create space for himself, which while perfectly fine when playing alone up front as in Liverpool or in a duo with a heskey-type partner, it was hurting Spain’s game, since he was blocking channels and drawing attention to the wrong places of the pitch, given the fact that their master plan was to create space for a through ball to Villa. What Torres doesn’t seem to realize, and I doubt if Del Bosque does either, is that in this strikeforce, he’s doing Heskey’s part. Llorente put his back to the goal, drew the CBs to the edge of their area, which opened up space for Villa to score.
Finally, regarding Spain’s last sub, Marchena for Xabi, it doesn’t really make any sense, unless Xabi had picked up some injury(?). The intention of shutting up shop was obvious when Villa came out for Pedro. So what’s the point of replacing a holding mid who’s having a decent game and is heated up for another one that’s gonna need at least 5 mins to get in the game properly? If he felt the need to add an extra DM, surely Iniesta would be the obvious choice to drop. Found it very peculiar at that point of the game where they had to hold on to a lead that if it was lost it would be catastrophic, since Villa was no longer on the pitch, to switch DMs instead of adding one.
PS. Do yourself a favor and don’t bother doing a writeup for Paraguay vs Japan. First game that I couldn’t stomach to watch in the World Cup so far. Coming from someone who managed to get through all 3 of France’s games, that says a lot.
I actually think Ramos was instructed to play that way. When they were in possession, Spain generally went with a “1-3″ in the back during this match. Capdevila and Busquets both stayed back, and Pique drifted right and up to mirror where Capdevila was, with Puyol staying behind almost as a sweeper. It was interesting — I don’t think I’ve ever seen a team shift their back line in quite that manner before.
Agreed that Ramos was likely instructed to get up field. I theorize that Del Bosque noticed that Portugal was using a strictly four man attack. Having six strictly defensive players stopping a four man attack is overkill, likewise attacking four players (Xavi, Iniesta, Torres and Villa) into a six man wall was not working and the crosses did loosen the defenders.
I think the most shocking thing in this game was Iniesta’s failure to take open shots. Portugal let him get the ball a few times with space to turn from 20-30 yards out in the middle of the field and Portugal would only single cover him. The Portugese knew he would not shoot or take the man on and dropped into coverage on the other Spanish attackers.
Iniesta only shots when it’s minute 90+ (see CL09 semifinals)
other than that, he does not shot… he’d rather give it to his mother to shot.
Regarding Paraguay-Japan:
One of the those games where you think: Why are these people chasing a ball at the Vuzuzela concert?
LOL…. Spot on!!
Villa is getting all of the credit, but Xavi was the man of the match. His off the ball run into space made the goal, as well as his amazing pass to the onrushing Villa. See more details in my match report on how Xavi created the goal, as well as a still photo of the offsides call/non-call http://dodgyatbest.blogspot.com/2010/06/spain-1-0-portugal-xavis-run-off-ball.html
I’m a huge Xavi fan, and great play here of course, but Costa and Simao are at fault here (see bradluen’s comment above).
You’re right, Costa shifted to mark Xavi, but then made the mistake of leaving Xavi to go even further out of position to rush Iniesta. Simao saw Villa unmarked *in the box!* for 3-4 seconds before doing anything about it. All the defenders are watching the ball. That’s a huge lapse- you just don’t leave Villa in the box with 3 yards of space around him.
Look at :01 in your video: Simao starts *walking* away from Villa! He’s walking towards the center, watching the ball, not, as some have suggested, zonally guarding against a potential winger on the right. He just assumes that with 6 men back against 4, he doesn’t have any work to do. Unfortunately for Portugal, it was 6v3, with Villa alone.
You can make the case that every goal conceded is a result of a mistake. Sometimes its just brilliant play.
Villa’s goal against Honduras was brilliant solo play. The defenders did nothing wrong, he just beat them, the same way a tennis pro scores an unstoppable ace serve, no matter how good or well-positioned his opponent. Some team goals are the same way; small battles won adding up to an adavantage and a goal.
Even if one were to say every goal conceded is the result of a mistake, there are glaring preventable mistakes vs ones caused by minute concessions due to greater skill at that moment on the part of the offense. Despite Spain’s excellent play (which perhaps tired Portugal both physically and mentally), this is a case of the former- a glaring error.
I don’t disagree with anything you say Bernie. Simao simply reacted too late, but in his defense, he’s a winger, so as you said it isn’t crazy of him to be in a mindset where the other 6 men back should be able to handle 3-4 attackers. In this case he was wrong, as they all got bunched up over on the left. Costa was in a no win situation: mark Xavi leaving Villa alone & hope Simao gets back in time (he didn’t), or leave Xavi running through the center of defense into the box unmarked. For me the real fault isn’t with him or even Simao, it’s with the left side of Portugal’s backline which got all bunched up and out of position. Compare this to a Mourinho side- it’s hard to imagine Inter EVER losing their defensive discipline & shape like this. So for me while Simao & Costa get the blame, the real problem is not getting enough criticism- 4 defenders covering Iniesta & Llorente at the edge of the box.
I agree about the back line. Simao is probably thinking as he walks to center “I’m in a position to receive the ball when the defenders tackle it.” However, I think a better player doesn’t just watch the ball but looks at what’s going on around him, both to assist defensively, and to know who he will release to if he receives the ball.
I agree, ZM. Until the subs were made, the game could go either way, with Portugal looking a little more likely to score. And then came Del Bosque and Queiroz: the spanish did it right, dropping the awful Torres for a stronger, more physical Llorente (who did, in 30 minutes, more than Torres in the whole WC); the portuguese did it wrong, taking off his striker for a midfielder, changing 2 positions. If your striker is tired, replace him with another one! Liedson was the man to enter, not Danny, leaving CR all alone up front.
I’m glad Spain won after the managers made their moves, because this shows that attack CAN beat defence, even in a substituition sense. The positive sub by Del Bosque outclassed the negative sub by Queiroz.
Another thing: Cristiano Ronaldo can suck my hairy balls. Arrogant motherfucker, I really felt satisfied that Baldassi overlooked some clear fouls on him, maybe this will make him stop jumping around, searching for fouls and cards. The WC is better off without him and still with Xavi and Villa.
“Ask Queiroz”
I agree that in some way Spain are lacking balance in midfield though i disagree with the general assertion that they lack width. Yes you get width from so call ‘wide players’ but you also create width from runs and positioning on the field. Spain were doing with Ramos bombing up the right side constantly and Villa basically playing as a left winger though cutting inside. The problem for most of the game was Torres kept taking up a position on the right side in attempt to beat Contrao blocking the space Ramos was attacking. As a result with Torres on the right side when Ramos had the ball there was noone to cross to. Later on Llorente who isnt as technically gifted or as quick as Torres came on and he stayed in the centre, of course Llorente’s reputation is that he is excellent in the air and suddenly Villa and Ramos were hitting crosses from wider positions. You have to also factor in Portugal’s defending which was very good and very organised.
I don’t think Alonso offers anything different to Busquets or Xavi in that midfield but i can understand the argument for extra protection especially against a strong Portugal side. Against Paraguay who had most of the ball against Japan but created very little you can afford to drop Alonso for Fabregas who is more creative and is more of goal threat.
Trying to use Ronaldo as a playmaker won’t work. Since Portugal were lacking a real playmaker, with Deco not playing (and not doing too well when he does), they had to concede midfield and play counter. Which was expected.
Their defense was excellent, and covered the whole width of the field. Spain, seeing that a wide attack would be “diluted” and stopped by such defense, tried the drill technique: put all the men through the middle, and win by force of raw numbers.
With Llorente, Iniesta, Xavi, Villa and Xabi right behind, the central line found itself in a 4 vs. 5 situation during the best moments of Spain, with Meireles facing Busquets and the fullbacks containing the runs of Ramos and Capdevila.
Anyone else notice how similar the Spain formation v. Portugal is nearly identical to the current Brazil formation albeit implemented slightly differently. An adventurous right fullback (but not as talented), a more offensive volante, Iniesta in a more advanced position than Alves/Ramires/Elano, and a game plan built around possession vs. playing on the counter. But Xavi, Villa, and Torres were positioned and played very similarly to Kaka, Robinho, and Luis Fabiano. Although I could be completely wrong, and may have just read too much Jonathan Wilson.
positionally, it was really similar.
individually, although…only Villa doing what Robinho does.
Well, Brazil has Fabiano-Robinho-Kaka, but Spain has Villa-Iniesta-Xavi.
I thought that too, even to the extent that Piqué shifted over to the right to cover for Ramos just as Lúcio does when Maicón is in a raiding mood.
I’ve posted further down…
Pity I missed out; an interesting discussion!
For me Spain were more like Brazil ‘82 (4-2-2-2 assymetrical) than Brazil 2010 (4-3-1-2 assymetrical).
That does seem more accurate but a little before my football viewing time I am afraid.
It would appear either jonathan wilson agrees with you or he plagiarized you. I prefer to go with the former. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/soccer/world-cup-2010/writers/jonathan_wilson/06/30/tactics.2ndrd/index.html
Most likely the former, Whataboutbob!
I think many people have arrived independently at the conclusion of Spain playing a 4-2-2-2; for example, towards half-time during the game I was pretty sure from observing the movement of all the players ahead of Busquets and Alonso that we were dealing with a 4-2-2-2. The commentators on ESPN Brazil didn’t mention it in terms of numbers per se… but they were using terminology to describe the players’ movement. Later that evening, at least two Brazilian football websites would go on to illustrate the Spanish formation as a lopsided 4-2-2-2, with one of them (Preleção) alluding to the 1982 Brazil team; this particular Brazilian journalist was most impressed at how the Spaniards had taken a recognisably Brazilian formation and shed it of its defensive trappings (i.e., not using two brutes in the holding midfield positions) in order to form an intricate passing style.
One thing that was noted by me was that most of Portugal’s attacking threat was coming from the left thanks to Hugo Almeida and Fabio Contreao ,this had much to do with the fact that Iniesta was coming so deep at times he was playing in the space between Torres and Villa forcing Torres into a more wider role than a central striker but very high up the pitch also this opened up space for Ramos who was at times playing almost as a winger.this meant that Spain were always going to look vulnerable to counterattacks from their right flank this was exactly the case in the first half when Hugo Almeida was holding up the ball for the runs of the very quick Contreao ,they got a few decent crosses in from this flank but could not finish.A better side like Brasil with Robinho and Bastos down the left and Spain’s right might exploit this weakness very well but that said there would be a different game plan then wouldn’t it be? for Spain
ZM: once again, please write “Paulo” instead of “Paolo” for Ferreira.
Nice analysis, spot on. After the goal the game was obviously well and done. I basically stopped watching intently, only keeping an eye on it from time to time.
Almeida’s substitution seemed a bit rash and premature. He had just outpaced Piqué for that ball that was close to going in. Hardly the work of an exhausted player.
Danny disappointed me somewhat, but that’s what we can expect when a creative player, who usually plays attacking midfielder or deep-lying forward, is asked to be a winger. He can do it, but as Messi or Ronaldinho do it: as a creative player on the wing (to have space). He doesn’t have the characteristics of a winger.
Queiroz showed again that he is a superb coach (the organisation of the midfield and defense were superb) but a bad tactician when it comes to read the game.
Hey ZM, great post as usual (everbody writes this but they are all right, you are really doing an amazing job).
One question keeps coming up when I watch Spain at the World Cup:
Why does del Bosque never tries to play with Xavi as a CENTRAL (not central/offensive) midfielder???
I understand that he starts with Alsonso and Bsuquets as holding midfielder because defense is very important at a World Cup but it just seems to me that Xavi is wasted (this is a very harsh thing to say about this amazing player) in that offensive position because he rarely gets into the space between the strikers and holding mitfielder as you pointed out in your post on Spain vs. Switzerland. Additionally there has to be said that del Bosque has plenty of options for the 10. Cesc, Mata and Silva kann all play this position very, very well. Xavi would take the position he has at Barca.
The huge number of passes by Busquets supports imo my theorie – if there were a Xavi next to him Spain`s offensive would have been far better.
The goal was superb (offside or not) but it came more from the quality of the players than from a great tactical side/game plan imo.
Greetz
My thoughts for the first hour of the game were mostly that Torres was playing far too wide, basically on the right wing, and that this meant the centre halves for Portugal were barely occupied at all. As soon as Llorente came on, and a more direct threat was posed, Spain looked far more dangerous. I expect Llorente to start vs Paraguay; if he doesn’t, Torres should ensure he stays more central. Villa seemed to become much more dangerous when the two centre halves were occupied and he was attacking his man one on one.
Spain looked great in the last half hour, of course, but before the goal, it was a completely different game.
Incidentally, the nature of Paraguay’s penalty taking suggests that they will surely look to play for penalties throughout.
Does Villa’s near unplayability playing from the left hand side make the English press complaining about Gerrard’s positioning look even more stupid than it did before?
Paraguay has scored one goal in this World Cup, can they play for anything else but penalties?
Actually, Paraguay has scored 3 goals so far. 1 against Italy, 2 against Slovakia.
you mean 3 goals?
Dj,
Torres’ problem was not his positioning; he started from central positions with licence to drift out rightwards in order to drag defenders with him. The reason why perhaps he appeared stranded out there to you was that his fitness is shot and hence his movement was sluggish- he couldn’t run so many channels – a properly fit Torres still might not have scored but he would have caused problems with his movement.
I’ve read alot of criticism about Ronaldo’s lack of work rate, but does anyone else thinks its a tactical decision, as Queiroz wanted Ronaldo to be fresh for attack? He started pressing the defenders once Portugal went behind as they needed to get the ball back immediately, which shows he is more than willing to track back.
ZM, hope you will answer this. May be this is a strange thought. I strongly felt yesterday, there were a few passes of Xavi and Iniesta, which would be converted by Messi in Barca, normally. Is it because Torres was really in poor form or he is yet to have an understanding of Xavi and Iniesta as Messi does. Having said that Iniesta is no where near his best.
Alonso is good of course, but if Xavi plays a little more behind instead of Alonso, and if Fabregas plays, Spain could be more effective. There is definitely something lacking in their attack.
agreed, I posted something similiar just a bit earlier (regarding Xavi)
Spain`s lack of width is (also) there because there is no Messi. The quality of the players is obviously not a problem but the fact that every player of Barcelona is almost forced to play the ball ouside since there is this outstanding little Argentinian…
A good argument for bringing on Pedro, who we haven’t seen much of yet. He’d be a better fit than Navas has been because he has that understanding with Xavi and Iniesta. Plenty of pace and technique, and far more creative, You won’t see him lob ten crosses into the box.
Let’s hope Spain gets an early and significant lead against Paraguay, which may allow del Bosque to sub in a bit deeper into his bench.
IMO one of the main reasons for Portugal’s lack of spirit would have to be their captain. Which captain would sit on the ground for 30 seconds questioning the refs decision in a world cup knock out match.? If portugal are to move forward, they need to have a more mature captain(maybe carvalho or eduardo). Teams should not make a player captain just for his talent. Great article as usual..
Ronaldo did not sit on the ground for 30 seconds questioning the ref’s decision in this match.
ZM, can you write an awards section such as “Best Player of the Tournament” or “Tactical Contest of the Tournament” etc. after the World Cup?
I had one problem: I was sooooo tired and nearly fell asleep. Maybe it was the Paraguay – Japan hangover or the spanish possession hypnotised me.
What makes me really sad is that, after reading 94 comments, I couldn’t find a single reference to the main figure of the entire game: Hector Baldassi.
From seeing fouls differently in favor of Spain to the great piece of acting that Capdevila pulled off, it was all a joke.
Now I get why FIFA is against the use of video replays and such things: it would turn football into a fair game.
I encourage you to go to another forum where your trolling will be properly addressed.
“after reading 94 comments, I couldn’t find a single reference”
take a hint then.
Yeah, it’s because this site’s about tactics and not refereeing decisions.
sorry ZM, my apologies, just a portuguese fan not happy with what I’ve seen yesterday.
Yeah no worries, I understand. But let’s be honest, there’s not that much interesting about debating refereeing decisions!
Yeah, you’re totally right, I’m just sad, that’s all. Still got that red card and a previous push to ronaldo stuck in my throat.
Now I’ll root for Germany or Uruguai, really liking their football (:
IF anybody is going to play as a lone d-mid, it’s Busquets. It’s not as if he has never done it with Xavi and Iniesta at Barcelona. Alonso needs a self-less destroyer next to him to cover his backside, give him the ball and give him more freedom to roam. That’s why Mascherano and him together were so good whereas he struggled when paired with the roaming and relatively ball-hogging for a d-mid Lass Diarra at Real Madrid. A big reason that Aragones rarely played Alonso and Xavi together was that they both need many touches and are used to controlling the tempo at different paces and from different positions. With Luis, Alonso was usually a sub for Xavi instead of Senna. I’ve rarely seen both of the, have good games at the same time. Both are great players but give me Xavi over Alonso if I have to choose.
My goodness, I still can’t believe how underrated Busquets is. It’s easy to forget that he is only 21. How many 21 year old central midfielders do you see in world football with his positional discipline and technical ability on the ball. Many a Barca fan has been frustrated with him over-dribbling, losing the ball in bad situations, and overly play acting but when one measures those instances against his relative inexperiance and his long spells of solid-ness then you get an idea of how remarkable he is for such a young player. The guy was in the thrid division until a couple of year’s ago and suddenly he broke his way into Barcelona and the defending Euro champions: at 21! Del Bosque and Pep both love him (as frustrating as that is sometimes) and I get a distinct feeling that those two know their stuff. He is not a fire-breathing killing machine a la Mascherano or Essien nor is he a physically imposing man mountain a la Yaya Toure but instead a gangly, skinny, awkward ugly guy who just seems to be at the right place most of the time. He’s exactly what this Spanish team needs with Senna’s absence. He’s got 2 or 3 more world cups in him if his health holds. That’s not bad.
Flatout, I wholeheartedly agree; Busquets just needs to add years of maturity to his game in what is a very difficult decision to play in terms of how it mentally tests you.
I’m tired of defending him by lauding his technique (more refined than many of the more attacking midfielders in the world today and exquisite by the standard of most defensive midfielders)Also, his positional nous is good, considering his age.
Busquets is an absolute star.
“How many 21 year old central midfielders do you see in world football with his positional discipline and technical ability on the ball.”
Have you heard of Busquets’ team-mate Javi Martinez; his goal against Almeria ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56OirGsPiJY ) was Sid Lowe’s choice for the goal of the season?
He is the principal playmaker for Athletic Bilbao, like Senna was for Villareal. For Spain, Martinez debuted as a CAM (against KSA), but since then he has been subbed in as a DM, and he has been excellent, IMO.
I think Busquets will change his position like Fabregas and Iniesta did, and Martinez will be the lone DM of the team.
But Busquets is quality. He has really improved since that game against Switzerland (where he put on a horror show). Vicente del Bosque said that if he wanted to be a player, he would be Busquets — not Xavi, not Villa, not Iniesta. I think that’s a complement of the highest order.
ZM,
watching Brazilian analysis of the game here, the pundits were struck at how ‘classically Brazilian’ the Spanish formation was; i.e. it was a 4-2-2-2, and just like the Brazil team of 1982, it was lopsided, with the second striker (Villa = Eder)starting from a wide-left position; one of the advanced playmakers roaming centrally (Xavi as per Socrates), the other starting in the same band though more to the right (Iniesta imitating Zico’s role); and two holders who could distribute the ball very well (Busquets and Alonso = Cerezo and Falcão) – although I think this last point is only true in structural terms when you consider that both Falcão and Cerezo alternated turns to go forward, whereas Busquets was always lying deep here.
Interesting to hear that, and also interesting how similar it is to Brazil’s current formation. Iniesta = Ramires (although playing out-in rather than in-out), Villa = Robinho, Ramos = Maicon. Certainly a different combination of central midfielders, but stilll…
You may have a point in perhaps structurally it almost resembles Dunga’s Brazil (and I emphasise the ‘almost’), save for the vast difference in the technical quality of the deeper midfield players.
But even in terms of structure/bands/formation, I would still argue for a greater resemblence with the ‘82 Brazil side; Iniesta, quite apart from being amore creative player than Ramires, in fact plays in a higher band than does the Brazilian,who, as Tim Vickery has argued, often plays level with Gilberto and Melo to compensate for Maicon’s forward runs. Hence, Iniesta and Xavi play in that advanced midfield band, as did Socrates and Zico. The assymetry in Spain’s system rests primarily in the most advanced band due to Villa’s duties on the wing; in 1982, a famous catch phrase in Brazil was coined by a chat-show host “Bota um ponta, Telé” (pleading with Santana to stick another winger on there); since the Brazilian public had been used to viewing 4-3-3 variations, they were puzzled by this coach’s experimenting with a ’single outside-forward plus target-man formula’
hahahaha
classic: “bota ponta, Telê!!”
Some of us commented on that very subject a little farther up. Glad to see all that Wilson and ZM reading is paying off in a football sense (killing my productivity at work though).
to view an illustration of this 4-2-2-2, here is the link to a graphic.
http://this11.com/boards/1277910913202046.jpg
Here I have also included lines to denote how the 4-2-2-2 becomes 4-2-3-1 in defensive phase (Villa falling into the left-sided role in the first line of pressure alongside Xavi and Iniesta)
Here is an illustration of the Brazil team from 1982…
http://this11.com/boards/1277915331168350.jpg
Note how it is structurally very similar to Spain’s as per the game vs. Portugal with the difference that the Brazilian full-backs in ‘82 attacked a lot more, even simultaneously.
I made that exact observation to my wife regarding Villa cutting in from the left. I didn’t make the Brazil ‘82 connection though, actually I was rather reminded of Thierry Henry in his 2004 vintage. Either way, I thought it was a sensational tactic for Del Bosque to deploy Villa in such an unorthadox manner. The wife agreed.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/soccer/world-cup-2010/writers/jonathan_wilson/06/30/tactics.2ndrd/index.html
Spain really has in David Villa an amazing player.
He’s such a great forward.
His striking abilities are so awesome that he can even score when he’s offside. . .
Apparently the offside rule in this world cup doesn’t apply neither to him nor to Tévez
Now seriously the result of this match is outrageous. Portugal deserved to keep a clean sheet and Spain didn’t deserve to score. The Portuguese defended brilliantly. They denied any space to Xavi and Iniesta and their through passes were useless during the entire match.
I mean in the 1st half they tried to make numerous killer passes who really made think “This is it! Xavi made that pass so there must be a free player right in front of goal to score”. But no. All those passes were ridiculous and all went easily to the hands of the Portuguese goalkeeper.
This meant Spain could only create goal opportunities by mid-range shots from David Villa or long-range shots by Xabi Alonso. The Portuguese coach knew about this didn’t matter because he knew he had in Eduardo the safety to easily save them all.
Portugal’s only defensive mistake in the entire match came in the header from Llorente. This happened because he had just been introduced in the game. But the Portuguese centre-backs corrected it and Llorent never touched the ball in penalty area again.
On the Spanish goal there’s no defensive mistake and there isn’t any lack of defensive awareness from Simão either (he wasn’t needed there). If you watch carefully you see that Portugal has all the paths to the penalty box blocked. However, when Iniesta passes the ball to Xavi, Ricardo Costa (who was marking D.Villa) advances towards him leaving Villa unmarked. But there’s no problem once he advances knowing he’ll leave Villa offside.
Well, there would be no problem if the referee wasn’t incompetent. But that’s okay, I guess. Like Seedorf said Spain won, Portugal lost everyones’s happy. Even FIFA must be happy once they had such a good refereeing.
It Was so good that they didn’t even show the replay from Villa’s goal and R.Costa’s red card.
But we’re cool, after all everyone’s happy… except for me who I’m Portuguese!!!!!
I’m completely frustrated!!!!! This is not the first time we’re eliminated due to a bad referee call. I still remember Euro’08, WC’06 and Euro’00 (I was 5 by then and I even still remember). Well, I should have been used to it by now.
I hope neither Spain, Brazil nor Argentina win this cup.
Spain because they played shit in the last 2 group matches and qualified thanks to the referee.
Brazil and Argentina because they’ve been playing crap throughout the all tournament.
Now Germany and Holland are sides that play exciting, paced, real football that honestly deserve to win and I hope to watch a final between the two of them.
P.S.: I’m also frustrated about Carlos Queiroz substitutions. He´s really bad in swapping players. I mean it doesn’t make sense to take out H.Almeida just because he was tired (he wasn’t, he said it on the flash interview and that was clear once he was being one of Portugal’s biggest attacking threats – he didn’t reach a killer cross by inches in the 1st half and he almost created an own goal from Puyol in the 2nd half just moments before leaving the match).
If there was a player who was really tired was Pepe that should’ve been replaced like half an hour earlier.
By the way, great blog
By your own standards, Spain defended better than Portugal. They made one mistake in not closing down Tiago fast enough. Spain should have stayed back more for the corner but Casillas took care of it. But other than that, Portugal’s chances, like the freekick from C. Ronaldo. were exaggerated, only because Casillas fumbled. If Casillas had been as good as Eduardo, you wouldn’t say that Portugal had even a single chance.
Portugal certainly made more than one defensive mistake. Even though Villa was offside by 22cm (which no linesman would’ve seen), Simao didn’t defend properly.
Llorente got two chances for scoring — one was the Ramos cross that you spoke of (~60′), the other one was a cross from Villa (~80′). He was also involved in the build up of Villa’s goal. Put simply, the Portuguese defenders couldn’t defend against him.
Torres would have done much better if he was in form.
Ramos also got in the box as well after some poor defending from Coentrao, but Eduardo saved.
If Spain had Brazil’s goalscoring efficiency, we would’ve seen more goals. And defending against Xavi or Spain is not so great anymore — even though Portugal weren’t really successful at it — let’s look at some of the teams that have done it so far: Ireland, USA, Iceland, Sevilla, Inter, Switzerland, Italy, Valencia.
I was more impressed with how Spain made C. Ronaldo disappear from the game, even though their CBs are slow as hell and their fullbacks don’t defend and they play a high defensive line. I find it funny how many times people say that Puyol (and Lúcio) are too old and slow and how Messi and C. Ronaldo are going to teach them a lesson. We saw Lúcio against C. Ronaldo just a few days ago, we saw Puyol against C. Ronaldo in the matches against Madrid and in the CL final versus United in ‘08 and the last match as well, and I’ve to say old CBs FTW!
The CB’s didn’t make C. Ronaldo disappear, he did that himself.
bekutwjmehccmhmxrygi, Wallpapers, cpjnefQ.
yslptjrgxlrbiewbovnw, ienlarge.com, tsMLHqM.
ovxfsbvhxaqefqxawsku, Volume Pills, xsfmTqy.
nhpljkbwqcscdvydafpt, Levitra, SBaJRMW.
vqqxnwgvyfkbsqomlqjx, freemusicdownloadsbox, aDTHDCa.
ttdiiwxgrvuxmevoewqj, Cats dream, ycKJOIK.
znoglsjtzshfsxwnoyyq, Can ambien repair brain damage, iyHmNFa.