Uruguay 1-1 Ghana: nothing to separate the sides
The starting line-ups
A game that got increasingly exciting, before an incredible finale. Penalties and Suarezgate aside, a ‘draw’ was a fair result.
Both sides fielded their expected line-ups – Uruguay had named their team 48 hours before kick-off, whilst Ghana’s team featured the predicted two changes because of suspensions.
The opening to the game was played primarily in Ghana’s half, with Uruguay dominating possession. Their side had been restructured from previous games – it was more of a 4-4-2; Edinson Cavani played on the left, seeming slightly uncomfortable, whilst Alvaro Fernandez was on the right – rarely being involved in the game. Diego Perez and Egidio Arevalo sat deep in midfield.
Ghana played even more defensively than usual, partly because Sulley Muntari, on the left-hand side, is not a natural winger and therefore was playing closer to the central midfielders than to Asamoah Gyan, who struggled for support upfront. They seemed to improve simply by shifting 15 yards further up the pitch midway through the first half – whether this was a deliberate tactic from Milovan Rajevac, or simply a case of Ghana growing in confidence is not clear.
Uruguay were not playing particularly brilliant football, however. Diego Forlan had returned to a central striking role, rather than the near-enganche position where he was the key player. Here, he started to drop deeper and deeper as the game went on, acting as a link player rather than as a goalscorer. The change in formation was not conducive to Forlan creating, however. When he picked the ball up in deeper positions, he generally only had Luis Suarez ahead of him, where with the Uruguayan 4-3-1-2ish shape used in previous games, he had the option of both Suarez and Cavani.
Partly for that reason, and partly because of the poor performances of the wide players, Uruguay created relatively little, despite Ghana playing a rather high defensive line. The better goalscoring opportunities fell to Ghana, and their charge forward was helped by a tactical switch. Kwadwo Asamoah and Kevin Prince Boateng were swapped, making Boateng more of an attacking force. He and Asamoah concerned Perez and Arevalo, creating more time on the ball for Anthony Annan, who became more of an influence as the game went on. Samuel Inkoom and Sulley Muntari also swapped roles, to lesser effect.
The goal came from nothing – a long-range drive from Muntari – although a half-time lead for Ghana was probably a fair reflection on the number of goalscoring chances each side created.
Half-time Uruguay switch
Oscar Tabarez made an important switch at half-time, taking off the ineffectual Fernandez (he completed just three passes in the first half), and bringing on the exciting young winger Nicolas Lodeiro. As well as the immediate effect of Lodeiro’s trickery, it also meant that Cavani was able to move back to his preferred position on the right.
The basic formations of both sides, with Ghana attacking the goal nearest the camera. They have a broad 4-1-4-1 shape, with the most attacking midfielder having joined Asamoah Gyan upfront. Uruguay's shape in attack is slightly unnatural, but Perez and Arevalo sitting solidly ahead of the defence is clear.
Uruguay were suddenly much more cohesive going forward. Forlan was more visible, and they deserved their equaliser – from a swerving Forlan free-kick. At 1-1, the game became simultaneously stretched and cagey – there was plenty of space in midfield, but both sides were reluctant to get too many players forward, partly because of tiredness.
The introduction of substitutes on either side didn’t have the desired impact, and the arrival of Stephen Appiah seemed to push Boateng into a wide role he wasn’t happy with. He had been the best player on the pitch, but being deployed on the flank limited his influence. Sebastien Abreu provided a more direct goal threat than the man he replaced, Cavani, but it pushed Forlan and Suarez into deeper, wider roles where they were unable to combine.
Then came the handball, a penalty shoot-out and the eventual result that Uruguay progress.
Conclusion
In tactical terms over the course of the game, neither side got the better of the other, and a drawn game was a fair result. It was a good example of a one-striker, five-man midfield against a two striker, four-man midfield contest. In the most basic terms, Ghana created the more chances but had fewer players to finish them.
Uruguay seemed less comfortable in this formation than in the 4-3-1-2 they’d used in previous matches. Forlan is naturally a striker, of course, but in this side his best role seems to be as a deeper playmaker, using his skill and awareness on the ball to create chances for others, and dictate the play. How Tabarez will reshape the side for the semi-final against Holland will be interesting, particularly with the absence of Suarez.
Ghana will feel desperately unlucky to be out of the competition. Ultimately, they weren’t able to score enough goals, and their defence made some frustrating errors which cost them – three of the four goals they conceded came from penalties or free-kicks, after poor tackles.
Milovan Rajevac can consider a run to the quarter-finals an astonishing achievement considering the relative lack of pure talent on show. He has created a tremendous young side that have been disciplined and hard-working, as well as technically proficient and cohesive going forward.
Uruguay 1-1 Ghana: nothing to separate the sides
If I were the referee I would have played dumb and given the goal. Better to go home early than see a team suffer such an injustice.
Should the rules be changed to give goals automatically for fouls in the penalty box?
No, but this was denial of a 100% goal, very different situation
You don’t the point.
Perhaps, but that’s what the rules say. Suarez totally risked it and it worked. While Uruguay’s victory was “dirty” I wouldn’t want the rules changed. Ghana just had to score that PK and they would have won.
And, by the way, it shouldn’t have been a free kick in the first place.
I hope with injustice you mean the dive that led to the free kick. Apart from that there was no injustice.
I’m surprised to see this discussion all over the Internet. How is that any different to a tactical foul. I’d be livid as an Uruguay supporter if Suarez didn’t do it.
Now people may ask why handball should be given special treatment in terms of penalty goal (give the goal instead of going to penalties). The difference between a handball and a foul from a ill-timed tackle inside a box is that with a foul that prevented the player from having a shot on goal, there’s no guarantee that if the foul didn’t take place a goal would have been scored. There’s always a possibility that the player could have missed the shot or the goalkeeper would have saved the shot. Therefore a penalty is a sufficient punishment for these types of fouls as it still requires the attacking side to be good enough to beat the keeper.
However, with a handball that stops the ball from entering the net, there is no doubt that if the foul didn’t take place a goal would have been scored. Therefore a penalty goal would be sufficient punishment.
When Gyan scored from the spot against Australia after Harry Kewell’s arm touched the ball on the line, no one was talking about changing rules… He was sent off like Suarez but Gyan scored. Now, Gyan missed his kick and we think the rules should be tweaked!
I actually thought the free-kick that led to the ping-pong in the Uruguay penalty area was very soft. It shouldn’t have been given. A French TV commentator (CANAL+) actually said it was some kind of justice that Gyan didn’t score.
Personally, I wished he’d scored. But not reason enough to demand a bending of the rules or rule change after that.
@ZM: Great match analysis as per usual!
Kudos to Rajevac for understanding that 4-5-1 (4-1-4-1) is the best formation to keep sub-Saharan teams cohesive and efficient (less individualistic) on the big stage. It doesn’t give many goals, but they don’t concede too much as well, allowing their lead strikers (often physically strong) to use their power and skill when it matters. Bravo!
Good point. May be the rules favours the brave.
Re the handball.
Appiah was in an offside position when the cross was flicked on, then went on to shoot from the rebound off the keeper.
So offside before handball.
Liar! keep looking for a way to justify cheating. Suarez cheated period.
No, he’s right. There was offside which should have been punished before the handball.
Yes, he cheated and that’s why he got sent off and won’t play against Netherlands.
Suarez is a man of our times – he is the footballing equivalent of a homeowner who defaults on his mortgage when he’s in negative equity and surrenders the house to the bank. What the law-and-economics crowd would call “efficient breach” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_breach
Great website, ZM. Really enjoy it and has been a revelation. Two questions: (a) will you ever reveal your secret identity? Many of us wonder who you are, what you’re background is – you’re the Batman of football analysis. (b) any chance of changing the gif diagrams? the firewall at work blocks them (but leaves the text).
Tabarez seems so willing to embrace change, seeing as he’s sampled both Fernandez and Gonzalez on a flank. However, he’s still unwilling to start Lodeiro. He didn’t exactly wow upon coming on, yet seeks to get on the ball more than that aforementioned pair does. Putting him against Van der Wiel, Robben, and De Jong, he’d have to up the pace at which he distributes.
van der wiel and de jong are both suspended for the semi-final
Spot on. Proves again that the most important position in the modern game is the fullback.
a tactical foul is not a “wrong” thing to do, especially in that situation (which the penalty and red card is given), it’s not like when henry hand pass or maradona goal or others things like that
and anyway, why should I care about anglo-saxon morale? i am just a south american monkey in a tree…
I think the suspensions will really affect the semi-final, ridiculous that 2 yellows in 5 games gets you a suspension.
Funny to hear the uproar about this. I missed the goalmouth action live because I was so outraged by the free kick award for an obvious dive by the Ghana winger. A competent referee would never have awarded that, much less in the closing seconds of a game, when a free kick into the box would be certain to produce a vicious goalmouth scrap.
PS–As a fullback too short to fight for headers in the middle, I spent years guarding the near post and then facing shots while standing on the line, and it never occurred to me to intentionally use my hands.
A little late on this one, but I enjoyed the game a great deal.
Personally I thought that Ghana more than shaded it. The key for me was the reversal in the midfield from that set out above. They started that way but Asamoah (who I thought was outstanding until he got really, really tired at the end) dropped much deeper to pick up the ball and dictate. Boateng pushed on and got the inevitable plaudits for his Ronaldo-light egocentricity – and boy did he miss some through passes for runners – but the work was done behind him.
Gyan excellent as well; such a shame.