Villarreal 1-1 Valencia: Emery’s three-man defence copes with two strikers, but not three
The starting line-ups. Valencia were in blue.
Valencia had a specific plan to stifle Villarreal’s fluid 4-4-2 system – and it almost worked.
The home side made one change from last week’s defeat to Barcelona. Mateo Musacchio was dropped in favour of the returning captain Gonzalo Rodriguez, so Carlos Marchena moved across to the left side of the centre-back pairing.
Unai Emery made sweeping changes to his side, both in shape and personnel. He went for a 3-4-3 system that sometimes looked like 3-3-1-3 when Tino Costa joined the attacking trident. He used right-back Miguel at left-wing-back and centre-back Hedwiges Maduro in front of the defence. Pablo Hernandez, Joaquin Sanchez and Aritz Aduriz formed a fluid front three.
Emery’s gameplan made sense in theory, and it also worked out pretty well on the pitch. Villarreal’s strength is the movement and interplay of their front four – the strikers move wide to drag the centre-backs out of position, the interiores take advantage of that space, with the full-backs providing width on the outside.
Spare man
This is a particular problem for opponents because Villarreal play with two strikers. Therefore, if you play two centre-backs against them, you have no spare man at the back. Emery wanted a spare man, and so therefore he played three centre-backs, with Ricardo Costa tracking Nilmar, Marius Stankevicius tacking Giuseppe Rossi, and David Navarro generally being the one who swept up behind.
The two wing-backs were charged with taking care of the interiores, and here it was notable that Miguel did quite well up against Cani – Cani always came inside, Miguel was able to tackle on his stronger side. He and Bruno played very narrow. The extent to which Valencia dealt with Villarreal’s attackers can be summed up by the fact the biggest threat from the home side was from Joan Capdevila from left-back, who had two dangerous shots in the first half.
Valencia fluid up top
Valencia kept the general style of play their usual 4-2-3-1 shape features, however. The front three were fluid, both in possession and when they lost the ball. Aduriz would sometimes find himself in a wide zone so would then take care of the Villarreal full-backs for the next attack, with one of the wingers becoming the temporary lone striker. They also maintained their preference for playing on the counter-attack – mainly down the right when Capdevila came forward, and it was a cross from Joaquin on that side that brought the first goal – turned in by Aduriz.
There were a couple of changes towards the end of the first half – Cani and Santi Cazorla switched, and Navarro’s injury meant Ever Banega came on, with Maduro dropping into the centre of the defence. But the situation remained the same – Villarreal had a lot of the ball, but couldn’t create many chances.
After Capdevila's injury, Villarreal went to 4-1-2-3
Villarreal change of shape
Ironically, it was an injury to their most promising player, Capdevila, which helped Villarreal get back in the game. Juan Carlos Garrido chose to replace the left-back with a forward, Marco Ruben, placing Bruno Soriano at left-back, a position he played well (he is naturally left-footed). After removing Borja Valero for the more reliable, study presence of Marcos Senna, Villarreal then lined up in a 4-1-2-3 system.
As we’ve seen before, a three-man defence has much more problems against three strikers than it does with two – Emery had come trying to play a spare man at the back, and now he didn’t have one. The addition of a third forward meant Villarreal were much wider at the top of the pitch – the three rotated, taking it in turns to get into wide zones whilst one of them remained in the centre. Valencia’s centre-backs were unwilling to be drawn out wide, and with a one-goal advantage, the natural response was for Valencia to switch to something more like a flat back five than a three-man defence.
Equaliser and red card
Although this can be effective as a pure defensive tactic, it meant Valencia were unable to get the ball forward to relieve the pressure at all, and they kept inviting Villarreal attacks. The goal, Rossi’s smart finish from a Bruno cross, was preventable individually (Valencia had more than enough defenders to cope) but was always likely to come considering the home side’s dominance.
That was in the 73rd minute, and Villarreal went looking for an equaliser. Considering Valencia’s problems with the 3 v 3 (or 5 v 3), they actually seemed to be helped by Stankevicius’ 81st minute red card. That meant they were forced to go to a four-man defence (they’d used all their subs), and the 4 v 3 worked well for the final minutes.
A final point – the sending-off was always likely to occur because Valencia relied so much on tactical fouling to break up play. They received no fewer than nine yellow cards in the game, and committed 26 fouls to Villarreal’s 9.
Conclusion
Top marks to Emery for the theory behind the approach – keeping a spare man at the back worked well, and though Villarreal were on top for most of the game, it was only in the second half – after they went to a system with three forwards, that they really looked like scoring.
In that sense, Emery was maybe slightly foolish to keep a three-man system instead of switching to a four (see Marcelo Bielsa’s tactics v Honduras for how a manager can constantly switch between the two systems, depending on the opposition’s system, to good effect) – but he may have felt that 5 v 3 was an effective defensive tactic to see the game out. Considering Valencia were more than well-stocked at the back for Villarreal’s eventual equaliser, he may have been right.
Villarreal 1-1 Valencia: Emery’s three-man defence copes with two strikers, but not three
ZM, care to elaborate more why 4v3 is better than 5v3?
Because you havve 2 spare man in the back, there are going to be a deficiency in a more advanced areas of the field.
If you put too many players in one area, you lack them in other areas. That 5th guy would be unnecessary/unproductive in the defence, because you only need one spare man to cope with a regular danger. While the lack of that guy somewhere else on the pitch would result in a trouble for the whole team – therefore also indirectly for the defence where he was placed by you. A successful team has to be balanced. You do not only need to have 11 fit men to win the match, but you have to distribute them intelligently over the pitch.
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/08/09/three-man-defence-three-man-attack/
Because the the 5 was actually more like a 3, with the wing backs pushing on. So a flat 4 matches up better to a 3-man attack.
Nice analysis as always. The match was a good tactical battle throughout and very interesting to watch. I am thoroughly enjoying watching Villarreal this season, very attacking and full of talent. Hope they can maintain their push for third.
“That was in the 73rd minute, and Villarreal went looking for an equaliser” – I believe you mean that they went looking for a winning goal.
Knowing that Cani would most of the time cut inside, putting a right-footed Miguel to deal with him was pure awesomeness from Emery
.
Great choice for a write-up! I know you like to cover Villareal because of the rarity and effectiveness of their 4-2-2-2, and it’s fun to read how they deal with 3-man midfields; I’m considering making the switch from regular 4-4-2 to 4-3-3 with the high school team I coach, and I ponder the trade offs often.
A question about the interiores in the 4-2-2-2: you’ve said that Cani and Cazorla were covered by fullbacks and drew them to the center, but what is their role defensively? Are they assigned with picking up the opposing fullbacks when defending? Having not watched this game (did catch some of the fascinating Barcelona match), I’m curious to know if they defend more centrally as well.
Sam,
much like Wenger’s classic Arsenal sides, the interiores are expected to drop back to the left and right positions either side of the central midfielders; basically they have to help in forming two banks of four. This is because Villarreal generally prefer to defend deep (thereby inviting opponents forward and leaving spaces open for rapid counter-attacks) although in some matches (like vs Barcelona or Madrid) they will tend to adopt a 4-1-3-2 shape and press high up the pitch.
…to which I should add.
The interiores don’t so much press the opposing full-backs as track them when they advance into midfield.
This is why in my opinion you should not call it a 4-2-2-2, but a 4-4-2, as this is the formation in whitch they defend.
There is a difference in formation and offensive flexibility and interactions between players.
Defensively structure must be strict when your opponent has the ball.
Offensively you also need a formation, but it is more like a starting point from where interactions can spring.
ZM, sorry to venture off-topic, are you planning to cover the Fulham v Man City game? I thought Man City lined up in a 4-4-2 shape thats actually not too dissimilar from Villarreal’s system, with the 2 wingers (Silva and Barry) starting very narrow once in possession, instead of their usual 4-3-3.
If you want to read a cover for City game, here’s the link
http://www.holdingmidfield.com/?p=151
Villarreal system require a good understanding between the strikers ; it is almost unimaginable to think Jo and Tevez can work together when (if im not mistaken)…this is the first time in EPL they play together…
Of course, Man City are nowhere as fluid as Villarreal, but their system of playing the wingers very narrow in possesion, similar to what Malouda does for Chelsea, I thought Man City was trying that out. Looking back, I think it was just their usual 4-3-3 with Jo on the left, maybe his natural tendencies as a striker confused me.
Another thing, Elwood
Villarreal’s interiores, whether Cazorla, Cani or Borja are quick and nimble across the ground and good dribblers – for City, sure Silva is perfect for this -Milner maybe, just maybe (at least he has the mobility and an all-round game) but Gareth Barry doesn’t really give you that, does he?
Indeed, Villarreal is an excellent team with many technical players. Perhaps I used the wrong word in “system”.
What I was trying to say is, I thought Man City were playing a 4-4-2 with Silva and Barry on the wings, and Tevez with Jo upfront (Now I see that it is a 4-3-3 with Jo, a natural striker, on the left and Barry shuttling to that side).
The only reason I alluded Villarreal was because I thought they were both playing with interiores in a 4-4-2 (or 4-2-2-2), which is pretty rare to me. I am in no way saying that Barry has the technique of players like Cazorla, Cani, and Silva.
What I´m thinking about is:
When your opponent lines up a 3-5-2, then we all would want to play with 3 strikers, thats clear.
But what about the rest? In a 4-3-3 there would be no spare man at the back, in a 3-4-3 there would be a numeral disadvantage in the centre of the pitch(so it would be difficult to have possesion).
What do you think is the best solution for this?
I once saw Barcelona lining up a 3-4-3 against something like a 3-5-2/5-3-2, whitch worked well, because they integrated the two left-and-right centre backs in their game, to cope with their numeral disadvantge in the miitflield.
But the other team was a very weak side, so Im not sure how it would work agaist a stronger team.