Udinese 3-1 Inter: 3-5-1-1 beats 4-3-1-2
The starting line-ups
Leonardo suffered his first defeat as Inter manager as Udinese dominated the majority of the game.
Francesco Guidolin made one change from last week’s side which defeated Genoa. Andrea Coda was left out, with Maurizio Domizzi coming in on the left of defence.
Leonardo replaced Marco Materazzi with Ivan Cordoba, and Diego Milito’s absence meant Goran Pandev pushed forward, as did Dejan Stankovic, with Thiago Motta returning on the left of the midfield.
This was an open, exciting game with some very good goals. Although Inter took the lead through Stankovic – and nearly doubled their advantage with another long-range shot from the Serbian international – it was the home side who were better throughout. Rather than being about small factors in the game, this was a good battle between two contrasting systems, with one coming out on top.
Wing-backs important
When one side plays wing-backs, it is generally those two players who are the key to the game. When fielded as the only players on the flank (in other words, not in a 3-4-3 or Chile-style 3-3-1-3), they are naturally expected to cover an entire wing by themselves, which means that their positioning is extremely important – specifically, how far forward they are allowed by the opposition.
Inter’s 4-3-1-2 formation meant a complete lack of attacking width, and therefore both Mauricio Isla and Pablo Armero were allowed to storm forward down the flanks, often becoming the most advanced players after the Udinese forwards. They were able to join the attack without worrying about the situation at the back, where Udinese had a clear 3 v 2 situation, with Christian Zapata sweeping up behind two man-markers, and Gokhan Inler staying goalside of Stankovic. The system, therefore, was a 3-1-4-2 when Udinese were attacking, which provided plenty of midfield runners.
The formations when Udinese had the ball. Sanchez (highlighted) plays as a forward, and Udinese's wing-backs are relatively free
Sanchez the key player
The second key to the game was Alexis Sanchez, probably man of the match. His pace and dribbling are renowned as his main attributes, but equally important here were his work rate and his positional discipline. He was the key to the nature of the game and played in between the midfield and Antonio di Natale, the main striker, hence the description of the formation as 3-5-1-1 rather than 3-5-2.
This was key because he had two separate jobs. When Udinese lost the ball, the wing-backs retreated and kept an eye on Inter’s full-backs (Maicon got forward more, and was covered by Javier Zanetti) whilst the situation at the back remained the same. Where Udinese may have had a disadvantage, however, was in the centre of midfield, where they had a theoretical 3 v 4 disadvantage. Sanchez dropping in on Esteban Cambisso meant they were outnumbered in this zone, however, and Udinese were defending well with nine men.
Attacking drive
Sanchez had the pace and energy, however, to storm forward and become a second striker when Udinese regained possession, meaning that Inter no longer had a spare man at the back (2 v 2), whereas Udinese always did (3 v 2). The logical problem for Udinese would then be that they had a numerical disadvantage in midfield (3 v 4) but this wasn’t an issue because of the fact their wing-backs were always free on the flanks, available for an easy pass.
Of course, it was up to Inter’s full-backs to stop Isla and Armero. This caused its own problems, though, for two reasons – (a) because the full-backs needed to be covering the centre-backs to a certain extent, as there was no spare man and (b) because when the full-backs moved high up the pitch, Sanchez and di Natale (both players comfortable being used as wide forwards) drifted to the flank and drew Inter’s ageing centre-backs out of place. Therefore, the full-backs had to stay relatively deep, and Isla and Armero had plenty of time on the ball.
Sanchez dropped back into midfield when Udinese lost the ball, meaning the home side weren't outnumbered in midfield
Udinese energy
The game wasn’t all about the numbers, of course. Sanchez’s trickery caused the Inter centre-backs problems when he got the ball, but the main benefit of Udinese’s system was their combination of movement from the forwards and energy from the midfielders. The forwards created the space and the midfielders expolited it, constantly getting into the box to provide a goal threat from various players.
There was also frequent overloading of Inter’s left side – Giampiero Pinzi shuttled out to the right and combined with the Chilean duo of Isla and Sanchez, finding a way past Motta and Christian Chivu. In all, Udinese were by far the better side and could have won by more than two goals.
Conclusion
Some suspect that Leonardo is not the greatest tactician – this game added weight to that theory, as he was completely out thought by Guidolin, a manager of far more experience. Leonardo could have caused Udinese more of a problem by playing Stankovic and Pandev wide with Eto’o upfront, meaning the home side would have been forced to either (a) subdue their wing-backs or (b) bring two of their centre-backs out to wide areas, stretching their backline, but the lack of any real change meant Udinese were comfortable. Guidolin seems to have found a good system to suit his squad, and the bravery and energy of his side when in possession was very impressive.
Udinese 3-1 Inter: 3-5-1-1 beats 4-3-1-2
Fantastic write-up. Was Udinese pressing? I missed the game, and if you said so above I missed it.
For some time now I’ve felt like we were moving towards a renaissance of 3 man defenses. This does a great job of demonstrating how they can be executed effectively in today’s tactical environment.
And I think very soon (if not already) some managers are going to re-think the weaknesses and advantages of a 3 man defense formation against single striker formations. For example, as you pointed out in game 10 of your best of 2010 a false nine with two inverted wingers can quickly make a 4 man defense a man down in the center. 3 center-backs, especially if one is the modern center-half variety who is comfortable in midfield, would be one solution to this problem.
I also think that wing-backs tracking attacking full-backs from high up the pitch is part of the answer to pressing a team like Barca that push full-backs high and drop a holding mid between the CB’s.
3 at the back being pretty good against 2 forwards (like in this game), does Udinese change its system when playing 1 or 3 upfront
I’ve been waiting for a Udinese-related match report as they’ve played with some unconventional tactics since the late 90s. Glad to see this one got the nod.
Guidolin has had some variations over the course of this season, but the basic idea of three centre backs/halves and a pair of advancing wing backs has stayed constant throughout the year. At first, Udinese played with three attackers (Di Natale, Sanchez, Denis/Floro Flores), overloading the flanks and getting crushed in the middle of the park. After some miserable results in the fall, Guidolin has switched to the current, more balanced formation that seems to be working quite well for both possession football and counter-attacks.
This is a clear change from the previous seasons where Pasquale Marino preferred a 4-man back line but was open to switching to a 3-man line depending on opposition or available players. I’ve forgotten the details but I have a feeling Udinese played their best batches of football with a 3-4-3 formation back then too, with D’Agostino-Inler pair doing the work of three men at the middle.
Beyond any tactical advantage Udinese had, Inter (especially in the second half) just didn’t look capable of putting 2 passes together. This was partially due to Udinese’s pressing, but moreso because Inter’s midfielders always ran high up the pitch in hopes of collecting a through ball. This left Inter’s centre-backs with no option but to play a hopeful long ball or try to dribble. It was very common to see Inter get in a decent position that they would normally convert into a chance, then just give the ball away due to a lack of options/movement/effort.
In the end, it became a game of Undinese’s high energy, bursting runs versus Inter’s lethargic approach and hopeful long balls.
There was also an attempt from Leonardo o stretch the play by replacing Motta with Biabiany, but he was too late in doing this, and based on current form, Pandev and Biabiany on the wings will hardly trouble any defence (Biabiany offers pace, but Udinese were sitting relatively deep by the time he came on, so he was less of a threat)
Hey ZM, will you be covering Juve’s game vs. Udinese next week?
It would be interesting to compare and contrast how Inter’s system against Udinese functioned and how our system will function against Udinese next week.
Fantastic write-up as always!
Delneri’s team tends to attack thru the wings and will like play 433/4231 so they are likely to do better than Inter even though their squad isn’t as good as Inter’s squad.
What is even more stupid is Leonardo had the right players on the pitch to change it to 433/4231 but just see it. Benitez must be pissed to be sacked for an inferior tactician
It’s true that Juve tends to play thru their wings but I believe Del Neri most likely will play 4-4-2 as always. Juve will try to move the ball to the flank and Udinese’s wing back could have a real test here.
So I think the main battle here is in the center of midfield. If one out of two Juve’s forward won’t drop deep and adding number to their midfield then Udinese will run riot thru there
Did Leonardo have the right players to switch to 4-2-3-1?
Keeping in mind that Milito, Sneijder, and Coutinho were out (Coutinho has just recovered, so he wasn’t risked for this match). That leaves Eto’o (in the absence of Milito, Eto’o is best deployed in the centre), a well off-form Pandev (gives the ball away with every touch he takes, likes to drift to the centre anyway, and isn’t too fast, it’s hard to imagine what kind of threat he could provide in this case), Biabiany (offers pace and nothing more, not the best option to start, better coming off the bench, by the time he did play Udinese were defending too deep for his pace to do any damage), Stankovic (much better in the centre than he is on the wing), and perhaps Santon (better running from deep positions).
With Inter’s current squad and the form of the players, 4-3-1-2 or 4-3-2-1 are the best options. Inter are stacked with top class central midfielders, but really don’t have anyone capable of causing damage on the wing-players like Eto’o and Coutinho drift very centrally when they do play on the wings.
Benitez is a horrible match tactician/coach and cant adapt to any change made by an opposing team, or simply fail to do it in time if his pre match tactics was wrong, that’s why he would never make it big in italy
I dare say his tactical ability is largely overrated since he have been coaching in england, just like the technical ability/flair of brazilians would be due to the lack of such things present in domestic british players
He consistently outwitted Mourinho when he was at Chelsea. Benitez is no mug.
And heaven knows what you’re implying about Brazilians? They’re not as technically sound as we think? Really? The Dutch, Spaniards and Brazilians all deserve their reputation.
come on, Benitez failed to outwit a managerless Bolonga team, if you are to provide one of examples I will do the same
and the secound one is exactly my point there’s nothing particularly standout about brazilian technically, the spaniards, dutch, italians, argentinians, french etc are all on par
its all a mather of what kind of standard we can compare with, and by what im used to watch, benitez simply made so many mind boggling errors while at Inter (the best team on the papper, both when it comes to depth and first XI in the league) that I would compare it to last season’s Juventus….the major difference here being that benitez had a better team and eto’o to constantly bail him out
Surely you realize that Benitez has been replaced by Leonardo?! It would have been very difficult for him to change anything in this game….
The problem is, you need more than tactical ability to be a successful manager, and for Benitez’s sake I hope he realise it soon.
“Had right players to change into 4-3-3/4-2-3-1″??? Dude you don’t know what you’re talking about
Cambiasso behind Eto [position which he played recently under Leonardo] with Pandev and Stankovic wide creates 4231 or flat midfield 3 with Eto Pandev and Stankovic gives a 433, who is talking smack now?
.
I don’t know why but even though Udinese had the game (especially in second half) but all their goals came from set-piece situation not from open play.
So I must give credit to Inter back line
Guidolin’s new formation seems to be working wonders for Udinese. They recently almost won against Milan, now they won against Inter. But I feel against Juventus they might have a hard time considering Juve do not play a 4-3-1-2 like the two Milanese sides. Also Leonardo may not be the best tactician considering this is only his second year as a coach/manager but he is a decent motivator.
One question:
Why do you name Udinese’s system a 3-5-1-1 (and not 3-1-4-1-1), when Aston Villa’s system is a 4-1-4-1 (and not 4-5-1)?
I know this may be a bagatelle, but for me Udinese plays a 1-4 midfield (or a 3-2 in the defensive shape).
But great article, and interesting game!
Im sorry to hijack the discussion but didnt Benitez changed the gameplan at Estambul in 2005?
Benitez has some problems but not adapting in the middle of the game isnt one of them imo.
Brilliant piece, Leonardo seems to be a decent manager but slightly naive i.e. concentrating only on how his team play, getting caught out by more experienced managers, first Ferguson now Guidolin, better at adapting their team to the opposition.
Udinese have been very exciting this year and Sanchez looks to be developing into a top quality player. An obvious point but he seems to be another example of a central winger.
ZM, who do you think would be a better buy for Inter? Pazzini or Sanchez? I mean like who would help them more/help balance the squad.
Pazzini is similar to Milito in the sense he sniffs goals and is clinical, plus inter have eto’o up top….whereas Inter dont have a fast skllful direct and versatile player like a.sanchez
A big part of Inter’s lack of width comes from Milito’s absence. Eto’o likes to pull off to the left, knowing he has Milito as a reference point to play off. Pandev does not provide that, so Eto’o was forced to play more centrally. In the current game against Napoli, he has played on the left, but with no one to play off, he’s been isolated. Inter’s 4-1 against Bologna is a great example of what I mean (Eto’o’s first goal).
Just to build on my post, and ZM, you did talk about this in your report of (I think) Brazil-Ivory Coast, the Fabiano-Robinho-Kaka triangle that Brazil used to such great effect. Inter has the Milito-Eto’o-Sneijder triangle, and part of Benitez’s failure was his misuse of it.
Under Benitez, Milito played as a classic poacher (to be fair though, he wasn’t fully fit, so that might not have been Rafa’s fault), there were always a few opponents between Milito and his teammates. Eto’o was stationed on a permanent left-wing role (his best games under Benitez were those that he played more centrally, his best games under Leonardo have been those that he played somewhere between the wing and the centre), he would get isolated. Sneijder would play very close to the midfielders (his best games under Mourinho were those that he played almost as a second striker). They were too far apart under Benitez.
Now, when all three are fit, I expect to see Eto’o continue his left-ish role, and I do expect Inter to continue the 4-3-[(2-1)/(1-2)], with Maicon and Zanetti providing right-sided width. This could actually be very reminiscent of Dunga’s Brazil in many other aspects as well, can keep possession well but focuses on quick attacks, the role Zanetti plays versus the role Ramires played, Milito and Fabiano are similar in their approaches to the game, there are lots of similarities that can be drawn.