Chile 2-1 Mexico: Borghi’s change in formation prompts Chile’s comeback

The starting line-ups
Chile recovered from 1-0 down to record a 2-1 victory in an excellent contest.
Claudio Borghi lined up with a 3-4-1-2 formation containing various players who are familiar from last year’s World Cup, and there were no major selection surprises.
Like Costa Rica, Mexico are competing with an Olympic squad in this tournament, and assistant manager Luis Fernando Tena is in charge. He played a 3-5-2, with Giovani dos Santos just behind Rafael Marquez Lugo, not to be confused with the more established Rafael Marquez.
This was the first game of the tournament that has provided real tactical interest. With both sides playing three at the back, it was an unusual and interesting match-up of formations.
Formation match-up
Tena instructed his midfield to play with one man deeper, Diego Reyes, who broadly tracked Mati Fernandez across the pitch. There were then two midfielders slightly further forward against two Chile holders, which meant that the battle in the central midfield saw each player occupied, 3 v 3. With the two sides both playing wing-backs, who competed against each other, plus 3 v 2 situations at either end, the game had an unusual but simple feel.
Chile were the more proactive side, retaining many of the pressing qualities that were a hallmark of Marcelo Bielsa’s reign. They conceded their first foul after just three seconds of the match because of some over-eager closing down, and Fernandez moved forward to join the two strikers and press 3 v 3 when Luis Michel had the ball.
Chile attacking intent
As we’ve become accustomed to, they also played an open, attacking game with the ball that saw plenty of forward runs, plus lateral movement from the two creative players, Fernandez and Alexis Sanchez. Their game was all about trying to create angles for clever neat passing between the lines, and a couple of fantastic moves produced good chances for Humberto Suazo, who moved from side to side and was always in a position to get on the end of moves.
Their football is less direct and more patient than under Bielsa, and there is much less natural width upfront – Sanchez now plays a support striker, like at Udinese, whilst Jean Beausejour is fielded deeper, as a wing-back rather than an outside-left. The combinations on the opposite side are generally more promising – Sanchez can move out to the right and combine with his Udinese teammate Marucio Isla, whilst Pablo Contreras plays an amazingly energetic role for a right-sided centre-back, often overlapping Isla to allow him inside.
Mexico were pressed into their own half of the pitch and rarely constructed good moves. With the three midfield players closed down quickly and the wing-backs a little slow to get forward, there was a huge gap between the midfield and the two forwards, who had to fend for themselves – their only promising moments in open play came when Giovani dos Santos got on the ball and ran with pace, as he did so brilliantly in the Gold Cup final. Still, their man chance of a goal was from a set-piece, and that’s where it came from, through Nestor Araujo.
Second half

On 60 minutes, Borghi changed shape
Like so many of the favourites in this competition, Chile were dominating possession but struggling for goals, and Borghi waited 15 minutes before making a substitution, bringing on Esteban Paredes for Beausejour. This meant a change of shape as Chile went make to an (even more) attacking version of the 3-3-1-3 that Bielsa loved – more like 3-1-3-3, in fact. Arturo Vidal, who didn’t have the influence on the game one might have expected in the centre of midfield, came to the left and cut inside to act as a third central midfielder, whilst Paredes played as a left-sided striker (rather than a winger) and Sanchez moved slightly to the right.
The impact of this shape was obvious – Mexico no longer had a spare man at the back, with Chile placing three forwards up against the Mexican back three. Because of that (or, to look at it another way, because Chile no longer had numerical superiority in midfield), Borghi’s side played much more direct with the ball, and the Mexican back three had immediate difficulties facing the longer passing. Paul Aguilar tried to play a little bit deeper, but this would have been a good time for Mexico to be able to shift between a back three and a back four, as their ’senior’ national side does so well.
Chile’s two goals came within 13 minutes of the change in shape. Granted, both came from corners (a notable feature of this tournament), and therefore it wasn’t the different combinations in open play that unlocked the Mexican defence. However, the increased pressure and more direct passing certainly had an impact, and the corners were both won by the restored Isla-Sanchez combination down the right, with the latter playing wider.
Conclusion
Chile were by far the most positive side we’ve seen in the competition so far, and it was amazing that they managed to find themselves a goal down at half time, because their proactive play without the ball had limited Mexico to very few chances.
The 3-4-1-2 actually suits Chile very well considering Sanchez’s move from being a winger to a second striker over the past twelve months, and will probably work better later in the competition. Here, however, they were up against a back three that was in a good position to nullify Chile, with a spare man at the back, and therefore it made sense to revert to a modified version of the old 3-3-1-3.
With such an unfamiliar squad, no-one was sure what shape Mexico would play, so Borghi can’t be blamed for not starting with that system, and should be praised for the attack-minded change – it is the best individual decision of the Copa America so far.
Chile 2-1 Mexico: Borghi’s change in formation prompts Chile’s comeback




Group C is the most interesting by far as Uruguay, Peru and Chile play completely different styles and shapes. I reckon Borghi will be forced to review that three-man defense against Uruguay’s front three.
I think you reckon right. Chile have the players to do 4 at the back, as we saw in the world cup vs Honduras, and we can anticipate that Bielsa would have switched vs. Uruguay. Whatever Borhi decides, it should make for a great competition.
From what I saw, the main problem for Chile was the dreadful game that Fernández had, and being that he was the only playmaker in midfield, Chile suffered greatly. Suazo and Sánchez had to get into deep positions to get some ball, which should have been Fernández’s task, but instead he just ambled through the pitch without any authority to ask for the ball and distribute it to the forwards.
Keep up with the great work!!! The CHILE – URUGUAY match will be something to behold (and comment)!!
Brilliant article as always.
As we all know, cautious play has been prevalent at this year’s Copa, but hopefully, the success that Chile had playing a more attacking brand of football were encourage other teams to emerge from their defensive shell.
it worries me that Borghi has been selected to take charge of Chile. he has a good record as a manager, and has helped develop a few of the current Colo Colo graduates. he puts too much creative responsibility on Mati’s shoulders, which is great when playing against Estonia, but it is very risky because on an off-day, it becomes a liability!
3-4-1-2 is generally a reactive system, with little emphasis on ball possession. glad to see Bielsa’s philosophy being carried through nonetheless. I also think Beausejour & Isla played slightly higher up. it seems that Borghi has been watching Udinese last season
early days though. round 2 will shape up the final 4 in my opinion
In the first half, who generally marked Alexis Sanchez? How aggressive were the Mexican center backs at coming out and denying him space between the lines (confident that Suazo would still be marked by two center backs)?
Vidal future world class player!
I think it was a good game for Chile… but i think that they can improve a lot. This is almost the same team that Borghi used to coach in Colo Colo from 2006-2008 (4 championships in a row, a Chilean record so far).
Borghi’s system since then has always trying to be the same:
* 3 in the back, with one clearly playing as a sweeper (now it’s Ponce, in Colo Colo 2006 was Riffo)
* 2 middle centers, with high pressure over the ball when they lose it. And you have to notice that those two play as a tandem: One first charge the ball, then the other one is waiting behind, so if you have a good mediapunta or enganche on the other side, he has to pass those 2 first before get to the defense.
* 2 middle wide “carrileros” which has to have 3 main functions: Go wide and deep on the attack. Go back with the other wings on defense… and to run on defenses back to get a lobe pass from the enganche. They are often the faster and quicker guys on the team.
* And there is this variation between the 2 on the front, or just 1. You’ll see that Borghi used to play with Fernandez and Valdivia back in the 2006 leaving Suazo in the center of the attack, creating a lot of spaces for the carrileros that came from behind (just like Isla did on this game).
I think that Borghi can have major problems when one of these specific players are injured or have not a good day (think about players like Mati, Sanchez, Isla or Suazo).
They are not as deep to have alternatives… so mi prediction is if they can stay healthy and mentally focused, they could be at least runner-ups.
in my opinion, Sanchez is the only worry if injured. unlike WC2010, when there was no one suitable enough to replace Suazo, Pijilla is available now. Valdivia (a bit off-form) could replace Mati as well. as for Isla, his effort is irreplacable, but Chile has a very polyvalent squad. Isla, Vidal, Medel & Carmona can play almost anywhere in midfield or defence
Pinilla* is injured, he didnt make it to the tournament.
Other thing to notice:
Borghi only took 3 “pure-defenders” on the whole roster to the tournament (Jara, Ponce and Contreras).
Today against Peru, they will probe with Estrada (a natural MC or middle defensive player) as stopper in the back line.
Bielsa used to play with him or Medel in that zone. Both were pretty fast to cover long distances and to pass the ball to the front… but both lack of total-knowledge of the position, so they struggled against big/huge forwards (most notably, the game against brazil in the WC qualys, where Estrada failed brutally against Luis Fabiano)
Thanks v much for this, Mave, much appreciated