Set-pieces dominate the first week of the Copa
For a tournament often hailed for its flair and unpredictability, the Copa America has clearly been lacking excitement.
So far, the goals per game count stands at a pathetic eight, from seven matches. That gives a goals per game rate of just 1.14 – roughly half the goals per game rate of last summer’s World Cup, where the figure was 2.27. There have been three 0-0s, and only Chile have scored more than once.
Further analysis of the method of the goals reveals that – five of the eight goals have been scored from set-pieces. Only three have been from open play – Paolo Guerrero’s cool finish after a long ball against Uruguay, Luis Suarez’s quick shot in that same game against Peru, and Adrian Ramos’ winner against Costa Rica.
The other five goals have come quickly after set pieces. The ratio of goals scored from dead ball scenarios is generally between 30-40%, but so far in this tournament it is 62.5%.
It’s not as if teams are actually scoring a greater number of goals from set plays, simply a greater proportion. To take a ‘normal’ number of goals per game (let’s take the ratio of the World Cup, 2.27) and multiply that by the number of games so far (7), we could have expected 15.89 goals.
Since the ‘normal’ percentage of goals scored from set-plays is 30-40%, we would have expected to have seen between 4.77 and 6.34 goals from set-plays so far. The figure of five is nothing unusual.
The problem, of course, is those goals have been obvious as there have been few goals scored from other methods. Three goals in seven games from open play is a disastrous figure – and whilst defensive organisation should get some of the credit, it’s been obvious that the main problem has been a lack of creativity.
Too many sides are depending upon one player (Lionel Messi, Ganso) for creating chances, rather than possessing a number of skilful players in the side to play key passes. The most exciting side so far, Chile, have been the side who have attacked with the greatest number of players – they’re also the only side to score two goals, and the only side to win a game against eleven men. And yet, even Chile’s two goals both came from set-pieces.
Hopefully managers will pick a greater number of creative players in the second week and the Copa will improve, as this is a worrying trend.
Set-pieces dominate the first week of the Copa
If I remember correctly, the first week of the WC was also very low key… on the 2nd week, things started to open up and there were some exciting games. Let’s hope it’s the same here…
Also it should be noted how few players are commited on attacking moves… this is also very common on the Libertadores Cup, were teams often only deploy 3 players going forward.
Very worrying indeed. From a purely selfish point of view, I took two weeks off work to watch this tournament and have been disappointed so far. The problem, in part anyway, seems to be the amount of defensive midfielders the top sides are deploying. Did Argentina really need Mascherano, Banega and Cambiasso against Bolivia? Argentina have had a wealth of creative talent on the bench but have used it sparingly.
I seem to remember the first round of fixtures at the World Cup being quite tight with relatively few goals, although not quite as bad as this.
I wonder if the fact that these are opening round games has anything to do with it. Since it’s a 12-team tournament with eight (8!) teams moving onto the knockout round, drawing one or two games is hardly a big deal. Losing a game could be a disaster, while drawing is merely inconvenient. It doesn’t surprise me that Batista chose to take Cambiasso off after halftime in Argentina’s first game since they were trailing by a goal, but made like-for-like substitutions in their second game since the score was tied.
I wonder if teams will start being more aggressive in the knockout rounds, knowing they have to win to move on.
If Argentina abandon the two holding midfield players and go with Javier Pastore, then we could see an end to this ominous trend. Pastore can pick out the passes like no other, and would doubtless set some of the other Argentinian attackers up for goals inside open play.
More than anything, I think this tournament has displayed the shortsighted nature of International Football. We frequently allow club players a long time to bed in, but there is no such luxury with the National sides, while a managers position is even more unstable The Political nature of FA’s disrupts the rhythm that all successful sides establish continuity and explicit understanding of roles. This leads to reactionary football from managers hoping to avoid the sack.
I figure Argentina could go with a 4-3-2-1 or a 4-2-3-1 to accommodate Pastore on for Lavezzi –depending on whether you want largely the same personnel or adding Di Maria too for one of the trio of mids.
“We frequently allow club players a long time to bed in”
What league are you watching? Just in this past year, to pick the biggest examples that come to me off the top of my head, Benitez and Hodgson were both fired after ~1/2 a season. By the same token, in the calendar year of 2011 Palermo’s managers were:
Delio Rossi
Serse Cosmi
Delio Rossi (again!)
Stefano Pioli
I concur with you managers being fired with overmuch rapidity is not good for teams, fans, or the quality of the game, but I am confused what gave you the impression that managers in club football have all this leeway and “bedding in time” as compared to national teams.
in addition, you might want to check out “The Effects of Managerial Turnover: Evidence From Coach Dismissals in Italian Soccer Teams”, a paper by Maria De Paola and Vincenzo Scoppa published in the Journal of Sports Economics on March 28, 2011. From the abstract:
“it emerges that changing the coach does not produce a positive effect on team performance, with the exception of the number of goals scored. Matching estimates confirm that changing the coach does not affect team performance neither when considering as dependent variable the number of points per match nor when looking at the number of goals scored or conceded. “
the problem is the groupstage, 1 mistake and you’re out so every nation is cautious in their approach. perhaps we will see some more offensive minded play in the latter stages
With 8 out of the 12 teams of Copa America being able to qualify for the playoffs, I think there’s some room for mistakes. Teams can be more proactive and less cautious, considering that 2 third placed teams will qualify anyway. I don’t really get the reason for this awful tread in Copa America, although it looks more derived from lack of quality in the final third rather than anything else.
The first set of group games at the world cup were very, very tentative, and it looks like no exception here.
Given drawing your opening two matches pretty much guarantees that advancement is in your own hands for the final group game, and a third draw still doesn’t enforce elimination, teams are probably not going to go out on a limb and cost themselves that “two draws” position.
Add to that Mexico and Costa Rica playing experimental sides, Brazil playing without a link between 4 attackers and 6 defenders (other than perhaps their fullbacks), and Agentina playing without a link between 3 attackers and 7 defenders, and you have a recipe for less fluid attacking play.
Paolo, not Javi.
Somebody needed to say it, I’m glad ZM had the audacity. Thus far the tournament has left much to be desired.
The Copa America in 2007 had over 3 goals a game. It was one of the best tournaments I’ve ever seen. What on earth has happened?
That was a fantastic tournament indeed. Maybe it’s the cold weather. Have you seen the subs huddled together with blankets covering them? haha
“Hopefully managers will pick a greater number of players in the second week”
I, for one, look forward to seeing more 13 on 13 type games. Good idea Mr. Cox!
Oops
The situation in this Copa is not quite like what happened in the first round of WC 2010 in my opinion. In WC 2010, it was obvious that most of the most teams were playing cautious football. Their lines were dropped back deeper focusing on ball retention that scoring (there were exceptions like Argentina being deterred by a brilliant goal keeping show by Enyeama or Spain, who just failed to strike a goal against Switzerland’s thick defense line). However, in this Copa, some of the most (or should be) talented and attack minded teams are showing poor organization in all parts of their game, especially in their attacking third. It’s not that scoring isn’t their priority, which was the case in WC 2010, it’s more the case where certain sides want to score, but they just don’t have the quality to do so.
Interesting points, although I think most of the sides are playing cautious football here too, especially without the ball
It is definitely a matter of lack of creativity rather than good defensive organisation,which in fact would produce a lower proportion of goals from set pieces,since good and organised defenses would concede less goals from dead balls.
In any case I wouldn’t necessarily label Argentina’s strategy wrong,even though I don’t find it appropriate.Of course with the quality of players in the squad I would demand a better show and a better game altogether BUT given how many teams can qualify to the playoffs Batista is doing the plain and simple: he uses a playoff type of team configuration ( 2 DMFs – 1 CMF – 3FWDs) so that they have time to gel together, believing that one way or another the quality is there for them to advance through the group stage without necessarily being top of their group
The problem with Argentina is that their defense is weak and they know it. Which means they need to be wary of counters. We’ve seen several times how slow to react the Argentine center backs are. Hence, they play with three central mids of which one is purely defensive (Masche) and the other have strong defensive duties (Banega is not a DM but a CM who often plays on the right as a deep-lying playmaker, Cambiasso is a box-to-box CM who plays often on the left in Inter, so it’s not a line of three DMs as some seem to think).
Strong teams are built from the back forward. Argentina has a wealth of attacking players, some decent holding midfielders, but in defense it only has young, inexperienced guys prone to make mistakes, or old men who are far too slow and lack the agility to provide comfort at back. Right now, they are not one of the best teams in the world, not even one of the best in CONMEBOL. I wouldn’t be surprised if they have to rely on a play-off to make it to the World Cup, if things don’t change.
I think that in practice Cambiasso often acts as a defensive midfielder, though his skill set extends beyond merely that role.
Dear ZM,
Your point is valid, but analysis and diagrams are meaningless — there were only 8 goals scored so far!
You can do so much better. Yours,
Disappointed lurker.
Agree, both diagrams are pretty much the same/filler…
I also find it pretty clumsy to concentrate goals as the foundation to an exciting tournament, especially from an avid disciple of Jonathan Wilson.
Fair enough the tournament has been a bit of a damp squib, and goals can shed some light, but what about the numerous other factors not looked at in any great detail? Chances created/possession of a side/pass completion/corners/shots/yadda yadda.
“to concentrate goals as the foundation to an exciting tournament, especially from an avid disciple of Jonathan Wilson”
That Wilson thing about “goals are overrated” is both a joke and not really what he said…and I can have a different view. For the record, I like goals!
I’m not really sure of the point of the criticism. It’s looking at one area – goals, and where they came from. It wasn’t attempting to analyse the tournament in detail, the point was merely that lots of goals have come from set-pieces :S If the headline was “the tournament is boring” and I was backing up my point with graphs showing a lack of goals, fair enough, but I’m not…
Is it allowed to focus on one area of something or does everything have to be a ’summary’?!
Well, part of the point is that only eight goals have been scored so far. If no goals are scored for the rest of the tournament, would one be unable to comment because there have only been eight goals scored so far?
My issue is not so much with pointing out that there have been only 8 goals so far, as it is with giving diagrams and analysis of this simple fact. Diagrams are unnecessary, because everybody can manage 8 data points in their heads; and analysis is shaky, since any apparent trend on 8 data points is likely to be an accident rather than a manifestation of any general principle.
Overall, this piece looks rather silly, sorry to say.
If no goals are scored for the rest of CA and you write a similar article, the above quibbles will still stand, of course.
A lot of it is down to the fact that teams are not really playing an open game, most of them are set NOT TO LOSE instead of set up to win. Specially in case of Argentina if they bring in their creative players and allow them to play freely we’ll certainly see more open games with more goals from open play.
The teams are playing good, defensive football. And do not forget that with eight out of the twelve teams surviving into the elimination stages, that may be a good strategy. Some of the more aggresive teams have also been plagued by unfortunate injuries to their key players which definitely has put a stop on their scoring game!
C’mon, ZM, only one real paragraph of tactical analysis? The stats are interesting, but half the reason I’ve this site bookmarked is because of the specific manner in which you interpret those facts and figures (I can find data anywhere).
Very interesting, nonetheless.
The majority (all ?!) of south-american teams seem to be far less tactically naive. And to give credit some of the keepers did some fine saves.
The brazilian counter-attacking style (a hallmark since the end of Tele Santana’s reign) isn’t surprising anyone anymore, neither the one and only one creative player (wearing the No. 10 shirt) system (a.k.a. the Argentina style since the ’80s).
The teams need to learn how to build play with multiple playmakers.
I’d give most of the merit to the defending. In the analyses posted here, we often see how mistakes made in the WC are quickly corrected in Copa. The teams learned from the World Cup, and are not making the same defensive mistakes. Weaker teams are using the midfield to help the defense in tight formations, leaving only one or two men in front for the counter.
Also, the first week is more a time of appraisal. These teams know each other very well, since they are so few and they play each other often. South America is much more “inbred” (in football terms) than Europe, since there are fewer teams and all teams share a culture.
That means you must be careful. Your rivals know your weak spots, and managers know each other well enough to even predict the mistakes that will be made. All-out attack is heavily punished among teams that can pass the ball very well. A counter is lethal when there is little chance to steal the ball from the dribblers or to intercept well-measured passes, or to rob the ball from guys who can trap it well and keep it under close control.
To me, the result so far is that of an excellent tournament, where few make mistakes. All goals derive, ultimately, from mistakes. Few mistakes means few goals.
wasnt aguero’s goal against bolivia from open play?
Aguero’s goal was from a corner. It hit someone else in the chest and then bounced to Aguero, who hit it on the volley.
Aguero’s goal was NOT from a corner. There was a quick free kick (just an easy 3 yard pass) taken on the ground about 15 seconds before the goal, but I’m 99% that it wasn’t a prepared play and was as organic-looking a goal as any.