Venezuela 2-1 Chile: Borghi’s changes put Chile on top, but set-piece vulnerability proves fatal

The starting line-ups
Venezuela are through to the semi-finals after two goals from dead ball situations.
Cesar Farias’ defence and midfield were as expected – the only decision to make was upfront, where Miku played just off Giancarlo Maldonaldo, in a fairly basic 4-4-2.
Claudio Borghi was without Jean Beausejour, so Arturo Vidal moved out to the left and Carlos Carmona came into the centre of the pitch.
Chile were poor in the first half, then excellent in the second. Venezuela were never particularly inventive, but retained a threat from set-pieces – and that was enough for them to win the game.
First half
The first half of this game was flat, played at a slow tempo with few goalscoring chances created in open play. Venezuela were clearly expecting an early onslaught from Chile, but Borghi’s side struggled to get the ball into the opposition third of the pitch, or to penetrate the Venezuelan defence.
One of the major reasons for this was the Chilean midfield duo. With Vidal, usually the driving force from that zone (even if he didn’t enjoy a particularly sparkling tournament) shunted out to the left, Carmona and Gary Medel were essentially doing the same job deep in midfield – neither was moving forward or showing much quality on the ball, and the Chilean passing moves were too slow. With such a defensive-minded partnership there, the onus was on Luis Jiminez to link play, but he had a poor game.
The positive aspect of the midfield duo was that with Juan Arango and Cesar Gonzalez wanting to come into the centre of the pitch, Venezuela found it difficult to construct attacks, and were no threat themselves in open play.
Chile’s weakness, as seen in last summer’s World Cup, is a tendency to concede unnecessary fouls. One of these cheap free-kicks resulted in Venezuela’s goal, headed in by centre-back Oswaldo Vizcarrondo.
Second half

The line-ups at the start of the second half
Borghi’s obvious choice from the bench was Jorge Valdivia – not fit to start, but the creative midfielder Chile were missing. It was natural that he’d play as a number ten, Jiminez would move left, and Vidal would tuck inside. The decision was whether Medel or Carmona should depart, and it was a big error from Borghi to take off Carmona.
Medel is clearly the superior player, but he had picked up a booking shortly before half-time – and leaving him as the sole holder in such an attacking side was suicidal, especially as Venezuela were going to be looking to break through the middle. Medel is no stranger to bookings, and duly picked up a second yellow later in the half – it was almost as inevitable as Diego Perez’s second caution for Uruguay against Argentina, and shows that managers need to be alert to the threat of combative midfielders picking up second bookings.
The introduction of Valdivia was a huge boost, and he was the man who created many of Chile’s attacking moves in the second half – he hit the bar himself, and played some clever balls out to the flanks. His presence was not the only thing that made Chile better, however – they simply played quicker, higher up the pitch and much more direct – Venezuela were pinned back inside their own half, with the wide players playing much deeper.
Late developments
A second attack-minded Chilean change, Esteban Paredes on for Gonzalo Jara, with Vidal moving to the left of the back three, pushed them to a 3-1-3-3, similar to the formation Borghi reverted to against Mexico earlier in the competition. This gave them more width upfront, something they’d clearly lacked until the second substitution, with Alexis Sanchez as a right-sided forward, and Paredes on the left. Venezuela now had to deal with a different angle of attack, and Humberto Suazo became much more dangerous. He hit the bar after one ball in from the right, and then scored a very similar chance soon after.
Chile were in the ascendency, attacking with a lot of players and getting the ball down the flanks well, but it was ultimately their attacking changes that cost them the game at the back. First, Vidal, in his third position of the game, got caught out and had to concede the free-kick that resulted in Gabriel Cichero’s winner. Second, Medel was sent off.
Borghi’s changes had pushed Chile up the pitch, but also left them vulnerable at the back.
Conclusion
The first half here was a non-event – Venezuela were waiting to soak up pressure that never came. Chile only burst into life when they brought on Valdivia for the second half, and should have scored numerous times after his arrival.
Their vulnerability at free-kicks was partly a result of their approach – playing high up the pitch means that desperate tackles when out of position are always likely – but also simply ill discipline.
Ignore set-pieces and Chile were by far the better side, but such an obvious weakness was always likely to be a problem.
Venezuela 2-1 Chile: Borghi’s changes put Chile on top, but set-piece vulnerability proves fatal




La Vinotinto! Showing courage against the “Big Sides”
To take off Carmona instead of Medel was a very strange decision. Chile just didn’t switch on until half time. The waywardness of their passes, uncharacteristically slow closing down and some rubbish tackles made it seem like they were simply not ready to play yet! After the first 20 mins I expected Borghi to tweak the midfield and make Vidal play more central, but sadly that didn’t happen.
The recovery in the second half was excellent though and it wouldn’t be stretching it to say that Chile should have won it. Was surprised to see only 4 mins added on after the light failure, but then no point discussing the referee. Chile need to take the next step up and start showing up for important games. Kudos to Venezuela though. Did their homework and hit Chile where they are the softest.
The Venezuelan front two played quite well in the first half in my opinion. Showed some good lateral movement.
First of all, I always hate when games like this are settled by set pieces,but, they are part of the game…
For me, the most interesting aspect of this match was the removal of Carmona instead of Medel, as ZM mentioned, managers should start to alert themselves to the danger of holding midfielders with yellow cards to their name. As a Manchester United supporter, I’ve spent years screaming at the TV for Fergie to take off Scholes when he’s on a booking- but then again, more often then not he’d settle the match with a brilliant pass, so what do I know…
I thought Venezuela actually looked very good in the first half, arguably even better than Chile. In the second half, it was Chile that really shined until later in the game. As ZM mentioned adding Valdivia gave them the attacking prowess, sending balls to the flanks to Sanchez who sent some great cut back passes which created some good attempts, one of them being a goal. However, with the attacking substitution, Chile looked vulnerable at the back, and Venezuela took advantage when they needed to get a goal back. Chile might have tied it up late if they did not go down to ten men, essentially killing off the game. In the end, that is the risk a manager takes when making attacking minded subs. I don’t want to take credit away from Venezuela though, who looked very cohesive in the back and on the attack. One of the many benefits a team reaps when sticking with a good manager (ie. Uruguay, Paraguay).
Just to notice:
* Chile had 4 goals on this tournament. 3 of those, came from free kicks.
* Borghi’s roster didn’t have a left winger… The lack of Mark Gonzalez on the team was notorious.
* Borghi try to unleash Sanchez from the right corner (as how he played with Bielsa). That movement didn’t succeed as wanted.
* This was by far, the worst tournament for Claudio Bravo
Sad tournament for Chile. This was THE chance to finally win the tournament.
Estrada was an excelent option.
So unlucky for chille, im starting to feel sorry for the sides that have actually tried to control possession and the game, i mean we have criticised brazil and argentina but they have both tried to win the game and not just sat back. Now i know it would be stupid to try and play an open game when you havnt got as good players, but i still think the big teams have been unlucky. It shows that the only big team to still be in (Uruguay) has played rather defensively and that small teams have got through playing incredibly defensive. Bad sign for south american football i think.
Back to chille, i do think they rather underestimated Venezuela, it looked to me like they were playing a slow game in the first half to conserve energy and then press in the second half and win it, thinking that Venezuela couldnt possibly score themselves and it cost chile.
But great substitution to bring on valdivia, who brought much needed creativity, who does this guy play for club wise?
But again set pieces have cost a side, its crazy how important they have been throughout, yet no-one seems prepared for them.
He plays for Palmeiras in Brazil. Given his impact, is there a reason he hasn’t been starting for Chile this tournament? He’s looked by far their best player.
hmmm have they done well in the brazilian league or continental competition they have in south america? I wonder if he will move abroad to europe anytime soon.
Valdivia’s side in Brazil have not been doing particularly well recently but they are a traditional and well-supported team. The Brazilian league is very balanced anyway, so it’s can be a bit hard to judge or compare the teams. Valdivia had a spell in the Middle-East a while back, which to me is a waste of a good player. Brazil suits him, but I think he could also do well in Europe.
ah just googled him, hes around 28, so maybe europe is a bit too late, i guess players like him are better suited to a slow placed game, would definitly struggle in a league like the premiership.
no women’s world cup analysis?
Brazil’s 3-4-3 with two markers and a sweeper worked OK against the USA, but required a lot of midfield cover; they generated chances due to the individual brilliance of their speedy forwards, releasing them with long passes, but had a slightly broken team (only 50% possession against a USA playing with 10 for 60 minutes). The USA kept the ball better than usual, especially with 10, and had a good performance from the keeper.
France put on a clinic for how a well-run 4-2-3-1 beats the 4-4-2 the USA played, but couldn’t finish, and their fitness level and defensive organization failed them at the end against a more clinical and fit USA. Substitutions were critical: the USA added pace in attack at 1-1 to run at defenders on the counter, but maintained their formation; France added an extra attacker just before second USA goal, leaving tired defenders exposed.
USA and Japan played 4-4-2. USA shifted to 4-5-1 later on when Japan switched to 3 up top. USA paid the price for going to penalties in quarterfinals, allowing Japan to scout penalty takers. If Japan played a more sophisticated formation, they’d likely be even better. Even at 4-4-2, they beat Germany, Sweden and the USA, each for the first time, with good technique and possession, though USA pressure did cause them problems.
Would’ve been fun to see Brazil’s 3-4-3 against France’s 4-2-3-1 (which often looked like 2-4-3-1 in practice). What would Brazil’s spare marker have done? Would the French have been able to work the ball in closer than against the USA by dragging the 2nd marker away from goal? Would the Brazilians have found wide open space behind the French fullbacks/wingbacks? We’ll never know, though I suspect the answer would have been “yes” in both cases, and a cracking, wide-open game.
How’s that?
Thanks for the summaries, that was a fine effort. I saw the semis and the final and was actually wondering what would ZM have to say about the tactics. Yes, yes, I know that this site is for “real” football.
Doesn’t Chile’s 3-4-3 give them a huge advantage over Venezuela’s 4-4-2? Very surprised Venezuela went through, but I’m happy they did. Hopefully a semifinal (maybe more?) finish will be enough to attract some of their players to choose to play for Venezuela. I mean, Jeffren will never get a chance with Spain, and he can be a very important player for a developing Venezuelan side. Amorebieta is still considering Venezuela apparently.
PS: I’m a big fan of Rondon. He had a good season with Malaga, and he has put in good performances for Venezuela. I was shocked that he didn’t start. He is a target man who actually has skills and works hard. WOW!
Will you be analysing the Brazil match?
I hope ZM doesn’t. That match was utterly dull. It is a shame how exciting the Venezuela games have been, and they get so little comments when ZM analyzes them.
I would like to add one thing. Venezuelans players were always supporting their goalie, they saved two balls from the line and that is not coincidence. OTOH chilean defenders didnt support Bravo in the second goal.
I think Chile really missed Beausejour, he is very underated.
Also maybe its time to drop Bravo and give another goalie a chance, I think his copa was mediocre at best, this is not the first time he makes a very costly mistake.
Another thing is why is Valdivia played the second halves? I mean its true that the defenses are more tired in the second half but its also true that its harder to chase a result than to defend it. Also if he is fit to play only 45 minutes then that would have meant we would have spent 2 changes on him if the game went to extra time ( and its not like Chile has infinite playmakers on the bench).
Im hoping ZM comments on the desition to save Valdivia for the second half yesterday.
No to offend any Chilean friends, I was never impressed with Chile but I do give them credit, they stubbornly live and die with their system. There is no alternative.
Their players also recklessly fly into the most simple of challenges, and quite too often it leaves them stretched. They barely managed to beat the Mexican C-side (worst Mexico team ever fielded) and their back line is very short.
I guess I give them credit but at the end of the day too many teams can throw a wrench into them with good tactics and set-pieces.
This also raise the question of whether any player is worth the 40 million pounds that Alexis Sanchez is rated at allegedly. Kun Aguero, Neymar, Tevez, Robinho, Messi, all to an extent overrated when faced with defensive disciplined game plans and tough middlemen.
You’re really going to lump Messi in with the rest of them? Isn’t the Man United defense supposed to be the best around? Messi has scored twice on them, and the second time he didn’t even need a Xaviniesta assist!
“You’re really going to lump Messi in with the rest of them?”
Well, we knew “”Big Baller”’s judgement was suspect when he wrote that other teams could catch Chile out tactically, so his slight towards Messi is no surprise.
I’m assuming your a fan of European football which is a whole different animal than Latin American, but in South America it seems that Messi is just another above average player with excellent dribbling skills.
The vaunted Colombian defense shut him out. Lol. The Bolivian fortress shut him out. If your keeping score at home, that’s 2 major tournaments and zero goals. Sorry that your autographed poster of Messi hanging in your mom’s basement is losing value.
So again, to my larger point, your telling me Alexis Sanchez, Messi, Tevez and all these overrated players are worth 40-50 million.
To me if anything, El maestro Tabarez, Farias, and Tata Martino are worth more than what Uruguay, Venezuela and Paraguay are paying them. Tactics.
Not sure if Michael wants to do some coverage for the Women’s World Cup final. I did not follow any of the games until the final, but was keep switching my TV the between it and the Brazil-Paraguay game. Tactically, women’s football seems still pretty naive, especially the USA. Japan looks like a better team in techniques and tactics, but every Americans was believing they are the better team before the game (although they do have the physical advantages).
The Brazil-Paraguay game was kind of scrappy, but Brazil do create chances. However, Justo Villar is the god on that day.
Given the increasing importance that dead balls, I’d be awesome if ZM wrote a general article about set pieces and how some teams are better at taking advantage of those.
I think the whole thing sucks, to be honest. I don’t know how it would work, but I wish the game could be altered such that free kicks were de-emphasized and every team restarted with short passes instead of drilling a shot at goal or lumping it up towards the heads; this would require an alternative punishment to try and incentivize players to not foul their opponents (maybe foul-count-based suspensions?), but what I want to see out of a game is open play. Set piece goals = wack. /end rant.
Shocked no one mention the Chile (didnt remember what min exactly but in the last quarter of game presumably) onside goal .
Its silly to suppose it still would have been a goal had the offside not been given.
Also in Chile first goal the throw in that came before should have been to Venezuela.
Football should be played in all the squares of the pitch except wide midfield, yet Chile kept on passing the ball out to Vidal and Isla in the first half. Problem is it is too easy to press an isolated player on the touchline into losing the ball, and indeed Chile struggled to string a few passes together.
If you are going to play a wide game it needs to be further up the pitch, with Wing forwards and fullbacks working together. Such is the modern way.