Uruguay 3-0 Paraguay: Tabarez gets things right

The starting line-ups
Uruguay won their record 15th Copa America with an excellent, controlled performance.
Oscar Tabarez likes to spring a surprise with players and formations, but it was his expected XI for this match, in the 4-4-1-1 system that can reasonably be described as his first choice shape throughout this tournament.
Gerardo Martino’s side was less predictable – he made four changes from the semi-final win over Venezuela, but kept roughly the same system – a narrow 4-4-2 / 4-5-1 with Pablo Zeballos making forward runs from a wide-left position, although Nelson Valdez sometimes switched positions with him.
Uruguay were better all over the pitch – they were more secure at the back, more potent upfront, and most crucially, they won the midfield battle.
Uruguay early pressure
Many expected a slow, patient final in Buenos Aries, so it must have come as something of a shock to Paraguay that they were pinned into their own penalty area for the opening period of this game. Uruguay piled the pressure on immediately, forcing five corners in the opening seven minutes, and producing a couple of very good chances in this spell – that set the tone for the game, and put Tabarez’s side in charge straight away.
Like many interesting tactical games, the battle here was about tempo. Paraguay wanted to play at a slow pace – calming the game, gently moving forward and looking to score almost as an afterthought, having progressed to this stage with five draws so far. Uruguay were quicker, more eager to get the ball forward, and keener to close down.Ortigoza
The central midfield zone was the place where this battle took place – and more specifically, it involved Nestor Ortigoza, Ortigoza is a superb deep-lying playmaker with an excellent passing range, and crucially, is Paraguay’s chief tempo setter. He slows the game by playing intelligent passes, but he’s not particularly mobile. He doesn’t want a fast game. Martino knows this and doesn’t use Ortigoza when he wants energy – for the quarter-final game against Brazil when he needed his side to press heavily, Ortigoza did not play.
The fact that he did start here told you everything about Martino’s approach. He wanted a slow game, and Tabarez knew that. As a result, Tabarez gave Diego Perez and Egidio Arevalo license to play higher up the pitch than usual – possibly as Paraguay had no forward runs from midfield – shutting down the opposition midfielders extremely quickly. Arevalo, arguably Uruguay’s best player in this competition, played to the left of the two, and therefore had the responsibility of closing down Ortigoza.
The incident for the second goal – when Arevalo charged down Ortigoza, won the ball, then slipped in Diego Forlan to finish – summed up the tactical battle brilliantly. It was, although a different method of winning the ball, very similar to how Yaya Toure exposed Michael Carrick in the FA Cup semi-final. The clever deep-lying playmaker needed time on the ball, whilst the powerful, determined physical player wasn’t allowing him to. The struggle for tempo is often decided that way in midfield – it’s just rare that such incidents result in a goal so obviously.
Lack of width
Martino had made an error in his team selection, which contributed to Ortigoza’s downfall. With Zeballos coming inside quickly – and frankly, barely involved – Paraguay were using four central midfielders with absolutely no width at all. It was a complete waste to play Ortigoza, a man adept at spraying the ball into wide positions, and then having no-one in those zones for him to pick out.

Ortigoza's two problems: (1) Arevalo closing him down. (2) No forward options in wide areas.
Again, that was the specific result of a wider issue – which was that Paraguay wanted to pass slowly, but by restricting their midfield to a lateral area of, say, 20 yards rather than 50 yards, it made it much easier for Uruguay to close down, and much harder to keep the ball. There is a reason why Barcelona play with so much width, increasing the active playing area. Midfield battles can be won by dominating the centre of midfield with numbers, but you always need an out-ball. With no-one stretching the game laterally and forward runs very rare, it was difficult to understand how Paraguay were going to try and get up the pitch.
But maybe that was the problem – they weren’t going to try too hard, they were happy with 0-0. That makes conceding the first goal something of a disaster.
Second half
Amazingly, Martino decided not to change anything at half-time. But equally amazingly, Paraguay came into the game. The key factor was Uruguay standing off . Tabarez probably knew that his players wouldn’t be able to press intensely for the whole game, and with Diego Perez, Martin Caceres and Maxi Pereira all on bookings, it wasn’t worth continuing the high pressure. A needless second yellow card, a theme in this tournament, would have been a lifeline for Paraguay. Besides, in terms of fitness levels, Perez looked absolutely exhausted when he was withdrawn midway through the second half. In a rare game (in this tournament) played in the middle of the day, the slightly warmer temperature may have been an issue.
Of course, then Ortigoza had more time on the ball, and therefore came into the game. With no-one on the flanks to chip the ball to, he instead had to hit the front players. He did that with a brilliant ball to Valdez, who volleyed a great shot onto the woodwork from just inside the box. Then, Ortigoza finally got some movement down the flanks from Ivan Piris’ run forward from right-back – the ball was again exceptional, and Piris’ low cross should have been turned in by Cristian Riveros. That was Paraguay’s best chance.
Martino went for permanent width on 65 minutes with Marcelo Estigarribia down the left, and Hernan Perez down the right. Caceres and Vera departed. Paraguay looked slightly better, but their third substitute was a disaster. Lucas Barrios was clearly nowhere near fit – he felt his hamstring running onto the pitch – and broke down after five minutes. Like the introduction of Roque Santa Cruz in the semi final, which ended in similar disaster, this ended Paraguay’s attacking hopes. It also opened them up for Uruguay’s counter-attacks, and a brilliant move involving Edinson Cavani, Luis Suarez and Forlan produced the tournament’s best goal in its final attack.
Conclusion
There were, of course, various other factors in this game. Suarez was barely mentioned above, yet ran Paraguay’s defenders ragged – working the channels, winning free-kicks, holding the ball up. His man-of-the-match award was no surprise, but in tactical terms, that was simply a player doing a ‘classic’ job very well.
The ‘real’ tactical battle here was about tempo in the midfield, and it centred around Ortigoza. When he was allowed to play (in the second half) he was the game’s key player. When he wasn’t (in the first) he was a liability.
Tabarez deserves huge credit for his decisions in this tournament. There have been so many different players used (all 20 outfield players got playing time), as well as various formations and strategies without the ball. Almost every approach has worked, however – and although Uruguay started slowly, their performances in the semi-final and the final were two of the most convincing of the tournament.
Because of the scuffle after the semi-final, both Martino and his assistant were banned from the match. That may have been the reason why Paraguay didn’t change its approach nor formation.
Hi ZM,
Thanks very much for posting this so soon after the match. Always enjoy your analyses. Was just wondering, how can one differentiate Tabarez’s setup of a 4-4-1-1 from a 4-2-3-1 (with Suarez up top). My impression had wrongly been that the formation was the latter, so was just hoping you could help me in broadly understanding how I would be able to distinguish the two.
Cheers,
Michael
i think it’s a question of what the wingers do without the ball. if they drop back to form a bank of four with the central mids, that’s a 4411. if they stay high up the pitch and try to pin back the opposition fullbacks, that’s a 4231.
But also kinda what they do ON the ball though, like what type of wingers they are. Direct, pacey wingers looking to pin back their man by playing on the front foot (e.g. Nani, Robinho, Walcott), or more defensive wingers who also like to drop deep (and sometimes a lil centrally) with the ball, and start with the ball a little further from goal (Kuyt)
A 4-4-1-1 uses two strikers.
A 4-2-3-1 uses one striker.
Nothing to do with wingers.
Not necessarily actually. A 4-4-1-1 can use a trequartista too (Juve did that for a while during preseason when Diego was still with us, just before he was sold to Wolfsburg)
It’s rare, but it’s perfectly possible that a 4-4-1-1 uses a striker and a trequartista
How did that work out for Juventus and Diego?
Well Germany at the World Cup was widely acknowledged as a 4-2-3-1, but they defended in two banks of four…
Tottenham?? they played 4-4-1-1 with VDV, who is not a striker.. wouldn’t 2 strikers in this format just be 4-4-2?
He’s a striker when he plays in that formation.
A 4-4-1-1 has one target; a 4-4-2 has two targets.
A 4-4-1-1 usually has one striker playing in the hole; a 4-4-2 has one striker who drops back into the hole during the buildup — but doesn’t necessarily stay there.
A 4411 is where the two wide players play alongside the two central midfielders, (bit more defensive) and a player plays between the lines in the “hole” and there is one striker.
A 4231 is where the wide players play alongside the player in the “hole” further up the pitch (more attacking).
In reality teams play both systems as the wide player push up the pitch then drop back to defend without the ball usually.
Has nothing to do with the player being a striker, in fact a stiker usually doent work there (forlan the exception, and rooney is one of those special players that can excel in lots of positions).
The difference isn’t the wingers.
In either system, the wingers will be marking the wide defenders, so it’s not a matter of whether they are more attacking wingers or defensive wingers — that’s down to type of player on the wing or how they have been told to play by the coach.
If a 4-4-1-1 is where the wingers play next to the central midfielders during the attacking phase, then Uruguay didn’t play a 4-4-1-1 because their wingers got really far forward. It’s pretty obvious Uruguay played a 4-4-1-1.
Anyways, it’s not like a winger is told by the coach to go to a certain place on the field in order to receive the ball. It is a really flexible position because they have to cover and entire touchline.
The difference is the type of player used in the hole and the tactics of the team.
A 4-4-1-1 uses a target man and a second striker who feeds off of the target man. A 4-2-3-1 uses a playmaker in the hole, not a striker, who play goes through.
I thought this has been a pretty boring Copa America from a tactical point of view. Essentially Uruguay won with a split striker 4-4-2; one that could become 4-4-1-1 or 4-2-3-1 depending on the postioning of Forlan and the two wide midfielders. All very Alex Fergusson against Barcelona if you ask me.
Still all credit to Uruguay. If you think Holland has a history of punching above its weight, just take a look at Uruguay. It’s got to be one of the best Football cultures on the planet.
One of the most interesting things (tactically) for me in this Copa is that it seems like the S. American teams are much more willing to use asymmetrical formations than their European counterparts. Perhaps I just haven’t noticed in the past, but the willingness of Paraguay, for example, to leave vast areas of one side of the pitch uncovered at times is strange to me. Brazil’s asymmetrical formations under Dunga have been commented on by this site in the past, but I thought they were the exception, not the rule.
england playing gerrard on the left side contradicts what you say but i still agree, it feels like in south america they’re playing with fire a little more and are more confident about playing their way, focusing on the best way to be dangerous,where the oppositon can’t countain their talent, and then dealing with defensive necessities (dealing a lot with it for teams like paraguay and other xD), whereas in europe it’s more about being solid defensively first and then attacking, often on counters
it feels like messi and neymar would have to worry about tracking back fullbacks in europe whereas in Sth america they stay high, and the opposition fullback know it so they won’t try to tire them with endless runs
And Gerrard playing on the left side ended up being a bit of a contradiction for England, too–wonder what we’ll see going forward, since A. Cole still seems to own the left back spot for the forseeable future.
I wouldn’t count on Cole starting at Euro 2012 (provided England qualify). I can almost guarantee that he won’t start during Brazil 2014. He’s not getting any younger and was really outshone by Leighton Baines last season.
there’s a big fat gap of level between cole and baines in my opinion
if cole is motivated he’ll be the #1 hands down
Som Italian club sides play asymmetrically as well, Napoli the most notable.
Yes, but Napoli under Mazzari has made heavy use of S. American players (not a break with the past–Maradona comes to mind), including at least 4 Argentines, and Cavani and Gargano and Britos from Uruguay. Also, Italy’s connection with its oriundi goes back a long ways–there has to have been some tactical give and take, particularly with Argentina.
I think that Copa América was quite interesting from the tactical point of view.
Take into account that 3 of the 4 semifinalists played hybrid formations – with Peru and Uruguay being the most fun ones to watch in this respect -, sometimes changing systems throughout short period of time during a match, and that they often changed systems for each game they played.
Chile is another side that was very interesting to watch, also performing constant change of systems.
Even Brazil and Argentina also changed their preferred formations after early bad results, but to mixed success.
Another thing to notice is not only the systems/formations changes, but the different approaches the teams displayed for different matches. Sometimes more proactive, sometimes more retained. Sometimes pressing their opponents in their own half of the pitch, sometimes playing very defensively.
The games may not have been that great to watch technically, but some of them were lovely to see with tactical eyes.
Here’s what Uruguay played in the Copa:
Uruguay 1-1 Peru: 4-3-3 / 4-3-1-2
Chile 1-1 Uruguay: 3-4-3 / 3-4-1-2 –> 4-4-2 / 4-4-1-1
Uruguay 1-0 Mexico: 4-4-1-1
Uruguay 1-1 Argentina: 4-4-1-1 –> 4-3-1-1 giving up the left flank
Uruguay 2-0 Peru: 3-5-2
Uruguay 3-0 Paraguay: 4-4-1-1
The players used also varied, as ZM pointed out to with 20 playing. That wasn’t entirely diven by suspensions. There was the decision to move away from Cavani, there were shifts between Caceres and Pereira at left back, and when to use Pereira in MF.
I think one thing that needs to be noted about Uruguay over the past two major Copas is not just that Tabarez is quite gifted in changing formations and tactics, but that his players have been quite good in making those changes work. We can say Tabarez has made the right calls, but he has also spent five years not just selecting the right players, but getting those players to understand all what he wants to do. Both coach and players warrant major respect for their ability to adjust from game to game, opponent to opponent, and even situation to situation.
I’d argue that the Copa was often tactically more interesting than enjoyable futbol. Argentina-Uruguary wasn’t a wide open, lovely game of futbol. But it was a compelling tactical battle, with an Argentine side that never figure out either tactics or personel opposite a Uruguay side that picked the right tactics, then adjusted when down to 10 men, making for a game that got more and more compelling as it went on: will the Argies ever figure things out… no, here comes Tevez to show that they remain clueless.
Much of the Copa was along those lines.
Why is there no talk about how just awful this Paraguay team was? I was rooting for them today, but this has to be the worst team to ever reach a major tournament Final. They failed to win a game in the tournament and have finished with a goal difference of -3. They have now gone five and a half of hours without scoring a goal. If you look at their last 5 knockout games in major tournaments (3 in the Copa and 2 in the WC) their scoreless streak is 540 minutes. It’s incredible.
Suarez is quickly climbing my list of most annoying players. His petulance is astounding. Every “foul” committed against him demands a caution. Get on with the game. His behavior is made even worse by gutless Premier League referees who only give out out cautions unless you slice someone in half.
Dead on here on both accounts. Once Uruguay scored, Paraguay tried to attack but played too narrow and in small spaces (as per ZM’s analysis).
Re: Suarez. Actually, I think the ref dealt quite well with him and the string of bad fouls in the first half. Earned his keep today, even if he wasn’t perfect.
Good God Suarez is piss f***ing irritating. Absolutely brilliant player but an incredible jackass to officials, so terribly annoying. It’s a shame really, cuz without that I could really like him a lot more.
It is really a shame, since I’m sure he would really like you to like him ;D
Paraguay weren’t any better at the World Cup tbh. They can defend superbly as a team, but that’s pretty much about it. In attack they are simply terrible, considering the amount of talent they have available that’s quite disappointing.
I disagree slightly on ZM’s assessment though. If the coach wanted a slow game, why would he field Valdez ahead of Barrios ? Barrios is a converter, Valdez a runner who usually can’t score for his life. Just doesn’t make sense to me.
And of course I hate Suarez for the obvious reasons as well. Such a talented player but I don’t think I’ve seen a jackass of that magnitude before in football.
Rooney beats suarez on all accounts of douchitude
Hell no.
I’m pretty sure Barrios’s fitness meant he was not going to start that game under any circumstances; agree on Valdez, always has been a runner but had some bright spots.
Barrios was injured – as ZM noted, he probably shouldn’t have even been on the bench.
Deserved champions.
One tactical feature of the game that seemed to be absolutely pivotal to me was that Justo Villar simply could not take long goal kicks.
It was obvious that this was because he couldn’t, not because he didn’t want to, because there was one play on which Paulo da Silva took a goal kick long for Villar (and that happened a couple of times for Paraguay against Venezuela too).
There was a period when Paraguay started to grow into the game, as you said, but that ended abruptly when Uruguay realized that, if they closed down Paraguay’s defenders on goal kicks, they could effectively pen the Paraguayans into their own half of the field. That also tired out Paraguay’s defenders, because there was no way to give them a rest by playing the ball higher up. I think that contributed to how slow they were pushing up for Uruguay’s third.
It seemed to me that Uruguay were somewhat switching b/w a back 4 and a back 3 during this game again too? Or was that just me misinterpreting things :/
Yet another brilliant piece by ZonalMarking, my God, what a blessing you are to so many football fans all over the world! Thank you so much!
True… Caceres is a lot more defensive minded than M.Pereira…
When M.Pereira storms forward, caceres form 3 at the back with coates and lugano…
Also I think that Gonzales played more central in attack then Pereira on the left side…
The key factor was pressing and Suarez… Uruguay pressed better then all the others teams (Perez, Arevalo duo especially)… And suarez had better movement and work rate then all the others forwards…
this diego perez + arevalo rios duo reminds me of costinha n maniche in mourinho’s porto era or albelda + baraja during benitez’s valencia era.
wouldn’t you still rather see Gargano in there? class act that kid
for sure
though it turns out that tabarez’s choice resulted the title *ahem
Suarez has the best game intelligence of any forward since Bergkamp. He is so streetwise it is amazing – the handball v Ghana being a classic example. I just love watching him play.
lol yeah…i still cant believe he did that…his team made it to the semis thanks to his hand…
Wasnt a huge Suarez fan before this Copa America, but I’m converted.
Classy player who looks as if he can dominate any team.
Can he be a lone striker though would he be better as a false 9?
I’m still trying to figure out which way he would be deployed to be at his most effective, but I doubt lumping him with Andy Carroll will help.
So refreshing to see a partnership like Suarez & Forlan. So intelligent with their movement and the technique? My god.
you’d hope Carroll could learn something from Suarez…
Im not a big fan of either side, as neither play very exciting football, but I do respect Uruguay, they have got to be one of the most balanced sides in international football. While Paraguay have been very lucky to get to this point i think, and are just a very defensive side. Though i am a fan of this ortigoza, who i hadnt heard of before this tournament, he seems a good deep midfielder with a good range of passing, something i think Uruguay could do with actually. Though Im biased because the deep lying playmaker is one of my fav positions.
I think Uruguay benefited from having forlan, who could drop into midfield to outnumber Paraguay, and i think he had one of his best games, with no-one really picking him up. While paraguay wasted a player with Zaballos, who did nothing of importance in the game, and meant Paraguay couldnt win the midfield battle. Could have fielded a player to man mark forlan and stop Uruguay from playing, or be more proactive and field a player like forlan and use the fact that the two Uruguayan CM’s were pushing up and leaving space.
Player of the tournament i think has to be either Suarez, Ortigoza, Arevalo or Guerrero.
Let me know i have missed anyone out there?
a growing trend which i’m personally enjoying is the tactical flexibility of teams and players. I’d like to call this the Iniesta-effect (copyright), from the season when Rijkaard used him in almost every position imaginable on the pitch. Iniesta is a wonderful player, or as Lillo says, whereas Messi produces the best “jugadas”, Iniesta is the best “jugador”. brute physicality is finally giving way to something more mental, more natural than acquired through time. Paraguay’s players are limited technically, as are Peru’s, Uruguay and Chile in comparison tot he giants of Latin America, Argentina & Brazil. so its no surprise the bigger names/less flexible fell early on and gave way to the tactically shrewd.
if Tabarez starts a trend for all upcoming tournaments, it would be interesting if that was avoid playing friendlies. just hold a concentration where you work on tactical variations, shapes and match situations. they did it in the WC2010 and got 4th place.
well done Uruguay, deserved winners. Congratulations to Paraguay as well
Good shout, i have said before on here before that Iniesta is the only player of his kind in the world. Nobody else matches his ability read the game and move between spaces and positions the way he does.
I agree with the Iniesta comment completely. His skill and vision is in a league of its own. For proof of his brilliance see this compliation of the WC 2010:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5yM3kq-86Q
Fantasic analysis, possibly the best of the tournament.
As ZM points out with Suarez, it is possible for a player to have a huge impact on the game, despite not contributing much tactically. While that slightly undermines the entire thesis of the site, I think it tells you something about the broadness of football, that while there are tactical battles erupting all over the place (Ortigoza in midfield for example) it can be non-tactical factor which dictates a game. Suarez was simply brilliant last night, a deserved man of the match, and a deserved Copa America winner. As a United fan, I’m worried about the impact he’ll have at Anfield next season!
Tactics is more than just formations.
Suarez wouldn’t have been able to do what he did in yesterday’s game had there not been a team tactic. He played his role within the tactics of the team very well.
Is it safe to say that Uruguay were the most cohesive team unit in the tournament and that their success equals success for football? (And perhaps a re-establishment of the priority of a well-organized team over individual talent?)
They played well as a team.
They also have Luis Suarez.
There’s an interesting point in tabarez’s tactics which is the use of versatile players. This allows him to switch formations midway through the game without having to appeal to a substitution. This has already been discussed here, particularly in the semifinal report, but still it is worth noting.
Look at Alvaro Gonzalez: he started the final as a right midfielder, then moved to left midfield and finally ended up a left back. Regularly a full back, as a midfielder he (and Alvaro Pereira) could successfully cover Maxi Pereira and Martin Caceres when they motored forward, as they know the position well. there are other examples, of course: Cavani being played as a right midfielder all along, the Pereiras constantly switching between full-back and wing-back, Caceres playing as a both a left back and a centre-back, etc.
Also, I would like to point out the importance of having a constant outlet on Maxi Pereira. The guy is, truth be told, a converted midfielder, and he hasn’t forgoten his skills on the ball. He constantly run up and down the wing, taking players on and getting to the by-line seemingly with no effort. Given the importance of full-backs in the modern game, it is a real asset to have such a composed player taking the ball out of defense time and time again, and his contribution should not be underestimated.
Finally, just a note: Suarez wasn’t only the man of the match, he was voted player of the competition.
Cheers
Uruguay showed up to this match looking to be aggressive and it payed off. They played hard and smart, and always found the open man. Ultimately, this attitude plus some very determined finishing, rewarded them with the win. Thanks for the analysis, your blog has become one of my favorites, and I always check for your knowledgable breakdowns of battles on the pitch. Keep up the good work!
I am so Happy about the Forlan. He deserved this.
He’s so intelligent player, although he is a forward, he can play as trequartista. He can link up play and has both feet (in football terms of course
)
On other hand, he is decent guy and true sportsman. Cheers for Forlan!
what a load of shit, you barely mentioned Suarez.
you talk so much. this is what ruined football: analyzing and all that theory, can we just watch the fuckin game please?
Try here: http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php
Then why are you coming on a “tactics” website?