Venezuela 1-0 Argentina: Sabella switches to three at the back; Argentina play terribly

The first half line-ups
Alejandro Sabella’s honeymoon didn’t last long, as Argentina looked completely disjointed in Puerto la Cruz.
Cesar Farias’ Venezuela were set out very similar to at the Copa America – 4-4-2 became 4-2-2-2 when in possession, with the same first choice XI used. There was one exception to this – Athletic Bilbao’s Fernando Amorebieta has taken up Venezuelan citizenship, and he turned out to be crucial, heading in the only goal from a corner.
Sabella brought Martin Demichelis into the centre of his defence, pushing the full-backs from the Chile game into wing-backs. Rodrigo Braña dropped out, Javier Mascherano returned, and Ever Banega was the casualty of Demichelis’ inclusion.
Clearly, the story here was Sabella getting things wrong. Farias continues to put out a well-drilled, organised side who defend solidly and break quickly – and their impressive ratio of turning set-piece situations into goals should be admired. That said, they did little special here – they stood off, sat back, and marvelled at the lack of attacking threat from an Argentina side that simply didn’t feature enough good, creative players getting into the final third.
Formation
First things first, formation. If you win a game 4-1 with a flat back four, and decide to switch to a back three/five just four days later and end up losing, you’re bound to come in for criticism. That would be a lazy and simplistic analysis of Sabella’s decision, since the choice was entirely logical considering the threat of Venezuela. They play two (near-enough) out-and-out strikers and hit the ball long, which makes a back three work well – two markers, one sweeper.
A slight problem comes from the fact that Venezuela’s wide midfielders come inside quickly into the centre of the pitch, where the Argentine wing-backs don’t really want to stray to, but the absence of a Venezuelan number ten, or attack-minded full-backs, meant the primary Argentina holder, Mascherano, could deal with that threat comfortably.
The goal Argentina conceded came from a set-piece, which was not a result of the formation. Indeed, if anything, the presence of an extra centre-back should have helped them in those situations. The problem with Sabella’s selection was not the back three in defensive terms.
Selection
The problem, rather, was the players he used within the formation. Bringing in Demichelis, amusingly described by one Argentine journalist as a ’synonym of doubt’, was a dreadful decision. The system wasn’t a cause for defensive nervousness, but Demichelis’ clumsiness was. If a back three was needed, then perhaps Zabaleta could have been brought in from the right – not ideal, but more reliable than Demichelis. A more natural centre-back would have been Federico Fernandez – it’s odd that Sabella is so keen to include his ex-Estudiantes players, but chose to play Demichelis over Fernandez.
Marcos Rojo did well down the left, but a more attack-minded player than Zabaleta could have been used down the right. Argentina were likely to be dominating the ball and needing thrust down the flanks. Jonas Gutierrez could have been used here, for example. Zabaleta is a willing runner, but very much a full-back shoved forward and poor in the final third. A combination of a natural left-back and a natural winger (Rojo and Gutierrez) may have been a nice balance on the flanks.
The real problem was in midfield. Mascherano was the holder, and the freest player on the pitch. He’s not known for his distribution, but did well on the ball – hitting nice passes out to Rojo on the left. Ahead of him was the confusion, as Angel Di Maria was moved back to a central midfield role that didn’t suit his qualities at all. He likes to drift from out to in, picking the ball up on the move and running at speed. Here, he was occupied by Tomas Rincon and contributed little.
The role of Jose Sosa was particularly baffling. What was he meant to be? Slightly left-sided, ahead of the midfield, deeper than Messi. Presumably he was meant to drift in from the left to join up with the front two, but then why not give that role to Di Maria, and play a true passer (like the dropped Banega) alongside Mascherano? It made little sense, especially considering the trio of Di Maria, Messi and Higuain combined well against Chile. That was broken up. At least Sosa distracted Cesar Gonzalez and Roberto Rosales slightly, allowing Rojo space which Zabaleta didn’t get on the other flank.
Venezuela stood off, and Argentina were sluggish with their passing from the back. Mascherano, as mentioned, did OK on the ball, but asking him to be the deep playmaker is unlikely to reap true rewards. Argentina should have had a distributor in the midfield, but the confused roles of Di Maria and Sosa was a complete waste of two players. Venezuela only had to be concerned with Messi and Higuain in the final third – as dangerous as they are, Venezuela coped because they weren’t overloaded with additional runners to allow the all-Clasico front two more space.
After the goal, Sabella introduced others. Banega finally came on (for Zabaleta) as Argentina went to 4-4-1-1ish – again there was a question over selection, since whilst Zabaleta was hardly a force down the right, he was more likely to provide overlaps than Nicolas Burdisso, who was moved there. Then came Rodrigo Palacio and Javier Pastore, who predictably replaced Di Maria and Sosa.
By this point, the formation was less important. Venezuela sat deep, so deep that it was no longer a match-up of formations. Messi and Pastore couldn’t find their way through, and Venezuela defended well enough to deserve the point.
Conclusion
Perhaps not enough credit given to Farias here, but even he would agree his side had to do very little to combat the threat of Argentina. You couldn’t get much more of a standard underdog victory. Two banks of four, long balls and set-pieces, and rely on the opposition being poor in the final third.
Sabella changed a winning side, which is a grave error in football cliché terms, but perfectly acceptable in reality. He shouldn’t be criticised for that, he should be criticised for his choice of personnel – which was so bad that even the chance to use three substitutes couldn’t save the situation.
Venezuela 1-0 Argentina: Sabella switches to three at the back; Argentina play terribly




An interesting case of trying to cram players into a system that the coach likes.
“Sabella changed a winning side, which is a grave error in football cliché terms, but perfectly acceptable in reality. He shouldn’t be criticised for that, he should be criticised for his choice of personnel – which was so bad that even the chance to use three substitutes couldn’t save the situation.”
I would like to add to this. Interestingly, this game, with Sabella changing his formation so drastically, reminds me of my own college game I had on monday (a 4-3 home loss). The coach changed our formation from a 442 we played the previous game to a 3-1-3-1-2 (like Chile here http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/10/08/argentina-4-1-chile-debut-victory-for-sabella/ but then Valdivia/Fernandez plays as a trequartista behind Suazo and Pinilla). Since pretty much every college team here plays a 442, it made sense to play a 3 man def. Nevertheless, it’s needless to say that we looked completely lost and clueless and were thus duly overpowered the whole 90mins (we were lucky to make it a 4-3 game). My point behind this? Though tactically my coach was correct in this game (3man def vs. 2 strikers) the fact that we changed to such a different, unknown formation caused confusion and a poor performance for all of us.
Likewise, Sabella, changing to a tactically correct formation to play Venezuela, saw his players become confused b/c they switched to such an unfamiliar formation. Though a coach can switch to a tactically-correct formation, if (a majority of) his players are not at all familiar with the formation, they’re gonna be in-cohesive and disjointed–> as you also note here http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/09/12/palermo-4-3-inter-gasperini-3-4-3-tactics/
Sorry for the double post, my internet was going crazy
I couldn’t agree more. Midfield lacked creativity. They couldn’t hold the ball long enough to give Messi or Higuain a chance. With Messi being the only creative player it was easy for Venezuela to just collapse on him. This is very unfortunate for Argentina, 3 coaches with no clue whatsoever and yet it’s Messi who faces most of the criticism. I hope to see Sabella doing something unique during the next international friendlies. Try Di Maria and Lavezzi at FB? Mascherano at CB with the captain’s armband? Pastore and Aguero starts? Banega as the holding player?
Didn’t see this game, but after I’d read the first paragraph could spot the problems, dropping the two passers from midfield.
Also, why not play Mascherano at CB, particularly in a back 3?
Great work ZM, most people here in Argentina agree with you (except for the same old ridiculous Messi bashers).
The defence is incredibly shaky and has been that way for too long now, if Andújar wouldn’t have had a great day, this could have ended 3 or 4-0. Demichelis can’t play with the national team anymore, and Zabaleta shouldn’t have to do the task he was asked to do yesterday, he’s just not a Dani Alves type of player.
I can’t understand how a true winger like Di María was played as a central midfielder and Sosa… well as you noted Sosa’s role was impossible to fully comprehend. Besides, I think there are plenty of more talented players for the midfield.
What do you think about playing younger players to revitalize the defence? Demichelis and Burdisso won’t get (or at least shouldn’t) anywhere near a call up for the 2014 WC if we qualify. I’d like to see Fazio, Garay etc getting a chance. Even Mascherano would do better at CB than what was seen yesterday, he has been playing in that position very successfully for Barcelona.
Argentina, like England, has tried pretty much everything during the last decade and all they’ve got are failures. Personally I think it’s one of those cases where you can’t put much blame on tactics.
what’s the definition of failure? since 1991 Argentina have won 2 Copa Americas, and came second in 2. both were back-to-back. they won the original Confeds cup, and came second in 2005. in 1990 when Argentina were runners-up, England were 4th. England doesn’t have that kind of record, but still, i wouldn’t call them failures. they both have problems in people running (or ruining) the game. expectations might be a touch too high, but otherwise England have been doing better in relation to quality of players, managers, league, game’s imfrastructure, etc.
An interesting case of trying to cram players into a system that the coach likes.
“Sabella changed a winning side, which is a grave error in football cliché terms, but perfectly acceptable in reality. He shouldn’t be criticised for that, he should be criticised for his choice of personnel – which was so bad that even the chance to use three substitutes couldn’t save the situation.”
I would like to add to this. Interestingly, this game, with Sabella changing his formation so drastically, reminds me of my own college game I had on monday (a 4-3 home loss). The coach changed our formation from a 442 we played the previous game to a 3-1-3-1-2 (like Chile here http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/10/08/argentina-4-1-chile-debut-victory-for-sabella/ but then Valdivia/Fernandez plays as a trequartista behind Suazo and Pinilla). Since pretty much every college team here plays a 442, it made sense to play a 3 man def. Nevertheless, it’s needless to say that we looked completely lost and clueless and were thus duly overpowered the whole 90mins (we were lucky to make it a 4-3 game). My point behind this? Though tactically my coach was correct in this game (3man def vs. 2 strikers) the fact that we changed to such a different, unknown formation caused confusion and a poor performance for all of us.
Likewise, Sabella, changing to a tactically correct formation to play Venezuela, saw his players become confused b/c they switched to such an unfamiliar formation. Though a coach can switch to a tactically-correct formation, if (a majority of) his players are not at all familiar with the formation, they’re gonna be in-cohesive and disjointed–> as you also note here http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/09/12/palermo-4-3-inter-gasperini-3-4-3-tactics/
Great point, that’s what I was wondering. Have they practiced much with 3 in the back?
There is no question that Argentina played very poorly and that it looked like Sabella wasn’t watching the same match we were, but I am also concerned about Messi’s attitude, especially now that he is the captain. We saw this already during Copa America, and it happens when Barca is having a weak game too. Messi get’s pouty, drops his head down, stops running and just looks like he doesn’t want to be there.
The captain of the team and the best player in world shouldn’t have such attitude, even if the entire team is playing as poorly as Argentina played yesterday.
In general, he was standing around a lot, walking, and rarely running during the match yesterday. Even when players were running with the ball towards him, he would stay put and not try to receive the ball. Perhaps he has been instructed by his Argentina coaches to stay in one place more…
Has anyone else noticed this, or is everyone blaming the situation on other players and not seeing that Messi could be to blame also, in addition to the others?
I agree. See my question below. Still seems to be an issue in the team.
Saw a longer recap of the game and it seemed that Argentinia still has the same problem in midfield like in WC’10: They are still a broken team.
The offense does not work enough to defend and so there is always a problem in midfield which makes it hard to press against the ball holding opponent. They do not get enough men behind the ball fast enough.
Was this by chance or was this a problem of formation or attitude?
I agree that midfield seems to be the biggest problem, and it has been for a while. It often feels like they are playing with only defensive midfielders, and there is nothing linking them with the attackers.
Messi therefore often has to retreat too far and also finds himself with his back to the goal. When he does get the ball, he faces a wall and no helpers.
But still, I would expect him to show a bit more enthusiasm and leadership.
Why not put Messi in midfield? Javier Pastore is pretty good choice for midfield too.
Argentina has an abundance of strikers but dont use them, Aguero, Tevez, Lavezzi and Lisandro Lopez.
Linking midfield and attack is a common problem and I wont pretend to know the key elements that make it work i.e. I know there is more to it than putting Messi in the middle but it should help a lot!
Playing 4-2-3-1/4-2-1-3 and Argentina will Prosper, what a bunch of pathetic coaches
i usually hate discussing personnel over systems, but have to agree with ZM. it seems to be the case in this game.
Argentina have hardly produced decent enough shuttling midfielders. JW made a note of the 5 & 10 being created to counter each other, but what exists inbetween? where is the 8? can anyone name an Argentinian 8 playing at a high level at the moment and is being shunned by the NT? all amazing, composed & elegant 5’s or tricky, stylish, nostalgic 10’s.
hats off to Farias, he played his cards right. losing at altitude could be forgiven, & his decision to use 2 squads paid off.
banega , no ?
Spot on! Lucho maybe 4 years ago… I think he was trying to make DiMaria play no.8.
Lucho 4 years ago, definately. DiMaria plays like a winger being forced in the middle…which is exactly what he is! i’m thinking more Biglia (needs to mov to a bigger club) or Gago (needs to regain his form under late Capello-early Schuster)
Banega is definitely one. Problem he’s wildly inconsistent. He goes from world class in one match to can’t complete a pass, can’t tackle in the next.
It would be really cool if they could figure out a way to make messi and aguero work together in attack. perhaps playing pastore on the right, di maria on the left, and messi and aguero as more central forwards but in a very fluid system with lots of movement and free exchange of players kind of like this years man united. pastore and di maria could drift in while messi and aguero can drift out… pastore (or messi) could easily drop into advanced midfield positions and you would end up with more of a 4-3-3 (with messi moving out to the right should pastore come into midfield). messi is not as effective on the right without a good attacking fullback.. but zabaleta could still fit in well if they maintain the fluid attacking 4-4-2 shape as he would be more than welcome to stay at home in that formation.
—Aguero Higuain
DiMaria Messi Pastore
—–Mascherano
Rojo Otamendi Garay Zabaleta
Excellent review ZM. It was the wrong players, that cost Argentina.
It is really sad that Argentina cannot find really good tacticians. I am sure Sabella is not Maradona or Batista. But to use De Maria in the centre of the field, when he have players like Banega, Pastore or even Messi – who can do all this better than anybody except Xavi or Requelme, I am not sure if Argentina is in safe hands. His insistence on using Sosa and Roja, when Argentina have so many others is also baffling. I only hope Sabella learns his lessons quite early.
If not, it will be a grave injustice to Argentina and more so to Messi.
Re: Sosa.
You know things are bad when ZM cant make out a players role in the team.
I often have a similar problem with Gareth Barry…
LOL!
Argentina – Playing 3 at the back just seemed crazy with the players used, i thought this before the game when i saw the line ups. Argentina could have easily played with two at the back and dealt with the front two well. I believe a good CB partnership could be Coloccini (experience) with Garay (youth and pace), both are playing well right now with newcastle riding high and benifica second in the league right now. The only CB that looked okay in this match was Otamendi, and even he looked exposed to pace. Rojo actually had a good game at LWB but zabaleta was poor, given its not his usual role, and i agree with ZM that Jonas Gutierrez could have worked on the right, giving a good option outwide right. The problem today was Venezuela felt okay to leave the wingbacks free because they wernt really a threat, and could apply more pressure on the midfield and messi.
But the bigger problem was midfield and attack. How banega didnt start today i dont know, they were crying out for his passing and defensive positioning, espicially as the Ven wingers were coming inside and giving mascherano problems. Di maria could then have played higher up the pitch and linked with the attack more. Sosa was invisible and isnt international standard. The better midfield would have been banega and mascherano holding and di maria breaking forward to join the attack.
Messi and Higuain have a great partnership, but they need someone else up there with them to help make space, and i would have played aguero on the left (having changed to 4 at the back), he is in great from right now and argentina needed more creative players high up the pitch than they did.
Argentina has just lived through a disastrous drought in terms of center backs – the shadow of Roberto Ayala looms large, and Demichelis/Milito have looked awful. Things are bad when a not-fit Walter Samuel looks decent…..
Colo-Colo-Coloccini!
I think 4-2-1-3 is the best formation for Argentina.
CF: Higuain or Aguero
LF: Di Maria
RF: Messi
ACM: Pastore
CM: Banega or Gago
CM: Mascherano
LB: Rojo
CB: Otamendi
CB: Burdisso
RB: Zabaleta
GK: Andujar
Pastore adds creativity to the midfield which frees Messi to work his magic instead of having to be the sole playmaker. Messi is given free reign to drift in from the right like he did for Barcelona up until 2010, or Messi could play the false 9 like he currently does for Barcelona and put Aguero at RF. Di Maria adds width to the left side, Mascherano shields the back four, and Gago or Banega is the link between defense and attack. It seems really obvious to me, but then again I am not an international manager, so what–if anything–am I missing?
agree with most of that, maybe play aguero on the left, didnt do too bad at the copa there. And i would swap the CB’s for Collicini (newcastle) and Garay (Benifica). These two are in really good form right now and garay specifically is the future for argentina’s defense.
Just for the record, Aguerro didn’t play because he was injured.
Burdisso, Demichelis, Otamendi = Slow, slower, slowest…. Mierda!
I’m glad people here realize the failures of Argentina isn’t all down to Messi’s. He’s the only creative player in the lineup and opposing defenses can afford to just concentrate on him. As such Messi has no time or space, and has to drop deep just to get a touch. It’s too bad that the Argentina coaches have all tried to compensate for a weak back line by removing all the creative players in midfield and adding defensive minded ones.
Andujar
Anslandi-Fazio/Otamendi-Garay-Di Maria
Mascherano-Banega
Messi-Pastore-Aguero
Higuain
I want Argentina to try this out.
Yet another Argentina game where Messi fails miserably. It’s incredible the difference between the club and international versions of this player. IMO, you can certainly never say that Messi is a great player or the best player or whatever, but you must distinguish one from the other. Club player Messi is great, international player Messi is dog poop. The wheel of excuses will be spun and we might hear a new one or an old favourite but I have never seen Messi play two good games for Argentina in a row and I have never seen him get to 70% of his best form at Barca for Argentina. After this performance, Messi cannot be considered a true great IMO. Xavi and Zizou won World Cups on their own, Messi can’t beat Venezuela.
Messi can’t beat Venezuela, I guess people won’t be satisfied until Argentina fields just Messi vs 11 and wins. Xavi and Zizou won World Cups on their own? I remember seeing 10 other guys on the pitch when they played.
I stopped reading after the first sentence.
“Xavi and Zizou won World Cups on their own”
What a fantastic line! Ever considered a career in stand-up comedy?
@Rolando: “It’s incredible the difference between the club and international versions of this player”.. (re Messi):
Well, credit has to be given to you for at least noticing the difference, despite your very poor analysis and conclusion for that difference.
Did you ever bother to ‘think’ beyond this observation as to why this difference exists? the answers are fairly obvious as some other readers have commented here and elsewhere. (reality is only a few simpletons will seriously believe that Messi is undisputed best footballer on the planet for barca consistently and then simultaneously n consistently an abject hopeless failure for Argentina simply because he cannot or will not perform!)..
As for your last sentence (about Xavi n Zizou), I won’t bother to comment. You’ve caused youself enough embarrassment on your own!
The only flaw in your statement is that you mentioned Xavi and Zizou in one statement.(Oops did i do it)
I can do a much more condensed version of the game: “Argentina plays badly, Messi gets the blame.”
Yes, yes,.. I know it takes a team to make a player but that monkey on his back isnt leaving on his own.
He either gets too much of the blame or too many excuses on why he doenst play as well for club and country. But he is one of the best players in the world and with that title comes the pressure if not to win then to carry his team on his back like many legendary players have before him.
Like many, I watched this game just to seem Leo play internationally.
I really hope ZM can one day do an analysis of his club vs nation games.
There are many theories as to why the difference, the easy one is “He plays with the 2nd and 3rd best players in FIFA” and no other team or club have both an Iniesta AND a Xavi.
Another popular one is that Leo has been playing Barca Ball since he was 11-12 yrs old, tikitaka is the ONLY way he knows how to play. It doesnt make him less of a great player because his style fits and is molded from the Barca blueprint but the question will always be: “Can he succeed in a style different from Barca?” and could he be as great a player at Inter or Manchester as in Barca?
We take it for granted because he comes across as a tool but Crissy Ronaldo has successfully played in 3 leagues and its not as easy as it sounds for many.
Carlos Tevez can play almost anywhere because his style is all about hustle and he plays well when he is on an island. Messi’s great skills aside, much of the Barca success is about movement of the player and the ball and that depends a lot on his mates.
I can see somewhere in the next 4-5 yrs when things dont change that Messi’s fault will become even bigger in the eyes of fans who have never seen his magic in europe shine when he is playing for country and it will become so vocal and over the top that Messi will quit international football.
It wont be the first time this will have happened and all signs point to this outcome.
I know that before Maradona came, the poisonous atmosphere (not just Cancer Riquelme) was horrible in the argie camp, with cliques and players bithcing for playing time and jealousies. It was said that many veteran players were extremely jealous of Leo who they thought hadnt proven themselves but was hailed as the saviour and that there were visible signs. Im sure that once the Zanetti and Campobiaso clans were put on the side and Leo was promoted by Diego as being THE man, it might have subdued somewhat but could there still be some of that? its not exactly unheard of that home based stars and ‘foreign legions’ often have friction.
Watching Leo play I couldnt help notice that he didnt run as much as usual and that the body language of the team captain wasnt very good. My friend Nick said it reminded him of NBA player Chris Webber when he was with the Sacramento Kings. Whenever he would go to the line to shoot FT, his eyes would water up and he looked like he was just about to cry. It was the most discouraging sight in sports and one guaranteed to sap the moral of teammates and fans.
Now Nick is over the top with his comparisons but there was no denying that something was off with Messi.
Its not ALL his fault but he should take the share just like other players.
Sosa over Pastore / Banega… really? DiMaria in the middle?
And why are all these over-the-hill never-that-good CBs keep getting starts? Burdisso, Demichelis, and Milito. If Fazio/Garay aren’t the men for the job now, they’ll never be.
I don’t know what Sabella was trying. I thought he’d be a bit smarter. Maybe it’s just a blip…
Meh, Not a very important match, Argie will pass the qualifying stage anyway. and nothing new Messi is not inspired at NT game. Think this blaming on manager stuff is too much so all those Argie managers was clueless? NT team selection is not always depend on manager I think Most manager favor players someone he know very well about them. Out of position players are not strange stuff at NT team set up since there are always some hole in NT team line up.
maybe it’s time that Argentina employ a non-argentine coach? Maybe a european? It seems they have a lot of talent but no one can harness them tactically
1. Romero (gk)
2. Zabaleta (rb)
3. Burdisso (cb)
4. Garay (cb)
5. Di Maria (lb)
6. Banega (cm)
7. Mascherano (cm)
8. Messi (rw)
9. Pastore (am)
10. Aguero (lw)
11. Higuain (st)
4-2-3-1. Simple.