Turkey 0-3 Croatia: Bilic shows how to play a 4-4-2 against a 4-3-3
The starting line-ups
A superb display from Croatia put them in a commanding position going into Tuesday’s second leg.
Guus Hiddink played a 4-3-3 system, with Giray Kacar brought in at the back. Kazim Kazim was injured, so Burak Yilmaz continued upfront, with support from Arda Turan and Hamit Altintop.
Slaven Bilic used 4-4-2, with Mario Mandzukic and Ivica Olic upfront. Luka Modric was in the middle with Ivan Rakitic tucked in on the left, whilst Vedran Corluka was on the left and Domagoj Vida right.
Croatia raced into a second minute lead and always looked in control, wrapping up the game (and probably the tie) with the third goal through Corluka on 50 minutes.
Formations match-up
This was a contrast of systems, a classic battle between a 4-3-3 and a 4-4-2. Whilst formation doesn’t completely dictate the style of football being played, it’s clear that different formations are more suited to different approaches (or vice-versa). The difference between a 4-4-2 and a 4-5-1 / 4-3-3 is summed up nicely by Sir Alex Ferguson.
“The idea behind the 4-5-1 is that you can control the midfield and keep possession of the ball – that’s always your aim when you use that formation,” he says. “I believe the team that has possession of the ball has more opportunities to win the match. As for the 4-4-2, there is more emphasis in that formation placed on playing the ball forward and usually you use the two traditional wingers.”
This game was the perfect case study – the 4-3-3 dominated possession (70% compared to 30%) but the 4-4-2 was more direct and created more goalscoring chances (13 shots, 9 on target, 3 goals compared to 2, 0, 0) according to UEFA.
Croatia tactics
So, how did Croatia do it? For the first five minutes, they pressed heavily at the top of the pitch, with both Olic and Mandzukic working tirelessly to close down the centre-backs and the deepest Turkey midfielder, Selcuk Inan. Mandzukic would often drop deep onto Inan to prevent him getting the ball, and then when Croatia won the ball, he’d sprint forward to join Olic whilst Inan would be attracted to the ball.
The early goal was crucial, because it meant Turkey had to attack and leave spaces at the back for Croatia breaks. Those attacks from the away side were very quick, generally coming down the flanks – Croatia would leave one player in front of the defence, usually Tomislav Dujmovic, but the rest would break forward immediately. Rakitic and Darijo Srna were the key players, able to pick up the ball in space and run at the Turkey full-backs – both of whom had very poor games.
Two banks of four
Croatia were on top for the first ten minutes, but then Turkey started to make the most of their numerical advantage in the middle, and the passing from the away side was poor. Olic and Mandzukic stopped pressing and instead dropped alongside Inan, making it difficult for Turkey to play out from the back to Inan, and equally difficult for Inan to play the ball forward when he did get possession.
Defensively, Croatia did nothing special, defending deep with two banks of four. Turkey had the right idea with the ball, being patient and logical with their passing – trying to drag the Croatian wide midfielders inside to deal with the 3 v 2, then getting their full-backs forward on the overlap.
Turkey lacked penetration, though, with a midfield offering little creativity. Croatia often looked slightly open in that they left a lot of space between the defence and midfield – but this was partly as a result of Turkey having no-one coming into that zone. Altintop, perhaps, could have drifted inside to try and open things up, but more often than not it was Yilmaz dropping deep to offer a threat in that area, which just contributed to Turkey playing infront of Croatia, rather than going through them.
Srna attacks
Srna started the game very poorly, but went onto become a key player down the right,. He was the best Croatian player at turning defence into attack quickly with direct running, and was also very clever at winning free-kicks, which he delivered with great accuracy himself. He provided the cross for Mandzukic’s second before half-time, then won and took the free-kick for Corluka’s header at the start second half.
Bilic deserves great credit for playing Srna there and having faith in the inexperienced Vida behind him – another manager may have dropped Srna to his favoured position of right-back, but then he wouldn’t have been such a force going forward.
Substitions
The game changed little as the game went on. Hiddink brought on winger Gokhan Tore to play on the right for the second half, managing to get rid of the terrible Gokhan Gonul, whose poor defending against Corluka for the first goal was arguably the key incident of the game. Altintop dropped to a right-sided central midfield position, with Sabri Sarioglu going back to right back.
Later, he brought on Mehmet Topal for Inan to try to circulate the ball quicker from midfield, and Umut Bulut for Yilmaz for a more direct option upfront, but Turkey barely created a chance.
Bilic introduced Danijel Pranjic for Rakitic to help shield the defence, then replaced the two strikers when they tired – but all substitutions came after 80 minutes – he wanted to change as little as possible.
Conclusion
Bilic knew how well his tactics had worked. “We deserved to win by even more goals,” he said. “It was fantastic. I want to congratulate all my players – they played the whole match without making any mistakes. It was really amazing.” “Turkey did not create a single chance, which is quite remarkable since they had the home advantage,” added Olic.
Hiddink took the blame for the defeat. “I am responsible for the results. The players have to execute things properly, but I take full responsibility…if you come out in the first minute, badly-organised and outplayed very easily, then it’s already a difficult game. We gave them the favour of two counter attacks, which was the killer.”
Bilic showed how to play away from home with a 4-4-2 – he ordered his players to sit deep, then break quickly down the flanks through the wide players, and also paid attention to Turkey’s spare midfielder, Inan, and dropped one or both strikers close to him. The work rate of the front two, the directness of Srna and the discipline of Dujmovic were also vital.
Turkey were dreadful, though – so much possession and hardly a sniff of a chance. The lack of creativity and thrust from the centre of midfield was amazing, and Tuesday’s return game will surely be Hiddink’s last as a manager.
Turkey 0-3 Croatia: Bilic shows how to play a 4-4-2 against a 4-3-3
Turkey could have sorted this out if they had ball-playing centrebacks. i see it as a new trend emerging. lovely to see Croatia back on the map. great 2008 tournament they had, wish them all the best
The trend of tikka takka talentless football is at an end. Speaking of which where is the England game write up… I guess ZM is upset his beloved Varfelona – Messiah were beaten by a ‘long ball’ team. HAhahaha
I can understand if you call the tiki-taka boring or something but talent-less? Seriously?
Yes, completely talentless. It takes no skill to pass 5 yards across, sideways and then back to your defence. Even an average ‘long ball’ England side can easily counter act it with GOOD DEFENDING. The problem is, that doesn’t exist in the mickey mouse leagues like ‘Le Liga’.
I see ZM has yet to write anything on this game, probably still in shock England schooled his ‘best side in history’…. HAHAHAHA.
If it takes no skill to play short passes, then it must take even less skill to hoof the ball. England must be worse than talentless then!
Yes it can be easily stopped.
That’s why Tika-taka just one the World Cup, European Championship and Champions League (twice) since 2008
Congrats on winning one friendly.
Tactical genius.
@ yBC.tv
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/worldcup2010/article-1278759/World-Cup-2010-FA-chief-Lord-Triesman-accuses-Spain-Russia-bid-bribe-referees-South-Africa.html
That’s what won the championships, not talent.
stewie, you are an absolute idiot…
ZM has already forgotten more about football than you will ever learn
You’ve got to be kidding. Calling tiki taka “talentless”? Seriously? Because England scored a goal in a friendly at home? Portugal and Argentina have already beaten Spain in friendlies, and looked much better doing it, but it doesn’t really apply once the games start to count.
I do think that Croatia showed the most important part of working a 4-4-2 at a high level, very hard working strikers, they have to press the back line when out of possession.
Not sure about that! Didn’t see the game but from this the Croatia tactic with the ball seems similar to United’s both times against Barcelona.If it starts working regularly in the champs league then it’ll hold more weight.
The influence of Tikka-takka may diminish a little after the current crop of Spain/ Barcelona players go- or are there more Xavi / Iniesta type geniuses in the Spain or Barca pipeline?
In the meantime, I guess we either sit back and enjoy or sit and sulk depending on your viewpoint.
The constraint led approach to football will only grow in influence versus the ‘dumb’ transitional systems.
You just need to look outside of football to other sports like rugby.
The transition systems already had their high tide back in 2008.
Last year Barca thumped the two transitional generals (Jose and SAF).
So now all sides will more away from ‘dumb drones’ playing transitional to ’smart drones’ playing pattern led football.
Not all sides will play tika-taka – but all good sides will:
* favour devolved systems with no single playmaker
* abandon fixed ideas of positions and roles
* favour pattern recognition over transitions
what is a smart drone? dumb drone? transition general? explain the jargon, please.
People made the same dramatic predictions after witnessing the Dutch of the 1970’s. It didn’t go according to schedule, did it?
@ tappyfinger [long OT post alert]
There have been two systemic revolutions in recent years.
Lets call them Jose Ball and Barca Ball for arguments sake.
Jose Ball is a management solution to on field problems which devastated the EPL and Arsenal’s best ever team in its first year. AVB calls it aggressive transitions. We could describe it as having a better way to play Chess (Strategy as opposed to tactics)
Barca Ball is a design solution to the problems of transitional football. Think of it as playing Chess with completely different pieces. Because it is an engineered solution it cannot easily be countered merely via on field tactics or strategy.
I describe Jose’s system as ‘dumb’ – but in fact it was revolutionary at the time. The system led approach was simply more efficient than the creativity/tactical approach of Arsenal via it’s focus on superiority in specific game transactions. But it is not a creative system in truth. The high tide was the Chelsea vs Utd final.
But rather than establishing the promised Utd dynasty, the system would be revealed to be already outdated
Football is actually quite late to a design solution to the challenge that creative teams face against highly organised defences.
In Rugby, the All Blacks were already adopting ’smart’ systems from the US in 2004 but the problem was the same one as football.
New Zealand, like Barca had the problem of having a creative philosophy and highly skilled players suited to possession based attacking. The problem is that this essentially ‘feeds the beast’ when confronted with an aggressive transitional defence.
The ‘constraint led’ approach was a designed in solution. Not just a tactical solution, or a management solution, but a solution to completely change how the game was played and the players required to do it.
The key innovation is that instead of playing to a system, players are educated as problem solvers. Problems are solved via experience. What have we seen before?
One reason Barca rotate the ball around is to seek a pattern for which there is a known solution.
The system is ’smart’ because the players must create the solution. Every player is a playmaker. This devolved intelligence makes it hard to stop.
But the constraints are the genius of the system. It is the constraints which limit poor decision making and manage risk.
History shows that this ‘design’ solution creates a lasting competitive advantage.
Both Jose and SAF were embarrassed by the discovery that there is not a tactical response to a design level solution.
This is exactly what we saw in Rugby – a 3 year period of unprecedented dominance before teams could retool.
This does not mean all teams will play tika-taka – but they will be constraint led teams.
Man Utd is already bringing out the first of its ‘next gen’ players.
Multi-role smart drones like Jones.
And at Bayern you have the king of high tech’ drones, Müller an alleged 10 who can play 3 roles almost at the same time.
But if you really want to understand constraint led, then Rugby is a good place to look because the nature of the game makes it so stark.
Those who follow Rugby would not be shocked to see Fabregas leading the line for Barca.
Nominal positions and tasks don’t matter so much when you are focussing on the creation and solution to specific patterns.
So instead of thinking you need a 9/Cheech upfront (role based thinking), you think ‘lets focus on solving problems in the D’.
Fabregas specialises in solving problems in the D.
My own view is this is why Jose snapped up Özil rather than his top transitional onfield general Sneijder
Özil has the allround skillset of the new school
@ tappy
I have written a detailed response but it is not showing up in the thread and I cannot repost it as it says it is duplicate.
ZM – can you help?
It took me 20 mins to write lol!
——————————-
@ tappyfinger [long OT post alert]
There have been two systemic revolutions in recent years.
Lets call them Jose Ball and Barca Ball for arguments sake.
Jose Ball is a management solution to on field problems which devastated the EPL and Arsenal’s best ever team in its first year. AVB calls it aggressive transitions. We could describe it as having a better way to play Chess (Strategy as opposed to tactics)
Barca Ball is a design solution to the problems of transitional football. Think of it as playing Chess with completely different pieces. Because it is an engineered solution it cannot easily be countered merely via on field tactics or strategy.
I describe Jose’s system as ‘dumb’ – but in fact it was revolutionary at the time. The system led approach was simply more efficient than the creativity/tactical approach of Arsenal via it’s focus on superiority in specific game transactions. But it is not a creative system in truth. The high tide was the Chelsea vs Utd final.
But rather than establishing the promised Utd dynasty, the system would be revealed to be already outdated
Football is actually quite late to a design solution to the challenge that creative teams face against highly organised defences.
In Rugby, the All Blacks were already adopting ’smart’ systems from the US in 2004 but the problem was the same one as football.
New Zealand, like Barca had the problem of having a creative philosophy and highly skilled players suited to possession based attacking. The problem is that this essentially ‘feeds the beast’ when confronted with an aggressive transitional defence.
The ‘constraint led’ approach was a designed in solution. Not just a tactical solution, or a management solution, but a solution to completely change how the game was played and the players required to do it.
The key innovation is that instead of playing to a system, players are educated as problem solvers. Problems are solved via experience. What have we seen before?
One reason Barca rotate the ball around is to seek a pattern for which there is a known solution.
The system is ’smart’ because the players must create the solution. Every player is a playmaker. This devolved intelligence makes it hard to stop.
But the constraints are the genius of the system. It is the constraints which limit poor decision making and manage risk.
History shows that this ‘design’ solution creates a lasting competitive advantage.
Both Jose and SAF were embarrassed by the discovery that there is not a tactical response to a design level solution.
This is exactly what we saw in Rugby – a 3 year period of unprecedented dominance before teams could retool.
This does not mean all teams will play tika-taka – but they will be constraint led teams.
Man Utd is already bringing out the first of its ‘next gen’ players.
Multi-role smart drones like Jones.
And at Bayern you have the king of high tech’ drones, Müller an alleged 10 who can play 3 roles almost at the same time.
But if you really want to understand constraint led, then Rugby is a good place to look because the nature of the game makes it so stark.
Those who follow Rugby would not be shocked to see Fabregas leading the line for Barca.
Nominal positions and tasks don’t matter so much when you are focussing on the creation and solution to specific patterns.
So instead of thinking you need a 9/Cheech upfront (role based thinking), you think ‘lets focus on solving problems in the D’.
Fabregas specialises in solving problems in the D.
My own view is this is why Jose snapped up Özil rather than his top transitional onfield general Sneijder
Özil has the allround skillset of the new school
@ Tappy
I took 20 mins to write a reply which seems to have been blocked as SPAM
Maybe ZM can help?
@ Qwe
We don’t need to make predictions – we can look at what has already occured.
What has occurred? I see the recent dominance of one team playing a particular way(yes, Spain and Barca are, for all intensive purposes, one team). As I stated previously, people made similar grand predictions after witnessing the Totaalvoetbal of the 1970’s Dutch.
More recently, a few years ago, people were heralding the new era of ultrapragmatic football. This was when Greece and Italy had won in 04 and 06, Mourinho was doing wonders at Porto and then Chelsea, while Capello was also at the top of the managerial pyramid. The difference is that, unlike with tiki taka, most of the top sides played this way. Nevertheless, we’re now sitting here today forecasting the demise of pragmatic football. In a few years, someone will be forecasting the demise of some other strategy…
Copied from Spain thread:
—
Interesting comparison to rugby. Of course, that 2004-07 All Blacks side is now just as well known for failing spectacularly at the 2007 RWC, with the players failing to adapt when they were unable to open up their first serious opposition at will. Their quarter final loss there would be akin to Spain losing both Xavi and whoever his substitute was to injury, and spending the rest of the game cluelessly playing tiki taka in the middle third with no one able to make the right decisions and no plan B. The 2007 All Blacks needed somebody to step up and say “kick for the corners” or “set up for a drop kick”, ie play rugby like Stoke plays football, when it was clear plan A was falling apart. Similarly, Spain need to have something else to fall back on.
It’s interesting to also look at the 2010-11 All Blacks side, after rebuilding. Arguably less talent and depth than the 07 side, but much more well rounded skills across the side, and with the ability to fall back on a defensive kicking game that ultimately won them the 2011 RWC, despite their creative game again falling apart.
—
It’s all very well to devolve decision making, but that can fall apart under pressure – especially if a key decision maker like Xavi/Dan Carter is injured. There still needs to be a plan B, a set plan to fall back on.
stewie, you are wrong on so many levels, I won’t do anything but laugh AT you
don’t feed the troll. this dude comes on all the time lately with his half-baked BS, just trying to stir up ZM and commenters.
Turkey – Turkey didnt seem that badly set up, the fullbacks got foward well, and the CB seemed okay. The attack was alright too, the wingers provided a good threat when they got on the ball and the striker dropped deep well to link play. The wingers mights have faired better on the break.
The problem seems to be the midfield, where inan was poor distributing from the back. He wasnt really in a position to break up attacks either as croatia played through the wings. emre was poor too, keeping possession well, but not offering any creativity from deep midfield. He should have been the player controlling turkeys attacks and setting up moves, but he seemed too conservative. Sarioglu was the worst though, offering no thrust from midfield. He lacked any creativity to create moves, was far too conservative, and left the striker isolated.
Overall Turkey lacked a link between attack and midfield, and this is down to turkeys midfield,who were far too conservative against a two man croatian midfield (often even just one as modric drifted forward).
I think alot of the difficulty Turkey had in the midfield came from the pressing done by Olic and Mandzukic. Olic, particularly, was a constant thorn in the side of the Turks. What he lacks in skill, he makes up for in his tireless defending from the front.
I agree, espicially with inan, he was pressured by the two strikers all game. But emre and sarioglu were really poor. They were completely outdone by Croatians midfield. They never got forward to support the striker, and didnt even play some good balls from deep, turkey might as well have played better defensive midfielders to help the fullbacks, if they wernt going to have any sort of attacking thrust from midfield.
Croatia – The back four seemed pretty solid today, though against better opposition i think it could be exposed. The fullbacks dont really offer anything going forward either which could be a problem in the future. Dujmovic and Modric were excellent, shielding there defense,and with modric controlling attacks, playing some great balls out wide.
Rakitic and Srna provided great support from out wide, with srna espicially a massive threat. Olic lead the line really well. Madzukic left croatia exposed a bit in midfield but was a good threat.
The defense worked because they sat deep, with the team set up to play on the counter. Both Simunic and Schildenfeld are classic stoppers(ie, slow)- if Bilic had tried to play a high(er) line, it would’ve been ugly.
That said, with so many injuries to the backline(Lovren, Vrsaljko, and Strinic), it performed admirably. Corluka, in particular, may actually be the long term solution at LB(a real problem for Croatia since the days of Robert Jarni). Vida and Lovren the future central pairing, with Vida providing pace and sweeper-like forward thrusts and Lovren as the strong stopper.
I agree, it leaves croatia with a problem, what if they have to chase a game? Do they push there defense up?
I am a big fan of Lovren,looks a very good defender, and a future partnership with Vida as you said looks very promising. Do you think either of those will play at the euros (assuming croatia get through this tie). I would give them the chance i think, keeping Corluka at LB (doesnt really offer much going forward but excellent defensively) to help out the young defense. I would move srna back to RB, and have him burst forward when attacking.
The midfield two seem fine, a good partnership and they shield the back four well. I would probably switch rakitic over to the right, with srna proving a overlap, he could drift inside (ala pranjic for bosnia) and help make sure croatia are not outnumbered in the middle, While still provide fast breaks down the right. On the left i would maybe play eduardo, as he can provide fast breaks down the left, and make good runs into the penalty area when srna crosses from outwide right. While eduardo and rakitic could swap wings with eduardo cutting in from the right and rakitic making runs down the left like in this game.
Up front I would keep olic (really underrated striker) but partner him with kranjcar, with olic leading the line and pressuring the CB’s and kranjcar pressuring the holding midfielder (if there is one) but mostly just drifting into space and supporting olic.
This would still allow Croatia to play on the break, with srna, rakitic, eduardo and olic proving pacy counter attacks with different options of crossing (srna) or cutting in and shooting (edurado/rakitic). But still gives croatia control of game with a midfield three of modric, dujmovic and kranjcar keeping possession.
vida Lovren Corluka
Srna
v Dujmovic Modric
Rakitic Kranjcar
v Olic <Eduardo
Croatia wont get far if this team plays at the euros,they are not strong enough in defense to just allow so much pressure, and arent dangerous enough on the break, the system is too simple to stop, Croatia got lucky with how bad turkey was in this match.
What is your definition of “going far”? 7 of the 11 starters vs Turkey were also starters during Euro 08, where Croatia was only pk’s away from a semifinal appearance.
Realistically, this Croatia team should make the quarterfinals. With a little luck in the draw and an in-form striker(and Modric), a semifinal appearance isn’t beyond the realm of possibility. Can’t see anything beyond that…
IMO, Vida is a better player than Lovren(who I think is very good); if he’d come up playing at Dinamo(Zagreb) instead of the provincial Osijek, his career would of been further along by now. He was by far Dinamo’s best player in the Champions League vs Real and Lyon. He really comes into his own at centerback.
Lovren would’ve started over Schildenfeld if he hadn’t been injured. With the Lovren-Vida partnership, you’ll have to wait to after the Euro’s to see it(when Simunic retires). At Right back will likely be Srna, with possibly HSV’s Ilicevic at RM. Naturally, this is all conjecture, as who knows what the next coach will do.
I’d never want to see Eduardo lining up on the left again, as this is where he was played vs Greece and was completely isolated and ineffective. He’s absolutely worldclass in/near the box, which is where he needs to be.
DO you think ilicevic would be a better option than rakitic then? I feel Rakitic could offer more creativity and drift inside with srna overlpping.
If eduardo played on the left it would need to be high up the pitch (kinda of like vucinic for Roma). Then he could look to make off the ball runs into the area with olic dropping deep to link play. This could work really well, with olic weakness being his finishing, he could do all the graft, and make space for eduardo to finish off moves.
THe one weakness would be krajcar in my formation, he doesnt play reguarly for club, and doesnt offer a good goal threat, though can play a killer pass, and press well, plus Croatia lack a good replacement i think.
Croatia would conentrate play on the right-centre with modric, kranjcar and rakitic linking up and keeping possession, then olic and eduardo’s movement could open up the defense for opportunities. This formation and tactics of controlling the game could get croatia into the semi finals I think (which would be a successful campaign).
The current Croatia wouldnt get past the group stage in my opinion, unless the opposition play as poorly as turkey did. They are just too easy to contain; the defense plays too deep, too much responsibilty is heaped on modrics shoulders for creativity, Srna can only really produce (great) crosses from wide right with little build up play and agaisnt good centre backs isnt as effective, and playing two strikers will leave them too open against a good midfield.
Main problem in Turkish football who plays 4-3-3 is that the wingers are not suitable for this formation. (Besiktas also having the same problem with Quaresma and Simao.) They (Arda&Hamit) are more 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 wingers namely they are more wide midfielders. But none of them is an inside forward player. Without inside forward player(s) it is more 4-5-1 in my opinion. Burak Yilmaz was so lonely in the forward. And against that tall defence of Croatia, Turkey tried high balls. That was so silly. Hiddink is going after next match and talented young manager Abdullah Avci is taking the control (not official yet). Thanks ZM for this wonderful analyse.
Greece showed Bilic how to play 4-3-3 against his 4-4-2…
Croatia played exactly opposite against Greece than against Turkey, in 4-2-3-1 formation, as for the most of the games in these qualifiers, with Kranjcar playing behind the striker (Jelavic), and Srna playing as the right back. The selection of tactics was based on trying to dominate possession and controlling the game from midfield. It turned out to be completely wrong choice, considering that Greece was the one who had to win the match, relying on even less creative midfield comparing to Turkey. However, both goals were conceded after corner kicks, which was all about bad defending and not much about tactics.
GoGo,
Well said. It’s no coincidence that the first competitive match in 3 years where Croatia looked convincing was also the first match played on the counter rather than with slow, possession-based football. It’s also notable that Bilic’ era of success from 06-08 was built on counterattacking; once he switched to a slow, possession-based game, the results suffered.
I’m convinced that international managers generally don’t have the time needed to make the possession game work.
Lovely job on the Croatia kit!
I really think they have a chance of doing well as a counter-attacking side this Euros. A solid defence that just needs a little more organisation protected by a hard working midfield with some talented players. Olic particularly, Modric, Rakitic and Srna are wonderful players on the break, and they still have Kranjcar too.
second the croatia kit being justified with your colored circles. love that touch
third!
Where is/was Nuri Sahin? It seems like he hasn’t played for Turkey NT in a while.
He’s coming back from an injury. Played a few minutes in Madrid recently, seems not enough fit for taking him to national game.
Karma strikes. He should never have left Dortmund.
Watching this game Croatia really looked like they had a much more solid plan together than Turkey. Overall they look like a great counter attacking side, but I don’t know that they’ll hold up against a team with more ability to break into their defense.
I like your croatia circles
Croatia played well, they gave the ball to Turkey, and counter them.
or should I write we instead of they, because I am croat?
Olic and Mandzukic did very well defensively, they put pressure on two center backs, and also, for me more importantly, creating 4 vs 3 or 3 vs 3 in centre of the pitch when Turkey was in possesion.
Dujmovic often stayed near Emre, forcing him back.
On counter, we tried to use wide areas, behind their full back who were high up the pitch.
For us, amazing night.
I read an interesting article in the Guardian about Hiddink’s fall from grace in the management world. As ZM points out in the conclusion, Turkey had loads of possession but no bite – I just can’t imagine a Hiddink team of three years ago putting in such a sterile performance.
Its far more difficult to get a team playing an effective possession game than one focused on countering. International managers don’t have enough time with their teams. The 2 NT’s that play it well are unique: Spain get the heart of their team from one club, while the Netherlands utilize a completely systematized approach; from the youngest age groups on up, there’s a uniform coaching philosophy and playing style. Most NT managers don’t have either luxury.
Hiddink’s resume isn’t looking that good as the years wind down, but who knows how the scandal in Turkey has hindered his squad selection.
He’s had 3 success stories on the NT level, with Holland in ‘98, Korea in ‘02, and Russia in ‘08, and of the three, I think a retarded monkey with a tin cup could have brought that version of Holland to the semis, they were so good. With Korea there was a modicum of skill but mostly fitness that he brought to the team, albeit with some dodgy officiating in the Spain game. Russia at Euro 2008 was a decent but overachieving squad. Now he’s failed to bring Russia into WC ‘10 and Turkey looks to be out.
Maybe he’s played out?
From the start it seemed like his heart wasn’t in it this time, and that’s what he needs to be a great manager. While he is a decent tactician, he always made the difference by really building a team that felt they could take on the world. That kind of confidence was always lacking in this Turkey team.
Gus Hiddink is very pragmatic manager who can organize team. It is very unusual event for him failing. Sound like Turkey got countered two occasions and got conceded.
The most devastating goal is counter attack goal. Don’t know why but statistically speaking, counter attack goal mean a lot more than usual open play goal to result of the game.
I think Turkey had a bad day, really. A bad day in the worst possible moment. They proved that they can play good football, but last friday wasen’t their day. Croatia defended well, ans scored on counter attacks. Practically that 2′nd minte goal runied Turkey’s strategy for this game completely. They started the game thinking not to receive any goals, and after that early goal, they had to improvize. And they did it bad.
What is the point submitting comments if they get caught in the spam filter and don’t get released?
Meditate upon it. The answer is within, as always…
As always, overrated “English” football becomes a matter of discussion. Despite the EPL being without a doubt the best football league, English football and the national team is at best mediocre. It’s best to realize this. No major tournament is won (even 66 was not really won), no world class players (save Steve Gerrard) and Stoke represents best what English fotball is all about. No harm in accepting that English national team is at best mediocre. Wishful thinking and unfounded pride helps no one.
BREAKING NEWS: Turkey confirm Guus Hiddink is no longer national team manager following failure to qualify for Euro 2012