Milan 0-0 Barcelona: lots of little battles
The starting line-ups
Both sides created chances, neither found the net.
Max Allegri was without various players, most notably centre-back Thiago Silva. However, Robinho was fit to start upfront.
Pep Guardiola named Carles Puyol at left-back, and used Seydou Keita in midfield with Cesc Fabregas only on the bench.
A brief summary of the tactical battle? Milan often did well to crowd out Barca’s attacks, but Barca should have stretched them more. There wasn’t a key battle, nor an overall tactical theme – but instead plenty of small areas of interest.
Barcelona shape
Guardiola used 3-4-3 in the previous fixture between the sides – it didn’t work that well overall, despite Barcelona getting the win. But it remained the logical shape to use – Milan play with two upfront and one behind, so using three at the back in conjunction with a diamond midfield means a 3 v 2, extended to a 4 v 3, and therefore always the presence of a spare man, which Guardiola generally likes.
This was more like the 4-3-3 system Guardiola has generally favoured throughout his time in charge at Barca, although it was perhaps a hybrid of the two systems. Daniel Alves was filling in as the right-sided defender without the ball, but with Puyol staying deep and central in the left-back position, and dropping in to help the two centre-backs, it’s impossible to say that Alves and Puyol were playing the same role.
It was roughly 4-3-3 without the ball, then 3-4-3 with it – Alves becoming the only true wide attacker, with Seydou Keita or Andres Iniesta drifting to the opposite side sporadically.
In all, Barcelona basically kept a spare man at the back with the use of Puyol in a lopsided back three, despite playing with a back four…
Robinho
The game’s weakest player was Robinho, both in terms of his tactical role and his contribution to the match in general. His role was crucial to the shape of the game – did he track Alves, or stay high up and try to exploit the space in behind? He did neither particularly well – sometimes coming back, more often staying high up – but in central positions. Javier Mascherano came out to meet him, leaving Gerard Pique and Puyol against Zlatan Ibrahimovic.
Interestingly, there was a similar problem in the group stage game at the Camp Nou, when Antonio Cassano played in the position Robinho occupied tonight. ZM said then: “It wasn’t quite clear what Cassano’s role in the side was – a deep-lying forward, yes, but what is that player meant to do when his side has no possession and barely gets into the opposition half? He could have come wider, or deeper, to drag Mascherano further out of position and to instigate an attack. Alternatively, Urby Emmanuelson could have been fielded from the start (which was expected amongst the Italian media before the game) to provide pace down the flank. Barca should have been tested more on the break.”
The same applies here – and Emmanuelson again seemed a good bet for that role. He can track Alves, then try to burst in behind. Allegri might consider this in the return leg.
Robinho was the first man to be substituted, but it was Stephan El Shaarawy who replaced him.
Pressing and sitting
Allegri said before the game that Milan wouldn’t be submissive. This was half-true. Milan did press very well at times, particularly when Barcelona tried to play out from the back at goal-kicks. Robinho’s early miss came after Clarence Seedorf intercepted an underhit Sergio Busquets pass when the whole side moved up to pressure Barca’s defensive players. Also, Ibrahimovic’s first half chance came after Massimo Ambrosini got tight to Xavi Hernandez and made a good tackle. It was noticeable how much Barcelona were out of position when they lost the ball in deep positions – their preferred shape with and without the ball was very different, so they weren’t in a good position when they were dispossessed in their own half.
On the other hand, once Barca got into a passing rhythm in midfield, Milan reverted to a system of sitting deep and narrow on the edge of the box, defending with 4+3+1, with Kevin-Prince Boateng moving back to flatten the diamond and help out in midfield. Their shape was generally good, though they were often too narrow and let Alves have too much space on the right, which goes back to the Robinho problem.
Barcelona’s pressing wasn’t as good as usual. They seemed a little confused about when and when not to press, and who had the responsibility of moving with each Milan player. They press much better when (the out-of-form) Pedro Rodriguez is in the side – he sets the tempo for the rest of the side.
Physicality and midfield battle
One of the main features of the game was the physicality. This was obvious from the number – and type – of fouls committed. Milan broke up counter-attacks cynically in their own half, with Alessandro Nesta literally holding his hands up to acknowledge he was doing this. Barca, more subtly, foul consistently high up the pitch and stop breaks before they’ve even begun.
Of course, Milan are a side based around strength and steel in the centre of the pitch and Guardiola was guilty of over-compensating for this. The selection of Keita was an indication that he wanted to compete in this respect, but Barca would have been better off playing to their strengths with Andres Iniesta in the centre of midfield, and a true wide midfielder on the left.
Iniesta doesn’t like playing in the front three and his narrowness made Barca too predictable, always going down the centre and right, while Xavi had a good game but is more comfortable as the second function midfielder (ie between Busquets and Iniesta from bottom to top) than in a more advanced role. He received the ball too often with his back to goal, and couldn’t see the pitch ahead of him. Keita, the man this debate revolves around, did little wrong personally.
Both sides were both keen not to be outnumbered in the centre of midfield. Barcelona are used to dominating this zone with possession, and Milan do the same with numbers – four central midfielders. Therefore, both coaches crammed players into this zone, and with little width, there were only two corners in the entire game.
It was also interesting that Philippe Mexes and Javier Mascherano both came forward quickly from the defence to get tight to forwards dropping deep into the midfield zone.
Minimal changes
There were substitutions, but only one significantly changed the tactical battle. That was when Cristian Tello replaced Iniesta. This was a good move from Guardiola – Iniesta was quiet and Barcelona needed to stretch the play on both flanks. Tello did that – he’s a natural wide forward and stayed up high. Whereas Iniesta got short passes into feet, the balls to Tello were longer, indicating how he was stretching the play, and he had a couple of late chances.
Conclusion
0-0 is always an interesting first leg result. Does it favour the side playing the second leg at home, or the side who know a score draw in the second leg will take them through?
Both coaches can learn lessons from this game ahead of next week’s re-match: Barcelona must stretch the play on both sides, Milan must use their second striker more effectively.
Barca remain favourites.
Milan did hold well, but we could have exploited their weak full backs better. The classic 4-3-3 would fit better today, with both Alexis/Pedro at wings.
I agree, but Guardiola probably worried about 3 v 4 in midfield. Fantastic analysis by ZM, nice piece here too http://www.theirtactics.com/ac-milan-0-0-barcelona-a-brilliant-tactical-display-produces-a-stalemate-at-the-san-siro/
“Barca, more subtly, foul consistently high up the pitch and stop breaks before they’ve even begun.” The strange thing is it’s not particularly subtle yet it is always ignored in the media. ZM had a profile of Daniel Alves in which it said “His work rate is the main factor here, and there are those who believe that Alves is simply physically brilliant….His incredible pace means he often gets in challenges other defenders would have been too sluggish to attempt, whilst he’s actually very good at anticipating opposition attacks when he’s in a position to do so.”
Not once in the article was tactical fouling mentioned by a guy who is probably the biggest exponent of it in the opposition’s half. Another tactic of Barcelona’s which is hardly ever mentioned is that they try to get early bookings from the opposition defenders so as to make dribbling easier in the second half. The vast majority of those Messi goals where he waltzs through a defense are scored late in the game against defenders afraid to tackle. You can’t tell that from a highlights reel, though.
Nice post, I agree on all points. How many times do barca players need to foul before they get a yellow? The other tactic you will also see when barca get desperate is the hold your face and roll trying to get straight red cards in the opposition.
That’s natural tactic and used by nearly every team which uses high pressing.
Keita is clearly not good enough, Barca should have played 3-4-3 Diamond with Messi and Fabregas at the middle. Pep will pay for not using the best squad he has
Keita is better than Fabregas at positioning, Cesc constantly looses his position and open up gaps, Keita might not be as talented as Cesc but at least he covers the damn space.
Cesc has long way before he learns the system.
Plus there was no reason to go all out, Keita is Pep’s safe game player and has been so for years, he has played every away game this season in UCL.
Yeah, Keita has played so many away games in the knockout stage, which include Arsenal (09-10, 10-11), Inter(09-10), and Barca has never won any of these games. When there is someone as talented as Fabregas, it will be a waste for not using him, and keep using such a mediocre player like Keita
to be fair, Keita provide physical presence in the middle of the pitch that cesc would not be able to provide to compete with Milan’s midfielder which physically bigger and strongger. he did make some foul to prevent Milan’s break away a few times
I’m sorry, Keita’s physical presence is just on paper. in reality, he’s very weak at positioning, always passes backwards, and he’s position was as a 50/50 MF, with no help what so ever to the attack (11 passes, where Xavi made 59 upfront).
that’s the reason Mourinho didn’t mark him in the semifinal of 09/10.
he’s a good worker for non-class league games. no where near the level of CL games.
Fabregas was the key to opening up the game yesterday… What system Varun are you speaking about??? Tiki-taka-tiki-taka-tiki…. Did you not see how Fabregas played at Madrid in the El Clasico? HE S the key in such matches with driving runs but some how Pep refuses to acknowledge him…. Pity… He was a king at Arsenal…
Fabregas was terrible @ Madrid for the league game. Don’t really remember him too much in the Home tie for the Copa either. Even though he got his goal in the league game, he was completely lost and did very little for barca except score.
Poor finishing from both sides and probably a fair result. Once again Robinho was utterly anonymous in a big game and his miss was glaring. Having Pato for the second leg would be fantastic, but unfortunately that won’t be the case. Having Pato in that gap between Alves and Mascherano would be alot more threatening than Robinho. Special mention to Antonini who was great.
Keita is clearly not good enough. Barca should have played either a regular 4-3-3 with Iniesta plays alongside with Xavi, while Tello and Sanchez play alongside Messi in the front, or3-4-3 Diamond with Messi, Fabregas, Iniesta and Xavi at the middle. Pep will pay for not using the best squad he has
i d’on’t like this debrief. It’s not clear. Cause i think you refuse to answer the question puyol/alves. I htink guardiola try to defend before attacking. So he chooses to play that unconsistant partition to not loose. So for one time guardiola choose to play football not phylosophy.
After a scoreless first leg, the team who is home in the 2nd leg wins almost 70% of the time, FWIW.
This number is kind of surprising, because if the away side scores at least one goal in 120 minutes, the home team needs to score atleast two gaols. Thought it would be 60/40 max.
True but it’s logical that if one team is good enough to get a draw away, they are also good enough to beat that same team at home. Apart from Chelsea-Barca 09 I can’t think of too many of those 0-0 then score draw scenarios actually happening.
I know its a lower level of football and they did play “anti-football”, but Rangers drew 0-0 at home in the 1st leg in most of their knockout ties when they reached the uefa cup final in 2008.
Milan have a 100% record in these sort of situations. Barcelona have the Camp Nou which is probably the hardest stadium in Europe to get a result in. It’ll be interesting to see what occurs.
I thought the pitch in san siro was horrible and Barcelona always struggle to play in this condition. (One of the main reason they lose tons of points away from home in la liga).
Seems to be a running theme in Milan’s champions league run this year…
It has been the running theme for as long as I can remember at San Siro. It seems to have only come up in conversation now because of Wenger’s comments and now Pep
A factor is that 2 clubs play there week in and week out plus a few occasional concerts means the turf never really has enough time to recover. Add that to the fact that the summer break are supposedly too short to do a proper resurfacing as well as the fact that the structure- imposing and awesome as it is – presents points of shade in a couple of areas and you realize the ground has it’s own set of limitations.
Galliani is talking of a semi-artificial solution whereas the base would be synthetic with a top layer of actual grass. Until this happens I’m afraid to say this is going to be the case each and every winter which is a shame because both Milan and Inter are technical sides and the pitch affects their play too.
Pep usually demands width from his players to stretch there defence, but there was no one on the left. I’m suprised he started Keita. It would’ve made sense to put Iniesta in his usual central position, and play either Pedro or Tello on the left.
Sanchez is playing too central as well. Messi likes the space in-front of him to be empty with the wingers stretching the defence, but with Sanchez always playin as a striker, there’s no space for Messi to do his stuff. I’m suprised Alves was never found when he was completely open on the right-wing sometimes. I was screaming at the bloody tele for Xavi to spot him.
I wonder what Pekerman was thinking when Guardiola took Iniesta off. Coaches should never believe they are more important than their best player(s), it doesn’t matter how badly he’s supposedly playing, or how tired he is, or whatever other excuse is in fashion these days, keep your best players on the pitch!!!
Pep’s already been dicking Iniesta around by playing him on the left wing, now he’s even taking him off when he “surprisingly” doesn’t perform as the world’s second best player when played in the wrong position. This ofcourse could have been excused if Fabregas had been playing in the center, but instead Pep wanted to use two defensive midfielders; Mourinho would have been proud. With Xavi and Iniesta playing like they do when forced into a midfield with the oh so PC Xabi Alonso, I know one other former Real Madrid manager who was nodding in agreement. Still, even he knows Iniesta can force breakthroughs even when playing below par.
We’ll see how this develops over the next weeks, but I’m seriousely wondering whether this could be the beginning of the end. I hope I’m wrong, but with Messi becoming more bossy towards his fellow forwards, Xavi nearing retirement age, and an apparent feud growing between Guardiola and Fabregas, they cannot afford upsetting Iniesta (or believe that they can do without him). The next time Chelsea calls, perhaps it’s time to let Pep go.
Or perhaps Chelsea could use that money to buy a couple of Barcelona’s bench players.
OT: Unfortunately for Milan though, even this Barca will beat this Milan at the Camp Nou.
Oh shut up.
Milan is a much better team than people think. Still, i would prefer a scoring draw much better instead of a 0-0. Italian teams are always hard to beat.
Most ridicilous post in months here
Well at least you are trying to understand football
haha this is cute
Milan –
In defense, I thought the CB pairing looked well suited to Barca’s attack, with both CB’s better at tracking players and making interceptions, rather than the traditional “good in the air” CB. At fullback, Milan looked weak, Antonini was exposed by Sanchez and Alves on his flank, while Bonera was pressed into giving away the ball far too much (iniesta and Keita did well in that respect).
In midfield, Ambrosini did a good job. He made vital tackles at times and his positioning was good in front of his defense. His passing was less impressive, unable to get the ball up the pitch he was pressured into mistakes when in possession and Milan looked better when they bypassed him. Nocerino did a good job helping out Bonera at RB, and stopped Iniesta from having a big impact on the game. He was also a good option on the break at times, when Keita was caught out of position and Puyol was too far back. Seedorf struggled to deal with Xavi at all especially with Messi moving over to his side, and saw the game pass him by defensively. He didn’t provide much going forward either and I wonder if a more defensive CM would have been a better solution.
Boateng played at the tip of the diamond, but for all his running, his pressing rarely worked as it wasn’t backed up by his team mates and just saw the Barca midfield play around him. He also rarely saw the ball himself and had little impact on the game.
Further forward, Robinho was starved of the ball and was a passenger for the rest of the milan team, failing to stop Alves getting forward and becoming a big threat. Ibra remained Milan’s biggest weapon as they looked to go long and direct to the big man. This worked at times, but a lack of support combined with 3 Cb’s basically marking him meant he would have had to do something special to get Milan a win.
Overall, Milan couldn’t stop Barca playing, but did remain good defensively in the penalty area when allowed to get back in numbers. They coudln’t get the ball forward consistently enough however and their only threat came from either a) sending the ball long to Ibra b) breaking at speed through nocerino or c) set pieces.
Barca should have attacked Milan quicker, as their slow build up allowed Milan to get back in numbers where they are hard to break down. Iniesta was a mistake.
Have a look at my blog if you get the chance http://economicinterest.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/brazil-a-tough-nut-to-crack/
Well, if Milan were essentially playing the game with 8 players; since the game passed by Seedorf, Robinho, and KPB, I would say this would be a phenominal result… and that’s without their best defender. Antonini is not a world-class fullback nor up-to-par for your usual Milan fullbacks, but I have to say both he and Abate have come a LONG way. Abate more so, but still.
It was a great result for Milan, especially with the away goals rule in the next leg. But they were lucky that Barca didn’t quite have the right balance going forward as they usually do.
Still credit should go to Milan for defending well in deep positions. They got men back quickly and didn’t make it easy for Barca. But if they are going to beat Barca in the next leg, they will need more of a threat. Maybe Pato could be used instead of Robinho, as his pace could be a threat, and I would push Boateng higher up and closer to Ibra, then he might become more of danger to Ibra’s flick ons.
It seemed like Barca came to the San Siro thinking Milan would play a more offensive, pressing game (like in the group stage).
Milan’s chance in the return is to defend deep and work on counter attacking. I don’t think Ibra will perform as hes lazy, slow and disappears in the big CL games but theres no other choice up front (Maxi Lopez is terrible, Pato is out, El shaara is too young and poor finishing).
Excellent as usual ZM, glad to have you back. I hope we’ll see the return of your tactical preview articles before the semi’s & eventual final?
Adriano was unavailable due to injury, but could have done a job on the left wing. Hopefully Barcelona play he and Alves as wingbacks in the Camp Nou.
Barca –
In defense, Barca kept Milan quiet excellently. Pique challenged him in the air and if he lost out, then Mascherano or Puyol won the second ball. While robinho rarely saw the ball anyway, and when he did he lost out to Mascherano or Alves. On the ball, all three CB’s did well to keep the ball moving with excellent technique. The downside was that they missed an attacking outlet down the left, which meant they couldn’t get any width on that side and couldn’t stretch the Milan defense. Alves was excellent at providing this down the right, pushing forward and exposing Robinho’s poor defensive work. He was a key player in attack and was almost always free, the problem was Barca missed a target in the penalty area for his crosses, as Messi was guilty of dropping deep too much.
In midfield, Busquets had another solid game. His positioning meant Robinho and Boateng rarely saw the ball and he was always free for a pass. His passing was excellent and allowed Barca to dominate the ball easily. Keita kept possession well and tried to provide some width down the left flank, but didn’t really have the quality to threaten Milan. He was also caught out by Nocerino a couple of times on the break and his selection as a more defensive CM didnt quite make sense when Milan didn’t gave an attacking threat from midfield that deemed such a change. Xavi was played as the most attacking CM, but put in a fantastic shift. He kept the ball exceptionally well and gave the link between midfield and attack, while he created chances for both him and his team mates, with Seedorf poor at trying to stop him. One of the best performances I have seen him play in this uncomfortable position for him.
In the front three, Sanchez was the only player trying to provide any penetration and he constantly looked to overload the right flank with Alves. On the other side Iniesta rarely provided this and was the wrong choice today. Barca were keeping the ball easily enough, what they needed was more penetration which Iniesta wasn’t going to provide and this was a game where Barca really missed Villa. Messi was his usual self and could on a handful of occasions won the game himself. But for me he dropped too deep throughout the game, when the main threat was from alves crossing into the area or Xavi providing balls in behind (as Xavi isn’t comfortable making runs past Messi), so Messi should have got into the penalty area more to provide a finisher to the moves.
Overall, it felt like Barca were using the wrong combination of players in this game. Iniesta is a fine choice on the left, if Barca have an attacking LB and need more control in the middle. Messi is fine dropping very deep if they have a villa type player cutting inside or more realistically Fabregas playing as the AM and running into the space vacated. But withg Alves such a crucial figure today, they really needed a goal poacher in the penalty area, but the penalty area always felt a bit empty.
Iniesta playing on the left, as part of the front three, always diminishes his effect. This game has easily substantiated this point. Had Iniesta came into the centre, little ahead of Xavi, in the second half (instead of taking him out / and replacing Keita with Thiago/Tello)the game would have changed in favour of Barca.
I think it can work when Barca are playing a different system i.e. maybe if Fabregas is supporting Messi (instead of Xavi)and Iniesta moves central to help keep possession and improve build up play.
But in this game Busquets, Xavi and Messi found it easy to dominate possession, and with no attacking fullback on the left side they needed someone like Villa to provide penetration. Tello looked much better when he came on in that position, not because he is a better player but because the system suited him more.
Keita kept possession well to be fair to him and tried to make runs out wide, but I agree Iniesta or even Fabregas might have been a better solution, with Xavi deeper.
Can Keita play leftback? his physical attributes are similar to abidal and he can offer something going foward
guardiola asked him to play in the 09 champions league final at left back. keita said he didnt want to be used out of position so yaya started in the middle and busi came in at defensive mid. keita never been used at the back since
Thats a shame, it seems like such a guardiola thing to do to play him in defence, I dont think his physical prescence is that much more important than having inesta in his usual role.
Strange how Busquets and Mascherano can/have played in defence yet he has not
Isnt the maim question here why were AC milan playing in their away kit at home ? It took me til 30 minites to realize this was the home leg >.<
Milan consider their whites ‘lucky’. (This is why every CL final with Milan that you can remember they wore a white kit.) I imagine they chose the whites for this reason.
This game and the Arsenal @ Inter game a few weeks ago leads me to believe that they intentionally leave the pitch in poor condition when that will hurt their opponent.
Or one could argue: Barca and Arsenal intentionally make their pitch like a carpet in order to give them(selves) an advantage.
It doesn’t give them an advantage – a clean pitch nullifies no position. Milan however, played pitch games and they worked. Bit low of them but if FA cup minnows are allowed then why not.
Barcelona is the so-called best team ever if they cant perform on a bit worse pitch then they arent worthhy of that title
A bit worse? Players on both sides were slipping and falling throughout the game.
San Siro is used by two teams (double the use of many stadiums) week in week out thanks to Inter, the drainage is poor, and the way the structure is it blocks sunlight to parts of the field.
In short, the pitch is poor because it’s heavily used and the stadium is ancient. This will be solved if/when the Milan sides change venues.
Also, to Rob, a pitch which is like a carpet (your loaded word: “clean”) does actually nullify some positions. It’s harder to get the field to hold up the ball when playing a long-ball game in a pitch with very short grass. Hell, didn’t Wimbledon take this logic still farther and grow the grass longer in the corners?
Something that is often overlooked with Barcelona is that they struggle on bad pitches like no other team. Barcelona’s game is based on fluid ball circulation and quick one-twos to unsettle defenses. Bad pitch conditions slow their game down considerably and allow the opposition to get back into their defensive shape. They look a bit “slow” and lethargic then. In my opinion THE main reason why they’ve won 14 out of 15 home games this season but only 8 out of 15 away games in La Liga. I’ve seen Barcelona dropping points because of bad pitch conditions against Osasuna, against Athletic Bilbao (monsoon-esque weather conditions) and I remember Guardiola bemoaning the Valencia pitch as well (dried up and long grass) this season. The San Siro pitch was a disgrace as well. When Messi slips up like that on a free kick, you know your pitch is shit.
Barcelona is the so-called best team ever if they cant perform on a bit worse pitch then they arent worthy of that title. They will just have to adjust to the circumstances and not complain about them. Not everything will go your way.
You are correct of course, but like Wenger has said many times over the years trudging through the outbacks of English football, “it is the same for both sides, so does not offer an advantage to either team”.
Could a reason why Allegri chose Robinho be because of his ability to retain the ball?
It’s something you classicaly want against barca: ‘defensive’ possession to avoid stiffling, you get the ball in front, you make barcelona change to defensive mode, you don’t attack, and you’ve stopped 3 dangerous barcelona attacks in 1/2 minutes :p
because high energy counter attacks is what usually makes you explode against barcelona in the late stages of the game either you score a couple of them or not
so robinho to stay alive as long as possible and a faster guy at the end to try to break the bank
I was hoping for Tello to start with Iniesta in midfield, or failing that, Iniesta on the wing with Cesc in the middle. Keita is a solid player but did not expect him to play 90.
I wonder what people here think – should Pep go with Tello/Pedro/Cuenca from the start in the return leg? Or does their inexperience (Tello/Cuenca) or lack of scoring form (Pedro) mean the best option is Cesc or… even Keita again?
Just replace Keita with Cesc, put him in the number 10 role with Sanchez and left and Messi slightly right. After that put Iniesta alongside with Xavi. Barcelona will be definitely better without Keita in big matches like this.
I liked ZM’s point about the importance of Pedro in Barca’s pressing game, and how their pressing game was off in this match. Pedro also has the discipline to stay wide on the left and avoid overcrowding the center.
Milan was very poor in the second leg against Arsenal’s early pressing on a good pitch. I think Barca having their pressing game at top level early on would severely test Milan.
Iniesta on the wing has never worked for Barca. Forget all the Cesc talk, a classic 4-3-3 would have done fine, with Iniesta, Xavi and Busquets in midfield, Messi as a false 9 and with Pedro and Alexis on the wings to strech Milan. They would have scored at least once, but Pep was too afraid to risk.
Barcelona scored at least once vs. Inter, but we all know how that turned out.
I think ZM wrote an excellent analysis and covered all of the main points very well. I would want to expand on a couple of his points:
1. Playing down the right:
I feel that this season (or at least after Villa got injured), Barcelona has become slightly more predictable as the threat always comes from the right side of the pitch. Messi starts central, drifts to the right, waits for the overlap from Alves to pull one defender and either pass or start dribbling towards the left. For this game, Seedorf and Ambrosini overloaded that side to deny Messi space and I felt that Messi was getting more and more frustrated as the game went on. He had nowhere to dribble. This then leads to the second point.
2. Width on the left side
I remember ZM had an article about EPL team’s tendencies of attacking (left, centre or right) and the teams that are on top are the ones that are relatively even and varied. From watching the Barcelona games this season, the ones where they dominate the opposition are usually the games when there is threat coming from the left side. I think they sorely miss Villa as he offers width and pace down the left. He draws the opposition central midfielder toward that zone and allows more space for Messi to dribble. Conversely, Messi can turn provider and look for the weak side over the shoulder lobs using his left foot. The lack of width and threat on the left side really restrict Messi’s space.
3. Starting Lineup/Substitution
I really felt that Pep had the lineup slightly off in this game and I will direct my point towards Brusquets and Keita. Individually, Brusquets played a great game as he was more advanced than usual and played some great passes (except the pass early in the game that almost led to a goal) while Keita did no wrong and provided physical presence and feistiness that Barca sorely lacks. However, I felt that Pep should have played only one of them. Pep pretty much sacrificed width on the left for strength down the middle. I felt that he could have played Keita as the DM and let Brusquets start on the bench. Keita is not as polished a passer as Brusquets but can nevertheless do the job. Furthermore, his physical presence would have been more suited in the middle of the park and the nature of the opposition. In this game, he played slightly ahead of Brusquets towards the left. He becomes a peripheral figure during the buildup and attacking phase as Iniesta likes to occupy the very zone that Keita is situated. Iniesta likes to drift in and out of the left side but without the wide left forward, Iniesta becomes predictable and has nowhere to go. Keita is definitely not comfortable out wide and lost the ball a couple of times.
I would have preferred Pedro to start as the left wide forward. He might not be in terrific form right now but his understanding of spacing, the timing of when to exploit the space and finally the knowledge of the Barca system really is invaluable. Pedro would have stretch the play more (staying wide left), allowed Iniesta more options, which then forces Ambrosini to not overload the right, thus allowing Messi more room to operate.
I guess Pep saw the need of width down the left and introduced Tello at the 65th minute mark.
On the first point, Barcelona actually played dominantly trough the middle here, opposed to the right side they generally prefer in La Liga. On average, they’ve played 33% of their attacks trough the middle in the league, but here the figure was rather staggering 45%.
I agree on the second point though, but I think Pep is still tinkering with his approach in these ”big game” away matches. He’s usually had someone on the left to stretch the play, but to accommodate this, he’s had Alves play much more reserved role compared to home / lesser games. That’s something which has largely hindered Barcelona’s play, so Pep decided to go the other way around this time: let Alves do his thing, but use additional cover on the left.
Keita cannot play the sole DM role. He is not disciplined enough. Pep tried playing him there i think 2 years ago and did not work well at all.
Then you obviously haven’t watched Barcelona enough this season. With Mascherano moved permanently to CB, Keita has been moved to DM. Most of Keita’s starts this season have been with him being played as the “sole DM.”
The pitch condition definitely deterred Barca passing. We will see the difference next week, I hope.
Iniesta on the left, rather than in the middle, is not working for Barca. Barca are at their best, when their trio of Xavi, Iniesta and Messi are in the centre, with Busquests behind them and Alves at the right side, with another winger on the left. I thought Pep would bring Iniesta to the centre, ahead of Xavi, in the second half and substitute Keita with Thiago/Cesc.
However, Milan made it really narrow and defended brilliantly. The treated Messi like a God. Most of the time, three players had an eye on him and didnt hesitate to foul at all in the worst case. Nesta’s card drawing foul, was ridiculous. I was laughing out in fact.
Loved it aswell, it was like a 2 footed, waist high ninja lunge from behind
They did just kick Messi whenever he got the ball in a remotely threatening area, which I have to say isn’t the worst way of dealing with him. Nesta’s challenge was hilarious.
“Jose”…is that you Mourinho?! It wouldn’t surprise me. It sounds like you don’t have problems injuring opponents. And well, since you can’t beat Barcelona with their best guys on the field, it would figure you laugh at and seem to advocate for dangerous, potentially injury-causing play.
As much as the world hates Ronaldo, Pepe, Marcelo, Sergio Ramos and the rest of Mourinho’s thugs, we should never wish them injury. If they are injured, it isn’t as fun beating them because then they cry about being a depleted side.
What ever happened to the honor of playing and beating the best, with their best, at their best?
Nesta’s foul was cynical and potentially very dangerous…hardly funny.
No, Jose Enrique actually. I didn’t say you have to injure them and I didn’t say that that was the right thing to do or what I’d like to see, simply that it worked for Milan. Also, Nesta’s challenge wasn’t even dangerous because he actually knows how to foul, he just made sure he caught Messi. Anyway, if the law allows it, people will always stop attacks by fouling and Barca do it all the time high up the pitch.
Its called a tactical foul you genius. There were two teams on the pitch and not one. Milan also were effected by the pitch. Don’t believe me? See Xavi and Seedorf’s slick passing unaffected. Barca couldn’t score against an injury ravaged Milan side. LOL
it’s called cynical foul you idiot. when someone already passed you and you trip him with ninja style it can’t be called tactical foul. where was seedorf’s slick passing ? all i saw was milan hitting long balls to ibra. bad pitch doesn’t effect long ball style. LOL
Thats funny, cause I don’t recall Nesta being passed considering he was marking Sanchez. And read up on the meaning of a tactical foul.
Didn’t see Seedorf’s passing and saw long balls to Ibra…..well isn’t this just hilarious. Which game were you watching btw?
Maybe it’s simply because I read the ZM article on where teams attack from yesterday but I was shocked at Barca’s one sided approach. With no one attacking their right back Milan could it easier to move across and congest the central area. This was also helped by Barca going short too often, I don’t have the average stats but statszone says Barca only went long 25 times (13 successfully). I was lucky enough to see Barca at the Camp Nou earlier this season (the game against Athletico Madrid) and one of the most remarkable things about watching the game was the positioning of Pedro and Villa. Both high up the pitch and as far wide as possible, neither started last night and Barca were less threatening for it. Valencia does a similar thing for Man Utd and I think it is no coincidence that he is their biggest attacking threat.
I also didn’t like that Barca played three centre back and two holding midfielders. Basically I think Pep bottled it, he was thinking more about the opposition and less about his own teams strengths. Yes he was away to a form team but barca aren’t blackburn, they have the players to go anywhere an look for win. Actually that is harsh on Blackburn, they have really been going for it on the road recently. To sum up Steve Keen >> Pep.
Valencia is a winger who plays in the midfield band. He is not a wide forward. He doesn’t look to make runs in behind the defence, nor does he really pick up the ball right against opponents. Valencia is a very athletic player who is a real handful once he builds up speed, so he plays deeper (like Bale) than a wide forward, who is usually more of an intricate player with less strength. Some wingers (Ribery), can of course perform both roles successfully.
Playing defensive players does not completely control a team’s approach. A team using two holding midifelders and three CBs (Germany at WC 2010, with Badstuber or Boateng at LB, plus Mertesacker, Friedrich, Schweinsteiger, and Khedira) was scoring for fun in South Africa. It’s more about your approach to the game then who you play so long as you’re within the lines of reason.
Some teams have had great success (Barcelona and Russia come to mind) by switching to a 3 CB system when they have the ball. Holding midfielders are probably as important for an attack as anyone else, since they usually do most of the distribution and if you play two one is usually free of pressing/marking at any given time. Registas (Pirlo is the deepest midfielder for Juventus, but contributes more to the attack than the center mids ahead of him) and mids who run forwards lots (Khedira, Fletcher, Keita) are important to the attack.
One difference between Barca and 2010 Germany was the way they used the players. Puyol and Iniesta didn’t give the any threat out on the left. Germany were capable of attacking down the left, down the right and through the middle because players like Boateng can offer genuine width when played as an LB. Germany also give there central players a greater licence to get forward. When Keita did head up the pitch he was ineffective and appeared to be more concerned with getting back into position then getting into space. I think Arsenal’s double pivot approach last year was very strong. Allowing Wiltshire or Song to take turns to help out Cesc with the attacks and leaving the other in the hole gave a great balance to attack and defence. Keita and Busquets didn’t provide anywhere near this sort of support to the forward players and I think this was under Pep’s instruction. Without Puyol, Keita and Busquets helping out with the attacks Barca couldn’t outnumber milan in the advanced areas of the pitch to create a break through.
Which is precisely my point. It’s not really whether you play three centerbacks and two holding mids or whatever, it’s the approach. To be clear, I’m not defending Barcelona’s play, merely critiquing your interpretation of it. I full well agree with you that Pep was not giving full effort for the win, but I also think with the players on the field Barca could’ve played more aggressively. Busquets is no poorer on the ball than Song (albeit different style), to use your example. Keita is a capable box to box player, who a couple years ago was even scoring goals with fair frequency at one point. Xavi is Xavi, and Iniesta on the left could have the same impact on a game as Podolski (seriously, Podolski’s role in attack is simply to playwide and high to stretch the defence and offer another option with his excellent shooting – he doesn’t even play in the quick, fluid mold esposued by his opposite, Mueller).
It’s easy to say Barça should have played Thiago/Cesc/Tello/Pedro instead of Keita, but nobody can guarantee that things would have worked out better. Let’s face it Pep Guardiola has the utmost respect for Milan and he played conservatively by his standards. Barça did not play for a draw but they didn’t take too many risks which considering the poor state of the pitch was understandable. The game plan of bringing on the wide attackers Tello and Pedro has paid of recently so that also seemed reasonable though it wasn’t particularly effective mainly due to Milan sitting so deep. The second game should be just as interesting tactically and hopefully a better pitch will give us a better show.
Robinho kept dropping into midfield to help out but he didn’t know what to do and can’t tackle and so might aswell not have been there. They should have just left him up the pitch for counters or played someone who can actually contribute defensively. Other than this, Milan were excellent, particularly in the second half when Barca were unable to control the game as they kept giving it away when under pressure. Barca were clearly better with Tello on the pitch and Alves was the main threat in the first half so I’d expect them to play with more width in the second leg.
Nothing to see here. The Camp Nou decides (bad news for Milan). If you are going to eliminate Barca, you have to win at home like Inter did in the infamous volcano match. Congrats to Milan for avoiding embarrassment at home, but that’s about all 0-0 does for them.
Milan will be playing purely on the break next Tuesday. They’ll have no choice but to sit very deep away without Thiago Silva. It will be a very bad match to watch, as Barca will be in Milan’s half of the pitch for about 75% of the match. Allegri will play to eliminate Barca from getting shots in positions of opportunity, and he will definitely be parking the bus. He has little other choice.
Guardiola made the selections he did because of the pitch. He played Iniesta in the same role on a terrible pitch in Mallorca last weekend. It was bumpier than a witch’s face. He’s actually turned in some brilliant performances from the left in past matches. His first touch has deserted him in recent matches, however. He played one of the worst matches I’ve ever seen him play in Mallorca.
You can’t press a team that decides to essentially park the bus at home. Milan should have just played narrow/part wide 4-5-1 with Emanuelson replacing Robinho. There was no point in having two strikers given their approach. If Robinho plays at Camp Nou, Barcelona will score at least 3 goals.
If we do meet Barcelona in the semi-final, then surely 4-5-1 with Ramires on the wide left of a five man midfield, he is the only player with the legs and stamina to stick with Alves,
alternatives like Malouda, lazy,or Sturridge,not great at tracking back would be very worrying. Milan’s problem playing a diamond midfield left Seedorf too narrow to get out to Alves, surely they should have started without Robinho and played an extra midfielder.
after reading this i have started thinking do you know more about football and tactics than gaurdiola and allegeri . first lets consider barca you said that barca didnt stretch milan but barca are comfortable playing in close quarters by doing so not only they attack but if they loose the ball they can press and have it back quickly which was apparent also they have the option of spreading the ball to alves who can have time on the ball and we had seen how effective he can be . while pressing barca make sure that either they stop the flow by making silly fouls or try to get the ball out of play so that it becomes very easy to get it back .
i really didnt understand allegeri’s tactics first of starting robiniho ( reminded me of ronaldinho ) the only player that was interested in giving a game to milan was seedorf the dutch master . still at this age he can get out fox alves can create something out of nothing . the other thing that i didnt understand was what was milans tactics on offense they tried to hit long balls to ibramovic and in the channels . but none were accurate enough should had asked big sam’s help on how to play the long ball .
i was surprised with barca’s play in the final third they were slow compared to their usual tempo and speed of passing . milan cannot reach q/f with this kind of play they need to get better . more importantly they need to have a game plan about offense .
The disrespect of Keita saying he is not good enough is nonsensical and stupid. The fact that Pep selected him means he wanted Keita to play a specific role in the match. Expecting Keita to be a Iniesta or Cesc without understanding the role given to him is what baffles me with so many onlookers,not understanding the true nature of the game. It is clear why Pep chose keita. to be a disruptor and give Barca some strength in the middle of the Park. while breaking up tackles. The real question is whether Pep should have sacrificed creativity for strength. Blaming Keita for playing his role is unfair.
I’m surprised no-one has criticized the selection of puyol at LB? It meant Barca didn’t have any overlaps down that side to give width and allow iniesta inside effectively. That selection more than Keita in midfield was the real defensive choice.
Puyol has played left back before. He essentially gives you the same thing as Abidal in terms of lack an overlap. Guardiola doesn’t mind playing Iniesta on the left in this instance because he will drop deep to make himself available for passes. The opposing right back has to make a choice. Either track Iniesta tightly, or give him all of the time and space in the world to drop and pick up passes. Milan were deep and narrow enough to nullify the risk. Puyol’s mistake was not pushing up like he does when he’s the outside CB in the 3-4-3. Against Mallorca last weekend, he nearly pushed into opposition box.
Tello is a very talented player, but he is still learning how to function within the first team. He has tunnel vision at times, and is not looking for teammates in the box. He’s made a couple of very selfish plays in each of his last two matches that have earned him the ire of his teammates. When he learns how to make the simple decisions once he’s reached the byline, he will be ready to start important matches.
The only change I would have made to Pep’s selections would have been to switch Keita and Iniesta throughout the match. Keita can play as a deeper left sided midfielder and presses fullbacks very well. He played there during Barcelona’s opening 20 minute blitz at the Emirates two years ago.
Who would you have played there instead? Abidal will likely never play again, Adriano was injured, Fontas would not have featured even if he wasn’t injured, and they sold Maxwell in the January transfer window. Puyol was literally the only option for the 4 man backline.
I worded my statement badly, not actually criticizing Pep as there wasnt really another option and Puyol actually helped deal with Ibra excellently.
I was trying to say that the lack of attacking width from the LB position was a bigger reason for not winning than having Keita in midfield. In the next leg Barca will need to push Puyol into overlapping more, even if it is not natural to him. I have seen him do it at RB plenty of times, so we know he can do it.
It’s almost certain that Adriano will man LB and provide the attacking width you mentioned.
A lot of variables did not favor Barcelona from the start- the horrible cow pasture, missing Abidal and Adriano’s injury. Guardiola set up too conservatively and the team did look confused in their pressing. Keita is not subpar he just does not add to the attack. He provided a physical presence and an outlet but was no threat and when he did go wide on the left Milan did not have to worry. Pedro needed to start. Alexis is wasteful. I was happy that Fabregas did not start but his absence was noticeable when Barcelona countered because without him there was no other option for Messi who is obsessed with Alves. The graphic provided demonstrates how predictable they were. They looked slow, the ball did not circulate at all and the group looked afraid to be caught out of position when Milan countered. Even then Milan had several very good opportunities. And…Barcelona should have still won.
We saw the same poor pitch condition in the Milan Arsenal game where Arsenal were poor on the flanks, and now we see it again. What Wenger said prior to this game sounded like sour grapes, but now I understand more..
Also, when was the last time that any Barca related analysis did not contain the word “Messi”?
Seedorf was pure class. Him and Nocerino’s composure on the ball was vital to Milan keeping the ball for any extended period of time, the importance of this can’t be understated. They were able to start attacks first off, but more importantly it gave Milan breaks from defending.
I agree with ZM that Robinho gave Alves too much space, but Emanuelson was probably the worst player on the pitch after he came on.
In the second leg I would like to see this lineup by Barca:
With the ball(2-3-2-3):
Valdes.
Puyol, Pique.
Alves, Busquets, Adriano.
Xavi, Iniesta.
Messi, Fabregas, Pedro.
Without the ball(3-3-2-2):
Valdes.
Puyol, Busquets, Pique.
Alves, Xavi, Adriano.
Fabregas, Iniesta.
Messi, Pedro.
Milan defended magnificently throughout the entire match. I thought that they might start to tire, but they never did. A 0-0 at home probably won’t be enough for Milan though, as they will probably lose at the Camp Nou.
I also think that Barcelona will be a lot more attacking at home in the second leg. Fabregas should play instead of Keita, as they will be less worried about defensive cover at home. The Camp Nou pitch is better too, and I can’t see Milan keeping Barcelona out over another whole 90 minutes.
Really interesting game last night though, despite there being no goals. Messi played well, but I thought that Ambrosini defended superbly against him. Looking forward to the second leg.
The idea behind Iniesta on the left is sound. Without a fullback in support (Puyol stayed deep) a natural wing-forward would end up losing the ball to much in a match where barcelona wanted to keep possession to kill the game. Indeed Tello was guilty of this when he came on and in truth added little. It was also Iniesta who created arguably Barcelona’s best chance on the 31 minute mark when he played a one-two with Xavi before threading the ball to Alexis (who should have shot rather than flicking the ball to Xavi). He usually gets better as the game goes on but after a couple of mistakes too many Guardiola decided to take him off.
Creating one chance in 60 minutes is hardly inspiring. Follows up his worse game (ever?) with another mediocre performance. Not totally his fault, Pep played him AGAIN on the left. Without a fullback overloading that side Iniesta predictably cuts inside.
Tello had the beating of Bonera all day and clearly stretched play when he came on. Little selfish at times but chalk that up to inexperience.
Although it might be sacrilege to say such a thing, I think Guardiola is trying to be too clever. Some of his formations look like arrangements after a boozy night out. Didn’t Barcelona conquer the world by playing a simple 4-3-3, with Xavi and Iniesta in their best positions? Why dick around with it?
Because he doesn’t have any left backs and (usually) needs to find a way to fit Xavi, Iniesta, Cesc, and Busquets.
If you would have told me 6 months ago, that’ Milan would play Barcelona and start. Seedorf, Ambro, Bonera, Nesta, and sub in Emanuelson, some 19 year old kid, and some guy named Mesbah, I would have to you they would lose 4-0.
So this result all things considered is great. It’s a shame Milan can’t play Barcelona with a full deck of healthy players.
And on a side note Milan should should try something creative in Barca, and play a midfield with 5 players. Emanuelson, MVB, KPB, Nocerino, Abate, with Ibra alone up top.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijDdpNxPyPU&list=UUF4zHT46MlIvrzJRzm-CifQ&index=1&feature=plcp
Barca did not need width as they have no one to cross to and you saw that the Italian defenders are good at 1v1s and closing the inside cuts and drill crosses. Milan did not care at all that some Barca player is on the flank. Barcelona will need some luck in order to break down that narrow 4.
Suddenly Mascherano’s the only one on his game. We need to end games as well as we power through ‘em.