How the 2000s changed tactics #1: The fall and rise of the passing midfielder
This article was originally written two years ago, but in the wake of Pep Guardiola’s departure from Barcelona, it seems appropriate to re-publish.
Gabriele Macotti's original article
That is not to say that he no longer had talent. A physically unremarkable player, his domain was sitting front of his own defence and spraying passes across the pitch for his more illustrious teammates – Michael Laudrup, Hristo Stoichkov and Romario being amongst the biggest names to have benefited from his presence. When Marcotti wrote the article, at 33, Guardiola should have been at his peak.
But the reality was that nobody wanted him. In the early 2000s, Europe was tactically obsessed with two types of players in the centre – tough-tackling defensive midfielders, and classic Number 10 creators. Most big sides followed this destroyer-creator model, like Davids-Zidane at Juventus. And therefore, for the deep-lying playmaker like Guardiola, there was nowhere to go.
To quote Marcotti from that original article:
“His midfield skills have become obselete…the modern game has closed the door on players like Guardiola…despite being in the best shape of his career, there is no place for him…that the thoughtful, intricate passing patterns of players like Guardiola are lost to younger fans is somewhat depressing.”
And quotes from Guardiola himself:
“I haven’t changed…my skills haven’t declined. It’s just that football now is different. It’s played at a higher pace and it’s a lot more physical. The tactics are different now, you have to be a ball-winner, a tackler, like Patrick Vieira or Edgar Davids. If you can pass too, well, that’s a bonus. But the emphasis, as far as central midfielders are concerned, is all on defensive work…players like me have become extinct.”
Guardiola whilst Barcelona captain
That was in 2004. And now – in 2010, the current European Champions at club level are led by one Pep Guardiola, who has instilled his very playing style into Barcelona. This season he has regularly played with three Guardiola-esque players in the centre of his midfield – Xavi Hernandez, Andres Iniesta and Sergio Busquets. Xavi and Iniesta also combined to make Spain the European Champions at international level. Just six years after Guardiola’s mentality was considered dead, it is now the way to play football.
It is remarkable that so much can change in such a short space of time. The biggest factor in the re-emergence of Guardiola-esque players was probably the shift away from 4-4-2 systems in the mid 2000s, towards 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3 systems, both of which broadly feature three central midfielders. This meant that there was an extra midfield place available, and the destroyer-creator model was altered to include a ‘passer’ inbetween. Hence Liverpool’s brilliant near-title winning trio of Mascherano (destroyer) Alonso (passer) Gerrard (creator), for example.
But perhaps there has been a further shift – the mid 2000s obsession with deploying a player in the ‘Makelele role’ largely led to the decline of the creator as a traditional number 10 (as he was marked out of the game) – and that in turn caused the lessening importance of the Makelele role itself (since he then had no-one to mark). Therefore, the ‘creator’ now plays a deeper, more methodical passing game – hence Cesc Fabregas or Andres Iniesta playing as players at the head of a midfield three – whilst the ‘holding’ midfielder has also moved away from being a tackler, to becoming a passer himself – with Busquets and Michael Carrick amongst the beneficiaries. And suddenly, the midfield battle is not about being ‘physical’ or ‘ball-winning’ – it is all about passing, as epitomised by the current Barcelona sides.
Guardiola instructs his successor, Xavi Hernandez
Of course, we should not fall into the trap of thinking that this type of player is a purely a Barcelona creation. There are other ball-playing midfielders across Europe who have been successful; Andrea Pirlo is the obvious example, but even in Marcotti’s article, Guardiola acknowledged that Pirlo’s role was possible at Milan as they played ‘a different brand of football‘. David Pizarro at Roma is another – but again, Roma have played a highly unconventional system in recent years. Pizarro struggled at Inter when in a standard 4-4-2; maybe we can deduce that the ball-playing midfielder only found favour in unusual formations for much of the decade.
Nor should one infer that Guardiola created Xavi and Iniesta – they were already established at the club. But it is widely acknowledged that they were hugely inspired by Guardiola as youngsters, and they were not always fixtures in the Barcelona side under Frank Rijkaard – in their previous Champions League triumph in 2006, both started the final on the bench as Barcelona fielded two holding midfielders.
So despite what everybody expected at the turn of the century, power has not defeated trickery – in fact, the opposite has occurred - technical quality is more important than ever. Re-read those quotes from Guardiola again, and the description seems like a different world. And so whilst redundant as a player six years ago, Guardiola’s philosophy is now the toast of Europe as a manager.
When Guardiola took over as Barcelona manager, he was just 37 years of age. As mentioned earlier, his physical attributes were never his selling point (whilst his consummate professionalism means he would have kept himself in good shape), and his passing ability would have remained. Therefore, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that the 37-year-old Guardiola probably still could have done a decent job many La Liga or Serie A midfields. His career may have been curtailed prematurely, but how wonderful that this allowed him to entrench his philosophy upon modern football so soon.
And therefore the most fascinating aspect of football tactics in the 2000s was the fall – and rise – of Guardiolaism.
[...] In 2004, Gabriele Marcotti wrote an article for The Times about Barcelona legend Pep Guardiola. It wasn’t a celebratory piece looking back at Guardiola’s fine career, nor remarking on his ability to defy the critics and keep playing at a high standard, like Paolo Maldini. It was about how, in 2004-spec football, Guardiola was [...] Zonal Marking [...]
Lovely gesture in the wake of Guardiola’s departure..
The role of central midfielders has changed significantly but as a result of the changes to the offside laws. Offside laws are now weighted in favour of the attacking team, previously a defensive “line” only needed to catch one forward offside for them all to be caught offside therefore balls into the striker who traditionally “led the line” would often result in that particular striker being the most advanced attacking player, usually with the second striker in support. By changing the rules so defensive lines had to catch the player directly involved in play meant teams could play extra forwards and the striker receiving the ball was no longer necessarily the most advanced attacking player. To counter this imbalance defensive lines may still set themselves in a similar position on the pitch but are now much quicker to retreat towards their own goal simply to ensure they remain goalside of the greater number of forwards.
As defenders retreat further towards their own goal at a quicker pace the real playing area (between the opposing sets of defenders) is increased, therefore central midfielders must cover more ground in a shorter space of time. What we are now seeing is a completely different role for the central midfielder as it is now unfeasible to ask two central midfielders on the same side to be “box-to-box” midfielders. The article is quite correct to use the example of Keane and Scholes at Manchester United as a destroyer/creator partnership however both of these players would often find themselves in both advanced and defensive positions, it is inaccurate to think Keane adopted a Makalele role or similarly that Scholes adopted an advanced role, instead they were both typical central midfielders with compatible attributes.
Benitez adapted his central midfield to take the increased playing area into account, now Mascherano sits as a deep lying midfielder harbouring few ambitions to burst forward (this is not the same as the Makalele role – Makalele would win the ball back and lay it off, Mascherano gets directly involved in attacking build-up play) thus negating the need for Gerrard and Alonso to cover the ground going backwards as quickly as they otherwise would.
Barcelona presently play a very similar model where Busquets is the deep lying midfielder allowing Xavi and Iniesta the freedom to take up more attacking positions (similarly Mikel does this role at Chelsea). Midfielders who tend to play “box-to-box” are struggling to maintain a sustained presence on a game for 90 minutes, the best example in EPL is James Milner who at times looks like a magnificent midfielder (noramally the first half hour or so) but tends to drift in and out of the remainder of the game simply because he’s covering too much ground.
Whilst it is extremely doubtful the law makers envisaged such a drastic change in the role of the central midfielder it is wonderful that players such as Fabregas, Xavi and Iniesta are able to play such a critical role and that the functionality of Makalele has been replaced by genuinely talented passing midfielders such as Mascherano.
Covered at length here http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/apr/13/the-question-why-is-offside-law-genius by Jonathan Wilson
I keep reading this, and I have to say I still don’t understand the argument. If I understand correctly, the changes in the offside law allow the attacking team to have its forwards drift into offside positions as long as they remain passive, and this results on the stretching of the area of play which opens up space for passers in midfield.
But why would the defending team fall for it? If forwards drift offside, the ball cannot go directly to them, so defenders can afford to forget about them as long as they cover the link-up possibilities. And since the offside players have to remain passive, the defenders effectively have spare men to do so.
Can someone enlighten me?
The new offside law allows the game to continue if the passive offside forward doesn’t involve himself in the play. hence, more players thrown forwards can still play the ball, (which would’ve been impossible under the old law) and hence defenders have to backtrack expanding the playing field.
To put it simply its far easier to come back from an offside position and gain a strategic position in the final third than it is to run into one.
This for example can be used to stretch the field laterally. i.e imagine a striker at the edge of the penalty area in an offside position(on say the left side) with play originating from the other side. If it is a transition and the defence has only 2 players available and they cover only the side from with play originates then the said striker is free once he comes back onside.
Even during free-kicks strikers normally hold an offside position but the defence moves to cover them because they can never be sure that if and when a slight header-on is made the striker comes back just onside but in a position where he has no defender in front of him.
Offside players can gain a positional advantage which they couldn’t use under the earlier rule.
10 years ago when I was wrapping up my college career as a defender we played a high offside line, and often used a trap. If you push up past any forward then any ball played in behind the defense would result in an offside penalty, wether or not the forward actually received the ball or ran onto it. It was easy to catch teams offside.
10 years later, playing center back in Sunday League we don’t play an offside trap. Because right when you step up to catch that forward offside some midfielder makes a run from deep at full sprint and the ball is played in behind you when all your momentum is going the wrong way. Only now, the forward’s position doesn’t automatically result in a penalty. This makes playing an offside trap very dangerous, therefore you defenses just drop.
If I understand all of this correctly, the antidote to pushing up remmains the same: ball over the top, or a dribbler getting past the line. But the new law allows for more two (or more) on ones against the keeper, resulting in a much higher probability of a goal. This reduces the “optimal” amount of pushing up, hence more space in midfield. Right?
SpaceGhost,
10 years ago it was possible to play a high off-side line but only if you had an organised defence, I used to take great pride in taking free kicks for an offside on the half-way line. Under the new laws there is much greater risk attached to having a particularly high line. I’m not certain the best solution is for defenders to retreat as readily as they do but that is certainly how the majority of defenders try to counter the modern day threat.
“If I understand all of this correctly, the antidote to pushing up remmains the same: ball over the top, or a dribbler getting past the line.”
Correct.
“But the new law allows for more two (or more) on ones against the keeper, resulting in a much higher probability of a goal. This reduces the “optimal” amount of pushing up, hence more space in midfield. Right?”
Not sure what you are saying, but the theory is simple. If a striker is offside, the opposition defence has two options. Leave him unmarked, or leave a defender to mark him.
If they leave him marked then the defender who marks him can’t be more than a metre at most in front of him playing him offside. So basically the defence is still backtracking towards their own goal to mark him.
if they leave him completely unmarked what happens when the defensive line is broken by a ball over the top or a dribble down? What happens is that a striker that was a mile offside is now onside and completely unmarked by the opposition, because his team mates blew open the defence.
The result is that defensive teams have to stay near the striker even if he is offside, just in case this scenario happens. So they tend to play the offside and then go back straightaway towards goal just in case the offside trap didn’t hold, and the player was not marked offside. this means the defensive line is yo-yo-ing back and forth, up and down, again and again. Which means the midfield is expanding and constricting in space throughout the 90minutes, which allows creative midfielders and new tactics and formations like those mentioned in the article to come back into the game.
I have to disagree here. I was a referee during the 90s and remember the law change. It was minor. The way referees treated offside before and after was nearly identical. I remember talking to a certain Ken Aston about it, and he didn’t see much in it. It certainly may have had some effect, but the revolutionary qualities of this “liberalisation” are mostly fantasy, IMO. I have read Jonothan Wilson write about this repeatedly, but neither I, nor my old referee friends are convinced.
the “passively offside” player is only relevant if another attacker can beat the offside trap with a well timed run. When a defense is split open like that, ghosting in behind desperate, recovering defenders is about as easy as sitting passively offside, and probably more effective. Clever players like Van Nistelrooy did take advantage, but the benefit to attackers occurs quite infrequently. The new danger is certainly not enough to usher in a tactical revolution.
There have been many changes in wording of the offside law in recent years, and the most recent more than compensates for the changes on passive offside. Previously, a player was judged to be offside if the whole of his body was past the defender, with the benefit of the doubt given to the attacker. Now, under the new wording, an extended hand is enough to call an attacker offside. This bestows a large advantage on defenders, and should favor high defensive lines.
I think the return of the passing midfielder is much better explained by ZM in the article than by changes in offside law.
>the “passively offside” player is only relevant if another attacker can beat the offside >trap with a well timed run
The way to beat the offside hasnt really changed.
If you have the ball and see your players offside, you teach your players to pass it back-sideways or if they see a hole to go for it.
I read many opinions and much commentary, and yours is the most succinct explanation of the genius of the new offside rules, a subject I had been aware of, and had read about, but hadn’t really understood until you elucidated it so well. thanks.
A great palate of ideas, RJF.
I would add:
- Scholes and Keane being ‘typical’ central midfielders; let’s be careful to remember that not all the world over used to play straight-line 4-4-2; it was a predominantly British-Scandanavian until Sacchi’s adoption of it in the late-80s, and in South America it hardly gained a foothold until the late-90s and is still a relatively unused formation. Of course, this was due in part to the fact that said countries already boasted a different interpretation of what constituted a central midfielder. The pure, straight-line 4-4-2 could be quite industrially reductionist in failing to account for the innate ’specialities’ of individual players- look at how Ray Wilkins or Glen Hoddle were underappreciated (and arguably misused) throughout their England careers; Hoddle would go on to harbour a dim view thereafter of the merits of rigid 4-4-2 which expects all midfield players to be equal, if equally mediocre and undemonstrative as long as they put in an industrious shift.
The observation about Milner is interesting because it points to a trend of box-to-boxers ( good players who are often 7/10 in everything whilst being 9/10 in nothing) being relocated to either full-back positions or else multi-function ‘carrilero’ roles (wide in a diamond)i.e. where they become literally peripheral to the high-stakes requirements of central midfield today, where criteria, precision and creativity are valued above high-volume running.
Like yourself, I am thankful that the current status quo is much more inclusive of the varying strands of individual midfield talent.
I used the example of Milner simply because of his current prominence, though there have been several talented players who have dropped off the radar – Jemaine Jenas probably the best example, other players such as Tom Huddlestone who started as “box-to-box” have had to redefine their roles.
Perhaps the danger in asking a central midfielder to specialise early in his career prevents them becoming a well rounded midfielder. Mikel at Chelsea is settling nicely into the deep lying role but isn’t particularly useful in another more advanced role simply because he isn’t getting enough games – a shame because he is a very talented player.
So would you say that a player like Ibra on Barcelona, purposely loiters around offsides as a way to draw defenders back and stretch the midfield? Or is he just lazy as his many critics never tire of stating. It always seems to me as he’s doing it on purpose.
Drogba does the same thing quite regularly.
Compare Ibra to Eto’o in Barcelona. Did Eto’o just walk around? No, he ran and stretched the defenses that way, he pulled them away from Messi and Henry and created space for them. Ibrahimovic doesn’t do that.
ibra’s job is to open up space for messi and the Left winger to drop into and help hold up the ball.eto’o was always the scorer and used his pace to play off the man, now messi is the main scorer and what ibra does is not only hold up two defenders with his height strength and creativity but also can drop deap to stretch play even more. invariably what happens is the space between the fullback and the CB opens up and messi scuttles through. to stretch the space even more they have alves overlap.
its essentially the same system manU used with c.ron but without the hyper attacking fullback.
Ibra does do that, only his threat is his height, not his speed. Defenders can’t afford to ignore him any more than they could Eto’o.
His recent form has been poor, but earlier in the season he occupied defenders well, while participating in the build up and offered assists. Eto’o, for all his qualities, rarely accomplished the latter two.
Forwards have always taken up positions like these to try and lose their marker, pretty much every forward does it but the best example of this, despite his lack of form over the last couple of years, is Michael Owen.
With regards to other comments, and i appreciate this is straying from the intention of the article, a forward with more languid body language isn’t necessarily less effective than someone doing more running. A good comparison is Bellamy and Berbatov both of whom are exceptionally good at finding space (and therefore possession, stretching defenders etc) but go about it in different ways.
I find it very hard to understand how Mascherano can appear in a sentence as, “genuinely talented passing midfielders such as Mascherano” as typed by RJF. Alonso was probably the best passer of the ball Liverpool have had in a very long time. They have suffered for not having him this season as he saw the runs of Torres & delivered exceptionally accurate passes. It is hard to understand how he is so underrated.
Meisey, the point was that players such as Mascherano are genuinely better footballers than the likes of Makalele type players. I wasn’t trying to convey the opinion that Mascherano is a better player than Alonso just that he plays a different role.
IMO, Scholes is/was a guardiolaesque passing machine as well.
Well, that is certainly the role that recently Scholes has been playing on occassion for United; just behind two more dynamic midfielders from Fletcher, Park, Gibson et al.
Imagine how Scholes’ England career would have developed had he not been expected to be an ‘all-things-to-all-men’ midfielder in that flat four between 2000 and 2004. I still shudder when I recall how during Euro 2004 Beckham and other midfielders led a delegation of players to Eriksson’s door requesting that he ditch the midfield diamond and play with a flat four. Speaks volumes for the way kids were reared playing football in England.
I agree that the tinkering with the offside interpretation has given us this golden generation of passing midfielders. And I’m just delighted.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by EPL Talk No Spoilers, Sean Spence. Sean Spence said: From @Zonal_Marking: How the 2000s changed tactics #1: The fall and rise of the passing midfielder http://bit.ly/aR6TLt [...]
Well the world of football has changed drastically…. Money has overtaken emotions and love for the game…. The game is more of a show than an art….. We need players like Guardiola…. We have more athletes than footballers…. Sad but true and it is destroying the world of football…. Teams win titles not because they deserve but because they are cautious and make less mistakes….. Man U being the perfect example…….
I have to say that I’m not a subscriber to the Arsenal/Barca “technique and passing” is everything. As a Scottish targetman a lot has to be said about the epic physical battles that can be found in World Football.
Football is a physical game afterall – there’s nothing like a brutal, physical game as long as it’s not maliciously dangerous.
precisely the reason Guardiola bought Ibrahimovic. Although not a typical bully upfront but he provides Barca with a direct line of attack when passing isn’t getting you anywhere.
Amen. I like watching and playing smart passing football, but I also love bone crunching tackles (when merely uncompromising, not malicious or illegal). Always thought it was my American upbringing and years playing linebacker in our version of football, but maybe not.
well, you can keep that mentality in the scottish league, thanks. give me pretty passing and sick technique any day.
Agreed. …especially for my older 45 football games, where the main objective of the game is: Return to work in one piece.
“Man U being the perfect example”, here we go again. Man Utd apologize for scoring 7 goals against AC Milan, 5 against Arsenal, 4 against Bayern and Berbatov not scoring a hat-trick since his time at United.
How about teams win titles by playing smart and changing tactics as the situation requires.
Its true that at this particular time there are very few fans of football and more fans of the glamour around it….. It has to change, the game has to be enjoyed in the right spirit and the right spirit is to play beautifully…. Inter won, many would argue they deserve but whats the point having three world class players (Milito, Etoo and Sneijder) and not registering a single meaningful shot on goal…… It showed how much Murinho was scared about losing….. It kills the game and strips of the very title it has….
mourinho scared of losing? maybe he just preferred winning to losing. and as for “killing the game”… i don’t even know how to respond to that. this isn’t AND 1 football. you don’t have to lay down and concede a goal if an opposing player completes a beautiful pass or if he completes a technical trick. if you want to see that, go watch the brazilian league.
seriously.
i really don’t know why all of them attack Inter for playing the way they did.
Isn’t that football as well, how they negated the passing play of Barcelona ?
Top class defending.
Absolutely. It’s bizarre to be so narrow minded about what you enjoy watching. The idea that Mourinho was scared of losing – yes he probably was, quite reasonably, but seeing as Inter had put in such a good performance at home and had a player probably unfairly sent off, it was just good, prudent management.
That’s not to say I don’t enjoy the Guardiola-esque intelligent passing football of today, I just don’t think arrogant technical quality is everything. If Barcelona were really one of the best teams of all time they should still be able to break down even one of the most Catenaccio-esque defences of recent years. A commendable playing style alone doesn’t and shouldn’t win trophies.
To be fair:
- It was at least a second yellow anyway
- They did break Inter down, three times, one miss by Bojan, one goal by Pique and a second goal by Bojan ruled out unjustly
Three clear goal chances against Inter in full lockdown mode: the goal by Piqué, the missed header by Bojan and the disallowed goal by Bojan (which should not have been disallowed). If either of the Bojan’s chances would have gone on the scoreboard it would have been game over, as Inter never had a chance of scoring a goal in that match.
Inter played a great tie but let’s not go overboard, they were very lucky to advance.
This is ridiculous…simply ridiculous…
What does this have to do with the article?
They managed several shots on goal in the first leg … then adapted to the situation in which they found themselves in the Nou Camp. That kind of adaptability is beautiful to watch. If all you enjoy is watching Xavi and Messi pass it back and forth to one another fifteen times, desperately searching for a chink in Inter’s armour (perhaps because they were ‘afraid to lose’), feeding Alves wide who then sent a ball into the box only to be rebuffed by Zanetti ad nauseum, you should go find a chair next to the Scottish bloke a few posts up who watches Blackburn reruns all of his waking hours – your views of the game are equally myopic.
hahahhaha.
very true mate.
i personally was awed watching Inter defend.
and to all those talking about how many chances barca had, lets not forget, Inter, while playing the way they did, still managed to score 3 goals.
[...] only recently (re)emerged, a few years before the time that football begun to catch my eye. Take this latest entry entitled “The fall and rise of the passing midfielder,” which takes current Barcelona [...]
One interesting thing to note is that Iniesta rarely plays as a deep-lying playmaker when Xavi is on the field. This can be seen well in Spanish national team and in Barcelona(when he is not injured)
Because Iniesta is more or less Xavi successor and during the start of hes career he was a similar player to Xavi. Now he has evolved into more of a attacking play maker or even an attacking midfielder. Watch some videos of Iniesta’s first games and videos on how he plays now. You will see that he is a completely different player.
That’s true. Just remember the Champions League Final game against Arsenal. Iniesta came out off the bench to replace Van Bommel. He played as a classical Barça’s “number 4″ (which actually means “the Guardiola role”).
Almost every talented midfielder in Barcelona started playing “there” since Cruyff took control of the club back in the late eighties. Luis Mila was the first, then came Guardiola, De la Peña, Xavi, Iniesta, Cesc Fábregas and latest is Sergio Busquets.
It’s interesting to see how well is Busquets playing at the age of 22. Xavi wasn’t that good at that age and now he’s the best midfielder of the world in my opinion.
Great article, by the way.
Busquets is an incredible player for his age, I constantly see people complaining how Guardiola is playing “shitty Busquets” instead of Yaya. It’s as if criteria for the deep midfield role has become “who is the biggest African” no matter how sloppy the player is.
I hope Fabregas never returns to Barcelona, they’d be unstoppable for years, as Fabregas always creates clear cut chances even against the most stubborn defences.
All I remember about pre-Rjikaard/Ronaldinho era at Barcelona is how they were almost ruined when van Gaal was at the club. They had more embarrassing days than Man Utd with Barthez in goal. Maybe those van Gaal tactics affected Guardiola?
Van Gaal had two tenures in Barcelona. During the first one (1997-2000) they were Spanish champions twice, Copa del Rey winners, European Super Cup winners and Champions league semifinalists in 2000. For some reason he was never accepted well by the fans.
His second spell there (2002-2003) was short and ruinous.
Like Ivan said, you’re being a bit harsh on Van Gaal. His first spell was not bad at all, but he was never liked by the fans because he brought in so many Dutch players and ignored the own youth academy. His second spell was a mistake, both by the club and by himself.
Ignored the youth academy? Van Gaal promoted Puyol and Xavi (during his first tenure) and later Iniesta (during his second).
Also Motta and Gabri
And he did this at the expense of established players like Reiziger, Ronald de Boer, Litmanen and Bogarde.
Oh ok, I didn’t know about 97-2000 to be honest, I only actively started following European football in 99 and I was a little young, but it always baffled me how he was so awful in 02-03 and yet he did so well with Bayern especially against Man Utd in the Champions League this season.
What about Yaya Touré ? Actually (and since a long time) Guardiola tends to line up Busquets rather than the Ivoirian but in what exactly do you think guys that the Spanish is better to be preferred to Yaya by Guardiola ?!
Please, thanks.
Ron.
If I can offer my reckoning – Busquets is a more rounded player than Yaya in my opinion.
He is a much better passer and has higher composure on the ball. Albeit probably not as physical, I suspect he also has better positional sense. If you consider that many games Barca will be pushing back the opposition into their own third, it doesn’t make sense to have someone as defensively minded as Toure, plus 2 centre-backs on the pitch.
Apart from all of the above, the lad is a wonderful actor as well.
As Suraj hints at, Busquets is more willing to do the “dirty work”, including professional fouls, diving, and generally annoying the opposition.
To my eyes, he also seems to be better in the pressing game.
I think Busquets starts because he is good at laying of the ball directly when he gets it instead of taking a couple seconds like Yaya does.
I follow Barcelona very closely and I can say that Busquets has taken Yaya’s position away from him (taken, not given) by being a more disciplined player and a better passer. Yaya started the season very poorly and never got things going before he went off for a month to the African Cup. In addition, there was some controversy surrounding statements made by his agent about playing time which upset Guardiola a great deal at the time. When he came back from Africa he was slightly injured and again it took him time to round back into shape. The last month he has been playing much better and has put in some fine performances, but his overall season has been mediocre. Meanwhile, Sergio has been doing a very steady job in his role as passing DM. He pressures far better than Yaya ever did and is a great possession passer. Guardiola has also stated that Sergio does a better job of holding his defensive positions.
Yaya is a far better in terms of tackling and just being an intimidating, physical presence and I also think he does a better job of attacking the box when Pep allows him to go forward. But all in all Sergio has been immense this season and is simply a better fit in Barcelona’s system than Toure. Although I would prefer him to stay, I would not be surprised to see Yaya sold this summer.
Well said.
I would also add that Busquets’ one-touch game is impeccable, which gives Xavi and Iniesta lots of open passing lines between bamboozled midfielders.
what a wonderful read!
Hi ZM,
So, you didn’t watch Porto-Benfica last Sunday. You’ve missed a great match, FC Porto were superb and won it for 3-1 with only 10 men… Fantastic game and wonderfull strike by Belluschi!
I did, analysis will be up shortly (sorry it’s late)!
Great! Your portuguese fans will surely thank you!
Excellent!
Can we say that one reason France suffers right now as a national team, apart of having Domenech as manager, is simply the lack of a passing central midfielder in the team? If you look at France, they have been nurturing for the past 10 years mainly Makelele type of players(see Diarras, Toulalan, Mavuba etc.) and creators(Nasri, Gourcuff, Menez etc.) or creators on the wing(Ribery, ben Arfa etc.) but I couldn’t think of one midfielder for France that had excellent passing skills. Nasri would come closest to a passing midfielder and it would be an idea, at least to try it on FIFA10 or the World Cup game for now
, to play a 4-3-3 with Nasri and Gourcouff in an advanced role, but I guess this won’t really work there either. Nasri, when he came up, his coach back then Albert Emon in all the comparisons that were made between him and Zidane described Nasri more similar to Deco than Zidane.
I think this is a fair point. Playing two solely defensively midfielders particularly has seemed a problem when they’ve struggled to break down weaker sides – a loss to Greece in 2004, draws against Korea and Switzerland in 2006, a draw against Romania in 2008.
Not only that, ZM; playing two destructive midfielders in front of the defence can be defensively risky!
How so? Because when pressured, they can panic into giving the ball away cheaply, being intercepted or else passing to another companion who himself is being pressured in a precarious position. Indeed, their team can spend needlessly long periods of time in its own half struggling to get the ball out from under pressure.
I’ve seen that with Scholes and Carrick playing defensively sometimes.
I remember reading somewhere a suggestion that Gourcuff be Pirlo-ed.
I would rather try it with Nasri than with Gourcouff.
Mahdi, I take it then that you like France Football’s campaign to configure the national team’s 4-2-3-1 as: Gourcuff & Diarra (Alou or Lass, I can’t recall); Govou, Ribery (No.10), Malouda; Anelka?
I’d love to see Gourcuff in that role. I don’t necessarily think it would work, but from a tactical obsessive’s point of view, it would be very interesting.
Surprised they want Govou in the side, has been that good this season?
hope gourcuff will not be turned into a deep MF ! I remember having watched pirlo playing in an attacking MF position as a youngster, and albeit skillful and talented, he was much less familiar with scoring goals (except for penalties or free kicks) than gourcuff.
I believe that gourcuff has huge room for improvement in the position where he’s currently playing. for what’s worth, I second the idea to move nasri into a pirlo-esque, deeper position.
Maybe it would work; Gourcuff is quite tall and built-up, which would be an added bonus; he might not snap into tackles, but at least onrushing midfielders would not necessarily overpower him.
Here, let me find the link to the France Football page; Tom from the site ” Football Further” wrote an analysis on it. If you have a smattering of French you might be able to read the article itself, zoom in and read the very small type.
http://www.youkioske.com... an excellent site, by the way.. gives access to most of the top European sports newspapers. Try finding France Football back issue on there.
Why Govou?
I know, he’s quite average. But bear in mind that France Football caters for a domestic French footballing audience and that Govou, Lyons born-and-bred, is a Ligue 1 hero; began as a striker, did willing shifts as a winger and later even as a wide-midfielder. I imagine the French public value him for his committment and tactical discipline; a kind of French Kuyt if you will!
But please, any French readers here, forgive my ignorance. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to Govou.
Roberticus, as said, I would always and forever play Nasri. I’m fond of Nasri ever since his days at Marseille. I would try something like a 4-1-4-1 or even 4-2-3-1 with Alou Diarra deep lying, Nasri next to him a bit more forward as an 8 if you like, Gourcouff kind of most attacking as a 10 and Ribery and Malouda on the wings, with probably Anelka or even Henry as forward.
I personally think that Gourcouff in a more deep lying role would be a waste, as he is good in 1 on 1 situations and can beat his man fairly well, has a good shot and score goals and he is simply more of a threat in attack. Nasri could play a deeper role and I believe he would do it well. I will actually just try this out on Fifa. hehe.
It’s interesting to note that France’s problem with the split of midfielders into Makelele- or Zidane-types is also what happened (and to a degree still does) in Argentina. Jonathan Wilson made this point in “Inverting The Pyramid”. He put it down to Argentina’s reliance for years on a midfield diamond. I worry when I see teams line up in a 4-2-3-1 with two destroyers at the base of midfield, as the creativity of the team can be more easily stifled. Long live the Peps and the Pirlos.
Juan, I think the article about Gourcouff being the next potential Pirlo was on the Football Further website. You can find it in the ZM “Link” section.
Just one thing about CL’06 final. It’s a fact of common sense to compare Deco more to the classic 10 than a “holding midfielder”. Also say that Xavi was just comming from a injury and he wasn’t fit enough even to be in the bench. He was just there as an extra. The firt choice mid that season was Edmilson-Xavi-Deco with Van Bommel beeing the first choice backup and Iniesta splitting the time between the wing and the midfield.
It was not a problem of conservatism by Rijkaard more than a role hierarchy solution.
PS: As I said in the glossary I think that you misundestood the meaning of the word “carrilero”.
PS2: Great JOB running the site
Donovan,
I’ve just written a comment in response to your observation on how we should apply the term ‘carrilero’ in the glossary.
Cheers
A very bold last line
Without Essien and Mikel, Chelsea are playing a passer there now..and they aren’t doing too badly 
Great article, also really liked the one by Marcotti. Guardiola is a bit too humble he was a way better player than he gave himself credit for, his tackling was at the very least decent and his first touch was VERY good.
About Busquets he is still young so he isn’t super consistent yet, but when he is playing well his awareness is extremely good the way he can one or two touch pass his way out of trouble is a joy to watch. I think that is why Guardiola prefers him to Toure he does more with less. Toure carries the ball more (better than Busquets that’s usually when he gets in trouble) and tends to chose more complicated passes then Sergio.
Also someone mentioned something about Xavi not looking as good as Busquets at 22, I think the article explains why, the game was different when Xavi was 22.
Nice comments. I think that not only was the game different, but Barcelona was different under Van Gaal. Guardiola (and the offsides rule) has really opened things up for players like Busquets.
“When you have the kind of creative weapons that play for Real [Madrid], tactics become relatively meaningless”
I found this line in the article somewhat amusing.
Good article indeed. A little note though, Xavi missed the CL 2006 final suffering an injury. He was as important for Barcelona then as now.
I think what Pep sees in Busquets is a compromise between the two football schools related to the Pivot position. The first one demands a destroyer in that position (Van Gaal represent that trend and even Rijkaard used it especially when Edmilson was fit), and the other school considers the Pivot as a deep lying playmaker. Busquets for all his bads is a better destroyer than Xavi and a better playmaker –buildup contributor- than Yaya. I think that’s important for Barcelona game as a deep lying playmaker will not serve the case of Barca defense, and just a destroyer makes the buildup process of the midfield more containable by marking Xavi, something a possession oriented Barca can’t accept.
I think the main issue with Busquets is that to a degree he is still young and dumb, as in for all his game intelligence, he gets himself into dumb positions(sending off against Madrid in first clasico another example, but Villareal game best example) and due to his slim stature(look at his legs, believe Yaya’s triceps is bigger) he ends up trying to get too many fouls and hence dives way too much, which at some point will come back to haunt him and Barca.
He isn’t really quick but he has good positional sense and is better on the first touch than Yaya and passes the ball quicker. He would need to gain some muscle and he would be ideal and he would also need to learn when to take the dive to get the foul and when to play on and how to avoid getting into that position in the first place.
Fair comments about Sergio. I think that Guardiola secretly thinks that Busquets can someday become a reasonable facsimile of Rodondo: a creator/destroyer in one package. To realize that potential he will have to mature physically and mentally as you rightly point out. But his upside is really, really high.
In my opinion I think the main reason why Busquets has got as much playing time this season as he has is the combination of 2 things:
1. Toure’s absence while in the Cup of Nations as well bas being injured
2. As well as Iniesta’s absence due to injury for a long part of the season
Pep realized that they needed another ball player to compensate for the absence of Iniesta to keep their possession game alive and running. Sergio could essay that role better than Toure. I see Toure as the better destroyer as well as having more experience and physical presence than Busquets. And if Iniesta manages to be less injury prone next season and Toure remaining at the Camp Nou, we will definitely see less of Busquets.
I would like to add up to this great article a little Brazilian view of the midfield if I may.
Usually in Brazil, the teams play a 4-2-2-2 formation where on the midfield you’ll have 1 holding midfield, 1 passing player playing as a holding midfield when not in possession but comming on late runs forward for surprising through balls and shots from behind and 2 number 10s where one of them plays a little deep to track the opposite passing player when not in possession and the other one is something like Alex(fenerbahçe), Deco, Kaka, Rivaldo, Djalminha(Deportivo La Coruña, a time ago), etc. A genuine number 10. There are no wide players on midfield because we’d rather use our full backs comming from behind while the 2 holding midfields cover them on the sides. That’s in fact the reason the majority of Brazil’s full backs go to Europe and play higher up on the pitch. That’s how they know how to play(Mancini, Marcelo, Michel Bastos, etc.)
Hence the sides of the last 2 world cups when Brazil played with 4 on the back: 98 – Dunga(holding mid), Cesar Sampaio(Passing player scored two goals comming from behind against Scotland), Zinho(deeper number 10) and Rivaldo( Number 10). This side had Bebeto shifting around and Ronaldo on the center of attack.
2006 – Gilberto Silva(holding mid), Ze Roberto(passing player who scored a goal against Ghana comming from behind), Kaka( not a deep number 10 but that’s how he was meant to play and that’s why he didn’t play so well) and Ronaldinho( number 10). This side had on Adriano and Ronaldo two center forwards.
Both sides had Cafu and Roberto Carlos running forward on each flank.
ZM, What do you think are the good and bad things about this kind of formation? Do you think that’s one of the reasons Brazil didn’t win both 98 and 2006 world cups?
PS: PLEASE WATCH A SANTOS F.C.(Pele’s former club) GAME THIS SEASON in Brazil. Robinho is just another regular player because the stars are Neymar and Paulo Henrique Ganso, two INCLEDIBLE very young players!!!!! The national championship is starting this weekend and will feature 10 games before the World Cup.
Any chance of Ganso and Neymar making the World Cup squad? Would be quite unusual for Dunga to bring them in now, but would be a nice suprise eh?
Hi Ramay,
I’d just like to respond to your questions since I live and work in Brazil and try to follow domestic football here as much as possible.
I would say that here in Brazil, since at least the early 90s the emphasis has been on ‘volantes’ who destroy. Even the ‘passing player’ (2nd function, right?) is typically a box-to-box player (in the Roy Keane mould) or else a more mobile destroyer (like Gattuso). I have seen many club sides here (from Serie C to A!) in which both central midfielders are extremely technically-limited, one of whom is often converted from centre-back. But there simply isn’t a tendency to put pure ‘passing’ players in the ‘volante’ role, right? I mean, can you imagine Xabi Alonso playing in a top Brazilian side; he would probably be played as a meia (perhaps, specifically as a ‘3rd man of midfield’)simply because of his impressive passing ability which coaches would be afraid to disuse.
For instance; take the Brazilian concepts of volante ‘1st function’(covering the gaps between full-backs and centre-backs) and ‘2nd function’ (breaking forward with the ball and laying it off to a stationary meia or and advancing full-back, but also destroying play and tackling opponents in central midfield); this division of functions would appear excessively bureaucratic in European football. I often find myself wondering: “But what about the THIRD function! organising the team..” There is no-one to use the ball effectively in this area of the field where we have two guys running around clattering into people.
I mean, look at a player like Edmilson. When he was at Barcelona, where the ball is expected to leave the defence much more fluidly, he had to perform both functions since he was the only real ‘volante’, the other two midfielders being either one creator (Xavi) plus one box-to-box (Van Bommel) or else simply two creators (Xavi and Deco/Iniesta).
This sadly points to a doctrine among the coaches inBrazil wherein “technically proficient, great passer” equates to “can only play as an advanced midfielder because if we put him deeper our defence will be vulnerable”. But whatever about Xabi Alonso, Michael Carrick Sergio Busquets who are at least tall, physcially robust players; there wouldn’t be a hope in hell of a player like Guardiola, Pirlo, Xavi or Scholes playing so deep in a Brazilian midfield.
So how come European teams are able to get away with this (playing ‘meias’ as ‘volantes’)
? I think the answer, at least partly, lies in ‘pressing’.
As a tactic, pressing doesn’t really exist in Brazilian football. In fact, marking here is not even purely zonal; to be sure, the back four (a Brazilian invention) is zonal, but the other three sectors are somewhat reminiscent of Italian ‘zona mista’ in the sense that they form a compromise of zonal plus man-marking. Because of the increased athletecism in football during the past two decades, all teams in all countries at the top level have had to increase their defensive productivity. But whereas in Europe, the weight of this defensive responsibility falls more evenly throughout the team since the meias and forwards too must also participate in pressing, in Brazil all this defensive effort is concentrated, distilled in the ‘volantes’. Hence, the creative midfielders and forwards are excused from much defensive work. In Europe, however, the benefit of the pressing game is that you can accomodate more creative players in deep-lying areas of midfield. In fact, in Europe having deep-lying meias becomes almost necessary since the central midfield needs to have extrememly accurate high-tempo passing in order to escape the pressure the opponents who are pressing.
My great hope for Brazilian football, apart from Santos and the resurrection of outside-forwards in a 4-3-3, is also for the central midfield to feature more players like Hernanes. In fact, I wish Hernanes would move to a reasonably big European club as soon as possible since he is already 25; by playing as a central midfielder in Europe, maybe Hernanes could convince Brazilian coaches back home to start experimenting with a bit of passing football in central midfield.
Cheers.
Great post Roberticus, as I was reading it I knew the Hernanes part was coming! In all fairness I have seen a bit more of him since we last talked about him and I agree he looks the real deal!
From the very little bit I have seen of Ganso, he is my kind of player elegant with an eye for a pass, I’d take him at Barca or Benfica please… not sure where he’d play at Barca though!
Steve, far be it from me to deny my unhealthy fixation on Hernanes but it really is indicative of something gone wrong when this guy is the only ball-playing holding midfielder (though he can also play as an interior) being produced by a country of 200 million people.
What does this say about Brazilian coaches and their prorities.
Re: Ganso and Neymar…promising, but let’s see them move gradually, ideally in the Dutch Eredivisie or the Portuguese Super Liga before even linking them with the elite clubs. Please bear in mind that they are running-up hockey scores against some lower-league regional teams who would probably equate to Portuguese second-division.
Roberticus,
So the real test you would say starts this weekend with the Brasileirao for Neymar and Ganso?
Also do you think with the recent success of Barca and Spain that if Dunga doesn’t deliver the trophy that we may see some more futebol de arte for the Seleccao?
Well, the Brasileirão is much more competitive and higher in technical quality than the ruinous and discredited state championships; but even so, it is still not a definitive indication of ‘confirmed’ talent. The players who leave it still require a year or two of gradual adaptation before we can deliver a verdict.
But yes, it would be a start. Remember though, the tactics are so different in Brazil. Plenty of time and space on the ball, acres of space between the various sectors, which are not very well bridged, predictable marking assignments , absolution from pressing duties for advanced midfielders and forwards etc. It’s hard to calibrate how exactly either of these two undoubtedly talented youngsters would progress in a different context.
I don’t wish to sound harsh or dismissive but another reason for the recent omnipresence of Neymar and Ganso in the media is to satiate the need of domestic Brazilian football fans for domestic players who really represent ‘them’ as opposed to their overseas stars who fairly or ufairly are often denounced as mercenaries.
Ramay, I’d just add this;
current São Paulo coach Ricardo Gomes has taken his experience from managing French sides like Monaco to apply a more ‘European’ approach to a Brazilian midfield. Which is not to say that he is playing a British-style 4-4-2 in straight lines; rather, he seeks a compromise between this Sacchian solidity and the Brazilian 2 + 2 division and the result is a Wenger-esque 4-4-2 in which the playmakers are stationed wide and licensed to cut-in diagonally, but must return to cover their wide areas when the team loses possession.
I think this represents the best possibility of marrying Brazilian 4-2-2-2 to modernity. Hell, you could even replace a volante with a passing player in the centre as long as he maintains defensive discipline.
This compromise made by Gomes is not only similar to Wenger and Pellegrini’s classic teams but also reflects the broader interpretation of 4-4-2 in some other South American countries. Ecuador and Paraguay for instance, and increasingly some Uruguayan and Argentine sides (as the enganche declines…)
As in the way Edu (or later Fabregas) partnered Viera/Gilberto when one of those was out injured?
No; Brazilian sides would never contemplate using a passer in such deep areas.
Ramay, thanks for the explanation of the Brazilian 4-2-2-2, especially about the two #10s. Very interesting.
This is about the question: one number 6 and one number 10 in the midfield or two number 8s? (or three). you can see it at Bayern with Schweinsteiger, this is a normal move in modern football and i think a good move. but when it comes to 4-2-3-1 there is always the threat of ‘we need a playmaker in the central position’ and that leads to destroyers in the defensive roles. it’s difficult to find players like Xavi if you look for the new playmaker. Sacchi and Michels must like the come-back of the Guardiola-esque players.
another point is the change of pace, with the consequences for box-to-box midfielders and keeping control in midfield with three or two midfielders.
ZM, for the next decade how big of a role will ball playing center backs have? Pique seems to be the progenitor of this new sweeper type but players like Badstuber and Thiago Silva also play something like this.
van Gaal wanted Ribery to play the central playmaker (no. 10) at the beginning of this season, but ribery declined. and then Bayern bought Robbern, i think that was a smart move (tactically).
something went wrong. this should have been an answer to: Roberticus on May 4, 2010 at 5:25 pm
about Ribery giving a playmaker at the WC.
I’m not entirely convinced of the merits of Ribery playing as mediapunta; in theory, he’s too much of a livewire to be channeling the play through himself, feeding others, not really a cerebral player for all his talents. But I guess the caveat with this particular selection is that Football France place Gourcuff at centre midfield; hence the organising and imaginative passing are legislated for, and so Ribery can be free to offer different qualities from the advanced role.
Personally, I would prefer Nasri in that role.
Ribery prefers the left wing. doesn’t he play on the right in the equipe?
and I agree, he is not a ‘cerebral player’ how you call it. i don’t know where van Gaal got that great idea from, but changed his mind and thats the point.
I would say that Bayern utilizes a “doppel sechs” or “double six” system in central midfield. Bayern lack a pure defensive/holding midfielder and have as a result had to adapt. Germany used the same system in 2006 with Ballack and Frings as the midfield pivots. Bayern can also afford to do that because their forwards (Olic and Mueller) play very deep and act as the playmakers so to speak. Their wide players, Robben and Ribery also cut inside constantly to create and run at defenders. Essentially, it is a 4-2-4.
yes i think that it is a 4-2-4 too. Olic and Mueller are doing a lot of the running that Ribery and Robben don’t like. the double six was a smart move and i think the best move they could have done (van Gaal was thinking about a midfield diamond before Robben joined Bayern). they have Tymoshchuk who could play a more defensive midfielder, but they don’t need him, because van Bommel and Schweinsteiger play very deep playmakers. maybe in a 4-3-3 with Kroos and Schweinsteiger in midfield Tymoshchuk gets his chance, but I think van Gaal prefers his captain van Bommel. for now the 4-4-2 is working great, and who knows what van Gaal will do next season.
i wouldn’t call Mueller a playmaker. i think the great thing about the Dutch 4-3-3 (and van Gaals 4-4-2) is that there is not the one playmaker. Mueller is doing some of the work, and the midfielders do other parts of the creativ work.
but it’s great to see that players like Tymoshchuk, Altintop, and Pranjic fill their roles and do the work if they have to and they don’t play that often.
Bayern can afford two rather passing-minded central midfielders because they rely on relentless closing in from this pair and Müller who’s the key for the whole Bayern system to work. It’s remarkable if you consider that he’s still 20 and was absolutely unknown just 8-9 months ago. But the amount of work Müller handles both defensively and offensively is vast: defensively, he creates a heavily pressing midfield triangle with Schweinsteiger and van Bommel (making Bayern’s system, by the way, 4-3-3 with a 2-1 split in the midfield in my opinion). Offensively, he makes intelligent off-the-ball runs and very often emerges in dangerous positions quite surprisingly for both the opponent back line and the crowd.
By the way, although it’s too early to tell because of his injuries and missing preparation with the rest of the team, Ribéry’s role on the pitch seems to be somewhat different from Robben’s. Whereas Robben is essentially a wide striker looking to score from a advantageous position, Ribéry links up and sets up more. I know they’re often compared because they’re both wrongfooted on their respective wing and neglectful defensively, but they’re simply not the same type of player. 15 years ago, for instance, Robben would have played on the left wing in a 4-4-2, whereas Ribéry would be a trequartista in a 3-4-1-2 or a 4-4-2 diamond. Which is where van Gaal wanted to put him at the beginning of his stint, seeing a lack of creativity in the midfield and an abundance of strikers.
The system Germany used in 2006 was more of a classic 4-4-2 line-up with two box-to-box central midfielders and two creative wide players (not wingers!). Unsurprisingly, as Klinsmann was heavily influenced by mid/late-nineties Premier League football tactically.
you gave a great summary of how Bayern plays this season and the important role of Thomas Mueller in this team.
It would be nice to know how van Gaal plans to bring in Toni Kroos. Will he play left wing? Will he replace Mueller? Or will he play in central midfield? Who will sit on the bench if Kroos is playing? Will we see tactical changes?
Van Gaal has called both Müller and Kroos number tens, so it would be natural to suggest that Kroos will be Müller’s direct replacement on the pitch. Against weaker opponents, a further truely creative player will definitely be of benefit. However, with Müller on the squad, the team is much more balanced and has a surprising element that is as of now quite difficult to react to.
In my opinion, such jobsharing is not necessary. Kroos is a natural replacement for van Bommel – some tough weeks of tactical drill and ‘pirloing’ provided. From what I hear, Kroos seems to have improved a lot defensively and if he continues to do so and learns his tasks during what van Gaal calls phase one (pressing in order to get control of the ball), he may become a second passing player (with obvious advantages as opposed to van Bommel).
The question is of course whether van Gaal continues to play with the same lineup or not. He may yet decide to drop the striker altogether and bring Kroos in for Olic. In case Ribéry leaves he may also adapt a lopsided formation and put Kroos in the hole behind Müller and a single striker, e. g. Olic or Gomez coming from the flank like Henry at Arsenal and Robben continuing to play as a genuine winger. Kroos’ return does open up a few tactical possibilities
Very good points about the different roles Ribery and Robben share. On paper it’s a 4-4-2 that in possession becomes a 4-2-4 but there is also a diagonal shift that occurs during the game.
What starts out like this
———–Olic——–Mueller———
Ribery—————————Robben
———–MvB—–Schweinsteiger——–
often turns into this as the game progresses and Bayern attacks. Olic moves wide left with Robben advancing up the right wing and Mueller staying centrally while Ribery drops a bit back.
—–Olic——–Mueller——–Robben—-
——Ribery—-MvB—-Schweinsteiger——-
[...] How the 2000s changed tactics #1: The fall and rise of the passing midfielder | Zonal Marking [...]
[...] How the 2000s changed tactics #1: The fall and rise of the passing midfielder “In 2004, Gabriele Marcotti wrote an article for The Times about Barcelona legend Pep Guardiola. It wasn’t a celebratory piece looking back at Guardiola’s fine career, nor remarking on his ability to defy the critics and keep playing at a high standard, like Paolo Maldini. It was about how, in 2004-spec football, Guardiola was useless. That is not to say that he had declined as a player. A physically unremarkable player, his domain was sitting front of his own defence and spraying passes across the pitch for his more illustrious teammates – Michael Laudrup, Hristo Stoichkov and Romario being amongst the biggest names to have benefited from his presence. When Marcotti wrote the article, at 33, Guardiola should have been at his peak.” (Zonal Marking) [...]
Why has the Real Madrid midfield been so poor this season? They seem to have the perfect blend of elements; Alonso (passer), Lassana Diarra (destroyer) and Kaka or Van Der Vaart (creator). Yet this area of the team has been very inconsistent. Also, Granero. Where des he fit into the dichotomy?
New to this site and loving it.
In my opinion its just a lack of team ethic. You can see the disjointed play whenever they’re on the pitch. With 11 prima donnas, its difficult to get a rhythm going. I’m exaggerating a little but you get the picture.
Well, to be frank the pressing isn’t what it should be. Granero, Xabi, Gago and Lass all put pressure on the opponents but Ronaldo, Higuaín, Kaká and in part Van der Vaart don’t. I think a midfield consisting of Xabi as deep-lying creator, Lass as a destroyer and Rafael Van der Vaart as a passer with Kaká ahead of them playing in a free position and Ronaldo and Higuaín would work out fine but Rafael and Kaká are never healthy at the same time.
Van der vaart?
I can’t tell if you’re kidding
look at the date
Well, first, Diarra hasn’t played much recently. It’s usually Gago who plays instead of him. I don’t really understand why actually, as he seems to be the ideal selfless destroyer to balance the primadonnas. Remember what happened to the Galacticos I when Makelele left…
The midfield problems at Madrid lie outside of the midfield, for the most part. Lass has been pouting and missing training for months, hence his exclusion, but the rest of the midfield looks fairly balanced. The problem is the front three are all very direct players, and only Van der Vaart has an eye for associative play.
Ronaldo and Higuain are especially guilty. They offer next to no hold-up play and almost always look to score individual goals. Rather than floating between the lines to assist the midfielders, they sit on the defenders shoulder and look to break with speed.
This leaves the midfielders isolated, and vulnerable to pressing. It also means the ball is lost more often, and the midfielders have to work to recover the ball.
What about players like Redondo who was at his peak during that period? Paolo Sousa, Paolo Bento, Baraja, Deco, Hargreaves (while at Bayern). Even the Czech side of 2004 which you have analysed in the 20 greatest sides of the decade section had Thomas Galasek in that position. Besides Xavi and Xabi Alonso emerged during the same period.
I think you have missed the point here. The position of the passing midfielder was never phased out instead it was supplemented by adding a dedicated Destroyer or Ball-winner alongside. It was more of a transition into the 3 man midfield where you have either 2DM and a creator or 1 DM and 2 creative players in midfield. In fact, this is the greatest departure for Guardiola from the Dream Team. In using Yaya Toure he has freed Xavi from much of his defensive duties and given him the freedom to roam across the pitch rather than hold fort in front of the defense.
If the No 10 position truly dies out then we might see that 3rd midfielder being converted into a dedicated Box-to-Box player like Keita or Kallstrom.
I read all of the above and wondered where was mention of Redondo, too, since, for me he was far superior to Guardiola in a very similar role. The Argentine Number 5 complicates the argument somewhat, I think, and Redondo is probably the greatest example – he was a destroyer, breaking up attacks, plying deep in midfield, but his primary function was creative. Not in the Pirlo “quarterback” sense, but by beginning attacks with short passes, very much in the mould of Guardiola, and advancing upfield in sequences of crisp pass and move interchanges.
Probably the most high profile Redondo disciple in modern football is Fernando Gago, but Real Madrid seem to distrust this element of his game, and he is more usually playing as either a destroyer or even box-to-box midfielder. Maybe its just that Redondo was an outstanding talent who could impose his own style on the game?
And what about Tugay at Blackburn ?
Yeah but Guardiola played way quicker than Redondo.You cannot just call him a passing midfielder,he was possibly the most intelligent man who made judgements in a snap.
And i feel Gago is too overrated and the only thing similar to Gago and Redondo is the hair.I believe the true Argentine no.5 these days is Ever Banega.
Perhaps the reason the fans didn’t take to Van Gaal was due to a simple lack of cultural fit. Van Gaal was quite un-Dutch-like in that he was a pragmatist. Unlike Cruyff who was an aesthete, Van Gaal put winning first and beauty second. Guardiola’s philosophy is more in keeping with Barcelona’s traditions.
But back to the article, which is very good IMHO. However, I can’t help wondering about the next tier down. The article cites Barca, Arsenal, Liverpool etc, but what about the likes of Stoke, Wolves and Blackburn? Is it unkind to say most of those teams pack their midfields with destroyers? I can think of the odd creator (Jimmy Bullard at Hull) and the odd box to box midfielder (Scott Parker at West Ham – who plays in a 4-4-2), but few with Guardiola like aspirations.
That observation of Van Gaal is exactly right. It explains why he had such a contentious relationship with the Catalan media and fans. In Spain we want beautiful football, as well as winning football. Winning matches 1-0 does not satisfy. Benitez was similarly criticized at Valencia despite his great run, even Capello was sent packing after winning La Liga at RM for similar reasons. This is why I don’t believe that Mourinho will ever be a good fit in La Liga.
Sic,
Perez wants Rafa Benitez for Madrid!
[...] ago: the passing midfielder, as exemplified by the player Pep Guardiola. How ironic, then, that Guardiola’s philosophy as coach exemplifies the destruction of the once regnant creator/#10-de…. Guardiola, deemed all but useless in 2004, probably still could be playing at age 38 today. (Zonal [...]
“Xavi and Iniesta also combined to make Spain the European Champions at international level”
It’s not that I want to argue, but …
Would they have won it without a “Makelele” in the person of Senna ? It’s not obvious. And for all their smooth passing skills, Barca often uses Toure as a more physical ball-winner.
Talking about Iniesta, he’s not only a passing midfielder. He’s got an outstanding dribble and can create space by himself with the ball.
Marcos Senna was the Makelele in the side. He did a great deal of ball-winning but remember Iniesta and Xavi provideda great deal of that pressure. That Euro 2008 team had no traditional holding player. Senna’s role was the Alonso role. They didn’t need a hodling player as they would dominate possesion, track back, and pressure faithfully. They did need a man to be the link between defense and attack and provide a safety outlet for Xavi and that was Senna. Busquets and Alonso will have this role at the World Cup. Depending on Iniesta and Fabregas’s health, they may be on the pitch simultaneously. It’s sad because Senna a superior option to both in every way.
Marcos Senna was not the Makelele in the side. He did a great deal of ball-winning but remember Iniesta and Xavi provided a great deal of that pressure. That Euro 2008 team had no traditional holding player. Senna’s role was the Alonso role. They didn’t need a hodling player as along as they would dominate possesion, track back, and pressure faithfully. They did need a man to be the link between defense and attack and provide a safety outlet for Xavi and that was Senna. Busquets and Alonso will have this role at the World Cup. Depending on Iniesta and Fabregas’s health, they may be on the pitch simultaneously. It’s sad because Senna is a superior option to both in every way.
The question is whether the next step is to abandon the sole holding midfielder altogether? Van Gaal, for instance, does without such a player in his midfield three: Schweinsteiger and van Bommel are both passers, and Müller is a false nine. Schweinsteiger does drop deep, but he’s definitely not the Makalele-role player, rather a version of the modern sweeper. Van Bommel, though tagged a holding player in this article, has been playing too high up the pitch this season (also because he is rather slow and a liability too close to own box) and has been mainly employed in the build-up work (actually he’s the one who tries through balls most frequently). Next season he will quite probably give way to Kroos, a player I expect van Gaal to try to ‘pirlo’ (nice creation by the way
).
Bayern’s instability has been pointed out quite often this season, but it’s not like van Gaal had no other options – Tymoshchuk is a classic holding player but has been sitting on the bench since van Bommel came on from injury and has only been used in specific situations. Any other manager would have opted for two typical holding players to cover up for Ribéry and Robben who do not always track back, or at least a Gattuso-type player to stitch the holes on the flanks (a role Tymoshchuk could also have easily played).
Germany will be playing without a holding midfielder this summer, copying Bayern’s midfield three and replacing van Bommel with Ballack and Müller with a rather conventional no. 10 Özil. It’s also due to the lack of holding players (even if Rolfes was available – he’s actually a similar player type), but again, the obvious choice would be to push Ballack higher up the pitch and insert a third defensive midfielder.
Same with Barcelona. OK, Busquets is quite decent defensively, but any other manager would have gone for the athleticism of Touré or Keita in that role against Internazionale (as Guardiola did last season). There may of course be other reasons that I am not aware of, I do not follow Barcelona’s injury list too closely.
So my question would be, I guess, does the rise of the passing midfielder beacon the fall of the holding midfielder, at least at top level?
how Germany will play this WC is the question, against Argentina the connection between the passing players and the playmaker did not work that great. But they have the time to improve, or Oezil plays on the wing and Mueller or Cacau as a second forward.
But at the Bundesliga you can see a lot of teams playing a 4-2-3-1, like Bremen, Dortmund, Mainz (and Bayern is someting between 4-4-2, 4-2-4, and 4-2-3-1), but they all have a different style. It’s not all about the formation, the line-up, it’s about the connection of the players and the idea behind the philosophy.
I think one problem of Real is what Caracoleo mentioned: ‘They seem to have the perfect blend of elements; Alonso (passer), Lassana Diarra (destroyer) and Kaka or Van Der Vaart (creator)’
sometimes this strict differentiation between this roles is a disadvantage. the players don’t think about what ‘we’ have to do, they think about what ‘I’ have to do. the destroyer has his work, and the creator has other work to do. no one feels responsible.
“against Argentina the connection between the passing players and the playmaker did not work that great”
Which was largely due to Özil being marked out of the play and rather overawed. This is of course a problem you get if you rely on a central midfielder to create. Özil at the top of a midfield triangle isn’t exactly the bees’ knees for Germany, it’s a nice idea to put him on the right wing where he has considerably more space and less defensive duties and from where he can contribute with clever passing. Cacau as World Cup starter simply won’t happen, though.
Many of the sides you see in the Bundesliga (or other European top level championships, for that matter) employ a holding/passing midfielder pair and this seems to be the mainstream for now. In the future however, the mere holding player may turn out to be as much a luxury and a handicap as a second striker.
Isn’t Van Gaal simply playing a Wenger/Pelegriniesque 442 (4222)?
Schweinsteiger = Gilberto/Parlour
Van Bommel = Veira/Edu
Ribery = Pires
Robben = Ljungberg
Mueller = Bergkamp
Mueller rather than being a false-9 is simply playing as a 10 like Bergkamp dropping deep into the midfield. Obviously Robben isn’t a straight swap with Ljungberg but everyone else seems to be playing quite close to these roles.
Interesting comparison. I don’t think so though. Schweinsteiger and MvB don’t really have individually specialized roles as Gilberto/Parlour and Viera/Edu had. Both share essentially the same duties, hence the “double six” to describe their system. In such a partnership, both players have to be able to defend as well as they go forward, which with these two isn’t prolific, but very effective because they are overall very balanced players.
Also, there really is no spearhead like Henry on the team. Instead, Mueller and Olic interchange and act as very mobile strikers. Roma and United have both used one of these types of strikers in their systems before but I’ve never really seen two used as a striking partnership. It also explains why Bayern are so good at pressuring opponents though this season. When the opposition wins the ball back and advances, Bayern will always have all 11 behind the ball to defend and win it back. But because there is no target man up front they have to build play together and pass it amongst themselves. Bayern used long balls way too often before LvG but in his new system it occurs very rarely.
Far too rarely if you consider that one of the reasons to move Lahm on the right wing was to make him able to cross with his strong foot. Having a wrong-sided cutting-in winger and a crossing fullback makes Bayern’s offence even less predictable on paper, but in reality, Robben never passes to Lahm once he cuts in.
Also, one of Gomez’ problems at Bayern is that he needs to be feeded with crosses or dangerous through balls which nobody in the current line-up can produce regularly (a rare van Bommel effort apart). Not to use a talent of his quality is wasteful. Maybe that will change once Kroos returns and Ribéry is blended in somewhat better as he’s not quite as egoistic as Robben, though that will depend on the future left-back as well.
The problem with long balls before LvG was not their frequency but their quality. During the Ballack era, especially 2004-06, Bayern relied on crosses heavily, but they also had the players to do so: Sagnol was an excellent crosser and Ballack, once going forward, was very difficult to mark. As soon as Ballack left and Sagnol got injured, the whole system fell apart because it lacked both truely creative players (apart from Deisler and Scholl who were both at the dawn of their careers) and intelligent link-up play. At its height, however, the system was ruthlessly efficient. Maybe not as fun to watch, but in no way tactically inferior.
Re Schweinsteiger and van Bommel: they are somewhat individually specialised. Van Bommel plays much higher up the pitch (maybe because he lacks dynamic at this stage) and Schweinsteiger drops very deep during the build-up and acts as a sweeper.
Lahm was switched to the right because he demanded to play there for years now. He was originally a RB but was made into a LB out of neccessity, first at Stuttgart, then at Bayern and the NT. He is both footed and can cross well with either foot to be honest. One of the few players that can play equally well on both sides.
Gomez’s problem at Bayern is simple as far as I’m concerned. At Stuttgart, the entire attack was pretty much constructed around him. The rest of the team was instructed to support, create and pretty much cater to Gomez. At Bayern, the system is much more fluid, less dependent or focused on one target. That type of system requires a mobile striker capable of dropping back and link up with his team mates. Not being used to that kind of system, Gomez naturally found it difficult at Bayern. That’s not to say he can’t adapt eventually.
You’re right about Sagnol of course. He was a phenomenal crosser of the ball and Ballack was one of the best headers in the game. It did limit the team though and when that plan didn’t work, there was not much else. It became too easy to predict and wasn’t sustainable. LvG made the team a lot more multi dimensional in its approach. The ability to adapt mid game and change shape circumstantially is what Bayern have been lacking for years.
the passing midfielder has always been around they are just expected to do more. for instance players like modric, lampard, fabregas, carrick and alonso are typically multi functional and are expected either to score goals or to help with the defense. the simple fact is these players can pass and can do more which makes them better.
in the continent in can be argued that the typical creator destroyer pairing is still there. for instance alot of italian and spanish teams play a 4231 with the 2 played being essentially more defensive in nature, the players in the three making up the creative slack and the striker being the scorer/hold up player.
at the highest level though the formation system is more important for defense then anything else, for instance at lets say chelsea, barce or manU the teams i think play the biggest pressing style around the majority of players have a defined role in defense, in attack every band moves up and limits space, not only making it easier to win back lost balls but giving passing options. The change over from defense to attack makes people think there are set formations in attack but lets say a team has major possession and has flexible players what happens is that the midfielders are suddenly on the wings, the strikers further back then some wingers and the defensive midfielders in the thick of it, it all becomes an exercise in breaking through and constant movement, the only time a formation really clicks together is defense and that change from defense to attack.
barce isnt the be all and end all, yes they are good but they are not amazing, against teams that press and play for the counter they can be nullified, chelsea and inter have both shown how to beat them, yes you could try to outplay them but the problem is they have fast players that transition to counterattack very well, people seem to forget just how good barce are on the break they arent exactly just a possession team.
wahelarimy…
< a href=http://omyloquhapyve.blogspot.com/>Bob Clark< / a >…
It’s also interesting to note the two kinds of ‘destroyers’ you can have in a three-man central midfield, one who plays in between and slightly in front of the centre backs, and one who plays slightly wider and harries further up the pitch – you’d never play Gattuso in the Makelele position, because they’re entirely different types of player.
I always find it unfair when I see John Obi Mikel compared unfavourably to Michael Essien, and when calls are made for Essien to play in Mikel’s position – he’s done that a few times but I don’t think it’s the ideal role for him.
Coming back to the question of passing midfielders, I think the Makelele role has gone out of favour because Makelele was something of a one-off: there isn’t anyone as good as him in as limited a fashion going around. For a couple of seasons, you had managers trying to find a Makelele and failing, and then reverting to other tactics – such as the deployment of deep-lying playmakers – and so, the refreshing phenomenon of players like Modric and Schweinsteiger playing deep in central midfield.
As for Paul Scholes – he’s redefined himself so many times. He was converted from striker to box-to-box midfielder, and then played a couple of seasons behind Ruud Van Nistelrooy, and back to midfield after the arrival of Wayne Rooney, going deeper as he became older. He’s adapted to all these roles quite successfully too.
Very good point KK:
some defensive midfeilders are not really holding mids at all, or to use ZM’s classical terminology they are not ‘centre-halves’. People like Gattuso, Hargreaves and Essien tend to run more loosely, are less of a pivot or reference point, and intercept opponents at an earlier stage of transition as opposed to holding back and plugging gaps.
[...] The fall and rise of the passing midfielder [Zonal Marking] [...]
great article. not sure about all the praise for the ‘new’ offside law though. i’m still sickened by the thought of van nistelrooy standing in a completely offside position while robben makes a run from deep and crosses for him to tap in.
i accept the advantage that it forces defences back, and this has brought guardiola-esque players back into the game, but has it not also encouraged defences to play so deep that it rewards teams for camping in front of their own goal-line, hoping to score solely from a set-piece or an opposition mistake?
Fantastic read as usual ZM. I would also add that Fernando Redondo was as much a victim of this as Guardiola, granted one Florentino Perez and a troublesome knee ended his days. Chronically undervalued by the press but perhaps the most elegant midfielder of his generation. Its great to once again see talented players the likes of Rijkaard, Guardiola, Albertini, Boban and Redondo being in vogue to the brutish Makelele clones.
Indeed, although I wouldn’t say he was as much of a victim of it as Guardiola – surely it was the knee injury alone that finished Redondo?
Had he not suffered that things might not have gone so smoothly for Andrea Pirlo.
[...] The phoenix of the 00’s: the passing mid. (Zonal Marking) [...]
[...] The phoenix of the 00’s: the passing mid. (Zonal Marking) [...]
[...] The phoenix of the 00’s: the passing mid. (Zonal Marking) [...]
[...] The phoenix of the 00’s: the passing mid. (Zonal Marking) [...]
good article, but one aspect got neglected: IMO the new rules respectively the change of ratings for a foul played also a major role and favors distinctly the technical or passing player. The opportiunities a “tough” destroyer has for “his type of play” are very limited today hence in a way it is a dying breed. No referee would have shown a yellow card for tackling from behind or even a foul like Ribery’s against Lyon 8 years ago. Now you get sent off, therefore all (and I underline “all”) players had to develop more technical and passing skills to be successful and competitive as a player and a team.
[...] The phoenix of the 00’s: the passing mid. (Zonal Marking) [...]
[...] excellent article from Zonal Marking on the fall and rise of the passing midfielder made me have thoughts on the rise and fall of [...]
like your article a lot,i only think you are just too pro barcelona and guardiola…you should try and be more in the middle
The article was based on a piece about Guardiola, so it would be hard not to talk about Guardiola.
Not pro-Barcelona at all.
this may be a bit out of the box, but i think as football evolves, the defenders and attackers positions on the pitch might be inverted. This sounds logical as its better to stop an attack before it builds. the defenders today dont have the composure to remain calm under pressure and might make mistakes.
But to do this might mean to invert the inverted pyramid again. to have great passers at the back more technically skilled players in the middle to go through defenses. Just a thought it might not be such an absolute change in tactics but i already see that happening these days
That is the most far-fetched idea anyone has ever voiced on this blog. It is also utterly ridiculous.
I can certainly see universality, but the switching of roles might seem a little bit too far.
That said, we’ve seen ‘defensive’ attacking midfielders to contain deep-lying playmakers (Park on Pirlo this season) and ‘defensive’ wingers to contain attacking full-backs (Dirk Kuyt on whoever), so you never know…
[...] The phoenix of the 00’s: the passing mid. (Zonal Marking) [...]
Brilliant.this is the best article I have ever read in my life,I enjoyed every letter of it.
Zonal Marking:its obvious that evry generation the style of football and the formations change and even the style of players change,do you think that in the next 10 years we will see bck the tactics of 1980s and something like that or what and even will we see back the sweeper back in football for most of Europian Teams.Football needs always something new but most formations have been covered so will we see another generation of the 1970s and 1980s in the next few years?
[...] How the 2000s changed tactics #1: The fall and rise of the passing … [...]
wonderful article. Truly.
For a preview of the Europa League final between Atletico Madrid and Fulham and the significance it has for the Spanish side check here
http://wp.me/pULW5-4
http://footballis.wordpress.com/
[...] How the 2000s changed tactics #1: The fall and rise of the passing … [...]
[...] Hοw thе 2000s changed tactics #1: Thе fall аnԁ rise οf thе passing … [...]
A question I’ve always had is: How was Guardiola’s game different from Falcão’s? I’m not old enough to have watched the latter play live, but from the few tapes and clips I’ve seen, they seem similar in style and positioning. Can someone with the experience elaborate please?
Read all 100 or so of these responses, some great pieces. Keep it up guys!
Hello! egadedg interesting egadedg site!
I agree that the deep lying play maker has come back into fashion, although I don’t recognise the characterisation of Inesta as such a player, but do not see this as a true revolution of footballing tactics. I would argue that all that has happened is that with 4-4-4-2 being replaced by 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 as the hegemonic formation, the ‘creative’ players have shuffled back a little. There certainly isn’t more passing or more passing players.
As for Guardiola, he had a lot of knee injuries, lots of time out of football effects your form independent of whether you rely on physical gifts.
When Sacchi became Direcor of Football at Real Madrid he complained that the players were all ‘role players’ So Makalele was the destroyer and pure defender to accomodate for the attacking talents of Zidane. The problem with such formations, accoridng to Sacchi, is that it guarentees rigidity.
If players are unable to swap positions and perform different roles, ala his Dutch inspired Milan sides, they are unable to truly support each other. Defences can simply deny the space to the ‘creators’ by not having to worry about ‘the destroyers.’ (Liverpool had many inspipid performances when Alonso was man marked, they were also a lot better with Agger in the side who often acts as a secondary creative source)
I talk about Liverpool because you rightly point out that the 08/09 midfield was the quintissential late noughties midfield 3. The destroyer (Mascherano) , the deep lying playmaker (Alonso) and the No.10 (Gerrard). This pattern was typical across top European sides; Gatusso, Pirlo, Kaka spring to mind immedietly. However we see that the principle of clearly defined roles has not changed at all since the Destroyer/Creator duos of the early noughties that you speak of. The change is between 2 up front/ 2 centre mids and 1 up front/3 centre mids.
The rise of the deeplying playmaker has come about simply by players that would formerly been withdrawn forwards (say Bergkamp at Arsenal or Del Piero at Juve) now bening talked about as number 10s. The ‘creative’ one of the two has pushed back a little bit in conjunction to this; Pirlo and Scholes being examples of players who’s personal position has changed in accordance with this macro trend.
Most sides still play with a striker, with a creative player just in behind them. Supported by a destroyer who lines up along side a deeper creative player. Where is the big revolution? There is none- still the same specialist roles (and same ratio of creative to destructive specialists) but with doubled layered midfields.
Why is this? I quite like Jonathan Wilson’s explanation about the liberalisation of the offside law making the pitch bigger and in doing so making double layered midfields necessary.
Someone earlier talked about the death of players that are 7/10 at everything as oppossed to 9/10 at some and poor at others. Arsene Wengeris one of the few top managers that has an affinity with such players. He is willing to live with Vermelean’s relative lack of height because he can bring the ball out of defence, simarly he doesn’t mind Song’s relative lack of bite because he is technically excellent for def mid. These are multi functional players that contribute to Arsenal’s fluid style.
Capello is another, being from the Milan school it is no wonder he has no interest in utilising a purely destructive holding player for England as the media are currently imploring him to do.
This is the antithesis of someone like Benitiez who is obsessed with role players. The absurd culmination of which is Dirk Kuyt playing on the wing for a club as illustrious as Liverpool because he has the stamina of a tour de france general classification rider.
I for one would like to see the Wengers and Capellos of this world have plenty of success. Football is so much more interesting when you don’t know where a goal is going to come from and who could provide the spark that lifts a side. With that Liverpool side, as brilliant as the midfield 3 was, it was always utterly predictable who’s success the team would live and die by.
We have begun to see with Barcelona a slight movement away from specialists. Pique brings the ball out of defence, Yaya Toure has all but been done away with in favour of the more versitile Busquets, Etoo replaced by a player who can contribute to build up and most significantly for this duscussion Xavi being asked to do more than supply quality passes for the ‘further forward creative’ players; he is expected to work on the edge of the box and occasionally get into the space vacted by a deeper lying Zlatan. We see then Xavi is more than a deep lying playmaker, he is multi functional.
Barcelona have been glorious this season precisely because they are moving away from the specialisation that dogged football over the past decade. Here is to hoping it is the beginings of a true football revolution.
[...] read about that. In general that site is amazing for comprehensive articles about games/teams/etc. How the 2000s changed tactics #1: The fall and rise of the passing midfielder | Zonal Marking Teams of the Decade #2: Barcelona, 2008/09 | Zonal Marking Barcelona 2009/10: fewer trophies, [...]
I remember reading the “fall and rise” article previously, but reading this piece just really brings it home, technical qualities will always be so important in football, it epitomizes the art of football, and its amazing that he himself said “players like me have become extinct” and now look!
Pep can leave Barca with his head held high, he has achieved so much in little time, and people may remember him for instilling brilliant football, total-football-esque play, pass move pass move attacking variations, but he should be applauded for adding a work ethic/ethos to a team that always has produced great football going forward, but his ethos made the team work hard to retrieve the ball, relentless pressing from the whole team, he should be proud of his players implementing on the field the ability and drive to almost “value the football”.
It wouldn’t surprise me if one day he returned to Barcelona.
I agree wholeheartedly, particularly with your last sentence. In my opinion the professional intensity of Guardiola cannot be underestimated, Barcelona players already had great technique and he sharpened and honed that, but the key thing for me was the organisation and work rate OFF the ball. That pressing style was incredible, one of the most delightful sights I have ever witnessed in watching football, something which I believe can only be equally, never bettered.
Foreign teams have been praised historically for having great technique. The thing to me which makes technique so effective is decision-making, patience and an atmosphere of calm in the team.Traditionally British football has a never-say-die attitude, great work rate and perhaps questionable temperemant and level-headedness. European football admired the work ethic and spirit of British teams but were puzzled concerning their lack of ability to think in game and judge situations.
Pep must be praised for unifying the best principles of both these groups and creating a spectacular team in the process. Few teams in history have had such gifted players work so hard, Lippi’s Juventus team of the late 90’s springs to mind, but few others.
Funny, that Guardiola’s obsession with central midfielders, along with his obsession for 3-man-defences, cost him the league and the CL this year.
I loved these articles, great work. Now Pep: On to Tottenham! (please)
Where do you see Barcelona going from here? One might ask: is Tito Vilanova likely to try and implement the same playing style which has brought them such success? Almost certainly.
But, does that mean returning to first principles? I.e. Barcelona of the last couple of years with a 4-3-3 mixing an obsession with keeping the ball and 3 attackers who offer incisive runs and clinical finishing. Or will he recognise that perhaps Barcelona do need to adapt, as Guardiola was trying (ultimately unsuccessfully) to do – with an even greater emphasis on keeping the ball and trying to fit as many central midfielders into the team as possible, holding them out as the most intelligent and adaptable type of player?
I think it’ll be fascinating to see.
Tito should play 4-4-3 like the one in 10/11 season.
Pep, like the last two years of Rijkaard, has completely ruined Barca’s season by frequently playing 3-4-3 regardless of opponents’ shape , as everyone knows that 3-4-3 is only effective against 4-4-2.
I think 4-4-3 may be cheating?
HaHa very funny
@Clarece, we get it dude… 3-4-3 is only good against 4-4-2, you don’t need to mention it a million times on the same website!
And for the record, just look at Napoli who can beat just about anybody, in any system using their 3-4-3.
Guardiola’s resigned?! May he enjoy his rest and may he return refreshed.
May Tito learn from Guardiola’s mistakes and do things differently when things don’t work.
what is this non-sense i hear lately of Barcelona’s “mistakes”?
they had poor-finishings in the last 3 o 4 games (some call it bad luck) and the lack of a proper striker (Villa’s injured was huge) and Messi reached the final part of the season a bit tired; however they dominated every match and deserved to win most of the games they played.
See ZM’s previous post and comments.
Barca lost three matches in a row in almost the same way – against a parked bus. Guardiola did not make any significant tactical moves to address the problems. Tried and true ways of overcoming a successfully parked bus were not tried.
Also, the team did not play as well as last year, which by itself is normal – no big deal, but significantly nearly every player had a worse year than last year. This is not all due to tactics of course, but there could have been tactical adjustments to help mitigate the situation. There weren’t any.
Most importantly, the team did not do their bread-and-butter, which is passing, as well as last year. When you’re not doing what you do best as well as before, it’s time to re-group, become tactically a little more conservative, letting the accompanying familiarity give players both mental and physical rest, and then go forward. Instead, Guardiola kept on pushing the avant-garde envelope.
if Barca wants to keep winning they have to keep playing exactly the way they’been doing this last 4 years, games like the ones vs Chelsea are accidents, they were in control of the match the whole time.
Hold on, 3 lost games in a row? I know they were kicked out of the CL, but the home tie was not a loss. And they had won 10 games in a row before the fist Chelsea tie.
The team is tired, injured, and drained. And even still, they were just a few better finishes away from being 1 point behind Madrid and in the CL final. There’s no need to completely revamp the team when so much works great. And lets not forget how disjointed Barca became when they tried to incorporate a slow, strong, and tall forward into the lineup. And it didn’t even help vs. the packed defenses!
yeah but that still does NOT justify changing the system entirely by Barca or merit saying that Guardiola made mistakes or that those ‘mistake’s cost Barca the league and CL. Hardly.
the Guardiola way has seen Barca achieve levels of success no other modern team has achieved in a similar span of time, and playing breathtaking football. Just because he didn’t win last 3 matches hardly negates everything that happened prior.
on any other day, chelsea would probably not convert 3 chances out of 3, and Barca miss hoards of clear cut chances, a penalty, and lose at Camp Nou to Madrid (Mourinho won only once against Pep during the previous 10 encounters).
So Pep was more than justified in not trying any other method and sticking to his usual, albeit with minor changes here and there. And his 3-4-3 won more than it lost, and was praised for its tactical bravery when it won.
You can’t have the cake and eat it. And you can’t win all the time, irrespective of system. One great thing about Barca always is that they are true to their footballing philosophy, in good times and bad times, something which is precious and rare.
Guardiola has been brilliant but he it was fair to resign. He seemed prone to sacrifising his football philosophy when needed and therefore failed. Tactically brilliant and truly a coach of pure greatness when it comes to producing fascinating football. Yet, too unwilling to become more flexible and try alternatives rather than the standard Barca model.
I’m not sure I agree with that. If anything, we was too willing to experiment with the 4-3-3 system that had brought them such success in the past couple of seasons.
His first season, they played with a front three of Messi, Eto’o and Henry and they won the treble. The next season, Ibrahimovic was introduced and they became less fluid and were knocked out by Inter, looking too narrow and predictable in the CL semi-final. In his third season, despite not winning as much as in the first year, they were probably at their best. They mixed complete dominance of possession with a solid defence and a fluid front 3, with Messi dropping off to create space and make chances and Villa and Pedro capable of cutting inside and making runs in behind. All 3 are clinical finishers, so they combined penetration and ruthlessness. And they managed that whilst completely controlling the game.
This season, Pep has recognised that they need to adapt to continue to be successful but has possibly tried to adapt too much. The 3-4-3 worked at times, but was completely exposed against Real Madrid and struggled against Chelsea – it’s not any more attacking, but perhaps just allows for their attackers to be less effectively spaced. Pep’s tried to cram more central midfielders into the team, to control games to an even greater extent, to the detriment of the ruthless streak provided by their front 3 last season. Fabregas made up for that at the start of the season, but has gone off the boil – and, as ZM noted, has become less direct as the season has gone on (robbing him of much of his individual brilliance and usefulness to the Barca squad.) It doesn’t help either that Villa has been injured, Pedro has been off-form and Xavi and Puyol aren’t capable of playing as often as they were before.
The two years in which they won the CL in particular saw them do it with the more incisive, fluid front 3. Whilst Guardiola is clearly keen on passsing midfielders, superb finishers have clearly been a huge part of Barcelona’s success as well. If they’re less ruthless, they’re less likely to win games. Guardiola may be culpable for trying to change that too quickly.
It’ll be interesting to see if Vilanova goes back to first principles or tries to continue this change which Guardiola was trying to implement.
3-4-3 can only be used against a 4-4-2, nothing else. As ZM mentions, using a 3 man defence is outdated
“As ZM mentions, using a 3 man defence is outdated”
Where? In fact, if anything, ZM’s recent articles and reviews (Napoli, Juventus, Barcelona) have suggested that a 3(+1 see: Busquets in the December Clasico) system can be very effective if used properly. There’s no exclusivity when it comes to tactical formations; execution is just as, if not more, important. The game is always evolving.
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/24/three-man-defence-in-football-soccer/
The 3-4-3 adaptation was designed to achieve even more possession and midfield domination. This was done for many reasons, presumably one of which was a desire to give the opposition even fewer possession and attacking chances.
There was nothing wrong with the idea. As you say, it worked at times. The problem was that when it didn’t work, instead of changing tack, Barca stuck with it.
I agree that Tito needs to go back to first principles in that they have to go back to a 4-3-3 or something similar now, until they settle down and get out of their current discoordination. Once they get back in rhythm, then they can start using the 3-4-3 again, when appropriate, that is, not against a parked bus.
That’s exactly my point. Only I believe that Vilanova will try to invent 2 separate game plans instead of an old-style one. The first will clearly be a classic Guardiola formation and tactics while the other will be the game plan Barca needs right now. Probably something like a 4-1-4-1 that would offer a clearly more classic wing-play to stretch the game, more direct football, more attacking drive from the midfield (so they can exploit the space Messi creates), retains the claccic 3-man midfield (with Busquets as the deepest to drop between centre-backs) and of course a better covering for the full-backs (maybe Brca should get new players who can utilize those deeper winger roles).
Experimenting on a particular formation is one thing. But experimenting on the same patterns is pretty much altering the same brand of football. Guardiola took Barca’s methodical passing game as a standard at every new game plan. Why didn’t he try to change that or at least decrease it when it clearly didn’t work? Not to take away from this kind of football’s brilliance, but when it just couldn’t work Guardiola didn’t change it. Maybe it was just the lack of some certain types of players that could offer that flexibility. Still-Guardiola should have predicted that at the beginning and get that players that he needed. Successful and beautiful but Barca’s game plan all these 4 four seasons hasn’t changed enough and time (along with the development of the opponents) got the better of it and Guardiola himself.
[...] ghosting a bio of a leading English international. Twat. A far more fitting tribute comes from Michael Cox, who writes about Pep and the fall and rise of the passing midfielder. It’s an old post but [...]
I think Abidal having his desperately unfortunate illness has had a far more profound effect on the balance of this Barca side than people realize.
Agreed access to regular leftback would have helped Barca this year, but Pep finished last season with Piquet at left back. He knew he might need another leftback and bought Fabregas instead.
Don’t think 3-4-3 was just an expedient move forced on Pep due to Abidal’s unavailability.
It was his plan for this year all along.
I am an American and use to watch and coach American Football(throwball). The reason I love Barcelona is that I was tired of seeing Athletes with size dominate sports. Barcelona under Guardiola proved that skill and teamwork out does pace and size. that is what makes the sport great is the different styles and size of players that can compete. So football gives you preference of the style you love but at least you get a choice. In the USA American football or basketball does not give you a choice. You have to be over six feet and a super athlete. Than you Pep
You should try watching Rugby Union (not Rugby league). Since professionalism all the players have got bigger and you do get some physical freaks but generally it’s a game where players off all sizes and shapes can flourish, irrespective of size. It still has its share of players overlooked because of their lack of size but on the whole I can’t think of another sport with such a variety of shapes and sizes (although 15 players a side does help).
Very sad to see Pep go!
Suspect last year left him with a sense of “what do I do now to improve this side?”
Sadly he decided “I know, let’s resurect Cruyff’s 3-4-3″
Still believe the biggest problem was his Barca got so good at retaining the ball that other sides (even the very good ones) just gave up and parked too many busses.
Barca need to reintroduce an element or risk into their game. You must give the opponent a glimer of hope, if you want them to open up to you.
Herbert Chapman said “A side can attack for too long”
Pep’s obsession with 3-4-3 pretty much ruined this season. He introduced some really good tactical innovations at his tenure, such as the false nine and the third passing man in defence, and we thank him for all those great memories in the last three years.
Barca needs to move on from now, i believe Tito will revert back to our fundamentals, 4-3-3 with clinical finishers, with less midfielders. Pretty much like the ‘08-’09 season, when we won all 6 trophies we competed for.
If Tito uses the formation that Barca used against Madrid in Copa Del Rey, the whole team will be better off.
3-4-3 is only effective against a 4-4-2, there is nothing more than that
Agreed. I think a mixture of things has made 3-4-3 not as effective. Abidal not being avaialable, Puyol injury and Pique, not sure what is going on there. Messi looks like he is out of ideas as the defence is static because no one is selflessy moving in a threatening way in order to give the defence problems of who to track, where to cover, who to mark. 4-3-3 with Busquets meant you can go 3-4-3 but with Abidal, the defence just seemed alot stronger in either formation.
Barca need a few more players and i don’t think the system needs to change much. Mostly defensive players. Only Alves i would argue is the only player I’d count on throughout the season. Others are injury prone/ will depend on the system if they are effective (Adriano). There needs to be a physical centreback who enjoys the duels against physical strikers. Abidal type player, equally good on the left and at centreback is also needed. Midfield is fine, no lack of quality and depth here, just need them to play near their best most of the time. Attack, probably the hardest to get right. Messi neeeds to play a few less, less important games. Give Tello, Cuenca, and Sanchez time to mature and get used to playing against the tougher teams as they all bring something different to the table. Pedro and Villa need competition, score or you get benched!
Between this and the Don Draper/Pep essay — http://twelvepointsports.blogspot.com/2012/01/pep-guardiola-mad-man.html — I think all bases are covered.
I used to be recommended this web site via my cousin.
I’m no longer certain whether this post is written by means of him as no one else recognize such detailed approximately my difficulty. You’re wonderful! Thanks!
bah… knee jerkers!
“pep ruins barca!”
“stick to 433!”
“get a Carroll/Downing combo!”
“less possession!”
In the 2nd half of 2011/12 barca beat real at the barnebeu, santos at Japan, Milan in two legs, won 10 straight Liga matches with 343/3412/3133 etc. etc.
the only mistake that Pep made was being *too* successful
Anyways, teh above article was one of my favorites from this site -and some good responses too. Good luck pep, hope to see you again (in football, not my favorite pub!).
Haha. Yes, this sums up everything I feel about this too.
It is logical for Barca to use 3-4-3/3-3-4 against Santos and Milan, as Santos plays a 3-5-2 and Milan uses the 4-4-2 diamond. Nevertheless it is suicidal to use 3-4-3 against the modern formations(4-2-3-1/4-3-3) with only with a lone center forward. Barca’s atrocious performances at the first half, namely against Valencia and Sevilla, have completely shown the weaknesses of 3-4-3, not to mention the disastrous results against Madrid and Chelsea.
P.S. Barca has clearly played a 4-3-3 against Madrid in Bernabeu this year.
Barça throttled Madrid 3-1 in December’s El Clásico at the Bernabeu after switching to a 3-man defence against Madrid’s 4-2-3-1.
It is the only occasion that 343 has worked well against a lome striker formatioj.
And it worked despite not keeping a spare man in defence, because Puyol played unreal in that game, not giving Ronaldo an inch of space. And don’t forget Abidal’s efforts to shut down the other wing.
With Abidal gone (no need to talk about Adriano’s defending abilities) and Pique on the bench, it was always going to be a gamble to play without the spare man against Real’s 4-2-3-1. Ronaldo’s goal was a direct consequence of the space on Adriano’s side, and lack of defensive cover to defend the through ball.
I think the thing about Guardiola is that the job has simply worn him down mentally. The man won six trophies in his first season as manager… it is practically impossible to match that level of success every year. Failing to meet those expectations will result in a lot of negativity in the media. Conceding the league to Madrid and bowing out to Chelsea in the CL semifinals is a sour way to conclude the campaign but I expect Barca to give an extremely motivated performance in the Copa del Rey final.
Guardiola’s influence on Barcelona’s philosophy will continue to reverberate throughout the organization as a whole. I can’t imagine any radical changes from a tactical standpoint with Vilanova as manager.
Guardiola won every trophy imaginable at the helm; why bother staying another season just to absorb 12 months of bad press and the pressure that follows?
A historic encounter against Bielsa.. What a great way to end his 4-year spell at Barcelona