Half way through: an analysis

[MCdread]

The first round is over, and half of the teams are now back home. Overall this tournament hasn't been marked by great tactical developments or great football. There have been great games, but I think we've seen better tournaments before. Tactically, the most important thing to notice imo is the inversion in the tendency of 3 defenders. The 4 defenders rule supreme in this Euro, even Germany has now surrendered to it (although the outcome of this Euro may call for a eturn to the good old 3-5-2 that brought them unparaleled glory in Europe). The same with Italy, another long time user of the 3-5-2 that becomes a 5-3-2 when they loose ball possession.

The first week was marked by the heat with temperatures never coming down from 30 ºC every day. Perhaps that also played a part in a slight increase of game speed we've seen in the more recent games, although normally that should be atributed to the fact that it was decision time. All the teams have looked vey well prepared from the physical point of view, so there have been many balanced games particulary in the beggining, when everyone was still fresh. That meant that early on the games were dull. Goals and ruptures were only happening when someone made a mistake. A positive feature though was that generally, teams that played to save a score and not attacking much were penalised for that (eg, England against France, Italy against Sweden, Spain against Portugal), but nothing says that will be a rule in the future.

A brief best and worst of each team now follows:

Portugal: Portugal messed up completely in the opening game, which may have been for the best, because it forced Scolari to look better and choose a much better line-up in the following games. Not a top favourite, but can be an important contender in the waiting. As the team that now plays have never been together, they still have to develope some important playing routines. The task is however more easy to achieve, because now the bulk of the team comes from Porto, paticulary the much important central vector that goes from Carvalho to Deco, with Costinha and Maniche in between.
The best is the new soul they found after the Spain game, the central defence (with Carvalho, the new Baresi, and Andrade, the second best in the spanish league), and the irreverence of Cristiano Ronaldo and Deco. The worst are the fragilities in the full backs, and in the striker position. Also, Scolari has not yet proved to be any sort of tactical mastermind, although he is a top class motivator.

Greece: It is the surprise of the tournament so far. Started vey well against the hosts, showing that they have a great organisation, particulary defensively. But as the tournament progressed they began to loose gas, and were not very far of loosing the game against Russia by a margin that would send them home. The best is the pressing and defensive organisation, with a good keeper and Dellas in the center of defence, as well as right back Seitaridis. Also the strikers have done enough when it mattered (charisteas and Vryzas). The worst is the attacking power. Their players, from the goalie to the strikers are commited with the defensive work but can't really play in organised attack. Fissas is also nowhere near the class of his mate from the other flank.

Spain: One of the greatest failures, but in honesty fulfilling the usual choking at big events. Raul was terrible and the sensation that lasts is that there were better players in the bench for most of the time. In the last game the team lacked a stronger will and showed that there still isn't a spirit of national team in a country where many of its citizens are happy when the team looses. The best was Puyol, who gave everything he had in a position that wasn't really his, and the class of some youngsters as Vicente and Joaquin. The worst was the failure of them all at some point, Saez's stubbornes and lack of tactical awareness and the ghost that was Raul.

Russia: Russia was miserable for half of the tournament, in direct relation with Yartsev's options in those occasions. However, even without all the turmoil they've been through, they still didn't look good enough to advance. The best was Alenitchev, and the pride they showed in the last game. The worst was Mostovoi and the turmoil that followed in the team camp (it looked like a circus), as well as the lack of a game plan in the defence-attack tansition.

France: As the champions, France is expected to do something special, especially as they have some of the most outstanding players in the world. Howerve, they haven't impressed much so far. The 4-4-2 they use is a compromise solution to fit the stars of the team and it hasn't been rocking as expected. Santini still doesn't seem to know what to make of the defence either, especially now that Sagnol will miss the rest of the tournament, which is terible news imo. The best has been Zidane, the genious of the last decade in world football, and stepping up when someone had to and the efficiency in punishing the opponents' mistakes. The worst has been Santini, and the lack of game through the wings, causing an abuse of "triangle" atempts in the center.

England: England comes here after abandoning Sven's diamond, resulting in the most classical formation of any team in the competition, a 4-4-2 with a simple line in the midfield. This is done to fit those who are clearly their best 4 midfielders. Eriksson has built a team with an excellent defensive work rate, and they can now play a very good game of contention, something that wasn't usual in british football. Otoh, sometimes there is still a big temptation to use the long balls, particulary Beckham. The best has been the young talent of Rooney, the quick support and compensation game of the midfielders and solid Campbell. the worst has been Owen, the vulnerability to setpieces and an excessively one-dimentional game from their captain.

Croatia: As it is usual from teams that come out of former Yugoslavia and the balkans in general, the croat team was very irregular, capable of the best and the worst. However, on this ocasion the bad moments surpassed the goods. They were miserable in the first game, and had their moments in the second, which were reduced in the last game. There also several players that didn't perform (eg, Tudor, Sokota). The best was the opportunism of some goals (Kovac, Prso) and the change in atitude from the first game. The worst was lack of quality in some players, and the defence in general.

Switzerland: Considered as the minnows of the group from the start they had nothing to loose and played a nice second game up to some point. The team also seemed very balanced, except maybe in defence, but not good enough. Unfortunately, the experience of players like Chapuisat didn't add nothing to their game. The best was the kid Volenthen (sp?) becoming the youngest scorer ever in the EC and now and then the mutual understanding when transporting the ball to the attack. The worst was the failure of some veterans, the difficulty to score goals and Gygax turning is back to the ball that was passed to him, because his teammate ruined his shot attempt 2 seconds earlier.

I'll do the rest later, and I don't have patience to check for spelling errors, so sorry for them.

 

[Dell19]

Interesting read, didn't notice any glaring spelling mistakes

Thought i would post a reply since the number of views doesn't seem to be updating...

 

[dgfred]

Good post and good points made . Keep the reviews coming .

 

[MCdread]

Second part:

Sweden: This team will never be unnoticed because it is the only team in the world that has two head coaches. And as they had done in the last WC, they formed a solid team. Starting with the goalie, until you reach the midfield, you'll find decent players, but nothing special. But when you look at the attack it all changes. They have Larsson, Ibrahimovic and Ljumberg there, and this clearly the strongest point of the team. They started with a 5-0 win, but then struggled a lot more to keep up with Italy's and Denmark's pace. What matters though is that, through late goals, they finished top of their group, as they had in 2002. The best is the attack, particulary the 3 players I mentioned, the competence of their technical staff and the spirit they showed in coming back from behind in two games. The worst is the right back (Petrov, Cassano and Gronkjaer did what they wanted and the next will be Robben...), can't remember his name, and the problems they have if one or two players are missing (and not just the forwards. Linderoth was a good example against the Danes

Denmark: The danish dynamite is a good successor of the 80s and early 90s team. They continue their proud tradition of being the most technically gifted scandinavian team, and have very fast players, particulary in the wings. They also developped a nice short passing football, all under the command of Morten Olsen outside the pitch and Gravessen inside the pitch. They almost have two coaches also. The best are the wingers and the playing routines they have developped in a very balanced team. The worst is the problems they found now and then in the finishing, Sorensen's blunders when they least expect (WC 2002, Sweden), and I fear Henriksen will suffer with the pace and power of the dutch forwards.

Italy: This country has the greatest talent pool in Europe, but still can't move on from the past. No matter the coach, we always know what to expect. On this ocasion, once again the star didn't show up (Totti), the plan B star didn't show up either (Del Piero), there was a revelation (Casano) and the defence played well, but can't hold on to ultra-defensive play when the coach says so. In the end, the tradition was broken though: this time they didn't marginaly qualify, they were marginaly eliminated. The best was the class and spirit of Cassano, Zambrotta and Buffon, and the potential they unleashed for an hour of their second game. The worst was Crapatt... I mean Trapattoni ("I never put a result in danger" ), Totti, and the lack of a game plan for most of the tournament.

Bulgaria: One of the surprise teams of the qualification, but couldn't cause any surprise in the competition. This was not the team of Stoichkov, Balakov, Kosadinov, Letchkov, Penev, etc. This was the team of Petrov & Petrov, but only one Petrov, and the least expected, shined. They even started well in that first half against Sweden, but then the goals started to come in, and true to their balkanic nature they stopped playing. In the last two games they were no match for either team, but almost got a draw against Italy. The best was Martin Petrov, who brought some joy to the team game and the midfield and attack combinations they showed they could do in the first game. The worst was the rest of the team, particulary the weak defence and the lack of fighting spirit in the attack, as well as Stilian Petrov.

Czech Republic: Came to Portugal was one of the front row favourites, and ends the first round with a confirmed status. The team doesn't seem very balanced between attack and defence, but the atacking power so far has more than made up for it. The front pack shows a very interesting diversity in playing styles and ages, and so far the players have all complemented very well. There is the experience and physical power of Koller and the speed and youth of Baros in the attack. In the midfield, Poborsky and Nedved show all their experience and class in the wings, with the young playmaker Rosicky in the middle, covered by the experience of Galasek from behind. Kudos to Brückner. The defence is another story, but Cech is a quality goalie. The best is the attacking force and combinations, and Karel Brückner, the best coach of the tournament so far imo. ot because his team had 9 points, but because so far, he made always the right reading of the game, changed what it had to be changed in the right time, and wasn't afraid of the risk. The worst has been the defence, which has conceded much space to every team, especially from the right.

Netherlands: The Clockwork Orange hasn't clockworked that well this year. There was an indefenition in the tactic to begin with, and they miss a real quality player in some sectors. Another thing that can be noticed is the absence of the passing and possession play that made their international fame. However, they did reverse to the 4-3-3 they had abandoned a while ago. The qualification came very lucky in the end, but they're where it matters now. The best is the attacking abundance (how many teams wouldn't want the forwards they keep on the bench) and the quality in the youth, especially Robben. The worst is Advocaat and his options in several occasions, the lack of a good central defender to partner Stam, ad the 4-3-3 still isn't rocking.

Germany: The Mannschaft is allways a candidate as everyone knows, but this year it won't be their year. Germany came to the tournament with a novel defence (for them) of 4 in a row, with youth in the full backs and experience in the center. The mix of youth and experience was also present in the rest of the pitch, which in theory is good. But there is only a great player in this team, Ballack, and he can't do everything. The legendary efficiency of the strikers in taking their chances was only a distant legend in this championships, and the traditional attacking support of the full backs and libero were also a memory from the past, except Lahm. It seems Völler has resigned. Will they rediscover their origins on next ocasion (the WC at home)? The best was Ballack, the organisation showed in the first game and Lahm, as well as a few other youngsters with future. The worst were the strikers and the impossibility in scoring the clear opportunities they created, especially in the last game. For long periods they were also terribly boring.

Latvia: Perhaps the biggest ever surprise in the EC finals, they made their day when won a point against Germany. They were the most defensive team of the competition, which is natural because they were also the most fragile of them all. In theory they played in a 4-4-2, but actually it was 2 lines of 4 in the defence. It was more close to 8-0-2. But with the pace they had in the attack it was enough to launch quick counter attacks and scare the germans and the czechs. A great experience for the players and the country, I'm sure. The best was Stepanovs, marshall of the defence, Verpakovskis (allways a threat) and Rubins, as well as the organisation that come out of the fact that almost every player comes from the same club. The worst was excessively defensive game and the average quality of almost all the players, even if it was expected.


Trivia fact: First time that there are no two countries sharing a terrestrial border in the final eight of the competition and second time only counting also the WC (the first was 2002).

 

[Verbose]

Interesting break down of the teams performance so far.

Sweden is in trouble as far as both the right and the left back is concerned. (No one useful to the right and Edman suspended to the left. The back-up plan was to use Lucic on the left if necessary. He can play anywhere and never does a bad job; not a great one either mostly. But now he is injured.)
Its midfield is in shambles. They did a nice job against Bulgaria, but it turned out it won't quite work against quality teams like Denmark and Italy (or Holland). It needs a creative playmaker, but so far the choises of Anders Svensson or Kim Källström haven't worked out. (Källström has potential though.) One Swedish newspaper commentary suggests putting Henrik Larsson in that role, because there sure is no one else.
What a waste, when for once the perennial problem of finding players who can score goals isn't a problem! (Sigh)

 

[El Sop]

Trivia fact: First time that there are no two countries sharing a terrestrial border in the final eight of the competition and second time only counting also the WC (the first was 2002).

On the mighty island of St Maarten / St Martin in the Carribean they may disagree

 

[MCdread]

Rephrasing: First time that there are no two countries sharing a terrestrial border longer than 10 km in the final eight of the competition.

 

[Hitro]

As a more general analysis:

I think people should now realize that the differences in strength between the different nations in football are completely marginal these days. Sure there are small differences in the potential, but nothing comparable to former times.

So what really matters is the attitude a team plays a game with. That's all it comes down to. That and a whole lot of luck.

Just look at the results of the last tournaments to confirm this. Out of the four EURO 2004 semi-finalists only one qualified for the last World Cup and that one was eliminated in the first round. On the other hand the vice champions of that tournament didn't pass the first round of this and the team that came in third didn't even qualify.

And this should be hardly surprising, given the developments in club football. Ever since the Bosman trial the top players of a whole lot of countries play in the same leagues. They therefore have the same physical and tactical training as well as comparable international experience. We therefore should simply acknowledge that there aren't and probably never will be very clear favourites for tournaments like this anymore and that winning them or coming close to it is very much a result of luck and, which is important, the right attitude.

 

[MCdread]

You do have a point Hitro, but this is not a virgin situation. In 1996 there were also three teams in the final 4 that hadn't took part in the previous WC, 2 in 92 (including the champion), 2 in 84, the champion of 88. The world champion of 82 didn't took part in the EC of 84 and the european champion of 76 didn't took part in any WC of the decade.

But you're still in the right track. During the 70s, there was a revolution in football, which came primarily from northern europe, and it had to do with the physical preparation. Suddenly teams from Holland, Germany and England in the final of the decade started to win the most cups. At first it was put at use of a better, more graceful football, with Ajax, Holland and the german team of 1972. But immediatly the physical part became absolutely dominant, and the teams that were much more stronger from the physical point of view won everything, and the beautiful and romantic football of the 50s and 60s died and the game became duller. It was the era of the english dominance in club football, and the failure of the brazilian and french teams of the early 80s marked the end of any hopes of the rennaissence of purely artistic football, despite the french victory in the EC of 1984. Then things started to change in Italy, with Trapattoni's Juventus and Sacchi's Milan. Italy became a smaller version of the global football village that followed in the mid 90s and the rest of the world copied it. The difference in styles between most countries became less significant and everyone basicly catched up with the physical preparation of all the others. 8 or 10 years ago it seemed that football would return to origins. Every team would now have a similar physical ability, the tactical revolution of dutch football was now fully explored and there's nothing new to create, and it will be speed and technique that will rule again.
The Bosman rule however would come to accelerate the clearence of those differences. Take England's case for example: english football was definitely in the wrong side of evolution, but the Bosman rule helped it to invert that situation and modernise it. However, there were still a few countries that were left back. The difference between the french team of late 90s and the german one is that while the french are now as fully fit as the germans, the latter didn't catch up in other sectors. If both teams have the same fitness and the same concentration, it will be Henry's pace and Zidane's vision and technique that will win the day most of the time.

All to say that yes, teams are very similar to each other nowadays, and most of the times it will be a mistake that will decide a game. There is a much smaller margin of error for everyone, players and coaches. A missing pass, a wrong substitution might provide the small balance break that will decide a game and a championship. That's why everyone says that set pieces are more very important in modern game and that's why when a player dribbles a defender for example, a second later he has one or two more to challenge and if it's the only way to foul him. Beacause of that, I think that an average side today would beat any of those all time greats of some decades back, like the Magic Hungarians or the Brazil of 70.

 

[Hitro]

I completely agree with what you say there and when it comes to the last point I guess even a weak side of today, maybe even a third league team or worse, could beat a 1950s World Cup winner. When you watch the matches of the time the massive difference in pace and general athletic ability is huge. It would be interesting to see a men's team of that time play a women's team of today, because in many aspects it reminds me of today's women's football. Plus a little more violence.