I'm going to be very brutal in my match analysis on strategy and tactics.
Firstly, Spain was amazing in the first 20 minutes with quick rapid and accurate passes from the wings and the damage was done. After that they just held possession and pepper us whenever they feel like.
Secondly, those horns in the crowd was annoying buzz during the whole game.
Thirdly, our lateral backs was unsupported by our lateral midfield having compact defensive problems and then caught ball watching because of their slick passing.
Fourthly, we don't understand how to gain possession from a high class team. There is no 50/50 balls to contest which we are mostly familiar with at our level, which we usually are capable to get from physical gain. Therefore, it was almost pointless for our Gk to kick our goal kick away when it is the only time we can positively make use of possession. The way to combat that is to mix up the kicks with some short ball to the lateral backs as well as some medium balls to the wings. It helps with our build up of attacks. Also we need to pressure to the sideline so that we gain some throw ins in order to gain some possession effort.
Next we need to secure our possession. Since our long ball passing is easily defendable, we need to work on the medium and short passes first before venturing out to any long ball game that we were defaulting too readily. We look better then but of course they knew how to defend in small space well enough that we couldn't get much flow that we would like, but then immediately we need to able to pressure in tight small space without resorting to any real speed and pace on the lateral area and so can in turn if we have the hard passion, disrupt their flow as well and makes for an even battle ground (or some fighting chance)
We defaulted to the deep long crosses from the wing and that was not going anywhere as usual. Really didn't know how to attack from this area and few opportunities to do so. Essentially, there was no other options having little either in the way of speed or passing options to the centre midfield and forward positions (especially when Killen and Smeltz were marked well). without dribbling inwards or outwards against their backs, it offered little options for support in space by the central midfielders and lateral backs when Spain's lateral backs and lateral midfielders was closing down on the position. This is where occasionally the lateral backs helps secure possession by back passing and in fact is the first passing option more often than not. hence looking in the wrong passing option and maybe a hint that communication is not being use effectively.
Centre Midfielders had compact defensive issues and so had too much area to cover and could not link with the lateral midfield and lateral backs in either attack or defence. This lead to quite a number of goals in the overall scheme because of the lack of applying the right type of pressure. Initially their midfield line was too far ahead from the defensive line even more than their game against Italy. They need to drop it back 10 metres (which was 5 metres compared to Italy) Because of losing goals through the lateral back region, they panic and withdrew their midfield line too far back (15 metres) towards their defence line, allowing the opposition to run riot from the midfield thus creating four points of attack instead on the previous two points of attack (both wings). This is where trust with their teammates and control of their area was severely compromise.
Point of attacks for the team. Like I had said before, Spain was going to go down their wings from the word go and they did that with extreme effectiveness. They had the speed and they knew our lateral back was our main weak points and our lateral midfielders have weak positioning. They knew our midfield defence was our strength. So there was no way we ever was going to pressure their first touch on the outer.
Our best chances to attack is not from either wings but through our centre midfield defence quickly distribute directly to our forwards feet coming back to set up the next player coming through the centre midfield on the counterattack. The only chance of catching their centre midfield out of position was when they were supporting their lateral attack. This opens up the centre briefly enough to counterattack accurately enough.
Simply, our lateral players are not coping with the speed of really world class team and so is not a firm enough point of attack but if they do win the odd ball they should go up as best they could without encountering the opposition and then look for the safe back pass to the free lateral player or a quick pass to the central defensive midfielders (which is our strength unfortunately) especially if they have support from a forward coming back for the next pass [always think two passes ahead] as the only time to get forward ground. The defensive midfielders other passing options is to the central defender or lateral defender so it is a safer option than one usually thinks. [Only pass to the lateral midfielder when there he is able to move up 5 metres more unmarked than he was after his passing.] This is simply because of the oppositions central midfield in a 4-4-2 is supporting the lateral attack so readily and is the only way to exploit it. We had demonstrate before against Italy on occasions but it was definitely not utilise in this game. Only a couple of times towards the end of each half was it used and only because the gap was more apparent by the opposition's drop in speed, but otherwise, they should be looking hard for it rather than waiting for it when it tailed off more towards the end of each half. If they had a 3-5-2 then the strategy would be very different but they used 4-4-2 so it was there for the looking.
Central defenders had a horrid time especially Boyens. The class of Torres and Villa was made to look easy by the lateral attack's ability to provide accurate ball service due to the lack of sustained lateral defence. This enabled their forward attack to gain more than a body length away from their markers after two touches, giving more than enough time for accurate shots on goal. Any pressure from the lateral defence would have forced the forwards to take three touches instead, increasing the central defensive chances by flow on effect. The other tactic, because of the weak lateral defence, is for the central defenders to literally step (outside the box) into the forward (shoulder to shoulder from the goal side) to ]b]physically annoy by hold (not force grabbing) a small part of the shirt (hence able to watch the ball and also know where the forward is moving towards at the same time) when the ref is not looking and timed when [just before] the opposition winger/lateral midfield is looking to knock the ball, it helps with the tight marking but also helps to dominate the space in front of the forward making the forward to move in an unfavourable position to get the ball and to score. It is a developing tactic to learn.
Also as I mention before, the lateral backs was coming from the midline/midcentre of the goal which is a mistake as the GK should be controlling that area (six yards box) totally. they should be coming out from the midline/midcentre front of the six yard box. This is to position the body against the lateral attack from the side of the 18 yard box better and make that short inside pass path to an opposition central midfielder slightly tighter and easier for the defensive midfielder to cover the threat.
Still think that counterattacking patterns would have made a great difference in this game. I have not seen this in this game. There was elements of this in the Italian game but that was much more open and therefore expected.
--------------------------------------------------------
What we did against Italy can work against South Africa and Iraq to a certain degree. They will resort to fouling us as seen in their recent clash. They don't have the speed of Spain. Even in pace across the park; a couple of paceman in the South African forwards but only in their counterattack. Seems to lack a solid targetman. We should be able to share the possession evenly with both of them. However I only saw 30 minutes in the second half (the best part of the game apparently) in patches (due to internet steaming) so it is an incomplete analysis and not much to work off, sorry.
South Africa will have problems with team pressure and attacked through the centre mainly but Iraq is different, they use the laterals and sometime is able to initial their laterals from the centre midfield. They are looking to counterattack more but is somewhat out of placed when forced to playmake their game with the South Africa defaulting to defending their half. Hence was able to a bit more time to initial attack from the centre midfield. Whilst South Africa was able to attack directly through mainly the centre by quick counterattacking only to be halted by the GK a few times. South Africa were the better side and should have won 1-0 if it wasn't for their own striker clearing from the IRAQ GOALINE !!
Iraq was average against a slightly better than average team. They were both boring and average for the first 60 minutes. A bunch of small fouls made it a stop-start affair.
[Updated post to bold points] 
AllWhitebelievr2009-06-15 15:15:02
with your last comment
