Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Review On Prandelliís Decision On Euro Final

  1. #1
    Irequis's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Nov 11
    Posts
    848
    Thanked
    894 times
    Fav. Player
    Javier Zanetti

    Argentina

    Review On Prandelliís Decision On Euro Final

    http://irequis.wordpress.com/2012/07...on-euro-final/
    http://footballspeak.com/post/2012/0...-On-Final.aspx

    Euro 2012 is over, but big question marks still linger over Prandelli. He has done a good job, very good job to bring Italy only 1 step away from the trophy. But, one can’t help being questioned after heavy defeat on final stage. Now, let’s see the analysis of every Prandelli’s decision :

    1. Stay offensive
    Experience told us tiki-taka Barcelona only lost to defensive and counter attacking football such as Inter Milan, Madrid, and Chelsea. Exception goes to Arsenal who were able to fight them offensively, but statistics suggest the most effective way to defeat tiki-taka football is by soaking it up then executing the blitzkrieg. Prandelli is known for his attacking football and he didn’t leave his trademark even in final against Spain. The question is, should he emulate defensive approach like clubs above ? Or should he stick to his primary plan ?
    For me, Prandelli has chosen the right decision to attack Spain. Sudden change in the final would confuse the entire team and weakened the confidence of the entire team. You can’t expect the players have confidence if the leader himself doesn’t. Also, history told us that sudden defensive approach against Spain would hardly work as Germany did it in Euro 2008 final and World Cup 2010 semifinal. Loew decided to betray his own philosophy because his opponent was Spain whose quality was about equal or a bit stronger. The outcome were Germany players didn’t have any idea what they were doing on the pitch. They defended well, but they hardly threatened Spain. Although Spain players didn’t feel comfortable against such defensive method, neverthless they still found the solution to eliminate defensive Germany, twice.
    Tactically speaking, Italy would underwent bigger problem if they chose to defend. Remember, this is not Italy we used to know. The current Italy has its biggest weakness in backline, yes it is something unimaginable for a nation who has produced plenty elite defenders. Did Italy have the defensive quality to withstand heavy onslaught of Spanish quick thrust ? I don’t think so.

    2. Changed to 4-4-2 diamond
    This is the most criticized decision. Italy did well with 3-5-2 against Spain in group stage, but they left it for 4-4-2 diamond in final. Okay, lets analyze the comparison of both formation against Spain.
    The 3-5-2 suggests Italy would have stronger midfield than 4-4-2 as they have more numbers in that zone. But it was actually no. Prandelli has chosen absolutely correct decision in 4-4-2. The diamond in midfield was very effective to break the attack that came from middle and Italy succeeded to destroy Germany rhythm from the midfield. If Prandelli used 3-5-2, Italy would have only 3 players in midfield zone because the wingbacks were on the flanks. When Spain menaced the midfield zone of Italy, the wing back would be at risked being sucked into middle zone to assist his teammate fighting Spain dominance in midfield. Then, either Alba or Arbeloa would bomb forward exploiting such big hole on the flank.
    One surprising feature of the final is, how Spain fullbacks actively helped the attack. This was so different with previous meeting where Arbeloa rarely contributed anything in offence and Alba struggled to make impact on left flank. In final, Arbeloa was really brave to leave his post at risk of being exploited by Cassano. Well, perhaps Del Bosque and Arbeloa had confidence after managed to handle Ronaldo in semifinal with such method. At other side, Alba produced his best performance in Euro and his goal really summed up what he was capable to and what Spain really needed. So, would 3-5-2 help Italy against such aggressive wing attack ?
    When Italy used 3-5-2, the wingbacks would consist of Maggio and Giacherini. The question is, could both of them peg back Spain fullbacks ? Could they instill fear on Arbeloa-Alba from going forward ? To peg back opponent’s fullbacks from goinf forward, the team must have dangerous attacker on flank (example : Mourinho always put Ronaldo in left flank to prevent Dani Alves going forward). Based on their performance in club level and previous meeting, Maggio-Giacherini didn’t have enough capacity to occupy opponents fullbacks. And if they replicate such performance in final, it would turn out Arbeloa-Alba pegged them back instead not vice-versa. No, 3-5-2 wouldn’t work in both flanks department.
    Last, Spain formation was either 4-6-0 or 4-5-1. To deploy 3 center backs against 1 striker was an overkill defence, let alone if there was no striker at all. Such defensive pattern would leave shortfall somewhere and the effects are : 1) Italy didn’t have attacking outlet as the extra man was on backline, not midfield, 2) the midfield struggled to withstand Spain’s dominance in that zone.

    3. Starting line-up
    Abate filled right back role although Maggio was available. This is correct as Maggio is more comfortable playing rather as wingback than fullback. All season long Maggio played as right wingback in 3-5-2 Napoli while Abate played as right fullback in 4-4-2 Milan.
    Chiellini as left back ? Well, this is the least understandable decision for me. If Prandelli really wanted to attack, why did he put defensive-nature back as left back ? Chiellini is left back, not left fullback, and both of them has huge difference in term of offensive contribution. Okay, maybe Prandelli wanted some insurance in flank defence, but he already knew even before the match started Chiellini would deal with Arbeloa, the least offensive-capable player in Spain squad. Did Prandelli anticipate Silva who always drifted inside ? But Italy already had enough players in midfield zone. And Silva cut inside should be good news for 4-4-2 diamond Italy as Spain would have very little space in the zone. Or, did Prandelli think it would be a waste to bench one of his best defender ? I don’t know, I cannot find any justification for it.
    Chiellini injury was a blessing in disguise. Balzaretti proved to be only Italy attacking outlet. As Pirlo was heavily closed down by Spain, Italy couldn’t rely on his long diagonal thoughball to Cassano and Balotelli. And, the simple ball to left flank eventually became the solution as Balzaretti provided the forward drive and helped Italy relieving the pressure.

    4. Substitution
    Chielline got injured and Balzaretti came in. As explained above, Balzaretti was more useful than Chiellini in such situation and Prandelli got the substitution correct.
    After 2-0 down, Prandelli subbed in Di Natale for Cassano. Di Natale loves to station himself at the shoulder of the defence and breaks offside trap. Such approach yielded a goal in Spain-Italy first match. Also, Cassano has fitness problem which preventing him to play 90 minutes in optimum level. Let alone in such grand stage against Spain. The pressure and the game’s quick tempo would drain his weak stamina even quicker. So, like it or not, Cassano were ought to be substituted and any coach wouldn’t want to waste his substitution slot. Right call for Prandelli.
    The third substitution was the most decisive. It was Motta for Montolivo. The latter was deservedly pulled out as he couldn’t replicate his form against Germany. As the most advanced midfield in diamond, Montolivo was given a task to break Spain rhythm from their half, just like he did against Germnay. Then, he failed. He didn’t play badly, instead it was because Spain’s passing was in other world level, a league away from Germany or any nation in the world. Any player wouldn’t stand a chance chasing such quick accurate passing with telephatic understanding among the players. Ran out of stamina because of fruitless chasing, Prandelli got his decision right to bench Montolivo.
    But, at the other end of pitch, his presence raised many eyebrows in bewilderment. Thiago Motta introducement sure was the unanticipated surprise. At 2-0 down, Italy were supposed to catch up Spain, but why did they introduce Motta ? The reason why Italy couldn’t get the game within their grasp was their lack of creative player. Their main creativity source, Pirlo, never got away from Spain attention. De Rossi couldn’t provide the service like Pirlo does. Marchisio had terrible game. Montolivo rarely impressed in attacking department in his national team career and now he ought to help in defence too. I expect mobile creative players, the likes of Diamanti or Giovinco as attacking outlet. Pirlo is static playmaker and when he was closed down tightly, he urgently needed someone to assist him to distribute the ball out (just like Xavi-Iniesta relationship). Did Prandelli doesn’t have enough faith in Diamanti or Giovinco ability ? It makes sense as both of them are hardly tested in tough international game, let alone in final against Spain.
    So, the introducement of Motta suggested Prandelli still wanted to keep his old system, but with fresh legs. Did he believe Motta was able to disrupt Spain midfielders and slowly enabled Italy to get back to the game ? By watching the game, anybody would tell it was virtually imposibble to defend such ball circulation and I believe Prandelli thought the same too. So, did he surrender and he put in Motta to prevent the score gap from getting any bigger than 2-0 ? Who knows ? Either way, it was not Prandelli’s fault. Italy didn’t have adequate squad depth to compete with Spain and the dire situation put him in 2 dilemmas in 2-0 down. Option 1 : put in reliable uncreative midfielder, Italy could prevent the conceding and hoped for Spain caught offguard. Option 2 : put in explosive unreliable player at the risk of conceding. Then, Prandelli chose first option only to see the fresh legs turned into damaged leg. It was nobody’s fault, nobody to blame, it was utter misfortune, and the sign that the wheel of fate still rolled in Spain favour.

    Conclusion :
    Sounds pesimisitic maybe, but there is no solution to fight against currently world best team in their highest gear. Regardless what Italy did, which players they used, which formation they deployed, etc, Spain would achieve victory with such playing level. This is the legendary level of football , only can be equaled by Magic Magyar 1954, Brazil 1970, and Total Football 1974.
    The only team who are able to beat Spain are Spain themselves and that were what from their first match until semifinal. Spain hadn’t shown their true class until final. Narrow and predictable attack, uncapable to break through the defence, and slow passing. Italy was unfortunate that they fought true Spain in final, not in group stage.
    Prandelli did a great job here. Admitted, there were some imperfections within his plan, but nobody’s perfect. Italy fans should respect him for his contibution to deliver the national team to the final. Few expected Italy could make it this far, but Prandelli managed to. My hats off to Mr. Prandelli.
    Last edited by Irequis; 08 Jul 12 at 12:42.
    http://irequis.wordpress.com/
    Feeling up the senses like a night in Giuseppe Meazza

  2. #2
    Fapuccino's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Apr 12
    Posts
    12,075
    Thanked
    9,265 times
    Fav. Player
    Schelotto

    Brazil

    italy couldve won, prandelli definitely made mistakes. He shouldnt have started chielini. Fabregas with the ball beat him for pace! FABREGAS! WITH THE BALL! balzaretti wouldnt have made that mistake.

  3. #3
    Irequis's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Nov 11
    Posts
    848
    Thanked
    894 times
    Fav. Player
    Javier Zanetti

    Argentina

    Quote Originally Posted by ninuk View Post
    italy couldve won, prandelli definitely made mistakes. He shouldnt have started chielini. Fabregas with the ball beat him for pace! FABREGAS! WITH THE BALL! balzaretti wouldnt have made that mistake.
    Italy couldn't have won. Even if Balzaretti didn't lose interm of pace, his defensive attribute is still below Chiellini's. The only problem with Chiellini was his mobility, one thing that Italy needed in bringing the ball out of their own half.
    But one thing for sure Balzaretti isn't worldbeater, he isn't game changer, he wouldn't make huge difference.
    http://irequis.wordpress.com/
    Feeling up the senses like a night in Giuseppe Meazza

  4. #4

    Join Date
    09 Mar 04
    Posts
    2,126
    Thanked
    889 times

    Australia

    10 years of FIF
    Personally, I think this thread has no relevance to Inter and your post therefore has no place in the Writer's Section. There were no Inter players in the Italian squad and your posting of this article devalues the Section. This thread should be moved.

  5. #5
    vitomins's Avatar
    Join Date
    30 Apr 09
    Posts
    12,062
    Thanked
    4,941 times
    Fav. Player
    Perisic

    United States

    86 FIF Special Ones
    Quote Originally Posted by Puma View Post
    Personally, I think this thread has no relevance to Inter and your post therefore has no place in the Writer's Section. There were no Inter players in the Italian squad and your posting of this article devalues the Section. This thread should be moved.

    There are many articles posted in this section that have nothing to do with Inter...why did you choose this one to bitch about?

  6. Thanks (2): ADRossi, Fitzy

  7. #6
    ADRossi's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Jul 10
    Posts
    7,102
    Thanked
    9,258 times
    Fav. Player
    #FreeInsigne

    Netherlands

    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Irequis View Post
    Italy couldn't have won. Even if Balzaretti didn't lose interm of pace, his defensive attribute is still below Chiellini's. The only problem with Chiellini was his mobility, one thing that Italy needed in bringing the ball out of their own half.
    But one thing for sure Balzaretti isn't worldbeater, he isn't game changer, he wouldn't make huge difference.
    This. Losing the substitute that Chiellini forced us to use really only would have allowed us to probably hold serve, and keep the game at 2-0. Spain were the better team that day, I do not blame Prandelli at all, he did a tremendous job with what he had. I didn't agree with the Motta for Montolivo sub, but the game was 2-0 and that was not a make it or break it decision.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arlen View Post
    The problem with this kind of site in english is the international brand of supporters from non-footballers or non-top-footballer countries..
    You see people from Colombia, Oceania, Ireland(i think) pretending that at least ONCE in their life they saw a young wc talent arriving and becoming a world star.

    Just a idea: if you want a serious debate about football, you should block everybody from countries that NEVER will win nothing and NEVER will have a balon d'or, for example.
    Whats the point about those guys opinions??? Can i go to some New Zealand chat and start to teach them how to recognize the better wc prospects among young Rugby players?
    Again, if you NEVER saw a young wc prospect struggling in his first years, like Kaka or Ronaldinho who were booed by they local supporters here, how could you judge????

  8. #7
    milton's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Aug 09
    Posts
    397
    Thanked
    151 times
    Fav. Player
    cambiasso



    Against spain, italy needed fresher players (not so tired) and more players in midfield. Prandelli completely screwed the final up.

  9. #8
    ADRossi's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Jul 10
    Posts
    7,102
    Thanked
    9,258 times
    Fav. Player
    #FreeInsigne

    Netherlands

    94
    Quote Originally Posted by milton View Post
    Against spain, italy needed fresher players (not so tired) and more players in midfield. Prandelli completely screwed the final up.
    I'd love to hear this one. How would you suggest that Prandelli keep his players fresh when his team was the victim of a rough schedule? Less days off between matches than any team. Did you want Nocerino and Ogbonna starting a knockout game in order to keep players "fresh?" We weren't Germany who had the fortune of playing Greece and resting players, we had a tough knock out stage, thus our best players had to be used.

    Arguing a switch back to a 3-5-2 should have been made is fine, but I highly doubt that was the difference in the game.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arlen View Post
    The problem with this kind of site in english is the international brand of supporters from non-footballers or non-top-footballer countries..
    You see people from Colombia, Oceania, Ireland(i think) pretending that at least ONCE in their life they saw a young wc talent arriving and becoming a world star.

    Just a idea: if you want a serious debate about football, you should block everybody from countries that NEVER will win nothing and NEVER will have a balon d'or, for example.
    Whats the point about those guys opinions??? Can i go to some New Zealand chat and start to teach them how to recognize the better wc prospects among young Rugby players?
    Again, if you NEVER saw a young wc prospect struggling in his first years, like Kaka or Ronaldinho who were booed by they local supporters here, how could you judge????

  10. Thanks (1): Fitzy

  11. #9
    milton's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Aug 09
    Posts
    397
    Thanked
    151 times
    Fav. Player
    cambiasso



    Quote Originally Posted by ADRossi View Post
    I'd love to hear this one. How would you suggest that Prandelli keep his players fresh when his team was the victim of a rough schedule? Less days off between matches than any team. Did you want Nocerino and Ogbonna starting a knockout game in order to keep players "fresh?" We weren't Germany who had the fortune of playing Greece and resting players, we had a tough knock out stage, thus our best players had to be used.

    Arguing a switch back to a 3-5-2 should have been made is fine, but I highly doubt that was the difference in the game.
    Nocerino and Diamanti were impressive in the games in which they had featured, and Di Natale caused spain more problems than Cassano. Cassano and Chiellini were clearly not in good physical condition and should not have started the game, neither of them even made the second half. Prandelli even admitted himself that he didn't have the courage to change the team like he should have, as he felt a certain obligation to play the players in the final who he had used in the previous rounds.
    And i think playing 3-5-2 would have made a big difference, getting outnumbered by spain in midfield is not a good idea.

  12. #10
    Irequis's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Nov 11
    Posts
    848
    Thanked
    894 times
    Fav. Player
    Javier Zanetti

    Argentina

    Quote Originally Posted by milton View Post
    Nocerino and Diamanti were impressive in the games in which they had featured, and Di Natale caused spain more problems than Cassano. Cassano and Chiellini were clearly not in good physical condition and should not have started the game, neither of them even made the second half. Prandelli even admitted himself that he didn't have the courage to change the team like he should have, as he felt a certain obligation to play the players in the final who he had used in the previous rounds.
    And i think playing 3-5-2 would have made a big difference, getting outnumbered by spain in midfield is not a good idea.
    And are you sure both Nocerino and Diamanti would play well in final against such imperious Spain ?
    The class and the pressure are different than any opponent they had fought.

    Of course Prandelli prefered Cassano to Di Natale because the former is the support striker while the latter is finisher. Do you expect zero mobility Balotelli would give adequate service to Di Natale ?

    And about the lack of fitness of Italy squad, such problem gave Prandelli a big dilemma. Stuck to tired reliable team or gamble with fresh legs ? And how if Prandelli chose the second option and the player screwed up ? Both was intriguing option and Prandelli couldn't be blamed.

    And 3-5-2 question again. I have heard a lot of complain how Prandelli prefered 4-4-2 to 3-5-2. I have explained it above. Because Spain used to attack narrowly, Prandelli opted for 4-4-2 diamond which emphazied on middle zone solidity.
    http://irequis.wordpress.com/
    Feeling up the senses like a night in Giuseppe Meazza

  13. #11
    rfU's Avatar
    Join Date
    30 Jul 09
    Posts
    2,661
    Thanked
    560 times
    Fav. Player
    JZ4



    Quote Originally Posted by Irequis View Post
    Of course Prandelli prefered Cassano to Di Natale because the former is the support striker while the latter is finisher. Do you expect zero mobility Balotelli would give adequate service to Di Natale ?
    Not true, Di Natale is extremely talented and can play as both support striker or leading the line. His passing and creativity is top notch but problem is he lacks experience at this stage. It's hard to explain, his club form vs country form are strikingly different. But IMO, starting with

    And 3-5-2 question again. I have heard a lot of complain how Prandelli prefered 4-4-2 to 3-5-2. I have explained it above. Because Spain used to attack narrowly, Prandelli opted for 4-4-2 diamond which emphazied on middle zone solidity.[/QUOTE]and consequently both of sapiens goals came down either wing. 3-5-2 worked because it freed Pirlo from defensive responsibilities, these would be born by De Rossi who would be playing as the central CB. Motta and Marchisio should have played alongside Pirlo, Marchisio providing much needed energy and mobility and Motta providing cover and interlinking nicely with Pirlo. I think Italy would have still lost due to tiredness but they would have gone down fighting.
    "Last person I called "Darling" was pregnant 20 seconds later!" Lord Flashheart.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •