Another analysis of the UCL Final pretty good one too.

http://www.barcelonafootballblog.com/9239/champions-leauge-final-review-barcelona-3-1-manchester-united-proud/

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/12072010/58/world-cup-2010-cruyff-disgusted-dutch-display.html

I don't think it was the whole team.

Van Bommel and De Jong were the roughhouse players. Both were lucky not to be sent off. Van Bommel was lucky throughout the tournament to stay on the pitch.

Had they won the disappointment like all people would be less.
But to not win and play like thugs was a sin especially with their football tradition and the talent of their players.
Sorry but there is no getting away from it, it was a disgrace.

HGH pays amazing dividends.

Good question.

Since I devised it, I used any completed pass in the defensive part of the field as a defensive pass, whether sideways, forwards, diagonal or backwards.

Any completed pass in the attacking half, whether forwards , backwards, sideways, diagonal, is termed an attacking pass.

So in short, territorial.

In Inverting The Pyramid, the great Ukrainian coach, Valery Lobanovski, devised a similar system some 30 odd years ago. Great minds think alike or fools never differ!!!!

Lobanovski counted passes whether they were sideways, backwards or forwards. Direction was very important to him.

Arsene Wenger is an adherent of stats. He uses them comprehensively. Other top coaches are following him. Houllier and Ferguson believe one versus one outcomes in a game often decide the match. Findings show that it is true, if teams have similar technical ability. Australia overpowers or matches all its opponents, apart from USA and Ireland, who match us in terms of physical body on body contact play.

Where Australia loses one versus one duels is that other teams often have more players who can dribble around our players, whereas we struggle to match most opponents in this facet of the game.

Another notable achievement in Australian football in previous coaching regimes, before the overhauled Dutch based FFA curriculum, have taught Australian players to use their bodies well, in bodily contact, and head the ball well.

I used to write on a website called the Science Of Football with tables showing this stuff.

One influential person in Australian football likes Lobanovski. He introduced me to some eminent people in Australian football who really liked the SOF site.

Still, some see stats as a pile of useless rubbish.



Edited by Decentric: 1/6/2011 01:55:08 PM

Question Decentric, do you know what the criteria is for defensive pass and an attacking pass.

is it territorial or directional?

Interesting point, Krones, that Dutch supporters were unhappy.

If you and I coach suburban junior teams we have the luxury of many roster games to play attacking football. Results are unimportant.

The stakes at the World Cup final were the highest. If Van Marwik had played a more attacking game, Spain would/ could have beaten Holland 3-0, or 4-0. As it was, the game was a deadlock for most of the match. Conversely, Man U was totally outclassed by Barca .

Given the stakes, most would have employed Van Marwik's tactics in the WC final, as opposed to Ferguson's in the ECL. Nobody can beat Spain/Barcelona playing circulation football. They have redefined/coined a modern Total Football. It is played in far less time and space than the Dutch in the seventies.

Edited by Decentric: 1/6/2011 11:40:42 AM

Exactly right Krones.

The only way Man U were going to win that game was to kick Barca off the park but Sir Alex still sent them out to play. They made any interesting point on ESPN last that night even with infinite resources it would be difficult to build a squad to be competitive against the current Barca side.

WOW amazing stuff thanks guys.

This game is unforgettable because the Netherlands disgraced themselves on the world stage.
I know many people from the Netherlands who are ashamed of the way their team played.

I for one will never forget it, because it was the Netherlands it was a disappointment.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=netherlands+v+spain+in+the+world+cup&view=detail&id=229132CE2273D9D44858E34A6D18D3A408E2064B&first=0&FORM=IDFRIR

Edited by krones3: 1/6/2011 06:38:18 AM

Edited by krones3: 1/6/2011 06:38:38 AM

Edited by krones3: 1/6/2011 06:39:08 AM

Retrospectively Spain played Pique, Puyol, Xavi, Busquets, Iniesta, Pedro, Villa against the Netherlands in the World Cup final. That was 7 out of the Barcelona team that won the ECL a few days ago.

The Netherlands were much tougher nuts to crack than Manchester United. Why?

Spain didn't have Messi to beat players on 19 occasions. A massive factor.

Secondly, Barca played a more compact 4-2-3-1 than Ferguson's 4-4-1-1, which was frequently pulled out of position. Van Bommel, De Jong, Mathiejson and Heitinga were a more cohesive and co-ordinated central block then the Man U central defensive and midfield line. Holland 's defensive distancing between, and within, the two defensive lines was better than Man U's.

Thirdly, Holland had Robben, not far behind Messi and Christiano Ronaldo, as a superb dribbler. He beat Spanish players about 15 times. Holland could launch accelerated attacks through his brilliant ball carrying and deception techniques.

Fourthly, Van Bommel in particular, and De Jong, beat the immortal crap out of the small Spanish midfielders who dominated Man U. Carrick and Giggs were ineffectual playing the same role for Man U.
Sneijder also exerted more defensive pressure on Busquets inteh World Cup final. Busquets was so effective for Barcelona, having easy passing lanes to Iniesta and Xavi.
Without Messi, and with Busquets under more defensive pressure (time and space) in a half press, the Dutch hard men could reduce the game to more of a physical battle.
There were 46 fouls in the World Cup final, most of them committed by Van Bommel and De Jong. Although there was a tough physical battle between Kuyt (Holland) and Ramos (Spain). If Barcelona's Dani Alves had encounterd Kuyt, he would've been overpowered. Park (Man U) couldn't overpower Alves in physical strength like Kuyt would have done.
Conversely, there were only 17 fouls in the ECL final.
Mathiejson, Heitinga and Van Bommel dominated Spain aerially. Holland didn't want Spain to attack through the middle. Spain obliged by playing wide much more often than Barca against Man U.

Fifth, Kuyt was more effective defensively on the wide left flank than Park and Valencia were for Man U. Holland attacked through Robben on the other flank.

Sixth, Holland was able to play a half press more effectively than Manchester United were. Sometimes it was difficult to see whether Man U were playing a half or full press. Whatever, there was too much space between the Man U forward line and the midfield.

Seventh, Man U played 24 high long balls and clearances from the defensive half to the attacking half, hoping for Rooney to head the ball. Holland played 15 long, high balls in the WC final. The difference was that Van Persie was a more effective target player than any Man U player aerially.

Eighth, Holland could switch the point and mode of attack. Robben worried the life out of Capdevila, and even Iniesta who had to track back often. Valencia was comparatively innoucuous offensively for Man U as a wide right flanker. Conversely, whereas Robben was a constant threat, Van Bommel and De Jong were able to keep much better supply to Robben who found space.


Ninth, Holland won 32 more one on one duels. All over the pitch they were physically, stronger apart from against Ramos, Pique and Puyol. Unied's inability to execute a game plan didn't allow this to become a factor.

Tenth, Sneijder was a more effective play maker than Rooney was for United. He was also supplied with more ball from Van Bommel and De Jong. There was also better connect within the Dutch midfield, between the defensive and attacking lines.

Eleventh, Van Bronckhurst and Van Der Wiel tucked in for Holland as full backs. This induced Pedro and Iniesta to cross from wide where Spain were less potent. This played into Holland' s hands- great coaching from Van Marwik.
Conversely, Ferguson had Fabio and Evra playing wider, thus leaving Xavi, Iniesta and Messi to dominate in the attacking third, with Busquets able to impose himself on the game. He had too much space too often. There was no space deliberately created to induce Barca out wide on the flanks.

Twelfth. Van Bommel, the tough, very physical Bayern Munich captain had been overlooked by Van Basten in previous teams. He provided a lot of leadership for the Netherlands campaign, providing a hard-nosed, pragmatic approach for his country. Historically, Holland has usually been a self-imploding team.
Coach, Van Marwik, is Van Bommel's father in law. Various Dutch pundits said that Holland previously went to World Cups to show how good they were - not to win competitions.
They played percentage football throughout the cup, but adopted a particularly pragmatic game plan to counter Spain in the final. It nearly worked. Ferguson was, for one of the first times, shown to be inept. Australia performed far better against Germany in the WC, yet some myopic pundits called for Verbeek's sacking.

Thirteenth. More of the Dutch team had better capabilities when the opposition had the ball, than Manchester United fielded against Barca. Ferguson tried to win the game against formidable opposition who play unprecedented, high quality circulation football.

Ironic, the Dutch played pragmatic football to prevent Spain playing neo-Total Football!!!!! Spain were still the better side and deserved to win. The Spanish midfield still functioned well. They didn't score until the 116th minute though.

Ferguson should have had a look at Dutch coach Bert Van Marwik's strategy in the WC final.

Interesting that Barcelona, Spain, Netherlands and Germany are all heavily influenced by Dutch KNVB.

One team won the European Cup, the other three teams were placed one, two and three at the World Cup.


It seems that the Dutch approach, if we haven't adopted the French system, is the best way for Australia to move forwards. According to our state FFA TD, we have employed some French and Japanese methodology to augment the KNVB dominated FFA curriculum.











Edited by Decentric: 1/6/2011 11:54:36 AM

This is zonalmarking's analysis.

"Sir Alex Ferguson named his recent ‘big game’ XI – which meant Javier Hernandez upfront with Wayne Rooney behind, and Ryan Giggs and Michael Carrick in the centre of midfield. The biggest surprise was Dimitar Berbatov not even being on the bench.

Guardiola was able to call on Eric Abidal at left-back, but not Carles Puyol at centre-back, so Javier Mascherano started in defence after all.

The overall pattern was not completely different from the 2009 final. United enjoyed a good opening few minutes, but were then the poorer side for the rest of the contest.

Barca dominance

There are two ways to consider the game. The first is the obvious approach – Barcelona are clearly the best side in the world, arguably one of the best of all time, and when they are on top of their game, they are unstoppable. It’s an approach that suits everyone – Barca are happy to take the plaudits, United can take the defeat easier knowing they’ve been beaten by a superb side, and the neutral can take pleasure from witnessing such a marvellous performance.

On the other hand, United probably shouldn’t have been dominated to such a large extent. Losing 3-1 is far from shameful, but the overall shots figure (22-4 to Barcelona) and the shots on target figure (12-1 to Barcelona) demonstrate quite how superior Guardiola’s side were. Tactics is not a case of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ depending solely upon the approach, but it’s difficult to argue that United’s tactics helped them compete in this game at all, even when starting from the earlier viewpoint – that Barca are by far the best around.

Hernandez starts

The key decision before the game was whether Hernandez would play upfront, or be dropped in favour of another midfielder. The choice to play him was an attacking move from Ferguson, but the inevitable knock-on effect was that Carrick and Giggs were overwhelmed in the centre of midfield. Wayne Rooney was given the job of tracking Sergio Busquets – a difficult task considering Rooney wanted to be in space when United won the ball – but Busquets started many of Barcelona’s attacks, and was able to find more attack-minded teammates in space very easily.

Hernandez isn’t the consistent threat over the top he should be considering his speed (though he’s obviously had a fantastic first season in terms of goalscoring) and he found himself frequently offside early in the game. Credit should go to Barcelona for that – in fact, in a game where Barcelona were largely able to play their ‘natural’ game, their aggressive offside trap was one of the few key tactical features. It takes a lot of confidence to be able to play so high up the pitch against Hernandez, especially with a back four that had played as a unit for just 60 minutes before this match.

United early pressure

United looked dangerous early on, and much of their good play came down the left, trying to get in behind Alves
All this said, Hernandez did help press Barcelona early on in this match – and Ferguson’s side were helped by the fact that Barca were without Puyol at the back – he’s a better passer than Abidal or Mascherano, and so it wasn’t a disaster if either of them had time on the ball. United settled quickly, won the first couple of tackles against Messi and played long balls, sometimes diagonal, into dangerous areas. Daniel Alves started nervously and Park Ji-Sung was a threat in the opening minutes.

Out of possession, Valencia and Park dropped deep and played narrow, helping United out in the centre of the pitch. The potential problem with Iniesta identified in the preview was part-solved by Valencia playing close to him. This then gave the Barcelona full-backs time on the ball, however, and it was partly because of that freedom that Barca were able to grow into the match and keep possession.

United’s defence dropped deep when Barca kept the ball, and so when it was played forward to Andres Iniesta, his favoured through-balls between centre-back and full-back trickled out of play for goal-kicks.

Space between the lines

The defence playing deep meant that Messi enjoyed too much time on the ball between the lines. It was obvious from the first minute that United’s strategy was to allow Nemanja Vidic and Rio Ferdinand to move forward to confront Messi, but this didn’t always work, and Messi got into intelligent positions to cause them problems.

The first goal came about because of space between the lines in two ways – first Xavi Hernandez became free there, and then Messi being unoccupied dragged Patrice Evra towards him, opening up space for Pedro Rodriguez to fire home.

Almost all Barcelona's chances came from passes played to a position on the edge of the 'D'
That summed up United’s failings without the ball, because they were too easily dragged out of shape – although usually in the midfield, rather than at the back. Giggs, Park and Valencia all found it difficult to compete, and Carrick was faced with Xavi and Iniesta coming past him, and Messi in behind him. That’s 3rd, 2nd and 1st in last year’s World Footballer of the Year award forming a triangle around him – he desperately needed help, and United needed another body in that zone.

And yet they managed to get back in it, though it was after the pressing that had worked early on, rather than good work in the midfield. They boxed in Barca when Abidal took a throw in the left-back position, won the ball quickly and then Rooney played an excellent double one-two with Carrick and Giggs, and finished superbly.

Second half

After the break, Giggs and Park were told to switch positions permanently, though they’d sometimes swapped in the first half. The wisdom of this was questionable – yes, United needed more energy in the middle, but Park was guilty of switching off for Aaron Ramsey’s goal recently when pushed into the centre, and when watching the replay for Messi’s goal here, he seemed to have given up off before Messi had struck the ball. That said, as mentioned earlier, it was the centre-backs’ job to come up towards Messi, and they were slow to do so.

The other effect of the switch was Giggs becoming exposed to Alves’ runs, and twice in the first ten minutes of the second half, Alves was through on goal after one of his classic darts down the right – once he shot at Edwin van der Sar, the other time he squared for Messi. Ferguson knew something different was needed in midfield, but switching Park and Giggs was unlikely to be the answer. With three central midfielders on the bench – Darren Fletcher, Anderson and Paul Scholes – he did have options.

Final stages

Messi dribbled past opponents easily in the 'number ten' position
Ferguson waited until the 69th minute to make a change, and that was enforced, as Fabio da Silva was struggling, possibly with cramp. Nani came on, Antonio Valencia went to right-back. Incidentally, it’s not uncommon for Fabio to depart because of fitness problems. He’s started 16 games this season and been removed 10 times, whilst his twin brother Rafael has been taken off in 8 of his last 9 games. These figures include tactical substitutions as well as changes because of injury, but a decent number have been fitness-related, and therefore it was a surprise that Ferguson named no full-back on the bench, with John O’Shea left out of the 18 altogether.

The substitution had little impact on the game, because David Villa soon curled a brilliant shot into the net to put Barcelona 3-1 up, and that settled it. United rarely threatened at two goals down, and Barcelona – particularly Messi – were keen to keep the ball rather than extend the lead.

Conclusion

“We never really controlled Messi,” Ferguson admitted after the game. “But many people have said that. We never really closed the midfield well enough to counter them. We tried to play as near to the way we normally play. For instance, it’s alien to us to try to man-mark players. We tried to play as normally as we can. It wasn’t good enough on the night, we acknowledge that.”

Guardiola was pleased with his side. “We pressed the ball a lot, we were on top of Carrick and Giggs and that shows the quality of our team. You’ll always have problems in the Champions League final but we had less problems than in Rome – we had more chances and we made more of them.

Lionel Messi is the best player I’ve seen, the best I will ever see probably. We have good players but without him I don’t think we’d be able to make that decisive leap.”

As both managers touched upon, there were two key factors – first, United didn’t get to grips with Barca in midfield, and second, Messi was sublime."

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/05/29/barcelona-3-1-man-utd-champions-league-final-2011/#more-6616

All the stats can be found on:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/30/champions-league-final-data

To put some of the stats in context they are incrediible.

When Spain played in the World Cup final, they passed the ball 398 times to Netherlands 241. THis equates to Spain having 62% of the possession and Holland having 38%.

To pass the ball 648 times is the highest figure I've recorded over nearly three years of recording stats. Australia recorded about 560 against Indonesia.

Xavi Hernadez' 113 passes is the highest individual score for any game I've recorded or even read about. Socceroo Jacob Burns passed the ball 81 times against Indonesia.
Grella averages over 50 for Australia. He is usually the highest performer on either side when Australia he has played. Culina is not far behind.

What is more remarkable though is that Xavi recorded about 95% accuracy in the attacking half of the pitch. That is simply incredible. Even good teams like Argentina often only average 78 -83% in the attacking half of the pitch.

It is also Australia's greatest offensive problem. We struggle to create passing lanes in the central attacking half. Barcelona does it so easily. There always seems to be an effortless triangle or diamond when they are possession of the ball.

Barcelona also accrued about 63% of its total team passes in the attacking half too. It is unbelievable. It is one of the most dominant performances of any team over another team statistically since I've recorded stats over the last three years!!!. Yet they only won by 2 goals. often teams accrue high numbers of passes when their opponents only play half and partial presses. Then they pass the ball around in their own half, gaining little territory.

Australia dominated more against Indonesia, but they only scored 1 goal too.

What is more astonishing is that Man U are the second best side in Europe. Yet they were totally outclassed. They had almost the lowest possession percentage of almost any team since I've been taking stats - 29%.

A further point is Messi.

In any Socceroo matches, our players only dribble around opposition players on about 7 occasions for the entire team over a whole game. Other than Archie, Carle, Kewell, Carney, Kruse and Tommy Oar, hardly any of our players can beat any players one on one at all.

Lionel Messi dribbled around players on 19 occasions!!!!! Once he beat 3 players in one mazy run.

Australia's best performer was Tommy Oar against Indonesia when he beat them on 13 occasions.

Barca is a small, puny side too. Only Pique, Abidal, Mascherano and Puyol are physically strong ball winners. The rest of the team gained possession by intensive squeezing for 80 minutes of this match.

They win the ball by intercepts, through squeezing intensively and very high up the pitch. Not by strength and tackling battles that occur in the A League, British leagues and USA. There are very few high balls and resultant second ball contests by playing the Barca. Man U played them though - often.





Edited by Decentric: 1/6/2011 01:15:11 AM

I thought I'd post this in the Performance section since Arthur posted an article on stats for Swansea here.

Defensive passes - Man U passed the ball 134 times, Barcelona 236.

Attacking passes - Man u passed the ball 137 times, Barcelona 412.

Total Passes - Man U passed the ball 271 times, Barcelona 648.

Defensive pass accuracy - Man U 95%, Barcelona 94%.

Attacking pass accuracy - Man U 83%, Barcelona 93%.

Overall pass accuracy rate - Man U 89%, Barcelona 93%.

Possession based on pass percentage - Man U 29%, Barcelona 71%.

One versus one duels - Barcelona won 3 more over the whole game than Man U.

No of one versus one duels in the game - 134.

Shots on goal - Man U 4, Barcelona 24.

Shots on target - Man U 1, Barca 14.

Crosses - Man U 9, Barca 4.

Fouls committed - Man U 13, Barca 4.

Corners won, Man U 0, Barca 3.

Keeper saves - Man U 9, Barca 0.

15 metre plus ball carries - Man U 8, Barca 17.



I also looked at two playere renowned for very high stats rates in specific areas.

Xavi Xernandez recorded 27 defensive passes with a pass accuracy rate of 96%.

Xavi Hernandez recorded 86 attacking passes with a pass accuracy of 95%.

Xavi Hernadez recorded 113 total passes for the game with a 95% pass accuracy rate.


In terms of dribbling.

Lionel Messi dribbled around players on 19 occasions.

Lionel Messi recorded 6 ball carries of 15 metres plus.