Report and Statistics - FIFA.com

22 TECHNICAL AND TACTICAL ANALYSIS
Whenever they won the ball, they looked to play the
ball straight to their strikers, and during their own
build-up play, they also sought the fi rst opportunity
to play the ball to their strikers, not only using long
balls. When they were attacking, they continually
played “give and go”, that is, as soon as a player
had passed the ball, he made himself available to
accept a return pass and thereby unbalance or
provoke a reaction from their opponents. Nigeria
played this way throughout the 90 minutes when
necessary, and with rarely-seen persistence.
The tactic of seeking out one-on-one situations
in defence and thereby relying on confi dent and
physically imposing players seems not only to be
in vogue among African teams, since leading
European and South American clubs are also
relying increasingly on this method of defending
and are gradually discarding the tactic of defending
collectively.
It is no wonder that Adeleye (5) of Nigeria was
one of the most eye-catching players in central
defence. He combined all of the aforementioned
attributes of Nigerian defending, and stood out
all the more because he was the leader of the
defence.
Besides Adeleye, however, Nigeria’s key performers
were their attacking players. Obinna, Isaac,
Okoronkwo (11) and Odemwingie excelled on
account of their outstanding physical presence
and their quality in one-on-one situations.
Nigeria’s success was therefore no surprise, but
merely the sum total of its individual class and the
commitment of its players.
Brazil
Brazil’s strengths could be summarised as effi cient
fi nishing, outstanding technique, an absolute
love of the game and, above all, individual class
in attack.
When they are “let loose”, that is, when their
opponents do not defend solidly and close down
the space aggressively (as Argentina did in the
semi-fi nal), the Brazilians automatically show
their individual class. These strengths and the skill
of most of their players in one-on-one attacking
situations allow them to play slick combination
football, and it occasionally brings their love of
the game to the fore, much to the delight of
spectators. During this tournament, however,
there were too few of these moments as the team
was over-reliant on its strengths in one-on-one
situations when attacking. Admittedly, this was
enough for them to win their games en route to
the semi-fi nal, but they did not succeed against
Argentina, who played more consistently and thus
triumphed in the South American head-to-head.
In the bronze medal match, the Brazilians came
to life again and produced a refreshing brand of
passing football. Their most eye-catching player
was an attacker, Diego. After him, Rafael Sobis, Jo,
Thiago Neves (16) and Ronaldinho also impressed.
If ever a team could speak of its “disappointment”
at fi nishing third, then it is surely Brazil.
Belgium
Belgium were without doubt one of the main
surprises of the tournament. Basically written off
after the fi rst match – among other things because
of their lack of discipline – the team improved as the
tournament went on. The team even traded blows
equally with Brazil for spells during their bronze