Middle-sized fish entering the big pond
Brief observations of Shakhtar’s issues versus Real Madrid
Pep Guardiola notably said
It is not easy to play central defender with this manager. Header, long ball, channel, channel. They have to defend 40 metres behind and make build-up, so its not easy, that’s why I admire a lot my central defenders.
This quote encapsulates many of the issues I think Roberto de Zerbi’s Shakhtar faced in the Champions League whilst underlining a paradigm which is becoming increasingly prevalent – that of the domestic giant looking to establish itself in Europe whilst nevertheless playing a kind of football suitable for dominating domestic competition. The other team that comes to mind which I am familiar with which highlights this paradigm is Celtic under Ange Postecoglou. Similarly, to Shakhtar, Celtic have a strong domestic rival which means maintaining high performance levels is paramount due to small slips potentially being irrevocable rather than simply being capable of running away with the league. This subsequently means the teams style must be adapted around domestic concerns (constantly winning), in addition to aesthetic and ideological decisions often pertinent in employing managers such as Postecoglou and de Zerbi, as they are perceived as playing the ‘correct way’.
However, working at the budget these teams have, (Shakhtar’s albeit higher, but nevertheless overshadowed by European heavyweights), must generate sacrifices with regards to the complete skillset demanded of defenders noted by Pep, but moreover midfielders and forwards face the same conundrum, particularly as you require high levels of technical quality. For example, de Zerbi requires highly technical midfielders capable of playing within the compact build-up stucture predicated on enticing the opposition to break stucture and playing through the tight gaps created to exploit space left uncovered. Playing ‘his way’ is undermined without technically proficient players. In the Ukrainian Premier Division, they dominate possession with most teams willing to acquiesce possession and territorial control which further places a premium on these technical attributes. Therefore, when playing against a side which seeks to control possession and similarly looks to create exploitable gaps via possession, defensive and physical deficiencies become more pertinent. This perspective essentailly works under the pretence, that complete technical players have been hoovered up by the European elite with greater finances, or will be in 1 or 2 years which prevents the establishing of a competitive squad in most instances - therefore, the players who are extremely technical, may be lacking elsewhere.
The lack of defensive ability and intensity can undermine the ‘stability is the ball’ aspect many of these teams are predicated upon. Against players of Modric, Casemiro and Kroos quality, they quite often cannot get near the players and place them under sufficient pressure. This undermines counterpressure to sustain control in the oppositions half, and exposes the defenders to large distances. Physicality is a large aspect, the ability to cover large distances which halt attacks before they arise, or intensely burst to limit time and space. This moreover becomes pertinent as longer transitions created through deeper build-up become more important when facing higher pressure. Lack of physicality (relative) can often negate benefits attained through the stretched pitch desired to be created by deeper build-up, exacerbating the negative side of the vicissitudes of verticality once progression into the final 3rd is complete – this factor is what I think undermined Simone Inzaghi twice in Europe, with Lazio and Inter – the patterns were great, the players technically executed the routines, but they lacked the relative physicality that they may have domestically to exploit the space created, and when the conditions were reversed, their relative recovery was poorer.
The Shakhtar versus Real Madrid games made an interesting case study because both sides opted for high man-orientation with remarkably contrasting results which can largely be placed on the disparity in quality between the aggressive, tenacious, and intense Casemiro and Éder Militão who were phenomenal at covering spaces in between the lines required to compensate for the lack of compactness in between the 2nd and 3rd lines characteristic of these types of systems. Moreover, even players like Vinicius Júnior were able to acceleration to catch defenders off guard building deep - in addition to benefitting more from the larger spaces created because of his high-speed dribbling.
I feel sustaining pressure is crucial element to playing how de Zerbi would desire, and therefore, prioritising defensive attributes over complete technical proficiency would perhaps be advisable despite building out being crucial as it better allows the team to take risks in attacks without having to worry as frequently about counters whilst moreover maintaining higher levels of possession and control as the opponent becomes suffocated.
The threat of counters adds an extra part to the lack of physicality argument which was the lack of directness and power in the running of Shakhtar players comparatively, against the stronger Real Madrid defenders which often allowed Real Madrid to commit more men to attack. The fundamental of having outlets which prevent the opponent from taking the risk of maintain numerical parity at the back was stark when comparing the two teams, for as much as I love them all, Pedrinho, Tete and Solomon lacked the drive to carry a team forward and exploit large areas of space. Mykhaylo Mudryk is potentially the exception in the Shakhtar attack. Its times like this where a de Zerbian team misses the directness a Jérémie Boga.
Summarised, the hypothesis of the issue is as follows: Having to defend too much space in behind and advancing into space created via deep-build up which is more pertinent against higher pressing CL sides which requires dynamic player movements. This transitional style can leave the defence exposed once or if pressure is broken, or the transition is broken, which occurs frequently due to the lack of physicality in midfield and attack. Once progression is made through the initial counterpressure, the opposition can transition through the wings then centrally, and gain more territory in 5 seconds with some regularity than Shakhtar do in 60 as the exposed defence must retreat rather than engage because of the qualitative difference and the aspect of vast amounts of space both ahead and behind them. All the lovely aesthetic movements can be very quickly undone by a Benzema ball in behind to a winger, meaning Real Madrid are transitioning forward with masses of space in between the 2nd and 3rd lines due to the defensive retreat, creating a better shooting opportunity in addition to conditions to sustaining pressure by forcing a rapid retreat, rather than a controlled one. In simple terms – defending small spaces is much easier than defending large ones.
And it is this last aspect where I think de Zerbi potentially deserves if not blame, a larger degree of accountability rather than the chalking up of the differentials to quality ones. The previous paragraphs have more been to elucidate a conundrum faced, on how highly to prize technicality when it is often at the sacrifice of physicality and off ball attributes in a rudimentary sense. These systems offensively place the defenders under significant troubles as the initial Pep quote highlighted. Yes, defending is a collective effort and stucture such as compactness around the ball, man-orientation on near-options etc., alleviate woes, but these structures do not exist in the abstract. They are carried out by individuals with various strengths and weaknesses, with this paradigm often resulting in off-ball/physical weaknesses in the relative sense because of the importance of technique. It has thus sought to provoke a thought about whether getting physically dominant centre backs is potentially a priority in a possession-based system, or equally having somebody more oriented around breaking up play in midfield, or an offensive balancer on the wings, more physical than technical is needed. Individual cases vary and it is difficult for me not to embrace my rain-or-shineism present in my starry eyed de Zerbian ways of prizing the consolidated possession and building out of pressure aspects, and regardless my knowledge of Shakhtar quality players they could consider around Europe is insufficient to provide anything of more substance than an abstract speculation on profiles.
Nevertheless, enough postponement on talking about tactical issues. The issue was the choice of going man-oriented and pressing the extents of the pitch whilst faced with these physical realities. Man-oriented high coverage in central regions = lots of space, and encouragement of duelling, highlighting where Shakhtar are weakest. Correspondingly Madrid in possession were almost able to toy with the players as they couldn’t get near them, or make up the distances required to limit time and space in possession. The counterargument is potentially that part of playing high possession, control-based football is that you need a high-press to force long-balls and sustain pressure – and abstractly I agree. But you also need the players capable of carrying that out, which Shakhtar lacked, which served to undermine the possession aspects as the players seemed more physically fatigued chasing shadows, limiting their potential in transition. When faced with large qualitative gaps, minimising deficiencies which are not present otherwise (UPL) becomes more important. I understand the issue of timing to develop alternate structures for Europe, and that the complexity involved in implementing a mid-block be too great to achieve and implement successfully, and lacking experience coaching this, I cannot answer whether this rebuttal is correct. However, lack of adaptability then may continue to cost de Zerbi in Europe, despite the team continuing to play fantastic football in possession.
However, competing with the Real Madrid’s of the world is not Shakhtar’s aim, and their style would be able to more seamlessly transition into the Europa League for example – it nevertheless functioned to highlight another thing I love about Conte – when faced with situations where the opponent will dominate the ball, you can acquiescence, concede territory and minimise the available playing area whilst nevertheless having a rigid action plan in possession which maximises the moments you do have the ball i.e., goal kicks. Moreover because of the emphasis on automatisation, technical proficiency becomes relatively less important contrasted to physical and defensive aspects required to maintain the mid-to-low block. I think neither the more compact defensive approach, nor the fantastic deep build-up is sufficient alone, but rather the combination when faced with these difficulties is key.
Ultimately, come rain or shine, I will enjoy de Zerbi’s football, because the results don’t factor as pertinently in my mind. I think lacking complete technical proficiency would be costly to the overall ambition, and even pragmatically, I would be reticent to advise it. However, I do think prioritising directness and capacity to cover distances in wingers would be advisable to better exploit deeper transitions - looking for another Boga, capable of carrying the team forward.