Defensively minded 4-4-1-1 is undone by possessive 4-2-3-1

Stoke got everything wrong tactically as Roberto Mancini won his first trophy with big spending Manchester City


Stoke were pushed back by Manchester City's shape, and their own lack of confidence

With Stoke City as the team in my local area, I was obviously aware of the build-up to this match. Confidence was high- Stoke had dismissed Arsenal, Bolton, Wolves and Newcastle in recent games by impressive margins. However, looking at that form, this isn’t perhaps unsurprising as a result: they stuttered against Blackpool, Villa and Spurs as well in those same impressive months. Their deconstructions of Bolton and Arsenal perhaps, retrospectively, were because those teams have been on terrible form themselves. This analysis will mostly focus on the offending party: Stoke, who really lost for all the right reasons. It wasn’t a day for underdogs.

Defensive Lines: Pressing

In my preview I identified pressing as being important. Stoke played a traditional 4-4-2 (or 4-4-1-1), with Walters dropping back as a deep lying forward.

For 4-4-2 to function as a formation, traditionally the emphasis is on pushing high up the field. This means there is little space between the defensive, midfield and attacking bands. With Jonathan Walters tracking back as a link-man, this should have put the emphasis on playing high up the pitch in order to focus on the battle in midfield.

The problem with this is that Man City have some excellent passers of the ball (Silva,  Barry), and Stoke manager Tony Pulis perhaps feared these players exploiting a high defensive line: the Stoke defence is not especially pacy, with defensively minded full-backs (Wilkinson is a converted centre-back and Wilson is a utility man: left back is a problem for Stoke). Stoke’s central midfield choices, however, were rather defensive- Whelan and Delap. The emphasis, therefore, was on 4 players: wingers Pennant and Etherington (who was a late name on the teamsheet due to doubts over injury) and the forwards Walters and Kenwynne Jones.

However, the pattern of the game was set almost immediately from kick-off: Stoke threatened, and were soon turned into their own half. Pulis clearly had settled for sitting deep and counter-attacking. Stoke did not take the risk and challenge the admittedly strength-filled City midfield of Yaya Touré, Gareth Barry, and especially Nigel De Jong who had a superb game.

Therefore, Stoke’s high line simply did not fit their tactics: their forwards were left stranded, and their wingers did not get forward well enough, and when they did their crossing was wasteful – with the exception of a wonderful direct pass from range to Jones by Etherington, who was replaced moments later by Dean Whitehead, Stoke were simply flat. De Jong shackled Walters in the band in front of the defence, but what was effective was he was extremely mobile, moving with his man. This allowed Barry to play further forward. When Barry was replaced in the second half by the attack-minded winger Adam Johnson, the goal came soon after: City had won the midfield battle, with their 4-2-3-1 formation (or, more effectively 4-1-2-2-1). De Jong’s shackling of Walters allowed the full backs, especially Kolarov, to come forward and make overlapping runs. This was instrumental in allowing Mario Balotelli to have the space and option to cut inside, which led to an excellent pass for the goal as Yaya Touré struck from range. Stoke’s deep defensive line and compact, narrow play meant that long-range strikes had been a feature of the game for Manchester City, especially with De Jong and Touré coming up from the defensive midfield late on the edge of the box, leading to a number of soaring efforts. With Barry replaced by a forward, City were able to outmanoeuvre Stoke and score. Perhaps it was this lack of pushing forward which made Mancini gamble and make an attack-minded change.

Wingers as Wing-Backs

The domination is epitomised by this highlight, where Etherington made the long-ball towards Jones, who was unlucky not to score what would have been a great individual goal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZvLOdurPmA&feature=player_detailpage#t=119s

As you can see, after an excellent desperation tackle following some sustained Man City possession, and Walters was occupying a midfielder’s position. Etherington got the ball and passed well within his own half, in-fact from where you’d usually expect the full-back to be This was a feature all game, especially on the right- Jermaine Pennant frequently dropped back and occupied the right-back zone, winning the ball several times. He made runs forward, but his crossing was not effective, and nor were his free kick deliveries.

In many ways, Etherington and Pennant acted as wing-backs. It was this caution and fear of pushing into the expansive centre of the pitch which made the goal perhaps inevitable. If it had gone to penalties it would have been a practically 120 minute defence by Stoke, and that is why they lost.

The Stoke substitutions were mostly ineffective, exposing a lack of depth. It wasn’t that the ‘big occasion got to them’, or some other fluffy substance-less explanation: Pulis got the tactics wrong and did not gamble. If they wanted to play as they did, they should have matched the opposing 4-2-3-1 formation (or perhaps it was 4-2-1-3 with how Balotelli and Silva were involved).

Stoke: Strikerless for all the wrong reasons

In-fact, what was indicative about the false-match up in formations was that Jones visibly dropped back, leading Stoke effectively strikerless. This isn’t, however, something which would get Jonathan Wilson excited – it was simply that Stoke were pinned back and Jones was impatient hanging at the back. Rather than occupying defenders, he was being wasted. The poor passing figures of the Stoke defence show this desperation to clear the lines – direct, quick passing is extremely effective if teams break quickly and in an organised fashion. Stoke simply looked tired.

…and Manchester City deserved it

I have not really focussed on Manchester City, but their play was generally good- their two best players were easily De Jong (my man of the match) and Balotelli (the telly’s man of the match). Silva also played well, as did Yaya Touré. Their game featured surprisingly quick passing with players making overlapping runs, causing space. Stoke put 9 men behind the ball for most of the match, so this perhaps excuses the lack of goals: the dominance in possession and ball-retention was enough for City to carry the day, especially with some surprisingly risky substitutions. This wasn’t ‘Catenaccio’: it was a possession-based system.