Brazil

Spain is critized for playing 2 holding midfielders - but Brazil have Gilberto Silva and Melo. So why is Spain doing it wrong? Everyone is arguing for Spain to drop one of their defensive midfielders but no one is saying anything about Brazil. But I think 2 defensive midfielders is not particularly a bad idea. You will find the particular strength of playing 2 defensive midfielders below.

Many people doubted Brazil's credentials when they are aware that Gilberto Silva is in their starting 11. But like I mentioned before, International Football is not about individuals, or like for like comparison, but about teams.

Lucio

I find two players from Brazil and Spain that are like for like substitutes. Lucio and Pique. I initially thought that perhaps Lucio's forwards runs, especially with the ball at feet, would be a bit risky and dangerous and wondered if it will cost Brazil (note the similarity with the style of play with Pique). But an observation is that whenever Lucio makes his forward runs bringing the ball from the back, Gilberto Silva retreats deeper and slots into his position in the centre of defence.

I think that Lucio's forwards runs would hurt teams immensely. Opposing teams have two options when Lucio does this 1. Close Lucio down with your midfield (particularly with your defensive midfielders) but this creates space for Brazil's central attackers of Kaka and Elano to exploit and leave them completely unmarked. 2. Back off, retreat, stand-off but this enables Brazil's attackers to move so much closer to your goal and would result your defence playing much deeper than desired. And to understand the effectiveness of this, look at Beckenbauer's goals. He brings the ball out of defence, sometimes going all the way to the opposition goal and shoot OR he brings it up so high upfield that just one pass would result in a West Germany goal - all the Defenders / Midfield just back off and allowing him all the space he needs. Lucio's runs create confusion, and the best thing about it is that Brazil cover his position with Gilberto.

With Spain, when Pique runs forward, neither Xabi nor Busquets take up his position. Effectively overcrowding the midfield, and leaving confusion for Spain's full-backs whether or not to go forward to support the attack or cover the defence.

The Full-backs

Brazil's attacking full backs are more effective than Spain's. Spain have Ramos and Capdevilla running upfield. But Spain's danger again lies in the position of their 2 Deep lying midfielders. Xabi and Busquets do not retreat but maintain their forward positions whenever the Spanish full backs run forward. Brazil however, have Gilberto and Melo respectively moving in closer towards the respective side-lines, covering the position of Bastos and Maicon. And their midfield / attack of Robinho, Kaka, Fabiano and Elano move further infield. Forcing the opposition defence's shape to be much more narrower. It leaves a dilemma for the opposition full-backs, do we follow Robinho and Elano in-field or do we close down the attacking full backs of Brazil ? If you take notice, look how narrow Brazil's attackers play. They effectively force the opposition's shape much narrower, leaving space for the full-backs to run. For Spain however, Xabi and Busquets continue to stay at where their positions are in the middle of the park, playing further upfront sometimes. Making the midfield very congested and this doesn't create any space for themselves, and leaving the back totally exposed.

The Attack

I think Spain's ultimate weakness is when playing the lone-striker, they are way to predictable. Spain's forwards do not drop back to hold up the ball or to support midfield play. And when they do (which is rare), Iniesta and Silva are not doing enough to make forward runs to support attack. And if Spain decides to play 4-4-2 (which they most likely will against Honduras), their strikers play too close to each other. Spain's 4-4-2 is deployed for one of the striker to make runs dragging defenders with him, and allowing the other space. Useful, but what if the opposition plays with a back 3 or a defensive midfielder very close to the backline? It wouldn't really work.

Brazil however, have flexibility in their forwards. Robinho, Kaka and Fabiano triangle interchange their positions. Robinho playing further upfield, Kaka slightly deeper than him, and Elano slightly deeper than Kaka. The lack of flexibility in the front as I have discussed earlier is rather dangerous. Netherlands do not have this problem because of the Van Persie role. Arguably Fabregas is better at making upfield runs than Xavi, but I do not think that warrants replacing Iniesta or Xavi with Fabregas.

Defending against Brazil

How do you defend against Brazil? Their full backs are very dangerous. So it would be a good idea to nullify their forward runs with your wingers. By pushing your wingers / inside forwards upfield (think Rooney and Park : Man Utd vs Barcelona 2008) , Brazil arguably are not allowed to play their full backs further upfield as they would like. By disabling their full backs, it would to some extent, leave all the attacking responsibility to Robinho, Kaka, Elano and Fabiano. As Silva and Melo (lesser) rarely run forward to support the attack. So if you play with 2 holding midfielders, it will look more like 6 vs 4(4 defenders + 2 holding midfielders; Brazil = 4). And because of Brazil's attackers tendency to play so narrowly (which actually helps you if you defend this way), it makes it really congested in the middle of the park. And when Either one of Robinho, Elano drifts wide, they more likely than not only have Fabiano and Kaka in the middle against your 2 centrebacks and 2 holding midfielders. They would predictably (or likely) , have Melo or Lucio come up further. And if so, this leaves them completely exposed at the back (think Switzerland's goal vs Spain).

Attacking Brazil

So how do you attack them? Counter (North Korea)? Your opportunity to counter comes from 2 scenarios: 1. When the above suggestion for defending occurs, the middle of the park would be pretty empty. This requires your central striker to be particularly adept at holding up play, waiting for support. (An advantage of 3-4-3 : 2 of your strikers on either flansk push their full-backs deeper your central midfield plays deep, but you have 2 extra players on the wings if required from your 4 member midfield); 2. Another is by exploiting their full-backs forward positions. This would be a bit harder if you're using your wingers to keep them back from the earlier suggestion. Because their full-backs are forced to play closer to goal, and they therefore have more numbers at the back. I think a 3-4-3 would be useful where your forwards are able to drift wide and not play centrally (see New Zealand) and your forwards may be able to nullify their wing backs. But the danger with NZ's 3-4-3 is it would fail horribly if the opposition attackers do not play centrally and able to drift wide. Italy's forwards play too close to each other in the centre, and soes do Spain - but not Brazil. Their attackers would drag your centrebacks wider and leave you exposed in the middle. What you need to execute an effective 3-4-3 against Brazil / Netherlands where their attackers drift wide is to have equally adept defensive midfielders who are capable of playing central of defense, playing there when one of the centre backs gets dragged wide or alternatively, have your wide midfielders to support the defending (But when the forward drifts wide, your wide midfielder might not have no time to come back and defend it the centre-back's position is fixed, so you effectively have your wide midfielder playing much deeper fearing this would happen effectively resulting in North Korea's 5-3-2. The intelligent play of the forwards - when to drift wide and when to move infield could hurt you badly. A flexible 3-4-3 with the defensive responsibilities falling to the wide players would be very risky in this case) However North Korea's rigid 5-3-2 argualy was effective in shutting out Fabiano, Kaka, Elano and Robinho, but leaves them completely exposed on the flanks for the Brazilian full-backs to exploit as Brazil's attackers drag the full-backs infield. A 3-4-3 would provide greater balance. But do note that playing a back three, sometimes just ends up cancelling each other out (Uruguay vs France) , it would help you to defend effectively, but your attack may be a bit too isolated. It may not help you win games, but it would help you to not lose.

I think the only way to at least nullify Brazil is to play with 3 forwards or at least have your attacking midfielders play wide. And ensure you pack your players in front of the goal . Nullifying Brazil is perhaps possible, but what is harder is actually doing some damage to them.

And note that succesful sides in this world cup have used 3 forwards or at least a midfield and striker combination that LOOKs like 3 forwards: Mexico, Uruguay, Netherlands, Brazil, and to a certain extent Japan. And note my emphasis of playing forwards capable of holding up play or operating or drifting wide to allow the other attackers space, that is why Japan used a midfielder as a lone striker.

I must conclude that neither of my suggestions were particularly effective, effective perhaps defensively but it wouldn't help you win games and takes some really good players to execute. And partly because Brazil's formation and players are so effective and their attack particularly so pacey. Thats why Brazil are so hard to beat. Defending against them is no easy task as well because of the runs of their attackers. Thats why Brazil are my favourites to win the world Cup.