Germany Over Argentina: A System trumps Flair

It has been said that Brazil won the 1970 Word Cup without a system but just a bunch of players on the pitch expressing themselves.

With such a gifted squad as Brazil had in 1970, it is little wonder that this approach worked. But in the modern world of refined tactics can such a hands-off approach work?

If the Germany-Argentina match is anything to go by, the answer must be an emphatic no.

Why did Argentina lose to Germany?

Was it a case of half-hearted millionaires on the pitch who really didn't care about exerting themselves ?

While this is a favorite notion of fans, I believe this is incorrect. The Argentinean players I saw against Germany could be accused of anything but lack of effort and dedication.

On the contrary it strongly had everything to do with a bunch of players expected to express themselves and win in the process.

I am sure Maradona would beg to differ, but this is what I observed. It appeared to me as plain as day even when Argentina still had the chance to get back into the game.

I have used on at least two separate occasions the word "incisive" to describe the Germans style of play. It is quite easy to describe, beautiful to behold, and it has been effective so far.

It begins from the back when the Germans win the ball from the attacking opponent. There is either a quick diagonal pass to the center backs, either of which tries to move the ball quickly down the flank and then to the wide midfielders, or else, execute a reverse diagonal pass to the midfield; or a quick drive through the middle to the midfielders.

More times than not, Schweinsteiger gets the ball, then drives it quickly to Podolski or any wide player, or forward to the attackers, high in the opponent's half. The system works through quickness, accurate passes and focuses less on individual skill of the athlete.

A key component to the system is movement off the ball, such that the player in possession can intelligibly guess where in the field a teammate might be to receive a pass.

Insofar as skill is concerned, it appears all that is needed is the ability to hold the ball and not lose it to the opponent and the ability to decide quickly where and to whom to make a pass.

This is not to say that the Germans are not skillful, but the kind of skill in their team was different from the Argentinean team for instance.

I think it is fair to say, a man to man comparison of skill favors the Argentineans. On that ground alone, Argentina should have defeated Germany quite easily.

Thus, the German victory was a victory of system over raw skill.

The lop-sided shape of the Argentinean team became evident in the early minutes of the second-half when they were still chasing a one goal deficit.

While it is customary for the team chasing the game to apply more attacking pressure in a match, it is usually risky to do so by pushing too high, which is exactly what Argentina did and suffered fatal counter attacks as a result.

A more subtle way, in fact, a better way is to try to create width by forming a "V", with the sharp side being the defensive side.

By knocking the ball around this "V", it is probable the opposing team would be stretched out of position, since their instinct would be to win back the ball. This creates holes in their system that could be exploited to score a goal.

Of course, this is rudimental and does not always work (nothing works in football in just one try), but football tactics are seldom complicated.

Ghana for instance neutralized the German's diagonal passing by using a contrasting method that drove the ball through the middle with quick passing also as the key to doing so.

Note that the Ghanaians achieved this by freeing up the middle of the pitch through their wide players who took their markers out of position, freeing up space in the middle to allow the drives through the middle. (And to date they are the only team that came close to neutralizing the Germans).

In contrast, the Argentineans clogged up the middle of the pitch with their own players, with the result that when they had possession of the ball they could not open up the German defense, and it was easy for the Germans to thwart their drives as a result.

It was funny and pathetic to see two Argentinean players running parallel in the middle with a player (the third) in possession of the ball.

Pathetic because the one in possession couldn't use them since they were so close and thus quite useless as passing options; and funny because they would all run into a German brick wall.

Another sorry thing to see in the Argentineans, particularly when they went more than a goal down, was their instinct to assert themselves individually: Tevez, Higuain, di Maria, no matter that they were consistently stopped in their tracks.

Messi was better because he has always had the instinct to seek out a passing option when in possession. This was still evident in this game, admirable, considering he didn't yet have a goal to his name.

In short, Argentina failed because they didn't have a system either to counter that of the opponent or one that could give them the initiative.

This should have been clear right from the beginning of the World Cup when they declared Messi had been given freedom to assume any position or role he liked. In essence, he was free to express himself any way he chose.

Sounds nice as an idea but in the context of a team borders on the silly. It neither helped the team in the long run nor did it do justice to Messi.

In the end, blame must fall on Maradona whose duty it was to fashion strategy and system for the team. Sure, we enjoyed watching him on the sideline, ecstatic when Argentina scored, or executing deft touches on the ball to lift it to a player for a throw-in, but managing a team is more than sideline histrionics.

It is sad, such a gifted team could not offer us more at the World Cup. Again, it has been demonstrated, good players seldom make good coaches, sad for both Maradona and Argentina.

To the Germans who triumphed because they had a plan and a system. Here is hoping you win the cup.