Nigeria-Zambia: Good Result, Poor Performance

It has been said before that football is a funny old game. To that I will add that football always tells you the truth. What part of it you choose, is your own 'selenge', to borrow a Nigerian slang..

In his second game in charge, Nigeria overcame a hardworking Zambian team 2-0. You can look at the final result and shout 'uhuru', with some legitimacy, I might add. In the end football is about results.

But you could also look further, and legitimately too. You could, while accepting the result (thank you very much) look at the relative ease with which Zambia dominated Nigeria in midfield and the attempt to address this without much success by the coaching crew and be concerned. Afterall a team doesn't become bad in one day. It becomes bad from repeated failure to address a festering sore.

Whereas against Botswana, the Super Eagles faced the challenge of overcoming a team which opted to standoff in midfield, retreat into a deep defensive shape and counterattack, today the challenge was how to deal with a proactive, aggressive team, which opted to repeatedly pressure the ball all over the field, winning back the ball again and again and dominating play.

Nigeria started the game, like Zambia in a 4-3-3 formation. While its execution might vary from team to team, the whole concept of the 4-3-3 is based on an aggressive, proactive and fluid approach, with the three lines used to constantly pressure the opponent.

In deploying a 4-3-3, Stephen Keshi's team suprisingly lacked a proactive approach, with wide gaps between the lines, and the defence sitting deep. The front trio hardly pressured the opponent, allowing Zambia time and space to play out of defence. The lack of pressure and fluidity in movement in midfield allowed Zambia to consistently find the extra man to execute triangles in central midfield, or deliver the outlet ball to the fullbacks pushing forward unchallenged.

Defensively, the inability of the flank players to play in the non-possession phase, left the fullbacks completely exposed, with undefended zones on the inside and outside.

The coaching crew recognized this early, and switched to a 4-4-2, with Ogude making way for Uche. Sadly this switch would worsen the situation, with Uche making little impact until his brilliant individual effort for the second goal.

In my considered opinion, Nigeria currently lack the personnel to execute the modern 4-4-2 formation and successfully maintain the defensive integrity of the team, especially in wide areas in the non-possession phase. As in the last game, Kalu Uche continues to play in only one phase of the game. While his goal was well taken, especially in terms of his positioning, he contributed nothing in the non-possession phase, which allowed Zambia to repeatedly push Musonda up, or execute a triangle around Taiwo, with Mbesuma dropping wide and often behind the left back.

The overall effect was that our game lacked clear definition in terms of movement, passing and support systems, with Emenike and Obi at one point running into each other with the Zambian goal at their mercy.

On the offense, the attacking game was being developed almost entirely on the ability of players, especially Musa, to win 1v1 duels, with very little corresponding movement being made around him, either to pull defenders out or present multiple options beyond the crossed ball. Again and again, the team retreated to the familar long ball for an isolated Emenike to chase, with little support from the midfield or widebacks.

In defensive midfield, the familar weaknesses of Etuhu were self evident, repeatedly losing possession as Zambia pressed the ball, and failing to provide cover, either for the centerback who is drawn out of defence, or even to cover the zones behind the fullbacks. In a 4-3-3 formation, the central player in the midfield trio, among other things, provides cover for the defence in winning back the ball, as well as provide a continuing outlet to enable rapid ball circulation. He did neither.

Let there be no misunderstanding though. This is not about playing pretty patterns without cutting edge in the final third. Its about organization and efficiency.

But the good news is that these are early days and a victory such as this can only breed confidence moving forward.

Verdict:

Nigeria: A festering sore can be papered over and still look good. But it won't stop it from decaying on the inside. Good result, poor performance...

Interesting cameo for Ugo Ukah, with his resemblance of Uche Okechukwu. Hope to see more.....

Zambia: Could have and should have done a lot more with its territorial dominance. Result reinforces the stereotype of the typical Zambia team that is easy on the eye, but lacking cutting edge in the final third.

NIGERIA: 1. Vincent ENYEAMA (Ejide); Efe AMBROSE (Okonkwo), Taye TAIWO, Joseph YOBO (c), Dele Adeleye (Ugo Ukah); Dickson Etuhu, Fengor OGUDE (Ike Uche), Joel OBI; Kalu UCHE (Nosa Igiebor), Ahmed Musa, Emmanule Emenike (Jude Aneke)

ZAMBIA: K Mweene, F Kasonde, S Sunzu, N Mulenga, J Musonda, C Katongo, W Njobvu, F Katongo, C Mbesuma, E Mayuka, R Kalaba

POSTSCRIPT:

Following the game, coach Stephen Keshi commented as follows:

“(Against Zambia) we lost the midfield because Fegor (Ogude) was injured and had to go off. Etuhu was fagged out from playing two games in three days and there was no replacement,” he disclosed while assuring on the defence..

“I had like 10 strikers today and I was looking for midfielders to play but I couldn’t find them. I can’t put a striker on as a midfielder.

“I need to have the numbers of players in every department that will allow me change players if one is not doing well. Today I could not do it. I was trying to juggle with it. I won’t overhaul the team, but I will make sure that for every 18 or 25 we get to camp, there are twins in every position.” Link

All due respects to coach Keshi, especially recognizing that he did not select the squad and had not been hired when the list for the two friendlies was published, but this is an incorrect assessment.

First, Zambian domination in midfield began long before the departure of Ogude and was a product of the effectiveness of their pressing system, the weakness of Nigeria in possession, and the poor tactical organization of the team. If the team was indeed tired from playing two games in three days, he still had the option of adjusting the spacing of the players and the tempo of the game.

Second, Keshi did indeed put on a striker for a midfielder in bringing in Ike Uche for the injured Fengor Ogude.

Third, he did have Hapoel Tel Aviv central midfielder Nosa Igiebor on the bench and could've introduced him much earlier.

Fourth, he had the additional option of Dynamo Kyiv midfielder, Yusuf Ayila, who plays multiple positions in midfield and defence.

But overall, his point about the lack of balance in the squad is right on the money. I am not sure however if you necessarily need two players in every position to achieve the versatility that he desires.