Preview of Nigeria-Zambia: 4-3-3 vs 4-2-3-1

1. The major focus of Nigeria following the opening match was the manner of concession of the Burkinabe equalizer with barely a minute left to play.

 

I think this is a mistake....

While it is true that greater professionalism in the final minute of the game could have won the match, there was a lot more wrong with the team than that.

 

2. My major concern as it builds up to the next match against Zambia is the structure of the team in midfield, while employing a 4-3-3 formation.

 

3. The major responsibility for winning back the ball in midfield was placed on Fengor Ogude, who missed most of the Norwegian season as a result of injury, and before this had not played a competitive game in months. His match fitness was always going to be an issue and it showed as he repeatedly struggled to come to terms with the pace of the game, leading to several late tackles.

 

4. Mikel Obi's role was clearly more expansive than his Chelsea role. In assuming a more creative role, his major arsenal was a variety of the targeted long balls to exploit the pace of Musa, Ideye and Emenike.

 

5. With such a passing range, I am unsure the wisdom and efficacy of such a general role that had him move around the field in several advanced positions, which often left several undefended zones behind the central midfield and put increased pressure on Ogude. Whats more it directly created gaps behind the central midfield that Pitroipa and Alain Traore repeatedly exploited and led to Ambrose and Echiejile being exposed..

 

6. In my opinion he could have accomplished the same goals, while retaining his typical position in the Chelsea midfield, and thus allow the team maintain its defensive integrity in the non-possession phase.

 

7. What is more, Fengor Ogude is more a box-to-box central midfielder than a defensive midfielder, and his greatest attributes neither lie in reading opposition movements and passing nor his tactical discipline.

 

8. Instead he is a vertical midfielder whose energy and hard grafting will get him up and down the field, as well as break into the box on a late run to score the odd goal.

 

9. Ditto for Emmanuel Onazi.

 

10. On the other hand, Nosa Igiebor is not your classic playmaking midfielder who can play between the lines and orchestrate attacking moves and create goal scoring opportunities. While his best position is northside of both Onazi and Ogude's, his greatest strength is in driving the ball at the opposition defence from open play in midfield.

 

11. Against this background, it would appear to me that Nigeria would be better served by a double pivot in midfield and the use of a 4-2-3-1 formation.

 

12. This would allow Mikel help the team keep its shape in the non-possession phase, while retaining his creative role, but from a deeper position. It would also provide a platform for either Ogude or Onazi to be more vertical and thus play to their real strengths.

 

13. In turn it would require the three players behind a lone striker to play more behind the ball. But more importantly, it would create a platform for Igiebor to take up positions in the zone a typical trequartista would operate in.

 

14. In the opening game, Zambia struggled to come to terms with an athletic Ethiopian team playing with massed ranks behind the ball. Against Nigeria, I suspect a return to roots of some sort, with greater emphasis on the counter, especially if Chisamba Lungu does not recover from his injury.

 

15. I expect greater use of Katongo in dropping into gaps behind the central midfield, as well as greater lateral movement from the strikers behind the fullbacks.

 

16. This would bring to an even greater relief, the need for attention to the details of Nigeria's tactical organization.