I asked you to explain the strategy employed, because there appears to be a distinct lack of strategy. Since you couldn't I'll open the question up to the group. Anyone who could figure out what strategy was employed by TM vs Iraqi please reply and provide us with a detailed breakdown of what exactly the strategy was.
Iran Attack (First half)
- We started the match building up from the back with short passes, controlling possession and trying to find spaces to get the ball behind the Iraqi defense.
Iraq defended with large numbers and was closing passing options inside their own third.
- Our fullbacks would push forward and our wingers (particularly Gholizadeh who acted as a playmaker) would come inside to a much more central position. This would help create space out wide in the attacking third and increase our numbers in the midfield.
- Taremi played behind Azmoun (as a second striker) and was used as a link for getting the ball to Azmoun who made runs behind the Iraq defense.
- In a few instances, we did also try to play more direct and find the run of Azmoun behind the Iraqi defense. One actually resulted in a disallowed offside goal but generally we tried to build up with short passes through the midfield.
Iraq Attack (First half)
-Iraq primarily had an eye for counter attacks when we turned over the ball in the midfield. They would usually always get outnumbered by our defenders and the counter would get quickly neutralized.
- At a few instances, Iraq would play with possession in our half. Iran would then defend with large numbers and neutralized any build up.
Overall (First Half)
Iran controlled the game. We created a couple of good chances through our build up and scored 1 goal. Iraq rarely threatened us and mostly looked for set piece opportunities.
Iran Attack (Second half)
- It appears as though Iran tried to start of the 2nd half as they did in the first. Build up from the back and maintain possession. But they faced much more aggressive pressing from Iraq.
- Very shortly after, Iran put numbers in their own half to close spaces in defense and played direct counter-attacking football. Iraq didn’t have any goal scoring opportunities after this.
- As the half went on Iraq’s aggressive pressing lost steam (as expected) and Iran went on to created several goal scoring chances mostly through the counter and one chance where we actually controlled possession in their half.
Iraq Attack (Second half)
- Iraq played much more open in the 2nd half and pushed more numbers up the field. They played with much more aggressive pressing which led to their only good chance in the game.
- They often played direct long balls from their own defense to try to bypass the midfield but didn’t have success.
Overall (Second half)
Iraq started the 2nd half by playing much more attacking and with aggressive pressing in the midfield/attack and created one good chance. Iran changed their tactic and put numbers in our own half and played counter-attacking. Overall Iran created 4 really good chances in the 2nd half and should have won the game by a bigger margin.
I think the coaching adjustments were logical from both sides. Iran was the better team when playing with possession in the first half and also when playing counter-attacking football in the 2nd half. They created 5-6 good chances and only allowed 1 chance to Iraq.
Again, I see a lot of positive signs. There is room for growth here. Our build up can become faster. I don't think we're capable of passing our way out of aggressive pressing but these things don't happen overnight. Even at the club level, it takes time for teams to grow and adapt to a system/style. TM needs stability. Any change at this moment would be a massive mistake.
