By Bolaji Douglas
The Super Eagles began their world cup campaign on a not too promising note as the team went down by 2 un-replied goals in their opening encounter match with Croatia. In what was billed to be a thrilling encounter between the two countries meeting at the World cup for the very first time, the contrary was however the case as the Super Eagles failed to rise to the occasion going by the manner which they capitulated to the Croatian team. The Super Eagles were underwhelming in their performance and they hardly troubled the Croatian team throughout the entire duration of the game.
The line-up of the two teams:
Nigeria (Super Eagles)
Uzoho, Shehu, Idowu, Balogun, Troost Ekong, Etebo, Ndidi, Iwobi, Mikel, Moses and Ighalo.
Croatia
Subasic, Vrsaljko, Vida, Lovren, Trinic, Rakitic, Modric, Rebic, Kramric, Perisic, Mandzukic
The Super Eagles settled for a back four of Shehu, Idowu Troost and Balogun, with Ndidi and Etebo (Who replaced the dropped Onazi) providing cover for the defence. The trio of Iwobi, Moses and Mikel, took up the attacking midfield positions, with Mikel deployed as the centrally while Iwobi and Moses ran the show from the wings. Ighalo was deployed as the lone striker upfront.
It was obvious from the way the team was set up, that this was a conservative approach to the game, the game plan it appears was to sit deep, not concede grounds and space to the Croatians in the middle but at the same time ready to break out from the wings whenever we are able to take possession of the ball. Our game plan for Croatia it appeared was one borne out of respect for the opponent, perhaps too much of it. Now, while the team could take in what the Croatians had to offer and throw at them especially in the early part of the game, it was immediately obvious however that the team was struggling with its attacking strategies. In fact, such was the extent of the struggle that by the 18th minute the Super Eagles have only had one touch of the ball in the opposition box.
In what by now had become a worrying trend in the team’s last 4 friendly matches leading to this world cup tie with Croatia, the team once again started slowly. Although the ball retention was much better, with Etebo doing a great job at helping to keep possession and this enabled the back four for greater spell of the game to be able to move the ball amongst themselves, but every time either of Etebo, Troost or Balogun looked up there was hardly enough movement nor options available upfront to pass to. As a result, they either had to pass the ball back to retain possession or simply hoof out a speculative pass as soon as they come under pressure from the Croatian attackers.
The Super Eagles went down to an own goal which resulted from a corner kick awarded to Croatia in the 32nd minute of the first half. The ball was flicked on by the Croatian player manning the first goal post, Mandzukic threw himself at the ball but only succeeded in directing the ball away from the goal. But Croatia got lucky as the ball took a bad deflection off the heels of Etebo into the net as he stretched out to prevent Mandzukic header. It was a lucky break for the Croatians who at the time for all the threat they posed had not succeeded in taking any short at the Super Eagles goal. As a matter of fact, the match went into the records as the only match in the ongoing tournament where no shot at goal was recorded in the first half. Both teams retired for the half time with Croatia a goal ahead.
The second half continued with Nigeria still struggling to trouble the Croatian defence, the team’s best attacking options and outlet were coming from Moses on the right, but he spent most of the time trying to win freekicks by going that rather too easily, something which seems to have irked the referee and decided to ignore. In a game where Croatia did not really offer that much, this might to have to do with their being comfortable with being able to eliminate whatever threats we might pose to them. the Super Eagles simply could not put together a decent attacking movement to trouble Croatia.
Croatia got their second break of the game in the 70th minute of game, once again from a poorly defended corner kick which saw Troost Eking fully wrapping his arms all over Mandzukic and the referee did not hesitate to blow for a penalty kick. The kick was effectively dispatched by Modric who sent the Nigerian keeper sprawling in the wrong direction to make it two for Croatia.
Nigeria made some changes with Musa coming in the 60th for Iwobi who struggled to make any meaningful contribution to the game. Musa tried to inject some pace into the Nigerian attack but to little effect. The second change saw Ighalo coming off for Kelechi Iheanacho in the 73rd minute. His entrance brought some urgency into the Nigerian attack, but the team could still not create any clear-cut chances. In the 88th minute the final change by Nigeria saw Simeone Nwankwo come in for Mikel Obi.
Croatia was able to see off the game comfortably and went home with the vital 3 points to put them at the top of the group.
Analysis
If the Nigerian fans were piqued, it would be the manner the Super Eagles went down without a fight, something of an aberration to a Nigerian team. The brand super Eagle was built of the reputation of being a team that never goes down without a fight. The Super Eagles that turned up in Kalingrad did not even bother to spread their wings never mind attempt to fly. What really went wrong?
A number of these issues could be attributed to this underwhelming performance, one which one can only hope the handlers would try to rectify before the next match against Iceland. The following were easily noticeable
1. A rigid and conservative tactical approach. From watching Nigeria’s last 4 friendlies, it is easy to see how Nigeria is set up and how they plan to play. Much as the plan of the team relies on fast break outs, the time it takes for the team to transit from defence into attack is too slow. There is a lot of pondering on the ball and a certain unwillingness of the players to take up attacking positions. The full backs are not sure of themselves going forward and as result hardly contribute anything offensively. Even when they try to join the attack, they arrive rather too late and their deliveries very poor.
2. Talking about being conservative the team from the friendlies played in the run up to this game have failed to come from the rear. In 4 matches played it had managed to score only 2 goals. Playing a lone striker with a poor scoring ratio feeds into that narrative of a conservative team. Take for example, when the team went down against Croatia, the team still persisted with the lone striker approach even though the Croatian backline were not being troubled. The team was too afraid of Croatia to open up the game, it looked more like a team afraid to concede more goals than a team chasing to get back into the game.
3. The lack of the will to move things around tactically. Iwobi was sacrificed on the wings, the left wing. I really don’t know if he was meant to play as a winger, but he looked lost on the wings. The result is that we lost the energy and pace he had to offer which could have been injected into the team by playing him in the middle. Much as Mikel remained the best passer of the ball in the team, he is not as quick as he ought to, especially when the team is trying to up the pace of the game from attacking position. Ndidi offered very little in the match (Perhaps due to him just returning from injury), he should have been taking off and Mikel withdrawn into the defensive position and Iwobi brought into the central attacking midfield position where he favours and Musa brought in to the wings for his pace. This lack of flexibility feeds into the rigid tactical approach the team employed in the prosecution of the game.
4. Playing the lone striker option with lack of support. While playing a lone striker seems to be a trend and tactical approach favoured by many teams, we need to look at Ighalo’s execution of this tactics again. Credit to Ighalo, he has decent work ethics and decent hold up play, something which seems to be in his favour. But he hardly worked the opponents defence in the match and by this, I mean by making those clever runs that unsettles the defence. This could be due to services which were non-existent to begin with. As a result, Ighalo’s runs were non-existent, he was easily bullied off the ball or his decision making at best was questionable on the few occasions he managed to have possession of the ball. Watching Ighalo at his prolific best with Watford, he played with a support striker in a partnership that freed him to go for the second balls. He is more of a player who feeds off the second ball as opposed to one who provides. It is always a pitiful sight watching a striker reduced to chasing after defenders as opposed the ball to put it at the back of the net.
5. The team must find a way to make use of Iheanacho more, especially with goals hard to come by. To keep the most prolific striker the team has on the bench and only to give him a cameo appearance of 10 – 20 minutes remains a puzzling decision. It would make sense if Ighalo’s strike rate for the Super Eagles was impressive, but that is not the case. For a team struggling with scoring goals, surely such must be able find a way to accommodate Iheanacho and give more playing time.
6. What does the team have to do to involve the full backs more in attack? So far the two full backs have shown a certain restraint to contribute to the attack. Idowu did a good job defending against Croatia, but offensively I cannot remember if he contributed anything at all. The same with Shehu.
7. Moses needs to get his acts together, he gave up more attacking moves with his unwarranted falling over with every touch or his poor attempt at inducing a foul. One would have expected that having played in the defensive position in the last two seasons with Chelsea he would be tougher and harder to shove off the ball. It was rather annoying seeing him give up good attacking moves by resulting to a lazy attempt at getting a freekick. He made the job of Trinic rather easy with the way he kept hitting the deck with the slightest of touches. Against Iceland it won’t be any easier.
Perhaps what made the game look bad was the lack of bite upfront and what appears to be a team bereft of ideas or desire to take the fight back to Croatia. The Super Eagles simply were too conservative in their approach, the energy was low as there was no real intensity about the way they prosecuted the game. The build-up play, was belaboured and a couple of players showed up looking heavy, sluggish and lacking in the desire to give the game a go.
Noticeable also from the game was that the team still struggled with defending against set pieces and has so far managed to concede from almost all the matches played against European opposition. It would not be easier against the tall Icelandic players.
The Positives
The game yesterday was not as bad as it seems going by the stats, both teams did not have a shot on goal in the first half. Apart from the two avoidable goals we conceded we were not troubled as the defence it appeared did what was required of them in keeping the Croatians at bay. The Nigerian keeper was hardly troubled.
Mention must be made of Etebo, who did a terrific job in the holding role in the midfield. He made most of Nigeria’s passes (48) , with 94% accuracy.