Having taken you through my first two games in detail (those against Barcelona and Almería), I will broaden my analysis to include a few games and discuss some general trends. In this article we will take a look at the first three matches of the Champions League campaign.

The draw set us up with AC Milan, Bordeaux and Rubin Kazan. Our most difficult match on paper was AC Milan in the San Siro, though Bordeaux would be no pushovers (despite their low reputation in the game). In theory Kazan should be the easiest, and may require us to break out the domination tactic mentioned in the previous article. In between, there should be plenty of league matches in which we can test that experimental set up.

AC Milan 1-2 Real Madrid CF

So. Milan at the San Siro. I kept faith with the tactic that had bombed at Almería, since I was convinced that away against a big club a counter attacking strategy would work well. Milan’s team lined up 4-3-3 like Barca which made me convinced that this was the right decision.

Now, considering we were down to ten men for most of the second half, we did very well. Milan did achieve more clear cut chances, but they were forced to take 50% of their 26 shots from range. Compared to our record (2 out of 12), that meant we were still getting into the box before shooting (even if none of those were “clear cut” enough for the stats). While 26 shots may seem quite a lot to concede, we only rarely looked like we were defensively in any danger – and given that Milan spent 66 minutes of the game needing a goal in their own back yard, I’m reasonably satisfied with the performance.

Our two goals came from reasonably conventional sources, but on another day we might have struggled more. The first came from a corner. Pepe was unmarked at the near post and nodded in the ball. I believe this is a similar situation that is created by the so-called “corner bug”. Annoying if this is the case, but I assure you all the attacking set pieces are on their defaults! The second goal came from Higuaín again – a lovely run from a long ball over the top (classic counter attacking) followed by a sublime cut inside on Kaladze, twisting the centre back inside out. He stroked it in from about 8 yards with his left foot. While we cannot rely on such moments of brilliance week-in-week-out, it is relieving to see that the squad (right now) is capable of it.

Real Madrid CF 0-0 FC Girondins de Bordeaux

A frustrating 0-0 draw at home that could have been so much better. Using the counter in the first half, we switched to the dominate tactic for the last 30 minutes when it became clear Bordeaux were happy to take the draw.

Frustrating though it was, we saw some positives from the draw. Once again we produced few long shots, only 5 out of our 19 coming from range (versus 8 out of their 13). However, none were clear cut, and only 5 shots actually hit the target. We had more possession, suggesting that counter was the wrong choice of tactic – you can’t counter if the opposition doesn’t first come at you – but the team kept everything tight at the back, which is definitely a positive. The dominate tactic still needs some work on it though – more of that in the next article.

Rubin Kazan 2-2 Real Madrid CF

Another night of Champions League football that had me scratching my head and questioning the desire of my team. Having come through some pretty lacklustre games in the league as well, Kazan away should have been, as the media were at great pains to point out, a pretty easy run out. It wasn’t. We were 2-0 down at one stage, clawing back a draw and were perhaps a tad unfortunate not to wrap things up.

This match proved to me once and for all, however, that the current “dominate” plan was just not working. Although we were able to compete at times during the match, we were nowhere near flexible enough to really put consistent pressure on the opposition and create the chances needed to win the match outright. Furthermore, conceding two goals is just not the Mourinho way. We outplayed them by most measures, but so many long shots (over half) and so few converted chances (2 goals from 21 shots) suggested that we needed a new plan.

A Russian epiphany

Part of the clue to the solution came later on in the match when Kazan moved to a rather strange version of the 4-2-3-1. Instead of playing the classic two lines (DM-DM; AML-AMC-AMR) they played a withdrawn central midfield (DM-DM; AML-CM-AMR). Rather effective it was too – by playing a pocket in between my midfield and my attack, Kazan were not only able to buy themselves time by holding onto the ball, they were able to use people in space to create counter attacks. Great use of wide outlets saw them score two in 20 minutes; one from a headed cross and the other from a corner.

This finding made me look a little more at the midfield in the later league games – losing out here was a definite problem.

We weren’t putting enough pressure on their deep midfielders. Couple that with a general toothlessness in front of goal, and hey presto you’ve got a formula for drawing. This was my third tie in four games. Something needed to be done…

So, the next article will highlight these problems even further by showing you where my “dominate” tactic was failing in the league. I say “failing” in the Mourinho sense. Despite still being up at the top of the table, the number of draws and petty goals conceded made me unconvinced that this was a Mourinho style of play. Next time, then, I will show the two biggest issues I faced along with some analysis; hopefully you might be able to apply this to some of your own matches.