AC Milan fell to their second defeat in two Champions League games on Tuesday night as they were beaten 1-0 by the German champions Bayer Leverkusen in what was a controversy-filled encounter.
Victor Boniface got the only goal six minutes into the second half as he hammered in a rebound after having previously had a goal disallowed for offside, but Milan will feel that theydeserved something from the game after a positive second-half performance.
The Rossoneri also had two shouts for a penalty turned down; the first went Tammy Abraham went over inside the box and the second right at the end when Ruben Loftus-Cheek appeared to be stamped on.
Neither were given and nor were some other fouls in what was an officiating display that frustrated Paulo Fonseca. Nonetheless, the result means that Milan have lost their opening two games in the competition, and below is Rohit Rajeev‘s tactical analysis.
Milan’s defensive set-up
Milan used a mix of zonal and man-marking systems while pressing using the playing area of the pitch to transition to the different styles.
Higher up the pitch Milan used man-marking to try and block the passing lanes for the player on the ball, but if Leverkusen got past the first line of press then the team would sit back into a zonal system.
— Rohit Rajeev (follow @keralista) (@keralista_v2) October 3, 2024
What Milan did well in the first half was execute the offside trap quite well. Just before Leverkusen’s disallowed goal you can see Theo Hernandez’s head turned towards Frimpong and he would step up to make him offside.
Leverkusen’s attacking principles
To counter Milan’s compact zonal press, Xabi Alonso placed his wing-backs very wide to stretch the Rossoneri. While positional rotations occurred in the middle of the pitch, Frimpong and Grimaldo kept hugging the touchline.
For the goal that Leverkusen scored, Alex Garcia made a third man run which went unmarked partially due to a zonal system used and partially due to individual errors. This will be something Fonseca has to work on.
Leverkusen’s pressing
Leverkusen like Milan used a hybrid pressing scheme where they pressed way more aggressively than Milan did high up the field (as we can see below), but in their own half they would use a zonal system to protect the centre of the pitch.
Milan’s best chance
Milan’s best chance fell to Tijjani Reijnders and it came after a brilliant team move with Emerson Royal making a wide run which pulled Grimaldo with him, then Christian Pulisic invited three players to press him while Reijnders made his third man run to get unmarked in the box.
— Rohit Rajeev (follow @keralista) (@keralista_v2) October 3, 2024
One way to play through a press is for quick release of the ball. Milan executed that brilliantly which one again was wasted by Reijnders. Leao applied the same principle to release Tammy.
— Rohit Rajeev (follow @keralista) (@keralista_v2) October 3, 2024
Corner analysis
One problem with the zonal scheme for corners is that it doesn’t account for the movements from the players in the box. Jonathan Tah made a move and got a header without any opposition.
— Rohit Rajeev (follow @keralista) (@keralista_v2) October 3, 2024
Where Milan need to improve
There are three key areas where Milan need to take a step forward if they are to get positive results from games like this.
➤ Shooting: This doesn’t need too much explanation. Milan, despite the numbers of goals they have scored in the league above all, are still wasteful in front of goal and at this level it will prove costly. Leverkusen also missed chances to be out of sight, it must be said.
➤ Counter-pressing: Leverkusen’s first chance came from a poor counter-press execution which exposed Milan to a counter-attack.
➤ Numbers: You can see below that when Leao is putting the ball into the Leverkusen box there are 5-6 Leverkusen players and only one Milan player, with three seemingly content to stay on the edge of the box. It gives the winger no options and the danger was easily cleared.
Thanks for the analysis.
2 of your points at the end are needs to improve counter pressing and numerical advange on offensive action.
Is this two facets of the same problem – individual players tend to be too static without the ball?
My biggest frustration last year was how players often stood in the same spot. Mids didn’t show. So our offense became static.
If so then I think we are seeing evidence of more motion at this point and now it’s a matter of that motion being impactful.
It’s not the running of Theo and Leao I’m thinking of. More the work rates of Puli, Morata and Tammy applied to our midfield.
Fofana in the Leverkusen game was far far more active covering ground, being available out of the back and being present in the attack. We all seem to have noted it as his best game yet.
When defending it is evident that players know where to be and scramble to get there. There is more compactness sooner because of this. Last year we were sliced open because all the inverting seemed to leave us confused if we were countered hard.
So I agree with your assessment and believe we are seeing ideas take toy to improve in those areas.
As for clinical shooting. No idea. I’ll hope 27 goal Tammy finds his form and that Morata continues to feed Tammy, Leao and Puli with his incredible work rate.
If we cannot raise the % shots scored then let’s raise the number of shots 🙂
Leverkusen exploited what many teams do against us, is that our fullbacks play too much toward the center of the pitch. Every time a team switches the field on us there is nobody on that side and the player has acres of space to run in and our fullback is left having to chase just to get over there and then trying to defend 1v1 against a player who already has the advantage. Happens all the time.
Secondly, Reijnders can’t finish. That’s the reason Pioli didn’t play him up top and the reason Fonseca should not either. It’s not a new problem, people just have very selective memories on here. If Reijnders could have put away a couple easy chances that he had we are all talking very differently about this game. But instead of blaming him we shift the blame to others.
The problem on corners is when taking instructions too literally. The general consensus from what I know or used to (and correct me if I’m wrong for those who play football) is zone in the 6 yard box, man mark otherwise. But u can still have zonal outside the 6yars box. You zone in the 6 yard box so u can deal with the inswinging cross, the near side threats and to provide your keeper with reference points so as to gather the ball if it comes in the 6 yard box (his area). He needs certainties in terms of player positions there. Outside of that area you should be man marking mostly, can still have zone but you will need to cover cutting runs. However, ppl should use their footballing brains. If the opposing player is between the zone and man marking area, you have a judgment call to make. This is what happened with Tah there. He’s outside where we play zone (move from our zone area to a man mark area but no one picked him up). I’ve noticed this sort of thing recently with the corners. Maybe it’s a flaw.
Anyways, am I being old school here? Has the game changed that much? I’m not saying above is f.ool.proof but I don’t why our players always seem so lost on corners. Never mind the ridiculous matchups on man marking. Tijj should be nowhere near anywhere there’s a header needed for instance and short players shouldn’t be making tall players for a start 🤷♂️