AC Milan faced Borussia Dortmund at the Signal Iduna Park in their second Champions League group stage match and came away with another 0-0 draw.
In the first-half, Dortmund, and Julian Brandt in particular, caused Milan issues out of possession. The away side also struggled in their build-up play which resulted in various turnovers and counterattacks from the hosts. At half-time, Stefano Pioli looked to address both of these aspects with adjustments to his side, with and without the ball.
Both teams looked most threatening in transitional moments and there were plenty of attempts on goal (17 vs 12) over the course of ninety-minutes, with Milan generating the higher quality opportunities. (All stats sourced from Wyscout)
Oliver Giroud had the best chance of the game in the 37th minute when he stabbed the ball over the bar from inside the six-yard box after the second phase of a corner kick.
Dortmund sustained a period of possession and territorial superiority for the final twenty-minutes. However, even during this stretch, Milan were able to create a few attacking moments from breakaways but failed to capitalise upon any of the openings they managed to create.
Taking a look at how the match panned out was @Tactics_Tweets and here’s his tactical observations from this game.
Set-ups
Pioli made three changes to his side that beat Lazio on the weekend, with Malick Thiaw, Yunus Musah and Tommaso Pobega all coming in.
In possession, Milan continued to play in a 4-3-3 shape with Tijjani Reijnders operating as the deepest midfielder. Whilst Davide Calabria stayed wider in first phase build-up, he moved infield alongside Reijnders in second phases. However, with the visitors struggling to build-up in the opening forty-five minutes, adjustments were made at half-time to Milan’s structures.
Without the ball, Milan implemented a similar system and player-oriented marking approach in central midfield as per against Lazio. But as mentioned, the hosts found ways to exploit this in the first-half which forced Pioli into tweaks at the interval.
For Dortmund, Edin Terzić named one alteration to his previous lineup with Emre Can starting in central midfield. In and out of possession, the home side operated from a 4-2-3-1 formation but certain players had more license to roam positionally when in attack.
First-half issues
Two recurring issues for Milan in the first-half were their build-up play and how Dortmund were exploiting their out of possession system. Both of these aspects contributed to the home side having 60% of the ball in the opening forty-five minutes (Wyscout).
As per the Lazio game, Milan’s system without the ball involved going player-for-player in central midfield: Pobega tracked Can, Musah likewise with Salih Özcan and this left Reijnders to pick up Marco Reus.
At the top end of their defensive formation, Milan were prepared to be a player short (-1) against the Dortmund back four. The rationale behind allowing this numerical inferiority in their forward line is that it afforded them the opportunity to maintain numerical superiority (+1), and therefore coverage, in their backline (back four) against the opponents three forwards.
When set in a high block, each of Christian Pulisic, Rafael Leão and Giroud would position themselves in between two opponents – Giroud in between the two centre-backs, and then Pulisic and Leão in between their near-side opposition full-back and centre-back.
But when pressing, each Milan forward would lock onto a single opponent and therefore Dortmund would have one defender free. Milan’s solution for this would be for their ball-side full-back to jump up and engage. This is possible due to Milan having a +1 coverage in their backline, so their full-back can pass on the opposition winger to the near-side Milan centre-back.
Here’s an example of Milan’s out of possession set-up from the 3rd minute, where their player-for-player approach in central midfield and pressing scheme is visible.
In this sequence, Leão, who was initially positioned in between Ryerson and Hummels, had pushed up to Hummels as Milan were attempting to press Dortmund. This therefore left Ryerson free – and in the event the ball went to him, Theo Hernández would be tasked to jump up and engage.
You can also see in the image above, Brandt positioned in the right half-space and this caused Fikayo Tomori to push higher out of the backline to stay in close proximity. And it was Brandt’s positioning which frequently helped cause Milan the most issues.
Now, any defensive system and pressing scheme will have its upsides and downsides. And like against Lazio – and as seen above – an exploitable weakness in Milan’s high block / press is that it is often easily bypassed via their left-hand side, with the opposition right-back constantly accessed as the free-man build-up attempts.
But before getting onto how Dortmund specifically targeted this known weakness and exacerbated the issue, it is worth noting that against both Lazio and Dortmund, Milan did appear relatively comfortable, and arguably encouraged the opposition to exploit this weak spot.
Suspected reasons for this are that Milan; 1) have a proposed solution with the full-back jumping and 2) are happy to entice the opposition’s right-back to push forward and attack, as it leaves more spaces for Leão to attack in transition. But these perceptions require a deeper analysis after a larger sample size of games.
Anyway, back to Dortmund, and more specifically how the home side were using Brandt to help exacerbate Milan’s out of possession weakness.
As the clock hit nine minutes, Dortmund were in deep possession against the Milan high block. Leão attempted to press from out-to-in but his pressing angle allowed for an easy pass into the free player, Ryerson.
In this type of scenario, you would expect Hernández to be already jumping forward to engage but note Brandt’s initial starting position…
…which has helped pin Hernández deeper to allow Ryerson to receive the ball in space, before timing his movement infield where neither Tomori or Hernández are now engaging the ball nor picking up Brandt.
With time on the ball, Ryerson opted to pass infield to Can who attempted a switch of play to Donyell Malen but the forward was unable to control the ball and Dortmund’s attacking opportunity ended.
Here’s another example of Dortmund bypassing Milan to progress possession but on this occasion creating an attempt on goal. The passage of play began like a lot of Dortmund’s build-up sequences, with a pass back towards Gregor Kobel to bait the Milan press.
On this occasion, Hummels had helped draw Leão infield so there was a simple pass out to the ever-free Ryerson. But, this time, Hernández was able and did jump up to engage.
However, due to Brandt on this occasion holding a wide right initial position, he had dragged Tomori out with him and this had disjointed the Milan backline creating not only large gaps between it but several one-versus-one match-ups.
As a result, Ryerson played a direct pass into Niclas Füllkrug…
…who won first contact and allowed Can to pounce upon the second ball and then carry out wide for a crossing opportunity.
Can’s cross was received by Brandt who had continued his run into the box where he controlled the ball on his chest before attempting an overhead kick which ended with the ball sailing over the crossbar.
But Brandt was not only limited to playing on the Dortmund right-hand side of the pitch.
In the 29th minute, there was an example of Brandt drifting over to the left half-space to receive a line breaking pass from Nico Schlotterbeck.
With Füllkrug initially occupying both Milan centre-backs and Reijnders staying in close proximity to the equally positionally fluid Reus, Brandt was able to receive between the lines.
From here, Brandt passed out wide to meet Ryerson’s overlapping run.
But despite having the Milan backline disjointed and retreating, Dortmund opted to recycle possession which allowed the visitors to get back into shape and defend the situation out.
These were just some highlighted examples from the first-half of how Dortmund were easily bypassing the top-end of Milan’s block to progress the ball up the pitch.
Whilst the home side did not always capitalise on these opportunities, these scenarios did allow them to gain territory and therefore regularly force Milan back into their own third which not only would have impacted them physically but it also gave them less opportunities on the ball.
There were of course occasions where Milan’s out of possession approach did prove to be effective in the first-half. But by half-time Pioli had evidently seen enough as in the second-half, adjustments were made. More on this in the next section.
But defensive issues were not the only problem Pioli had to fix at half-time. His side also struggled on the occasions they were in possession, specifically in build-up phases.
From goal kicks and in deep build-up, Milan’s full-backs both maintained their width, but as play progressed into the middle third, Calabria began to move infield alongside Reijnders whilst Hernández typically stayed wider left. The Milan team then split into a build-up base of five, with five more advanced players.
Below, you can see Milan’s general in possession shape against Dortmund’s compact 4-2-3-1 block which switched into more of a 4-4-2 when pressing with Reus higher alongside Füllkrug.
The majority of Milan’s play in this build-up phase was either in front of Dortmund or trying to access spaces down the flanks. Access and progression through central areas was restricted due to Dortmund’s compact shape but also Milan’s technical and tactical imitations in central midfield.
Milan’s possession play therefore became quite predictable and this enabled the hosts to funnel the ball out wide where they could squeeze over in units to force turnovers.
In this match, Milan not only had their lowest share of possession (41%) of the season to date across all competitions, but they also had their lowest passing accuracy too with 83.15% (both stats sourced from Wyscout).
Here are some examples of all of this in practice. Firstly, in the 22nd minute, Milan had possession in front of the Dortmund block and Tomori attempted to access Calabria. However, due to the nominal full-backs’ closed body shape, it was a trigger for the Dortmund midfielder to press him from behind.
This pressure, and Calabria’s limited technical ability in central areas, resulted in a low quality backwards pass to Malick Thiaw.
But due to the poor quality of Calabria’s pass, after eventually gaining control of the wayward ball, Thiaw was closed down so his only option was to go back to Mike Maignan.
After some circulation around their backline, Milan opted to revert trying to progress the ball via their flanks with a Hernández line pass up to Leão.
However, not for the first or last time in the game, Leão lost possession and Dortmund’s turnover resulted in a counterattacking opportunity. From this scenario, the home side won a freekick.
Here’s a similar passage of play just a few minutes later. Again, Milan struggled to progress possession centrally, so after receiving the ball, Calabria bounced a pass straight back out to Tomori so Milan could try and progress down the left wing.
However, with no line pass available Hernández ended up going back infield and Milan circulated the possession deep in their own half for around twenty seconds before the ball eventually found its way back out to the left wing.
This time, Pobega had pulled wide to offer Hernández a progressive passing option down the wing.
From here, Pobega passed ahead to Leão.
But like previously, Leão lost possession after his attempted pass was intercepted by a covering Dortmund midfielder.
And these stifled settled possession sequences and ball losses were a recurring theme for Milan, with Leão the guiltiest player overall. The Portuguese attacker had 14 ball losses in total over the whole game (Wyscout).
But it was not only Leão, Calabria or even Reijnders’ – who at times made risky decisions to carry the ball forward from deep with no cover behind him like happened in the 13th minute – all Milan players had moments at fault in the first-half.
Therefore, much like Milan’s out of possession approach, Pioli had solutions to find at half-time.
Half-time solutions
After the half-time break, Piolo had clearly made adjustments to his side both in and out of possession.
So let’s take a closer look at Pioli’s solutions, starting with their adjustments in possession, as these were the first to take effect.
Early into the second-half, Musah dropped back into central midfield to connect a third-man combination to find Reijnders.
From here, the Dutch midfield was able to carry forward and pass out wide but the Milan attack got halted following the subsequent pass back inside.
But early encouragement none-the-less, Milan had successfully managed to bypass Dortmund players and had the opportunity to attack against a more disconnected structure.
And this pattern of Musah dropping continued. Here in the 48th minute, Calabria stayed wide and Musah was alongside Reijnders.
Tomori was able to access Reijnders who dismarked himself from the Dortmund forward’s cover shadow but unlike the first-half, the Dortmund central midfielders were unable to immediately engage.
This was because of Pobega’s new central positioning behind the two opposition central midfielders. From this initial starting position, Pobega could exploit any spaces the Dortmund midfielders vacated and in this instance, he made a blindside run to receive a knock-on pass from Reijnders.
Hernández’s underlapping run was then found where he carried towards the disjointed Dortmund backline but he overran the ball allowing Dortmund to deal with the situation.
And this momentum shift from Milan continued.
In the 50th minute, in second-phase build up, Milan maintained their new structure of keeping Calabria wide and Musah forming a situational double-pivot. Below, you can also see Pobega lurking centrally between-the-lines helping occupy (distract) both Dortmund midfield and defensive lines.
The sequence continued with a pass out wide to Hernández who passed up the line to Leão. Milan, again attempting to progress possession via the flanks, but on this occasion their new structure in central areas aided their success.
After Leão and Hernández combined to get the French full-back in space running in behind on the left wing, Dortmund’s central players were unable to cover as easily as they had done in the opening forty-five minutes, as they were being occupied by Pobega’s new position in particular.
And this allowed Hernández and Leão to combine again to enter the penalty area where despite having more bodies in the box than the opposition, Leão’s cross was unable to find a teammate but was able to win his side a corner kick.
But it was not only in possession that Milan improved after half-time, it was out of possession too. And a reason for that was an adjustment in their marking scheme, specifically who picked up the first-half troublemaker, Brandt.
Given the initial responsibility of tracking Brandt was Reijnders and this allowed Hernández to cover Ryerson when required and left Tomori and Thiaw to deal with Reus and Füllkrug. These adjustments allowed Milan’s defensive shape to remain more in-tact as Reijnders could follow Brant more and allow Tomori to stay more connected with his defensive unit.
Below is a visual overview of which opponents the Milan team were individually responsible for.
As the Dortmund forwards were fluid positionally, the Milan players would have license to pass-on opponents to nearer-by teammates, but these initial starting responsibilities helped improve Milan’s effectiveness without the ball.
Following on from the action above, Dortmund passed the ball back to Kobel to initiate a similar scene from the first-half, a pass out wide to the initial free player, Ryerson. However, due to Milan’s adjustments, Hernández was able to release earlier to engage, knowing he was covered in behind.
As a result, Ryerson was forced to pass back to Kobel who then, due to no available or safe short passing option, opted to go long to their forward line. However, as you can see below, Milan’s tracking of players had allowed Tomori to focus on competing with Füllkrug.
Tomori won this duel and the second ball was regained by Musah who then initiated a Milan passing combination on the left wing…
…which got Pobega in behind the Dortmund backline.
The midfielder’s cross into the box was momentarily cleared by Dortmund but Musah again regained the ball and passed infield to Leão who tried to execute a one-two with Pulisic…
…but the American forward instead opted for a shot which was aimed straight at Kobel.
In the opening fifteen-minutes of the second-half, Milan’s effective in and out of possession adjustments played their part in increasing their share of possession, passing accuracy and control of the game.
Whilst this momentum shift towards Milan only lasted for a period of time, it did generate attacking moments and goal scoring attempts that the visitors failed to capitalise upon. Another recurring theme of the game.
Wasted attacks
As seen and explained above, Milan were guilty of wasting high value goal scoring opportunities and threatening attacking transitional moments against Dortmund.
In addition to losses of possession, the Milan players were also guilty of poor quality passes to a teammate e.g. playing the ball behind them instead of in front, and these minor details often prevented threatening situations turning into threatening actions.
Whether impactful or coincidence, a host of substitutions around seventy-minutes seemed to mark a momentum swing back in the favour of Dortmund. However, even during this period, Milan did find multiple moments to counterattack but the final third wastefulness bug had also spread to Milan’s substitutes.
Summary
After two Champions League matches, Milan could justifiably be on six points. But instead, they have two. Up next in Europe is a trip to the Parc des Princes to face a wounded PSG and this tie is sandwiched in between domestic fixtures against Juventus and Napoli.
But Milan can not look too far ahead post the international break. First they face Genoa away in the league where they will look to maintain their presence at the top of Serie A alongside Inter.
This was a remarkably detailed explanation of the most basic man-marking BS. I feel for the poor person who put this much effort into analysing such basic stuff. Still, can be fun sometimes. Well done!
Alleluia! At last good technical analysis supported by numbers and not just usual hate for some particular players etc etc etc
Clearly we see problems with Calabria and the receiving part of the passes (not the originating as were suggested) it is not the midfield problem that did not create chances (passes to and from Pobega mostly) but the attacking problem not converting anything. Primarily Giroud, Leao, Pulisic.
Excellent analysis, especially of the adjustments made by Pioli at halftime. But as the author mentions, execution of passing was the biggest problem. Pobega was especially bad in this regard, as even his “successful” passes required the receiver to wait or adjust course. I suppose that’s a product of not playing much this season so far though. Still, the improvement when Adli came on for him was dramatic. The little things were just not quite there for most of the players though, but considering the packed schedule Milan is playing some level of fatigue must be a factor.
How many technical analysis one need to actually understand it 🤣🤣🤣🤦🏻♂️ Pobega was mostly the one who actually created real chances in the first 50 min of the game. He was the key element and it was Leao and Giroud who did not convert or could not progress. Ok I understand you could not watch the game may be you listened to it on the radio but do you read with your ass too?
This “first half issues” been going on since Inter fiasco. They have this inferior complex, not realizing their true potential and strength, going into match afraid. This is up to Pioli to resolve.