The game of “Spartak” and “Ufa” became the hottest and most discussed in the RPL on Saturday – despite the absence of goals, it contained a lot of events, and the ending was especially hot and scandalous.
“Spartak” gave a gorgeous ending, but could not defeat “Ufa”. The judge did not count two goals
Both times no luck Sobolev.
–
The referee’s work came to the fore, who canceled one goal after a video review, did not count the second after the controversial actions of the Ufa goalkeepers Беленова on the line – and supporters of conspiracy theory (especially in contrast to the Friday match “Zenith” and “Wings”) sharply increased.
Spartak itself did not stand aside. After the match, the defender Andrey Yeshchenko stated that “the other team could count such goals, the owner of red and white Leonid Fedun also did not spare stinging accusatory words. “Initially, it seemed that the BAP would solve the problems of refereeing,” Fedun said in a commentary on SE. – And VAR, on the contrary, aggravated them … The judge wants not to count the goal – he does not count it. In our opinion, the first goal was scored cleanly, and in the second case the ball completely crossed the line. ”
–
“Let it be on their conscience.” Yeshchenko criticized the referees after the match, “Spartacus”
Hinted that the ball could count to the “other” team
–
Let’s understand what happened and identify the main reason why Spartak lost valuable points in the battle for European competitions.
When parsing the game, Wyscout statistics and the Tactic Lite graphical tool were used.
Is Fedun’s Wrath Right?
In my opinion, no. I understand the emotions of the players and the club owner, but I can not agree with their accusations. Regarding the first goal: yes, Gigot was offside. And yes, this offside is now interpreted by the arbiters as active. It would be outrageous if, for example, Spartak were the first to cancel a goal in a similar situation. But exactly a week ago, a very similar episode happened in the game “Ural” – “Ruby”.
–
And there, after the blow of Yegorychev, Bikfalvi, who is in an offside position, did not block Dupin’s review at all. The goalkeeper did not react in any way and in any case missed. However, the actions of Bikfalvi, stepping towards the ball, were regarded as an attempt to intervene in the episode – and the goal was canceled.
If the judges cancel that goal, then the goal Sobolev also were required to cancel in order to be consistent. Gigot’s offside is even more “active” than Bikfalvi’s.
The second point: the rescue of Belenov, either on a ribbon, or behind it. I reviewed all kinds of repetitions, but I did not find a single one where you could see 100 percent that the ball FULLY crossed the goal line. On the contrary, everywhere it seems that one miserable centimeter of the ball is clearly above the line – and, therefore, there is no goal scoring.
–
Do we remember the famous episodes from England?
–
It is unfortunate that in this game there was no system for automatically determining the goal, but visually the referees made the right decision.
“Spartak” ended the match in a draw not because of the judges, but because he played an average this evening (but by no means a failure!), Created not enough opportunities, and those that were scratched nevertheless didn’t implemented.
Why did Tedesco choose such a cautious tactic?
In the first half, the ball possession was 50 to 50 – it looked just wild, considering that Spartak met with the most closed team in the championship, taking 15th place in the championship in possession (41.1%, below only Tambov) and 14th in terms of PPDA pressure intensity (only Sochi and Tambov are lower).
Why Tedesco decided to play so carefully? Everything is very simple: firstly, he generally relies on the safe development of attacks (therefore transfers from central defenders to the center to the Eights are almost excluded), secondly, because Spartak’s quick attacks are many times better, and the red-white ones tried to give the opponent the initiative, lure into their own half of the field, and then, taking the ball away, by the efforts of quick Larsson and Ponceto carry out counterattacks.
It worked like this: if Ponce, with positional attacks of the opponent, sank into the depth of field, then the fast-legged Larsson was located as high as possible, in line with the central defenders. In the case of selections and interceptions, the Swede had to immediately offer himself a jerk behind his back. It turned out ideally in the super-moment at the end of the first half, when after the transfer of Gaponov Larsson ran one on one.
–
Prior to the break, Spartak created all of its most interesting approaches (and there were no more than three) precisely in a counterattack environment. In the second half, “Ufa”, apparently, having caught up with Evseeva, closed even harder. The game of giveaways became irrelevant, Tedesco launched into the battle heavy artillery in the form of Sobolev.
What general ideas did Spartak have in this match?
The first idea is just a situational rejection of the ball in the expectation that Ufa will be carried away by possession and will be vulnerable in its own half of the field after the loss. The bet could work if Larsson was more effective in the implementation.
Further ideas were somehow related to the principles of positional football. It was clear that Spartak would have to control the ball a lot and attack without space – and it was very interesting whether Tedesco would come up with something new. So far, if there are improvements, then they are quite insignificant. Most of the ideas were used back in the fall, rivals have long been used to them.
Principle One: Spartak relies on a safe start to the attack. The team is now most afraid of losses in the central zone, so it does not build triangles here at all and does not even try to use it when launching an attack. Preferred options: either strong / long passes from central defenders straight to the front line, or the start of an attack through the flank zone. Two eights, Zobnin and Bakaev, should not get the ball with their backs to another’s goal from central defenders – this way they will have to turn around under pressure, the risk of losses and counterattacks at another’s goal increases. They usually rise high or shift towards the flanks.
–
This beginning of the attack, on the one hand, removes the load from their own goal, on the other – due to the lack of work between the lines and the ball between them, life is easier for the opponent.
The second principle: flanking castling between the “eight” and the last defender. In the picture below, Zobnin is sharply shifted towards the flank and takes a position Rasskazova, and Razkazov makes a jerk behind the opponents. If rivals incorrectly redistribute roles, the space for transfer is freed up.
–
In the final phase of the Tales, it appears to be on the same line with the attackers, but the idea was applied in the fall and today is too studied by rivals. Corridors are rare. Ufa on Saturday quickly blocked the zone.
–
The third principle: the release of the zone behind the back of the defenders for the attacker due to a false jerk in the failure of another striker. Conditionally, Larsson takes several steps to the center of the field and tries to lure his rivals behind him, while Ponce dives into the penalty area simultaneously with him.
–
Again: “Ufa” read all these episodes easily; they were met in the game “Spartak” earlier.
The fourth principle: a strong transfer from the external central defender from the semi-flank zone straight into the corridor to the penalty area. It is desirable – diagonal. Thus, Spartak scored in the Rostov Cup match (Jikia gave it up, Larsson finished with one touch), on Saturday activity Гапонова and Maslova it was not enough.
–
The fifth principle: simplification. Entrance to the Sobolev field, doubling the center of the attack, a game in the power style. The option is effective, but readable. On Saturday, he could give a result, but Sobolev was not lucky.
Total – a modest amount of ideas, which naturally led to modest pressure.
Did the red and white win?
In my understanding – no, the match was rather a draw. “Ufa”, thanks to two gross errors of Maslov and Rasskazov, also created two excellent chances in the second half, plus in the first there was a dangerous header from the goalkeeper.
The difficulties of Spartak were predicted – and the same difficulties will arise in any of the subsequent matches, when the red-and-white will have to attack positionally against organized defense. After all, how beautiful Tedesco’s team is in transitions and fast offensives, it is just as cautious and boring without space.
Therefore, today’s Spartak has an obvious ceiling. It is only possible to break through this ceiling by working at the next training camp, it is unlikely that something new can be introduced during the season, because now the teams are not really training, they are playing and recovering. It remains to believe in the realization of rare chances in games with a similar scenario and hope that there will be fewer such matches. And the main question: is Tedesco capable of setting up a positional attack at all and will he be able to do this in the future.
–
