Should Canada have played a bunker strategy against teams like Croatia?

[football_world]

So I watched the Japan vs Croatia game today, and IMO, Japan did very well against Croatia.  What I noticed the most was that Croatia had a lot of trouble breaking through Japan's back line. Japan always had more numbers than Croatia in Japan's final 1/3 of the field.  To an extent, it was obvious that Japan was playing a bit of a bunker strategy, not giving Croatia space in the final 1/3 on Japan's end. 

I remember when Bob Bradley was the coach of the US national team, US fans nicknamed him as "Bunker Bob." Yet, "Bunker Bob" or Bob Bradley, did get the US to the round of 16 at the 2010 World Cup.  The US got a new coach in Jurgen Klinsmann for the 2014 World Cup, but once again, Jurgen Klinsman deployed the bunker strategy for the US national team, this time even getting the US out of the group of death at the 2014 World Cup, with Germany and Portugal in the same group as the US in 2014! If my memory is correct, Greece also did a bit of bunkering when they won the European Cup in 2004.

The reason for bunkering is when you believe your team isn't as talented as the other team, and you want to minimize space for the opposing team who has more skilled players.  Anyways, I really like how Japan played against Croatia, taking away space in the final 1/3 of their field, and always ensuring they had more numbers than Croatia did in the final 1/3 of their field. Croatia's attack was stifled today, and they really didn't have that many chances against Japan, thanks to the bit of bunkering Japan did.  If it weren't for that world class header from Ivan Peresic - probably the best header of this WC, and one of the best headers I have personally seen in any World Cup of the last 30 years, Croatia wouldn't have gone through to the next round.

Edited December 5, 2022 by football_world

[dyslexic nam]

The reality is that many of us were concerned about our formation and lack of bodies in the midfield with defensive responsibilities.   A defence first approach would have also freed up our speedy attackers to play on the counter - which has been one of the strengths of this team.   And in the end we conceded 4 goals (3 if you want to disqualify the last one when we were throwing people forward) so clearly our overall defensive performance was lacking.  

It may not have been exciting footy to watch but having more bodies in the defensive end of things would have increased our chances against Croatia.  It was pretty naive to think we could out-attack them.  
 

Edited December 5, 2022 by dyslexic nam

[football_world]

48 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

The reality is that many of us were concerned about eye formation and lack of bodies in the midfield with defensive responsibilities.   A defence first approach would have also freed up our speedy attackers to play on the counter - which has been one of the strengths of this team.   And in the end we conceded 4 goals (3 if you want to disqualify the last one when we were throwing people forward) so clearly our overall defensive performance was lacking.  

It may not have been exciting footy to watch but having more bodies in the defensive end of things would have increased our chances against Croatia.  It was pretty naive to think we could out-attack them.  
 

Yup, I agree with you. "Bunker Bob" Bradley didn't coach the most exciting US team during his tenure as the head coach of the US, but he did get results, with a much less talented team, compared to what the US has now in 2022. And Jurgen Klinsman also used a bunkering strategy for the US and he got the US out of the group of death at the 2014 World Cup.

Edited December 5, 2022 by football_world

[Sal333]

1 hour ago, football_world said:

So I watched the Japan vs Croatia game today, and IMO, Japan did very well against Croatia.  What I noticed the most was that Croatia had a lot of trouble breaking through Japan's back line. Japan always had more numbers than Croatia in Japan's final 1/3 of the field.  To an extent, it was obvious that Japan was playing a bit of a bunker strategy, not giving Croatia space in the final 1/3 on Japan's end. 

I remember when Bob Bradley was the coach of the US national team, US fans nicknamed him as "Bunker Bob." Yet, "Bunker Bob" or Bob Bradley, did get the US to the round of 16 at the 2010 World Cup.  The US got a new coach in Jurgen Klinsmann for the 2014 World Cup, but once again, Jurgen Klinsman deployed the bunker strategy for the US national team, this time even getting the US out of the group of death at the 2014 World Cup, with Germany and Portugal in the same group as the US in 2014! If my memory is correct, Greece also did a bit of bunkering when they won the European Cup in 2004.

The reason for bunkering is when you believe your team isn't as talented as the other team, and you want to minimize space for the opposing team who has more skilled players.  Anyways, I really like how Japan played against Croatia, taking away space in the final 1/3 of their field, and always ensuring they had more numbers than Croatia did in the final 1/3 of their field. Croatia's attack was stifled today, and they really didn't have that many chances against Japan, thanks to the bit of bunkering Japan did.  If it weren't for that world class header from Ivan Peresic - probably the best header of this WC, and one of the best headers I have personally seen in any World Cup of the last 30 years, Croatia wouldn't have gone through to the next round.

What made your idea of bunkering even more attractive was that we scored early in the game. And that's what upsets me about Herdman's tactics for the Croatia game. He had the lesson from Uruguay in the friendly. They have a stronger team than we did but they scored early and they gave us the ball and played defence. 

After that Davies goal you put pressure on Croatia by bottling up the middle and keeping numbers in the back line. Herdman missed big time in that game.

[footballfreak]

TLDR No.

Longer version:

If the goal is to get out of the group stage (and it should be), you realistically need 4 points to have a chance. There are rare cases where you can get through with less, but they’re slim. 4 gives you a >50% chance (I’ll try to find the exact numbers) to get out. 5 points skyrockets your chances to >90%. With that in mind, the goal in a group stage is always going to be 5+ points. Either 2 wins, or a win and 2 draws.

Knowing that, Herdman probably identified Belgium and Morocco as the games to go for a win, and Croatia as the survival game - especially because of the order of matches. He correctly identified Belgium as an opportunity for full points, and it should have paid off if you look at the chances generated. BUT once that failed, the dynamics of what we needed from our other games changed as well. Whereas a win or even a point against Belgium would have allowed us to try parking the bus against Croatia, the loss in game 1 meant we needed to be braver and go searching for a win in both remaining games. Especially knowing Morocco was already on 4 points and would be very difficult to break down in match 3.

You can certainly criticize tactical choices, but from a game theory standpoint it’s tough for me to criticize how each game was approached strategically.

Edit: The odds are:

0 - 0%

1 - 0%

2 - 1.23%

3 - 7.87%

4 - 54.32%

5 - 98.77%

6 - 97.53%

7 - 100%

 

When you factor in:

- Morocco on 4 points already (with a multi goal margin over Belgium to boot)

- Croatia on 4 if we had tied them, with soft touch Belgium still to go

we HAD to go for a win to have a realistic chance of progressing. A draw, not a given if we bunkered, would have put us in a position requiring a 2 goal win over an elite counter attacking Morocco to get through.

Edited December 5, 2022 by footballfreak

[SpursFlu]

After 1 - 0 they should have been more conscious. They ran around going on adrenaline with no structure and after the Croatia goal looked gassed and confused. They were gifted a 1-0 lead against a better team and didn't act according. I'm not sure about bunkering but yah 

[TGAA_Star]

Canada should have parked the bus against Belgium for a draw and then park the bus against Croatia for another draw and then in your last group game against Morocco you go for it and if that leaves Canada to take 3 points on a win gives you 5 points...2 draws 1 win which would have been enough

[SoCalTransport]

I don't know if they should of bunkered, but they should have changed tactics after going ahead.

[SoCalTransport]

Floro would have definitely bunkered.

[The Beaver 2.0]

I think we needed a formation and a game plan that would make us very difficult to break down AND that would allow us to counter in deadly fashion.  Not rocket surgery tactically, of course, but it seems especially well-suited for our current squad. We needed to keep our shape, trap them in key places, and eff them on the counter. Kudos to Japan for adopting a game plan that game them a real shot. Takes humility--and wisdom--to accept that you cannot go toe-to-toe with the giants of football--or even minor giants like the Croats.  Greece was miserable to watch when they won the Euros, but who cares? They won! 

A trap bunker seems the way to go for us, until we've truly world class players in every position.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

I don't think you need to bunker to play a 3-5-1-1 and not surrended the midfield.  I would love to have seen what results we could have changed.  It was there at one point with Morocco but we had shot ourselves in the foot already.

[youllneverwalkalone]

2 hours ago, SpursFlu said:

After 1 - 0 they should have been more conscious. They ran around going on adrenaline with no structure and after the Croatia goal looked gassed and confused. They were gifted a 1-0 lead against a better team and didn't act according. I'm not sure about bunkering but yah 

I've replayed this a couple times in my head. I believe the first Croatia goal was called back on the offside. At that point it was becoming painfully obvious that we were over matched and the Hutch and Eustaquio were in trouble. You could have brought in a 3rd midfielder in the 30th minute. Hell, you could have made your triple switch right then and there.

 

[SpursFlu]

16 minutes ago, youllneverwalkalone said:

I've replayed this a couple times in my head. I believe the first Croatia goal was called back on the offside. At that point it was becoming painfully obvious that we were over matched and the Hutch and Eustaquio were in trouble. You could have brought in a 3rd midfielder in the 30th minute. Hell, you could have made your triple switch right then and there.

 

Yah Hutch and Eustaquio were dragging their asses all over the field at that point. I'm not a Herdman hater but I think he had a poor tournament. Especially if he knew Eustaquio was more banged up than we all knew 

[Kadenge]

Japan are a very good team. Someone posted they have 60 Pro clubs. Take a look at their starting lineup/subs and clubs they are playing at. Our top talent is thin and concentrated at the forward positions + Staq. Could we have clogged the midfield? Sure, we should have started a 3rd mid. Even David as a mid in front of Staq & Atiba if JH didn't trust any of his other mids, but this team lacks the required quality at certain positions to get results at a WC. We were competitive in spurts or for parts of games but we need more high end players and for our coaching staff to also step up tactically.

[The Beaver 2.0]

What the Aussies achieved is a good example of what is possible with an inferior talent base. I wouldn't say they bunkered per se, but they certainly kept their shape and looked for their chances where they could. I know our guys wanted to play super sexy football--we want the same!--but sexy is never quite as good as effective. Nobody takes sexy seriously if you don't win games. All sizzle, no substance. (Hmmm?)

But if you play smart football and find the right places to express yourself, especially if you are deadly on the counter, then that's something. That's smart!  Folks remember smart. The Ticos are smart. The Greeks were smart. Iceland was smart. the Aussies were smart.  Smart should be our strategy.

 

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, youllneverwalkalone said:

I've replayed this a couple times in my head. I believe the first Croatia goal was called back on the offside. At that point it was becoming painfully obvious that we were over matched and the Hutch and Eustaquio were in trouble. You could have brought in a 3rd midfielder in the 30th minute. Hell, you could have made your triple switch right then and there.

The hard call would have been to take Eustaquio out when he went down injured. But since he must have said he was fine, it was right to let him try. 

I appreciate it might have been odd to shift to a more defensive system in m. 2, but basically that is what we did immediately after scoring vs the States in Hamilton, not that early but fairly early (m. 7).

We just needed to stop their give and goes running through the middle of the park, straight at goal.

[Floortom]

Minutes 10-35 were brutal. Croatia were cutting us apart and we were barley hanging on. I think Herdman was hoping we could cling to the lead through halftime before changing tactics. Obviously that was a mistake.

[gator]

3 hours ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I don't think you need to bunker to play a 3-5-1-1 and not surrended the midfield.  I would love to have seen what results we could have changed.  It was there at one point with Morocco but we had shot ourselves in the foot already.

That's what we should have played for most of the tournament and I posted this before we kicked a ball, JH choosing a 2 man midfield vs Croatia was naive at best and I would argue was incredibly stupid and once again I said this before the match kicked off!

[InglewoodJack]

We lost 4-1 man. No tactical changes would’ve turned that into a W

[BearcatSA]

3 hours ago, youllneverwalkalone said:

I've replayed this a couple times in my head. I believe the first Croatia goal was called back on the offside. At that point it was becoming painfully obvious that we were over matched and the Hutch and Eustaquio were in trouble. You could have brought in a 3rd midfielder in the 30th minute. Hell, you could have made your triple switch right then and there.

This what I posted in the Croatia match thread:

"When I have been re-watching this match, the lack of an extra midfielder really shows in the Croatian build up for the goal that was called back for offsides in the 26th minute.  We were so easily sliced through on that play, with Eustaquio caught ball watching, Hutchinson jogging too slowly from the far side on the original multi-pass switch and never getting in a proper position to shield the back line, Buchanan too far up the field and inside so nowhere near to cover the on rushing and wide open LW Perisic at the far post because Johnston had to press inside to take Livaja and support Vitoria, who in turn was covering Kramaric for Miller who was caught way out of position at the halfway line.  Finally, Laryea got beaten off the blocks by the hard driving  Kramaric who (refreshingly, tbh) echewed the standard  flop you see in CONCACAF in an attempt to get a foul and/or card when Laryea originally tried to obstruct him and instead continued his run.  Meanwhile, the three guys up top were really nonfactors on the play from the very beginning." 

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

7 hours ago, football_world said:

a bunker strategy

 

[Stoppage Time]

8 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

It may not have been exciting footy to watch but having more bodies in the defensive end of things would have increased our chances against Croatia.  It was pretty naive to think we could out-attack them.  
 

In principle, I agree with you. The most glaring error was by Herdman who refused, or, worse, never recognized the need, to play a properly staffed midfield against one of the better midfields in the world. Bunkering in its strictest form would not be necessary if our midfield had been structured to close some of the passing lanes that a two man midfield could not handle. That is on the coach.

[BearcatSA]

7 hours ago, SoCalTransport said:

Floro would have definitely bunkered.

Waterman and Cornelius would have both been on with Miller while Vitoria would have been pushed into a striker role.

[SoCalTransport]

1 hour ago, BearcatSA said:

Waterman and Cornelius would have both been on with Miller while Vitoria would have been pushed into a striker role.

Davies & David would have a tough time cracking Floro's WC squad.

He would prefer Marcus Haber & Kyle Bekker.

Edited December 6, 2022 by SoCalTransport

[The Beaver 2.0]

FWIW Floro wasn't "bunkering for the sake of bunkering" or "bunker at all costs". He just wanted us to keep our shape--literally the distance between players--consistent no matter where we were on the field. If anything, he wanted to move the "bunker" up and down the field as a cohesive 10-man unit, but as a result of our limited ability, we rarely got to see the other half of the field.