Slovakia’s (#48) hard-fought 1-0 victory over Belgium (#3) marked the biggest upset in EURO history, according to FIFA rankings. On paper, the Red Devils were justifiably expected to brush the Slovaks aside in the first round of the group stage. Against stars from the biggest clubs in the world, led by one of the best players in the world in Kevin De Bruyne, Francesco Calzona’s men were fighting an uphill battle.
The Slovaks got off to a dream start after capitalising on a fatal mistake by Jeremy Doku. Surprisingly, their mentality remained unchanged despite the 1-0 lead. In and out of possession, Slovakia were incredibly courageous. The first half finished with balanced possession figures (52% in favour of Belgium), largely due to the Slovakians’ brilliant defensive system and consistently positive attitude with the ball. While there was much more suffering in the second half, with two Belgium goals disallowed, Calzona’s men absorbed the pressure and regained momentum in numerous instances to see out the historic result.
Control is the word. While their attitude with the ball was certainly admirable, the Slovaks controlled the match without the ball. In higher zones, they consistently contained and disrupted Belgium’s efforts in possession. When breached, and during difficult moments in the second half, they displayed incredible stability and composure in their third.
This analysis takes a deep dive into this historic upset, specifically focusing on Slovakia’s defensive performance. With a detailed analysis of their tactics out of possession, this article examines how the Slovakians controlled the match without the ball. Additionally, it also considers Belgium’s struggles and Domenico Tedesco’s in-game responses to provide a complete picture of this phase of the game.
First, let’s map out how both teams set up in this phase. Out of possession, Slovakia’s system began from a 4-5-1 shape. With the ball, Belgium started in a 4-2-3-1 shape with a few dynamics. On the wings, Doku held the width more than Leandro Trossard, who was more capable of drifting into the midfield. De Bruyne’s positioning in the first half arguably turned their shape into a 4-2-4, staying on the last line much more often than coming deeper. Otherwise, Belgium’s structure was pretty straightforward. Fullbacks were slightly deeper with the double pivot working together in front of the centre-backs.
Slovakia’s 4-5-1 was quickly identified in the first minute of the game, with the wide midfielders tucking in alongside the midfield three to form a line of five behind the centre-forward.
Ideally, Calzona’s men sat in a mid-to-high block. It was very far from an outright high block with intense pressure. On the contrary, they waited in a line of confrontation which can be identified below. This reluctance to immediately engage in the final third can be seen through the numbers, with 30 recoveries in the middle third compared to just nine in the final.
Once Belgium’s centre-backs approached this line of confrontation, their system began. The centre-forward applied pressure to the centre-back with the ball by angling his run and splitting the pitch half. Meanwhile, the line of five remained compact, shifting laterally in relation to the ball. The pass to the fullback was the trigger for Slovakia’s wide midfielder to jump and apply pressure. With the ball now wide, the near-midfielder would tuck in at an angle behind to support and compact the playing area.
If Belgium recycled possession, usually through the goalkeeper, and accessed the far side, the far-midfielder would be responsible for jumping on the far centre-back to apply pressure. The block would then shift across to remain compact in front of the ball, with the centre-forward usually tucking in. This was the fundamental routine which guided the movement and the jumps of their mid-to-high block, but there is a lot more depth to it.
First, it is important to consider Belgium in this. They had two deep midfielders, and it was crucial for Slovakia to deny access to them while moving in their zonal block. Belgium’s front four remained higher, but it was also important to consider their access in this movement.
Compactness was the fundamental aspect of this Slovakian zonal system. Without it, Belgium’s advanced options would become dangerously accessed with relative ease. The significance of compactness can be identified in the jumps from the far midfielders.
Their jump within the routine explained earlier was not automatic – a few factors went into the mix. The biggest was the distance at the time the ball was received. If, as in the image below, there was too much ground to cover, the midfielder stayed. Mindlessly jumping would have split their block open and created opportunities for Belgium to progress. Similarly, if their collective lateral movement left the midfielder with nobody to cover him, he would also not go.
This decision was calculated with the prioritisation of the short distances between the players in their mid-block as a non-negotiable.
In the video below, the timing of the jumps can be illustrated further. Passing options and space to carry were also factors in addition to staying compact. After the ball is switched, the Slovakian midfielder notices the movement from Belgium’s midfielder and holds his approach.
It was calculated to control. More passive than aggressive, sure. But this adherence to principles and calculated movement allowed them to contain Belgium’s progression and keep defending far from their box.
Belgium’s circulation from side to side often left them at a disadvantage (numerical and positional) against Slovakia’s disciplined system. Below, with the ball, the centre-back is immediately surrounded by three Slovaks. Forced wide, the Slovakian fullback is already there. This instance was slightly more risky, leaving Trossard alone with the centre-back. Nonetheless, the scenario in which the Trossard receives, especially against a physically superior opponent, is certainly favourable for the defending team.
Their system was space-oriented rather than man-oriented. With the ball as the primary reference point, the block shifted accordingly to deny space, not necessarily options. For instance, when the ball is circulated to Belgium’s right side below, their block prioritises their organisation rather than looking to man-mark Belgian players.
The success of such systems becomes dependent on minimal details. When the ball is played to the fullback, the wide midfielder moves laterally and then forward – not immediately running at the player. The angle at which the central midfielder provides cover also minimises the progression opportunities – compacting the ball area to limit space and options.
Angles of movement while shifting laterally are important, and so are the angles of approach. In a zonal block, the opposition is likely to have a free man – but there is no access to him. As Belgium’s right centre-back receives the ball below, the body orientation and angle of the Slovakian midfielder jumping to pressure him essentially hides Belgium’s unmarked midfielder. The sequence is contained and forced backwards yet again.
Discipline is incredibly important to the functioning of this system. The clip below begins on Belgium’s right side, with Slovakia’s midfielder having jumped on the centre-back. As the ball moves to the opposite side, the recovery run from that midfielder to reorganise the block and get ready to go again is crucial.
When the ball is shifted back again, that side is ready to go. In that brief segment, Doku is desperately looking to create a passing lane behind Slovakia’s midfield line, and that brings us to another detail. The two midfielders on that side do an impeccable job of remaining aware of what is going on behind them and denying access, all the while staying compact and organised as mentioned above.
It is also worth noting the deceleration when approaching the ball carrier. This is fundamental in defending. Smaller steps on your toes, ready for any sudden movement from the attacker. On the contrary, if the ball carrier is approached at full speed, it can be easy to get beaten with a first touch or change of direction.
Remember the factors that kept midfielders from automatically jumping? There certainly are factors that will trigger more aggressive engagement instead. In the clip below, once KDB starts dribbling backwards the pressure is tuned up a bit. When his pass is underweighted for the centre-back, the wide midfielder jumps at full speed. Going backwards, poor touches, underweighted passes, and many more are common triggers to “go for the kill”.
This next clip brings all the movements, details, and principles together to illustrate the sort of control Slovakia were able to gain defensively.
Altogether, the system patiently created favourable scenarios for the Slovaks out of possession. A few of these examples can be seen below.
These vertical passes from Belgium in the wide areas were played a lot of times, all resulting in very similar outcomes. The one below is the best example, particularly highlighting how their zonal discipline easily provides them with an isolated 2v1 scenario to recover the ball.
When Belgium managed to get a few more players around the ball, especially just after the halfway line, Slovakia gathered more players, making progression incredibly difficult.
Belgium had a few key struggles in the first half, largely centred around their midfield. As mentioned, for much of the first 45, Kevin De Bruyne looked to stay on the last line rather than get involved in the construction.
This positioning along with the other front three essentially split Belgium’s structure into two disconnected units, increasing the effectiveness of the Slovakian system. With more space and less interaction between the players, progression became more difficult, particularly combinations and passing lanes through the block. Attempts out wide were easily nullified as explored above. The only other option was over, attacking the depth behind the Slovakian backline. Belgium surprisingly only did this once, even though it led to their best chance in the half.
To make matters worse, the profiling of the double pivot was incredibly inefficient. The first half arguably highlighted Onana’s inability to act as a deep-lying playmaker, with limited passing distribution and ineffective movement in tight areas. Two were at fault, with Mangala also struggling to work with Onana to generate passing lanes, disorganise the opposition, and alternate heights and positions, among many others. The clip below highlights this disconnection within the Belgian structure and the ineffectiveness of the double pivot.
With the quality of De Bruyne already on the pitch, there was an obvious solution. The Man City midfielder begin to drop deeper at the beginning of the second half, directly leading to the corner of Belgium’s first disallowed goal. Immediately after, Tedesco brought on Bakayoko for Mangala, moving the Belgium structure around. KDB worked in much deeper areas and Trossard was pushed into the midfield, essentially forming a 4-3-3 with a midfield of KDB-Onana-Trossard.
This quickly proved effective. KDB’s deeper positioning significantly increased the quality of Belgium’s circulation and the threat of their attacks. Structurally, it changed the dynamic of the Slovakian system. For the most part, the Slovakian midfield line no longer had to defend who was in front and behind them, but rather who was moving through them. The change brought an additional body into Belgium’s midfield and increased their dynamics with the ball.
Slovakia’s immediate reaction was to lower the block as it led to less movement, less jumping, less rotations, and more stability. For a brief period, Belgium were finally enjoying their chances. But Slovakia’s defensive performance was not just the well-executed system in higher zones. In low blocks, defending in and around their box, they were extremely composed and solid. This tranquillity and stability resisted Belgium’s gain in momentum, and Slovakia were soon in control again.
Before taking a look from the collective perspective, it is worth highlighting the quality of Slovakia’s individual defending. This consistent success in individual scenarios was crucial in stopping dangerous moments and regaining the momentum of the game. Take, for example, this surgical tackle by Napoli’s Lobotka in his own box.
Right at the end, another surgical tackle by Skriniar put an end to a dangerous Belgian attack.
And the last clip highlights another key point. When breached in higher zones, Slovakia’s recovery was often extremely well-conducted, without panic and with discipline from everyone to get behind the ball again. It is that recovery that places an extra defender near Skriniar to collect the loose ball and recover possession.
In these recovery scenarios, the priority is to protect the goal and deny space forward, particularly directly around the ball. Next, it’s key to get numbers behind the ball as soon as possible. Below, once their right side is breached, they do a great job of delaying the attack, recovering numbers, and then winning it back.
But if there was anything to pick at in Slovakia’s performance was just that, their right side, particularly in comparison to their strong left side. Doku struggled to create danger against Slovakia’s left side in the first half, illustrated in the compilation of 1v1s below.
So Tedesco swapped Doku with Trossard at halftime. This slightly increased the threat in Belgium’s attacks, although it was not overly exploited. One of the main reasons for this weaker right side was the poor execution of details from the right midfielder, leading to a few brief opportunities for Belgium. The slightly less disciplined recovery from him also increased their vulnerability.
In their own third, Slovakia’s engagement became much more aggressive. Still, however, when defending around the box, staying compact near the ball was once again fundamental. The priority was to redirect Belgium’s attack to the wide areas.
With amped-up engagement, they would tirelessly swarm the ball with numbers. This was not done mindlessly, of course, still looking to protect the box and provide cover to each other.
Lukaku’s hold-up play posed a special threat in the final third, receiving quality balls from KDB with runners like Trossard and Doku working off him. Slovakia’s compact backline was key in defending this. Compact as always, they looked to maintain minimal distance between the back four. In the case of a pass to Lukaku, as below, they would crash next to the centre-back to form a wall against any runs or through balls.
As Belgium got closer to the box, protecting the goal became more important. When approaching the ball carrier, the priority was to block any immediate progression towards the goal, again redirecting the attack wide or backwards. This went hand-in-hand with no diving in or approaching with caution. Their composure in these nervous moments was key to their stability.
These two examples below were especially key in regaining momentum after Belgium began finding success. Slovakia defended their box with numbers, a lot of them, time after time. Additionally, the defenders were extremely composed to stay on their feet, shuffle their bodies, redirect actions, and surgically engage if needed.
Once again, this final clip brings it all together. Defending around and inside the box, creating an impenetrable and solid low block.
And of course, with a little bit of last-ditch defending.
A historic upset, Slovakia’s 1-0 win over Belgium will undoubtedly go down in the history books. For 90 minutes, the Slovaks played each minute as if it were the last, with unbroken discipline and an incredibly well-executed defensive system.
Comments