© Breaking The Lines 2017-2021. All Rights Reserved.

Georgia 2-0 Portugal: What Went Wrong for the Seleção in Matchday 3

July 1, 2024
Tactical Analysis, Euro 2024

Portugal had already advanced to the Round of 16 following two confident victories: a 3-0 victory over Türkiye on Matchday 2 and a tense 2-1 victory over Czechia on Matchday 1. As Matchday 3 got underway, Portugal sought to rise above the difficulties they had encountered and secure a spot as the second team behind Spain, who managed to win every group stage game but lost 2-0 to Georgia, a team that had created history by making it to the tournament’s knockout stages in their debut at major international tournaments.

 

In this tactical analysis, we will look at how Portugal prepared for this game and what went wrong during the game before determining what they need to focus on before their Round of 16 match against Slovenia.

 

Defensive Analysis

 

Portugal used a 3-4-2-1 defensive configuration in an effort to give midfield pushing help and centre stability. Gonçalo Inácio, Danilo Pereira, and António Silva made up the back line, with Diogo Costa playing goalie. Pedro Neto and Diogo Dalot, the wing-backs, pushed high, offering width to the assault but creating holes in the defence.

 

 

Georgia’s counterattacks could easily penetrate the high defensive line, which was designed to compress the field and facilitate ball retention. Georgia was able to efficiently utilize the spaces behind the forward wing-backs, leaving the central defenders vulnerable, especially during transitions. The ball-playing skills of Danilo Pereira, a midfielder by trade, were introduced, but his sporadic lack of positional discipline further complicated the defensive cohesion.

 

João Palhinha and João Neves, the defensive midfielders, were frequently stretched wide to cover for the attacking full-backs, which left the central areas exposed and made them more vulnerable to fast transitions. A major contributing cause to Portugal’s defensive setbacks versus Georgia was this tactical imbalance.

 

Midfield Analysis

 

João Neves and João Palhinha constituted the central duo for Portugal’s 3-4-2-1 midfield configuration, with Pedro Neto and Diogo Dalot serving as the wing-backs. Palhinha and Neves were in charge of distributing the ball, keeping it in play, and disrupting Georgia’s play. Palhinha coordinated the shift from defence to attack, while Neves concentrated on obstructing the opposition’s attacks.

 

The midfield found it difficult to connect with the forward line, despite their best attempts. Georgia frequently forced mistakes with their pressuring, and Portugal’s attacks were predictable because they relied so much on wide play. Although they offered breadth, Neto and Dalot were frequently caught high up the field, which left the midfield vulnerable when the defence changed.

 

João Neves: Benfica’s Homegrown Gem

 

Portugal’s total attacking efficiency suffered as a result of this mismatch, which made it more difficult for them to remain fluid and in control. Due to the midfield’s slowness in changing and making connections with the forwards, especially in confined spaces, Georgia was able to successfully counterattack and keep their defensive structure.

 

Attacking Analysis

 

Portugal’s 3-4-2-1 attack was primarily dependent on crossing and wing play. Leading the line were Francisco Conceição and João Félix, who played advanced midfield roles behind Cristiano Ronaldo. Pedro Neto and Diogo Dalot, the wing-backs, surged high to create width and deliver crosses into the penalty area.

 

With aerial duels and cutbacks, the plan sought to take advantage of the flanks and generate scoring possibilities. But Georgia’s well-drilled defence saw through these plans and stopped a large number of Portugal’s attacks. João Neves and João Palhinha, the centre midfielders, found it difficult to make fast changes and precise passes, which resulted in a steady and predictable buildup.

 

Portugal’s incapacity to switch up their offensive strategy and break through the middle hindered their effectiveness, as Georgia quickly reacted and effectively closed down gaps. Portugal struggled to penetrate Georgia’s compact defensive lines due to their reliance on wide play and lack of inventiveness in the centre, which prevented them from creating many clear-cut opportunities and goals. 

 

 

Biggest Takeaways

 

  • Georgia capitalized on Portugal’s high line defence that left gaps in the centre/wide through successful counters.

 

  • Portugal enjoyed the majority of the possession throughout the game but failed to find thee net as they lacked creativity and incisiveness in the final 3rd.

 

  • Despite several attempts made by the Portugal team, they failed to disturb the score line because of the disciplined defensive display put up by the Georgian players.

 

Conclusion

 

Throughout the game, Portugal altered their tactics multiple times in an attempt to get past Georgia’s defensive line-up. Later in the game, substitutions were made to give the attack more energy and flair. For their fresh legs and new dynamics, players such as Diego Jota and Ruben Neves were brought in. These adjustments, meanwhile, were made too late to make a big difference in the game. Portugal persisted in trying to cross from the flanks, a tactic Georgia’s defence handled with ease.

 

Portugal: The Unforgettable Triumph in the 2016 European Championship

 

Additionally, the squad tried to play faster and force the full-backs to play higher, but this gave Georgia’s counterattacks even more room to maneuverer. Portugal also attempted to change the focus of their play to the centre, but their attempts were thwarted by the midfield’s lack of inventiveness. Ultimately, Portugal’s tactical changes lacked coherence and neglected to solve the core problems with their strategy, which prevented them from successfully exploiting Georgia’s well-drilled defence.

 

Ultimately, Georgia’s 2-0 victory over Portugal exposed a number of tactical weaknesses in Roberto Martinez’s side. Due to their high defensive line and reliance on skilled wing-backs, they were vulnerable to fast counterattacks, which Georgia skilfully handled. Georgia’s disciplined defence handled Portugal’s predictable attacks, which relied primarily on wide play and crossing even though they dominated possession.

 

The midfield lacked the inventiveness and quickness necessary to penetrate Georgia’s tight defence, making it difficult for them to link with the forwards. The game’s dynamics were not substantially changed by late tactical changes, such as substitutions.

 

Portugal needs to improve their defensive transitions, infuse more innovation into their midfield, and broaden their offensive game plans if they want to win more games. These upgrades are necessary to turn possession into scoring opportunities and to improve outcomes in the Euro 2024 knockout stages.

 

By: Sive Vishwa / @sive_vishwa

Featured Image: @GabFoligno / SOPA Images / LightRocket

EmailLinkedIn