Group E of the Euros saw the biggest upset so far, with one of the lowest-ranked teams in the tournament, Slovakia, defeating Belgium, the third-ranked team in the world.
While Slovakia capitalised on their opportunity, Ukraine struggled with Romania dominating their meeting in game one. This group has been defined by surprises; our tactical analysis will provide an in-depth analysis of Slovakia’s success, Ukraine’s challenges, and what to expect in terms of the two teams’ tactics for their upcoming clash in game two.
Slovakia’s strengths
Slovakia, ranked 48th, achieved the remarkable by defeating one of the tournament favorites and highest-ranked teams globally. Their strategy? A structured 4-4-2 mid-block that seamlessly transitioned into a defensive 4-1-4-1 formation, effectively neutralising Belgium’s key midfielders. Stanislav Lobotka played a pivotal role for Slovakia, tasked with marking Kevin De Bruyne to disrupt Belgium’s passing lanes and limit his influence once in possession.
The two images above showcase the defensive structures Slovakia relied on: a makeshift 4-4-2 that could transition into a 4-1-4-1 and vice versa.
This flexibility allowed Slovakia to maintain a four-player line in their secondary defensive layer when they decided to sit back as Belgium advanced into their half. During Belgium’s build-up from the back, starting with their goalkeeper, Slovakia switched to a 4-1-4-1, enabling Lobotka to man-mark Kevin De Bruyne while maintaining a second defensive line of four players.
This strategy caused Belgium considerable difficulty in the first half. They were frequently frustrated by Slovakia’s mid-block, forcing them to depend on individual brilliance from players like Doku, Carrasco, and Kevin De Bruyne to penetrate the Slovak structure.
The Key Man: Stanislav Lobotka
Lobotka was the central figure for Slovakia. He was assigned the challenging role of man-marking Kevin De Bruyne and intercepting other passing lanes to mitigate Belgium’s midfield dominance. He has been a crucial player not only for Slovakia but also for Napoli. Below is a graphic of the player’s radar chart, highlighting his strengths, particularly in accurate passing and defensive duel rate.
Below is the graphic illustrating his defensive territory for the season in Serie A with Napoli. Notably, he only played 722 minutes this season, indicating that our sample size is relatively small.
When comparing the graphic above with those below, a similarity becomes apparent: the number of interceptions high up the field. Observing the ball recoveries against the Belgian team, we see three counter-pressing ball recoveries just in the opponent’s half. The player excelled at disrupting the Belgian build-up not only in his own half but also in the opponent’s, a trait not commonly seen in defensive midfielders anymore.
The heatmap below is quite impressive, showing that Lobotka was nearly everywhere on the field. Focusing primarily on central areas, he closely marked Kevin De Bruyne, who also operated in central zones. The heatmap indicates high intensity in these areas where Lobotka was active. His comprehensive presence was crucial in shutting down Belgium’s build-up and attacking transitions, ultimately proving key to Slovakia’s victory in this match.
Ukraine’s weaknesses
Coming into this tournament, many considered Ukraine a dark horse, boasting talents like Andriy Lunin, Oleksandr Zinchenko, Mykhailo Mudryk, and Artem Dovbyk, which seemingly positioned them to impress on the global stage. However, to the surprise of many, Romania ran riot over Ukraine, scoring three goals in the opening match of their campaigns. So, where did Ukraine falter? Their weak spot was defensive concentration.
Looking at the first image below, we see the ball at the feet of a Romanian player, following a mistake by Lunin during the build-up. The Romanian player then has a clear chance at goal and finishes his opportunity brilliantly. There isn’t much to analyse here other than it being a significant error by the goalkeeper. In international tournaments like this, a single-goal mistake can drastically change the dynamics of the game. In international football, mounting a comeback after falling behind is much more challenging than in club football due to the heightened stakes and pressure. This sequence not only set Ukraine back early but also likely inflicted psychological damage that affected their performance for the rest of the match.
The second goal highlighted Ukraine’s struggles during transitions, which allowed Romania to attack effortlessly. In the first image below, we see a Romanian player pressured by two Ukrainian players following a loss of possession from a Ukrainian throw-in. Remarkably, the Romanian player manages to evade both Ukrainian defenders before releasing the ball to another teammate, as depicted in the second image, to push the attack even further. This sequence exemplifies Ukraine’s challenges in regaining control and effectively managing defensive transitions.
In the image below, we observe an imbalance in Ukraine’s defensive positioning, with six Ukrainian players clustered on the right side of the pitch. In contrast, two Romanian attackers advance with the ball on the opposite side. These two Romanian players execute a swift sequence with a single pass, moving the ball to the centre just outside the 18-yard box. From there, the ball is powerfully struck into the back of the net. This moment underscores Ukraine’s tactical disarray and poor spatial coverage, allowing the Romanian team to exploit the open space effectively.
Ukraine vs Slovakia
This match promises to be a fascinating battle. It features a Ukrainian team known for its talented attackers and dynamic offensive sequences against a Slovakian squad renowned for its robust defensive structure and aggressive high pressing. The clash of these contrasting styles should make for an engaging and tactical encounter, as each team leverages its strengths and counters the opponent’s strategies.
Standout players in this upcoming match will likely include Lobotka, who will once again be pivotal in disrupting Ukraine’s attacking build-up. Meanwhile, Mykhailo Mudryk could thrive in a wide range of areas of the field. His play style is reminiscent of Jeremy Doku’s performance, where Doku completed 25 carries, with eight being progressive and 11 attacking take-on. This comparison is relevant because both Mudryk and Doku share similar attributes: confident ball-handling, dribbling speed, pace, and the ability to manipulate their body to evade defenders. Slovakia showed vulnerabilities in wide zones where players like Carrasco and Doku exploited space effectively.
In contrast, Mudryk is likely to exploit similar spaces in front of him, using his ability to create opportunities through his dynamic movements and progressive runs. Below is a graphic illustrating how effective Mudryk was with the ball against Romania, where he frequently engaged in take-ons and made progressive runs.
