City’s compact structure

The defensive structure of reigning champions Sydney FC is widely viewed as one of the most critical elements of their success. Last season, they were the most compact team in the competition, defending in a tight block from deep positions.

Against Adelaide United, Warren Joyce’s City set a new benchmark for reducing the space on the pitch, aided by rapidly transitioning between being in and out of possession with relative ease.

City organised themselves defensively in a 4-4-2 shape, with two low banks of four supported by Stefan Mauk and Ross McCormack who were responsible for dictating direction higher up the pitch, as seen below.

City’s highly compact defensive block, with links to two outliers.

From the outset, it became clear that the visitors would be hard to break down. There was virtually no systematically-occurring space between the lines due to the shallowness of the block, and Melbourne’s cover system made it difficult for Adelaide’s players to open space in central areas.

Generally, teams who defend in a 4-4-2 fail to understand the necessary movements that are required for it to properly function, resulting in players getting isolated in 1v1 situations and the inevitable breaking of the midfield line. To combat this, the ball carrier must be pressed when approaching the block.

Without the required balances, the player applying pressure will leave behind too much space, which opens the possibility of forward movement from the opposition into this uncovered area and into central areas. A series of horizontal shifts are required in order to balance the movement off the line, as illustrated below.

Horizontal shifts to maintain structure in the immediate vicinity of the ball.

These horizontal movements allow the team to maintain occupation of the space vacated by the pressuring player, limiting the window of time where the structure is unbalanced.

This meant that space opened up on the opposite side of the midfield line, but this was not exploited by Kurz’s team as every time the ball was switched, the midfield would reset and slide back across.

Melbourne’s man-oriented approach

To further reinforce the central area of the pitch, Melbourne City choose to adopt a man-oriented approach within a zonal framework. Put simply, an individual will man-mark his opposite number whilst he is in his zone of control.

This extends to the covering of runs by midfielders until it reaches the defensive line, when a member of the back four will assume responsibility.

In the image below, it can be seen that every City player has a clear role – one is pressing the player on the ball, one covering a run, one marking and cutting the line of an opposing player, and the other staying in close proximity to the player in his zone of control.

Melbourne’s man-orientation in midfield

There has long been debate about the merits of man-orientation, but in this instance, it clearly worked. Combined with the compactness of the block, Adelaide struggled to engage in any build-up play in central areas, failing to find midfielders with any regularity.

This meant that they were largely confined to wide areas, where the threat they posed was minimal.

Clarity is an important aspect of Warren Joyce’s management and this extends to his football philosophy, evidenced by the intentional positioning of every member of his team - with and without the ball. Adelaide didn’t seem to have an answer to this problem, despite the tactical limitations which exist in man-marking approaches.

This cornerstone of Melbourne City’s defensive approach ensured that the central area was locked down throughout the match, limiting the influence of Adelaide United’s creative midfielders.