Australia have defended in a passive back four against both France and Tunisia, albeit in a 4-5-1 & 4-4-1-1 respectively, & Denmark typically attack with 5 in the last line.
Denmark may lack dynamic individuals but they have more than enough about them to sustain pressure & win.
Denmark may lack dynamic individuals but they have more than enough about them to sustain pressure & win.
It seems like their XI may represent a back four, though, so it'll be interesting to see how their positional play works as a whole.
I'll be surprised if they don't attack with at least 5 in the last line. That + a double pivot for compactness/circulation is the optimal approach
I'll be surprised if they don't attack with at least 5 in the last line. That + a double pivot for compactness/circulation is the optimal approach
3-1-6 for Denmark and theyโve barely created a chance against a back four. Itโs too fluid. Just play a 3-4-3 (3-2-5) in settled attacks. It enables better angles to combine in, reliable positioning between the lines & in midfield.
Midfield 3โs with back 3โs are often too fluid.
Midfield 3โs with back 3โs are often too fluid.
Theyโre sustaining pressure because Australia are so passive so can still easily find a breakthrough but the approach is suboptimal, and from both teams. Low quality tactical game, this. Australia too passive, Denmark too fluid. Letโs see which team stumbles their way to victory.
Loading suggestions...