MY TAKE ON THE MAN CITY VS SPURS

man city played tottenham in the ucl q/f at the etihad and the game was quite entertaining . the way gaurdiola sets ups his teams has got quite a bit of meaning to it . the player he used and the movement of these players the zones they occupy the runs they make the way the offense starts and how he wants his teams wants to execute it . man city started the game with the 4-3-3 formation while spurs started the game with 4-2-3-1 formation . the way gaurdila set up his team was most fascinating and i will try to explain why .
in the man city formation sterling and b.silva start as the wide players but both play inverted . while d.silva and de bruyne play alongside fernandiniho or gundogan in the midfield . now the attack starts from the wide with b.silva or sterling starting the offense and they stay out wide . their starting position is wide left and right . both are inverted players so both try to cut inside ( shown in the figuer .) now this leaves space behing the back four to explore or that the ball can be taken further forward and crossed into box which can be much more threatning . so here comes the two midfielders who bomb beyond the wide players and both these are correct foot players ( lefty on left and righty on right ). even when they cross the ball they have a perfect plan for that . aguero who plays as no.9 doesnt tries to occupy the space between the centre back but he there and there about so that they cant just ignore him . because he stays inside the centre backs too have to keep an eye on him because if left unguarded can be cause trouble so the centre backs are pulled towards him which leaves the space between them and the goal keeper from which the ball is crossed and player on the opposite flank can get to the end of it . 
the game started with man city being the offensive team and spurs sitting back and hitting man city on the counter attack . trippier was always going to be in the trouble with sterling in the foot race and he decided to be patient than hasty when defending sterling and it is the right thing to do because sterling is too fast for tripper . but the one thing that trippier did wrong was that he allowed sterling cut inside and allowed him time and space on the ball in the 18 yard box . spurs equalised very soon because man city's defense were bit hesistant of the spurs counter offense and instead of trying to stop in the tracks they just kept on dropping back and allowed sun time and space on the ball which allowed him to pick up the pass and then play good interplay to score . the second too was one of the mistakes by the one of the man city defenders which allowed spurs to counter and score .
the way spurs were set up was that wanyama and sissoko were in front of the back four while alli,eriksen and moura made the three behind son . sissoko especially played on sterling side because he can protect trippier if sterling tries to come inside and give him cover . but the trouble with spurs was that they were especially in front of the back four and mostly de bruyne could find that space in between midfield and back four and spurs would be in trouble . the same can be said about man city because on the counter there midfielders would be scampering back since spurs will be bringing the ball from back to front with pace and most importantly they only had gundogan to guard that space . the first 15 min were all chaos because gaurdiola's side's made mistakes which shouldnt had been made by his team . in the first half man city controlled the tempo and the game slowed down a bit after first 20 min . the half ended any more drama . 
i think gaurdiola must had asked his team to up the tempo on the second half because with upped tempo the opposition can make mistakes and the team can capitalise on the them the third goal is the perfect example of the gaurdiola's tactic's and spurs at that time just didnt had any answer to man city's tempo . they were lucky to have that third goal . the most important thing was that i didnt find any novelty from gaurdiola in the last 15 minutes . he did change players but thats that there was no change in shape and tactics which were the same . 

MY TAKE ON THE SPURS VS CHELSEA

on saturday spurs played chelsea and they just beat them very convincingly. when you are trying to analyse the game there are various factors that are taken into consideration like formation ,player used for that  awarness of players , their movement and many others . its always a coach's job to find out as to what went wrong in the match and if the scenario rises again he has a solution in mind . whichever team game it is . its like a game of chess where on the two opponents keeps on asking question of each other and try to seek answer . whoever finds the solution is the winner .
spurs started the game with 4-3-1-2 formation with sissoko preffered in the middle of the park alongside dier and eriksen . while chelsea started the game with 4-3-3 formation . the game started with spurs giving chelsea a taste of their own medicine . chelsea like to press hard and try to hit team on the counter . here spurs did exactly what chelsea does to others team . what chelsea like is that the opposition sits back and then the assess the shape and open them up with their ball movement . here spurs just didnt let them have time and space on the ball . while we talk about the formation and all that we do have to take into consideration the tempo of the game . it doesnt matters whether you play on the counter or on ball holding offense. its very important that you control the tempo of the game because if cannot control the tempo the game you can be ripped apart because if you let the opposition let control the tempo the game they can move the ball very fast and slow and get you out of shape and use that to their advantage .because after all the game is all about discipline,hard work,concentration  and organisation and if any of one quality comes short then the one team that lacks it can ( definitely) ends up on the losing side . 
so how did spurs controlled the tempo of the game . for the first 15 min they gave the same medicine that chelsea gives to their oppposition . they just closed down chelsea very hard and never allowed them time and space on the ball . the game was frantic till the first 25 min . most importantly chelsea are caught our of shape when the ball is take from back to front . the trouble is not the back four its the midfielders . apart from jorginiho the others are caught very high on the pitch and basically there is a lot of space in front of the back four which is there to exploit and thats what arsenal did in their first match against chelsea .
so how did spurs controlled the tempo and how chelsea lost it . for first 25 min spurs high pressed and scored . but you cannot do high press for the entire time of the match . you need to change levels and thats what they did . after 25 min spurs started to sit back but the sitting back wasnt that they let chelsea let time and space on the ball . instead they let chelsea come in their own half and then pressed them enough so that they had to play with a high tempo . this is where i think chelsea lost . spurs after 25 min had passed the mantle to chelsea by sitting back and chelsea had the ball . chelsea should had controlled the game better . but instead they played with on tempo and one dimensional always trying to play a forward pass game . while chelsea had the ball they should had controlled the  game better and moved the ball better . 
for that i am  going to give one example what gaurdiola team use to do at barcelona . they would slow down the game by playing tiki taka and moving the ball around and let the opposition take the shape . what this does is you can gauge the opposition's defense and can work your offensive moves . they would play tiki taka and suddenly they would up the tempo to which the opposition is caught unprepared . chelsea played with one dimensional tempo . they should had controlled the tempo better . they should had tried to draw out spurs out of their own half . the trouble with sarri's team is that they only know in one way of playing the game . the second problem is that the cohesion that is wanted between the front players is not there . conte's team had a good cohesion between hazard and costa and that won them the league . in sarri's game the no.9 is used more as a positional piece who keeps the centre backs occupied and other try to exploit the gaps . it had been a problem with his team at napoli too and i had written about it when i had analysed the napoli's game . this game should be a learning a curve for sarri who should look at his tactics and the back that remain at the back when  opposition team come very fast forward . 

MY TAKE ON THE GAME BETWEEN CITY VS UTD .

utd played city on sunday . before i write about this game or anything else let me tell you some from india's great history . it is said that abhimanyu the son of arjuna of  pandava's from mahabarta is that he learnt how to break into the ckravyuh ( formation) in his mother's womb . now what his this got to do with this match well the fact of the matter is that mouriniho just learnt one part of the game and that is how stop team's . he is what they call the defensive coach in the american football . he knows what teams should do when the other team has the ball and that is what is got to do with mouriniho . mouriniho is just one way coach and i think  he just thinks about defense and what his team does when they have the ball . even though man city won but i still think that gaurdiola's team wasnt that impressive  as well . first and foremost he has studied chess and talked with them about tactics and when you talk with such sharp minds about tactics i think he needs to show some of that on the field . even though his team won it wasnt that convincing for me . they were going to win no doubt about that but the trouble is they should had just outclassed man utd which i think they didnt . when man utd were good they had such fear in opponents minds that the opponents knew that they can score at will and that is why they won a lot . gaurdiola's team is still not doing that . they still are not playing the same level as i want them to be . 
the game started with man city and utd playing the same formation . i dont have any issues in any team trying to defend deep and sit back and play on the counter attack because the coach decides what is best for the team with the players on hand . the issue is not about sitting about sitting back and hitting on the but its about when you have the ball and what you do when you have it . you need to show the quality when you have the ball . fine if its on the counter attack . the understanding of any manager about the game gets endorsed by the offense his team plays . man utd when going forward just didnt had the clue as to what they want to do with the ball and this is a clear indication that mouriniho doesnt understands offensive side of the game . while i see gaurdiola constantly tipping his players on what to do when they have the ball and what need to do . i never saw mouriniho tell his players on what to do when they had the ball . it happened all throughout the match and mouriniho just didnt had the clue as to what his team is doing with the ball .
i would like to give an example on 37th minute rashford was released behind the left backs space by herrera . rashford had lindgard and martial in support . while rashford went for the ball . lindgard and martial went inside the box with the expectation that the ball will be crossed and they should try to get at the end of it . while rashford was mobbed by two players and led to eventually ball played out and loss of possession . now this is stupidity . the player should had studied about the space that was between rashford and the middle . even there was a space between the defensive players and it should had been exploited . team works for space they try to create and thats what team try to do . here there was space and they just couldnt exploit it . ( see the pics for that . ) either one of the player should had gone with rashford and help move the ball inside while one should had gone inside the box to keep the threat of cross alive . its shows the lack of knowledge about the offensive of the part on the part of mouriniho . his players were caught on the ball because they seem to be fixated on passing the ball to a certain which you cannot be in the football game . you need to read the play and do what is necessary . utd dont have a single player who can put his foot on the pedal and control it . they are just playing like individuals and not as a team . 
the  second thing is that mouriniho prepared his team with the expectation that city will press them and if the ball is moved fast enough then he can catch them on the counter and out of shape . which is what he did at real madrid in the title winning season . gaurdiola has learnt from that . in the second season he clearly struggled because instead of trying to press him teams were sitting back and inviting madrid to open them up . mouriniho always knew just one way forward and he just couldnt make adjustments . the adjustments that man city or gaurdiola made to the city team was that they pressed but never  hard pressed . they only pressed the player with the possession of the ball . they played deep or dropped deep maintained their shape while just doing enough pressing to keep man utd on their toes . when the opposition is not doing what you expect him to do then you need to make adjustments and clearly mouriniho wasnt able to do that . this was another failure on the part of mouriniho .
let me tell you defense is a maze or puzzle which the opposition needs to solve . gaurdiola has talked with the grandmaster so they must have imparted some very good knowledge with him . man utd defensive formation was like a sitting duck formation . city has so many good players that if they move the ball properly then they can rip open utd on every move . this was seen on the third goal but in the middle of the they just didnt do enough for me . they just didnt showed their quality on the ball . i expect more from gaurdiola and this performance was not enough for me . 

MY TAKE ON THE GAME BETWEEN DORTMUND VS BAYERN MUNICH .

yesterday bayern munich played dortmund in the bundesliga . while munich have a mini collapse in the bundesliga . dortmund are at the top .  munich started the game with 4-4-1-1 formation while dortmund too played the same combination . it was important game for both the coaches because it gives them the bragging rights atleast till christmas for being the best team in the land .

the game started with dortmund sitting back and bayern being the aggressive team trying to have the initiative . for bayern groetzka started the game in the middle of the park along side martinez . at other times in other games he has started in the no.10 position . for dortmund goetze started the game upfront in the no.9 formation . bayern had both ribery and gnabry in wide positions . bayern were trying to stretch dortmund so that the spaces can be  exploited by ribery and gnabry . the first goal came because bayern moved the ball from side to side in trying to steretch dortmund . because of that dortmunds defense got somewhat disorganised .plus the biggest mistake to that goal was the prenotion that akanji had . dortmunds midfield had moved up when the ball was moved from side to side and muller found the space between the lines . akanji in bid to close down muller left his position and went to close down muller . had akanji stayed in his proper position and maintained his discipline then he could had made it difficult for lewandowski to score . his prenotion was the cause for the first goal . bayern were dominating in the first half . even though they were dominating they were not able to find past dortmund . there was a reason . when you want your team to perform then you need to have each player to contribute . most of the bayern attack was from the left and ribery being the insitgator . the trouble was that the ribery and alaba were combining wide but the proper pivot that they wanted to bring the ball inside wasnt there . plus they were not that patient in their possession and instead choose to cross the ball rather trying to work the ball and get it come inside . on the defense bayern's plan was excellent . they were pressing dortmund so that they have to pass quickly . dortmund had reus and gotze upfront who were up against muller and boetang and there was no chance of them winning aerial duel against bayern's back two . so bayern's tactics were atleast working on the defensive upfront and they were able to contend dortmund in the first half .

akanji left his position and it led to first bayern goal

there is no problem in sitting back and hitting on the counter but for that you need to show your quality when you have the ball . plus the trouble with sitting back is that you are inviting the ball to be crossed or come close to your goal then you are inviting trouble . yes dortmund had a good shape to their team but individual mistakes can happen and that can  cost the team very much especially as dortmund had seen in the game against athletico madrid . ath.mad were able to stop dortmund in the tracks and were able take advantage of the deep line that dortmund play . in the first half whenever dortmund had the ball they just couldnt take the ball near bayern's goal and the reason for that  was the midfield of weigel and witsel just couldnt control the game properly and support their front line and the wingers . plus when gotze and reus had the ball they made bad decisions on the ball and that led to their attack stop in the tracks had they done better on the ball then bayern would had been in trouble .

the game is of two halves and the tempo that you have in the first cannot be maintained in the second half and that is why team make adjustment to the game . they just dont go on pressing which they will do in the first half because they are fresh . the team needs to make adjustment to their game and play accordingly. bayern just didnt that . they tried to play the same game which they were playing in the first half . in the second half the main change that dortmund made was that weigel was replaced by mahmoudi who is much more attacking minded than wieigel who is a defensive minded . mahamoudi instead sitting back like weigel started to come forward and started to join the offense and most importantly the pressing that was crisp wasnt that much crisp in the second half . this gave dortmund the space and time on the ball and they have decent players who can use the ball .
even though dortmund won their coach favre needs to look at the way they play when they have the ball . most importantly the distribution from midfield and from the back is very poor and this stops their offense in the tracks . secondly their offense can be read from a mile long . they try to take the ball wide and then the fullbacks and his forward try to combine and try to open take the ball forward . this offense was stopped by ath madrid and they couldnt conjure another way to take ball forward against ath madrid and even in this match in the first half bayern stopped them in the tracks . for bayern they just keep on dropping too deep and once the pressing fails plus the thing is that they just have one player who  is protecting the back three ( since one of the fullbacks is caught high on the counter on offense ) . he needs to be a bit more conservative because they even lost against wolfsburg even when they dominated the match but on the counters they were exposed and paid with the result .

MY TAKE ON THE GAME BETWEEN MAN UTD VS VALENCIA

man utd started the game with 4-3-3 formation while valencia started the game with 4-4-2 formation . now the team plays in a coach's image as to what he thinks about the game and how he wants them to play with the player at hands . man utd at both ends had been hopeless . firstly mouriniho like to play with big man but can he think past that . can he play his team without lukaku . i know him playing rashford uptop has not yeilded desired results but then he is one to be blamed as he needs to coach his team as to what they need to do when they have the ball and the respective movement and positional aspect of the game . most importantly i whole agree that man utd are lacking a team leader a player who will push others . the team is lacking in character and direction . you just cannot put the team and you need to think about the whole aspect of the team . man utd were hopeless were at both ends of the pitch with not feeling comfortable on the ball . 
the game started with man utd in the ascendency and valencia sitting back and trying to hit man utd on the counter . the reason why man utd dont have a direction .mouriniho's team are mostly trained to play on the counter attack . so whenever any teams sits back and asks mouriniho's team to open them up then his teams have struggled . when teams are primarly drilled to play counter offense then they have a tendency to take the ball from back to front very fast and try to explore the spaces that are left behind . mouriniho's team are never eye watching most importantly his teams are not designed to open up oppositions formation . his teams particularly struggle when team sit back and play defensive game . valencia's coach must had studied this and must had known this from his time in spanish football . so he devised tactics according to that . even though valencia had two up front they would get behind the ball and make it six in the middle of the park . while mouriniho like his team to have a very disciplined defense the same is not expected from his team on  offense .
man utd were the ascending team and valencia were trying to counter . now teams try to hold a line when they defend because if you cave in too much and let the opposition too much in your half in trying to absorb the attack it may backfire . most importantly on the counter offense teams play through their centre forwards and if you can press and stop their main man then i think you can stop the counter . valencia were going to play through rodrigo or batshuayi so you just have to read the game and  dont offer them any time and space on the ball . man utds centrebacks were doing excatly opposite of that they were giving both valencia forwards time and space on the ball . since valencia had two in the middle so utd's back four were getting compact which was letting space on the flanks for valencia to explore which they were doing particularly on the left flank through guedes . had valencia been little bit more patient when they could get the ball in utds final third then i think they would have had success . 
as i had said whenever teams are drilled to play counter they take the ball up very fast but this can thing can back fire when teams are taking the ball quickly . it has its own drawbacks because when you pass the ball to the forward line he may get isolated because there may be no continuation to the move after that pass . so he either may have to cross or in trying to overdo loose possession . the reason may be because when the ball is passed to the forward line he may not have the necessary numbers . secondly when utd passed the ball to the forward line the distace between the midfield and forward line was about 25-30 yards so by the time the forward recives the pass . the defender would be on the recivers toes making it difficult for him to work the ball . secondly the midfield support line is too back to play a slick crisp football since the time taken for 10 yard passes is double to that of 20-25 yard passes so that is out of equation because you cannot play crisp football with too much of space between lines . thirdly there needs to discipline over the ball . sanchez ,rashford just dont have that they just try to overdo with the ball . you need to be patient on the offense as well . you need to read the defense as well and then make your moves . mouriniho hasnt got the brains in terms of offense . most importantly can be think of the offense minus lukaku because how many times did he lost the possession plus his understanding of the game is not very good . most importantly as i had said that they dont have a leader on the field . one who would take others to sword and most importantly he would push others to play better and have some discipline in him . i think mouriniho is not the right man for man utd and should either bring carlos quieroz back .
i worry about man utd because new fans are made when a team plays good positive football not some boring football . his constant criticism of his players  and the hopeless display of his team is nothing but going to harm man utd as a brand and it would be better they release him for good .

MY TAKE ON THE GAME BETWEEN CHELSEA VS LIVERPOOL .

yesterday liverpool played chelsea . chelsea started the game with 4-3-3 formation . both the team have the same formation . this was one of the best crisp fast pace game that i had seen in years with both teams attacking at breath taking pace . while both the teams have the same formation th approach to the game is bit different and the way they work the ball or the zones that they try are different . while liverpool try to lay a bit more central chelsea try to work the channel's and then whip a cross inside the box . both like to press but the pressing is different as well as the way the offense  they have when the have the ball . 
this was a match perfect for both the teams just because both teams are in direct contrast of each other . while sarri like to keep the ball . liverpool like to hit on the counter attack . liverpool's main man is salah while chelsea's main man is hazard they try to play the ball to him and try to build the offense . but one thing is certain that the movement of their midfielders or even the team movement is quite similar . whenever one of the front three comes deep the midfielders bombs forward . both teams try to work the triangle but the end approach is different with both the teams .

space used by salah on liverpools's counteratack .

now about the game liverpool like to hit on the counter while chelsea like to hold on to the ball . compared to liverpool chelsea played a deeper line while they were good with the ball on the defense they were just hopeless . whenever they loose the ball they like to press and get the possession back . the trouble was that it was leaving a lot of space between the back four and midfielders who were getting upfield and liverpool were doing a fine job of transferring the ball from back to front especially to salah very quickly . now it not that sarri doesnt knows salah he know salah from his time with roma . salah was playing on the right so he was going to come inside . liverpool try to get more on the ball because they know he can open up the defense and is very decent in one on one situations . the first mistake was to let salah cut inside . sarri must had wanted chelsea play deep because of salah's pace and the way the front three of liverpool combine and it was very evident here . since there was not midfield cover which way upfield . salah could use that space in front of the back four and combine with firmino who is  very excellent . chelsea's back four just couldnt come out because had anybody left their defensive discipline then liverpool's would had exploited that space . still in the first half chelsea's back two made the mistakes especially luiz who made mistakes with his decision making .he tried to win a ball which was not there to be won . he went with a player even when the ball wasnt played or that he could see that the  ball wasnt going in that players direction . most importantly i dont know why do they let salah cut inside . both alonso and luiz showed salah on the inside on his stronger foot while he should had been shown outside on his weaker foot . there was a moment in the first half when milner played a 35-40 yard ground ball in salah's feet . while the chelsea's back four were just two to three yards behind salah  they could had easily steeped up and tried  to wrestle the possession or atleast make it difficult for him instead they just sit back and let him time and space on the ball . this is the type of decision making makes the difference in the game . i hope that sarri when he see's the tape tries to correct it .
i had read about how hazard needs the help of his forwards or the players around him to be best . i would say that the team needs to have hazard playing in unision with team . yes he is good player but the pace with which chelsea plays it  gets dropped when hazard is on the ball .his time spending on the ball trying to do something allows the opposition to regroup who can be  taken apart with slick insterplay as they did on the first goal .  he needs to be in unision with the team . he needs to have a better decision making as to where he can take on  the opposition. most importantly i think at time hazard puts himself in front of the team . there was moment in the match in second half where on kavacic made the run and hazard could had released him but instead he just passed it back . when you are playing on the counter attack as they did in the second half then you not only to hold the ball but also to release somebody who is making forward runs beyond you . i was disappointed with hazard .   i think willian is a better dribbler than hazard who sees less of the ball than hazard . most importantly just like previous sarri team here is also sarri's offense is revolving around the the midfielders ,wide players and fullbacks . he is still is not able to bring the centre forward in the offense . the centre forward is used more as a positional piece who keeps attention off two central back players . to be honest giroud is one of the most underrated forward and he has a very good passing ability . kovacic had a very good game and showed his quality over the ball .
liverpool depends too much on salah for offense and at time they just try to find him . it would be better if sane can share some load but he was poor in this match . salah was substituted not because he was bad but because he must had been exausted because he was seeing a lot of the ball from the first minute and was involved all of the moves . i think kloop needs to work with salah for his final ball because it lacks in precision and weight and that was the reason liverpool couldnt score against chelsea in the first half . this was the story of the first half .
in second half sarri must had seen that his team cannot keep pressing and must had asked his team to sit back and defend plus he had the lead . the italian mentality must had taken over .  this handed the initiative to liverpool and who rightfully equalised for the domination they had over the game in the second half . 

MY TAKE ON THE GAME BETWEEN FRANCE VS BELGIUM

belgium played france in the first world cup semi's . although both had reached this stage but both coaches had been criticized for their lack of tactical innovation . both sides had dearth of talents but none had been able to put together a team which can dominate opponents and play some good football . the football in this tournament had been not upto the standard with none of the coaches standing out who looks to have played very good football . france and belgium both started the game with 4-3-3 formation . the game was of two halves and there is nothing such great tactical to talk about this game but still there some thing that i noticed which i want to write . there is nothing great about the tactical side its was a boring game . the game was of two halves with belgium being pressed to do something in the second half because france had taken the lead in the first half .
belgium started the game with dembele in the side drafted in the midfield alongside fellaini and witsel . while matuidi came in place of tolliso . the game started with france sitting back and belgium dominating the ball . there wasnt much in the first half with both the teams sitting back and allowing the centrebacks time and space on the ball and trying to have as many players behind the ball as they can . the centre forwards too from the both sides were trying to press the midfielders instead of trying to press the forwards. the fullbacks were tucked alongside the centrebacks making it a very compact unit . in the first half belgian had a very interesting shape .  belgium didnt had a recognised left back and vertroghen was doubling as a centre back as well as a fullback . they had hazaed on that side and fellaini was given the lisence to venture forward of the three midfielders . the intresting fact that the fullbacks didnt had a direct number against them . this fact was not noticed by either of the coaches and neither of the wide players were trying to track run from the fullbacks . neither of the coaches tried to overload the flanks and try to work the ball . there were one good chances from the either sides and it was because for belgian fellaini dropped in to the zone and they could work the ball to hazard and he had a good shot . france created the other chance when mbappe and pavard combined well on the right side to create a chance for pavard who's shot was saved by courtouis . the half ended goalless and neither of the coaches showed any great ingenuity in their tactical approach . belgian just couldnt bring lukaku in the game and they failed to build the offense around him . there were some mistkaes which i will talk later. 
in the second half france took the lead early through umtiti and since the current offense was not working for belgium they had to make the change . dembele was replaced by mertens who drafted wide . the shape change bought de bruyne in the centre of the attack while hazard too who was playing from the wide left seems to have come alongside de bruyne . fellaini continued to be operating from the wide left coming inside when the ball is on the rightside . his aerial powress created a chance for belgium . here is where i think that the belgium coach was wrong first off he was allowing hazard to come very deep . now you dont your best players too much deep as it takes that much effort to get near the goal and that many players to beat . hazard should had  been told to remain upfield and the ball worked to him . secondly i dont know as to why fellaini was replaced and his physical presence  had earlier created a  chance for belgium and had he been on the field then his aerial powress would had made some difference . most importantly martinez failed to realised that without a proper left fullback belgiums offense was not able to stetch the french defense on the left side because once fellaini and hazard come inside there was nobody who would be there who would make deeper runs or cross from wider positions . martinez should had addressed these problems earlier and should had make the necessary substitutions earlier . most importantly  belgium just didnt showed that much of a heart to equalize and at times when there was necessity of calm they seem to hurrying things . balls were crossed without having a proper target in mind . hazard made the things about himself and martinez should had asked him to get others more on the ball . there were some mistakes which could had changed the game . one of them is when de bruyne had worked the ball in the box and he had lukaku on the six yard line he made a low cross while he should had made the aerial cross he crossed low and the ball just couldnt reach lukaku . this are several small things that belgiums missed into the game and they missed the final .