Pitch Warfare: A Tactical Analysis of Brighton vs. AEK

De Zerbi’s Brighton exemplifies a brand of football that captivates audiences and seizes the limelight. Anchoring themselves firmly within their preferred 4–2–3–1 formation, they’ve enjoyed a remarkable surge in form at the outset of the new Premier League campaign. Notably, they achieved the historic feat of European qualification last season, marking a momentous milestone for the club, whose origins trace back to 1901.

Following an emphatic showing at Old Trafford, where they secured a commanding 3–1 triumph over Manchester United, Brighton embarked on a momentous journey into European competition. Their debut outing in the European competition brought them up against the much more experienced AEK Athen. While pundits and bookmakers alike were expecting another straightforward win for the London side, unforeseen factors, rooted mainly in psychology rather than tactics, conspired to hand Brighton an unpredictable 2–3 defeat.

Despite the 2–3 scoreline and taking into account the understandable stress and relative inexperience of many of Brighton’s players, it is only fair to commend their unwavering commitment on the pitch. In this analysis, we will set aside the final result, the nuances of individual performances, and specific decisions, in order to delve into the pure tactical realm. Our objective is to gain a deeper insight into De Zerbi’s philosophy and strategic blueprint, extending our focus to AEK’s approach and the challenges they encountered. It is extremely important to reiterate that our scrutiny is not focused on the outcome in isolation, but on teasing out the underlying tactical strategies employed by both coaches.

Before delving into the intricacies of the competitive aspect, it is necessary to underline some basic elements that define the philosophy of the Italian tactician, De Zerbi. Throughout his coaching career, from Foggia to Sassuolo and now Brighton, his approach has been clearly offensive in style. De Zerbi displays a determined desire to exert control over every aspect of the game, with the majority of his team’s goals coming from a meticulously crafted concept based on intricate combinations.

His penchant for possession-oriented football, characterized by fluid movement within the spatial dynamics of the pitch, is a hallmark of his managerial style. Importantly, this adaptability hinges on the nuances presented by the opposition. The deployment of long, direct passes is a rarity in De Zerbi’s tactical playbook, and it is no mere coincidence that his teams rank among the most prolific in terms of goals stemming from patient build-up play.

Central Box Formation: De Zerbi’s Unique Tactic for Dominance

Arguably the most distinctive aspect of De Zerbi’s approach to constructing attacks, setting him apart from many other coaches, is his unique utilization of a “box” formation in central areas. Unlike those who often opt for three defenders aligned in a backline or have one of the central midfielders drop deep between the center-backs, primarily aiming to facilitate vertical play while maintaining a link to the attacking front, De Zerbi’s strategy centers on the creation of a compact square formed by the two central defenders and the two midfielders. These midfielders are strategically positioned in close proximity to each other within the box.

The strategic rationale behind this tactic is to assert dominance over the central area of the pitch by capitalizing on the tight spacing within this box. When the ball is circulated between the central defenders, the ballfar midfielder executes a diagonal run to provide essential support, thereby enhancing ball circulation and maintaining control of the central corridor.

When the opponent is lined up with a lone striker, the pressure is applied from the side and outwards, leading the play into a potential trap.This strategic maneuver poses no inherent dilemma for De Zerbi’s system, thanks to the midfield support player who concurrently forms a triangle with the unmarked central defender.

In this scenario, two crucial dynamics come into play:

1. If the opponent’s midfielder fails to track the movement of the supporting midfielder executing a counter-movement to receive the ball, the player in possession enjoys the luxury of time to pivot and initiate vertical passes, thus exploiting available passing lanes effectively.
2. Conversely, if the opponent’s midfielder does track this movement, the quick ball distribution to the unmarked center-back offers an alternative route for progression. The unmarked center-back can either initiate passes into advanced areas or embark on a purposeful dribble to gain ground, simultaneously drawing an opponent out of position, thereby liberating a teammate from an impending challenge. This nuanced approach allows for versatile options in breaking down opposing defenses.

A Tactical Chess Match on the Pitch

An additional tactical variation comes into play through the involvement of the wing-back, albeit somewhat sparingly observed in this particular match, with notable instances occurring only a couple of times during the second half when Lamptey replaced Milner.

Such a pivotal moment unfolded in the 74th minute, which is captured in the image below. Lamptey embarked on a convergent movement towards the midfield, effectively adopting the role of a central midfielder. This maneuver facilitated the forward progression of the central midfielder on the opposite side, akin to the role Groß executed in this specific instance. A triangular relationship was implemented between Van Hecke, Gilmour and Lamptey, allowing them to fluidly move the ball between them and seamlessly transfer the play from one side to the other.

The heightened midfield supremacy, consequently, granted Igor the opportunity to assume an advanced position and unlock the vertical dimension of play without encountering substantial interference. Amrabat’s distinct responsibility of closely marking Estupinan, combined with the individual marking assignments of the Greek team’s players, effectively relegated him to a passive role, impeding his capacity to promptly close down spaces for Igor.

Furthermore, Joao Pedro’s involvement in keeping Mitoglou occupied, combined with the strategic positioning of Ansou Fati and Grog, created a noticeable gap in a focal point in the pivot area, allowing Igor to accurately deliver passes perpendicular to Grog’s trajectory. This movement allowed Brighton to maintain a dynamic and unpredictable offensive posture.

AEK’s Pragmatic Approach: Respecting Opponent’s Superiority

AEK Athens adopted a resolute strategy centered on applying intense man-marking across the entire expanse of the pitch. This relentless commitment to man-marking considerably compressed the time and space available to the opponent, effectively preventing them from pivoting towards the goal and compelling them into playing backward passes. This tactic constituted one facet of AEK’s defensive approach.

On the other hand, De Zerbi effectively tried to exploit the vulnerabilities that existed in the individual defensive tasks of AEK Athens. His clever approach was based on organizing the constant movement of players in open spaces and synchronized actions between his forwards, following a common principle — creating space in AEK’s defensive structure that could be skillfully exploited.

By engineering such intricate and coordinated movements, De Zerbi’s side aimed to generate pockets of empty space within AEK’s defensive lines, providing them with strategic opportunities to penetrate and break down their opponent’s defensive block. This artful manipulation of spaces served as a key component of Brighton’s tactical strategy, designed to outmaneuver AEK’s rigid man-marking system.

Brighton undoubtedly confirmed their dominance on the pitch, highlighted by their possession statistics, which stood at an impressive 75.1% compared to AEK’s 24.9%. This clear superiority was further manifested in the total number of passes, with Brighton completing an impressive 546 passes compared to AEK’s modest 139.

It is crucial to acknowledge that AEK Athens’ tactical approach was not without merit, as they demonstrated commendable sportsmanship by acknowledging their opponent’s superiority. Their decision to adapt to Brighton’s home-ground advantage, coupled with the opponent’s sheer dominance, highlights AEK’s pragmatic approach to the contest.

Strategic Brilliance: How Brighton Outwitted AEK’s Defense

On the very rare occasions when the ball went out wide Brighton were able to exploit AEK’s defensive approach in a intelligent way. In the 35th minute case we see Groβ diagonally moving out from midfield, drawing Pineda away, opening up space for Joao Pedro to move into space. This move forces Szymanski to leave his position, as otherwise the Brighton striker would have received the ball unmarked with space and time to attack. Forced therefore to follow, the AEK centre-back gives March the chance to run diagonally inwards into the gap between the opposing centre-back and the wing-back. In conclusion, when the ball goes to the flank and the pass is made in the halfspace it acts as a trigger for the winger to attack.

From the first minute, the nature of the contest and the expected dynamics of the match became very clear. As illustrated in the image below, Brighton’s player configuration engineered a numerical advantage within the central channel of the pitch. In stark contrast, AEK Athens took to the field with a deliberate strategy of vigorous running, tenacious man-marking, and relentless pressing, conceding a significant portion of the pitch to their adversaries.

A hallmark of AEK’s defensive approach lay in the art of individual marking, exemplified by the movements of their central defender, Mitoglou. Clever tracking of opposing striker Joao Pedro in midfield played a key role in limiting opportunities for vertical play, thus limiting Brighton’s ability to effectively exploit the central channels.

An important feature of De Zerbi’s tactics, which had not previously been mentioned, is the repeated appearance of the wing-back and striker deliberately occupying space in midfield. This strategic element was notably exemplified in the match against AEK, affording Brighton added flexibility and adaptability within the midfield battleground.

In the 7th minute, a strategic interaction unfolded, organised by the synchronised movements of Ansu Fati and Joao Pedro. This coordinated action was key in luring one of AEK’s central defenders and their defensive midfielder away from their prescribed defensive zones. The reverse move was made immediately after the liberation of Igor in the manner previously discussed, taking advantage of the spatial advantage created by the proximity of the two central defensive and central midfielders.

These reverse moves effectively created empty areas on the pitch, with Joao Pedro effectively engaging in a one-two sequence and rushing forward into the resulting empty space. In this particular case, Pineda, defensive midfielder of AEK Athens, found himself in a tactical issue. If he chose to press Igor aggressively, it would unintentionally grant Gilmour, Brighton’s midfielder, additional room to operate within the midfield zone. Such space and time for Gilmour would enable him to pivot, advance, and instigate forward-moving attacks with greater ease. This intricate tactical maneuver underscored Brighton’s ability to exploit AEK’s defensive structure and create pivotal decision-making moments for their opponents.

The 17th-minute of the game witnessed Brighton’s first two attacking lines seamlessly establishing their dominance within the midfield arena, once again placing Pineda in a familiar tactical quandary. In this instance, Van Hecke emerged as a pivotal figure, displaying exceptional ball-carrying skills as he ventured forward and subsequently distributed the ball to Groß.

Highlighted by the circles, AEK Athens’ unwavering commitment to tight man marking is evident, showcasing their resolute defensive discipline. It’s noteworthy how Groß cleverly shifted his positioning, migrating from the midfield towards the center of the pitch. This movement had the effect of drawing Araujo along with him, thereby fashioning vital space for Van Hecke to initiate his driving run forward. On the opposite flank, Ansu Fati positioned himself within the midfield area, effectively engaging central defender Jönsson in this particular phase.

Additionally, Gacinovic was entrusted with the role of blocking Milner’s attempts to become involved in Brighton’s build-up play from the flank. Meanwhile, Joao Pedro continued to execute his trademark movement, drawing Mitoglou, AEK’s defender, along with him.This clever maneuver by the Brighton striker resulted in a noticeable weakness in AEK’s last line of defense, as indicated by the purple box. It was a strategic element that the English side tried to exploit — a deliberate attempt to exploit AEK’s defensive structure. Passing the ball to Groß served as a catalyst for March, who promptly made a synchronized move into available space, further exemplifying Brighton’s tactical intricacy.

As Brighton transitioned their play into the opposite half of the pitch, a well-automated sequence unfolded wherein either the striker or the attacking midfielder, contingent upon their positional placement, would initiate movements toward the ball. while at the same time creating space for a possible vertical pass in open space. The wingers, in their expansive roles, thoroughly provided width to stretch the last line of defense.

Brighton’s Tactical Superiority: AEK’s Defense Under Scrutiny

In the 23rd-minute scenario, a robust setup included the Gilmour, Van Hecke, Estupinan, and Milner, who, besides offering critical support to the ball-carrying player, Igor, were strategically positioned to intercept any counterattacks that might arise from a potential loss of possession — rest defense. Simultaneously, the wing-backs, Milner and Estupinan, trickily converged inward, thereby compelling Gacinovic and Amrabat to remain preoccupied in midfield.

Joao Pedro’s movement toward the ball forced Szymanski to leave his position and disrupt any attempt to feed the opposing striker. Given Brighton’s strategic alignment on the pitch, in conjunction with AEK’s defensive tendencies, Jönsson found himself compelled to closely mark Igor, thereby constricting the forward’s available space. Capitalizing on this spatial adjustment, Ansu Fati adeptly repositioned himself to exploit the resulting gap, prompting Pineda, who was overseeing Groß, to effectively serve as a fourth defender responsible for covering the exposed area.

However, Igor’s decision-making was influenced by the time-sensitive situation. Rather than attempting the more challenging diagonal pass to the open space created by Ansu Fati’s movement, Igor opted for a safer horizontal ball movement to maintain possession. This decision showcased Brighton’s adaptability and precision in making the right choices during critical moments of play.

Groß’s cleverly executed diagonal movement not only advanced his own positioning but also enticed Gacinovic to follow suit, consequently creating an open space for a potentially game-changing play to reach Milner, who was unmarked at the time. Meanwhile, Joao Pedro engaged one of the center-backs, while the winger on the weak side shifted inwards to engage the second center-back.

March, positioned on the ballside, remained unmarked, drawing Haji Safi’s attention. This situation placed the AEK wing-back in a dilemma. Haji Safi had to decide whether to maintain his position and block a potential vertical pass or prepare to close down March if the ball were played sideways. Haji Safi’s positioning was misplaced in the hands of the experienced Milner, who cleverly read the play and executed a precise vertical pass to find the unmarked Ansu Fati.

This pass created a numerical superiority within AEK’s goal area, with three Brighton players compared to AEK’s two central defenders. Consequently, Ansu Fati was presented with two viable options:

1. To finish the play himself, provided that Mitoglou failed to mark him effectively.
2. In case Mitoglou made a move to intercept, Ansu Fati could opt to distribute the ball laterally to the unmarked Joao Pedro.

This tactical maneuver underscored Brighton’s ability to manipulate defensive structures and create favorable scenarios for decisive offensive plays.

Fluid Movements and Defensive Responsibility

Several key tactical insights emerge from the analysis of the match between Brighton and AEK, shedding light on the approaches adopted by both teams and the peculiarities of their game:

De Zerbi’s Offensive Philosophy: De Zerbi’s Brighton displayed a highly offensive philosophy, characterized by intricate combinations and patient build-up play. They emphasized control of the central areas and avoided resorting to long, direct passes.

AEK’s Man-Marking Strategy: AEK Athens countered Brighton with tight man-marking tactics that limited space and time for their opponents. This approach forced Brighton into backward passes and lateral movements.

Fluid Movements and Exploiting Spaces: Brighton’s strategy featured constant movement within the midfield, with attacking midfielders and strikers dropping deep to create spaces. This fluidity aimed to disrupt AEK’s defensive structure and open up opportunities.

Wing Play and Wide Attacks: Brighton used their wingers to stretch the AEK defense. This posed challenges to the AEK defense, which was geared towards man marking.

Defensive Responsibility — Rest Defense: Brighton was meticulous in their defensive setup, ensuring that players like Gilmour, Van Hecke, Estupinan, and Milner provided support while preparing for potential counter attacks upon loss of possession.

Ansu Fati’s Role: Ansu Fati’s positioning and movement were crucial for Brighton. His actions forced AEK players to make tactical choices that affected their defensive solidity.

Game-Changing Moments: Brighton exploited gaps in AEK’s defense, particularly when Groß made diagonal runs by occupying halfspaces. These moments of tactical brilliance allowed Brighton to create numerical advantages and scoring opportunities.

In conclusion, the game between Brighton and AEK revealed the tactical prowess of both teams. Brighton’s offensive philosophy and ability to manipulate spaces, combined with AEK’s resilient man-marking strategy, made for an intriguing contest. The match highlighted the importance of tactical flexibility and adaptability, ultimately showcasing Brighton’s proficiency in exploiting defensive weaknesses to secure their offensive superiority.