Long balls and miscommunication: Tactical analysis of Bologna 2-1 AC Milan | OneFootball

AC Milan failed to win their game in hand on Thursday evening as Bologna deservedly brought home all three points. As also admitted by Rafael Leao after the game, the Rossoneri didn’t exactly play the most enjoyable football.

Sergio Conceicao’s men have more or less been ruled out of Champions League race as a result of the defeat, and there are no clear signs of improvement either. It has indeed been a very disappointing last few weeks, especially considering the January signings.

Our writer Rohit Rajeev has analysed the game, highlighting where things went wrong for the Rossoneri. Once again, mistakes in both phases played a big part in the outcome.

Long balls and miscommunication

Milan pressed Bologna high up the pitch early on in the game, trying to win the ball back and counter attack intensely. The PPDA (Passes Per Defensive Action) suggested Milan’s pressing wasn’t as intense as before. They allowed an average of 11 passes, while the average during the Pioli era was 8.

The majority of Milan’s attacks come from the right and for this very reason, Bologna overloaded Milan’s right wing while keeping very short spaces between their players, just in case the press was successful and they wanted to play out of the press.

Bologna pressed Milan high, so Conceicao had Theo Hernandez pushed up and Reijnders made runs to the middle third. This created space for Pavlovic to make runs and carry the ball to build out from the back.

Counter attacks were a big part of our system, but when Milan got into a 4v3 situation, the players’ decision-making hindered the finish in the move.

Leao spoke about long balls being a tactic used in attack and the first goal seems very rehearsed. As soon as Gimenez got into position to receive the long ball, Maignan lobbed the ball to him. And while the ball was being launched towards Gimenez, Leao anticipated the pass and ran behind Santi to receive the flick on. And once the flick was made, Leao used his pace and strength to go past Silvestri and score the goal.

Bologna’s second goal came thanks to a comedy of errors. The throw in was taken quickly (just like the quick free-kick in Turin) with both Jimenez and Musah ball-watching instead of closing the Bologna player down.

While the throw was being taken, Pavlovic signalled to Theo Hernandez to mark Ndoye but the Frenchman didn’t see him and this miscommunication resulted in either player believing one of the other was marking the striker.

It’s not the first time a mis-communication has happened between the two. Something similar happened against Parma and it resulted in the Cancilleri goals.

Tactical issues

Now, as Bologna were overloading the right flank with six players, why did Milan never attempt to switch the play and cause issues? If six players occupied one side of the pitch, it meant the rest of the pitch was covered by only three players.

Not only did Milan not attempt to switch, Jimenez had no passing options to switch to. The centre of the pitch was completely vacant and that meant he had to try an audacious Pirlo-esque pass.

Conceicao emphasized his football through intense pressing and quick release of the ball. That’s something Joao Felix clearly fails to do as he slowed down the pace and allowed Bologna to get back into position.

Lastly, the difference between Fonseca and Conceicao. Fonseca was somebody who liked short spaces between players and structure, while Conceicao never emphasized on structure. He was a pragmatist and allowed players freedom to play the way they want as long as they scored.

Here we can see how Milan under Fonseca had a set structure and positional discipline, while there is no true shape in Conceicao’s style.