Chloe Logarzo put the Matildas ahead on 22’, latching onto a Lisa De Vanna through ball.

Yet, just as it seemed the USA’s assault on Australia’s goal would be in vain, the Lindsey Horan’s 91st minute header salvaged a much-deserved point for the hosts.

Though the USA would argue they deserved victory — with more possession and shots than Australia — these stats do not tell the full story and ignore Australia’s defensive stoicism and rapid counterattacks.

Australia deny the USA clear chances

Australian media and fans have waxed lyrical about the development of Alen Stajcic’s Matildas, though for perhaps the wrong reasons. While one cannot ignore the Matildas’ improvements in offence, particularly their patient build-up from the back and clinical combinations in the final third, the real difference has been in Australia’s defensive aptitude.

Sam Kerr, Lisa De Vanna and Hayley Raso showed defensive nous we had not seen from previous Matilda outfits pre-Stajcic. For example, when the USA’s centre-backs were in possession, Australia alternated between 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3 formations. In recent years, teams around the world have deployed a 4-4-2 in defence, with their 9 and 10 block narrow passing lanes, and the 7 and 11 drop in alongside 6 & 8. However, the Matildas buck this trend in their 4-2-3-1 defensive formation, and premise their strategy around Kerr’s pace to create three possible ways to win the ball.

  1. Kerr’s pressing forces the opposition centre-backs to play rushed passes, which in turn affects the opposition’s ability to build out from the back.
     
  2. Kerr arcs her run to force the pass to either sideline, whereby the nearest winger presses the ball and the surrounding midfielders block passing lanes.
     
  3. The defenders play long balls to relieve themselves of pressure, thus giving Australia a chance to win the ball aerially.

Key to Australia’s defensive shape was the role of their two holding midfielders — Chloe Logarzo and Emily van Egmond — and Tameka Butt. The three would hold their shape, within metres of each other, and would press the USA's midfielders and they received the ball — with their back to goal — from a centre-back. There are two aims with this blend of zonal and man-to-man marking:

  1. Primarily, Australia’s midfielders would seek to win the ball, either through an outright interception, or winning the ball as the ball carrier tries to turn.
     
  2. Secondly, and usually more likely, Australia’s midfielders would stick tight to the receiver, and prevent them from turning to face goal. This would, therefore, force a sideways or backwards pass, whereby the process continues.

Stajcic would consider their approach a success, as — notwithstanding the early stages where the USA had a flurry of chances through the middle — the hosts were limited to hopeful crosses and long-range shots throughout the game.

USA’s individual (and collective) brilliance wreak havoc

The USA’s talismanic forwards — Tobin Heath, Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe — were always poised to create dramas for Australia, and this was particularly so in the opening 20 minutes, where the hosts could have been 3-0 up. Such a lead would have altered the course of the game, as Australia would have inevitably had to chase a draw. As it turned out this was not the case, but the combination play between the USA’s front three is currently perhaps as lethal as any other around the world.

There were a number of factors which helped the USA threaten Australia throughout the game:

  1. Heath, Morgan and Rapinoe, individually speaking, possess the physical and mental attributes matched by few of their peers. Their explosive acceleration causes nightmares for sluggish defenders, while their movements off the ball and overall football intelligence is in the upper echelons of the game.
     
  2. In the early throngs of the game, and in second half patches, Australia’s midfield pivot and centre-backs had seemingly not organised who would mark these players. As a result, Morgan oftentimes found space between the lines, while Rapinoe and Heath’s varied runs — sometimes through half-spaces, sometimes towards goal — confused Australia’s defence. Australia fixed this issue by increasing communication within the spine and dropping de Vanna and Raso deeper to relieve Kellond-Knight and Carpenter of monolithic loads.

The USA made five substitutions throughout the match, yet the introduction of Christen Press and McCall Zerboni did not provide the versatility in attack for which they had perhaps hoped. Things only changed when Carli Lloyd replaced Crystal Dunn, which enabled the USA to change to a back three. One must ask whether the changes in personnel facilitated the USA increased amount of chances, or if this is inherently likely with a back three.

Both sides show frailties in corners

The debate as to whether to deploy zonal marking at a corner or not rages on. Australia conceded their equaliser whilst zonal marking, while the USA looked uneasy when defending their corners.

Both teams had two defensive blocks in proximity to the six-yard box, as well as players to defender the near post. The logic underpinning zonal marking implies the players are positioned where they can protect any crosses near the six-yard box, or clear balls which are delivered toward the penalty spot.

However, as seen below, Horan was able to move between Kennedy and Simon, and climb over the latter, to head home from a few yards. Notwithstanding Williams’ lack of dominance in the six-yard box, one could assume man-marking in this instance would have prevented Horan the space to get a run on the Australian defenders.

Perhaps the most responsible solution to thwarting corners would be employing a combination of zonal and man-marking. Firstly, every attacker should be marked goal-side as a means of preventing their run, and also intercepting the ball. Secondly, allowing one or two surplus players to zonal mark dangerous areas gives the defending a team that advantage to win corners.

Conclusion

In light of these observations, it seems one-all was a fair result for both teams. The USA threatened early on and created more opportunities throughout the game; however, Australia’s defensive shape and propensity to counterattack offered them an outlet which was not as effectively utilised as other times.

Regardless of the result, the final round of the Tournament of Nations looks a thriller, with both teams on equal goal difference, but the USA in front thanks to more goals scored.