The Azzurri performed poorly throughout the World Cup and waited till the 80th minute of the match against Slovakia to start playing when it was too late to make a reaction to compensate for the failures in the previous 260 minutes of football. What is most troubling is the fact the Italian reaction was not due to team effort but rather down to a spark offered by Fabio Quagliarella who was behind one goal and&nbsp;scored another.
Italy’s squad lacked the confidence and played some uncharacteristic football dominated by loose marking, lack of communication amongst defenders and poor defending from set-pieces. The Italian team conceded 5 goals from a remarkable 6 shots on target which means almost every shot by opponents turned into a goal and that the Italian goalkeepers saved to make a single save. The Azzurri suffered from the absence of the injured Gianluigi Buffon who managed to play the opening 45 minutes before Federico Marchetti assumed the role of goalkeeper without making any outstanding saves.
Italy lacked creativity and invented little in terms of scoring chances inside the box before the second-half against Slovakia when Quagliarella was brought on to save Italy’s faltering World Cup campaign. The absence of Andrea Pirlo, despite his decline in form the last couple of years, was a massive blow for the team as he was limited to less than 45 minutes of playing time due to injury. When he entered the game, he was able to provide the Azzurri with more structured attacks despite his obvious lack of fitness. Italy’s attack which lacked creativity and produced nothing other than the penalty-kick converted by Vincenzo Iaquinta was pathetic in all three matches prior to the insertion of Quagliarella by coach Marcello Lippi.
Below is an assessment of the Azzurri players following all three matches in the group stage:
Gianluigi Buffon: N/A because he played in 45 minutes and had one shot which was&nbsp;very&nbsp;difficult&nbsp;to save against Paraguay. It was a defensive mistake by both Daniele De Rossi and Fabio Cannavaro.
Federico Marchetti: 5 out of 10. Marchetti did not commit any blunders but he did not make any saves either. From 5 shots which were on target, he failed to save 4 which were converted to goals. The third goal scored by Slovakia could have been avoided had he either rushed quicker to get the ball or stood his ground to attempt a save. He was left in no man’s land but the main fault lies with the defenders who left him exposed.
Fabio Cannavaro: 3.5 out of 10. This might be seen as harsh by some or as generous by others depending on how one views the goals conceded by Italy. The Germany 2006 version of Cannavaro&nbsp;had better sense of positioning and greater leaping power as well as better timing&nbsp;and most likely would have&nbsp;prevented both the Paraguay and New Zealand goals which came via set-pieces. The Kiwis scored after the ball deflected off Cannavaro’s knee. The former Azzurri captain was in no man’s land when Slovakia scored the second and third goals. His sense of marking deserted him and his leadership was quite poor considering he is the squad’s captain, most experienced player and a former best player in the world. Frankly, he was one of the main reasons behind Italy’s failure. He left Giorgio Chiellini with so much to do in terms of covering and tracking back.
Giorgio Chiellini: 5.5 out of 10. Chiellini had to cover for the deficiencies of the other defenders, mainly Cannavaro, and he covered time and again when Cannavaro was short or lost against Slovakia. He probably got used to having to carry the defensive line after Cannavaro’s poor showing with Juventus during the Serie A season when Chiellini had often had to save the Bianconeri but it does get tough after a while as witnessed by Juve’s miserable defensive record and the Azzurri shortcomings on the defensive end in South Africa 2010. He was perhaps a bit slow and, thus, maybe at fault for Slovakia’s second goal when he was late to cover the Slovak player Robert Vittek as he slotted the second goal for Slovakia. Other than that second goal by Vittek, Chiellini did what he could considering his partner was the aging Cannavaro.
Domenico Criscito: 5.5 out of 10. Did not commit any&nbsp;glaring mistakes yet he&nbsp;fell way short of the width, attacking&nbsp;impetus and overall impact offered by Fabio Grosso&nbsp; in World Cup 2006. Obviously, both Grosso and Criscito had to take over after the world’s best left-back Paolo Maldini retired.
Christian Maggio: 5 out of 10. Was not at fault for any of the goals and only featured in the second-half against Slovakia. He showed the ability to go forward in spurts yet does not appear as a solid defensive option. Italy were stronger when Gianluca Zambrotta was on the right because of his experience and effort.
Gianluca Zambrotta: 6 out of 10. He actually performed much better than expected against both Paraguay and New Zealand to defy the critics who expected him to be horrible and a reason behind Italy’s failures. While Cannavaro disappointed as expected, Zambrotta stood his ground and performed consistently albeit nothing spectacular and way short of his impressive performances in Germany&nbsp;2006. In the previous World Cup, Zambrotta was one of the stars and main catalysts as he threatened against Australia, Ukraine and Germany. Time for him to quit the national team without having to disgrace himself like Cannavaro who over stayed his welcome.
Gennaro Gattuso: 4 out of 10. He did not provide anything in the 45 minutes against Slovakia but the fault was not his because Lippi should not have started him after sitting the first two games and knowing Italy needed goals and not a defensive effort. Gattuso rightfully announced his international retirement before the World Cup. He deserves credit for making the decision and for being brave enough to acknowledge he is in free fall as he is only getting older. Poor performance on his behalf but it is not completely his fault because Lippi should have started someone else.
Claudio Marchisio: 4 out of 10. Marchisio did not do anything horribly but he did not contribute either. He was absent during the first two matches leading Lippi to bench him for the Slovakia match which was the right decision. The initial mistake was Lippi’s decision to play Marchisio out of position. A wasted player who perhaps could have performed better if properly used.
Riccardo Montolivo: 5 out of 10. Montolivo was better against Paraguay and the Kiwis when he attempted a number of long-distance shots which were saved by the goalkeepers on 3 occasions while one strike hit the post. At least he tried and hit the target on a number of occasions while someone like Alberto Gilardino did not have a single effort on target.
Daniele De Rossi: 5 out of 10. Italy’s greatest disappointment in the tournament. He does not perform as well for the Azzurri when compared with&nbsp;his passionate and gritty displays for his club Roma. He was at fault for Slovakia’s first goal. He gets a 5 for saving Italy against Paraguay and for creating the penalty against New Zealand. Overall, a tournament to forget for a player considered by many as Italy’s biggest hope.
Andrea Pirlo: 5.5 out of 10. Italy’s most creative force considering Antonio Cassano, Mario Balotelli,&nbsp;Francesco Totti and Alessandro Del Piero were all left home. He played a portion of the second-half against the Slovaks and he showed he can provide the Italians with improved and structured play as well as more incisive passing. Too bad he was not fully fit and his injury forced him to miss the first two games. His absence was decisive in terms of Italy’s failure to break defenders and opponents.
Simone Pepe: 5.5 out of 10. Better than the other players in midfield or on the wing. Pepe tried to put the ball in the box through crosses and passes as often as possible yet for all his efforts and determination, he offered little in terms of useful possession or chances against opponents. He wasted the chance to score against Slovakia at the death as he could have perhaps reacted differently when the ball fell close to him instead of simply executing a disappointing mishit.
Mauro Camoranesi: 4.5 out of 10. Did not feature against Slovkia in a good decision by Lippi. He did come on as a second-half substituteagainst both Paraguay and New Zealand. He did offer more than Marchisio but nothing decisive except for a long-range effort saved by the goalkeeper of the Kiwis and some crosses in those two matches. He received a yellow card and risked a red card as he seemed to be unable to&nbsp;control his temper.
Giampaolo Pazzini: N/A as he barely touched the ball in the second-half against New Zealand while he did not feature in the other two games. He cannot be blamed for Italy’s failures because he played little but also because he is a finisher and to play him would have been a waste of his talents. At least, Lippi was right about not playing him much.
Alberto Gilardino: 3.5 out of 10. While Cannavaro might have been at fault on the defensive end, Italy’s struggling offensive performances might be down to his presence in the starting lineup. Gilardino cannot be held responsible 100% because the style of play and the system employed by the&nbsp; Azzurri left him both useless and isolated. What he must be blamed for is his lack of effort as he barely hassled defenders or stopped the buildup when the opponents had the ball in their area and were attempting to get the ball out from their defensive positions. He was definitely a great disappointment in terms of his contribution. Lippi was right not to use him against Slovakia but it was too late to remove him before the last match as he should have been benched from at the break during the Kiwis.
Antonio Di Natale: 5.5 out of 10. He did offer more than Gilardino and Vincenzo Iaquinta but that was down to his characteristics and not his efforts. He gets the mark for converting the easy follow-up against Slovakia for Italy’s first goal in that match. He at least tried to move around but still he should not be playing for the Azzurri under Prandelli. He is also over 30 so he should not have been called up as that would mean Totti and even&nbsp; Del Piero deserved to be on the squad since both have offered more to the Azzurri over the years.
Vincenzo Iaquinta: 5 out of 10. He gets the 5 for his cool conversion of the penalty-kick against the Kiwis. If Gilardino took he it, he probably would have missed considering he barely touched the ball in the World Cup. Iaquinta did try much harder than Gilardino&nbsp; but was played out of position against both Paraguay and then New Zealand in the first-half. Even when he was moved to a more central role he still failed to deliver highlighting his lack of talent. He did run and he did move but he is lacking in terms of talent.
Fabio Quagliarella: 8.5 out of 10. He played only in the second-half against Slovakia but was Italy’s best performer in the tournament in the short time he played. He offered the Azzurri a lot in terms of movements and creativity. In the last 15 minutes, he provided the spark which Italy lacked in South Africa 2010. He had one shot cleared on the line, had a goal disallowed for a very close offside call as replays showed the Slovak defender’s foot was covering the leaning Quagliarella when he scored, was a key contributor to the first Italian goal as his shot was parried to the open Di Natale for the simple finish and scored a stunner in injury-time. Quagliarella’s goal was a sublime showing of his skills and his ability to create out of nothing as well as his composure. Another player would have rushed the shot or opted for force and power as opposed to a smart and&nbsp;delicate finish from outside the penalty box.
You can reach me on Twitter&nbsp; @RamiSoufi for further comments or questions
	<a href="http://polldaddy.com/poll/3397628/">Who was Italy’s best performer in WC2010?</a><a href="http://polldaddy.com/features-surveys/">online survey</a>

Rating Italy's players in South Africa 2010

Rating Italy's players in South Africa 2010 - World Soccer Talk

Italy managed to draw 1-1 against both Paraguay and New Zealand while failing to impress despite having seen a lot in terms of ball possession, in particular against the Kiwis when the Italians had just over 70% in terms of ball possession. Pundits and fans alike are debating what has gone wrong for the Azzurri in South Africa 2010 with some attributing it to the Italian tendency to start slow referencing Spain 1982, USA 1994 and even Germany 2006.
What some fail to acknowledge is the fact the Italian squads in previous editions of the World Cup in 1982, 1994 and 2006 were far superior to Italy’s current team in terms of the quality of defenders and talent in the attacking department. In USA 1994 the Azzurri could rely on some of the best defenders to every play the game such as Paolo Maldini and Franco Baresi while four years ago Fabio Cannavaro and Gianluca Zambrotta were at their best. Zambrotta has admittedly surprised in this tournament and has been consistent and playing his best football in 3 years albeit still short of his commanding performances in 2006. The main concern here is Cannavaro’s decline with the skipper at fault on both occasions when the Azzurri conceded to Paraguay and New Zealand.
On both occasions, Cannavaro was off in his positioning and could not jump higher than the opponent or control the ball. Against the Kiwis the ball took a deflection off the captain proving he was clueless in terms of his positioning while the Paraguayan goal scorer out jumped both Cannavaro and Daniele De Rossi to score the opener against Italy. Cannavaro has become a weak link in the Azzurri’s defensive line and he is by far the slowest and least impressive of the back four considering Giorgio Chiellini is powerful and tough tackling while Zambrotta is consistent and Domenico Criscito has shown promise on the left flank.
Another main issue is the lack of talent up front with none of the strikers, including Antonio Di Natale, known for their ability to create something spectacular out of nothing. Alberto Gilardino has been a massive disappointment and has barely shot the ball on or off target with the match against the Kiwis showing how ineffective he can be if there is insufficient supply inside the box. The problem with Gilardino is the fact he does not get involved in the build-up and he does not create for himself or teammates rendering him useless in both World Cup matches. The other striker who has started Vincenzo Iaquinta has been played out of position and has struggled to shoot on target due to the lack of supply from the midfielders yet he at least puts the effort and chases the ball. This leaves Antonio Di Natale as the only striker capable of making a difference for the Azzurri yet in both matches he was inserted in the match in the second-half giving him little time to get accustomed to the opponents and to get in the flow.
Di Natale can create and can score as shown by his impressive 29-goal tally in Serie A yet he does need the support of the midfielders. The other two strikers on the bench are Giampaolo Pazzini and Fabio Quagliarella with neither considered world class. Compare those to the attackers at Italy’s disposal in 1994 and one name will suffice to show the massive gap in quality: Roberto Baggio. The former Fiorentina and Juventus forward was the hero for Italy in USA ’94 yet the Italians also had other stars on the bench or starting such as Gianfranco Zola and Giuseppe Signori. In 2006, Italy could rely on Alessandro Del Piero coming off the bench to offer a spark and Francesco Totti starting despite his questionable fitness due to surgery. None of the current forwards compare or come close to Baggio or Totti in terms of talent or the ability to change the direction of the match from a set-piece or a magical move.
This raises the question about Marcello Lippi’s decision to overlook Giuseppe Rossi who was one of the very few bright spots in an otherwise disastrous campaign in the Confederations Cup last year. Everyone knew Lippi would not consider Mario Balotelli, Antonio Cassano and Fabrizio Miccoli for various reasons while Alessandro Del Piero is perhaps too old for consideration. Under such circumstances, why did not Lippi pick Totti despite his age? Instead Lippi argued Totti could not withstand the rigors of having to play 7 matches in a single month. One can easily counter that by saying why not use Totti or even Del Piero as substitutes or perhaps for 30 minutes during each match? They surely could provide more spark than Pazzini or Di Natale who is closing on 33 years (Totti is a year older and Del Piero is 2 years older).
Besides the deficiencies on the defensive end due to Cannavaro’s alarming drop in level and the blow following Gianluigi Buffon’s injury, the lack of a creative force will come back to haunt Lippi and the Azzurri if it has not already done so since the Italians could end their campaign prematurely if the Slovaks are not beaten. Below is a list of other key factors which have hurt the Azzurri:
– Set-Pieces: The Azzurri were a force defending against set-pieces and actually used them best to their advantage. In this tournament so far, the Italians have conceded twice as a result of free-kicks and have lacked in terms of positioning (particularly Cannavaro).
– Trailing: The Azzurri have trailed against both Paraguay and New Zealand which is a major disadvantage considering the lack of goals in this tournament and more importantly the Italian strategy which relies more on taking the lead, sitting back and bouncing on the mistakes of opponents to score more goals. The Azzurri needed to score first to force opponents to come out and let go of their defensive plot. Ironically, Italy lost 4 points because of teams successfully implementing the Italian strategy.
– Injuries: The injury to Gianluigi Buffon will not be felt at this stage but it is a massive blow and against the likes of the Netherlands, Argentina or Brazil, the Juventus goalkeeper could be a difference maker. The injuries to Andrea Pirlo, Mauro Camoranesi and Claudio Marchisio have hurt the Azzurri in one way or another. Missing Pirlo has forced Lippi to keep experimenting using formations which actually do not suit the Italian players. In addition, Camoranesi has been a marginal influence off the bench while Marchisio has struggled in both matches.
– Tactics &amp; Positioning: The system used by Lippi was a complete failure and even when he shifted to a more suitable 4-4-2 it did not work properly because Marchisio was still being used out of position while the strikers were starved from service. Marchisio cannot be used as a left-winger or a playmaker behind the striker. He was an attacking midfielder way back in his youth career but he has been a central midfielder since breaking into the Juventus starting lineup. Lippi is wasting three players by using his system or the current team selection since Marchisio, Iaquinta and Gilardino are all struggling under this formation. The key is to either move Marchisio to a more central role or simply to bench him once Pirlo returns or perhaps even starting Camoranesi at his expense while moving Simone Pepe to the left flank.
– Shots on Target: Against the Kiwis,Italy had 15 corners, shot 23 times and had possession 71% of the time yet only shot 5 times on target including a penalty and the rest were&nbsp; long-distance shots. Not one shot on target by Gilardino and Iaquinta, except for his converted penalty. Montolivo had one long range effort which hit&nbsp;the post while two other shots on target came courtesy of long distance strikes by De Rossi and Camoranesi. Thus, there was a single effort inside the penalty box which was on target and it came from substitute Di Natale. This is quite shocking and will not help the Azzurri cause considering in&nbsp;2006 both goals against the Germans were from shots from inside the box. According to ESPN’s stats New Zealand’s goalkeeper Mark Paston touched the ball more than any other player&nbsp;from the Kiwis who cleared the ball more than 50 times (most of any team in South Africa 2010). Clearly all stats were to Italy’s advantage yet the Azzurri failed to defeat the Kiwis in another sign of the declining game of the Italians.
– Marcello Lippi: No one can argue Lippi’s ability to guide teams to glory as evidenced&nbsp; on both club level (with Juventus) and with the Azzurri, yet his decisions have been poor in terms of excluding players such as Totti and failing to convince Alessandro Nesta to return for the World Cup (Nesta performed much better than Cannavaro this year). Even more troubling is the fact Lippi does not appear to have settled on a strategy to implement which can be attributed to the lack of a creative force capable of integrating the strikers and linking the midfield with the attack.
– Friendly Matches: Italy probably played the fewest matches of any team participating in the World Cup whether in terms of the friendly games before the event or even throughout the year. Lippi needed more matches to test his system instead of implementing it in a couple of games. This had an adverse effect on the team in terms of performances and familiarity with the system. The Mexicans beat the Azzurri in a friendly prior to the event and are now doing well in the tournament having played more&nbsp;matches than the&nbsp;Italians in preparation for the&nbsp;World Cup.
– Teams Using Italian Strategy: While some might give Jose Mourinho a lot of credit for winning the Champions League, he really did not invent the wheel and actually relied on a trusted system which evolved from the Italian strategy: defend well, pressure the ball and have talent up front to make the difference. This is what won the Champions League for Inter with Julio Cesar, Lucio and Maicon a key component of the Nerazzurri success and even Brazil’s Carlos Dunga admitted he will be relying on the trio to guide the Selecao to success. Thus, the top teams and even the weaker ones are using an Italian strategy to achieve success. Only the Dutch, Spain and Argentina do not implement the Italian method. Brazil is one of the teams depending on the system and many of the average and weaker teams have relied on the Italian strategy to earn a draw or even snatch a surprising win.
Simply put, all is not lost for the Azzurri but Lippi must give Di Natale a chance to start while Gilardino and Marchisio ought to be benched. One&nbsp;change would make the transition to&nbsp;the new-look Italy&nbsp;even smoother and that would be to bench Cannavaro which is obviously not going to happen under Lippi. Regardless, The key is to defeat Slovakia and then face either the Dutch (if Paraguay finish first) or take the easier route which will still see Italy face Spain in the quarter-final (If Spain can bounce back to win Group H) and then Argentina in the semi-final. Either way, Italy must focus on defeating the Slovaks first and then turn attention to the knockout stages. On&nbsp;a&nbsp;match by match basis anything can happen as long as the Italians play as one unit, defend better against set-pieces&nbsp;and&nbsp;the strikers begin to pose a threat and&nbsp;score goals.
For further comments and other discussions please feel free to contact&nbsp; @RamiSoufi on Twitter.
<a href="http://polldaddy.com/poll/3375773/">Can the Azzurri recover?</a><a href="http://polldaddy.com/features-surveys/">online survey</a>

South Africa 2010 Analysis: Reasons behind Italy's Struggles

South Africa 2010 Analysis: Reasons behind Italy's Struggles - World Soccer Talk

Latest news from F. Cannavaro. Find out about all the news related to F. Cannavaro on worldsoccertalk.com

ALL POSTS TAGGED "F. Cannavaro"

News

Rating Italy's players in South Africa 2010

News

South Africa 2010 Analysis: Reasons behind Italy's Struggles