Branko’s Biggest Mistakes

1. Lack of an acceptable long-term plan & long-term problem solving

Ever since Ivankovic took over for the second time he has had time to find good long-term solutions to some of the problems within his team but he has failed to do so. The Croatian has been stubborn and has chosen short-term planning and problem solving. Some of the obvious weaknesses in his team could and should have been turned into strengths by now if they had been worked on but Branko has always looked for surviving today rather than finding good solutions for tomorrow. Specific examples of this will follow lower down in the article.

2. Lack of flexibility

Branko has always looked to get the result, even in some cases where the result didn't matter, rather than seek to try out new options to getting better results and performances in the future. Whenever possible Branko has always called up all of the foreign-based players and played them all.

No one can argue it’s positive to get good results in matches. However in some cases there is a lot more to gain for the future from a match than the score line. Those gains have been missed out on due the lack of flexibility in the management of Ivankovic.

3. Lack of courage

It’s well known that the Iran head coach, whoever he is, will always be under big pressure to perform. Ivankovic has always been aware of this from the start and has always shown his desire to keep his job. To do so he has taken every chance to play his best line-up and seek to only get the required result and distance the criticism, at least for the day. His lack of courage has not only cost his team in several areas but has also damaged the future of the Iranian national team.

4. Lack of good communication

5. Lack of competitive friendly games

Iran has played very few competitive friendly games during the last few years. It has been no secret that the Iranian team plays its best football whenever facing stronger opponents. Still though Branko has accepted to set up warm-up matches with teams such as Lybia, Macedonia, Azerbaijan and QPR, not to mention the games against "prestigious" local teams in Iranian provinces, where many didn’t even knew football existed. These games have become even more questionable due to the way Branko has played his cards. Very few if any answers at all have been discovered.

In the World Cup Iran won’t be facing teams that will defend with the "Great Wall of China" in front of its own goal but will face two big attacking teams in Mexico and Portugal. The Germany game was a very good experience for the Iranian team but many more games of that quality should have been set up whilst there was still a possibility to do so. This lack of good management should not only be solely blamed on Branko but also on others in the various decision-making posts.


From general to specific…

The first few points have been general issues that have caught my attention. Obviously for all five points there are exceptions. The Germany game was one and the team reaching the World Cup was one of few good examples of an existing longer-term plan in the Croats mind. On a few occasions Branko has also shown tactical flexibility. The best case is his change of system from the Bahrain qualifier to the Japan clash in Azadi and this paid off immediately. However, at first sight it looks like tactical flexibility actually came about from correcting a mistake rather than bettering something that was already good, as Ivankovic should never have played a 4-5-1 system away to Bahrain, placing his most potent goal-scorer Hashemian in the left wing where he totally lost his game. Iran only had one shot on target in that game much due to Ivankovic's reluctance to shy away from his favored system, one that didn’t favor the players in the team that day. With that said, I believe Branko flew to Bahrain to survive with a draw since he had calculated that Iran would finish second in the group with 10 points, one of them coming in Manama.

Let’s move on now to the more specific mistakes that the Iranian head coach has committed.

1. Weak staff

Branko should have long ago strengthened the coaching staff. This could have helped the team to progress better but also to silence just a bit of the criticism that has poisoned the environment around the national team. The better the coaching staff, the higher the potential of learning and improvement for the players.

2. Lack of competition for positions

The lack of positive competition in the team has caused severe damage. Not only have some of the regular starters lost motivation and become complacent but the reserves and other IPL players could have lost their enthusiasm and drive, as on first view it looks like entering and remaining in the national squad has become a monopoly of a chosen few. Way too few players have been given a fair chance to prove themselves in the team, not to mention that almost none of the reserves have been given the chance to play in the starting eleven alongside the foreign based players. Instead Branko has only played the reserves whenever he has been forced to due to unavailability of foreign-based players.

3. Goalkeepers

When Mirzapour was introduced to the national set-up as the first choice many saw him as a great talent. Two major weaknesses that he had was his game with the feet and his judgment on crosses. Almost five years later, Mirzapour has not even slightly improved on his judgment on crosses. Branko as one of the responsible coaches for looking after him should be partly blamed for this as I see it as a coaching problem. I believe that Mirzapour could have with better planning and practice improved possibly to an extent where his judgment on crosses would become his biggest strength considering his impressive height. Excellence comes from practice, not just natural talent.

I also believe that Branko shouldn’t have played Mirzapour in every single match but should have given a chance to other keepers in some of the meaningless friendly games that have been played. Today, if Mirzapour is injured there will be no keepers with international experience to replace him. Better yet, who is his replacement?

4. Left back

In an ISP editorial over a year ago, I said that Ivankovic has tried out three different options in left back but that none of them has worked out satisfactorily and that he should immediately try out new options. As of today not even one other player has been tried out in the position. In the same article (read here) I suggested that Esteghlal’s left footed defender Sadeghi should be tried out as left back. I then didn’t see any reason why a right footed central defender should be played in left back (Nosrati) but not a left footed one, who plays more as a left-back rather than Nosrati does at their clubs. Sadeghi plays as the left central defender in a 3-back system while Nosrati plays central defender in a 4-back system. This means that Sadeghi in his movement is much closer to a left back's role in a 4-back system than Nosrati's. This isn’t even mentioning the greater advantage in being a left footer. I still believe if Branko would have searched for a long-term solution to the problem and played Sadeghi instead of Nosrati in games then the team could have avoided the problems that the face today in the position. Actually Branko saw that Nosrati would not be a good solution to the position already after the first or the second game however he insisted in playing Nosrati for a handful of games before he gave up on that idea. Other interesting options that should have been tried could have been Nikbakht Vahedi, Maneie and Shirzad however none of them have ever been given the chance as left back.

In many countries there are great examples of forwards that have been re-schooled into defenders. In Iran maybe the best example is possibly the best defender in the nation's football history, Rahman Rezaei. When Branko had the time he should have tried several options, maybe he could have tried some more controversial options like converting the talented offensive left-winger Madanchi into a left back. No one is claiming it would have been an immediate success however with time (which Branko has had), Madanchi could very well have become as good a left back as Kaabi is a right back. That way Iran wouldn’t only find a good solution for the left back position for Germany 2006 but also for well into the future.

5. Left wing

Once again we will criticize Ivankovic's short-term thinking. As left-wingers the Croatian has tried out players such as Hashemian, Borhani, Enayati, Rajabzadeh and Navidkia. None of them are left-wingers and none of them have been an effort to solve the main issue but only to delay the tougher decision, and to survive the day. Actually all those choices were doomed to fail badly before they even were tried out. Not surprisingly the current first choice is also not a left-winger and just like the previous players this solution is not working out satisfactorily. The team certainly misses the days where Nikbakht-Vahedi didn’t look like a meatball and cared more about his game than his hairstyle. Vahedi has by damaging himself also damaged his club and country.

6. Mobali and Kazemian

Iman and Javad are two of the countries greatest talents and have been so for many years now. The two youngsters were the biggest reason Iran qualified for the 2001 Youth World Cup and were together with Madanchi the teams best players in the cup. Ivankovic has failed big time to take advantage of the great talent of these two. This has not only hurt the team but also been one major reason for the wave of criticism that he has received. Despite of what some say I believe neither of the players have received a fair chance by Branko, and that if they would I’m convinced they would have played a much bigger part in the team than they do now.

7. Navidkia

Navidkia despite not playing one single minute during the first half of last season with VFL Bochum went straight into the national team. He was given playing time in several important matches over a player like Mobali who was IPL’s biggest attraction at the time, one of them was the huge game against Japan in Azadi where Navidkia came in during the first half and not surprisingly had a poor game. I myself followed the national team camp in Tehran from the first day prior to the Japan game and one week ahead and it was obvious which two players were working harder than the rest of the team. Kazemian and Mobali are the two if you hadn’t guessed it.

8. Daei

It has been a mistake to play Ali Daei for 90 minutes for a long time now. In football there is an un-written rule that says don’t sub your captain. Branko has like many other managers not made an exception to the rule. However Daei is no longer the most important player in the team nor is he at all influential in the teams attack or defense like most other captains are. I also claim that Daei’s player-management is not positive to the team but even harms the team. The most obvious example is that better free kick takers have to step aside for Daei to "moon land" his free kicks. The less obvious example is a sports psychology one. Daei as a captain is supposed to support and encourage other players but instead he shouts negativity towards them and has a negative body language constantly. I claim that Daei’s leadership on the field is a disaster. If you would ask a sports psychologist he would tell you the same. Off the field I suspect it should be more positive however I have no idea about that and will not get into the subject.

Younger players like Mobali, Kazemian and Borhani should have continuously been getting more playing time during the last few years. Instead they have been forced to sit on the sidelines and watch as Daei time after time has played the whole 90 minutes. I’m convinced the three youngsters would have been better footballers and strengthened the current and future national teams more than they do so today if they would have received more playing time in the past.

From specific to details…

Before I wrap it up I want to go through a few details that have been mentioned implicitly before. Some argue that a defense line including four players can have different combinations. They argue that it can be 4+0, 3+1 or 2+2 meaning that either you have four, three or two defensive players in your defensive line. In many cases this can change within the same game and if you would choose how a team plays you might end up with all three of them. So to leave some confusion behind you could only consider attack or defense. All teams that play with a back four have the ambition to always be 4+0 in defense so then lets leave that one out and only consider attack. I would argue Iran’s defense line in attack looks like a 3+1 with Kaabi being the "1" since he is the more attacking-minded defender in the team. Some coaches will tell their players to always have three players in the back while some other will be happy with only two, usually the two central ones. This can also differ from game to game depending on which opponents you play.

Now that we know Iran has a 3+1 is that good or bad? Before you know how the rest of the team looks like and how the team is organized and balanced there is no certain answer to that question. But since in this case I know how the Iranian team is organized and balanced I can argue that Iran’s 3+1 is bad.

An ideal 3+1 formation does not specify which player in the team is the "1". This is because a coach wants to strive for a good balance in his team where both the left back and the right back have the ability to go forward when necessary. But in Iran’s case we have just made clear Kaabi is the "1". If you can like in Iran’s case specify the "1" it can be and most often is a cause to an unbalance in the team (just like in Iran’s case), an unbalance between the right and the left sides and also an unbalance between the right and the left back. Now if a team plays with a similar way in midfield with one more influential and attacking left winger than right winger you might be able to clear out some of the unbalance between the wings but the unbalance between the players will still remain. Any kind of unbalance like this in a team will mean that it’s easier for the opponents to defend when they do so but also easier for them to attack when they do so.

However in Iran’s case with Zandi in left wing the unbalance becomes even larger. This is due to Zandi being a central midfielder and therefore always moving towards the central zones rather than running down the line. Zandi’s lack of pace is also one reason for him doing so. This now means that Iran has a left back which is defensive due to his inability to attack on the left side (Zare) and one left winger that moves centrally. The result is obviously a big gap on the left wing that the team will be unable to use. The opponents can then move their respective players (their players on the right wing) more centrally and the result will then be that there will be less free space for Iran to use in their attacks (which implicitly means you will score less goals). When the Iranian team then loses the ball this means that the opponents will have a golden opportunity to use that free space which we just mentioned.

The evidence…

The following picture will be a good example of what I just discussed. Zandi moves centrally both with and without the ball and in this picture you can see him in a position that reminds you of a central midfielder. Sattar Zare as I discussed is no natural left back and doesn’t have the ability or quality to run down the left flank in the way that is necessary when Iran goes on attack, especially when Zandi is left-winger. In the picture you can see Zare being approximately 20 meters further down the pitch than what he should be. As I discussed earlier this doesn’t only harm Iran in their attacks but also in their defense. Now imagine the Iranian ball holder will send a long ball and the opponents will win the ball. Look at the amount of space the opponents will have on their right wing to attack. Another minus for Iran will then be that Zare will probably not go forward to try to close the gap but rather run backwards to try to defend the Iranian goal, and this will open up even more gaps for the opponents.



Branko’s record

When evaluating a performance you can do so in absolute terms but also in relative terms. Ivankovic’s record with the Iranian national team has definitely been successful. His greatest supporters use his record as their main argument. That is in absolute terms. I will wrap up my article by presenting Branko’s record in relative terms during his time as "Team Melli" head coach. This should serve as a much more "fair" performance evaluation rather than presenting it in absolute terms…

Good victories (wins against stronger/equally strong teams)

Japan – World Cup qualifier
South Korea – Asian Cup 2004 quarterfinal
Ukraine – Friendly game

Bad losses (losses against weaker/equally strong teams)

Macedonia – Friendly game
South Korea - Friendly game
Japan - World Cup qualifier
QPR - Friendly game
China - Asian Cup 2004 semifinal
Jordan - World Cup qualifier
Kuwait - Friendly game
Jordan – WAFF Games
Slovakia - Friendly game