Greece entered the Euro 2004 Finals never having won a game at a major tournament. So just how did the rank outsiders end up Euro 2004 champions? Perhaps some of the less fancied sides at World Cup 2010 might learn something from the Greeks’ successful approach! Greece coach Otto Rehhagel had his team highly organized and this was a triumph of structure over individualism. Greece adopted what might be termed an ‘assertive defensive’ approach. They set out to squeeze the space of their opponents all over the pitch and despite a defensive orientation this allowed them to control significant periods of games.
Greece v France
Against France in their quarter-final, Greece played three at the back with Seitaridis allocated the responsibility of man-marking Thierry Henry. With France playing two centre-forwards under 4-4-2, three central defenders provided a platform for Greece whereby the midfield could confidently press forward to deny space to France’s creative players. Greece adopted a 3-6-1 approach but with a two-tier midfield this could be considered a 3-4-2-1 formation: Charisteas and Karagounis played slightly ahead of a more defensive midfield quartet and closed down France as they endeavoured to build attacks from deep. Greece thus stifled France and also managed to convert their only attempt on target. Zakorakis did well down the right, beating Lizarazu then crossing for Charisteas to head powerfully home.
Although Rehhagel adopted a clear defensive strategy, there was flexibility within this overall approach: a different formation was adopted for the Final against Portugal compared with that deployed in the quarter-final. Portugal set up under a 4-2-3-1 formation with Pauleta as the lone forward. There would therefore be a surfeit of central defenders if Rehhagel had opted for three at the back again. Instead he fielded what could be termed a defensive 4-3-3 formation with Giannakopoulos and Charisteas pressing Portugal high up the pitch either side of centre-forward Vryzas.
Greece v Portugal
Portugal’s creative trio Deco, Ronaldo and Figo were unable to exert any influence of note and Portugal failed to find any attacking rhythm. The negative body language of the Portuguese players was telling early in the match, as they were unable to play within familiar parameters. The full-backs Seitaridis and Fyssas would push forwards to deny room to Figo and Ronaldo. Giannakopoulos and Charisteas would also drop back to frustrate Portugal’s creative axis whilst denying their attacking full-backs Miguel and Nuno Valente the opportunity to overlap. With Pauleta comfortably marshalled by Dellas and Kapsis, Greece were able to flood the midfield and dominate Portugal. And, as against France, Greece converted from one of their few genuine attacks with Charisteas heading home a Basinas corner with the Portugal defence in disarray.
Greece won the European Championships of 2004 by operating as a tight and hard-running defensive unit, but this isn’t to undermine the contributions of the individual players. They had to perform effectively to make the structure work, and defenders such as Seitaridis and Dellas looked particularly commanding. Greece perhaps rode their luck in that they won games despite creating very few chances, whilst opposition sides did not convert their own. But in tournament football, decided over a few games, the difference between victory and defeat is often down to whether an opportunity is converted or botched. This was recognized by Rehhagel: Greece’s disciplined and organized approach neutralized the disparity in ability between them and the opposition. Matches were wittingly reduced to chance – and Greece won several coin tosses to obtain the Euro crown!