Behind the scenes of the chaos in Batumi

It should have been a lovely day for Dinamo Batumi, as their rivals Dinamo Tbilisi had unexpectedly lost points against the relegation-threatened Telavi, which meant that a win would have guaranteed them to overtake Dinamo Tbilisi in the league table. With just a handful of games left until the end of the season, Dinamo Batumi could have gained a huge boost in the title race. However, the boys from Tskaltubo had different plans, as they were aiming for the third spot, which qualifies them for the Conference League Qualification round. Did anyone expect Samgurali to disappoint Dinamo Batumi? I cannot tell you that. But how they actually managed to create such chaos and steal all three points from Batumi is exactly what I can tell you.

At the beginning, Dinamo Batumi’s players were distributed on the field in a 4-3-3 formation. Although, during the game players' positions changed to 4-2-3-1. Throughout the offensive state of the game, Batumi’s playing style was heavily dependent on the possession of the ball, resulting in players passing from one flank to another. Batumi had 4 players at the back during the build-up, alongside 2 inverted full-backs to easily bypass Samgurali's 2 strikers, while 2 wide middle-backs were occasionally playing the role of an additional third-man.

Dinamo Batumi utilized 4 attacking players during the build-up. However, one of the key figures in every attack turned out to be their attacking midfielder. Not only would he switch positions with the winger, but he would also drop deep in the midfield to create more space in front for his teammates by dragging some of the opposition's players out of their positions. His on- and off-the-ball movement should have played a crucial role in creating more chances and advancing up the field, although, it was not a simple job to break through Samgurali's defensive line.

One of the main tasks for Dinamo Batumi was to occupy the opposition’s box. Because of that, players were trying to create overloads in the final third of the pitch. As you can see, oftentimes, Batumi would place 5 players around the 18-yard box, forcing Samgurali to drop either a midfielder or a winger in defence to create 5v5 against the opposition. As a consequence, Dinamo Batumi could have benefited from freeing up the space for one of their players in the midfield.

Whenever Batumi had to engage their press, they would play man-to-man and try to force Samgurali’s players toward the wider zones of the pitch. Dinamo Batumi’s sole aim in these sorts of circumstances was to stay compact, force the opposition’s turnovers, and regain possession as soon as possible.

Despite being engaged in a high press most of the time, occasionally, Batumi had to play in a mid- or low-block. After Samgurali’s successful attempts to beat the press, Batumi would have no option left but to drop back and engage in defence in lower areas of the field. Although Samgurali found it hard to bypass the opposition’s press, oftentimes, their long passes would have played a key role in doing so. 

After realizing there was a need for change, Dinamo Batumi’s tactics were reshuffled in the second half. The first important thing that was noticeable from the beginning was that the wingbacks had a different roles. Dinamo Batumi had switched from playing with inverted fullbacks to sending both of them further up the flanks. Consequently, the intensity of their attacks had improved as those fullbacks would frequently overlap to create overloads and more passing options.

On the flip side, Samgurali’s attacking shape was a pure, old-school 4-4-2. Concentrated much less on maintaining possession, after a few short passes, Samgurali would usually launch a long-range pass forward from their backline players. Their wide midfielders and forwards were, of course, anticipating these sorts of balls so they would frequently make forward runs to receive passes and move further up the field. 

However, the answer to all the chaos turned out to be Samgurali’s defence. Both on and off the ball, they maintained the classic 4-4-2 shape. While utilizing man-to-man defence, Samgurali was trying to create an advantage in the middle of the pitch by dropping their center forwards back to neutralize Batumi’s three-man midfield. As the high-intensity press was not the priority during the game, they preferred to stay back and counterbalance Batumi’s midfielders. 

Whether it was on the flank, or Batumi’s attempt to break the lines from central positions, Samgurali’s players would follow their every step and deny nearly every attempt of the opposition’s attacking midfielder to play a dangerous through ball behind. At times, Samgurali would also switch to 5-3-2 in defence. This would happen by dropping back a wide midfielder whenever Batumi’s pressure was increasing exponentially.

Unlucky, some would say. Dominating the possession and producing 2.27 xG was still not enough for Dinamo Batumi to get at least a point from the game. The tension is at its peak, as the difference between the two Dinamos is just one point. The final matchday of the season should be the title decider, but does Dinamo Batumi deserve to lift the trophy after giving up a 9-point lead over Dinamo Tbilisi? It's fully up to you to decide.

Author: Luka Todua