Brazil Rediscover the Midfield, and With It, Their Football

If you want to control a match, first, you have to control the midfield.

Brazil’s victory over Australia in Brisbane offered a compelling reminder of that principle.

It was not a flawless performance. There were defensive scares, uncomfortable transitions and moments when Australia found too much space. But between those imperfections emerged something far more important: a Brazilian side with greater structure, greater attacking presence and, above all, a midfield capable of connecting the different parts of the team.

For that reason, this was a performance deserving considerably more praise than criticism.

The Return of the Midfield

Brazil returned to a 4-3-3, with Danilo, Bruno Guimarães and Gabriel Bontempo forming the central triangle. On paper, it was merely an additional midfielder. On the pitch, it changed the geography of Brazil’s football.

Suddenly, there were more passing angles through the centre. The full-backs had closer support. The wingers were less isolated. Brazil could bring more players into the attacking third without every possession becoming dependent on an individual action from the wide men.

Most importantly, the Seleção began to look like a connected team rather than a collection of talented attackers.

The improvement of Danilo and Bruno Guimarães compared with Friday’s match was particularly revealing. It was not simply that either player suddenly became individually better. The structure around them improved.

When Brazil constructed possession from deep, one midfielder could drop towards the defenders and help create the first line of progression. Crucially, that did not empty the spaces ahead of the ball. Two midfield options remained higher, giving the player in possession somewhere to go next.

That distinction matters.

A midfield is not valuable merely because it puts another body in the centre of the pitch. Its real value lies in creating connections: defender to midfielder, midfielder to full-back, midfielder to winger, and ultimately midfield to penalty area.

Brazil had far more of those connections in Brisbane.

Vanderson’s Goal Was the Blueprint

The opening goal, after only three minutes, was almost a miniature representation of everything the formation was supposed to achieve.

Bruno Guimarães participated in the construction from deep. Bontempo moved across to support Vanderson’s advance. Rayan helped accelerate the move with a penetrating pass. The midfielder continued his movement into the penalty area before supplying Vanderson.

Goal.

Several players participated, several zones were occupied, and the attack developed through coordinated movement rather than improvisation.

That is perhaps the most encouraging element of the performance.

Brazil will always possess footballers capable of deciding matches through individual brilliance. The greater challenge is constructing a collective framework that makes those moments of brilliance less necessary.

For the opening 20 minutes, Brazil appeared to be moving towards precisely that.

The pressing was aggressive, possession had purpose and Australia struggled to escape. Brazil were not simply holding the ball; they were occupying the pitch.

The Warning Hidden Inside the Improvement

Then came the reminder that tactical progress is rarely linear.

Brazil reduced the intensity, Australia found space, and the vulnerabilities of the system became clearer.

The defensive transition remains a concern.

When possession was lost with the midfielders advanced, Brazil sometimes struggled to reorganise while running towards their own goal. The first defensive line could become exposed, particularly when the timing of the midfield press was imperfect.

This is the trade-off Ancelotti must solve.

Adding a midfielder gives Brazil more control with the ball, but control cannot disappear the instant possession changes hands. The distances between midfield and defence must become shorter, and the timing of when one midfielder advances while another protects the centre still requires refinement.

Yet the defensive problems should not obscure the broader improvement.

Australia finished with the same seven attempts they had produced in Townsville. Brazil, meanwhile, transformed their own attacking numbers.

They registered 18 shots compared with six on Friday, 13 attempts from inside the penalty area compared with eight, 30 actions inside the box compared with 18, and won 54 duels compared with 39.

Those are not cosmetic differences.

They describe a team playing the match in different areas of the pitch.

More Midfield, More Brazil

The second half reinforced the same argument.

With Raphinha not returning after the interval, Ancelotti introduced Endrick and began looking more aggressively for the space behind Australia’s defensive line. Vinícius Júnior was consequently able to attack depth more frequently rather than constantly receiving the ball with defenders already positioned in front of him.

Australia remained dangerous, particularly from crosses, but Brazil's attacking pressure increasingly suggested that another goal was coming.

And when Bruno Guimarães eventually scored the third, there was something almost symbolic about the move.

Once again, the attack began deep. Once again, midfielders participated throughout its development. And this time the sequence ended with a midfielder himself arriving to finish it.

Vinícius later converted the penalty that completed the victory, but by then the central lesson of the evening had already been written.

Ancelotti’s Puzzle

There is still work to do.

Brazil must become better at controlling defensive transitions. The midfielders need greater synchronization when pressing forward. The defensive structure cannot become vulnerable every time an attack breaks down.

But these are questions of refinement.

The more fundamental question is what kind of Brazil Ancelotti wants to build.

In Brisbane, the Seleção offered one possible answer.

With three genuine midfielders, Brazil had more passing options, more support around the ball, more players arriving in attacking positions and more ways of progressing towards goal. The wingers became part of a functioning structure rather than being asked to manufacture attacks almost by themselves.

Perhaps that is the real lesson from Australia.

Brazil do not necessarily need another attacker to become more attacking.

Sometimes, they need another midfielder.

Carlo Ancelotti, forgive me, but the midfield still matters.

And in Brisbane, Brazil looked much more like Brazil because they finally began to own it.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar

A New Cycle, the Same Old Brazil: Australia Exposes the Seleção’s Lingering Problems

A new World Cup cycle was supposed to bring a sense of renewal. Instead, Brazil’s first step towards 2030 felt disturbingly familiar.

After the frustration of an early World Cup elimination, supporters could reasonably have expected a response—not necessarily a masterpiece, but at least urgency, intensity and some indication that lessons had been learned. Against Australia in Townsville, however, Brazil offered very little of that. The 1–1 draw was disappointing; the performance behind it was considerably worse.

Rayan’s dramatic header in the dying moments rescued the result. It could not rescue the impression.

Possession Without Authority

On paper, Brazil appeared to dominate. They finished with around 65% possession and produced significantly more attempts than Australia. Statistics of that kind can create an illusion of territorial superiority.

The match itself told another story.

Brazil had the ball, but rarely commanded the game. Possession circulated without enough purpose, attacks were frequently rushed, and the midfield struggled to establish the rhythm that traditionally separates a dominant Brazilian side from one merely enjoying more of the ball.

The late statistical superiority was also influenced by the final phase of the match. Once Australia took the lead, they retreated, protected their defensive territory and invited pressure. Brazil consequently accumulated possession and chances as the Australians increasingly concentrated on preserving their advantage.

For much of the contest, the difference between the teams was far less pronounced.

That should concern Carlo Ancelotti.

The Midfield Remains the Central Problem

The most troubling feature was Brazil’s inability to control the centre of the pitch.

There were too many gaps, too many lost duels and too little composure after regaining possession. Instead of using the midfield to dictate tempo, Brazil repeatedly turned the match into a sequence of transitions.

The ball travelled from one end towards the other without anyone truly taking ownership of the game.

That created an unusual spectacle for a Brazilian side: plenty of movement, but very little orchestration.

Australia did not even require an exceptionally aggressive high press to trouble them. The hosts found opportunities to advance into Brazil’s defensive third, particularly down the left, forcing Matheuzinho into a demanding defensive evening.

Against stronger opposition, those spaces could become considerably more expensive.

Brazil therefore face a question deeper than formation. Who controls the match when the game becomes chaotic? Who slows it down, accelerates it and gives structure to possession?

Until Ancelotti finds those answers, Brazil may continue to possess talented attackers without possessing a coherent attack.

Estêvão Provides a Spark

Amid the frustration, Estêvão offered perhaps the clearest glimpse of what Brazil could become.

Starting from the right, he repeatedly attacked diagonally, looking to enter dangerous central areas rather than remaining isolated near the touchline. His movement produced Brazil’s most threatening moments and culminated in a first-half goal that was eventually disallowed by VAR.

At that stage, the relatively balanced shot count was a more honest reflection of the contest than the final statistics would suggest.

After half-time, Brazil became somewhat better at limiting Australia’s momentum, but their attacking approach remained excessively vertical. Raphinha, Vinícius Júnior, Estêvão and Endrick attempted to combine closer to goal, yet genuine openings remained scarce.

There was speed. There was individual ability.

There was not enough imagination.

Irankunda Punishes Brazil

Then came the moment that transformed frustration into embarrassment.

Irankunda’s free kick gave Australia the lead and suddenly forced Brazil to confront the possibility of beginning their new cycle with defeat.

Australia understandably retreated afterwards. Ancelotti responded with substitutions, and the fresh players finally injected greater energy into Brazil’s attack.

Samuel Lino and Mauro Júnior combined effectively on the left, providing width and greater momentum. Brazil pushed numbers forward, Australia sank deeper, and the match increasingly resembled an attack-versus-defence exercise.

Eventually, the pressure produced something.

From Raphinha’s corner, Rayan rose to head home the equaliser in the final moments.

For the young forward, it was a memorable intervention and another indication of his considerable potential.

For Brazil, it was salvation rather than satisfaction.

The Pitch Was Poor, The Football Was Poorer

The condition of the Queensland Country Bank Stadium pitch deserves acknowledgement. Even shortly before kick-off, staff were working on areas damaged during the teams’ warm-ups. The surface was visibly difficult and hardly conducive to fluent football.

But it cannot become an alibi.

Both teams played on the same field, and Brazil’s fundamental problems were tactical and behavioural rather than agricultural.

A poor surface might explain a misplaced pass. It cannot explain the absence of urgency, insufficient midfield control, defensive gaps or a collective inability to impose authority on a supposedly inferior opponent.

The pitch was bad.

Brazil still needed to be better.

The Shirt Demands More

There is another dimension to Brazil that statistics and tactical diagrams cannot completely capture: expectation.

The Brazilian shirt carries a particular historical weight. Every generation inherits five World Cups, generations of extraordinary footballers and the expectation that Brazil should not simply participate in matches but shape them.

That burden can be especially heavy for a young squad.

Players such as Rayan represent the future, and patience with their individual development is necessary. Yet patience with young players does not require lowering the collective standards of the national team.

Brazil do not need to recreate the great Seleção sides overnight. They do need to demonstrate that a new cycle represents movement rather than repetition.

Against Australia, it felt too much like the latter.

Ancelotti’s Real Challenge

The draw itself will eventually become a footnote. The larger concern is what it revealed.

Brazil remain uncomfortable when asked to break down an organised defence. Their midfield does not consistently control matches. Their attacking play too often depends upon vertical bursts or individual inspiration. And when opponents deny space, creativity can disappear remarkably quickly.

Ancelotti therefore has much more to construct than a starting XI.

He needs to create mechanisms that connect midfield and attack, establish a reliable pressing structure and give Brazil alternative ways of progressing the ball when direct football fails. Above all, he must restore the feeling that Brazil are controlling matches rather than merely reacting to them.

That transformation will require time.

But time alone guarantees nothing.

Brazil began the road to 2030 hoping to leave the disappointments of the previous cycle behind. In Townsville, they instead encountered an uncomfortable reflection of them: sterile possession, an unsettled midfield, dependence on individual talent and a desperate late rescue.

Rayan saved Brazil from defeat.

He could not save them from another deeply disappointing performance.

A new cycle has begun.

For now, the football still looks painfully old.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar

Ian Chappell: The Dynamic Captain Who Changed Australian Cricket

Australian cricket has produced many distinguished captains, but few have shaped the character of their team as decisively as Ian Chappell. Tough, aggressive and fiercely independent, Chappell led Australia during a transformative period in the early 1970s. His importance went beyond victories: he helped establish a style of Australian cricket built around attack, self-belief, loyalty and uncompromising competitiveness.

Chappell inherited the captaincy in difficult circumstances. Bill Lawry was removed during the 1970–71 Ashes, with Chappell taking charge for the final Test. Australia had gone nine Tests without victory when he became captain, and his first two matches as skipper ended in defeat. Yet those setbacks did not define his leadership. According to Wisden, after those first two losses, Chappell was never defeated in a Test series as Australian captain. Overall, he captained Australia in 30 Tests, winning 15 and losing only five.

What distinguished Chappell was his instinct to **make things happen rather than wait for mistakes. His philosophy was fundamentally attacking. Cricket Australia describes his leadership from 1971 to 1975 as aggressive and notes how Australia increasingly moved from defensive tactics towards proactive cricket, including attacking fields and sustained pressure from fast bowlers.

That approach became particularly potent when Australia assembled the pace resources of Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson and Max Walker, supported by spinner Ashley Mallett. Chappell recognised that such weapons should be used to dominate opponents rather than merely contain them. His fields reflected that mentality: catching positions mattered, wickets mattered, and maintaining pressure was central to his cricket.

Yet Chappell was not simply an authoritarian captain issuing instructions. One of his greatest qualities was his willingness to listen to his players. During the 1972 Ashes at Old Trafford, Chappell initially persisted with spin despite conditions heavily favouring seam. Wicketkeeper Rod Marsh bluntly challenged the decision. Chappell later acknowledged that Marsh had taught him an important captaincy lesson: tactics had to respond to the conditions rather than habit

That episode reveals something essential about Chappell's leadership. He possessed a strong personality without believing that the captain always had to be right. He trusted experienced cricketers around him and was capable of changing course when persuaded.

His greatest strength may have been his relationship with his team. Wisden characterised Chappell as very much a “players’ man.” He repeatedly challenged cricket administrators over conditions and remuneration, believing international players deserved greater recognition and financial reward. Cricket Australia similarly credits him as an important figure in the struggle for improved player conditions during the period preceding the upheaval of World Series Cricket.

Chappell also led from the front with the bat. A combative No. 3, he was particularly comfortable confronting fast bowling. In his final series as Australian captain, in England in 1975, he scored 429 runs at 71.50, including a commanding 192 at The Oval. He finished his captaincy with a century before handing the leadership to his younger brother Greg.

His leadership was not without controversy. His confrontational personality could create friction, and the aggressive cricket associated with his era sometimes pushed accepted boundaries. Yet the same qualities—independence, competitiveness and resistance to authority—also made him such an influential leader.

Ian Chappell's legacy therefore cannot be measured by a win-loss column alone. He helped transform Australia from a struggling side into a confident, aggressive team with an unusually strong collective identity. More importantly, he demonstrated that a captain could be tactically adventurous, fiercely loyal to his players and willing to challenge authority on their behalf.

Long before aggressive Australian captaincy became an established tradition, Ian Chappell was helping to define it.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar

Bishan Bedi: The Sorcerer Who Made the Cricket Ball Dance in the Air

There are bowlers who defeat batsmen with speed, others with extravagant turn, and some with mystery. Bishan Singh Bedi belonged to a rarer tradition. He seemed to defeat batsmen before the ball had even reached them.

Watching Bedi bowl was to watch the art of classical left-arm spin stripped to its essentials: a graceful approach, an effortless action, exquisite control of flight and an almost hypnotic ability to repeat the same movement while making each delivery behave slightly differently. He did not need theatrical variations. His deception was woven into the trajectory of the ball itself.

For Bedi, spin bowling was not simply about making the ball turn. It was about controlling the batsman’s perception of where the ball was going to land.

The Magic of Flight and Loop

Bedi’s greatest weapon was arguably his command of flight.

A batsman might see the ball leave his hand and believe he had identified its length. He would advance, preparing to meet it near the pitch, only to discover that the ball had dipped earlier than expected. On another occasion, an apparently similar delivery would float fractionally farther, drawing the batsman forward and creating space between bat and pad.

This was the essence of Bedi’s deception.

He could make the ball appear to hang in the air, tempting the batsman into committing himself before the delivery had completed its journey. Yet he could also produce sharper dip without an obvious alteration in his beautifully economical action.

The loop was not decorative. It was a weapon.

By repeatedly inviting batsmen to drive, Bedi encouraged them to manufacture their own dismissals. A misjudged step down the pitch could bring the wicketkeeper into play; reaching for the ball could produce an outside edge; playing against the turn could create a catch on the leg side.

He made attacking the bowler feel irresistible—and dangerous.

Pace: Subtle Changes, Serious Consequences

Bedi generally operated at the slower end of orthodox left-arm spin, but his pace was never monotonous.

His changes were often small enough to escape immediate detection.

One delivery might drift slowly through the air, giving the batsman the illusion that he had plenty of time. The next could arrive slightly quicker, reducing the time available to adjust after pitching.

Importantly, these variations did not require conspicuous changes in his action.

That was crucial to the deception.

A great spinner does not merely possess several deliveries; he makes them emerge from an action that gives the batsman as little advance information as possible. Bedi’s smooth rhythm helped conceal those subtle differences.

The batsman was therefore forced into a constant calculation:

Should I go forward?

Should I stay back?

Can I reach the pitch?

Is this one going to dip?

That uncertainty was precisely where Bedi wanted him.

The Bowling Crease as a Chessboard

Bedi also understood that a bowler did not have to deliver every ball from the same position.

He used the width of the crease intelligently.

By moving closer to or farther from the stumps, he could alter the angle of approach without fundamentally changing the delivery itself. A ball released from wider on the crease presented the batsman with a different trajectory from one delivered close to the stumps.

These changing angles complicated judgement.

The batsman was no longer dealing merely with spin after pitching. He had to consider the ball’s line through the air, the angle at which it approached him and how that angle might interact with turn and bounce from the surface.

Bedi was therefore manipulating geometry as much as spin.

A tiny adjustment at the crease could make a familiar delivery feel unfamiliar.

Accuracy: The Foundation of the Magic

Perhaps the most important aspect of Bedi’s greatness was his accuracy.

He did not depend upon producing enormous turn with every delivery. Instead, he could settle into a relentless length and ask the batsman the same uncomfortable question again and again.

That discipline amplified every other weapon.

Flight becomes less dangerous if the bowler repeatedly misses his length. Changes of pace lose their menace if the batsman can simply wait for a loose delivery. Crease variation becomes ineffective when control disappears.

Bedi combined these subtleties with remarkable consistency.

The result was pressure.

Dot balls accumulated. The batsman became impatient. A tempting delivery appeared. The front foot moved a fraction too far—or not far enough, and suddenly the seemingly gentle left-arm spinner had created another chance.

As a match progressed, deteriorating pitches could provide increasing assistance. Bedi did not necessarily need to manufacture dramatic movement himself. His task was often to land the ball in the right area and allow the surface to become his accomplice.

Simplicity That Concealed Complexity

Bedi’s bowling was beautiful because it looked so uncomplicated.

There was rhythm rather than strain, persuasion rather than intimidation. Yet beneath that elegance was a sophisticated understanding of batting: how a batter judges length, how the eyes respond to trajectory, how the feet react to uncertainty and how repeated pressure eventually alters decision-making.

That is why describing Bedi merely as a slow left-arm orthodox bowler feels inadequate.

His genius lay in combining flight, loop, dip, subtle pace changes, crease position, accuracy and natural turn into a single continuous conversation with the batsman.

Every delivery contributed to the next.

One ball encouraged the batsman forward. Another made him hesitate. A third reinforced the apparent pattern. Then came the delivery that exploited the doubt created by everything preceding it.

Bedi was not simply spinning a cricket ball.

He was manipulating expectation.

In an age increasingly fascinated by mystery balls and dramatic variations, Bishan Singh Bedi remains a reminder that orthodox spin, perfected to its highest level, contains mysteries of its own. His wizardry came not from hiding what type of bowler he was, but from making batsmen understand exactly what he intended to do—and still leaving them unable to prevent it.

That was the paradox of Bedi: the action was simple, the method classical, but the deception was endlessly sophisticated.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar 

Mohinder Amarnath: When Fast Bowling Became a Test of Authority

There are batsmen remembered for elegance, batsmen remembered for numbers, and batsmen remembered because they seemed to possess a particular gift against a particular kind of opponent. Mohinder Amarnath belongs emphatically to the third category. At his peak in the early 1980s, “Jimmy” Amarnath became one of cricket’s most compelling answers to genuinely hostile fast bowling.

His reputation was not manufactured by nostalgia. It was forged in perhaps the harshest possible examination: Imran Khan in Pakistan, followed almost immediately by the West Indian pace battery in the Caribbean. Wisden noted that Imran himself regarded Amarnath among the finest players of fast bowling of that period.

What made the achievement remarkable was the quality of the bowling. This was not merely “pace” in the modern, generic sense. Amarnath confronted fast bowlers capable of attacking the body, moving the ball, extracting steep bounce and sustaining hostility for entire spells—often without the protective equipment available to contemporary batsmen.

The Pakistan Examination

India’s 1982–83 tour of Pakistan should be central to any assessment of Amarnath.

Imran Khan was operating near the height of his powers. He took 40 wickets in six Tests at under 14 runs apiece, repeatedly overwhelming an Indian batting order containing Sunil Gavaskar, Gundappa Viswanath, Dilip Vengsarkar and Sandeep Patil. India lost the series 3–0.

Yet Amarnath flourished.

He accumulated 584 runs at an average of 73, producing three centuries and three fifties in ten innings.

Those figures tell only part of the story. Amarnath was succeeding precisely where India were under maximum physical and technical pressure. Against Imran’s speed, movement and aggression, he did not attempt to prove his courage through reckless counterattack. His authority was based on something subtler: judgement.

Amarnath's distinctive open-chested, slightly crouched stance helped him deal with the short ball. Wisden records that he had adopted the stance after an earlier fast-bowling injury affected his eyesight. What might have begun as an adaptation eventually became part of an unusually effective method against pace.

He watched the ball extraordinarily closely, remained balanced and appeared willing to absorb periods in which the bowler dictated proceedings. His courage therefore worked alongside technique rather than replacing it.

From Imran to the West Indies

Then came an even greater challenge.

Immediately after Pakistan, India travelled to the Caribbean in 1983. Amarnath scored 598 Test runs at 66.44 there. Combined with Pakistan, that meant 1,182 Test runs across two consecutive away series, first against Imran Khan and company and then against the West Indies. Contemporary accounts particularly emphasised his resilience and technique against the lifting ball.

Consider the names confronting him: Malcolm Marshall, Michael Holding, Andy Roberts and Joel Garner.

Each presented a different problem. Holding possessed extraordinary pace and rhythm. Roberts could manipulate the batsman with changes of pace and the bouncer. Garner delivered from enormous height and created uncomfortable bounce. Marshall combined speed with movement, intelligence and relentless competitiveness.

Amarnath himself later singled out Marshall as exceptional, recalling that although all four were outstanding, Marshall was a step ahead—young, extremely fast and capable of spells Amarnath considered extraordinary.

Yet there was remarkably little theatricality in Amarnath's response.

That is important to understanding his batting. He did not dominate pace bowling in the manner of Viv Richards, seeking psychologically to overwhelm the bowler. Amarnath’s authority was quieter. He denied fast bowlers the reaction they wanted.

He was prepared to sway, duck, defend and wait. When the ball entered his scoring areas, his compact strokeplay emerged. His method conveyed an essential truth about playing extreme pace: authority does not always mean attack; sometimes it means refusing to be hurried.

Courage Without Theatre

There was also undeniable physical bravery.

Amarnath played in an age when helmets were absent or primitive and intimidation through short-pitched bowling was an accepted component of Test cricket. He had been struck and injured by fast bowling during his career. Decades later, discussing encounters with Jeff Thomson, Marshall and Imran, he described the mental demands of facing extreme speed and credited lessons from his father, Lala Amarnath, for developing his fearlessness.

But reducing Amarnath to bravery would actually diminish him.

Plenty of courageous batsmen have been dismissed by great fast bowlers. Amarnath possessed the technical resources to accompany the courage: early recognition of length, disciplined movement, comfort against the rising delivery and an unusual ability to remain composed after being physically challenged.

Lord’s: The Final Demonstration

The 1983 World Cup final provided the most famous public image of that quality.

At Lord’s, India faced Roberts, Garner, Marshall and Holding with the world championship at stake. India managed only 183. Amarnath's 26 from 80 balls looks modest in isolation, but only Kris Srikkanth scored more. Amarnath occupied the crease for 108 minutes while confronting one of history’s most intimidating attacks.

He then took 3 for 12 as West Indies collapsed for 140, earning Player of the Match honours.

That match became the perfect miniature of Mohinder Amarnath.

Not flamboyant. Not frightened. Not easily removed.

His greatest monument, however, remains those consecutive tours of Pakistan and the Caribbean. Against attacks designed to make batsmen uncomfortable, Amarnath seemed almost to derive clarity from danger.

Great fast bowling asked him the hardest questions cricket could devise. For one extraordinary period, Mohinder Amarnath kept supplying the answers.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar