90s Norway - Drillo

[Christopher S]

Hey guys,

as the stone cold Norwegian I am, I get these waves of nostalgia from time and time again, reminiscing about the glorious nineties where Egil "Drillo" Olsen turned Norway into one of the best international teams in the world. Crowned by the wonderful 2-1 over Brazil the in the '98 World Cup, I've decided to give a go at recreating his way of football. I just watched the entire match against Brazil, and I will base most of my assumptions on what I saw there along with what I already know.

Formation: 4-1-4-1

Observations

Generally, the norwegian defense in its prime, was damn near inpenetrable. Between 1996-1998, Norway conceded only 9 goals in 18 competitive matches, while scoring 38 - stats defeating more or less any notion of Norway playing one-side defensive football while under Egil "Drillo" Olsens command. Defensively, Norway worked as a unit, where every player effectively "went to war" for one another. All of the players on the pitch covered for each other, intensely chasing the living bejeezuz out of any team trying to occupy Norways half while on the ball. Going off of the famous 2-1 win over Brazil in the '98 WC, I've made the following observations in regards to the defense:

Defenders

- Right back sits tight in line with the central defenders, delivering diagonal crosses and safe passes to team mates. One job - defend, and defend well.

- Central defence is somewhat split. Dan Eggen was the sledgehammer, near unbeatable in the air, and a great player to stagger the first wave of attack. Ronny Johnsen paired up perfectly with great pace and ball skills, surging forward when given the chance, almost like a libero.

- Left back was slightly more offensive than the right one. Stig Inge Bjørnebye possessed a very precise left foot, good pace and skill on the ball, making him viable as a way to start and/or support attacks.

Contrary to popular belief, Drillos Norway didn't just park the bus around it's on 16'yard box. The idea was for the midfield (DM+RM,CM,CM,LM) to press and hassle the opponent to a point where the defense would more or less "pick up the trash", meaning most passes, through balls and dribbles were usually unprecise or off rhythm by the time it reached the defending line. From here, either the BPD (Ronny Johnsen) would start the counter attack by running up the middle of the park, or it would be let out wide to one of the fullbacks to get a better angle for a direct pass through one of the channels furhter up, where the central midfielders would be making runs. If in space, the DM (Rekdal) would be utilized as a deep lying playmaker, laying it off to him to push it on with more precise passing.

Midfielders

Given Norways defensive shape, the midfield basically consisted of a DM, LM, tow CM's and a RM. Defensively, the DM stay 8-10 yards ahead of the central defenders, only getting out of position to win headers or tackle/pressure players entering his zone (4-5 yard radius). In front of him, by another 10'ish yards, you'd find the central midfielders. Now, defensively, these acted pretty much identical. Standing off until the opposition entered Norways half, before pressure relentlessly, trying to break the ball off or force mistakes further down the line for a quick breakaway. The wingers (for a lack of better terms) were often sat down lower than the central midfielders, giving the midfield more of a 3-2 shape rather than 1-4 if needed. This was meant to completely block of the wings, and force play inwards where there was close to no space.

- Both the right and left wingers were mega-important both offensively and defensively. In defense, they were expected to close off the opponents wing play, and to force play inwards where Norway would always win the numbers game. In offense, they were expected to make initial runs with and without the ball, and from there on provide width and through balls into the channels onto the central midfielders and the roaming striker.

- The Defensive Midfielder was probably the most anonymous player on the field, unless Norway was expected to attack/control the game. In defense, his role was basically to block of space. A close comparison today would the role Michael Carrick successfully does in Manchester United. He's rarely involved in tackles or decisive moments, he's just... there, making sure no one attempts a pass in the area he's occupying. In offensive, his main job is to carry the ball from defense to offense as quickly and precisely as possible - hopefully bypassing the opposing teams midfield entirely, by targeting the space behind the midfield where the central midfielders will be making runs.

- The central midfielders are rabid dogs, expected to run their silly heads off for 90 minutes, both on the ball and off the ball. When defending, they are expected to close down any players running or reciving the ball in the middle of the park, trying to force unprecise deliveries to make the job easier for the next line of defense. As soon as Norway wins the ball, they are the main focal point going forward. They will bomb towards the 16yard box, trying to find space to recieve a quick pass going forward.

Striker

Tore Andre Flo was the ultimate lone striker - until Zlatan came along. Much can be said about the lanky Norwegian, but he was strong, surprisingly quick and had a wonderful touch of the ball, making him a huge pain in the ass for any defender. He was the kind of striker you just couldn't ignore - you knew you had to pay attention. He was the closest to a free role in the team you got, and was allowed to move more freely and not spend too much energy closing down opponents. Of course, he'd close down if the ball came near him, but he didn't go full Carlos Tevez either. When attacking, however, he could basically make things happen out of nothing. He was expected to get on the ball, try and beat his marker or hold the ball up and let it on to a supporting midfielder, before surging into the box expecting a cross.

--------------------

Based on these intial observations, I've assigned the following roles to my team:

GKd (Frode Grodås)

RB - LFBd (Henning Berg)

CB - LDx (Dan Eggen)

CB - BPDc (Ronny Johnsen)

LB - LBs (Stig Inge Bjørnebye

DM - DLPd / Anch / DMd (Kjetil Rekdal)

RM - DWs (Håvard Flo/Jostein Flo)

CM - BWMs (Øyvind Leonhardsen)

CM - BBM (Erik Mykland/Roar Strand)

LM - DWs (Vidar Riseth/Mini Jakobsen)

ST - CFs (Tore Andre Flo)

I'm tempted to use 'Very Fluid', based on the team working as a whole from top to bottom, and giving more supporting roles more freedom to contribute going forwards aswell. There is simply no way either of the central midfielders had an attacking role, I think. Both MIGHT be BBM's, though, as they pretty much fulfilled the same role on the pitch, alternating on making runs and being the first defender. I'm pretty happy with the setup in defense, and CFs seems to be the most logical choice for the lone striker. He was never a target man, and a DLFs is too restricted. The wingers are giving me a head ache, though. I'm not sure how the wingers will contribute when going forward, however I think they'll perform as desired when defending.

Suggested mentality:

Here's a pickle. I'm tempted to say counter. Norway was known and feared for their explosve and ruthless counterattacks, but the counter mentality on FM15 is a very cautious one. Norway would try the counter most of the times, even if only one player was avaliable and the chance of success wasn't that good, as they 'worst case' could hold the ball up for a couple of seconds and move the team up the pitch. If counter is not the way to go, the only other option is attacking, which I fear is to risky. Any thoughts here?

Suggested strategy:

As I mentioned over here, I actually think the way to go would be Very Fluid. Fluid is out of the question, as it splits the team into two units. I need the team to act as a unit. Structured would make sense, but I fear that won't allow the players to rely on each other to the same extent. I'm thinking it might link up the which mentality I go with.

Two alternatives:

Counter/Very Fluid | or | Attacking/Structured

Given specialist/half specialist/non specialist descriptions, I think my choice of roles containt just a tad too many specialists to carry a Very Fluid system, however, I am afraid structured would to us being a bit one sided. I'll have to try this out. Any thoughts here?

----------------------

Team Instructions.

A few dead give aways. Direct play, high tempo, get stuck in, drop deeper. Norway would pin their 4-1-4-1 inside their own half, hassle the opponent until they made a mistake, then explode towards the opponents goal. I feel 'Play More Disciplined' is a realistic choice here, as the players had very specific roles to cater to. Same goes for 'Hold Position'.

'Pass Into Space' is also very much expected here, as the breakaways where consistently based on passing the ball onto a run in an open channel.

Basic TI's

- Direct Passing

- Pass Into Space

- Drop Deeper

- Hold Position

- Play More Disciplined

Any other TI's would need the added according to what kind of team I'm facing, I think.

I also think all closing down instructions will need to be added with PI's instead of TI's.

I'm gonna add some screens and game examples in the next few days, but first, I need some sleep. Feel free to make contributions and suggestions!

[Option]

Was not Drillos play style more based on long balls then direct style?

[Jambo98]

There was a great in depth interview with Olsen in Issue 3 of the Blizzard - highly recommended.

[RTHerringbone]

Really good, detailed opening post

The midfield five is really solid and aggressive, with the DLP covering the aggressive movement of the BBM and BWM. I'll be honest and say that whilst I can remember this period of strong Norwegian football, I can't remember the ins and outs of the playing style. However, from reading your own analysis and looking at how you apply it in FM terms, I think you have a good foundation here.

What you may want to watch is the Henning Berg Role. There is a risk that in his Limited Role, he'll play too many simple, long balls and won't be the safe passer you want; a full back on Defend is a solid alternative who should be less likely to play agricultural football. Everything else seems to make sense on paper.

[Jambo98]

The interesting thing about Olsen was that he pretty much banned any "safe" pass. He didnt like backwards passing and square balls because of the element of risk they brought in.

The original tactic he had was definatelty long ball, not direct. It was all about Flo (Jostien, not Tore). He was quite possibly one of the few modern "wide target men" when playing for Norway and they would angle long balls out to him coming in from a flank time after time.

I think really you would have to have some kind of passing length increase, either from PI or from going with the extreme TI.

I think the other element which would be hard to impliment in FM would be his "pass number 2" rule - effectively if the first pass was a square or backwards pass, then the second had to always be a forward pass. Hard to implement such a complex rule into FM sadly.

That said, great layout in the OP, and if your aiming specifically for the France 98 setup then perhaps you can do it (PS, you also lost to Scotland as i recall )

[Option]

The interesting thing about Olsen was that he pretty much banned any "safe" pass. He didnt like backwards passing and square balls because of the element of risk they brought in.

The original tactic he had was definatelty long ball, not direct. It was all about Flo (Jostien, not Tore). He was quite possibly one of the few modern "wide target men" when playing for Norway and they would angle long balls out to him coming in from a flank time after time.

I think really you would have to have some kind of passing length increase, either from PI or from going with the extreme TI.

I think the other element which would be hard to impliment in FM would be his "pass number 2" rule - effectively if the first pass was a square or backwards pass, then the second had to always be a forward pass. Hard to implement such a complex rule into FM sadly.

That said, great layout in the OP, and if your aiming specifically for the France 98 setup then perhaps you can do it (PS, you also lost to Scotland as i recall )

Tss.. We dont talk about our Scotland loss..

Yes, after refreshing memory we actually draw scotland. Man, it felt so much like a loss..

[Bruce Drundrige]

Scotland game was a draw wasn't it??

[Christopher S]

We drew Scotland, 1-1. And 2-2 with Marocco.

The long ball was NOT the main game strategy - it is a common misconception, though, so I don't blame you. It was designed to break down compact defenses, either if the quick counter attack didn't hit off, or if the opponent deemed themselves inferior and went into the match gunning for avoiding defeat. Granted, Norway always had either Håvard Flo or Jostein Flo out wide, specifically for the diagonal long ball, but it was considered Plan B to hit the long ball over. Plan A was to break quickly through the channels and exploit space by winning 1v1 duels.

[Jambo98]

We drew Scotland, 1-1. And 2-2 with Marocco.

The long ball was NOT the main game strategy - it is a common misconception, though, so I don't blame you. It was designed to break down compact defenses, either if the quick counter attack didn't hit off, or if the opponent deemed themselves inferior and went into the match gunning for avoiding defeat. Granted, Norway always had either Håvard Flo or Jostein Flo out wide, specifically for the diagonal long ball, but it was considered Plan B to hit the long ball over. Plan A was to break quickly through the channels and exploit space by winning 1v1 duels.

Thats not really how Olsen himself describes it though. He would essentially admit to it being a long ball game. He simply doesnt see the long ball game as a negative thing and has a host of statistics to back up his point.

This is a direct quote from Olsen when asked about the long ball:

"It was a bit of a fluke that the long ball caame into it. It was a lot to do with Jostien. It was in 1993 that we introduced the so-called "Flo pass". It was against Portugal that we tried it for the first time, in the first half we put Jostien Flor on the right wing and we would hit it long for him every time........It gave me a bit of an epiphany and so we developed it further. But at the heart of it was the idea of getting the ball forwards quickly and the long ball was more of a coincidental side-effect of that"

[thomit]

"But at the heart of it was the idea of getting the ball forwards quickly and the long ball was more of a coincidental side-effect of that"

To me that says direct football with the odd long diagonal pass to one of the giant Flo's out wide. But that's not important. I remember Norway in the 90's well, and I'm looking forward to this thread developing. Even though it was fun watching your national team actually win matches, the Drillo style wasn't exactly my cup of tea. But it worked, for a while. When the really big national teams eventually caught up and decided that "hey, we better take these guys seriously...", it pretty much stopped being all that effective, didn't it. And by the way; the Greek national team that won the EC in 2004 (under Otto Rehagel) played in a very similar style, except for the heavy man marking defense where Drillo was strictly zonal marking.

[Cleon]

Fantastic thread, shame you are basing it on that particular match though as Drillo actually used an offset 451/442. Last yeah I interviewed Jan Aage Fjortoft for Clear Cut Chance as part of our world cup edition but we never actually published it in the end as it wasn't done in time.(yet). He himself classed it as an offset 442 due to it using one central striker then a withdrawn targetman on the right flank i.e Jostein Flo. They definetly played long ball rather than direct. The emphasis was to get the ball to Flo/Fjortoft as fast as possible with the least amount of passing possible. They also pressed heavily and putting pressure on the opposition was the most important part of it, as they tried to win the ball back as quickly as possible to hit the opposition on the counter. Drillo's thoughts behind this was simple, if the pass was successful he's closer to goal. If it fails they've gave possession away in none dangerous areas. His philosophy was that simple.

As for roles you are using, no way is Flo a defensive winger, he is in FM terms a wide targetman.

[Footix]

It was great being Norwegian during the 90's, that's for sure.

The Drillo philosophy was all about getting the ball quickly forward, although I think the long ball style was more obvious in the early 90's than later on. In his autobiography, midfielder Erik Mykland says that in training, players were instructed to always pass the ball forward. The play was stopped if anyone passed it back.

The match below is from a 1997 friendly, Norway-Brazil. Look at the quick build up to Norway's first goal, and the passing from 4:30 onwards. This was the Drillo team in their prime. I believe Norway were ranked 2nd on the FIFA rankings at the time.

Both teams got another goal in the second half, and the game ended 4-2. The Brazilians were looking for revenge in France '98, but we know how that match ended.

[Oakland Stomper]

Great thread Chris!

Way back in the CM days, I was the person who designed the 4-5-1Norway formation that gave people fits. The tactical limitations of the game then along with the text only feedback prevented me from knowing what was really going on "under the hood" but it worked (I qualified Northern Ireland for the WC using it).

Drillo used statistical analysis for every aspect of his analysis and tried to transfer this into his tactical model. In a sense, he was one of the first to try to apply the "moneyball" concepts to soccer. There is some solid information on this in "Inverting the Pyramid." I also have a book with a presentation which he made titled " An Analysis of Goal Scoring Strategies in the World Cup in Mexico, 1986.

Anyway, I've been a follower, though not adherent to Drillo's concepts since the WC 1994 and there are some things that I've learned that I think might be applicable here.

The absolute key for Drillo is to catch the other off balance or as he put it imbalanced. He advocated fast restarts whenever possible and this needs to be included, though I would say that he likes the long throw-in against an established defense.

Drillo would never use a fluid mentality. In fact, he was probably one of the most structured managers ever. He was a firm believer in specialized players and viewed them as game changers. Of course every player in his side had to have high levels work rate and teamwork, but this was is almost a given with Norwegian players, especially in the 1990's. How you arrange the roles in order to arrive at the minimum of 4 specialists is open and flexible (see below)

I think that he actually used a 4-5-1 as opposed to a 4-1-4-1. This isn't as semantic as it sounds. He wanted the midfield band to prevent balls from getting to the defense and to do this there must not be any gaps. In the numerous matches that I've watched, it didn't look to me as if the most central players was dropping off much if at all.

As Cleon pointed out, the outside midfielders were not defensive midfielders. You can't get the outside target man role (which was a part of the tactic that was not used all of the time) when playing them in this role. In fact, the roles of these players was changed to fit the personnel and I think to a degree the opponent. At times one might have been a wide midfielder on either attack or support, while the other might have been a winger on attack. I think that setting the relationship between the outside backs and outside midfielders needs to be flexible and is critical to making this work effectively.

Theoretically both central midfield "runners" would be B2B, bit this varied a bit and I think that you identified this to a degree. Leonhardsen was the ultimate player in this role and not a BWM. When Strand played, they were effectively a matched set, but when Mykland played, I think that he was more of a Roaming Playermaker.

To me, the striker in this system is the quintessential Defensive Forward.

Drillo's 'keepers played a very conventional role. The key here is that he will always play the ball long. Drillo felt that getting the ball deep into the other team's half was essential and that you didn't want the ball in your own GK's hands. In fact he said that this was the most dangerous time for a team.

I do think that "Counter-attacking" is the way to go. Remember that the goal was to get the ball into the opponents "backyard" as quickly as possible and you need to create space in that area. Raising the tempo via a TI will make it more realistic, but also keep in mid that with the counter mentality, you central defenders will send more balls forward.

Really the devil will be in the details, which means lots of work on PI's and somewhat less on the TI's and that should probably be the next level of the discussion.

Anyway, I look forward to the evolution of this thread while I return to trying to craft an updated version of my Rosenborg/Eggen philosophy.

[thomit]

Well, Mr. Olsen himself most often referred to his formation as a 451. But you can set up a 451 in a lot of different ways, can't you. In todays FM, a 4141 could probably do the job well. Or a flat 5 man midfield. Or even a 433 with advanced (AML/AMR) wide players. The central of the 5 midfielders was always a holding role in Olsen's setup, someone who would never venture forward much. The 2 on each side of this role were the "runners". And the wide players did have various roles, depending who he played there. Sometimes he would go to a more conventional 442, with Tore Andre Flo and Solskjær up top, but most often Solskjær would be used as one of the wide players, either on the right or the left.

Mykland was the one true playmaker in the team, but I wonder if that was just a result of his natural abilities rather than a given role. In FM terms, I should think both the left and the right of the midfield central trio should be BBM's, or - if circumstances called for it - as CM/attack. When Mykland played in the central midfield role (instead of Rekdal), he was a very aggressive and effective ball-winner, combined with a playmaker role that often brought him into advanced positions ... "Regista" comes to mind here. (He both looked and played much like Pirlo, come to think of it...) But if used in the position to either side of the central, a BBM (or perhaps a AM/support) sounds more like it. Rekdal was more a regular DM or CM/defend in the central role. None of Olsen's players were encouraged to run with the ball much, with the odd exception of a wide player or a striker that was sufficiently good at it. "The ball travels faster on it's own than if someone's running with it". So a RPM role in central midfield does not sound quite kosher to me. Any defense/midfield role/duty that has "dribble more" as a default should probably be avoided, except where a particular player can truly cope with it.

And yes, the "Flo-ball" was more used in the early Olsen period. Later on, Jostein Flo figured less in the setup, and was in the end just someone that Olsen would throw in late in a game ... sort of "ok, we can't score, let's put on Jostein and try the Flo-Ball again".

Tore Andre Flo (yes, it gets confusing with all these Flo's) was most regularly used as the lone striker. He had a natural inclination to drift out to the left, sort of like a Thierry Henry. But he was a quite different player than his relatives Jostein and Håvard. Tore Andre had considerable technical abilities that the other two lacked.

Fjørtoft and Jostein Flo belong more to the early Drillo team, and things evolved from there rapidly. Fjørtoft (and Sørloth before him) was as a lone striker very slow, and yes - he could well be a FM "defensive forward", whereas Tore Andre Flo was more of a AF, or even CF. In my humble opinion.

I think one has to decide which Drillo team to focus on - the early, let's call it the WC 94 team, or the later, the WC 98 team. Similar, but different. Much due to the change of forwards; from Jostein Flo and Sørloth/Fjørtoft, to Tore Andre Flo and Solskjær. From plenty of "Flo-balls" to much less use of that weapon. I still maintain that apart from the "Flo-ball", the Norway team was not a long ball team, but a direct one. At least the WC 98 team was.

I believe "rigid" is correct. And also "counter", for the most part. And for the most part aggressively pressing - but varying d-line. In FM lingo, I would be inclined to set all the 5 most forward players to close down more (or much more), and then adjust where pressing should "kick in" by adjusting the d-line. According to circumstances and opposition.

And btw; that wide target man role must have been made with Jostein Flo and the early 90's Norway team in mind, surely?

[Christopher S]

Thanks a lot for all the feedback here guys, really cool to see I found a pocket of interest here!

I think the immediate challenge here, is the limitations of the ME. Drillo had EXTREMELY specific instructions for his players, some of them rare/unconventional (i.e. the one across, one forwards passing rule). I have chosen to focus on the post '94WC team, basically marking Norway/Drillo deviating from the Flo-pass and trying to utilize a more traditional counter attack. I'm facing the following challenges/questions now:

- The wingers need to tuck in and force play inwards, as well as attack space if the initial counter doesn't work. I found DWs leaves the wingers too far up the field when defending. I'm thinking WMs with "Sit Narrower" might be the way to go? Suggestion: DWs --> WMs (with 'Sit Narrower')

- I don't think having a flat 5 in the middle would be right. It leaves a potential for bypassing our entire midfield with 1 pass, and that basically NEVER happened IRL with Drillo's team. The whole defense was based on the midfield covering the defenders. However, the role for the DM is something I struggle with. If Rekdal was the DM, he did drift upwards if Norway had an established attack going on, looking to recycle the ball if cleared or take the long shot on. What do you guys think about a DMs with 'Hold Position' and 'Close Down Less'?

- The central midfield was realistically a pair of BBMs, expected to bomb fowards on the counter, and stress playmakers and the oppositions midfield. I am afraid, however, with WMs on the sides and two BBM's in the centre, our midfield might be TOO supporting for FMs liking? Also: BBM has "Roam from Position" activated, a trait not particulary prominent within Drillos teams. I'm gonna try to set both BWMs, as they wont Roam as much, and see what happens.

Current setup:

Counter / Rigid | 4-1-4-1

GKd

FBd - CBd - BPDc - FBs

DMs

WMs - BBM - BBM - WMs

CFs

[Oakland Stomper]

Chris,

How has your tactic been progressing?

[Christopher S]

Not too good, actually. The players seem reluctant to carry out their designated roles. I'm starting to think Counter isn't really the best mentality. Even though it fits, fundamentally, with the IRL tactic, it's too cautious going forward, not daring to play marked players and tight pockets of space. I'm gonna try working with Attacking instead, combined with a couple of PI's, to see what happens.

[Jean0987654321]

Seem as though a flat 4-3-3 would do?

GK

LFB-CB-CB-FB (s)

CM(s)-CM (d)-CM (s)

WTM (s)-CF (s)-W (s)

I know that is not the system you want but, I expect this tactic to defend like a 4-5-1 in defense. A wide target man role won't work if it is in the midfield strata. The Flo-pass can happen more often with this system, I think...