Comment | Huuhkajat, despite the defeat, made good progress in Greece – the new way of playing was clearly visible

The squealers the coaching staff clearly did a good job on the training ground this week in Finland. This can be said when the team played in a clearly recognizable way after a few practices. The game showed a lot of good things that were repeated throughout the match.

Yes, the 0-3 loss was a poor result in a competitive match, but at this stage, building a style of play that recognizes the new beginning of the national team is more important than the result of one match. Unfortunately, the Huhkaji defense continues to leak.

The Huahkajie’s game showed things that the members of the coaching group had been talking about in interviews all week. Game principles were visible and there was intensity at times, and especially when Finland counter-pressed the Greek players after losing the ball.

Let’s get started About Finland’s way of building a game. In the opening phase, Finland built the game with two top players and two midfield bottom players, by Rasmus Schüller and Matti Peltolanby forming a square. The players were like a square. In this way, Finland was able to create superiority against the Greek oppressors.

At the same time, they were in the upper line of the midfield Glen Kamara and Robin Lodwho formed a midfield square with the base players. It was very similar to Honkavaara’s KuPS way of building the game.

From the intermediate lanes of the midfield, Finland tried to break the Greek defense line and send vertical balls To Oliver Antman and to Benjamin Källman.

An example of Finland’s good quarterbacking was seen after a good ten minutes of the game, when Toppari Arttu Hoskonen played for Lod, and from the Källman–Kamara–Lod axis, the ball came back to Antman, whose shot missed the goal.

Finnish you press Greek openings from high and you also press counter-presses well in the Greek area. It was remarkable how the Greek goalkeeper signaled a long opening in the 21st minute when he saw Finland again ready to press from high.

Finland’s good game with the ball in the opening period was told by the fact that Finland won the possession of the ball with a percentage of 57–43. Huuhkajat won successful passes by 280–184. The power still remained in the pipe, because in the attacking third, Finland did not quite get into good finishing positions.

Greece’s two goals in the opening half came from small mistakes by Finnish players. Better as if they were caused by the structure of the Finnish game.

Greece used their positions really well unlike Finland, and that showed why the value of the players in Greece’s starting line-up is four times that of Finland’s opening, based on the Transfermarkt website.

On the other at halftime the Finnish press was no longer as active as in the first half. Finland went lower, and Greece got through easier. Finland’s form was also not as well put together as in the opening period. It also showed Schüller being replaced due to injury.

Kanerva has to wonder why Finland’s good game disappeared at the half hour mark.

Despite the loss, Finland’s performance made a lot of promises about the development of the team’s game.