Late goals from Wesley Sneijder and Klaas Jan Huntelaar broke Mexican hearts as Netherlands battled back from a 48th minute Gio dos Santos opener to win 2-1. This is the sixth consecutive World Cup Mexico have been eliminated in the round of 16.

Last week Dan analyzed how Mexico continued to offer an attacking threat after taking the lead in their final group game against Croatia. As is often the case when a side takes a lead, Mexico conceded some possession to Croatia after the goal and defended slightly deeper but pushed numbers forward on the counter and were a real threat. They were rewarded with two insurance goals and comfortably saw out a 3-1 win.

Their approach today after dos Santos's opener was different. Javier Aquino replaced dos Santos in the 61st minute and slid into the right side of midfield, changing Mexico's shape from 3-5-2 to more of a 5-4-1. The change left Oribe Peralta (and then Javier Hernandez when he replaced Peralta) isolated up front when Mexico won back possession. They had no outlet pass to allow them to counter and quickly gave possession back to the Netherlands, inviting wave after wave of second half pressure. The graphics below illustrate Mexico's inability to offer an attacking threat after taking the lead. Up until dos Santos's goal Mexico produced 7 shots to just 1 for the Netherlands. After the goal Mexico produced just 3 shots to 12 for Netherlands.

Mexico with 7 shots in the opening 48 minutes to Netherlands 1.

Netherlands with 12 shots after dos Santos's goal to 3 for Mexico

Mexico's attacking third passing statistics were similar to the Netherlands before the goal. They completed 38 attacking third passes in the first 48 minutes, Netherlands completed 41. Following the goal Mexico completed only 24 attacking third passes while Netherlands completed 43.

Attacking third passes up to dos Santos's opener.

Attacking third passes after dos Santos's opener

It was a shame Miguel Herrera was so reactive when his side went ahead. They had been the better side throughout the first half, looking comfortable defensively and producing some decent scoring opportunities of their own on the break. They allowed a Dutch side that had been ponderous to attack for long periods of time without having to worry much about being picked off on the break. Louis Van Gaal made an intelligent change in shape from 3-5-2 to more of a 4-2-3-1 in the second half, knowing a third center back was unnecessary while Mexico were playing so deep. Had Herrera stuck with his approach against Croatia and not given the Netherlands so much respect in the second half, Mexico may well have broken their round of 16 losing streak.

The U.S. conceded a goal to Portugal in the 5th minute, but the team admirably fought back. After dominating the run of play for lengthy periods and creating several scoring chances, the U.S. scored in the 64th minute from a Jermaine Jones wonder strike after the Portuguese muffed the clearance of a corner. The U.S. looked especially dangerous down the right wing exploiting the space behind Cristiano Ronaldo who unsurprisingly focused on attacking and neglected his defensive responsibilities. In the 81st minute, the U.S. scored the go-ahead goal off of a DeAndre Yedlin cross that bounced around the box until Dempsey deliberately used his abdomen to guide the ball into the net.

In his recap of the U.S.-Portugal game, Michael Cox makes an important observation about the U.S. tactical approach after taking the lead:

[T]he wider problem is the USA’s tendency to react too much to the game state. Throughout their opening two matches they’ve showed some great attacking play when behind, or drawing. They started brilliantly against Ghana, and responded superbly to conceding an equaliser – but during the period they were ahead, they sat extremely deep and invited so much pressure.

Similarly, in this game they were excellent for long periods when needing a goal, but then immediately conceded the midfield ground when ahead. It’s almost like they need someone to shout out that old Sunday League call of “Still 0-0, lads!” after a goal, and continue to play their usual game, regardless of the scoreline.

Cox’s observation is apparent from the figure below, which shows the passes completed by the U.S. and Portugal in each 5-minute increment of the game. The U.S. indeed reverted into a defensive shell after going ahead in the 81st minute and attempted to absorb the pressure of Portugal’s attack. Quite remarkably, the U.S. team completed only 8 passes in the final 15 minutes of play (which includes the final 10 minutes of regulation and the 5 minutes of stoppage time). By comparison, throughout the entire match, the U.S. on average completed about 60 passes per 15 minutes of play.

In their final game of the group stage, Mexico faced a similar situation to the U.S. after going ahead of Croatia 1-0 in the 71st minute from a Rafa Márquez goal. Yet, the Mexicans seemed to maintain a relatively attacking approach, which paid dividends in the form of two insurance goals in the 75th and 82nd minutes. While Croatia scored a consolation goal in the 87th minute, Mexico had already all but secured a berth to the round of 16.

Looking at the equivalent figure above which shows completed passes in each 5-minute increment for the Mexico-Croatia game, the Mexicans yielded much of the possession to the Croatians after scoring in the 71st minute. However, they continued to push forward when opportunities arose, exploiting the huge spaces that resulted from the Croatians pushing forward in search of goals. As is obvious from the passing figure below, the Americans struggled to connect on their passes while the Mexicans repeatedly advanced the ball into dangerous positions, especially down the right wing.

It’s not unusual for teams to take a defensive approach in the latter stages of the game after taking the lead. Yet, that sitting deep and absorbing pressure is the norm doesn’t mean that it’s in fact the most effective strategy. Unfortunately, from an analytics perspective, this is a particularly challenging issue to investigate, as teams that choose to sit back and defend are probably more likely to concede and less likely to score regardless of the strategy they choose. Nevertheless, it’s something for viewers of the game to consider on the many occasions that they witness their team choosing to sit deep and invite attacks.