Super Eagles: 3 mistakes Nigeria made in Madagascar victory

The Super Eagles began their 2027 Africa Cup of Nations qualifying campaign with a 2-1 comeback victory over Madagascar in Uyo, but Éric Chelle’s team left several warning signs despite collecting three points, Afrik-Foot reports.

Nigeria recovered from Ehsan Kari’s 16th-minute opener to win through debutants George Ilenikhena and Moses Usor, with the result putting the Super Eagles alongside Guinea-Bissau at the top of Group L after the opening round of fixtures.

However, the scoreline does not completely reflect how comfortable Nigeria looked in the game.

The Super Eagles dominated possession, finished with 22 shots to Madagascar’s four and had 34 touches in the opposition box, but the visitors still found opportunities to exploit Nigeria when Chelle’s side lost its defensive structure.

For a team with ambitions of qualifying for the 2027 AFCON and eventually competing against Africa’s strongest sides, there are three areas Chelle will need to address.

3 Super Eagles mistakes against Madagascar

1. Nigeria left too much space with only two midfielders

Chelle started with a 4-4-2 formation, with Wilfred Ndidi and Alex Iwobi operating as the central midfield pair.

That setup gave Nigeria two natural central midfielders against a Madagascar side that was happy to defend and then attack the spaces left behind when Nigeria pushed forward.

As the Super Eagles attempted to build attacks higher up the pitch, Calvin Bassey and Bruno Onyemaechi were often required to step forward and contribute to the build-up.

The problem was what happened when possession was lost. With the full-backs and centre-backs involved higher up the pitch, there were moments when Madagascar had space to attack during transitions.

The Barea exploited one such situation for their opening goal, with Kari heading home after a move that caught Nigeria’s defensive structure exposed.

Even more concerning was that Stanley Nwabali had to make an important save early in the second half to prevent Madagascar from extending their lead.

Against Madagascar, Nigeria survived. Against a stronger African side with better players in transition, that same structural vulnerability could be punished much more severely.

2. The build-up was too slow and lacked a clear pattern

Nigeria controlled large periods of the game, but control should not be confused with clarity.

The Super Eagles often moved the ball slowly, lacklustre in possession, allowing Madagascar to settle into their defensive shape before Nigeria attempted to progress the attack.

There were also moments when it appeared Nigeria were relying on individual players to find solutions rather than following a consistently recognisable attacking pattern.

That is concerning because Madagascar were not an opponent who needed to be constantly stretched. Nigeria needed to move the ball quickly enough to create gaps before the Barea could reorganise.

Nigeria had the ball and territory, but their possession did not always translate into clear, well-constructed opportunities.

Chelle admitted after the match that Nigeria became too anxious after creating chances, although he praised the players for recovering from the early setback.

The next step for the coach is ensuring the Super Eagles do not simply depend on reacting to whatever happens in the game. They need a clearer mechanism for creating chances.

3. The Super Eagles still lack attacking chemistry

Perhaps the biggest concern from the performance was how little Nigeria’s attacking play appeared to come from established combinations.

The equaliser was the clearest example of what Nigeria should be looking for.

Alex Iwobi found George Ilenikhena with a well-timed pass, allowing the Al-Ittihad forward to finish calmly and bring Nigeria level just before half-time. It was a properly constructed attacking move.

The winner, however, was almost entirely different. Moses Usor received the ball, beat two defenders with his pace and skill and produced an excellent finish to complete Nigeria’s comeback.

There was nothing wrong with Usor’s individual brilliance. In fact, it was exactly what Nigeria needed, but it also highlighted the problem.

One goal came from a promising combination between Iwobi and Ilenikhena, while the other was largely created by an individual piece of brilliance.

For a team containing Ademola Lookman, Samuel Chukwueze, Akor Adams, Ilenikhena and other talented attackers, Chelle needs to develop more repeatable attacking relationships, and in all fairness, that is very hard to create in just a few days of training alotted during the International break.

The three points cannot hide the warning signs

Nigeria did what mattered most against Madagascar: they won, but the victory should not prevent Chelle from examining the problems within the performance.

The two-man midfield left spaces in transition, the build-up was often too slow, and the attacking unit did not consistently look like a team that had developed a clear chemistry.

The Super Eagles now travel to Guinea-Bissau on September 29 for their second Group L qualifier.

That match should provide a much clearer indication of whether the problems seen against Madagascar were simply opening-game issues or signs of structural weaknesses that could trouble Nigeria throughout the AFCON qualifying campaign.