Expert Doan Minh Xuong: Without Xuan Son, Vietnam's Attack Is Clearly Much Weaker

At the stadium in Bandung, Indonesia, when the final whistle of the match sounded, Vietnamese players walked off the field with heavy faces. Thailand had won 2-0, and the Vietnam national team had officially ended its race for the top spot in Group B. In the stands, fans remained for a long time, not singing victory songs, but watching their team leave in silence. The biggest void on the Bandung pitch was not simply a tactical position. It was the figure of Nguyen Xuan Son, the naturalized striker forced to sit out because of injury. But the story does not stop at missing one player. The problem for Vietnam at this year's regional tournament is far more complicated than naming a single absent figure. Expert Doan Minh Xuong, who has spent years following Vietnamese football, took time to analyze this defeat for Tuoi Tre newspaper. He did not merely talk about the result. He pointed out that Vietnam's attack was no longer a fluent unit when Xuan Son was absent. His assessment attracted attention because it touched a structural weakness: a team that has become too dependent on a single striker, and when that player is unavailable, the entire attacking approach is pushed to the edge of the penalty area. Before the match against Thailand, Vietnam had secured a narrow 1-0 win over the Philippines. That result brought cautious optimism. But Thailand, with their pragmatic style and rich match experience, was a completely different test. In a game considered evenly balanced, about 50-50 as expert Doan Minh Xuong stressed, the team that took their chances better would win. Thailand did exactly that. They opened the scoring early with a long-range shot from Sarach Yooyen, a move with some fortune but great decisiveness. After that, Thailand dropped deep, surrendered the initiative, and waited for mistakes to launch counterattacks. The reality on the pitch showed Vietnam holding more possession, but attacking efficiency was extremely low. The chances they created mostly came from shots outside the box. Supporters could see the impatience in every final pass. Vietnamese players constantly tried to find space between Thailand's dense defensive lines, but passes into central areas were almost completely shut down. One Vietnam goal was disallowed by VAR for offside. It was a moment that could have changed the match, but offside was a decisive call. Football does not allow a team to rely on moments that VAR can intervene to reverse the course of the game. What is notable is Thailand's tactical plan was very clear. They did not need to dominate the game. They allowed Vietnam to have the ball and turned midfield into a maze. Chanathip, a player familiar to Southeast Asian football, was deployed as a false nine. He did not stick to the center-backs but repeatedly dropped deep to receive the ball, pulling Vietnamese defenders out of position, creating space behind them for Thailand to exploit. This is a major difference in tactical thinking. Vietnam lost Xuan Son and had no focal point up front. Thailand had no true target forward, but they had Chanathip's versatility to fill the void. One team depended on a player, the other depended on an idea. Expert Doan Minh Xuong analyzed that Xuan Son is not simply a goalscorer. He is a ball-holder, a target man who absorbs pressure from opposing center-backs, and a player who creates space for wingers and midfielders behind him. When Xuan Son is present, defenders are forced to mark him, stretching the defensive line and opening space on the flanks. When he is absent, the ball still moves, but nobody dares to receive it with their back to goal. Dinh Bac, a young player given the chance in the highest position, could not do what Xuan Son does. That is not Dinh Bac's fault. It is the difference in body shape, strength, ball-shielding skill, and above all, the ability to absorb challenges from experienced center-backs. In that match, coach Kim Sang Sik was forced to adjust the formation. From the familiar 3-4-3, he switched to 3-5-2. The change might have been an attempt to strengthen midfield, but the way the team operated suggested improvisation rather than a tactical lever. Left-back Cao Quang Vinh was moved into the center to play as a midfielder. This exposed a major problem: Vietnam's midfield lacked personnel. When a team has to use a full-back to cover central midfield, it shows that squad preparation had cracks long before. Not an individual decision, but a structural shortage. The substitutions in the second half, bringing on Hai Long and Hoang Duc, helped the team improve coordination. But when the match required Vietnam to push forward for an equalizer, improvement in spirit was not enough to create a decisive moment. Hoang Duc had just returned from injury. Many other players were not in their best physical condition. Expert Doan Minh Xuong said honestly that the team had too many problems, that this was not a complete nor healthy squad. This is a harsh truth but one worth revisiting. One thing many fans may forget when looking at the 0-2 result is that Vietnam is strongest when playing defensive counterattacks. Once they fell behind early, the entire game state was reversed. Vietnam was forced to push their line high and attack, and that stripped away their most dangerous weapon. Thailand deliberately invited that push, then used quick counterattacks to finish the game. This was not an unexpected development. It was a scenario that could have been imagined as soon as Xuan Son was absent. When a team has no focal point up front, holding the ball becomes harmless football. Thailand knew that. They let Vietnam have the ball and walk into a dead end. The truth is that modern football does not allow a team to depend on a single player, no matter how excellent that player is. Xuan Son is an important striker, no one disputes that. But if his absence makes the entire team unable to attack, then the problem lies in the system, not just in the man. A strong team needs to prepare for the loss of its key player. Expert Doan Minh Xuong was correct that Vietnam's attack is clearly weaker without Xuan Son. But the more important question is: why is the attack so dependent on one person? Why can no domestic forward at least occupy defenders and create space for teammates? Dinh Bac received harsh criticism after the match. But that view is somewhat unfair. Dinh Bac is a young player with dribbling ability and skill in tight spaces, but he is not a pure target forward. Forcing a young player into a role his body is not trained for is a failure of selection, not a failure of the player. When a player is placed in the wrong role, all we see is a poor performance. But behind that performance is a story about a shortage of personnel, about a coaching staff without a clear Plan B. The defeat against Thailand also showed the gap in squad depth between the two teams. Thailand had a deeper midfield and could make substitutions without weakening their fighting power. They could rotate Chanathip, Sarach Yooyen, and many others while staying sharp. Vietnam, meanwhile, had to move a full-back into central midfield. This is a sign of an imbalance in resources. No one says Vietnam is weaker than Thailand in tradition or class. But in this specific match, Thailand's flexibility and depth were the deciding factors. A larger story also needs to be mentioned: Vietnamese football lacks a domestic striker who can replace Xuan Son. This is not a new issue. For decades, Vietnamese football has struggled to produce a native center-forward with consistent physique, strength, and scoring instincts. Relying on a naturalized player is a temporary solution, but it raises questions about youth development. Are we investing properly in the number nine position? Are our youth training centers truly producing target forwards who can fight inside the box, or only producing skillful wingers? These questions are not new, but the defeat against Thailand is a costly reminder. Media pressure is now mounting on coach Kim Sang Sik. When an authoritative expert like Doan Minh Xuong publicly criticizes, when a team cannot win the group after one defeat, things can become much heavier than necessary. However, what needs to be done now is not to find a scapegoat. The Vietnam national team still has matches ahead. If Xuan Son is unavailable, the only way to overcome it is to change the approach. No one can run faster than an injury. But the whole team can operate in a way that does not depend on one individual. It should be said fairly that the Vietnamese players fought hard. They tried, they ran, they were hungry. The problem is not attitude. The problem is that the team did not have suitable replacements, did not have an alternative attacking structure, and was guided into a match they could not play to their strengths. This is a valuable defeat if we look at its roots. But if we stop at the story of