Coach Bae Ji-won: 'Vietnam exposed many problems in the loss to Thailand'

A loss is not just dropping three points. It is a mirror reflecting every flaw of a team that once seemed perfect.

On October 10, 2026, at Si Jalak Harupat Stadium in Bandung, Indonesia, Vietnam entered their third Group B match of the FIFA ASEAN Cup 2026 with the mentality of defending champions. Just 34 days earlier, Coach Kim Sang-sik's side had defeated Thailand in a dramatic final, winning 2-1 on aggregate. Vietnamese fans believed another victory would cement their status as Southeast Asia's number one. But football does not operate on the logic of belief.

In the 10th minute, Sarach Yooyen received the ball approximately 25 meters from Vietnam's goal. No one closed him down. He struck a curling shot into the top right corner, beating goalkeeper Nguyen Van Lam. The stadium fell silent for an instant, then Thai players erupted in celebration. That was the opening goal, and the moment that shaped the entire match.

Coach Bae Ji-won, a former Korean international who has managed multiple K.League clubs and now works as an analyst for sports channels across Asia, offered blunt assessments in his post-match commentary. He said: "Vietnam exposed many problems. This was not merely a loss but the revelation of tactical weaknesses that have existed for a long time."

Context: When victory becomes a burden

Vietnam under Coach Kim Sang-sik had enjoyed a memorable journey at ASEAN Cup 2026. They navigated the group stage unbeaten, eliminated Indonesia in the semi-finals with a 3-1 aggregate score, and beat Thailand in the final. That victory not only brought a title but also generated an unprecedented wave of expectations. Fans began speaking of a new era of Vietnamese dominance in Southeast Asian football.

Thailand, by contrast, entered this match with the mentality of a wounded team. They had lost to Vietnam in the final on home soil, in front of tens of thousands of fans. Coach Anthony Hudson, who had previously managed New Zealand and has MLS experience, faced heavy pressure from Thai media. Thai football experts repeatedly criticized his pragmatic playing style, arguing the national team was losing its identity of attractive attacking football.

But football is a sport of results. Hudson understood that. And in the match at Bandung, he proved that pragmatism can defeat flair.

Thailand set up in a 4-3-3 formation but deliberately played deep. The three-man midfield of Sarach Yooyen, Weerathep Pomphan, and Peeradol Chamrasamee formed a tight defensive block, moving in sync and covering for each other effectively. Full-backs Theerathon Bunmathan and Tristan Do did not hesitate to drop deep, prioritizing defensive duties over advancing to support attacks.

Vietnam controlled more possession. Post-match statistics showed Vietnam's possession share ranged around 58-62% depending on the data source. But controlling the ball does not mean controlling the match. For most of the game, the ball circulated in midfield and along the flanks, in front of Thailand's packed defensive lines. Penetrative passes into the box were almost non-existent.

Core analysis: The problem is not effort but method

The first thing to recognize is Thailand's approach to the match. They did not come to Bandung to play beautiful football. Hudson had prepared a clear plan: concede territory to Vietnam, defend in a low block, wait for mistakes, and punish through set pieces or quick counter-attacks.

Sarach's 10th-minute goal was a perfect example of this plan. He received the ball at the edge of the penalty area, where Vietnam's midfield left space. In modern football, the space in front of the box is called the "D zone" — the most dangerous area on the pitch, where long-range shots can make the difference. Vietnam allowed Sarach — one of Southeast Asia's best long-range shooters — to strike comfortably.

Coach Bae Ji-won pointed out that this was not an individual error but a systemic one. When a team controls too much possession, midfielders tend to push higher, the defensive line advances, and the space behind them becomes prime prey for opponents. Thailand exploited this thoroughly.

But the bigger problem lay in Vietnam's attacking capability. Kim Sang-sik's squad possesses many technical players like Nguyen Quang Hai, Nguyen Hoang Duc, and Nguyen Xuan Son. However, those individual technical qualities were not converted into an organized attacking system.

In the first half, Vietnam had at least three situations that could have created chances. In the 23rd minute, Quang Hai received the ball on the left wing, cut inside the box, and fired a shot toward the far corner. The ball went inches wide of the post. In the 37th minute, Nguyen Tai Loc broke through on a through ball from Hoang Duc and put the ball in the net. But the assistant referee raised the offside flag. In the 58th minute, Hoang Duc made a penetrating run into the box from the second line, received a cross from Vu Van Thanh, and shot from an unmarked position. The Thai goalkeeper made a spectacular save.

Three chances. Three moments. But all came from individual efforts or unexpected situations, not from a systematic attacking pattern. Bae Ji-won emphasized: "Vietnam lacks automatic, repeatable combinations. They depend on individual moments of brilliance. That is not enough to break down a well-organized defensive block."

The key point lies in ball circulation speed. When facing a low-block defense, the attacking team needs to move the ball quickly, constantly change direction, stretch the opponent's shape, and create gaps. Vietnam managed this for about 15-20 minutes early in the second half when Thailand began showing signs of fatigue. But that burst did not last. Passes became slower, less accurate, and predictable.

Coach Bae pointed out another important issue: maintaining pressure. "Thailand understood that they only needed to endure 60-70 minutes, and Vietnam would lose patience. And when they lose patience, the structure collapses." Indeed, from the 70th minute onward, Vietnam switched to long balls, bypassing midfield. This was a sign of tactical desperation, not a solution.

Contrarian angle: The truth about squad depth and load management

There is an aspect rarely mentioned in post-match analyses: the injury status of Vietnam's key players. Nguyen Thanh Chung, Nguyen Quang Hai, Nguyen Xuan Son, and Nguyen Hoang Duc were all confirmed to have fitness issues due to continuous play over a short period. This is a consequence of the dense schedule at both club and national team levels.

But this is not an excuse. This is a systemic problem. The V.League lacks a mechanism to reasonably reduce load for national team players during international competition windows. Meanwhile, Thailand has better squad depth, allowing Hudson to rotate without sacrificing quality.

Coach Bae Ji-won asked: "Why does Vietnam not have equivalent replacement options?" The answer lies in youth development quality and squad development capability. In this match, when Kim Sang-sik needed to change the game, he did not have many options. Pham Gia Hung — a 1.82m striker with good heading ability — sat on the bench but was not used. This was a controversial decision, as Thailand played a low block, and a striker with aerial ability could create something from set pieces.

Bae commented: "When you cannot break through with short passes, you need a Plan B. Vietnam has no Plan B, or the coach does not trust it."

Another thought-provoking angle: is Vietnam trapped in a "champion mentality"? After winning the ASEAN Cup, the players seemed to compete under pressure to prove themselves, rather than with the confidence of winners. When they fell behind, they could not find the calm needed to execute their plan. Instead came haste, inaccuracy, and susceptibility to errors.

Thailand, by contrast, played with the mentality of a team with nothing to lose. They had lost the final. They were criticized. They had nothing left to protect. And that mentality — the freedom of a team backed into a corner — became a weapon.

Thai experts still criticized Hudson's style after the match. Be Bangkapong, a well-known commentator, said: "Just looking at the final result is enough." That statement reflects the division in Thai football between those who pursue attacking football and those who accept pragmatism to win.

But in Vietnam, a bigger question is being asked: is Kim Sang-sik flexible enough to adjust tactics? Will he dare to change when facing low-block opponents? And more importantly, does Vietnamese football have enough depth to maintain its standard over a long cycle?

Conclusion: Not the end of the world, but a wake-up call

This 0-2 defeat does not erase what Vietnam has achieved. The ASEAN Cup victory remains a historic accomplishment. But it exposed limitations that, if unaddressed, will hinder Vietnamese football's path to continental heights.

Coach Bae Ji-won outlined four improvement requirements: ball circulation speed, sustained pressure, diversified attacking options, and more reasonable load management. These are not novel demands. They are fundamental principles of modern football. But implementing them requires time, investment in youth development, and a shift in tactical thinking from club to national team level.

Thailand has proven that pragmatism can defeat flair. But will pragmatism help them win Asia? That question remains unanswered. For Vietnam, the question is: will they learn from this defeat to become more flexible, more unpredictable, and genuinely more complete?

Southeast Asian football is changing. Teams that rely solely on individual moments of brilliance will increasingly struggle. Vietnam has the potential to adapt. But potential does not automatically translate into results. It requires a plan, a roadmap, and above all, a determination to change from those at the top.

Coach Bae Ji-won concluded his commentary with a thought-provoking statement: "A loss can teach you more than a win. The question is whether you are willing to learn."