Vietnam 4-2 Pakistan: A Beautiful Comeback and a Crack Yet to Heal in Defence

When the entire commentary box said Vietnam had found itself again after the 4-2 win over Pakistan, I heard a very quiet alarm bell. On Friday, October 2, 2026, at Gelora Bung Karno Stadium in Jakarta, the squad of head coach Kim Sang-sik dominated possession almost completely, pinned the opponent back, then walked into the break with a result that made me put down my pen: trailing. A team that overwhelms the run of play yet still lets the opponent take the lead. That is a disease that has become chronic, and it flared up exactly when people thought everything was fine. To judge this match properly, it must be placed in its correct position within the team's journey. Vietnam closed the group stage as Group B runner-up, failed to secure a place in the final, and was forced into the third-place playoff. In professional circles, people call it the 'floor of honour': win, and you salvage some dignity for an entire campaign; lose, and the whole season is framed by two words — failure. Opponents Pakistan come from a footballing background of a different calibre, and the 4-2 scoreline partly reflects that gap. But football is not only about the score. What interests me is how Vietnam won: conceding first, coming back with a burst of second-half goals, then still letting the opponent score again late on. That script is so familiar that anyone who has followed Southeast Asian football for years could read it before the match ended. Before the game, I spent many evenings rewatching footage of the group-stage matches. That habit dates back to the summer of 2026, when competitions were suspended and I sat counting every goal to find a pattern. The pattern I found then still holds today: teams that control possession well but lack concentration in defence always pay with a goal at exactly the decisive moment. Now let's talk about the numbers. Vietnam conceded twice in this match: once in the first half after a lapse in concentration by the backline, and once late on when the game was already settled. The pattern is clear: this team plays well with the ball, but is loose without it. Structurally, Vietnam's shape operated as a hybrid between a back three and a back four, with high wing-backs. That very advancement creates space behind the defensive line, and that is where the opponent exploits. The first goal conceded came from a quick counter-attack, when the centre-backs had not yet dropped back into position. The bright spot lies in the ability to adjust during the break. In the 50th minute, Nguyễn Hoàng Đức arrived right on time inside the box to meet a placed pass from a teammate and equalise. This is the archetypal goal of a modern attacking midfielder: not standing and waiting for the ball, but actively breaking into the box from the second line. In the 57th minute, Hải Long scored, completing the comeback. Both goals came from smart runs by the midfield line, not from a fixed centre-forward waiting for the ball. Then came Đinh Bắc's goal — a solo run through the opposing defence. This goal showed the transition quality of a young player, and it suggests Vietnam now possesses a new attacking spearhead. Williams Minh Hoàng sealed the 4-2 scoreline in stoppage time, when the match was already decided. Looking at the scoring pattern, something interesting emerges: Vietnam scores through late-arriving midfielders and individual moments, not through an organised attacking system. This works against a weaker opponent, but it raises a bigger question about the ability to cope with teams of equal standing. The reverse angle. I could be wrong, and I want to make that clear before you object. Vietnam won, and won with a beautiful comeback. That is an undeniable fact. But what worries me is not the result; it is the mechanism of that victory. A team that wants to win the region cannot rely on scoring in stoppage time to finish a match. Nor can it concede first in every decisive game. This third-place match is one where a pretty result conceals unresolved problems. The backline is still leaky, the ability to keep a clean sheet remains an open question, and depending on individual moments of brilliance is a fragile winning mechanism. Place Vietnam next to Malaysia — the next opponent, a team that also closed the group stage as Group A runner-up — and I see a genuinely evenly matched contest. Malaysia is not Pakistan. They will punish mistakes in the defensive line, and they will not give Vietnam the chance to come back as easily. That match will be the real test of this team's strength. I could be wrong, but hear my reasoning. I do not deny the win. I only ask whether that win is a sign of progress, or merely a pleasant moment in a journey full of concern. At 55, I still believe in what you call illusions — and then they come true. But that belief must be built on solid ground, not on fleeting moments of brilliance. Vietnam has talent, has players capable of making a difference. What they need is not another pretty win over a weak opponent, but a tactical structure solid enough to stand firm when the run of play does not go their way. This team does not need more money; it needs someone willing to think in reverse. Someone to look at the first-half goal conceded and the stoppage-time goal conceded, and say that this 4-2 win conceals more than it exposes. If Vietnam walk into the Malaysia match with that same backline, I fear the result will not be as sweet as it was in Jakarta. That is my prediction. I could be wrong. But I have bet on it, just as I once bet on France in 2026, and just as I once bet on Saudi Arabia in 2026.