France v Germany - Friendly - Bremen, 2/29/2012

i thought it was a pretty good match from france and a deserved victory; the germans were poor sports to stop trying in the last 20 minutes. if not for an excruciating lack of sangfroid it would have been 4-0 at 90'. the reducer revealed a loss of concentration that can't be called any more than "unfortunate"... by then la messe était dite, and even a fluke german equalizer would have been gratuitous: they had been trounced at home and they knew it.

for a match in which we were supposed to get steamrolled lloris had surprisingly little work, the defense was fairly reassuring overall. my repeated comments that debuchy may be a good player but not good enough to disturb the pecking order at RB were thrashed: that was by far the best performance at that post we've seen in years; the job is not instantly his but a complete reevaluation of the hierarchy now seems necessary.

one could wish it could be the same in the midfield, but when one sees gonalons put in two excellent matches get left at home, while m'vila gets another automatic start only to play once again like a big girl's blouse, one is entitled to doubts. a. diarra finally starting a match on the bench may be a start in that direction; some may say his starting it in the stands wold be better, and in front of his TV ideal, but he was actually better than m'vila when he came in... though it's not completely fair to compare those who played against the very active and aggressive germans of the first hour with those who faced those of the last 30' who already seemed to be concentrating on which scent of shower gel they were going to use.

for example it would be unfair to say ribéry was crap and menez was great. menez did do very well, and despite a reputation for which he bears some responsibility was active both running and defending, but the main difficulty he faced was not dogged defending but dodging cynical potshots taken at him as he blew past. he certainly can run fast... if only he could think fast. it's perplexing to see a player so generally able prove so entirely unable to do anything en première intention. (i say this as constructive criticism).

nor can malouda be automatically considered to have put in a good showing despite a very savvy goal and an appreciable deal of running for an old man. then again, amalfitano was up against those same fonctionnaires à la retraite and he looked like a deer in a mercedes' headlights every time he got close to the ball.

giroud put in a fine first start in my opinion; débuchy handed him his goal on a silver platter, but his shot was luscious, and he was at the rathole for the second goal too... in fact he had been dans tous les bons coups and what else do you expect from a point man?... they don't all go in, not even if you're gerd müller.

final note: a couple of years ago i was angry to be subjected to a french telecast with bixente lizarazu showing such virulent favoritism in favor of bayern against lyon, but the fault was with TF1, not with liza: after all he played almost 10 years in munich. but he was also world and european champion for france so it was shocking to feel such a pro-german bias from him... he seemed gutted to see france go ahead.

very true but we'd need tow good ones and obviously none of the three we saw last night; none of them even remotely fill the bill, and they've had enough chances we can be reasonably certain they never will.

1) playing for the win in this nothing and i mean NOTHING to lose away friendly was a no brainer. 2) foresight? i think he wanted to give time to the candidate who had been given the least and came up lucky. it's not like he even had a rassemblement to check for form. 3) another no-brainer : valbuena has been on fire for a month. 4) more likely he was so scared by what MM's been up to at sochaux that he figured even nasri's pale first half was better than that.

but lolo does deserve much credit for the way the team has come together. despite a few very solid beefs i have it's clear he's doing a good job.

this.

all this folderol about "building" a national team for 2-3 years down the road is absurd. lolo feeding this mentality is practically criminal.

a euro or WC-winning national team is "built" in a matter of months, perhaps weeks. look at how domenech got us into the 2006 final: you can practically say that team was built during the tournament itself. you need the talent. all these countries have that... maybe even england. that takes a decade or more. then you need to get the right guys on the field the right day, fired up and playing together. that you basically make up as you go along.

consider 2002: everybody and their grandmother had practically given the trophy to france before the opening match. brazil? a lot of brazilians were already wincing at the humiliation they were expecting to endure. et pourtant...

very true. and let's not forget that domenech started his tenure by bypassing thuram, makalele, zidane... thinking he needed to start fresh right away to give himself two years to build a team for 2006. coming from the youth ranks he probably had concrete and valid ideas in terms of play and players. i imagine he had a master plan of great merit... on paper. one can even postulate that he already saw knysna coming when in 2004 he said things like "the EdF doesn't belong to anyone"; when one sees the proportion the ingérence of certain '98ers took on, one can't say trying to nip that in the bud was a bad idea in itself.

but it's not that easy. 2006 was probably a great eye-opener for him. or perhaps he read the parts in war and peace where kutuzov stars: a great primer in my opinion on how to manage an NT.

ironically, he let his pendulum swing too far. by june 2010 he was faced with half a dozen whippersnappers each thinking the EdF was their personal property. the rest is history.