The true peak of their defence was 96-98. After that, they of course had great defs still playing great, but in NT tournaments, they didn't deliver as well as before when you look at the amount of conceded goals. France: 96: 2 goals in 5 matches. 98: 2 in 7. 2000: 7 in 6 Spain in 2010 equals France's best (2/7). But Spain's best is Euro 2012, in which they conceded 1/6. If you want to take top two tournaments, for France it is 4/12, while for Spain, 3/13. My whole point is to say that while France's defence is absolutely great, it is too much regard it as a fact that it is the best ever. Some very solid arguments could be made for other teams, Spain, for example. But I don't mean to take anything away from France - they were exceptionally brilliant.
Nice work. Thank you very much. This prove France's defense(96-2000) was unbeatable. Do you know about Italy's defense or Spain's defense? Italy 2006 and Spain 2010 only conceded two goal just like France 1998.
True, but France's tactics were not irrelevant to their defending either. Besides, if some team's tactics help their defence a lot, it's good defending - after all, defending doesn't happen by defenders only, as it's part of the game as opposed to a loose element separate from the rest of the game. Like, you can say Italy's tactics help their defence - it's true, but it's nothing away from their defending.
France relied more on their back-four however (and defensive midfield too). The team was not a possession-based one as Spain but rather a counter-attacking team that didn't seek to retain the ball as much as other teams (at least until 1998-99). That means the defensive unit had to be strong when the opposite team had the ball. But all-in-all and as you say only the result matters and in that regard Spain was great when it came to prevent teams to score goals.
France defense's absolute peak was world cup 98 when every player of the defensive area was at his absolute best but there is no sign of decline between 98 and 2000 actually. It's only after Blanc retired after EC2000 that you could clearly see a clear drop in quality, but not before. The EC2000 qualifiers showed some great moments of defensive work. At first sight France looked 'weaker' defensively in EC2000 by conceding 7 goals in 6 games. Thuram and Petit were probably a bit less dominating than two years before and Deschamps had past his best but the defense remained extremely solid. Looking at details, 3 of those 7 goals came vs a very good Netherlands team whereas France was already qualified and played with its reserve squad in which Desailly was the only usual starter. Additionally, you have to take into account the insane quality of opposition that naturally exposed the defense more than usual : Denmark, Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Italy.
How is there not "a sign of decline" from 98 to 2000, when in 98 they conceded 2 goals in 7 matches, and in 2000 they conceded over triple amount of goals in lesser amount of matches? One can explain it away the way you did, or in other ways, but I wouldn't just buy it. They had decent opponents in the 98 World Cup as well (like did Spain, which was part of the debate). And if non-starters are so much worse than the starters, it's a sign of thinness in quality and a weakness, and anyway teams are judged by their entity, not by their starters only.
You need to look a bit further than 6 games to see if there's a decline or not. One can see that between 1998 and 2000 France have the same figure of goals per game conceded than between 1996 and 1998, more or less : I can't see where the decline here. And Euro2000 opponents were overall way better than those of WC98 (except Brazil), no matter how you see it. That year France had certainly one of the hardest path to the win -if not the hardest one- among all other EC winners. About the games vs the Netherlands : the Dutch players wanted to win that game whereas the French -quite honestly- didn't really care because they didn't need to. Losing that game was even the best option since finishing 2nd of the group meant that France would play the 1/4 and 1/2 final in Belgium -ie almost at home- and not in the more hostile Netherlands and the players -of course- knew that. Lastly, and whatever you say, playing with 10 subsitutes vs an almost full-strenght Dutch team in Amsterdam certainly makes a difference, regardless how good your substitutes are (and quite honestly, saying that that team was short of quality is quite dishonest looking at the depth of their bench).
Totally agree. Each of france's defender in world cup 98 was best player in their possition. Thuram was the best defender overall and of course,best right back. Lizarazu was the best left back(better than Roberto Carlos,i think). Blanc-Desailly was the best CB,too bad Blanc didn't play in the final. Thuram easily was the best defender in euro 2000. And in euro 2000, France faced with 7 teams Denmark: good Czech:good Netherland:Strong Spain:Strong Portugal:Strong Italy:Strong
Once earlier, I was asked about Zidane's performance in this final and how it compared to Henry's and Totti's. I did the analysis but never got down to posting it. Thought this might be the right place to do so, ___________________________________ ----------------------------Zidane--Totti--Henry--- ___________________________________ First Half Goals ----------------------- 0--------0-------0--------- Assists ----------------------0--------0-------0--------- Secondary Assists ---------0--------0-------0--------- Successful Dribbles--------3--------2-------4--------- Chances Created------------0-------0-------1---------- Times Possession won------2-------2-------0--------- Fouls Won/Suffered--------1-------4-------4---------- Successful Passes-----------25------19------3---------- Chances Missed-------------0-------1-------0---------- Times Possession Lost-----4-------4-------3---------- Fouls Committed-----------2-------4-------1----------- Unsuccessful Passes--------2-------4-------3---------- ___________________________________ Second Half Goals ----------------------- 0--------0-------0--------- Assists ----------------------0--------0-------0---------- Secondary Assists ---------0--------1--------0--------- Successful Dribbles--------4--------2-------2---------- Chances Created-----------4--------2-------1---------- Times Possession won-----0-------0------0----------- Fouls Won/Suffered-------5-------4-------3----------- Successful Passes----------28-----15-------4----------- Chances Missed-------------0-------0-------2--------- Times Possession Lost------3-------5-------5--------- Fouls Committed------------2-------3-------3--------- Unsuccessful Passes--------10------3-------1---------- ___________________________________ Extra Time Goals ----------------------- 0--------0-------0--------- Assists ----------------------0--------0-------0--------- Secondary Assists ---------0--------0-------0--------- Successful Dribbles--------2--------0-------2--------- Chances Created-----------0-------0-------0---------- Times Possession won-----0-------0------0---------- Fouls Won/Suffered-------1-------0-------0---------- Successful Passes----------9-------2-------1----------- Chances Missed------------0-------0-------0---------- Times Possession Lost-----2-------0-------1---------- Fouls Committed-----------0-------1-------2---------- Unsuccessful Passes-------0--------1-------1---------- ___________________________________ Full Match Total Goals ----------------------- 0--------0-------0--------- Assists ----------------------0--------0-------0--------- Secondary Assists ---------0--------1-------0---------- Successful Dribbles--------9--------4-------8--------- Chances Created-----------4-------2-------2---------- Times Possession won-----2-------2------0---------- Fouls Won/Suffered-------7-------8-------7---------- Successful Passes----------62-----36-------8--------- Chances Missed------------0-------1-------2---------- Times Possession Lost-----9-------9-------9--------- Fouls Committed-----------4-------8-------6--------- Unsuccessful Passes-------12-------9-------5--------- ___________________________________
If you ask me he was not. Of course he had a good tournament but not as much as two years before. He even clearly struggled vs Spain. Nesta was great, as was Laurent Blanc.
Actually, I partly agree. 6 games (or 7) isn't the all-decisive factor in who's the best in defence. When we talk about NT football, the major tournaments are what matters. If you win the tournament, you're the best team. If you concede the least, it's not exactly as straigh-forward as that you're the best in defence, though. Some teams do have different tactics - some prefer to grind 1-0 wins, some prefer to open up 3-2 wins. I think it boils down to what we mean by defending. Conceding as little as possible? I think it's a good starting point, although admittedly it's not an unproblematic definition. I don't understand how you can argue that between 98 and 2000 France conceded per game as little as than between 96 and 98. In those three tournaments, they conceded 0,4 goals/match, 0,29 and 1,2 respectively. The gap between 2000 and the earlier two is notable. I also kinda disagree about the level of opponents being all that different, but this comes down to the unsolvable debate of how you can compare teams of different times etc. It's true France has had tough opponents, but any other candidate in the debate of the best defence ever has met their share of tough opponents, as well. I'm not so sure about the France - Netherlands. Both had advanced, and the winner would win the group. As for playing with 10 subs, I agree it makes a difference. But the reason it makes difference is that the level drops after the starters. If you say the team didn't lack quality depth in defence, then playing with subs shouldn't make that much of a difference. To sum, my two cents: if I'd have to say what's the best defence ever, I'd struggle with the exact criteria. What is it? Something else than conceding as little as possible? Thus, I think any "factual statements" with no clear and agreeable criteria are dubious. As to my opinion, it's tough to be better than Spain's peak year(s). But the best France is either equal or the smallest step behind. Probably one's personal bias decide this. Some older teams might be in the debate as well, but these two I'd say are the top two.
nice and very details data Even though Separate data is more appropriate for Henry (as striker) like shots/shots on goals, one on one, dribble success .. Italy were kinda parking the bus vs France in the final (followed their exhausted game vs Holland in SF)
the way in which zidane is overrated is laughable. His performance in 2006 was anything of special just played a great game against Brazil, in the rest was average.
did you watch? Zidane was very good to great in R16 (Spain), QF (Brazil) and SF (Portugal) now compared to Messi WC14 goldenball winner eek Messi very good to great in 3games GROUP STAGE , and good in R16 = then disappeared in last 3 inportant games!
I was talking of all games, not only those of EC 96, WC98 and EC2000 but also friendlies and qualifiers. The team's gpg ratio reached 0.9 in 2000 which is a relatively high figure indeed but you can explain it I think by the number of games (17) and the quality of opposition. The year before (1999) and the year after (2001) it was 0.6 gpg. The other figures are 0.4 gpg in 1996, 0.9 in 1997 (this high figure can again be explained by the quality of opposition that year since France played vs Brazil, Italy and England in Le Tournoi), 0.7 in 1998 (poor friendly games before the WC explain that 'average' mark). I'm not sure exactly how to use these figures honestly considering it's hard to compare years but I don't think it shows a clear decline of the defense actually (even after 2000 contrary to what I wrote earlier). I'm not saying France desperately wanted to lose that game but they surely didn't fight as they would in normal circonstances for the reasons I exposed earlier (they were already qualified and playing in Belgium was more important than winning the group in their mind. That's what they said after the tournament was over BTW). Actually, you're right about the lack of depth in defense : Lemerre only picked two supplemental defenders in his team - Candela and Leboeuf. Both were fine players but they were not exactly world-class. That lack of defenders implied that Karembeu -a midfielder- was asked to play right-back vs the Netherlands. Given he had no sense of positioning at all, it was a disaster. Also, Bernard Lama -a truly dominant GK in his prime- had clearly past his best. Naturally, the choice of picking only 6 defenders meant that the squad was absolutely packed in midfield and attack. Lemerre took a risk but it paid off. I bet the WC90 Italian defense might be considered, no ?
oodo Amazing stats. Thanks. I try to find it but i can't. Where do you get this? By the way, zidane and totti played good but henry was far better in that game. He made italy's defense look like fool.
Of course Thuram was worse than two years before. Thuram 98 is the best performance for a defender in history. Italy's defense was great in 2000.But i think france's side was better, Thuram was the best overall. . And Thuram was awesome in the final. He at least dribble pass Maldini twice
agree with you there France 98 were the very first WC winner by their sole defense line with Deschamps Thuram Blanc Desailly and Lizarazu Barthez ... (in attack only Dorkaef and Zidane) Italy 2006 were the 2d team led by Canavaro Buffon, with Materazzi Zambrotta Grosso and Gatusso Pirlo (in attack only Del Piero and Totti)
I think qualifiers can be taken into consideration, but friendlies not (as they are training sessions in the guise of matches). But even so, the tournament goals matches should matter the most. As for the quality of the opposition, all the candidates in the debate of the best defence ever have met tough opponents. France has, but so have Spain, Italy, etc. I kinda agree, but the point is that I don't think Netherlands gave their absolute best either. They had qualified already as well. Yes.
Thanks. I had collated that data by going through the entire match and noting down all those incidences myself, for all three players. So there might be a couple of discrepancies, but all in all it is as accurate as I could make it. I thought Henry was great in the beginning of the match, especially in the first half, but that his effectiveness waned in the latter stages of the match. Totti and Zidane on the contrary seemed to come into the match more in the 2nd half. Thanks. Regarding the data like shots/shots on goal and dribble success, I have covered it under goals/chances missed and successful dribbles/unsuccessful dribbles, in a way. And the parking of the bus was more so post their goal IMO (which was understandable) for Italy, since till then the attacking play seemed pretty even to me from both sides.
This league executive implies the seeds for French decline became already set at the 1998WC win. http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/aug/20/bundesliga-germany-world-cup-success
You're ringht. Thanks. Here is Totti in the final Here is Henry in the final( i posted this in page 1) Totti had a great vision but his dribble couldn't compare to Henry's. Totti couldn't dribble past any France's defense(Lizarazu,Thuram,Desailly or Blanc). Lizarazu was excellent, marked Totti very tightly. Henry toyed with Italy's defense. Nesta,Cannavaro,Maldini... were humiliated. Henry ran much more than Totti or Zidane.
Yeah. Same for Brazil,Netherland,Chile... A lot of great player don't play in their country. For example, Neymar. He played very great in Brazil but he must go to europe to prove that he is great player. When he played in Brazil,people call him a youtube star. But if he play great in barcenola,he will be a great player,not youtube. Bundesliga is strong league. Bayern,Dortmund...are great teams so great player play for them. Same for PL,Laliga. Netherland's league isn't strong as Germany,England,Spain now.