PBP Thread: Match #6, Peru vs Denmark, 16 June 2018 [R]

Points are the only thing that gets you through to the next round. Everything else is forgotten and in the end is irrelevant.

 

Yet that wasn't what I was talking about.

Anyways, playing good football increases the probabilities to get the results and the points, although it's not a certainty.

Take Australia's case. No one seems to remember its level of play a few months ago, but its performance against France. Then it seems that people do remember and is not as irrelevant as you think.

 

I meant in 20 years time they won't go, wow Australia played well in that loss in the group stage to France. They will look at it and go oh 2-1 and move on.

 

It still isn't what I was talking about, but:

 

I've given Denmark a lot of crap and Peru a lot of praise but to be fair every team has got their nemesis that makes them look like a low ranked team. It's not just quality vs. lack of it, it's also the clash of strategies and mentalities that favors one in the end.

I've not seen the Danish NT play this poorly for God knows how long and I think it would be a mistake to draw absolute conclusions from this one game. Believe it or not but It's not the first time the Danish NT has been challenged at the back. There's a reason that our central defenders have central roles in Sevilla and Chelsea. Last saturday nothing just really clicked.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "defensive team". If you mean a team that defends this poorly or a team that plays defensively. If the latter, then I think it's unfair too. Denmark wants to play aggressively. There's a difference between a team voluntarily placing 11 men behind the ball and a team under high pressure being forced to. The way Peru played against Denmark with high pressure and giving the opponent short time on the ball is exactly how Denmark wants to play and how they for instance played latest against Mexico.

 

Well... the Danish defense only gave up 3 corners to Peru, while the Peruvian defense gave up 7 corners to Denmark. This should also tell people something about the actual quality of defending, when being under pressure....

 

Sure brother

 

For years I've read: This player plays here, that player plays there. That's relevant when talking about football club, but if a high level isn't translated into the NT, then it's irrelevant.

Should both GKs competed for MOTM, then sure. But it wasn't like that. The little players, who play for who–knows–which clubs, dominated the match, and shot on target constantly. It wasn't like Denmark scored a goal and went into defense, but long before that Denmark lost the midfield battle, and its defense was in troubles. Denmark went into defense most of the match, hence a defensive team.

That said, a GK is part of the squad and Denmark's made the difference. But from there to claim quality somewhere else, well, that wasn't seen in that particular match.

 

5 opportunities for Argentina versus 2 for Peru. And those Argentinian attacks came at the beginning of the second half; other than that, no shots on target.

Peru had to defend because there was no way to attack as, who knows why, Argentinians were tackling Peruvians from behind every time they tried to advance with long balls, and it seemed that the referee left the cards at home. Also, every divided ball was called as foul from a Peruvian.

Years ago we would have seen Peruvian losing control, but it wasn't like that on that match. They went for defending with the ball in the midfield, and they were successful.

 

A sure sign of a poorly defending side is that they panic and give up way too many corners when they are under pressure ... Denmark only gave up 3 and the Peruvian defense, that were under less pressure, gave up 7 .... luckily for Peru, Eriksen had an off-day and kicked some terrible poor corners in this match which is quite unusual ... just as that free kick that not only missed the target but went straight into the Peruvian wall ... the point still is, that even playing poorly, Denmark still won the match due to Eriksen ...

Try to consider what you think would have happened if it had been the other way around and Eriksen and Denmark had played up to their usual best and Peru had played as poorly as Denmark ? ...

 

Peru had 6 attempts on target and only half of them forced Schmeichel to really show his worth ... so Peru did not costantly shoot on target .. but obviously the big saves are what people remember and that stick in our mind ...





... and if you look at some more highlights, you will se that the Danish defenders actually did rather well most of the time, just outside or at the edge of the box ... btw, the opportunity in the 55th minute (4:40 into the clip below) where the two Peruvians miss their finishing in the box, was actually offside long before they got the ball, though the referee did non stop the play.... and obviously the penalty was made by a striker at not a defender , so we cant really pin that on the defense either :

 

No . I'm asking what you think would have happened if it had been the other way around? ... do you think Peru then could have won the the match like Denmark did ?

 

Well ... then you should also understand what I think of this Danish win ...

 

Is it safe to say that Kasper has made his father proud?

 

See for yourself.

Schmeichel does fault Gallese somewhat on the goal, saying he took a bad angle.

 

You have a knack for coming up with evaluation criteria.

Under this one, it turns out that it was Peru who was under constant attack. Since no one saw that, maybe your criteria is as good as your so called world class players.

 

The referee didn't call the first penalty either (a clear one), and didn't want to call the second neither. And while tactical fouls (to stop the rival's attacks) don't receive a card, when repeated they do. That referee didn't know that either. So, don't blame the referee.

Also, I remember several posts of yours blaming the lack of guts in those teams, who played against Denmark, when parking the bus and not allowing Denmark to show its real strength. Back then, that was a sign of inferiority... now it isn't. Interesting.

Anyways, Denmark won the match and the points. You should be grateful and leave it there. But you want to justify the unjustifiable. That's a bit too much.

 

Gallese was the MOTM because, apart from those few saves, there was nothing else to show. For that matter, Farfán missed a goal too, and Guerrero forced a save as well. That doesn't mean Argentina was under attack at all, or that its defense was overcome.

Check the game. Save those 10–15 minutes starting the second half, most of it was played in the midfield. Very different to what we saw in this last match, when every single time Carrillo or Advíncula advanced with the ball, we all knew they would generate something.

 

There are several ways to get out of the rival's pressure (ball on the ground, long air balls, etc.), but every time Peru tried one, the referee called foul... favoring Argentina.

At some point Guerrero, and the rest, just smiled. Peru was sort of doomed not to allow any divided ball... and is pretty difficult to try anything under such circumstances. Anyways, off–topic.

 

I have to admit I'm in full agreement here. Argentina dominated and Peru escaped. Gareca was clearly trying for a tie, and Peru got a bit lucky.