France’s U-20 team would have better players than our “A” team. They are much more talented. That’s not to say we couldn’t get a result against their WC team, but it’s not close on talent.
I'll bet a manager other than Deschamps would have made a mess of that team. "Mess" mite be a bit over done, but let's just say they could easily have lost before the final. (Why did all the complaints about Pogba die out, e.g.?) b.t.w., wasn't that team in the final pretty much the identical team we faced?
The full-backs were changed. We faced Sidibe and Mendy. Deschamps gets credit for winning the WC, but I still don't think he did a great job. I didn't like a lot of his choices. Where I will give him credit, Pavard at RB over Sidibe was brilliant. I still think Mendy would've been a better choice than Lucas at LB, but I suspect Mendy might've not been fit. He's a much better player. I also don't think France had to play the style of football they did. A guy like Matuidi is just a runner and presser in midfield at the highest levels. Thats the type of player you have in there to play negative and reactive football. I'm not sure he would've even made the squad, if I was picking the French roster. His technical skills are woeful compared to his teammates. They had much better options, especially considering they are already playing a guy with average technical skills, like Kante. I can't give Deschamps credit for Pogba. Thats on Pogba. He showed up when it mattered. Up top, how many goals did Giroud score at the WC? What does he contribute? They had so many options besides Giroud, yet Deschamps insisted on playing Giroud every game, despite him playing bad almost every game. Deschamps also had the most talented team at the WC. It wasn't the coaching job the Croatian coach did.
Pavard made the incredible cross to Mbpappe for the tying goal against USA. the Croatian coach didn't come up with an alternative to poor crosses into the box.
Pavard and Lucas both were subbed on in the second half against the USA. Wasn't it Sidibe who made the mistake that lead to the Green goal?
its amazing that this is a real life post. The guy wins the world cup...and a message board guys say he didn't do a great job. You didn't like a lot of his choices.....so what they worked literally perfectly. you missed his best move and it was moving griezmann into the midfield. allowed them to be great on the counter attack. pogba is all over the place for his club while playing for a manager that is considered brilliant...in the wc he was consistently really good...but apparently he doesn't get credit for that at all. it must be easy to say you didn't like stuff..that worked...so a pile of negatives and the things that worked...he doesn't get credit for lol. who were the other options besides giroud? if you think he didn't contribute you missed the entire tactical setup they used. He put the team together brilliantly easily could be argued that he put together the best team possible. If you coached and understood you don't just take the best players and yell attack all the time you would understand why.
If people actually think that we are within the same level as France then they obviously know nothing about the game. Again, we have won 5 ganes at the finals since 1990. We are in reality a very poor soccer nation. We play the game, sure. But we just don’t produce good players. We will never elevate our level. I have actually given up hoping that we will actually improve. It is a lost cause. I will still watch but It will never change.
I don't think is just producing good players, soccer is a team sport. A well-coached team can out-perform a team of good individual players. Look at Japan, they don't have excellent players per se but as a team, they are a force to reckon with.
We will most likely be, once again taught this lesson but I doubt the USSF learns anything from that lesson. The dunce cap fits and they want to wear it.
Quality of players impacts chances of winning. Teams can deploy whatever strategy they please. The US have played various styles against major powers. For example, JK chose to go toe-to-toe. against Belgium. We had a ridiculous 52% possession percentage and as a result, were sliced open on the counter. Bob went with a counter-attacking strategy against Spain in '09. Mexico were stupid in the match against Brazil, in which El Tri had 52 possession, including 45% before the first goal. And get their arses whooped. It's easier to let the guys play than convince them to sit deep. Even, Real Madrid learned to go with the low possession % when necessary. But like France, they had learned the hard way.
Assuming the USA qualifies, which the team and federation are very capable of screwing up. Also, the "You can always depend on the Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else" quote was attributed to Winston Churchill, iirc.
In case you were tempted to see it, here is an objective review of Mamma Mia, Here We Go Again from Rex Reed of all people. We need Rex Reed to review the USMNT games. http://observer.com/2018/07/mamma-mia-here-we-go-again-is-plotless-artless-junk/
there is great irony in he jk comment you think jk had the us go toe to toe with belgium? only someone who didn't watch the match and looked at one stat...poss...would say that. and at the same time the thing everyone complained about jk was that he didn't play the attacking style people wanted.
so you watched that match and just saw the us attacking and belgium just absorbing pressure? think you have the jersey's confused. the us passing the ball around in their own end while belgium smiles at them isn't attacking soccer.
A more detailed and nuanced analysis of the v Belgium match: https://www.fourfourtwo.com/feature...um-advance-how-stats-zone-saw-belgium-2-1-usa
And I'll say again, JK erred in setting the team up so aggressively. We should not have been over 35% possession.
yeah I thought the same thing fabian johnson(left match in 32 min for yedlin) omar g besler beasley gcameron zusi jermaine jones michael bradley bedoya I mean talk about having those guys all on the pitch at the same time I couldn't believe it I mean talk about full attack lineup. you say 52 like its really 75 faking life as 52. so 35 is ok but 36 is bad lol...you are reading way too much about poss. Do you know what wasn't happening when the us had the ball? Tim Howard taking shots at a record pace. Wondo makes a tap in and the us would've had their biggest wc win in years and a huge upset win....but keep up with the bad strategy.
no I do now I mean moving cameron normally a cb into the dmid spot and on the wing having zusi and bedoya...I mean you are screaming attack. They just took it to the red devils from the start dominating poss really had them on their heels chasing the ball I mean attack attack attack.
Excellent counter. Here's my concern. How can you fairly evaluate a team that utilizes a strategy that proves effective and successful in a small sample size (a half dozen games+1 in a month) that deliberately fails to maximize their talent's ability to potentially reduce the likelihood of failure in said small sample size, and yet clearly could have lead to failure repeatedly (match vs Australia, match vs Peru, behind 2-1 in the 2nd half against Argentina, outplayed against Belgium etc) but did not? I recognize that Deschamps applied an approach that was designed to reduce risk, and raise chances of success, and that indeed it did prove successful. But don't we need to actually look at the entire game, rather than the scoreline to judge these things? Did they really reduce risk all that much? Against Australia they were 10 minutes away from a draw. Against Peru it was only Peru's poor finishing that kept the scoreline even before Mbappe's goal late in the first half. Against Denmark: well, you can toss that game out. Against Argentina they played a marvelous game, but also saw their defense tore open repeatedly, so I could see why Deschamps might look at that, and immediately doubling down on a conservative approach. Against Uruguay they lucked into no Cavani, so it should have been an open and shut victory and was for the most part, but then again they needed Lloris to come up with a thrilling save to keep their lead before a howler guaranteed the victory. Against Belgium they were outplayed, period, but won on a corner if memory serves (set piece) and then defended expertly once they had that lead. Against Croatia it's a hard match to evaluate. The first goal came off a dive. The second goal is disputed (I felt it warranted a penalty) then they just drove in the sword in that ten minute sequence to clinch it in the second half showcasing how thoroughly dynamic and better they were then everyone in that tiny window before Lloris goofed up and made the game closer than it needed to be. I look at their tournament and I see two things. #1: The best team at the cup along with Belgium. #2: A team that rarely ever played up to their ability, but rather just played well enough to win, and that is a VERY DANGEROUS game to play. They were lucky they didn't play Brazil or Germany, two teams notorious for being able to win in the same way and exploit teams that don't play up to their ability, but of course Germany didn't show up, and Belgium demolished Brazil in the 1st half, and then played a France like defensive second half, but far less effectively than France does. This is my conundrum. How do you fairly evaluate France? Do you just point to scoreboard? They won it all, so they were the best? Do you look for nuance in how they played and in how effective they were and in how effective such an approach can be long term? If you look at it that way, there is good and bad. There are the results, and often games that appeared locked in place as victories, but were often just one mistake away from blowing up in their face (then again their defensive approach did an excellent job of reducing the risk of such catastrophe's like Lloris' against Croatia). To my mind, you need to look deeper than the scoreboard and in this case you see the good and the bad, and the best of it was in this: France played the entire tournament deliberately with one foot on the gas and one on the break to reduce risk and maximize results and it worked. They are champs. They also, to my mind, would lose to a France coached by say, Guardiola, or a Tuchel probably 8 or 9 out of a 10 game series. I don't think this approach can win long term, and I don't think they played even close to their ability. That being said, it has been rare in recent years to see teams really play to their raw ability in major tournaments. France didn't at WC '18 Portugal wasn't close to the best team at Euro '16 but took advantage of a patsy schedule to get it done. Germany turned it on against Portugal and Brazil, but were otherwise just good enough to win at WC '14. I remember Spain being spectacular at Euro '12, but more prudent and results based at WC '10. WC '06 should've been won by Argentina, who I firmly believe was the best team there, but with 15 minutes left, they lost their keeper to an injury, immediately gave up the equalizer and lost in extra time (or penalties I forget which) to a German side they were better then. France was much better in the knockouts then in the group stage, so maybe France would've beaten them anyway? We'll never know. Euro '04 was won by a proud but nowhere near best Greek team that managed to shut down the best side in the tournament (the Czech's). WC '98 and WC '02 did seem to be won by teams mostly playing at the height of their powers. But really, for most of the past 16 years or so, its been rare to see a team win a tournament while playing their A game every game or most of them. I think Chile was probably that at the Copa America, and until they crashed out at the WC in '14, but other than them at the Copa America in '15 and Centenario in '16, and Spain in Euro '12, I find it hard to find a champ that played at 100%, foot on the gas, always, and won it all. So maybe France's approach was right, if cynical? Most champs since '02 have won in similarly uneven ways (Greece in '04, Italy in '06, Spain in '08 and '10, Germany sort of in '14 (moments of brilliance mixed with perfunctory play), and it worked, so scoreboard. I would just love this French squad to be coached by a brilliant mind that knew how to put together their attack, and defend well too. I want to see it. Maybe it imploded Brazil '82 style, but it could be a beautiful testament to the game. It wasn't in this tournament (though the tournament itself was the most entertaining I've seen, and the knockouts were actually mostly good which has been a rarity in recent years).