Pre-match: USA vs France; June 9th, 2018

a_new_fan · Jul 21, 2018

grandinquisitor28 said: ↑

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).
Click to expand...

we have a new claim for worst post of the year.

Just would like one simple answer...how do you play...more then to win the game? just trying to score more goals to score more goals isn't a better strategy you can't pretend that throwing guys forward doesn't make you vulnerable on the defensive end. Assuming that you will just score enough goals to cover the conceded goals is a very risky idea and far more so then playing just to go undefeated. France didn't have a modric ball controlling midfielder so the idea they should've just sat on the ball is crazy. it amazes me that people still confuse poss numbers with being offensive and sitting back and counter attacking is somehow a bad style. Also love the 'if they would've played germany...yeah the team that scored 2 goals in three matches and lost to south korea 2-0 in their must win match...really would've taken it to france lol)

grandinquisitor28 · Jul 21, 2018

In case you're unaware. When I see, "a_new_fan," as the poster, I ignore the material posted and move to the next post in a thread. No interest in falling into a swamp of strawmanning counterclaims, and personal attacks. How about steel manning someone's arguments for once? It's a rhetorical question.

a_new_fan · Jul 21, 2018

grandinquisitor28 said: ↑

In case you're unaware. When I see, "a_new_fan," as the poster, I ignore the material posted and move to the next post in a thread. No interest in falling into a swamp of strawmanning counterclaims, and personal attacks. How about steel manning someone's arguments for once? It's a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

the strawman argument is that france somehow didn't play the correct strategy while winning the world cup because a guy who has coached zero games professionally or on any level above u9 small town club soccer thinks he had a better strategy in which done better then winning the tournament which is amazing because winning the tournament...means you did the best. History will remember that france won and everyone else lost. I don't see the complaints about Spain winning with like 8 goals in the entire tournament people called that the golden generation and that tiki taka had changed the game forever...until people realized tiki taka is a lot of short passes that don't go anywhere if you just sit back defend and clog up the box. they also only gave up two goals in that tourney they were really boring. France scored 14 goals and gives up 6 but they somehow just boringly sat back and defended lol. guys like mbappe/greizmann/pogba excel with space in front of them sitting back and allow the other team to get spread out to do that is the absolutely correct decision. the teams that got it wrong are the teams that tried to go at them and fall into it with kante waiting to turn them over and start the break. the correct strategy is to sit back and defend and give france poss they didn't have a great passing team in tight spaces and it would've eaten up a ton of the space mbappe used to kill teams.

if you aren't happy I replied maybe you can explain it because both of the guys that have insisted france manager got it wrong have failed to impress so far. the one guy went as far as to say he didn't even get the right roster lol, he has yet to post his though.

I also haven't personally attacked anyone if someone makes a terrible post I have to call it terrible.

Hang man · Aug 1, 2018

grandinquisitor28 said: ↑

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).
Click to expand...

i could be ultra critical about any world cup winner.
Let's see:
74: Holland was the best team
78: match fixing
82: italy's best player was a match fixer. brasil was the best team
86: maradona was a cheat
90: germany was lucky to win the semi on penalties
94: brasil won only by penalties
98: france was lucky to beat paraguay in et and italy on penalties
02: rivaldo was a cheat at the team they played in the final was crap
06: italy won the final by penalties. should have lost to the usa
10:spain won all those games just 1-0
14:germany should have lost to argentina and ghana