Uruguay 0-0 France: no cohesion in attacking zones from either side
Group A is wide open following the first round of matches, after a draw in both games. The earlier game was open and exciting throughout – this one started well but faded badly as the game went on.
Uruguay’s expected 3-5-2 became a 3-4-1-2 with Ignazio Gonzalez pushing forward to play just behind Diego Forlan and Luis Suarez. Mauricio Victorino came in on the right side of defence, and Egidio Arevalo took the midfield role requiring the most positional discipline.
France’s shape saw one change from the outfield side which started all three pre-tournament games, with Abou Diaby coming in ahead of Florent Malouda, quite possibly after reports of a Malouda-Domenech bust-up yesterday.
Basic pattern of play favours France
Uruguay’s use of a three-man defence against a side playing a lone striker and two advanced wingers caused them problems early on. Franck Ribery created a great chance for Sidney Govou early on after skinning Victorino, who had come wide to meet him, before sliding the ball across the six yard box. Uruguay’s wing-backs started high up the pitch and looked to get forward, but this scare meant Maxi Pereira played a lot deeper, getting goalside of Ribery and effectively meaning Uruguay were doubling up on the wide players when they got the ball, with both the wing-back and outside centre-back.
In this sense Uruguay were fielding something approaching a back five, with two defensive-minded midfielders ahead. To add to this, they held a very deep defensive line and made it difficult for France to play any balls in behind the defence. The two deeper French midfielders had time and space on the ball, and Diaby was probably France’s best player. The problem was that the attacking players were crowded out, with Uruguay often outnumbering France 7 v 4 in the final third.
Uruguay’s forwards struggle
Gonzalez pushing so high up the pitch meant that Diego Forlan and Luis Suarez were forced to drift wider than you would expect for a front two, particularly when Uruguay didn’t have the ball. Although they didn’t track the full-backs, they did move into a zone that made it difficult for Patrice Evra and Bacary Sagna to get forward early on.
The downside of this was that Gonzalez moved into a more defensive position when not in possession, and so whenever the ball was played to Forlan or Suarez, they were isolated – being nowhere near each other, and with the wing-backs being pushed back by France’s wingers, lacking an out-ball on the flanks.
There were similar problems upfront from France’s point of view. Nicolas Anelka was completely anonymous in his lone striker role, barely having an impact either in terms of shooting or link-up play. Although he had an extremely difficult job, being up against three central defenders on his own, he didn’t help the problem by keeping the ball for too long and trying to beat his markers – something which never looked like happening with Uruguay having two spare men.
Midfield congestion
The two midfielders naturally cancelled each other out. Jeremy Toulalan plays a deep role, and ran into Gonzalez, whilst a similar thing happened with Arevalo and Gourcuff from the opposite point of view. Diaby and Diego Perez play between the creator and the destroyer, Diaby to the left, Perez to the right. Every midfielder had an opponent in their face straight away, with the exception of when Diaby received the ball in a deep area, which Uruguay were fairly comfortable with.
Uruguay looked blunt when attacking because of the lack of width from the wing-backs. Both Pereiras are at their best when motoring forward, but neither were able to. Gonzalez did nothing, Suarez received little service, Forlan’s first touch was excellent, but his final ball was poor.
Defending Domenech
Every time France don’t win, Domenech will be criticized, but tonight the theory behind his tactics was correct. He didn’t play a second striker and go 4-4-2 because that would have played into Uruguay’s hands – the South Americans still would have had a spare man at the back, and would then have had a 3 v 2 numerical advantage in midfield. Domenech’s tactic of pushing the Uruguay’s wing-backs back worked reasonably well as it meant France dominated the game – having 18 shots to 6.
Domenech also clearly instructed his full-backs to be more attacking after half-time, and Evra and Sagna’s influence on the game increased in the second half.
The main problem for France was that the attacking players were playing awfully – that’s not Domenech’s fault, at least in terms of tactics. When Ribery got space, he sent dreadful crosses in. Gourcuff’s first touch deserted him and used the ball poorly, even when he had options. Govou did little on the ball, but his movement into a more central position helped Sagna get forward into a crossing position.
It is Uruguay who should receive the criticism – rarely getting more than three players forward into attack and showing no ambition throughout the game. France were playing full-backs, Uruguay were playing wing-backs – and yet it was the French pair who got forward more.
Substitutions
Nicolas Lodeiro and Sebastien Abreu were sent on to try and change thing upfront for Uruguay, but unless the system changed, the forwards were unlikely to have much of an impact. Domenech stuck by his system and was entirely justified in taking off Anelka and Gourcuff who both lost the ball far too often, and the replacements of Thierry Henry and Florent Malouda made sense.
The dismissal of Lodeiro changed the game little – it meant Toulalan had more time on the ball, but he’s hardly the player to use that freedom to create chances.
Conclusion
Frankly, it was a poor game and both sides showed little creativity.
Uruguay can be made to look very average by occupying their wing-backs with advanced wingers. Their shape gives the opposition full-backs time on the ball, and they need to get forward to draw Uruguay’s seven defensive players out of their deep positions. Suarez and Forlan seem to be expected to fend for themselves if the wing-backs don’t get forward, but they play too far from each other for this to happen.
France are probably not as bad as this game made them out to be. They’ll probably be more suited to facing Mexico in their next game, as Mexico play a much higher defensive line and are prepared to throw their wing-backs forward into attack.
Uruguay 0-0 France: no cohesion in attacking zones from either side
After seeing this match. I think that those two teams are the ones that are gonna be out of the World Cup after the group stages. Seemed like those two teams are out of ideas. In a way, it isn’t really surprising given how they qualified for the World Cup.
Also, Uruguay needs to do something with their discipline, it seems like it’s a tradition of them to get red cards. Amazing!
Excellent report.
Mark Lawrenson’s repeated criticism of Domenech for not going 4-4-2 is exactly the quality of analysis I’ve come to expect from him, sadly.
It was a pretty horrific match to watch, especially in the second half. The 0-0 draw between the two in 2002 was just as painful. Gourcuff and Ribery both had extremely poor games IMO — the former in particular. It seemed like every time he got the ball he managed to pick out a Uruguay player with a pass, or a sent a shot into low orbit (or almost out for a throw in one case).
Gourcuff and Ribery kept having shots that went literally nowhere near the goal. I’m not quite sure how that’s possible for a professional footballer – I mean, 20 yards out and they were causing more danger to the corner flag than the goalkeeper.
Im watching the replay on espn3.com right now, and there was a sequence midway through the first half when Gourcuff, Ribery, Govou and Anelka all lost the ball by passing it directly to the opposition’s marker. Malouda has to start instead of Govou next time, for Sidney has not shown a single thing this game…
In hindsight, I wonder if Domenech regrets leaving out Nasri in favour of Gourcuff ! Nasri suffers a bit in England because the refs tend to overlook robust tackling, but would have had no such problems in the WC. With that fear removed, he could have been a devastating player in the Gourcuff role and delivered some excellent balls to Anelka. I believe Govou muffed the chance of the game around the seventh minute when he failed to latch on to an excellent cross by Ribery who faded thereafter !
I agree that there is clearly room for Nasri in that team, arguably to start. He seems to have improved his strength and overall game since joining Arsenal so he could be a great attacking option in the centre (as he has that defensive midfielder part to his game as well as he has shown at Arsenal) perhaps as a direct swap for Gourcoff, and also out wide as I think he’s a much better player than Govou.
I think the key phrase here is “could have been”. No coach out there would risk a once in four years cup just because a player could have been better. Gourcuff performed during the season and Nasri didn’t, that’s why the choice was made. Having said that, Domenech’s squad selection has always been rather peculiar. Even though I don’t agree leaving Gourcuff home in favor of Nasri, Nasri should have been brought in instead of someone else.
I seem to recall Gourcoff being in your top 5 players you were anticipating seeing at the World Cup on Twitter. What’s happened to him? Is it simply that like most of this French side he has no confidence under Domenech? He seemed to be playing in his preferred position so, like Ribery, really shouldn’t have any excuses for how poor he played. Is it that his time at Milan actually wasn’t that unlucky and he simply doesn’t have the ability to control games when the opposition doesn’t allow him time?
God knows. There’s rumours that the other French senior players don’t want him in the side…
Do you why that would be so? He seems like someone who fits with this team in terms of playing style. It must be a locker room issue.
Yes it seems there is a locker room issue here.
I am obviously talking about Henry, whose onfield relationship with Zidane was inexistant, and Anelka, whose favorite move of the past months is to drop deep in Gourcuff’s zone,
What’s most strange is the lack of support from the rest of the team, and specially from Ribery. Their 1st games together showed great understanding though. But given Domenech’s selection for the World Cup, I am not expecting Ribery to act in a confident way, on field or in the locker room. The non selection of Nasri and Benzema has taken a lot of power out of his hands, leaving it to declining Henry and Gallas. Hence leaving room for rumours, allegations, mind games and other non so team spirit behaviours.
Gourcuff’s problems with some seniors is nevertheless not the only thing at stake. His current form and confidence are not at the top. His last 6 months with Bordeaux were pretty pale, and he could do nothing to prevent his side to sink from Christmas on.
The World Cup comes at the worse moment for this talented 10.
It seems 3 man defences are reappearing slowly with both uruguay and mexico using them today and we also expect chile to use it too.i thought diaby played well as he was one of their better players.i would love your input on this ZM do you think diaby can become a complete box to box midfielder like essien?he divides opinion among fans but one thing is for sure he sure is talented.some say he lacks a ‘football brain’ but do you think he can be a real midfield powerhouse?
for every brilliant mazy run, and every inch perfect slide rule pass, he runs down a blind alley the next minute and gives a woeful pass straight to the opposition. he has everything in his locker to be an absolutely unstoppable midfield powerhouse, but not sure he’s ever going to live up to his (that dreaded word coming) ‘potential’
Spot on. Diaby is such an interesting player for he possess a nice touch on the ball and runs effortlessly, but the intent of his passes is often misguided (offside) and he goes into tackles rather heartlessly. The first issue can be fixed with experience and time; the second is more complex since it probably stems from the horrific injury he sustained with Arsenal a few years ago. We’ll see; it seems Wenger likes him awfully lot…
It was Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde – graceful slalom preceding final-third cluelessness! 3 tournaments under Domenech – France have drawn all of their opening games 0-0. They must long for England (and Gerrard) to open up with again, a la 2004…
Surprising! Did you really watch Diaby yesterday? He lost very little balls if any, only towards the end after tiring. please stop regurgitating. Watch and note. Diaby has improved tremendously, yes, he is not the finished article, but waht you wrote there is history.
But for someone who got into those positions as often as he did, the end-product was lacking. Note my use of ‘was’ – my comment relates to what Diaby did in the 90 minutes against Uruguay and not his entire career to date.
I’d love to see what Diaby can become after playing all the games of a whole season. He said a few days ago that he’d never been able to play more than 20 games in a row since 2006, the year he got his leg broken by a Premier League trademark tackle.
I recall the groans of my company when Diaby was listed in the side, and there were a lot of 4 letter words used I must admit.
But I like him and you’ve described him well. Considering he was France’s best player in a side of one or two superstars I think he gave a good account for himself. However I think he’s one of these footballers who fans just can’t take to – the languid running style and semi-common mistakes. I think he’s underrated.
I’d give Domenech a little criticism for not inspiring confidence in his players. None played like they were in a World Cup. It was dire, but then again Anelka was isolated because Govous and Ribery make for an imbalanced shape and the susb were downright strange. Just when he brought on players that make runs, Domenech took off Gourcouff who could wire passes through.
Ideally, he should give Cisse a run out since he is the most mobile and will create more chances and get involved with the wide men than Anelka.
great post, can’t believe i almost fell for the lawro rubbish. but whilst changing the formation wouldn’t have done much, i still don’t really see what anelka for henry really did as a substitution; wouldn’t it have been better to move anelka out to a wing bring henry on for ribery? anelka looked fairly sharp bar the lingering on the ball.
i think anelka definitely needed more support. this doesn’t mean playing 4-4-2 and losing out in midfiled, it just requires a no.10 who was going to get in and around anelka more, and even beyond him when anelka came deep. gourcuff showed absolutely no desire to do this, and put in an absolutely woeful display – reminded me a bit of djorkaeff 2002 against senegal – is zidane’s shadow destined to haunt france’s talented attacking midfielders for years to come?
anyway, better option for me would have been ribery central from the start with malouda left side. ribery would have provided much more cut and thrust, and france could have kept 3 vs 3 in central midfield.
It’s hard to play with any confidence when the people on the pitch don’t want to play with you. Neither Anelka or Ribery passed to Gourcuff once the entire game, preferring instead to dribble into crowds of 5 defenders. As a French fan, I’d be perfectly happy if Anelka doesn’t see the pitch again for the rest of the tournament.
Govou and Anelka are too slow in turning, and Ribery is too selfish and his dribbling tendency is awful. However, I feel Goucurff was either overawed or too eager to impress on his first world cup. Also his dribbling and physicality is not quite effective as Diaby’s. Also Anelka is not mobile enough, he doe not do many runs, and Govou loses the ball too much. I would like to see Domenech tweak the team a little, let Diaby and Goucurff swap positions, Diaby would closer to Anelka. He should play Malouda for Govou. he will certainly regret for leaving out Samir Nasri who could play Goucurff’ role better than Goucurff, or Govou’s position.
To be honest if Nasri did play there could of been every chance he would of played just as bad and we’d be all be calling for Gourcuff to be the squad….
Will also be happy if Anelka doesn’t play again this tournament for France, would give him a nice rest for Chelsea next season. Remains one our best players, and is the best player I’ve seen on the ball since Gianfranco Zola – France don’t use him to his strengths.
anelka plays best behind a mobile striker or when he has 2 wide attackers then come come in to shoot. i think the best option for france might be to use gignac just because he doesnt drift as far off position.
i think france might think about playing a 4321 if they wanna have a chance.
Great, Great analysis!
Nothing to add, nothing to subtract.
Hey, ZM, do you think that any of these two teams can defeat México or South Africa?
I reckon Mexico’s system will play into France’s hands…
To be fair, Mexico’s system will play into pretty much any good team’s hands. Two defenders in the back when they have the ball? They’ll be murdered by any good possession team capable of hitting on the counter, and their attack is pretty toothless.
Clubless Guille Franco as your starting striker? Bringing on 37 year old, 2 mile/hour Blanco when you want to break the bus? Mexico look very weak.
Wasn’t Uruguay’s system also playing into France’s hands ?
Just kidding. Of course, as you mention in your analysis, it will all depend on France’s attacking players. Diaby can’t do everything.
A sound analysis.
I enjoy watching the french national team play but the system is not suited to their players.
Tonight they effectively played 4-2-3-1 with Diaby & Toulalan the ’shield’ and Gourcuff the attacking central midfielder.
Tonight this was exposed as both Toulalan and Gourcuff are very slow in terms of movement and distribution. Hence, Anelka, Ribery and Govou were starved of quick ball. Only the faster Diaby looked like he could cause problems – I know!
The french full backs also had lots of space in which to attack and create 2v1’s but failed to do so until the latter stages.
The unusual french coach could do worse than get his full backs to attack more and replace Toulalan with Malouda.
I thought Toulalan was one of the better french players on the night – and i have seen him in champion’s league games (even in central defence once), just sat at the back pinging passes all day – if Domenech had put in a more defensive minded midfielder next to him, france may done better – instead he put in diaby next to toulalan. Diaby, no doubt had a decent game, he has got a brilliant first touch for a big guy – but they both do similar things and to my mind, Toulalan is the better option there, more experienced and calmer on the ball.
It looks to me that you can play against France the same way teams play against Arsenal.. Defend deep and narrow and let them cross the ball..
If Lawrenson got anything right (and Domenech got anything wrong), it was asking why Govou stayed on the pitch so long – he was pitiful in the second half.
Lodiero should have started for Uruguay. He’s better than Gonzalez, whose lack of mobility was one of the reasons Forlan and Suarez had so little support for most of the game.
Personally, I though Diaby was awful. Toulalan was the best French player, he was always at the Uruguayan midifeild and made a few good attacking moves. What I think would have worked was to have Henry on the left, swapping with Anelka. Ribery on the right wing, and Gourcuff in the middle with Malouda supporting him. How’s that sound?
its unfair on Ribery and Gourcuff to be leaving out Anelka from the ‘awefuls’ category tonight. all three of them had a woeful time out there. i was surprised Domenech didn’t bring in Malouda earlier than he did. but maybe he was happy with a point as oppossed to changing the personnel and risk getting caught out.
Playing as rigid in attack as France did does not work fielding only quick and agile flair players. Plain and simple.
Gignac as an actual presence in the box came on too late and didn’t receive any service, Valbuena who could have changed the game by his work rate alone didn’t play at all. While you certainly can defend Domenech’s starting line up the substitutions were poor.
Rigid formations tend to benefit from specialized players and while it is somewhat unclear if the coach intended to play that way or the attackers just didn’t follow orders it didn’t work out either way.
In defense of Gourcuff, he was often outnumbered in the centre when going forward. Still a poor performance by him of course.
Intresting as always, a very dissapointing game which hopefully will be the first and last of its kind during the WC. partially disappointed with Gourcuff, anyone who has seen his goal against PSG (and if you haven’t i highly recomend you do) will know he is a special player and the comparison with Zindane aren’t wide of the mark. the french performance reminded me very much of England under maclaren, very good footballers playing at no where near their ability and general lack of understanding . on a lighter note anyone else think that Govou is France answer to Darius Vassell.
Good analysis, ZM, although I have to disagree when you say Domenech did not make an initial mistake in his tactics. Starting the game with Ribery on the left hand side led him to cut in naturally onto his right foot, wandering into the centre packed with Uruguayan defenders. For Govou to drift in as a naturally right-footed player, however, is inexcusable!
France needed their players to run straight and exploit the space behind the Uruguayan wing-back, and that was clear even in the opening stages. Although he improved things slightly by encouraging Evra and Sagna to attack more in the second half, thus troubling the two Perreiras more, Domenech should have had the decisiveness to correct the mistake in his starting line-up much earlier than the 75th minute, taking Ribery or Govou off (probably the latter), moving them to the right and Malouda to the left.
His formation was indeed theoretically sound, but the way his players implemented it, and therefore his ability to lead them effectively, was definitely worrying. As Daniel N mentioned, making a straight swap of Henry for Anelka when that clearly wasn’t the most pressing concern, only a few minutes earlier or not, didn’t help to inspire confidence in his players. Gignac arrived far too late and was played on the wide right (France seemed to end the game in a 4-2-3-1 with Ribery in the hole).
I understand Uruguay’s reluctance to attack more; their 3-4-1-2 was clearly not working (for reasons which I’ve learnt thoroughly from reading this blog for the last few months!) but while moving to 4-4-2 would have given them more presence on the flanks and perhaps helped them support Forlan and Suarez more easily, they would have given France a 3-v-2 advantage in the centre which would have caused different problems. Considering France have the strongest team in Group A on paper, I think Uruguay can be pleased with their point. They are a similar team to Mexico, with a more assertive strike force. With a little more tactical variation against South Africa, they can be confident of qualifying to the next round.
Mostly agree with you, however Mexico and Uruguay are polar opposites. Mexico plays through their midfield and their strikers are relatively ineffective; their defense is very weak. Uruguay lacks creativity in the midfield and relay on their two strikers for a few moments of magic; however, their D is fairly organized (can’t see them allowing any goals to Mexico and SA).
Didn’t France hit their stride during last WC when Ribery played slightly behind Henry, with Zidane in support? Also, what is exactly the difference between 4-5-1 and 4-2-3-1?
I see your point about Mexico and Uruguay – although they use similar tactical systems, both employing three man defences, they vary in their strengths and weaknesses. If Uruguay have the stronger attack and defence but Mexico the stronger midfield, the game between the two should be fascinating. I suspect it will tip Uruguay’s way.
The main difference, I’d say, between 4-2-3-1 and 4-5-1 is the positioning of the central midfielders. 4-2-3-1 has two deeper midfielders in the middle of the pitch, two wingers and an attacking midfielder supporting the lone striker. I understand that in 2006, France played a 4-2-3-1 with Makelele and Vieira protecting the back four, Malouda and Ribery on the wings and Zidane in the hole behind Henry. Obviously Makelele and Vieira are different types of player, the latter being more dynamic but their starting positions remain the same.
The system Domenech is pursuing this time around is closer to a 4-1-4-1, better suiting the players he has available now – he can’t help it being a weaker squad than in 2006. In this system, there is no specific attacking midfielder, with two neutral midfielders supplemented by a lone defensive midfielder (Toulalan behind Diaby and Gourcuff). 4-5-1 is a general template, simply implying five midfielders, two on the flanks and three in the centre – 4-2-3-1 and 4-1-4-1 simply position them differently, although when I hear of 4-5-1, I traditionally think of 4-1-4-1. Perhaps ZM could help me out on this.
DIaby played inbetween Gourcuff and Toulalan, so hard to say whether it was a 4-1-4-1 or 4-2-3-1. I’d go 4-1-4-1.
Good analysis, although not sure Domenech should be completely exempted from blame.
I thought he made his substitutions too late, long after it was clear that Uruguay were happy to settle for a point, and then brought Gignac on out of position on the right flank. I agree that he got his formation right at the outset, but I thought that his reactions to events during the game were extremely sluggish.
What he should have done, though? Maybe Malouda earlier would have worked, but there’s obviously some discipline problems going on there. Gignac, Cisse…couldn’t see them making too much of an impact.
I made a suggestion just above which I’ve realised I didn’t fully expand: if Malouda had started on the left with Ribery on the right, the pair would have been more inclined to make the run towards the byline behind Uruguay’s wing-backs, potentially splitting their centre-backs to deal with them.
Indeed, France were more threatening towards the end when they put crosses in instead of trying to thread it through the middle- the two incidents I think of are of Henry’s header from Sagna’s deep delivery and the Henry shot which was blocked by Eguran which Henry wanted the handball for.
If the game had carried on for maybe ten minutes longer, I think France might have nicked it, but they made their changes far too late. Domenech cannot afford to make the same mistake again against Mexico.
“if Malouda had started on the left with Ribery on the right”
Ribery doesn’t want to play on the right anymore. His best position is on the left, at least according to him.
Malouda and Henry for Gourcuff and Govou on the hour would have made things interesting. A shape like this for the last half and hour would have been nice to see, although probably too risky for the opening group game of a World Cup campaign:
———-Toulalan———-
——-Diaby—————-
—————————-
Ribery—————Malouda
——–Anelka-Henry——–
Domenech’s squad selections also haven’t helped. Nasri would have been a good player to bring on for Gourcuff and act as a creative influence in midfield considering the Bordeaux man had a relatively poor game. I think the coach has considerably limited the options open to him.
Just to clarify, I’m not suggesting that Domenech should’ve gone all out for the win, he obviously had to make defensive considerations with the dual threat of Forlan and Suarez, but it would have been nice to see a little more adventurousness from a group of players that is capable of playing a far more creative brand of football than they are doing at present. Then again, we can’t always have the spectacle that we want.
I agree on playing the two wingers, sadly he doesn’t seem keen on that. Can’t see the value in playing two up top though, not against a three-man defence.
Three CBs work better against two strikers than one but it doesn’t follow therefore that you should never play two strikers against it.
Both Anelka and Henry played a target man role, and France played plenty of speculative balls into them. If your tactic is to play the ball into a central striker then you’d be better off with two players in and around the box rather than one. You can then have midfielders attacking the box if play breaks down following poor clearances etc.
I believe France shouldn’t need to resort to playing speculative balls forward to an isolated target man who doesn’t naturally play that position, but that’s what Domench chose to do. If he persists with those poor tactics he’d be better off doing it with two up front no matter how many centre backs they’re playing against
not necesarilly, anelka drops very deep, generally 3 CBS VS 2 FWs is bad for the fws but with anelka coming deep it forces a CB out of position opening up crap loads of space behind them, if the other striker can take away another player it opens up alot of space. It can also be argued that in reality france played with closer to 2.5strikers as govou and ribery were meant to cut in and do something, instead they fell flat.
If there are discipline issues – and rumor suggests that there are – there’s not really any formation that will work when certain players simply refuse to give the ball to their playmaker.
How can a team expect to win when they are not willing to buy into the coach’s tactical schema to the point of intentionally sabotaging it on the pitch?
Correction:
Scotti didn’t play, Victorino played… The diagram says that Scotti played…
There has been alot of gourcuff hype.i think he is talented but i think he doesn’t have a strong mentality for big stage;he chokes alot.this will come with age.talent enough isn’t enough and maybe we have come to expect alot from young talented players due to precedents set by the likes of fabregas,messi,rooney…but its quite a rare quality especially at a young age.i hope he fulfills his promise though.
Bordeaux came up on top over Bayern and Juventus in Champion’s League group stage, and progressed to quarters final. So he is more than capable of performing in big stage already. I don’t think it’s fair to judge him based on 1 game, especially when the strikers had a terrible game as well.
I’m not doubting his ability but i don’t think he can dominate at the big stage consistently yet.juventus were also thrashed by fulham…
Even Messi and C.Ronaldo don’t dominate at big stage consistently.
I get your point but theres a reason cr9 and messi are ballondor winners its because even if they choke its rare and that makes them special especially at such young ages.gourcuff isn’t there yet but he is close.appreciate the input and would love to know what you think of diaby.cheers mate!
Great analysis as always, ZM!
Interesting enough, Tabarez (who is a very honest, old school man) said in the press conference that he was surprised by France’s 1-4-2-3-1, he was expecting a 1-4-1-4-1, and that the noise of the horns in the stadium made it impossible for him to correct his midfield arrangement in the early minutes. Seems that tactical surprises will pay double in this cup…
Genuine question here – this lark putting the “1-” on the front of formation notations, is that specific to a particular country or something? I’ve never seen it in the UK, is there any point in it? You’re always going to have a goalkeeper!
Cheers for the quote from Tabarez though. Bloody horns.
It’s fairly common in the Americas. I know that it makes no sense but people seem to write it often for some reason. On another note, I fail to see what govou brings to the team that malouda or Henry can’t do better. (malouda especially) also the lone striker role seems to not suit anelka who seems to be Better in a front two where he is more free to drift wide. Unfortunatley the form of benzema prevented him from being selected which is a shame since he’s proven at Lyon that he can operate in a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1. Having watched little of gignac and cisse recently it’s hard for me to say who should play there in his absense however. I’d like to see them in a similar shape but with Henry starting on the left flank and ribery on the right. Anelka can drop off more (almost as a false 9) with henry cutting in from the left without leaving no point of reference. Ribery’s fairly ambidextrous so he should still possess a decent left footed shot if he were to come inside.
Personally I don’t know why Domenich felt the need to play both Toulalan and Diaby, who are both more defensively minded players who sit deeper. Uruguay showed no interest at all in building attacks through the center of midfield, and Toulalan + the 2 CBs should have been more than enough cover to handle Forlan and Suarez. Toulalan is a Makelele type through and through, and while Diaby can occasionally play a nice pass he’s by no means a consistent offensive threat. With Uruguay playing a 3-man central defense plus a holding midfielder, not having another more central attacking-minded player meant France were outnumbered whenever they tried building attacks centrally 30 yards from goal. Why not drop Diaby, play Malouda out left, and give Ribery a free role in the hole behind Anelka?
ZM, didn’t Uruguay switch to a 4-4-2 in the second half? Ribery was crowded out, Anelka kept dropping too deep and Govou kept hugging the right touchline. France lacked dynamism and don’t have the variation to unlock defensive teams.
Uruguay knew their 3-5-2 could not compete in midfield with France’s single stiker system so they just parked a bus instead.
Withdraw the wingbacks to mark the wingers, keep the centrebacks in the middle to crowd the stiker out 3v1, park 2 defensive midfielders in front of the back five, and leave one midfielder upfield to support the stikers on the break and suddenly 3-5-2 becomes an effective way of containing 4-2-3-1. The price you pay is (i) if you concede you’re buggered because you don’t have the numbers upfield to compete (ii) the best you can hope for is that you’ll pinch the game on the break.
France really needed to disrupt Uruguay somehow. Anelka needed support and it should have come from the wingers comming off the flanks and the attacking midfielder. France were too static and played into Uruguay’s hands.
France needed 20 minutes of Nasri instead of Henry/Gignac. Just saying…
Agreed
I’m really disappointed by the Lodeiro sending off. Not that he can have any complaints about it, but he’s the one player in the Uruguay squad that looks capable of linking the midfield and attack. He’ll be back for the Mexico game if Tabarez decides to trust him again, but I doubt that he will.
I am the same. He was one of those up and coming players in the same bracket as Pastore etc who could really outstand some folk and make a real name for himself.
Unfortunately his World Cup is now surely over, and he was only on the pitch for 10 minutes or so!! Gutting.
Be interesting to see if any Premiership managers looking to defend away from home against bigger sides next season use this as an example and play what was essentially a back 5 rather than just packing the midfield.
Interesting what you say about not switching to a 4-4-2. Given how high up the third midfielder played for Uruguay was there not an argument to say that towards the end of the game it was essentially 2 on 2 in central midfield, take a risk by leaving it more or less three against three at the back by holding one full back and then using the extra striker to hold the ball up in the attacking third which they failed to do all match with just the one false nine in the centre. Maybe Gignac should have started to give a more orthodox focal point to the attack rather than Anelka’s roaming. Or simply maybe they needed more width and to push the full backs on more.
I’m with you, France should have traded midfield dominance for some presence in the penalty area. Once it became clear the wingers and midfielders couldn’t support Anelka, they should have put another striker up front. I know this might have played into Uruguay’s hands (5-3-2 is generally better against 4-4-2 than against 4-5-1), but Uruguay had already given up on the idea of competing with France in the middle. I think Domenech needed to take the chance of offering Uruguay an avenue into the game if he was going to beat them.
In the end, he left his side to bang its head against a brick wall. That’s 2 points thrown away because the coach was afraid of giving Uruguay a bit of space in midfield. Midfield dominance is supposed to be the means to attacking and defensive ends. It is not an end in itself.
A question of semantics but still; why the insistence that Uruguay’s formation was a 3-5-2?
If your full backs don’t cross the half way line then surely you’re playing a 5-3-2. The Pereira’s had less attacking responsibility then Cole and Johnson will have in tonight’s game but no one would think to say England will be playing a 2-6-2.
Just because you’re playing three centre backs doesn’t automatically mean that you are playing with wing-backs, this is a too common mistake. Mexico played with wingbacks Uruguay didn’t, and their formation should be notated accurately.
yup it was 5-2-1-2 from Uruguay.
I think Mexico’s more fluid 3-4-3 (played with an old fashioned pyramid style centre half will hammer this lot)
Yeah, fair point. I suppose it’s because the intention is the play 3-5-2, but you’re right, if up against wingers the wing-backs stay back, it’s pretty much a 5-3-2.
I agree but I do feel that the 3-5-2 and 5-3-2 are two of the closest formations to describe, they are in my eyes identical.
What a great article!
I was looking forward to seeing Gourcuff play but was too disappointed with his poor first touch and frequency in giving the ball away. At the beginning of the match it seemed France were playing a somehwat lop sided 4-4-1-1 as Gourcuff was very high up the pitch close to Anelka and Govou tended to drop deeper into somewhat right sided midfield berth.
I think playing Anelka in that system is a wrong move as he frequently drops deep looking for the ball with no one replacing his position with a surging run when he takes the defender out fo the play. WOuldn’t Henry have played this role better? Or was it as you said, the players not fulfillinf their roles i.e Gourcuff by not running into positions from deep and generally having a bad game that mae Anelka look poor?
Agree with Gourcuff! I don’t know what happen to him, he is very useless entire game.
the BBC had uruguay’s formation down as a 4-4-2… shocking! you’d expect one of the worlds biggest broadcasters, one that is showing the world cup in a football mad nation such as england, to at least do some research about a team, get their formation right, etc. such tactical naivety that is obvious around a lot of football pundits here (on TV / in major newspapers).
most of the analysis is probably spot on, but you always seem to criticise playing two strikers against a 3 man defence. your basis here seems to be because it would have meant France would have been isolated in the middle 3 vs 2. However, in effect, how does having just one striker up against 3 centre backs fare better than having a second one in and around him? I genuinely believe 4-4-2 would have been the better option, especially considering Loderio’s dismassal. 2 wingers to stretch the outside centrebacks and the french fullbacks to occupy the south american wing backs, meaning you potentially have 2v1 in the middle in favour of the french. From what I saw, the substitutions did nothing to change the game, or the shape of the French attack/movement.
“However, in effect, how does having just one striker up against 3 centre backs fare better than having a second one in and around him?”
Well it doesn’t, if you’re only considering the France attack v Uruguay defence. But moving to 4-4-2 would have met the France’s wingers played deeper, allowing Uruguay’s wing-backs to move higher up the pitch, and also would have meant Uruguay had an extra midfield player. Those two factors would’ve meant Uruguay getting more of a grip on the game. Chucking on a second striker is always tempting but it’s pretty much exactly what a 3-5-2 wants.
My 1st post here – great site and great work, there was really a big need for site like this.
Question regarding 3-5-2 vs 4-4-2 for yesterday’s game – what about wide areas? Wouldn’t having Sagna and Evra as overlapping full backs cause a problems for Uruguay? I don’t see Forlan and Suarez be willing to defend so deep, so every time Sagna or Evra would be in final 3rd, it would be 2 vs 1 on the flank, unless one of Uruguay’s CMs would help defensively.
Also, if Anelka and Gignac would play up front, I can see Anelka easily dropping when without the possession, to close down Uruguay’s DM, who was playing really deep.
Also, Toulalan was quite attacking minded yesterday (I saw him a few times in positions high on the pitch, where I wouldn’t expect him to be, if he would be a lone holding player, so IMHO France did play 4-2-3-1 yesterday.
Honestly no one expected him to be everywhere like he did !
We had not seen him so hot since his early games at Nantes.
Diaby-Toulalan is to me the great (and only) satisfaction of this 1st game.
great analysis as usual ZM and many good points above
What a frustrating game, from a French perspective
Uruguay played more 5-3-2 than 3-5-2 and defended well, France played 4-1-4-1 in possession and 4-2-3-1 without the ball as in 2006 (Diaby convincing in the Vieira role).
The system was fine but the men were not, the energetic Malouda and Cissé for Govou and Anelka would have helped a lot I think – with Henry and Valbuena as impact subs. I agree that Nasri for Gourcuff would have helped but Gourcuff’s inclusion is justified for his set piece delivery. The case for Nasri has more to do with the folly of selecting 4 strikers (Henry Anelka Cissé Gignac) in a squad of 23 when the team has a single striker system…
URU was quick to abandon parries forward if it seemed likely a counter would ensue. That congested the midfield as much as anything. It had to have been a tactical direction because it was constant.
The ball is causing problems in all matches – balls not kept down are whistling wide and over.
I thought France actually had some creativity on the ball, especially early on going through Ribery (they once forced the ball from right to left across Uruguay’s clutches to get it to Ribery early) but France abandoned that tactic for some reason and that was a bigger factor in dimishing their momentum after about the 20th minute or so.