Mexico 2-0 France: Organised v disorganised
Tactics can only explain a team’s victories or defeats to a certain extent – this awful French performance was quite clearly a failing in terms of motivation, team spirit and countless other factors that aren’t directly concerned with strategy.
Nevertheless, tonight did demonstrate something important – a well-drilled teams of decent individuals will generally triumph over a disorganised bunch of top-class players. France were woeful, but Mexico were excellent.
France made one change from their first match, with Florent Malouda replacing Yoann Gourcuff, whilst Mexico also made a single switch from the draw with South Africa – Paul Aguilar dropped to the bench, and in came Hector Moreno.
Neither of these were straight swaps, however. France shifted to a 4-2-3-1 system, with Jeremy Toulalan and Abou Diaby sitting in front of the defence, the Arsenal man slightly ahead. Frank Ribery played in a central role, whilst Malouda started from the left.
Mexico’s system saw Ricardo Osorio shifting out to right-back / right-wing back, and Moreno playing in his central position. This immediately worked well for Mexico, because they had a defensive-minded player on the right, against the double threat of Malouda and Patrice Evra – and Ribery, when he drifted left.
Mexico nullify France through sheer numbers
Javier Aguirre deploys his three forwards in a very interesting manner. They all broadly stay high up the pitch against the opposition defence, but the central striker, Guillermo Franco, is often the one who drops deepest. Today, he actually did a very good defensive job on Jeremy Toulalan, France’s deepest midfield player – sometimes moving goalside of him when Mexico were without the ball. This meant that Mexico often had an extra central midfield player (creating a 4 v 3, if you include Ribery), had both the wide players covered with wing-backs, whilst having 2 v 1 in defence.
There wasn’t enough movement from the French players to really worry Mexico; France had slightly more possession (53%), but never in dangerous areas, and they created few goalscoring opportunities because none of their inventive players had time on the ball. Each of France’s six furthest-forward players were generally occupied by a Mexican, with two spare players providing cover – one in defence, one in midfield. The centre-backs often had time on the ball if Carlos Vela and Giovani dos Santos were wide, but their distribution was poor and lacking in any real purpose.

The first-half warning about balls over the top was not taken
France high line
Maybe it was the fact that they often had no striker to deal with, as Franco was dropping deep – but those two centre-backs played a suicidally high defensive line. This was almost exposed twice in bizarre circumstances in the first half – not because Mexico played balls over the top for onrushing forwards, but because backpasses from Abidal and Gallas were underhit and almost let Mexico in for one-on-ones. The problem in these instances was, of course, the poor touches of the centre-backs in playing the ball back towards Lloris rather than a problem with positioning, but it did emphasise how high the defence was playing up the pitch.
The warning came in the first half when a Rafael Marquez chipped pass put three Mexico players in (see above) – all clear of the French defence who couldn’t get back in time, but Carlos Vela slashed his shot wide.

The crazy situation for Mexico's first goal, where Hernandez had the majority of the French half to himself
It was only when substitutions were made in the second half that Mexico broke through. The goal, when it arrived, was incredibly simple. Javier Hernandez picked the ball up inbetween France’s midfield and defence, with no pressure on him. He laid the ball back to Rafael Marquez, then sprinted in behind the defence – Marquez’s chipped pass was both exquisitely timed and beautifully placed, and Hernandez had 40 yards of space to himself, to round Lloris and score.
That effectively decided the game. Not once did France look like scoring.
Salcido crucial
The most interesting feature of Mexico’s game was the different nature of their full-backs. As previously mentioned, Osario was up against France’s biggest attacking threats and was playing on the same side as the energetic Efrain Juarez, and so generally kept his position. On the other side, however, Carlos Salcido was barely threatened by the ineffectual Sidney Govou, and had space ahead of him. Even if he got forward, he didn’t leave Mexico with a shortfall in defence – and therefore took every chance to cause France trouble. He got into the box for a shot at Lloris when Gallas hesitated in the first half, and soon after swung an excellent ball into the box which Lloris headed against substitute Pablo Barrera.
This is the best thing about Aguirre’s fluid system – they have two centre-backs that remain in position, but the three players ahead of them can all either play as defenders or midfielders, and therefore their roles can be varied to suit the circumstances. With France playing only one striker, Marquez played in midfield, but could have moved back to defence to maintain the spare man had France gone 4-4-2. Similar things can be observed of the full-backs. Usually these three players shift to either form a 3-4-3 or a 4-3-3, but tonight it was a combination of the two in order to get the best out of Salcido, who produced the best full-back/wing-back performance of the tournament so far. We’re increasingly seeing lopsided systems in attack, but here Mexico showed that a lopsided defensive shape can work well too.
Conclusion
List France’s biggest five problems at the moment, and none will involve tactics; Raymond Domenech has no authority within the French squad, so his instructions are almost irrelevant. On the pitch, the team has no cohesion, no organisation, doesn’t look like scoring and always looks like conceding. The change in formation did nothing to solve these problems and the substitutes brought little to the side, and yet Domenech was seemingly happy to pass up his chance to make a third change.
Mexico were the complete opposite, and offer a great deal from both an entertainment and tactical point of view. In some respects they are similar to Marcelo Bielsa’s Chile side – always three up top, but with the ability to shift between a three- and four-man defence according to the formation of the opponents. They lack defensive solidarity at times and won’t score enough goals to be in with a serious chance of winning the competition, but they are a very interesting, likeable side.
France aren’t definitely out, and Mexico aren’t definitely through – but only one side deserves a place in the knockout stages.







Marquez can make some excellent long passes, as he showed France tonight.
He is a genius player, absolutely wonderful. He struts around the pitch like he owns the place, defends from midfield, creates from defence. Just does whatever he fancies, he’s like a centre-back given a free role. Step forward to chip a pass over the defence with the outside of my foot to create a goal? Don’t mind if I do. Tremendous player, ten years ahead of his time.
Hahaha, serious man crush on Márquez. Can’t blame you, he is class. Fortunately, Piqué seems to be taking heed of the expert
México are really interesting and fun to watch, let’s hope they make it into the next round together with Uruguay.
Well…Pique surely learned a lot from Marquez, his vision and position, age doesn’t forgive at 31, he’s lost speed, he is not the player he once was. that’s why Pique(22) took his spot in the Barca squad. But has given a solid 8-9 years to European football.
That pass on the first half to Vela, was pretty good, and Vela as always messed up, I could NOT believe that he didn’t pass it to Gio. that’s why vela never plays on the Arsenal team, pathetic…
Salcido… pretty good job. Marquez Great..
Ten years ahead of his time– or fifteen years too late more like. With talk of the modern sweeper, he is a better example than the frequently mentioned Pique, in my opinion. Guardiola raved about Marquez, only to find him suspect in defense. Aguirre has mitigated his lack of pace and consistency while taking advantage of his tackling and distribution. Interesting that he got the armband back too.
Will this formation work against a team like South Korea or Argentina because of players like Park and Tevez? I have my doubts.
I really agree with you about Vela, I dont like seeing him play because he is always missing the defining shot. Im also super happy that Chicharo scored a goal that I think he needed to maybe put Guille on the bench.
Haha, love the description.
Football’s first playmaker defender? Great to watch and a very interesting player tactically. Sadly I don’t think he’s that great a defender any more, around 2006 I used to regard him as one of the elite defenders in the world but he’s increasingly becoming clumsy and his appearances seemed to coincide with Barca defeats this season.
You can see the influence he’s had on Pique though.
Yes, I agree. His injury problems seem to have had a big effect. You’re right, in 2006 he was awesome. His performance in that cracker against Argentina was amazing, he was absolutely everywhere! Sad he’s not the player he once was, but the chips over the top were awesome tonight, and he handled Ribery perfectly.
Agreed, although I do remember some great defensive games by Márquez as late as CL 2009, against Lyon in France for instance. He absolutely neutralized Benzema that night.
In this system, he’s playing a role that would suit a Franz Beckenbauer if he were playing in today’s modern game, a sort of very withdrawn field general staying in the central channel with impeccable technique and great vision. I think Torrado, though, is their most complete soccer player.
France played Mexico all wrong. You MUST counterattack against them. They are so fast in the attack and have such good technique in all positions that you can’t allow them to make jailbreak runs from midfield. Let them bang it around, show their skill (which is considerable) but stay in passing lanes, pound on them when they have a tough touch, and when they turn it over in the middle third, run right at goal with the ball. Otherwise they will slice you up like a fat Normady pig.
Assuming the draw against Uruguay, and assuming they go through to play Argentina- What happens then? I like the idea of Mexico against Argentina, and the idea of them just blitzing Veron and Heinze. Given his position, does Marquez keep an eye on Messi?
I think that Mexico will beat Uruguay. However, if a Mexico vs Argentina is gonna happen then it will be totally interesting… a rematch from the 2006 World Cup.
Marquez is a phenomenal player and believe it or not only underrated by Barcelona fans, but underrated by Mexico fans. He has taken a lot of unfair blame by the Mexican press.
Incidentally, his nickname in Mexico is “El Kaiser de Michoacan”, for those than don’t know, Michoacan is his home state.
One last thing, the Barca press always omit Puyol’s howlers because he is their Catalan prince, but those that know football know that Marquez has skills and passing ability that you can’t teach and that are nothing short of spectacular. 50 yards, he can pinpoint a pass on a diagonal, every bit as good as Becks.
Yes, I do know he makes mistakes every now and then but who doesn’t.
Last, I wish folks oversees would have gotten to see Claudio Suarez in his prime, even a stronger defender than Marquez, slightly less of a passer but every bit as good. In those days Mexican players just didn’t go oversees because the Mexican clubs basically forbid it or paid them too much.
This man speaks the truth. I live in Mexico and the media (and fans) doesn’t give Marquez the credit he deserves. And I really don’t know why. He’s not like Hugo Sanchez, who (unlike Marquez) acts like if the World doesn’t deserve him. Marquez is a great player (yes, he makes mistakes… but then again, which player doesn’t make mistakes? even Cannavaro and Puyol make them) and he is a down-to-Earth person. On the other hand, players like Salcido and ‘Maza’ Rodriguez (that are good players as well) rarely get criticized anymore. (Well, Chivas’ fans actually criticized Rodriguez quite a lot when he was on Guadalajara) Why is that? Maybe because Salcido and Rodriguez look ‘more mexican’ than Marquez? I guess we’ll never know.
And Claudio Suarez was a great player as well. An very good leader on the pitch and outside of it.
No way man… The Criticism has a lot to do with the fact that he’s the captain of the NT, and Marquez has been and still is the face of Mexican football in Europe and around the globe. Thus, Mexicans expect a LOT from him, and when he makes mistakes people get disappointed, specially the media won’t let him make mistakes because they have no other football Idol who truly represents the whole nation. Nothing to do with looks..
With Maza Rrodiguez and Salcido people and Journos are just happy these players are performing well, when they don’t, Journos and people are not disappointed because somehow it was expect it that they were going to screw up.
Marquez, Chicharito Hernandez, and Gio dos santos will always be the most loved and more criticized because they are idols.
Rafa is just a fantastic centerback. I always forgive him his howlers, because everyone does them once in a while, but the kind of passes he can play, his game reading, vision, still no centerback in the world coming close to him.
I hope he can fix it to stay 1-2 years at Barca as some kind of spiritual guide or leader for the young kids coming up, because they can learn a lot form him. Due to injuries, his football career at the top might be over, but he can give the team a lot.
Amazing a player going forward (from defence) and general awesome positional play, tackling, etc…
There were probably a few too many loose passes last night that give managers heart-attacks. The kind of errors you really can’t get away with at the very top. Probably hence his withdrawal of prominence from Barca (along with the rise of Pique)…
ZM I’m hoping you respond to my request. What is it that you do to analyse a game before, during (especially during), and after?
Fellas, we beat Germany…
I think Mexico are the dark horses of the tournament . France , they lacked passion , they played like they didn’t care about the match . Gallas was dreadful in defense , I think he should be dropped for his performance in this match they never looked like creating any chances.Marquez was excellent with this kind of performance I am sure Guardiola is thinking about starting him in the 1st XI.
I wanted to know what ZM thinks about all the fuss about Jabulani.I think the ball has got some problems , but the goals let in by goal keepers(Green,the Nigerian goal keeper and Algerian goal keeper) were all howlers by them not because of the ball, just lame excuses…
There was some controversy over whether Abou Diaby should start. He was on vacation today. He never had the ball. I’m not sure whether it was because he was never in good positions or because his teammates wouldn’t pass to him. Toulalan was everywhere but it didn’t matter. Gourcuff would have been an interesting selection against the slow Mexican central midfielders. Of course, the selections were odd but the players were just listless. Why was Anelka replaced at the half? Is Gignac any better? No. Cisse for Gouvou or Anelka would have been interesting too. I just don’t understand France. The manager is an imbecile. His exclusions of Nasri and Mexes seem especially foolish now.
Mexico were okay. Their match with Uruguay will be interesting. I see them losing and then losing to Argentina in the next round due to their slow central midfield that would have nightmares against Maradona’s starting lineup from yesterday. Their defense was admittedly strong. The attackers repeatedly took bad shot instead passing to teammates. I think that was just nerves though. Overall, the most viewer friendly day so far.
In case you haven’t seen the news, the trouble in France isn’t really an idiot manager. Apparently there was a big fight between the players and some of them don’t want to play together. So he has a tactically strong lineup against Uruguay where the players play keep away from Gourcuff (who was in the playmaker role and should have had the most touches) or you have the weird lineup you see here where players pass but you have Ribery as the central distributor (I realize how silly this sounds). I still can’t find an excuse to play Govou though.
Of all France’s individual failings I think Govou is the worst. He contributes nothing, and to think of the stars left out for this guy.. Beggars belief.
Anelka’s off home after abusing the manager. Isn’t it more a matter of Anelka’s style of play not fitting in with him being the centre forward the French manager wanted? What was different when he played as the sole striker up front for Chelsea?
Anelka was awful and useless, droping back deep on and again when it was unnecessary. Gignac, who is not a whining star, at least tried to bring some presence as a centre forward. I say “tried” because Anelka didn’t even.
Did you guys know the French coach picks his players because of numerology or astrology whaterver?
Au Revoir Les Blues… I wonder why they changed from their 4-3-3 (vs. Uruguay) to a 4-2-3-1 today… It was interesting to see how Dos Santos often drifted inside to (successfully) harass Abidal and/or Gallas when Mexico didn’t have the ball… He provided a good outlet for the long ball for Mexico (strangely though, b/c he isn’t exactly the biggest or most physically imposing figure around, but it shows what determination and passion can do for one)
Marquez was probably my man of the match tonight, Salcido ran him close though. I was really impressed with Mexico’s very fluid system in the friendlies leading upto the tournament.
France’s high offside line was something I had noticed in the warm up games against Tunisia and Costa Rica. The don’t appear to have learnt their lesson but this is as you mention the least of their worries with squad fracas being top of the agenda. Is there any possibility that this could be sabotage? You would hope not!
Laurent Blanc won’t have to do much to improve on the last 4 years of Domenech…
Excellent stuff, as always. I’d add only one thing:
Mexico play a very complicated system. It works because, in addition to following Aguirre’s instructions, the players play it a lot. Even four years ago under Lavolpe Mexico’s system was notable for its fluidity.
Domenech, on the other hand, has chopped and changed his system and personnel several times in less than a month. Granted France weren’t doing much in friendlies and qualifiers before this change, but adding another complicating element was never likely to make this France side any better.
“”Only one side deserves a place in the knockout stages”"
Absolutely. That’s why despite being French, I was willing Mexico on. I’d much rather watch them in the knockout rounds than such an awful, horrible France team.
Indeed. Nothing against France as a whole, but let’s be honest, they’re horrible. Football’s a team sport and they’re not a team. I’d even happily take a Uruguay-Mexico ‘fix’ to get them two through…
I agree. Although to be honest I don’t think we’ll need a fix. So far my France predictions have gone almost exactly to plan. I was telling everyone I met that France-Uruguay would be 0-0 and after seeing them play England and Italy I predicted a 0-1 win for Mexico. This is the one time in my life that I’ll wish I was the gambling sort. For what it’s worth, and as I’m on decent form, I can see a really pumped up South Africa beating a France side that quite evidently doesn’t want to be there.
Actually, and I’d like your opinion on this, France not being a team seemed to be a competition-wide problem in the first 16 matches. The way I saw it the lack of goals stemmed from a lack of chances, and the lack of chances stemmed from a lack of teams playing as teams. I think in the first 16 matches a distinct minority of teams seemed to be playing with an idea of what they were actually trying to achieve. And of those who did seem to have a real plan, the majority were so terrified of defeat they focused on not losing, IE defending as teams but not capable of attacking in the same way. Jonathan Wilson has discussed the propensity of ‘broken teams’ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/jun/17/world-cup-2010-full-backs), which probably amounts to him expressing what I was thinking in more specific terms. What do you reckon?
That’s a very interesting piece. I often worry about this thing with 4-2-3-1s when certain types of players are used, you end up with six defending, four attacking, and no link.
The lack of attacking full-backs has been disappointing, but Mexico here were a good example of a team that got one forward to great effect.
Agreed. France has the worst system 4-2-3-1… they always ended up with not link. I mean Abu diaby didnt know what to do with the ball. Maluoda always far wide open on the left clashing with Ribery all the time. and Govou on the right useless. I don’t know why Gorcouff didnt play. I am sure he will be the leader once Blanc takes charge of the NT.
First and foremost, that was horrible. Secondly, I wouldn’t blame Toulalan or Diaby, they were not among the divisive members of the squad, they haven’t had especially good tournaments but neither and really strong strong CM players.
Other than that Ribery-Anelka-Govou were just shocking.
Ribery demands that the team be shaped around him and yet every free kick and every dribble was a fail. You rate yourself far too highly Frank.
Anelka is of no use to the team (sorry, we’re not talking about Chelsea here, we’re talking about France form) and should never wear the shirt of the national team again. Drops deep, strutts around, looks sulky and offers nothing. No pride, no passion, no leadership, no interest.
Yeah yeah yeah, some people will say “oh but it’s all Domenech’s fault”. Yes, he is a terrible coach but once those 11 players are on the pitch only they can show their pride, discipline and passion and there was all too little of it tonight, especially from the front players.
Laurent Blanc must must must base his selection of earning the shirt not on being an undroppable like that God awful Frank Ribery. He would do very very well to start by dropping Ribery and Anelka who for me were by far the worst of a bad bunch tonight. Yes, Evra was easily beaten before the penalty but France had plenty enough possession in the final third but their front players were awful. They could’ve stayed out there for 900 minutes and not scored.
There is obviously the issue of not committing enough men forward for set pieces/corners etc but that is only one minor complaint compared to the rest of the tosh on display.
Gourcuff is the best player to emerge in France since the 1998/2000 winning players and must be made the centre of Blanc’s France team. If this means dropping divisive players like Ribery and Malouda then so be it. Blanc has already demonstrated that he knows how to build a team which is worth more than the sum of its parts, the true measurement of any team and his relationship with Gourcuff will no doubt influence his decision.
France badly missed Lassana Diarra in midfield as well. Toulalan is simply not a strong influence or dominant presence in that area. Diarra is not perfect either but there is a reason why Toulalan is always paired by a stronger player for France or Lyon.
I don’t think that it was Ribery’s idea to play this position …. he made it quite clear at Bayern Munich that he don’t like to play in the center… he is also not a leader and he doesn’t demand that the team is shaped around him….the last games he played for Bayern (LvG let him play on his favourite position) he was excellent…
…in this French “team” every good player will fail at the moment because it is just not a team and there is no support for each other ….
The general consensus is that he wants a lot of responsibility in this team, if not to play centrally then to have the ball played early to him as often as possible so that he can go on one of his amazing dribbles….oh wait you got tackled. Sorry Frank.
Given the amount of dribbles and selfishness which he shows for France, we can only presume that he rates himself highly. France will never have a great team based around him, he is just not intelligent enough and you always want a prominent player centrally in France, it is not by random that they produce these strong physical presence players who like to play centrally. Malouda will do perfectly fine on the left if he is interested, Ribery is not a better player than Malouda.
It is up to Laurent Blanc to try new players and new options but given their good experience at Bordeaux, I can only see Blanc keeping Gourcuff as a central part of his team. The 87 generation also need a kick up the back side, it’s now or never if they want a good career in the French team, improve for your clubs to justify selection and then give it your all, the single most infuriating side of tonight’s game, lack of effort, slow jogging, going through the motions….”can we go home yet” they might as well have asked.
If this is what you state, i am pretty sure you dont watch a lot of Bundesliga or Bayern Munich. Everyone knows that the left wing is Frank’s favorite position. He ‘IS’ better than Malouda in that position.
‘France will never have a great team based around him, he is just not intelligent enough and you always want a prominent player centrally in France’
Ofcourse. He himself says that his best position is the left wing. So its natural that his performance in centre position would not be that great. Also, football is a team sport. History says every team that focussed on building a team around a certain player has never seen much success.
Frank is a great player, but the manager should be wise enough to play players in their best position to gain maximum out of it.
Well there we go, that’s your opinion on Ribery but I don’t share it.
But I think you misunderstood my point. To have a team built around a player with his contributions at the core of the side’s creativity, a player doesn’t have to play centrally. Whether on the left or centrally, Ribery’s play smacks of me me me. Last night he was pathetically poor with the ball at his feet but it is not the first time that he has attempted too much. I don’t have to watch Bayern Munich regularly to know this, I watch France and BM in the Champions League.
You say that football is a team sport, yet he was playing as an individual last night. An inevitable conclusion is that he, as one of the undroppables under RD, just rates himself too highly. He needs to be dropped, preferably permanently in my opinion. He is not a truly great player, he has spent most of his career showing his best form in patches, I would never want to base my team round him. Gourcuff is a far superior player to base a team around and Malouda if he plays like he did last season for Chelsea is well capable of playing a role for the team better than Ribery did.
If France were ignoring the manager’s instructions as much as we are led to believe last night and Ribery truly believed that it was in the team’s interests for him to attempt a dribble every team he got the ball then he is more of a fool and a brainless footballer than I previously thought.
Only a staunch Ribery fan could defend his contribution to the French team in the last couple of years.
There were rumours that Gourcuff was dropped because the rest of the team didn’t like him and everyone except Toulalan refused to talk to him at all.
Yep, I’ve heard those rumours too, think that says more about the rest of the team than it does about Gourcuff though.
There were two key moments in the game for me. The first was the injury to Vela. He has not been performing for Mexico during the tournament and has been guilty of blowing clear chances and overcomplicating build up play. When Barrera was brought on he added balance to the side as he provided width on the right flank to complement that of Salcido on the left flank. It stretched the play to create space for the rest of the Mexican team to exploit centrally, provided crossing from both flanks and forced Evra and Sagna back which isolated Govou and Malouda respectively. The second key moment was the inclusion of Hernandez. He is a player Mexico have sorely lacked for his ability to link up with the rest of the team and play on the shoulder of the last defender. Mexico always create chances and in Hernandez they have a form striker to convert them. He made a big difference as Mexico had a focal point of their attack to create for and a striker in an advanced position to take advantage of their counterattacking game.
As for France they sorely lacked Gourcuff to have a player creating centrally and picking out the runs of Malouda, Ribery and, to a lesser extent, an isolated Anelka. It should come as no surprise that Gignac was equally as poor as Anelka because the problem was not the striker but the complete lack of creativity behind him. At least Malouda and Ribery were moving and trying to an extent but the less said about Govou the better. Putting attacking to one side Mexico initially has a lot of joy because the French attacking midfield trio stayed forward when the ball was lost which left their team exposed and over run on the break.
I’ll cut it short for now because I am writing from my phone.
France condition now reminds me of Germany 8 years ago – still some good players, but no team spirit, no orientation, a few players with big egos….all this results in no momentum at all…this is no “team” and it seems inevitable: they need a new coach and new players (Henry retiered already anyway…) and a new style and have to start from scratch like Germany did after 2002….
This would be the same Germany who came second in 2002?
…the second place was achieved by sheer will and a good team spirit, but their game was very, very limited (acutally they showed their best soccer in the final)… the success to reach the final masked all their limitations, but all felt apart during the European Champion ship in 2004…
Actually, Germany in the 2002 had team spirit but was limited.
that’s exactely what I said … the team felt apart after! 2002 … when I said “they showed the best soccer in the final” then I referred this to all their games through the WC 2002
“…the second place was achieved by sheer will and a good team spirit”
so how can you compare france ‘10 (“still some good players, but no team spirit”) to germany ‘02?
what I compared was that Germany achieved a quite good result in 2002, but you could see that there was no future for this team and the style of soccer they played. They had the required team spirit, yes, and the stamina, yes … but today it needs even more to be a brilliant team. The same with France: they achieved a quite good result in 2006 (mainly due to the quality of their “old stars”), but you could recognize that this team had no future…they should have started from scratch to built a new team after 2006, but it is always harder to do than to say (public pressure … politics …you have to qualify…)… now they mucked around for 4 years and what we see now is the result of this contemplating approach….Germany needed 8 years for this transition and while the soccer world is suprized by their “Brasilian style” now it isn’t really a suprize considering that half of their team are players from their U21 European Champion team… and no doubt France has to go through the same transition and have to start from scratch….
…just to clarify this: I should have better said…. “like Germany did after the desaster of the European Champion ship 2004″….. This desaster was predictable and started in a way with the success of reaching the final in WC 2002 which leads to the impression that you don’t need brilliance as long as you can compensate it with stamina and team spirit…
An interesting match, despite the whistle-happy referee. I’d be interesting in hearing your opinions on why Gourcuff has been ineffectual for the national side. Against Uruguay he was poor, his decent use of a dead ball didn’t make up for bad first touch and distribution. But is he being let down by Domenech’s tactics? Or the lack of options in front of him?
Personally, I’d like to see Gourcuff sat in front of a single-minded defensive midfielder, and with plenty of attacting options; Ribery on the left-wing, Malouda on the right. Ideally, there’d be two decent strikers in front of him, and here I believe lies the problem. Anelka has gone missing against Uruguay and Mexico, too isolated, and he’s hardly the kind of player to drop deep and bridge the gap between midfield and attack. The options on the bench are hardly inspiring either.
Look at Mati Fernandez for Chile, he has time, space, and a wealth of attacking options, he dictates the attacking phase of their play. Even when playing with four at the back, Chile excel at getting full-backs forward (a role Evra is tailor-made for). Why isn’t Gourcuff having a similar influence?
Gourcuff was unable to build up any sort of chemistry with the other players up front with him. And who can blame him? Anelka and Ribery hardly ever passed him the ball, and they were never in good position to take the pass from Gourcuff. It was more of a collective failure than anything else. No player can thrive in a team with no team work.
I’d probably have to have seen more of France over the past two years to judge on Gourcuff, there seem to be some strange factors at work within the French dressing room.
Re: Fernandez, I think he benfits hugely from the attacking full-backs forward, as you say. Because the wingers stay wide and the full-backs come inside, not only is the opposition defence stretched, you often end up with three players (Fernandez and the two full-backs) in a rough enganche position. That means Fernandez is one of many creators, rather than the sole one – that’s a point Tom Williams has made about Gourcuff, that the 4-2-3-1 put too much responsibility on him.
Not that he was much better in the 4-3-3. He was doing such silly things in the opening game that I don’t know what to think. Missing the goal by 40 yards probably isn’t down to tactics…
Gourcuff was instrumental in the qualifications, in a 4-2-3-1, and he had only a couple of caps at the time. France played quality games vs Serbia at home and in Romania with him arguably the best player on the pitch.
I honestly don’t think that his performance against Uruguay was down to his lack of quality, more to shattered confidence. Hopefully, I can’t see Blanc not being able to bring back the best of him, as he did in Bordeaux.
He seems to be some kind of a spoiled kid. Intelligent, clever, gifted, tactically aware (his father is an absolutely brilliant and unconventional manager in the Bielsa style) but seems to collapse in an adverse environment (like in Milan). He’s been great with Bordeaux, where Blanc built the team around him and he had a great relationship with Chamakh.
“Malouda on the right.”
Really? Speaking only from watching him play for Chelsea, I don’t recall him ever being effective on the right. Maybe there’s only room for one of him and Ribery.
“Anelka has gone missing against Uruguay and Mexico, too isolated, and he’s hardly the kind of player to drop deep and bridge the gap between midfield and attack.”
I think Anelka is exactly the kind of player to bridge the gap between midfield and attack. He’s looked best this year when picking up the ball and finding a pass. When he’s playing well he seems to have so much time and poise, even in the tightest spaces, that he makes me chortle. However, Anelka often does go missing as you state, which is very frustrating to watch. When he’s the lone central striker it can leave you toothless up front. Ancelotti has tended to use him wide in a 4-3-3 or as a second striker to Drogba.
Drogba said in an interview that, had he been called to play for France (he has the citizenship) in his early 20s, when Ivory Coast was in a state of civil war, he would have accepted. Things would have been different with a striker of his calibre.
Anelka may be good to bridge the gap, but in this French team, it’s a bridge to nowhere.
let’s face it, France lost all they’re hype after 1998, the team lost it’s identity. In 2006 was poor old Zidane carrying the team at his back.
..exactly…….I agree 100%!!!
Not quite. Zidane may have made the rallying cry through his performances which lead them to the final but it lifted the whole team as well. As it turned out it was also the final hurrah of Patrick Vieira’s career, he was really really good in the knock-out rounds, helped dominate the Brazilian fancy dans and scored the crucial second against Spain. Since then PV has gone on playing but barely featuring for all his club sides. Sad to see but 2006 WC he was genuinely very good once again. The core of that midfield was superb with Makelele-Vieira-Zidane, a superb balance. With someone like Makelele very positionally disciplined, it gave Vieira a litle more licence to move around the midfield more.
I actually thought that Malouda and Ribery were quite limited in 2006, they had a basic job to stretch the play but neither were particularly accomplished in that tournament, Malouda has only really confirmed his ability in the last two seasons at Chelsea and now he is already 30.
The defence was fine, even Abidal didn’t have as many problems as people make out now.
Henry worked very hard for the team even if he was never at his very best for the French national team and the team wasn’t based around him, unlike at Arsenal.
So, no the idea that Zidane carried them in 2006 is not quite true. France confirmed in 2006 that they could still be the best team in the world. Not necessarily the best individuals 1-11 but they could make a fantastic team. It also confirmed that they had wasted Euro 2004 and some of the period between 04-06. Remaining a dominant team is as much a question of desire as anything, Zidane had two very quiet final years at Real Madrid, none of the spark of his first two years there imo.
the difference of the teams 2006 (with the “old stars”
) and 1998 was what I would call “brilliance” … yes they made it to the final (like Germany in 2002), but it was more due to the lack of contenders than their brilliance…. and IMO this “black hole” the French team experience now it in a way a quite normal development….
…and I don’t think it is about single players (Gourcuff or whoever) … it is about “developing a new understanding” for football that will be required to built a new strong team…. and for this you have to start from scratch….
Well they beat three serious rivals in Spain, Brazil and Portugal, Italy beat Switzerland, Ukraine and Germany on their way to the final.
So the no serious contenders thing doesn’t stand. They were simply too good for several quality sides. Indeed, Italy had the luck of the draw with Switzerland and Ukraine!!!!
@Jean: …but they couldn’t beat Italy
, and I would rate this Italian team more as an average team than a deserved Champion….I agree, they (France) were good, still very good, but their best time was already gone….
To be honest, though… I think that France was better than Italy on that final. Sadly Zidane threw away their chances with that header to Materazzi. Granted, Italy was very good too, but France was playing very well in that game… they even made the Italian defense look barely decent…
@ Victor: I agree, they were better than Italy and I would have loved to see them win, but no doubt the 2006 team wasn’t as strong and brilliant as the 1998 team….and it was clear that this was the last great performance of this team…
For me the most shocking thing about France is their total lack of interest. They simply did not show that they cared, even when they were on the losing side. It’s been a long time since I last saw a team of players more interested in personal glory hunting than winning the game.
exactly
Was going to post something similar. It sums it up when Evra, the Captain – impeccable mentality for his club, possibly the best left-back in the world, in probably the last world cup where he will be at the peak of his ability, casually strolls around – if someone beats him “no problem” (for penalty), going forward? casual jog.
He’s not the only one but it’s sad to see such an overall world-class player reduced to indifference.
I don’t know what’s going on in that France dressing room but it’s as spectacular an implosion as any Dutch side have ever managed..
France seemed to be at odds with itself. Ribbery, Gourcuff, Anelka and Malouda all needed and/ or demanded very different tactical systems to support their style of play. Anelka seems ill suited to playing alone up top; Ribbery and Malouda both demanded to play on the left. In the absence of a strong manager or a player like Zidane anarchy was the best outcome. With Domench worse than anarchy was what France produced on the pitch.
That said, Gourcuff, like Xavi or Pirlo, needs to be protected in order to thrive. Now there’s a real question as to whether Gourcuff has the talent to warrant such a foundational role, but without space being created for him, time on the ball, and protection from defending he seems prone to being exposed (both in the French NT and at Milan). At the same time, this French team was to be Ribbery’s team and it seemed like he was the player the squad would be erected around. This seemed like a central tension.
One of Blanc’s major strategic decisions will be whether or not to build the team around Gourcuff and tailor it to enhance his strengths and hide his weaknesses. For him to be at his best a number of secondary decisions need to be made for his benefit. Is he worth structuring much of the project around as it’s heart? Given the history at Bordeaux, it seems likeley that Blanc would do so. But at first glance it’s not readily apparent that Gourcuff has the sheer technical brilliance of a Xavi or Pirlo or Fabergas so it’s a major risk as well. If Blanc wagers the project on Gourcuff and he turns out to be a good but not great player, he may delay France’s reemergence by several years.
Having seen a fair bit of Gourcuff at Bordeaux, I am very confident that he should be up to it.
But, after a bright start he has looked less and less at home and natural in this France team (dominishing freedom due to Ribery/Malouda/Anelka moaning?) and just hasn’t had a great second half of the season due to fatigue/general downwards spiral at Bordeaux.
Gourcuff is great, and is only 23 still. But he needs a lot of support. It seems the teams has to be built around him to perform. The times France played well in qualification, he was at the centre of the team. But this is maybe a pattern with even the most gifted playmakers that they can easily flop if the tactics and context don’t work for them, especially at a young age. Veron, Riquelme, Xavi, Pirlo… despite their brilliance had all been quite average at some point of their career. Even Zidane was not much to speak of at Euro ‘96.
Great showing by Mexico, superior in every phase of the game. To me the key to the match was the initial insertion of Hector Moreno, who is a very physical and skilled, young central defender–into the starting 11. This allowed Aguirre to push Osorio out wide to right back, his best position, that he honed in Stuttgart. The central defense was much more solid, and allowed Marquez to push forward and distribute.
Aguirre was superb tonight but he can thank his lucky stars for the injury to Carlos Vela, who was just not getting it done. The genius move he made was inserting Pablo Barrera, a natural winger, speed demon who can drop back when needed. So in essence they can go 4-3-3, 3-5-2, or 4-4-2, with Barrera in there it shift seemlessly.
Aguirre also played his gut and omitted Mexico’s highest rated young wingers in Guardado, and Medina, chose the youngest guy in Barrera to get his first ever WC minutes. Great gamble.
Sorry for the long post but Guille Franco needs to come off the bench, Javier “Chicharito” Hernandez is a phenomenal talent and turns games around, his play is absolutely infectious. Where as Franco, is frustrating to watch, and he almost seems to be a just a target man than can’t score unless he is literally inches away and has to tap it in.
ZM I do disagree with one of your points. If Mexico could somehow avoid Argentina they could make a nice run, but Aguirre has to ride Chicharito!
FYI- Alex Ferguson is a genius when it comes to spotting talent. United has themselves a good young talent in Chicharito.
Yes Chicharito should be in the same league as greats like David Bellion and Eric Djemba Djemba. Fergusson’s a genius indeed.
Bitter much? You can always pull out examples of transfer success and failure for every manager. The key is to get it right more often than you get it wrong. Ferguson has achieved that. Your contribution is pointless.
I think it’s a bit much to say Ferguson is a “genius” in spotting talent. His own unequivocal success lately has been C.Ronaldo although pre-Manchester he was probably one of the most hyped kids in the World. No doubt SAF honed him into possibly the World’s best – but spotted? Dunno about that.
The 2 Eastern European kids have just left despite the big moneys purportedly involved, Nani was on the brink but seems to have saved himself, but apart from that SAF has spent big and got big results.
Fair play to one of the (if not THE) best manager of all time, but I would say his talent spotting credentials are dubious.
I’m not going to get into a tit for tat discussion involving listing players because it is utterly pointless. His body of work is there for all to see. There are also several cases of youngsters being rejected work permits only to go on to become great players. Essien immediately springs to mind. The game has completely changed with regard to player transfers. The number of scouted youngsters who are brought in has drastically reduced because the stakes are so high. There is very little between the top teams and new money has artificially changed the chasing pack. The top teams are now more happy to allow scouted players to move elsewhere first in order to develop and prove themselves even if it means they will inevitably pay more later on. They either target established youngsters on incentive based transfers or pay more for someone to slot straight into the side. Times have changed and scouting has moved with it.
But that inevitably raises the question is it easier to spot talent or having found it to hone and polish it. I would go wit the latter rather than th former. i mean there are loads of young talents aroudn in world football some of whom we can spot watching football ourselves whislt others are more elusive who need to picked out but that isn’t the job of ferguson as a manager thats why you have scouts. It’s his ability to take the raw talent and adapt it that is so impressive. A quick example and comparison of one that jumps to mind is quaresma . how long have we been hearing about his talent but it hasn’n been channeled . The ljajic case involved united beleieving he hadnt improved sufficiently and money hadnt yet been paid. Nani is another case where the talent is there and he himself has admitted that the improved form has come from having detailed discusssions with ferguson about the game
I actually was perplexed by the decision to bring on Barrera instead of Guardado when Vela went down. In the first game, Guardado was one of the better creators for Mexico, including the build up to their goal, and that was even with him playing out of position in the middle.
With Vela down, he would have slotted right into his natural position in an attacking position on the left.
Hard to question too much when they get the 2-0 win though, so more power to Aguirre.
Spot on yet again.
I can’t remember a team whose failure and shortcomings are more readily predictable and easy to see. This France side was doomed from the getgo. In fact, they have been on a decline for years. I don’t know what the FFF were thinking keeping Dommenech on board for so long. This disaster could have been prevented so easily. A different, younger team could have come to SA and saved their nation the humiliation. I feel bad for French supporters.
Speaking of defensive playmakers, ZM, keep an eye out for a young player called Mats Hummels.
No one in Germany knows why Loew didn’t take Hummels in the Team. He played his second awesome season in the Bundesliga and he would fit the exact profile for the team (good technique, fast defender, good game opening abilities…)
I assume it was a close call between him and Badstuber…with a small advantage for Badstuber due to the “Bayern Block” and the fact that Badstuber can play on the left side…and for a 20 year old Badstuber is bloody cool
…I never saw him nervous…
I know why.
no CL or EL experience, and too many central defenders with this experience (Loew knows that he can count on Friedrich etc. and young players like Boateng have played midweeks with their club).
Ok, when you put experience first, than that may be the right decision. But a player like hummels could be the right solution because he is one who is fast and all the other german CB’s are pretty slow for a high standing defense.
Wasn’t Hummels injured (jaw?) towards the end of the campaign though?
He recovered. He is arguably Germany’s best defender. Good on the ball, good leadership, great going forward, always a threat on set pieces, can play well in midfield. A very capable all around player that would add a lot to the team. Should have been picked. He will get his chances after the WC.
Govou had an absolute shocker. I think it’s really, really hard to be that poor when playing on the wing. Curiously, watching Govou made me think a lot about Sergio Ramos, and how he should at least once in a while took up positions like Sagna does- in advance of one of your widemen.
I like to see teams that are a “Mannschaft”. And it’s good to see teams like Mexico, Chile, Uruguay (and some other), they have strategy and team spirit.
The Frensh disaster is not new. I think four years ago they had the similar problems. but with Zidane they reached the final (thanks to Zidane), as soon as he had to go the team character left also.
Where is the leader in this team? Henry, Anelka, Evra, …
Yes, Domenech is not a good manager, but it’s not only his fault. The players have their part at this sorry spectacle too.
@cris, yes, Mats Hummels is one for the future. He was omitted from Germany’s roster because there would be an overload of 5 CB’s (Mertesacker, Friedrich, Badstuber, Boateng). He WILL be in Euro 2012 though. Tall, skillful CB, scores goals. needs more defensive discipline, but in 2 years, he will improve.
That’s the problem, he was omitted for players that aren’t really suited to start. Friedrich and Mertesacker are both slow and poor on the ball. To start both is detrimental to Germany’s style of play. Tasci has been rather average for the NT so far and Badstuber and Boateng aren’t even used as center backs. Hummels is not only better on form but he is more capable as a footballer and brings more to the table than any others chosen.
The three strikers works well for Mexico because it stops the opposition getting their full backs forward and therefore makes it difficult for opponents to fully exploit the space out wide left by their wing backs pushing high up in attack, although France never moved the ball quickly enough for that to matter anyway.
France were just generally poor, no quick movement or passing which is the key to attack. In terms of formation Anelka as a false nine (looked like he was playing that role as he certainly didn’t play on the defence) didn’t work against three centre backs in either game as the point of the role is to create space for runners through the middle but you have an extra centre back there to track the runners. Plus I’m not convinced he’s an intelligent enough player for the role but I guess he did it for Chelsea a bit last season.
Yeah I’m really intrigued by this 3 men attacks. Those of us in the UK goldfishbowl are pretty much used to the 4-3-3 instigated by Mourinho with 2 wingers dropping back to 4-5-1 when required. SAF embellished on this with Rooney/Ronaldo etc etc but it’s pretty much the same.
However this World Cup has opened my eyes to brand news ways of using 3 up top. I like the way Mexico depend on the wider guys (Vela/Dos Santos) game intelligence to occupy the defenders most economically.
For example, in defence they will occupy the full-backs and make sure they don’t get too advanced. In attack they get ahead of Franco and overload the centre-backs 3 against 2. This also sucks in the full-backs to compensate so the back 4 become narrow to defend Mexico’s 3, allowing Mexico’s wing-backs to plough forward.
That’s my take anyway, but it seems a case of using the 3 forwards in an economical fashion to “take out” as many defenders as possible. Sometimes occupying all 4 and with Franco dropping deep, arguably a DM as well.
First things first, lovely analysis of Mexico. Your reading of the game is second to none.
Comin to France, I do not think Domenech’s tactics are quite wrong. On the contrary he’s fine. But tactics alone do not maketh the gaffer. He needs control, power over his wards which Domenech sorely lacks. It is a pity rather. And of course, there is his woeful selection and poor organization. He indeed, as someone tweeted, a prime candidate to get a sack in the WC albeit France look to get it first. Real pity.
Blanc have more than his hands full to pluck the weeds.
1. As Tom Williams noted, Anelka is pathologically incapable of staying in the penalty area.
2. Henry is a living example of being your own shadow.
3. Abidal, lesser said the better and
the other weeds pretty much nominate themselves. I’d like Gallas to stay though. he is a fine defender.
Like LFC, the only way for Blanc’s beloved Les Bleus is UP. And the array of talent at his disposal is second to none, not even Maradona..
P.S. I’d even bet France for the Euro 12 but that depends on how soon Blanc rejigs his defense.
Agreed, there is a huge unfulfilled potential in this team, from players on the field, on the bench or not even (Nasri, Benzema…). With organization and purpose, this team would be hardly stoppable. Such a waste ! I feel especially bad for the few players who actually seemed concerned : Lloris, Sagna, Toulalan, Abou Diaby…
Now it’s clear that it was mistake not to bring Vieira on, as he is a natural leader.
Rafael Marquez show us that the Libero is not really extincted from football (http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/04/22/is-the-sweeper-set-for-a-return-to-prominence/)
1. Abidal is not a center back
2. Toulalan was again France’s best player and is the reason the team has been respectable so far.
3. Evra clearly gave upon the play for the penalty. No way he would do that at United. He was crying fake tears because he is not committed to this particular cause.
1. Abidal is not a center back
2. Toulalan was again France’s best player and is the reason the team has been respectable so far.
3. Evra clearly gave up on the play for the penalty. No way he would do that at United. He was crying fake tears because he is not committed to this particular cause.
Abidal’s party-piece is conceding penalties and getting a red card in the group stages. See EURO 2008, Luca Toni, 2-0 defeat…
Marquez is the modern version of the Pyramid’s centrehalf.
Play one upfront against Mexico and he’s primarily a midfielder. Play two up against Mexico and he becomes a third centreback. Mexico’s fullbacks push on like wingbacks, he’s a centreback again whilst the other two centrebacks pull wide to cover the flanks. When Mexico fullbacks drop back to oppose the other side’s wingers, he’s stepped up into midfield to close that space infront of what is now a back four.
He has the attributes needed to be a good defender. He’s a very good midfielder. He’s intelligent enough to read the game and figure out where he needs to be at any given time.
You heard of a split-striker formation? Marquez allows Mexico the capacity to play a split-centreback system.
I am very impressed.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/soccer/world-cup-2010/writers/jonathan_wilson/06/16/interesting.formations/index.html
This article was interesting – compares Mexico’s tactics to the Metodo of days gone by. Oh, and ZM, Wilson does call Marquez a “center-half” in the article with the same usage of the word as you.
I agree, the French tactics and Domenech were not to blame. The players should be ashamed of themselves for treating the coach in this way.
More evidence of player-power i’m afraid!
I’m gonna pick on Andy here, although this goes to ZM’s main article too. I think it is a huge tactical mistake to play Ribery in the middle, especially when he was really unable to create anything when he was closed down so effectively. Ribery continually played with his head down, trying to come up with something great off the dribble, even when he repeatedly was foiled by the Mexican midfield and defense. He needed to come off or be shifted into a position where he got the ball under far less pressure.
This is not to mention that Domenech seems unable to recognize that Ribery, Anelka and Govou are playing really ineffectively and seem incapable of linking up with the rest of the team in a productive way. It’s absolutely a tactical decision to play personnel with different qualities of play (like Maradona’s odd decision to play Jonas at RB), and Domenech has made the decision in two games in a row to use a frontline that doesn’t play together or break down defenses effectively.
Honestly, looking at a performance like France just put on when they supposedly have some of the best attacking talent in the world, there are huge tactical problems here. They don’t have players moving into attacking space. They don’t have players in the attacking third looking up to pass to teammates.
It’s Domenech’s responsibility to get his players to create chances as a team, and that’s not happening. He’s got to shoulder some of the responsibility here, even if it is because he wants to play two left-wingers when it obviously ends up breaking up their attacking moves without creating any danger for their opponents.
For what it’s worth, I also think Gourcuff was wasteful and looked for his shot far more than you want from a playmaker, so I’m not sure he’s the perfect solution either. Maybe he’s trying to prove himself to teammates who don’t trust him, but becoming a good provider is probably a more efficient way of doing that anyway.
I have been very impressed with Mexico so far, their loose 3-4-3 system is fluid, flexible and bordering on genius. It works brilliantly to stifle more old-fashioned formations, and it seems to be the new trend for this World Cup; Uruguay, Chile and Algeria have used similar systems to achieve success so far.
There is some inaccuracy in the analysis here though; against France, as with South Africa, Mexico did play a proper 3 at the back rather than akin to a traditional 4 as hinted. Osorio again played as right centre-back and Juarez, a right-back by trade, played as wing-back after playing centre midfield in the first game. With 3 full time centre halves (including the left-footed Moreno who balanced out the defence beautifully) then Rafa Marquez could hold in midfield and control the game more. Against South Africa he was the one who would drop in almost as libero when Mexico had the ball, as the centre backs spread wide and the wing-backs pushed on, but Aguirre cleverly tweaked this in order to make his side even more robust against the French.
With the world class Salcido bombing up and down at left wing-back, and Vela and Giovani in floating free roles behind one striker, I think Mexico could go a long way in the tournament. I also wouldn’t be surprised if this new effective 3-4-3 system is adopted by many European clubs next season.