Zambia 0-0 Ivory Coast: Zambia win the 2012 Africa Cup of Nations on penalties
The line-ups after the early Zambian change due to injury. Both sets of wingers switched throughout
Zambia completed an astonishing victory on penalties after a tight final.
Hervé Renard made the predictable but astute decision to switch to the team which ended the semi-final win over Ghana. That meant Emmanuel Mayuka starting upfront, Chisamba Lungu on the wing, and Isaac Chansa back in the centre.
After plenty of rotation throughout the competition, François Zahoui went for an unchanged side from the XI which beat Mali in the semi-final.
However, there was an early change for Zambia when left-back Joseph Musonda went down injured, and was replaced by Nyambe Mulenga, shown on the diagram.
Opening stages
The first goalmouth action was a Zambia chance that originated from a clever short corner worked very cleverly along the byline. They had done exactly the same thing against Ghana, so it was surprising the Ivory Coast weren’t ready for it. With a tournament so lacking in goals from open play, it made sense to work on set-pieces, and this was probably the area where Zambia threatened the most.
Aside from that, the game started at a relatively low tempo. Both centre-back pairings got lots of time on the ball, the early injury disrupted the rhythm of the game, and the ball was moved slowly from back to front.
Positioning
Zambia were set up in much the same way they have been throughout the tournament. 4-4-2 without the ball, more like 4-2-2-2 with it, with Chansa breaking forward from midfield to add more numbers to the attacks. In the defensive phase of play, Christopher Katongo and Mayuka positioned themselves between the Ivorian centre-backs and holding players, cutting off the passing angle and slowing Ivorian attacks.
Didier Zokora dropped deep towards the centre-backs a couple of times to get the ball, and he probably should have done this more; it meant a more fluid side, the ball could be played forward more easily, and the full-backs could get high up the pitch.
Toure
The question for the Ivory Coast was about how high up Yaya Toure would play. He was fielded as a number ten rather than a deep midfielder, though he found it very difficult to receive an initial pass into feet, so kept coming deeper and deeper to collect the ball.
Zambia were happy enough for him to get space between the lines, and he had little impact in open play – although there was one moment late in the first half when he dove well at the defence, and the nature of his freedom may have contributed to him being left unmarked for the shot he flashed narrowly wide of the far post. Still, he didn’t have his best game, and was removed later on.
Countering
Both sides switched their wingers throughout – hardly the most inventive strategy. Still, late in the first half when Zambia got the ball into the final third, Gervinho and Salomon Kalou started to get opportunities on the break, and this briefly looked a real danger to Zambia. The Ivorians were more dangerous on the break, simply because they threw so few bodies forward themselves that the back four was rarely out of position.
This counter-attacking promise seemed to result in different instructions for the second half. They sat deeper, let Zambia play more and come onto them, presumably with the intention of stealing the ball and then breaking. It was actually Zambia who made more of an effort to commit men forward in open play, with the excellent Chansa roaming into good positions.
Substitutions
The line-ups in extra time
Five changes were made, but only two were important. The other three were (a) the early Zambian change through injury, (b) Didier Ya Konan replacing Zokora, and (c) Wilfried Bony replacing Yaya Toure. These were all more or less straight swaps, though Konan’s introduction meant he played higher up than Zokora, and left Cheick Tiote as the primary holding player, when he was already on a yellow card. There was one incident when he could have picked up a second booking.
But the two changes that were key were on the flanks. Max Gradel replaced Kalou, a sensible move because Gradel picked the ball up in deeper positions than Kalou (important, since the Ivory Coast couldn’t get the ball forward to the front three).
On the other side, Renard made a brave call by taking off the sub Nyambe, dropping Lungu to left back and bringing on winger Felix Katongo. Both Gradel and Katongo created chances with their pace down the outside, and were changes reminiscent of Jesus Navas in the World Cup final – a genuine wide option when everyone else was playing through the centre, and getting tired.
Little progression
But this was the only tactical development throughout the game. In a way – and this may seem an odd thing to say about a 0-0 – both sides were constrained by the fact they’d played their more attacking systems from the off. Yaya Toure was already high up – the Ivory Coast weren’t able to change something by moving him there. Similarly, Renard already had two wide players and Chansa in the middle, rather than two holders and Chansa tucked in on the flank, as he started the Ghana game with. Aside from the extra pace down the flank, there was no obvious plan B for either, though Renard’s bravery in putting Lungu to full-back should be commended. Was this change because of, or despite, Gervinho winning a penalty five minutes beforehand in that area of the pitch?
Extra time was stereotypical – tight, slow and lacking in ambition. Both sides were scared to commit despite plenty of time in the ball in the middle, and 0-0 was a fair result.
Conclusion
Zambia’s victory is an astonishing story for human reasons, but also an interesting one in footballing terms. Other national sides should embrace the forward planning shown in persevering with good young players over a period of time, despite initial poor results. This side is six years in the making, and owes much to promising results at junior level. “Long-term planning is hardly a revolutionary concept, but it is rare enough in African football that those who try it, can enjoy great rewards,” as Jonathan Wilson puts it.
It’s also another example – after Greece in 2004, Ghana and Uruguay in 2010 and various countries at last year’s Copa America – that the way to overachieve at international level is to be broadly defensive, well-organised and work on set-pieces and playing on the break.
The Ivory Coast knew that too – and they didn’t concede a single goal in their six matches, which shows the value of keeping a centre-back pairing throughout the competition despite rotation elsewhere (though there’s an element of chicken and egg). They played very conservatively in each of their matches, which was broadly the right approach, but their failure to create many chances here was hardly a surprise. They still lack a genuine ball-playing midfielder. 0-0 in 120 minutes was an appropriate end for a tournament sorely lacking in creativity in open play.
The game may have been a draw, but it was still a tactical victory for Renard. Tactics is about getting the best from your players, and since there was nothing to choose between Zambia and the Ivory Coast despite the latter’s considerably stronger squad, it was Renard who maximised his resources.
It was cagey game but the most amusing thing was, most players blasting the ball on top of the goal during the shootout, all the penalties missed was over the top except that of Kolo Toure which was a poor run. Must have a lot of guts to do that. Nonetheless, Great footballing history re-written
I was surprised, not having watched much of the African game, at how good the technical quality was. You’d expect from what you normally read about African football – that it is all physicality and brute force – that the standard would be much lower but it really was very good.
Perhaps, but this was the final! Some of the lower rounds the quality was a bit dodgy. It was an odd tournament, with so many traditional big guns not there, it almost seemed like a few were happy to be there rather than to compete.
Personally I beleieve the standard in many of the games i saw was rather poor. The tempo, penetration and end product of virtually all teams was sub-standard. I spoke to somebody who suggested the climate may have sapped some of the energy from the players, and even ‘top-class’ tournaments like the wc or ec seem to lack the edge of the top club games. I think it is because there are a large number of games in a short time, and other factors, cohesion, convservative approaches etc.
I’m very interested in your Conclusions, and whether you think they are specific to Africa, or (as you seem to imply) could be universalised? Should a major European/South American team (dare one say, England!?) abandon the usual policy of picking the ‘best’ or even ‘form’ players in favour of a 5/6 year plan? Could it in fact be the case that some major countries are already doing this – an example I can think of is Miroslav Klose, who certainly hasn’t been anywhere near the ‘best’ available German forward for some years (i.e. based on club form), but continues to be picked and play well for the international team.
And the same on a tactical front. Is it so impossible to build a decent attacking side in the short space of time available to international managers that anything but “Greece 2004″ style is workable? Might this again suggest that it’s better to pick players who are used to playing with each other at club level rather than the ‘best’ players (Spain have been able to combine the two, but only because of the peculiar combination of having a top level league with two such superior and domestic player dominated sides). As another thought experiment, would England then be better playing the core of one or two club teams rather than the “best” available team (one supposes that would have to be Spurs and Man U – so Walker rather than Johnson at right back; Smalling and Jones rather than Terry/Lescott etc.; Parker, Cleverley, Young and Lennon as closer to the starting 11 than Gerrard and Lampard, Defoe as partner to Rooney, etc.)
Apologies for turning the discussion away from Zambia’s remarkable victory – I certainly don’t mean for this to become another tiring “Lampard & Gerrard can’t play together” discussion. I’m more interested whether people think international football has reached a stage where the generally high tactical awareness and basic fitness of almost all professional footballers (let’s not forget that most of Zambia’s team was domestic-based!) means that it is virtually impossible to build a side which is tactically advanced enough to consistently break down such well-drilled teams. Because, on the other hand, for all the doom and gloom about international football, it is only 12 years since Euro 2000, which had some some remarkable games, full of attacking football.
I’m a big fan of Dunga’s, and I think he got squad-building exactly right. He didn’t go for the “best” or most in form players, he just picked a system and the players that suited it best.
Interesting thoughts and questions. For what it’s worth, I think you need a strong identity and good understanding between players (Spain, through Barcelona, and Germany, through the U21s and a cohesive plan for youth development that means the players seem to fit together naturally very well) to go out and ‘play football’ at international level. Club football now places a large amount of emphasis upon understanding between players – passing is more crucial than ever, good movement is also a key feature of the game for many clubs. You can’t throw people together and expect that, really, which is why the few countries who do have a club-like understanding at international level play very well. Italy in 2006 didn’t have the Barca/Spain thing, but they did have Buffon-Cannavaro-Zambrotta, Pirlo-Gattuso and to a certain extent Perrotta-Totti from club level too. (I think Zenit-dominated Russia are interesting in this respect)
Also worth noting, on the England front, that England’s best display of the century, 5-1 in Munich, was a team full of club-linked players. Seaman-Campbell-Cole; Neville-Beckham-Scholes; Gerrard-Barmby(!)-Heskey-Owen. Only Ferdinand was the odd man out, and he later linked up with Neville, as it happens. Some of this is coincidental, but you can certainly say that Beckham-Neville, Gerrard-Owen and Heskey-Owen enjoyed particularly good relationship. Maybe Campbell-Cole too.
I think the United point is extremely valid. Smalling-Jones; Rooney-Welbeck are two very promising partnerships – the first in theory, the second in practice. Maybe Cleverley-Carrick too, though they’ve played little together so far.
But I do hope Zambia’s template of long-termism is copied. The nice thing about international level is that you can’t chuck money at it. Once you get to a certain level of money, tactics can be bypassed (PSG?). At international level you have to be cleverer than that.
Surely you can do something about this SulleyMuntari spam/virus/vermin/faggot/alloftheabove? What happened to the playing in the park?
D on February 13, 2012 at 12:43 am: (let’s not forget that most of Zambia’s team was domestic-based!)
Not quite the case. Their squad is majority Africa based but not in Zambia. Most of the Zambia team play in South Africa’s Premier Soccer League (PSL) – a sort of Afro version of the EPL. (It even used to have former EPL people as directors). It is a professional league. I believe just 6 members of their 23-man squad play in Zambia and that includes the 2 reserve keepers. Three play in TP Mazembe in Congo (DRC), one in Sudan, two in China, one in Switzerland and another in Russia.
I can only add a german perspective to your question:
The common believe here is that the best teams we’ve had always consisted of two strong blocks of dominating teams in Bundesliga (70s Bayern/Gladbach, 80/90s Bayern/Italy Veterans, 90s Bayern/Dortmund, 2000s Bayern/Bremen, Today: Bayern/Dortmund)
It is a concept german coaches consider to be proofed and strive for even today.
Your Klose example: Löw has been heavily critizised in his beginnings to insist on calling Klose and Podolski when they were underperforming on club level.
His claim was that their talent is huge, they stick and fit to tactics, and they always deliver on big tournaments. He indirectly stated he is the one who knows how to bring their talent to shine. And the players payed him pack so far.
But he does not go easy on them: It is said Klose tripled his training rate compared to the Bayern rate in preparation camp for South Africa (what irritated the Bayern officials). The deal seems to be like: I trust you but you have to be willing to bring all you have.
But the key to current rise is the reset of the youth system in 2000. German youth players today are picked and trained on skill and not so much on physicallity anymore which changes the style of play a lot. It is easy to build up muscle but not so easy to train the intuitive pass and move.
It was a disgrace how little playing time Seydou Doumbia got. He really should have been the starter over Drogba.
It was a disgrace how much playing time Gervinho got!
Drogba, Gervinho, Toure x 2, Tiote, Kalou – what a coincidence that this losing side should have a whole bunch of players who happen to share their surnames with stars of The Best League in the World. How very odd.
Yes, interesting that the three penalty misses by the Ivory Coast came from PL millionairs: Drogba (during the game), Kolo Touré, Gervinho.
Haha honestly, I as a german was thinking the same during the penalties: those who struggled all play in England. Coincidence? It is really interesting…is the trauma a spreading virus?
No seriously: Congrats to Zambia for the next big sensation in international football.
ZM says: “This side is six years in the making, and owes much to promising results at junior level. “Long-term planning is hardly a revolutionary concept, but it is rare enough in African football that those who try it, can enjoy great rewards,” as Jonathan Wilson puts it.”
Great analysis of the game as always. I do understand your point about long-term planning but you can argue that for both sides (as explained below).
But, ZM, am not sure which promising results at junior levels are you talking about? Zambia have not been performing miracles have won at junior levels in Africa for a while now and haven’t really qualified to junior level tournaments either. If it’s about junior levels et al, then Ghana would be victors – they have consistently performed in lower categories.
Is it really because Zambia have been together for six years that they won? What about Ivory Coast? They have been together for the same period, as well. Kolo, Yaya, Zokora, Drogba even played the final of the Nations Cup in 2006. Add Eboue, Tiene, Boka, Copa Barry, Kalou, Kader Keita who were all in the squad by the time of their semi-final implosion in 2008 as well as the 2010 Africa Cup and World Cup in addition to Gervinho and Tiote.
I see their victory as the result of a mix of situations. There was the context: A tournament where the usual big names were absent which meant only two really clear favourites and many unknowns. Then, there was the fact that Zambia’s FA took the positive (on hindsight) decision to sack the coach who had qualified them and re-hire a coach who had experience of this tournament and knew the players. A coach who was confident in his tactics and how he deployed them based on the understanding of the limitations and strengths of his players. Renard’s tactics especially against Senegal (in their first game) were really spot on. He knew the Senegalese squad very well and prepared his game plan effectively. Whereas some of those teams hardly considered Zambia as a worry and didn’t quite observe them before the competition (which Senegal admitted to afterwards). Then there was the determination, drive and desire from this squad of players (for emotional reasons related to the past).
One point (a complaint, I suppose) about your reports:
Often I find myself unsure about which team you are referring to in the opening paragraphs, as you mention the two managers and a few players. I know that there are links that I could follow to see who you mean, but in this case, I have no idea which team is which from reading the following, because I haven’t watched or read the previous games and I am unfamiliar with the players:
“Hervé Renard made the predictable but astute decision to switch to the team which ended the semi-final win over Ghana. That meant Emmanuel Mayuka starting upfront, Chisamba Lungu on the wing, and Isaac Chansa back in the centre.
After plenty of rotation throughout the competition, François Zahoui went for an unchanged side from the XI which beat Mali in the semi-final.”
I find this also sometimes with French and Italian football reports, as I don’t watch those leagues very often and am not familiar with the managers and many players.
Great reports, though. I don’t mean to just criticize; it was just one small thing I notice once in a while.
You can easily hover your mouse over the hyperlinks “the semi-final win over Ghana” and “which beat Mali in the semi-final” to see that the first one is about Zambia and the second one about Ivory Coast.
This also applies to many ZM articles on other leagues. The hyperlinks he provides within the text are very useful to understand the context. I often find myself spreading out to 5-6 tabs, jumping from an in-text link to another.
it is nice to see some patient and constructive advice. Via the anonymity the internet affords it is incredible easy to be facaetious and sarcastic. Thanks for making this a nicer place to be
I hadn’t thought about just hovering over and checking the link, good point.
Thanks for the feedback, will take that on board!
Interesting reading, in particular the final paragraph,I’ve a few questions an ideas to assert regarding it’s content. In football, we tend to see patterns and trends develop frequently this is reflected in tactics, and certain vogues that are prevalent (inverted wingers etc). To say that the Ivory Coast were broadly correct to set out in a conservative style seems rather odd to me. I understand that other teams have proven it is a workable strategy (Greece, Uruguay, Zambia et al), but suggest that it is a method which will grant a greater succes is slightly naive. For all the teams that do play cautiously and progress, there are many who stutter and fall through lack of ambition. For a big or ’superior’ team it makes no sense to play an entirely conservative game, controlling possession deep and selectively counter-attacking are quasi-conservsative tools which can be employed; but in the main most of the WINNING teams play a controlled game (which as you have wisely alluded to is aided by structured development). If you wish to enhance your chances as a SMALL nation then this reactive, transitional football can be beneficial. In this tournament, the Ivory Coast had by far the best selection of players in terms of depth, pedigree, and experience. My point is: Wouldn’t it have been beneficial for them to stamp this on their opposition? This would have not been possible in the conservative game you have outlined.
Funny, you call ZM’s suggestion naive (btw, you misread) but provide no proof to support your claim that many teams that play cautiously fail. What’s the comparison to those that play expansively?
Both Ivory Coast and Zambia have traditionally played expansive football with no trophies to show for it. In fact, Renard said that if he were to let Zambian players to their own devices, the whole team would attack. If Ivory Coast dared to play like that in the final, Zambia would have punished them on the counter in 90 minutes. They have the talent to do it. This is a team that could afford to leave a good experienced forward like Given Singuluma at home, so do not underrate them.
I see your point but I think Lee is onto something here. The talent of the Ivory Coast was not a factor in the game as much as it could have been and the question remains why they underperformed in such a way.
Of course one have to give credit to Zambia for dragging them down to their level.
But honestly did you ever in the 90 minutes felt that Zambia is heavily struggling? Probably the only time was with Drogba’s penalty which could have been the decisive point in the match. But the rest?
I had the feeling the Ivory Coast never had a proper plan to systematicly break down the Zambia defense and to cater to its own talent.
Or are we expecting too much from this side considering the lack of inspiration they showed in previous games?
I think you’re overrating Ivory Coast and underestimating Zambia’s capabilities. There are many talented African players who do not make it to the big Euro clubs like the Ivory Coast players. The same talented and experienced Ivory Coast team has been beaten in this competition time and again. They played a good game though. They did not concede a goal in open play and got a penalty but didn’t get ahead. Even at the end, they had penalties to get them through but it just wasn’t their day.
Maybe, François Zahoui should have taken Gervinho out for Kader Keita “Popito”? Popito’s telepathic understanding with Drogba and experience might have given them an edge. But we don’t know what happened during training.
Psychologically, Zambia was the better prepared team. Very telling were Joseph Musonda’s tears as he walked off the field crying when he was subbed.
Zambia – Fantastic for them, no-one thought they would win and a true underdog story. It wasnt even just luck, this team actually played very good football and outsmarted the big teams (Senegal, Ghana and now Ivory Coast).
In defense, they were well structured and covered eachover very well. They seemed happy to let Ivory Coast have the ball in front of them, but made sure they couldn’t offer penetration. The times they were beaten were through individual quality, and they did rely on luck in those instances aka the penalty where Gervinho dribbled past two players and was taken down, only for drogba to sky his penalty. But on the whole they concentrated on staying in position, and seemed well drilled by a very good manager.
In midfield, Sinkala did a good job of stopping Yaya, getting into him when he got the ball and stopping Ivory Coast getting the ball forward through him. While Chansa (my vote for best player) was given time and space to gradually gain control on the game. He looked the best passer in that midfield (which for a player based in south africa is astounding) and played some great long passes to his team mates, without him they certainly wouldn’t have won this tournament. He also got forward really well to surprise the Ivory Coast defense (he timed his runs really well). Zambia’s wingers did a good job of providing pace and penetration and were a good outball when under pressure, but there delivery was very poor, lacking the quality to actually create good chances. But they stretched the play and Lungu did a good job of tracking Gosso.
Up front, captain Katongo had a mixed game. He found space in behind when he ran in behind Tiene (the weak link the Ivory Coast defense) and Bamba couldnt quite cover. But otherwise he was quiet and didnt effect the game, he couldnt find space in between the midfield and defense, and wasnt the link between his midfield and attack that he has been throughout the tournament. While Mayuka didnt have a great game either, rarely beating the excellent Toure. He couldnt hold up the ball very well and despite not given many chances, the ones he got he wasted. But both gave a tireless defensive performance, as ZM said, blocking the passing channels which can really slow down attacks (important against a pacy Ivory Coast attack).
Overall, they defended like true underdogs; with grit, determination and a bit of luck. They had the talented Chansa to push them forward in attack and allways had a chance of nicking the game in open play. But they lacked real quality outwide and wasted chances up front. In the end the game came to penalties and Zambia had the better mental strength.
Credit must go to an excellent coach, who organised his team excellently and kept them motivated and believing. His decision in the semi-final to change the team, only to change it back in the second half, arguably won them the game.
Do you think that Kalou or Gervinho (or anyone else in the squad for that matter) would have been better as a number 10?
Could have partnered Drogba with another Striker, and let Drogba drop deep more to link play?
Ivory Coast – A much better team this year than in other tournaments, but they will keep the tag of flops.
In defense, they had an excellent CB partnership with Bamba and Toure, who didnt concede a single goal in open play in this tournament. They didnt deserve to lose this game (despite Toures poor penalty) and were rock solid, with Bamba dealing with everything that came into the penalty area, and Toure dealing excellently with the pace of Mayuka and helping cover for Gosso when he got forward. Gosso was got forward all game and really stretched the play (though lungu tracked back really well) but failed to deliver good balls into the box. Tiene got forward sometimes too, though not as much, and was wary of Katongo targeting the space in behind him, which he didnt defend well against.
In midfield, Ivory Coast’s lack of creativity was really exposed. Tiote found himself up against no-one as Katongo played high up the pitch, so he was given time on the ball, but he was very cautious and lacked the range of passing needed to get Ivory Coast going. Zakora had more defensive work on his side of the field, as he had to help out tiene and also watch out for Chansa moving forward. This stopped him getting forward and also meant he couldnt get tight to Chansa and stop him controlling the pace of the game. Zakora didnt have the range of passing needed either and usually went for the each option of Yaya. Both CMs found it hard to get the ball from the CB’s as well, as the two strikers blocked the channels and this meant long punts forward most of the time. This was a key weakness of Ivory Coast, they didnt have a Ball playing CM, and were forced to punt the ball forward from the back. Yaya Toure was the only other option as he dropped deep to get the ball and tried to push forward on the ball, but he was usually tackled or forced back by the impressive Sinkala.
Still Yaya had Ivory Coast’s best chance to score when Dorgba back heeled to him, but it was a poor finish from him and he hasnt provided the goals from midfield you would have expected. He was taken off later on, but i would have liked to have seen him moved back into Tiote’s position, where he would had time on the ball and could have pushed forward from there, he wouldn’t have been up against anyone and could have had a bigger impact.
Further forward, Ivory coast had a good front three. Kalou and Gervinho moved inside and were able to connect and create some chances on the break. Gervinho was helped by the tireless Gosso, but Kalou didnt really have anyone stretching the play for him all game, so had a tougher game. This lead to the decision to remove him for Gradel, a more old fashioned winger who would hug the line. He provided better penetration through his pace and dribbling, but rarely provided good delivery and his decision making was very poor. His performance summed up the whole Ivory Coast performance, flattering only to deceive. Gervinho was able to move inside regularly and it was him who won the penalty (wasted by Drogba), he had a good game but will be remembered for a poor penalty in the shoot out. D
Drogba was probably the best player going forward, he seemed to be the player Ivory Coast were playing through (as they lacked a midfield presence). He turned long punts forward into chances and lead the line excellently. He won balls in the air, held up the ball well to get them team forward and showed good movement to allow Gervinho space (Gervinho chance which injured the LB was created from good drogba movement). He looked more tired as the game wore on and Zambia grew into the game, and after his poor penalty miss he didnt seem himself. But throughout the game he wasnt given good service at all (gosso in particular playing poor crosses).
Overall, Ivory Coast had two main problems: 1) They never had control of the game as they lacked a midfield general – it showed that there 3 man midfield was bettered by a two man midfield – and this lead to a lack of creativity. 2) They lacked a mental toughness that is needed to win the big games and this has been a long term problem. They have gone out early in every tournament since 2006 and it showed as there players seemed stressed and not confident. It was summed up by there captain Drogba, he couldnt convert the penalty and looked a shadow of himself for the rest of the game and we shouldnt be surprised, Drogba has never looked comfortable in high stress situations (he was sent off in a champions league final). In the penalty shootout it showed too, as Toure and Gervinho let the pressure get to them and missed there penalties. The final was a tense affair, as Ivory Coast didnt handle it very well.
Also, While I credited the Zambia coach, I cant do the same for the Ivory coast manager, he set up his team very defensively and never really changed a game from the bench. He inherited a strong squad in a tournament that was missing a lot of the big players. He built a good defense but didnt solve the issue of the midfield and looked lost in this final when his team wasnt performing.
Hurrah, that
On your point of the use of Felix Katongo, do you know who Ghana could of used in the latter stages of their semi-final. Quincy-Owusu Abeyie.
As usual, a very good report of the game, so much more in-depth and thought provoking than so many of the football “experts” i keep on having to listen to on tv and radio.
a couple of points / questions if i may?
1. in the little progression section you say
“In a way – and this may seem an odd thing to say about a 0-0 – both sides were constrained by the fact they’d played their more attacking systems from the off. Yaya Toure was already high up – the Ivory Coast weren’t able to change something by moving him there. ”
i have never been convinced that having a player like toure in the 10 position is seen as the attacking option. I would have liked to have seen him as one of the two cm’s, especially when they took zakora off (though was toure already off at this point?).
Man city played with toure almost as the 10 a lot last year (often with de jong and barry behind) and they struggled to score goals. This year, they have played one of them, with toure beside and silva or aguero in the 10 position. They have been far better with toure breaking from midfield to make a forward 5 (or even 6 or 7 when the FBs get involved). Naturally this makes a team more vulnerable on the counter, but for the better team it seems necessary to score goals. It felt to me that the Ivory Coast, started pretty defensively, but then did not go and really press the game at any point. Toure was not playing well, but the two defensive CMs were not creating anything (see liverpool under benitez, after alonso left and they played lucas and mascherano in cm).
Whether the Ivory Coast have the player to play the 10 role, i don’t know though,? (has kalou played through the middle much?) This player needs to be top quality. The best we see these days, messi, ozil, sneijder, silva et cetera, can pretty much do everything in an attacking sense and maybe this is why toure was played there, as the ‘best’ we have.
Great end to the tournament. The penalty shoot-out was probably the best one I have ever seen. The quality of the penalties under that much pressure was outstanding. Putting them high into the corners takes confidence. I found myself swept up in it all at the end, congratulations to Zambia and Herve Renard. Top stuff!
It is not my first time to pay a visit this website, i am browsing this web site dailly and obtain fastidious information from here all the time.