France 2-0 Ukraine: Ribery v Husiev battle decides the game
The starting line-ups
After a long rain delay, France took the initiative and went onto win the game comfortably.
Laurent Blanc made two changes. One was a straight swap, with Patrice Evra dropping out and Gael Clichy starting at left-back. Higher up, the introduction of Jeremy Menez at the expense of Florent Malouda meant Samir Nasri moved into a permanent central position, and France switched to a 4-2-3-1.
Oleg Blokhin had said before the tournament that he didn’t have a set first choice XI, and would switch from game to game, but after Ukraine’s famous 2-1 victory over Sweden on Monday, he stuck with the same side.
The first half was heavily affected by the rain delay – the teams returned to the pitch and played very slow football that lacked ambition. In the second half, the game was much more open and interesting.
Formation battle
France’s shift to 4-2-3-1 seemed to make them a better side, with a central orchestrator in Nasri, but also thrust from both flanks. That was very different from in the first game against England, where Nasri was moving inside from the right flank to play that role anyway, but leaving the right flank bare, and making Malouda’s job unclear.
Nasri was marked by Anatoliy Tymoshchuk, who had done a similar job on a very different player, Zlatan Ibrahimovic, against Sweden. Whereas Ibrahimovic tried to escape Tymoshchuk by moving forward to become a second striker, Nasri naturally dropped deeper into midfield, into a position where Tymoshchuk was scared to follow.
Meanwhile, Serhiy Nazarenko was given the job of tracking Yohan Cabaye, who started in a deeper role but increasingly moved forward and influenced the game in the final third. To complete the clash of midfield triangles, Andriy Voronin dropped onto Diarra, making sure Ukraine weren’t overrun in the middle.
Strategies
Ukraine tried to play a high line against France, a surprising move considering they don’t have great pace at the back, and France’s three attackers all threaten by getting in behind the defence. That high line was clear even in the four minutes before the rain delay, but Blokin persisted with it throughout the first half.
Ukraine’s strategy was basically to play on the break, although they struggled to get the two (very) wide players involved in the game – the two French full-backs won both those battles. They started playing longer balls to the strikers, and while Voronin was often too concerned with his defensive duties to find space, Andriy Shevchenko worked the channel next to Adil Rami and created a couple of half-chances after diagonal balls.
France looked most likely to score when Benzema moved to the left and linked with Franck Ribery, a combination which had looked promising throughout France’s pre-tournament friendlies. Ribery’s burst of pace combined with Benzema’s simple wall passes got France into good positions, and these moves usually ended with a chance for Menez, who was making runs in behind the defence.
Ribery v Husiev
But the key battle here was Ribery against Oleg Husiev. Put simply, Ribery didn’t want to track back and help defend (which is even more dangerous in a 4-2-3-1 than in a 4-3-3), while Husiev continually made forward runs and then was out of position when Ukraine lost the ball.
This was a little like Cristiano Ronaldo against Lars Jacobsen on Wednesday, and the opening goal – whichever way it went – seemed destined to come from this area of the pitch.
Ukraine switch
But first, the game needed to become more open, and Blokhin’s decision to replace Voronin with Marko Devic was a big surprise. Devic is more of a natural striker, and while Voronin wasn’t contributing much going forward, his defensive job on Diarra was nullifying France’s midfield advantage. Besides, Ukraine should have been happy with 0-0 – there was no need to gamble.
Devic didn’t drop onto Diarra so quickly, and the game became much more frantic. Ukraine were more confident about their chances going forward, and Shevchenko went close shortly after half-time. France were able to break more swiftly through the centre of the pitch, and down the left.
Ribery comes out on top
That Ribery v Husiev clash was still key – and it could have gone either way. Husiev often overlapped Andriy Yarmolenko energetically, only to not receive a pass when totally unmarked. Had Ukraine been cleverer in the final third, Husiev’s bravery would have won the day.
Instead, Ukraine failed to take advantage of having a man in space, and Ribery’s running with the ball was a huge threat. For the first goal, he hadn’t bothered to track Husiev back, and therefore was in a great position to launch a counter-attack – Tymoshchuk was dragged across, Benzema had time to turn when Ribery slipped him in, and Menez was calm enough to cut inside from the right and finish inside the near post.
At 1-0 up, France played their best football of the tournament. There was a great deal of fluidity about their play – shown by Cabaye venturing into the box for the second goal, and the superb 20-pass move that ended with the Newcastle midfielders hitting the post.
It felt like France could have gone onto score more, but Blanc replaced Cabaye with Yann M’Vila on 68 minutes, a sign he wanted to shut the game down. France were very professional in the final 20 minutes, and won the game comfortably.
Conclusion
Two major parts to this game – first, there was the Ribery v Husiev battle. With neither showing anything like the required defensive discipline, both got freedom to run at the opposition defence. Ribery was excellent with the ball at his feet, but was lucky Ukraine didn’t punish his laziness.
But Blokhin’s half-time change must also be questioned – maybe he wanted to be more ambitious and wasn’t impressed with Voronin’s contribution upfront, but Ukraine didn’t need to win the game. Devic’s lack of defensive work didn’t impact directly on the goal, but the switch made the game much, much more open. That generally favours the better technical side.
I went for “Husiev” – controversial stuff.
^I’m a Gusev man myself.
Anyway, I think you’re spot on about Gusev v Ribery being the main battle.
Gusev was too attack minded at times, Ribery exploited the space left in behind and so encouraged Benzema and Nasri to drift over with him, at the expense of sometimes leaving Menez isolated down the right flank – but ultimately this worked as it gave Menez the space to attack when the Ukrainians were drawn to the ball (first goal).
I think the French simply did as much as they had to and nothing more. Their width in attack allows them to stretch defences and then play intricate through balls through the gaps created, and with the Ukrainian’s defensive line positioned higher than England’s was, France had far more joy.
I’d really appreciate it ZM if you could possibly check out my thoughts:
http://tttfootball.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/ukraine-0-france-2-15th-june-2012/
‘Husiev’ wouldn’t be so controversial if you hadn’t also gone for ‘Oleg’ – transliterating the letter Г as both ‘h’ and ‘g’. Consistency is key!
France were very impressive in beating Ukraine. Their attack is arguably the strongest in the tournament with a lot of different options from the bench. Benzema plays the striker role excellently, looking threatening in the box but also dropping off and linking play superbly (only RVP has been as fluid). Ribery was a massive threat down the left, combining with Nasri and Benzema and using his pace to break quickly down the line. Menez offers good movement and pace, with a goal always likely for him (though he wasted chances). They then have Giroud as an aerial threat against deep defenses (he should have come on against England) and players like Valbeuna and Martins who offer different qualities. Their midfield seemed a lot better today than against England, with Malouda gone and Nasri playing a more defined role of linking midfield and attack. Cabaye helped control the tempo and got forward untracked as the game continued, while Diarra has justified his place with two great defensive performances. The backline still looked a little shaky but was never really shaken by the Ukraine attack unless Shevchenko was on the ball. Clichy also seemed a much better option than Evra at LB, looking more of a team player and in better form. They should beat a defeated Sweden side to finish top of this group. The subs also gave some minutes to the players who could make a difference later on in the comp.
Ukraine were poor really, unable to really compete with a very good french side. The whole team seem to get carried away with the support and pressed too high up the pitch, leaving gaps that France were always going to score from at some point. Tymo actually tracked Nasri well, but Nazarenko was lazy with defensive responsibility and let Cabaye get forward freely. The wingers were subdued rather easily, Voronin was concerned with dropping onto Diarra and Shevchenko created a few chances but rarely got support. While Ukraine did press well at times, they looked far too susceptible to French attacks and always looked like losing this game. They still have a chance against England in a must win game, they should look to press England fiercely to disrupt their passing and try and create opportunities for Shevchenko who always looks threatening.
Follw me @econinterests and check out my new article on Ukraine at Just Football http://www.just-football.com/2012/06/ukraine-shevchenko-euro-2012-economy-politics/
I think Diarra still looks a little slow in possession and too easily closed down, although I might leave him in the side and revert to 4-3-3 against Ibra. M’vila seems the better player to keep possession safely if Blanc insists on a pairing of Rami and Mexes, who again looked slow, even against an ancient, if confident, Schevchenko. Also, I hope Blanc considers playing Martin for the rest of the tournament when he packs the midfield, as his movement looked very intelligent and aided midfield fluidity significantly when he came on.
As dangerous and various are the options on France’s bench, I still see them lacking the overall game control that Spain and Germany command at their best, which could cost them in the knockouts.
Good shout, I would also keep Diarra to mark Ibra, then if France are 2-0 up and in control, the bring on M’villa for game time, because he should be starting in the next round if France want a stronger midfield. But Diarra has given very good service in these group stages amid all the criticism, so fair play to him.
Yeah, their midfield doesn’t compare, though it is still strong. Cabaye isn’t at Schweinsteiger or Alonso’s level, while Nasri is nowhere near Xavi or Ozil. But in a one off game, their attack could be more deadly (especially compared to Spain) and the could get through. I think it could be a France vs Germany final myself.
Well just to question your point, Xavi and Ozil are two totally different players in all aspects. As they play in different systems. Hopefully with the placement of M’vila for Diarra the midfield can look even stronger.
Well I meant as they both play as the AM for their teams. Xavi is (wrongly in my opinion) playing higher up and Ozil does the same (though he drifts more). They have different styles, but similar roles for their teams. Nasri has that role for France and is a good player, but not at these two’s level at creating chances/keeping possession. If there is something Nasri trumps them in its in being a goal threat himself, but playmaking wise he doesn’t come close.
great energy ZM, you wrote all thease articles, I couldn´t even read all of them…
Personally, in terms of scheduling, Ukraine kinda needed to win the game, or at least score a goal. VS France, Ukraine would have a better time breaking down a defense less tough than the English back line. Wayne Rooney would also add an extra push from England to get through, and Ukraine may have been facing Franck Ribery and Samir Nasri, they are not at the world class level that Rooney is at. The runs of Sheva would have been good against the lumbering and distracted center-back pairing of the French, whereas the English would try to close the space with their compact banks of four, making it hard to get good runs.
Ribery not world class? Not at the same level as Rooney? For that matter, the France attack as a collective is much more dangerous than England’s, and their approach is also more positive. England’s “tough” defence has allowed as many goals so far as that of Ukraine (3).
Ukraine needed a draw from this game, although a win would’ve been greatly preferable. They now must win against England who are really an unknown right now.
You mean an England defense that has yet to keep a clean sheet ha? and Ribery got more goals and assists combined that Rooney did, while pushing his side to the CL final, while Rooney couldn’t get United out of the group stage.
I’m a big fan of Rooney, but to say he is world class and Ribery isn’t is just wrong.
Also, Ribery seem to be the second player with most dribbles in Europe, after Messi, in the last season. Dont remember where I read it.
He looks very very dangerous when he is on the mood. This comparison with Rooney is pathetic.
France was much better with this formation. They’d be crazy to go back to system with Malouda and Nasri on the right.
Especially since Nasri will never stay out there on the wing. As much as Nasri may slow up the game in the middle, the only other option is Martin in the middle and he’s too untested to trust at this stage. Blanc has made his choices, and given what was available, probably the best decision.
Yarmolenko was great going forward, impressed by him. Energy in abundance.
I think maybe there should be a line from Sheva pointing to the space behind Debuchy which he occupied rather well.
I also see that as a huge French weakness.
When Debuchy gets forward as aggressively as he does, he leaves gaping holes behind him. Rami really should peel right and Diarra should tuck back into central defense but that doesn’t seem to happen.
Sheva exploited it wonderfully at least once and others will too.
Off the top of my head, I can think of Italy (Cassano) and Croatia (Jelavic) that can tempt Debuchy forward by playing without a winger and then use the two aforementioned strikers to get in those gaping holes (both Cassano and Jelavic excel at drifting a little wide and getting on the right shoulder of the right central defender).
I felt sorry for Gusev, but it struck me that Ukraine couldn’t decide if they wanted to play counter-attack, or all-out attack. They tried to play both. They were not disciplined enough positionally for the first, and lacked the midfield control for the second. They might have been better advised to sacrifice one of the wingers earlier for a central midfielder to shore up the centre.
That said, individually the french players clearly had the edge, but I was disappointed by how tamely the Ukrainians allowed the game to fade. I thought they would show more heart.
watching last night there was one notable change in france from the england even though england are credited with defending against staunchly i though the french never worked or passed the ball enough and were much too eager and not patient enough with their shot selection and shot mainly from distance and at a slight chance . blanc may had noted that and i suppose must had told his players to pass the ball more and take shots from much closer range . also he may had asked his attacking midfielders to get beyong benzema and not just sit behind the line .
another aspect is while reading a interview of joachim low the german coach he is giving the statistics as to how the time spend by a player on the ball has come drastically under his spell which means they were moving the ball better ( but still in this tournament it is much higher ) . the same goes with france there problem in the last world cup was the same and here too it looks the same with players spending too much time on the ball esp. nasri and ribery who are responsible to keep the move flowing rather than make it stagnant and slow the game .
to be honest while watch i was a little disappointed with france . the reason being ukraine played a very high line and if you are to stake claim for a top team then you need to open defenses through the middle and france could had done and nasri and cabaye are both capable of undoing the defense . all and all if france really needs to get beyond the Q/F then they need to pass ball rather than just drive .
ukraine can get a result against england if they can just play natural game . they good at playing in close quarters and are good on the ball . hope the coach gets them organized and play voronin for a long time since he can really spread the ball and make good use of it .
Just read you article and am very disappointed with it.
Ukraine played very well, especially considering the feedback of both teams. France played as usual and Ukraine was definitely trying much harder. Not a word was said about it, as well as the fact that Menez should have gotten second yellow card. Why did t you mention it in your article? Or FairPlay is no longer a rule in football?
Ukraine started 2d half much stronger than France and if it wasn’t for the goal from Menez who sould have been sent off, who know what the result would be.
Ukraine’s display was very weak. Had France shown more realism, this could easily have gone 4-0. (let’s not forget that Menez missed three big chances, and that Cabaye hit the post, not to mention Mexes’s header). France was a bit shaky, and even then, Ukraine didn’t prove threatening except for Sheva’s two chances, but that’s it. It’s true that Menez could have been sent off during the first half, but the first yellow card was pretty harsh.
Anyway, good article ZM, you’re doing a good job so far covering the euros, very interesting read.
I kind of feel like its good France didn’t win big and get loads of hype. Right now they are under the radar a bit, which could benefit them later on.
The Nasri, Benzema, and Ribery triangle impressed me. A little like the Klose, Ozil and Mueller triangle, but the french players don’t change zones as frequently. Very fluid, looking forward to watching them throughout the tournament.