way too early. Before I get too down or irrationally exuberant let me look at the France v Romania game from earlier today.France leaves the day with 1 point from a nil - nil draw with our Eastern European rivals. The game went very much to script, the Romanians defended vigorously looking to beat the French on the counter while France dominated possession but could not find the solution in the last 18 meters. Frustrating to say the least....anyways so thoughts on the match:
The Good -
- Hmmm hard to figure what was good for Les Bleus...okay Makelele as always the engine in the middle of the French formation. He was constantly running, looking to carry the ball to the fowards, tracking back to defend, and overall destroying any Romanian attacks that went through the middle of the park.
- The Romanian strategy was perfect, not just in thought but in execution. It was clear they were going to pack their penalty area, play 4 or 5 across the back and drop the midfield as soon as the French mounted any attack. With Mutu and Niculae looking to beat the French on the counter. While France had a half dozen pseudo chances, the Romanian defense worked to a tee never allowing the French to break out quickly and when they finally got into the offensive 1/3 of the pitch would have 5 defenders in the box while the other Romanian players would track down the ball looking to break all the French flair.
- Hmmm where to start...France's lack of creativity. France knew heading into this match it would
resemble the two qualifiers against Scotland, one team defending from the moment they walk off the team bus and one team trying to figure out how to break that lock. Without Vieira and Henry, France was heading into the game without two of their creative players. Without Vieira they lacked their midfield maestro that would link up the defense and offense, something that was clearly lacking. Henry would give France the opportunity to take on the defense one on one...something Benzema and Anelka should also have been able to do but were not successful. Okay I am not sure having Henry would have changed
much, other than a veteran attacking option late in the game. Regardless, with Ribery, Anelka, Benzema, and Malouda France should have found the offensive options to break down the defense. The main problem was that when France got into the offensive third of the park, the support was late coming. Rarely would I see Toulalan, Makelele or the wide fullbacks jump into the play early enough to trouble the Romania defense. By the time they found themselves involved, the Romanians had positioned everyone behind the ball, completely strangling the offensive third of the park for the French. Granted, Makelele and Toulalan are not offensive juggernauts, but they would have given the attack an option to play the ball out to switch sides quickly. Something that needs to be improved if France is to survive this group. - French finishing was poor to say the least. Between Benzema and Anelka, there were 3 clear chances at goal. Anelka should have done better with a
header in the first half. He had acres of space to attack the cross but rather than force a save he ballooned his shot over the net. He had a second chance later that half barreling down the wing, but rather look to play it back to the penalty dot he looked to score from an outrageously tight angle. The last clear chance fell to Benzema when he received a Ribery cross to inside the 18 yard box only to drive the ball right into the keeper's stomach. Les Bleus will have to find a way to put the ball into the net if they do not want a repeat of World Cup 2002....and score no goals in 3 games. Ugh I hope not.
- Lack of goals, nothing worse than a 0-0 draw. Well I guess a Romania 1-0 win would have been worse. But seriously, no goals....that is ugly. With all the fire power France supposedly brought to bear, one goal was not too much to ask for.
- France's system, or lack of change as the game progressed. France started in a 4-4-2, with Anelka and Benzema at the top and a 4 player midfield - Malouda, Toulalan, Makelele and Ribery. The main problem with this formation is it stuck Ribery on a wing. Without Vieira to fill the gap in the middle of the park, there was little direct support for the two strikers. This reminded me of Santini's 4-4-2 from the last Euros where Zidane found himself on an island on the right of the formation. Malouda and Ribery were great in the channels during World Cup 2006 because you had a certain Zidane playing between them supporting Henry up front with Vieira behind to link up the offense and defense. This system is hard to work with the current French make up, either Benzema drops back to sit between the two wing players, which he ended up doing, or you have a huge gap in the middle of the park since Toulalan and Makelele are not offensive enough to take that space. Not allowing Ribery to roam more, stifles his offense. Of course the formation was not horrible, creating some chances against a tight defense. What bothers me is the lack of change early enough in the match. Domenech did bring in Nasri and Gomis but late, and did not really alter the formation France was playing, especially since he brought them in for a position for position change, Nasri for Benzema and Gomis for Anelka. If Domenech wanted to change the style of play, why not bring in Nasri for Toulalan? Or maybe take out one of the strikers earlier, put in Gouvou or Nasri and go with a 4-2-3-1, look to attack the perimeter of the Romania defense with two wing players and one true "10" sitting behind either Benzema or Anelka. France needs to find some creativity, this might be the option. Then again 2 years ago I was clamoring to have Zidane benched...oops.
I think the loss of Cannavaro is sorely felt by the 4 time World Cup champs. Listening to Judy Foudy and Andy Gray you would think that losing Cannavaro was trivial since prior to the last World Cup Italy lost Nesta only to have Materazzi step in...um different players! Materazzi could step in as a stopper, but you still have the cerebral Cannavaro sweeping...without Cannavaro you do not have the organizer in the back for Italy, and that was sorely missed. The Italian defense looked all out of sorts without their captain. But what do I know compared to Foudy and Gray....other than the European Cup and World Cup are two years apart (Andy Gray made a bone head comment about 4 years).
So after one day here is what we know -
- Romania are very much alive in this. They play Italy next and if the Italians play the way they did today they might have trouble with the Romanians. Romania knows that any result from that match means they have a chance to go through. They must feel very good about themselves, if they can get a point (at least) from Italy, which is entirely possible, they know they can get a result from Holland having done so during qualifying.
- France are not a great position but at least they are not Italy. They know that a win against Holland will be huge, but even a draw means they still have their chances. Even a loss is not fatal. Getting a simple point for the first game means they will most likely play 2 more meaningful games. The last game against Italy will determine everything....ugh.
- Italy are in trouble, they must win their next game, otherwise they are in trouble. A draw would be okay but the problem will be goal differential as well, they are already -3 in that category. Of course nothing is lost, if they go out and beat Romania all is to be played for against France.
- Holland are sitting pretty....for day 1. They slayed the 800 lb gorilla of the group, the defending World Cup champs. They know that going into the next game they need a draw and are in a good position, a win and they are through. Of course they could wake up and realize they are Holland and crumble under the pressure.
No comments:
Post a Comment