- Les Bleus never had a system for play. Since France lost the World Cup, the have struggled to discover their system of game. Primarily due to the retirement of a certain Zinedine Zidane, the French system struggled to find itself. With Zizou the system was "simple": play a flat back 4, with two protecting defensive midfielders, two wide midfielders, and zidane sitting behind the lone striker. France looked to play strong defense and either hit teams on the counter or play through Zidane, a player who could control pace of the game, come back to collect the ball, or push forward to be
another striker. When Zizou retired, the question becoming who is the next Zizou rather than, what system makes sense for the current French players? Domenech stuck with his favored 4 flat back with 2 defensive midfielders, however when one of those defensive midfielders was Vieira you really had 1 defensive midfielder and 1 "box to box" midfielder. While players such as Toulalan are incredibly talented, he is more of the Makelele mold, not bad, but hard for attacking football. The next issue became how to best leverage Ribery? Out on the flanks? Behind the strikers? High up on the pitch? And what about Malouda, he was not getting regular games for Chelsea so did he deserve his spot on the French team? Or should another player get his chance? What about the strikers? Go with 2 or 1 lone striker? What about Nasri, Ben Arfa, and Rothen? Domenech had 2 years to develop a system, granted he needed to ensure qualification for the Euros, but he needed to figure out what system France would move forward with. Rather than look at the players he had available and determine what system to play with he appeared to be stubborn in his methods. National teams are incredibly difficult to manage, unlike a Wenger, you cannot just go out and acquire a new right back to fit your system. Instead you need to take inventory of your players and determine what system works best. France's glory days came when they built a system around the talent - the 50s around the genius of Kopa, in the 80s a system built around a power house midfield led by Platini, and the most recent side built around a strong back 4, 3 defensive/holding midfielders (Deschamps, Karembau, and Petit) Zidane running the show, Djorkaef floating from wing to wing and a lone striker. The current team had no system: 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 or 4-2-2-2....play with two wide wingers and two holding midfielders? Play a traditional #10? Domenech never identified the system and therefore France had no system. - A tournament too far....Much is owed to the generation of 1998, the players that gave France their World Cup victory followed by a European trophy. It could be argued that the 1998 - 2000 France team was one of the all time greatest teams. However did they go a tournament too far? Were players like
Thuram, Vieira, Henry, Makelele and Sagnol stretched too far? I know that Thuram, Vieira and Henry were the ones that at the World Cup, but the others were of that generation. Transitioning rosters is always difficult, when is a generation to be asked to leave to allow the new generation to assume the mantle? And what is the proper mix of youth and experience? Fundamentally I think that the 1998 generation did not go a tournament too far, but there was no back up plan were some of the important cogs missing. The main cog was Vieira. France was built around having a healthy Patrick Vieira patrolling the midfield, linking defense and offense. When Pat was hurt, Domenech could not change the system. Was this a sign of over reliance on the 1998 generation that was getting long in the tooth? This is not Vieira from 2000. Just like the 2002 World Cup that was dependent on Zidane, and for some reason could not weave a talent like Micoud to slot into the midfield to support the strikers. Domenech had to realize that he had older players at key spots - Thuram anchoring the defense, Makelele and Vieira in midfield. It was evident that purely holding/defensive midfielders are in abundance for Les Bleus - Diarra, Flamini, Toulalan to name three. However where was the back up for Vieira? And if there did not exist one, why stick with the 1998 mindset? - Domenech's poor management style. I have never been a fan of the French manager. I have been very critical of his management style when it comes to relationships with clubs and players, as well as his ability to strategize in game. A few situations that come to mind: a) His handling of Trezeguet. He was willing to call strikers such as Briand and Pongolle, but was always sour towards one of Serie A's top scorer. I have no problem him turning his back to Trezegol but he should have handled it better, come out and tell us "Trezeguet's game is not part of the system I want to use." Rather than always saying Trezegol was in the mix but he wanted to look at others. This was not only bad for Trezeguet but I am sure did not help team morale. b) The "relationship" he had with managers such as Mourinho and Houllier to name two. Rather than calling and talking to the club managers about their players, building a relationship, Domenech was arrogant and demanding of the club teams and the handling of their players. He would wield the stick before even considering the carrot. Look at what happened with Makelele, he retired and stated he wanted to allow the youth to take the mantle. Domenech basically bullied Claude to come back to the team by stating that any French player was subjected to be called to the national team and if they refused would face sanctions from the federation, granted Makelele kept a team face stating he wanted to come back, but the process left a terrible taste in everyone's mouth. c) During a qualifying game in Israel, France were up 1-0 in a tough qualifier. With about 30 minutes Trezeguet (who had scored the lone goal) was red carded due to a head butt after a vicious tackle. Down to 10 players, and with all 3 of his substitutions left Domenech just sat there and watched as his team was broken down and gave up the tying goal, rather than break the game's rhythm by using his subs and bringing in defensive players to protect the lead. Domenech made his first change AFTER the tying goal was scored....
not exactly shrewed in game management. These are just three examples of fatal flaws I see with Domenech. d) His selection decisions are in question. Not sure how he can constantly take a player like Boumsong while leave Mexes on the fringe. Not sure how Barthez was given the #1 role in Germany over an inform Coupet. Not sure how Gouvou constantly gets time on the pitch in big games. Not sure why alienate players like Guily right off the bat.
Domenech is a very cerebral and thoughtful man, but at times he does not realize that he is dealing in a field where emotion and egos play a major role in success and failure. Unlike a Mourinho who also has some questionable management styles, Domenech appears to be as arrogant and difficult towards his players as he does to the outsiders. At least the Special One shielded his players and allowed an esprit de corps to form.
France had a very disappointing tournament, a team that was full of potential and talent should not leave with 1 point, 1 goal for and 6 against. Les Bleus have a bright future with player like Benzema, Nasri, Ribery, Toulalan, Mexes, Sagna, Clichy, Mandanda to name a few. But the system of play and the core must be determined very soon because World Cup qualifiers are right around the corner.
No comments:
Post a Comment