World Cup: FINAL: France vs. Croatia, 7/15/2018

[tony d]

Going for France. 3-1 winners over Croatia.

 

[YNWA14]

No Alli? No Rashford/Lingard? No Sterling? I would like to commend you on only picking 4 current Liverpool players though.

I don't think any of those three are going to last very long as starters if England wants to be successful moving forward. I picked the Liverpool players because they're either already playing or have played for England at this level and are highly regarded (Gomez, TAA). Brewster is extremely highly regarded to the point where Klopp isn't even buying another striker; he's in a similar class to Sancho and Foden. It wasn't meant to be a definitive line-up...you could replace the Liverpool players with other big prospects if you like (if you think there are better future options for RB/RW/CB that's cool) it's just a point that England have a bright future. But we've discussed England too much! I apologize.

Go Croatia!

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

You are forgiven for blaming Henderson, but he was also the major reason England didn't lose far sooner in this game or other rounds. For a nation that prides itself on hard tackling and interceptions, they have nobody else who knows how to stop attacks from coming forward.

Their team tactic throughout the tournament was to play long and he merely carried it out. We know that he's capable of better, but he is also very tactically disciplined and will do whatever a manager tells him to do.

I did say that he was probably instructed to play like this and that is why England won't ever be a serious threat.

I still don't get it with him though. He works hard sure but if Hendo is play a big role in your midfield then your team probably isn't winning much.

 

[KJS14]

Englands not much better up front...if they even are, Kane's the best forward on either side -- despite not scoring from open play at this tourney (IIRC) -- but taking a Pep-less-Sterling over Perisic, Kramaric, Robo-Mario, or a hot Rebic is no sure thing, and I'd take any of those 5 over Rashford/Lingard/etc...while the gap in midfield is utterly jarring.

Which is what the play reflected. Whenever England had to string passes together they would get more uncomfortable with each completion, while the Croats looked better the more they slung that ball around the pitch. That's what happens when a worldclass midfield goes up against a mediocre one.

I suppose this wonder-goal just escaped your mind. Didn't even have to appeal or swear on his daughter's life this time.

 

[kihei]

Enough with this England eulogy. What are people's thoughts about how France and Croatia match up?

 

[Eisen]

I've been thinking about this. Yes god help us all, I've been thinking

We compete to decide who the best is. Winners win. Losers lose. The best team alway wins.

The premise is wrong. We play to see who wins a hard tournament. Being better is just one part of the equation.

 

[kihei]

I've been thinking about this. Yes god help us all, I've been thinking

We compete to decide who the best is. Winners win. Losers lose. The best team alway wins.

Of all threads to make this claim, a soccer thread seems the strangest. I can't count the times that I have watched a match and the better team didn't win. It happens in other sports, too, but it happens in soccer a lot where one mistake in a nil/nil game dominated by one team can make a terrible difference.

 

[Harry22]

Enough with this England eulogy. What are people's thoughts about how France and Croatia match up?

Both teams will be having their toughest test.

France need to chase the Euro 2016 final demons away and playing a resilient Croatia side.

Croatia playing a total of one extra game than France and having one less day to prepare for probably the best technical team they will face in this tournament and also the team with the most talent.

Should be fun!

 

[YNWA14]

Of all threads to make this claim, a soccer thread seems the strangest. I can't count the times that I have watched a match and the better team didn't win. It happens in other sports, too, but it happens in soccer a lot where one mistake in a nil/nil game dominated by one team can make a terrible difference.

I guess you could make the argument that having more shots, possession and more skilled players doesn't necessarily mean you were 'better'. If a team sets out to defend, and try and hit on the counter, and they succeed in that then maybe they executed their gameplan more effectively than you did yours.

I'm not a fan of defensive soccer in the least, but that doesn't mean it's not an effective tactic. Each team should play the way that gives them the best opportunity to win.

 

[cgf]

I guess you could make the argument that having more shots, possession and more skilled players doesn't necessarily mean you were 'better'. If a team sets out to defend, and try and hit on the counter, and they succeed in that then maybe they executed their gameplan more effectively than you did yours.

I'm not a fan of defensive soccer in the least, but that doesn't mean it's not an effective tactic. Each team should play the way that gives them the best opportunity to win.

Nonsense. For once in his life Cruyf was right; results without style are as useless as style without results.

 

[canuckking1]

This could be the start of a French Dynasty. Realistically it should have started 2 years ago. That being said with players like Coman,Dembele, and martial still on upswing along with there already young talent I see them dominating the world stage for years to come. Although if they lose on sunday then this core is a bunch of bottlers.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

This could be the start of a French Dynasty. Realistically it should have started 2 years ago. That being said with players like Coman,Dembele, and martial still on upswing along with there already young talent I see them dominating the world stage for years to come. Although if they lose on sunday then this core is a bunch of bottlers.

To be fair though, the Lahm/Schweinsteiger Bayern/Mannschaft core had a reputation as bottlers until they won a treble and a WC. All it takes to no longer be a bunch of bottlers is to prove doubters wrong, it need not necessarily stick, and this French gen (if Sunday doesn't go according to script) has a lot of time to fix that.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Of all threads to make this claim, a soccer thread seems the strangest. I can't count the times that I have watched a match and the better team didn't win. It happens in other sports, too, but it happens in soccer a lot where one mistake in a nil/nil game dominated by one team can make a terrible difference.

Mind you, if one team was clearly better than it wouldn't be a nil-nil game in the first place. And you actually see this in the youth game where quality gaps are often much wider and the clearly worse team will typically get a good hiding.

In top level football, i.e. full-time professionals who are all talented and skilled to a certain degree, the difference between sides is often very subtle and subjective. There were certainly a lot of people who felt England were clearly better in the 1st half vs Croatia, but there is also an argument to make that it was an even half and perhaps even Croatia was better if you consider the whole half.

People saying England were better will generally remember the goal and the other two, three solid chances England had and will point to Croatia's lack of real threat, but then Croatia did dominate the flow of play from about the 15th minute onward (so for 2/3 of the half) and were merely lacking in their final ball.

While we've all seen situations where one team is creating chance after chance after chance and they're just not finding the back of the net, and then the other team scores..it's far more typical for a team that is dominating in all aspects to also achieve a clear lead. Germany v Mexico is another match where Germany had the bulk of possession and controlled play for the majority of the match, yet most people would have come away thinking Mexico deserved to win. Germany had a few chances, Mexico had a few chances but Mexico took one and Germany didn't. Mexico seemed more dangerous because they had so many situations where they threatened with quick counters, while Germany's attacks were fairly predictable and mostly easily defended. A lot of the determination of who is better is optics and the result of perception, which is why even pundits may have quite opposing views on who is 'better'.

 

[Harry22]

This could be the start of a French Dynasty. Realistically it should have started 2 years ago. That being said with players like Coman,Dembele, and martial still on upswing along with there already young talent I see them dominating the world stage for years to come. Although if they lose on sunday then this core is a bunch of bottlers.

Makes up for the 2007 to 2013 era.

 

[YNWA14]

France vs Croatia - Key midfield battle to determine World Cup winner

Indeed, the possession won in the midfield third metric has Modric (31) top with N’Golo Kante (26) second and Rakitic (22) making up the top three.

Modric has been so impressive. The ratings can be ignored; he's been the best player at the WC this year.

For me this game is going to come down to how well France deals with Croatia's probing from midfield while Croatia will have to be able to deal with France's directness and speed on the counter. Lovren and Vida have done really well with that so far this tournament.

 

[cgf]

Mind you, if one team was clearly better than it wouldn't be a nil-nil game in the first place. And you actually see this in the youth game where quality gaps are often much wider and the clearly worse team will typically get a good hiding.

In top level football, i.e. full-time professionals who are all talented and skilled to a certain degree, the difference between sides is often very subtle and subjective. There were certainly a lot of people who felt England were clearly better in the 1st half vs Croatia, but there is also an argument to make that it was an even half and perhaps even Croatia was better if you consider the whole half.

People saying England were better will generally remember the goal and the other two, three solid chances England had and will point to Croatia's lack of real threat, but then Croatia did dominate the flow of play from about the 15th minute onward (so for 2/3 of the half) and were merely lacking in their final ball.

While we've all seen situations where one team is creating chance after chance after chance and they're just not finding the back of the net, and then the other team scores..it's far more typical for a team that is dominating in all aspects to also achieve a clear lead. Germany v Mexico is another match where Germany had the bulk of possession and controlled play for the majority of the match, yet most people would have come away thinking Mexico deserved to win. Germany had a few chances, Mexico had a few chances but Mexico took one and Germany didn't. Mexico seemed more dangerous because they had so many situations where they threatened with quick counters, while Germany's attacks were fairly predictable and mostly easily defended. A lot of the determination of who is better is optics and the result of perception, which is why even pundits may have quite opposing views on who is 'better'.

Huh? Youth Football is absolutely litered with flukey results where the blatantly superior team lost. It's much more pronounced than at the senior level, in large part because organizing a bus is easier than organizing an attacking structure to carve open buses, especially with inexperienced kids who are in different places on their personal development curves.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Modric runs a goddamn marathon every game.

I wonder how much he's run at this WC so far. Probably 50k, if not more.

 

[Eisen]

Nonsense. For once in his life Cruyf was right; results without style are as useless as style without results.

Tele Santana agrees with you too.

 

[Ivan13]

Modric runs a goddamn marathon every game.

I wonder how much he's run at this WC so far. Probably 50k, if not more.

More than anyone, 65.3km if I remember correctly.

 

[cgf]

Tele Santana agrees with you too.

My posts should make it pretty obvious why I'm such a diehard Union fan & have so much love for BMG in BuLi1...and that I have some Dutch ancestors alongside the Prussians on the german side of my family lol.

...courageously facing an honorable-death is in my football DNA

 

[Dr Pepper]

More than anyone, 65.3km if I remember correctly.

That's nuts. The conditioning of the Croatian team is incredible.

Of any world-class soccer player as well, really, but Croatia seems to have ramped it up a notch with their stamina.

 

[Evilo]

Good thing they're not russians, or they surely would be doped.

 

[CharlesPuck]

Still think that Pogba goal v Australia should count for him not an OG.

 

[Stray Wasp]

I've been thinking about this. Yes god help us all, I've been thinking

We compete to decide who the best is. Winners win. Losers lose. The best team alway wins.

We compete so that a lot of people can make money out of the event, and so that the people who win can brag they are the best.

As I'm wont to repeat, a quirk of the World Cup is that people tend to become far too excited about the 'World' part and pay too little attention to the word 'Cup'.

The finals series is a sprint. With 23-man squads playing seven one-off games in roughly a month there's no time for injuries, unexpected peaks or dips in form, mistakes or luck to even themselves out. Sometimes the victor's overall form during the tournament is superior to their rivals. Others they're one of a handful of roughly equally good teams that, had a few cards fallen differently would have scooped the big prize.

Not that there's any shame in that. If anyone doesn't know from the beginning what they're letting themselves in for it's their own fault for failing to do due dilligence.

 

[Stray Wasp]

While I concede Corto's point that it's a one-off game etc., and wouldn't object to seeing Croatia lift the cup, I think France failing to win on Sunday would count as a significant upset.

I can envisage Croatia scoring once on their own merits, but no more. As to how they might be gifted a hand, maybe Lloris will confound his excellent tournament to date with a ruinous blunder, in the Schroif or Kahn vein. Superbly as he's played in general, Umtiti sails close to the wind sometimes in possession near his own box.

But as others have remarked, France seem to possess something in reserve. The spine of their team has been very strong, and that's a good place to start judging potential champions. Giroud will likely be the whipping boy if his side falls at the last hurdle. I've written elsewhere that I think he plays a useful role, albeit with room for improvement. I believe France would have been ill-served by playing with a false nine. Though they haven't a midfielder with Modric's guile, there's energy and technique enough to prevent them falling into the same trough as that team from the other side of the Channel, whose name has already been mentioned too often in this thread. To see them go one goal down and be forced to open out might result in a splendid game.

As no less a poster than Evilo will tell you, Zidane's 1998 World Cup was overall a disappointment. A pair of deeply uncharacteristic headers from corners in the final allowed history to be drastically revised to his benefit. I have a feeling something vaguely similar may occur with Pogba or Mbappe- perhaps even both.

I should clarify- Pogba and Mbappe have both impressed me in this tournament. It's just that 'dominant' isn't the word I'd use to describe their performances to date. If the former plays well on Sunday and France wins, it will surely be said he's lived up to his hype at last. If Mbappe shines in a victory, the 'heir to Messi' narrative that was trotted out by some observers after the Argentina game then discreetly shelved will return with a vengeance.

Some players have about them an aura that makes you feel events will inevitably fall their way. That's what my instincts tell me about Pogba and Mbappe right now.