Discussion in 'Soccer' started by Live in the Now, Jul 7, 2018.
That's a great observation.
That's a reason why a Brazilian named Hulk was so ironic.
France outshot Belgium 19 to 9.
So you guys were italians against Brazil?
Where you not only defended for 90 minutes but were ALSO outplayed and outshot.
I understand your furstration, but that's absolute crap.
I wouldn't say it's crap. France played a brilliant game form a tactical standpoint and showed how to defend like a team, but that surely isn't all that pleasing to watch. Results are the only thing that matter, though. I mean just look at their win in '98, how many people here would say their D was what got them the Cup?
Don't really get all this complaining about France. I was hoping Belgium would win (mostly because they play a more attacking style which would make the final more entertaining from a neutral perspective), but I can't say I was annoyed for more than about one second (unnecessary from Mbappe) about how France behaved and played. They do attack when they can. They are not Uruguay (or partly Denmark in the group stages).
Then again we had posters complaining about Trippier (if I remember correctly) just because he smiled at someone (if I remember the rest correctly even questioning his general character based on that smile) - so this might be the brave new world we should all expect.
We are not talking about Iran or Iceland here. Its France and they play defensively not just sit and wait with 5-5-0 formation it has nothing to do with "anti football" and the whole term is retarted.
It's really not though. As you said, Brazil outplayed us. They literally pushed with our backs against the wall, especially in the second half. We didn't set out to play that way for most of game, it's just that Brazil really took it to us.
France on the other hand chose to play like that from the very beginning. Even when we passed it around at the back, there wasn't much pressure, just 11 French players standing on their own half, waiting. That's why it felt like playing Italy. You're playing a team that defends most of the game but in the end you lose and you're left wondering how and why. That's not an insult, just an observation.
I understand some of the players and their frustration right after the game, that's not being salty, it's just frustration. The feeling of going out against a team that didn't dominate you. Losing against France usually means you were outdone by their attacking talent, or at least thats what it meant in the past.
Let them having this narrative. In a tournament like the World Cup it is exactly like that. I love when people put Italy in their mouth and part with the stereotypes about our football. France is the strongest team and is maximizing the result without taking unnecessary risks. In a World Championship it is so. If people want the show, they have to go to the circus.
Belgium seemed to lack something down the left side in the 2nd half. No one attacked the space Hazard left when he moved inside. Vertonghen stayed back close to Kompany wary of the French counter attack, maybe he could've got forward a little more considering they were behind. Meunier being suspended meant Chadli moved to the right side instead of left against Brazil where he played well. Dembele was left centre midfield but he didn't play well. Carrasco came on after 80, on the left but did nothing.
I don't really blame Vertonghen for not attacking more down the left - considering he had to watch Mbappe. I thought he did OK against Mbappe, but no way would he be able to join the attack, spring back in to position and then handle Mbappe running at him.
I understand Hazard wanting to be more involved centrally, and he did well, but he should have kept his position out wide more for the benefit of the team.
I was thinking the same during the match, the French team had an Italian feel to them, when Serie A was the best league in the world in the 80's/90's and Italian teams regularly got wins playing just like this.
It's been a winning formula for Italians even before that, and Deschamps grew up and played in that environment, so it's not really surprising that's the way his team plays. Or that there are similarities to 1998 WC winners. Well, at least Mbappe isn't rooted to the subs bench like Henry was (but Dembele has to endure Trezeguet's fate).
“Playing like Italy”
Wow, what an insult!
It’s complete and utter horse poop and just immature whining. Playing defensively is not cheating. Playing like Italy is not insulting, even when Italy does it. If you’re team is really good, break them down. That’s all. And I also find the 1-1 battles extremely entertaining and fascinating. If you guys want offense and high scoring games; the NBA awaits.
Very worst of all, is when people complain about it, but stay silent if there own team picks up a win like that. Or worse, don’t even realize that thier win game like that.
These teams have a place in the pantheon and eternal memory of soccer fans across the world. Whereas you'll sometimes have winners that aren't remembered much outside their own country after a few years.
Well, just to keep things a bit grounded...no, Belgium will obviously not be remembered as a glorious loser or a team thats left a real mark on football. Though I am sure a semifinal bid will be remembered fondly in Belgium 10-20 years down the line.
But I don't think any team from this World Cup will likely be remembered in that way given that the dominant trend from this World Cup is the importance of having big lads who can head the ball and eat up space in the box. The football romantics will have a hard time putting lipstick on that pig.
One of the things about football is that there's always been a war between the romantics and the pragmatics, the idealists and the realists, style vs results. For everyone praising Cruyff, there's someone else scoffing at the Dutch loser mentality. There's a whole socio-cultural history behind those views and why those attitudes can be found to different degrees in different places. Some of it is of course hyperbole that comes out of the polemical way these matters are discussed..on the pitch the gap between isn't always as big as it is in the rhetoric.
I know that this wasn't your point at all, but I'm pretty sure Associations don't make their choices so as to be remembered outside of their countries after a few years...
I dont disagree with the sentiment, but winning trumps all. When people talk of the 1954 World Cup, Germany isn’t remembered less than Hungary. No one will ever say - “ya, well they got 4 stars, but weren’t the best in 1954”. As much as people remember how beautiful Brazil 1982 was, they also remember the fact that they didn’t get it done and no one puts on asterisk on any of Italy’s stars. Winning trumps all.
I said many times that France didn't play well in 98.
It is crap because France played much more than a defensive game. People get way too caught up by possession stats. 19 shots to 9. Who played offensive? Who played defensive?
I didn't disagree with you in general, I just wouldn't use the term "crap". And I'm well aware that you don't think the team played well in '98.
Furthermore, I agree with your comments on possession stats, they are absolutely meaningless without being put into context. And as I said above, your team has executed to perfection and made their way into the finals which is well deserved. I hope we see a rematch of the '98 classic in the Final this go around.
Spain’s tika taka, without a Lionel Messi, but holding a 1-0, is an uber defensive tactic and if the other team doesn’t make a “game”out of it, you’ll see nothing “exciting” until the final whistle.
I wasn't trying to put Belgium in that category...thus my third paragraph calling them salty af...just using those beloved non-champions to point out that our sport is a little unique in the romance it has for style as well as results.
It's not stereotypes about your football, it's the history of your successful teams.
And france is most certainly not avoiding unnecessary risks by keeping games they could be securing by multiple goals within a lucky bounce of going against them...whether it works in the end or not.
But France dominated them in EVERy compartiment except possession. Challenges, shots, shots on target, dribbling, etc...
France didn't "defend" most of the game. They didn't press. That's an entirely different thing, which can be seen by all the other stats other than possession.
Italians of the 90s would be dominated and scrap a 1-0 victory after being outshot, outdone, outplayed. Just like Belgium against Brazil, they would make their only chances count.
France yesterday controlled the game in every category except possession because obviously, Belgium is dangerous in counters, much less in possession.
Belgium created 0 chance except that on a set play.
France had several chances in the game, including two one on ones on Mbappe passes (Pavard and Giroud), not counting the late Tolisso chance.
Belgium lined up with 8 defensemen/defensive midfielders, two AMs and one striker.
Maybe I'm just a german homer who wishes our boys got more attention for their part in the miracle at bern, but I don't actually feel like the bolded is true. Yes, we have that 4th star and the best german youth player award is named after Fitz Walter because of that triumph...but can any non-german even tell me whether Walter was a forward or a defender?
Yet people still remember Puskas as Messi before Messi, while names like Czibor & Hidegkuti still ring out.
And I hear the seconded bolded sentence all of the time, ditto our 1974 winners.
*shrug* They excited me by their ball movement and structure regardless of the scoreboard...except for SF in 2010 *shakes fist at the air*
It’s true that the stars of that great Hungary are more remembered, but I think it’s for the whole of what they did, not the 1954 finals alone.
Just in any instance where a meme, or sports program or wherever quickly lists World Cup winners visually, there it is. Boom. Germany in 1954. Italy in 1982. Sure, deeper analysis of each tournament will bring high praise to Hungary ‘54 and Brazil ‘82, but neither was their tournament. Hungary doesn’t deserve one of Germany’s stars.
Milan with Sacchi and Parma/Scala should be more than enough to refute the stereotype as well as the National Team coached by Sacchi. However, I do not see any harm in having a certain identity, especially if you check the results obtained. Among other things it is not written anywhere that a deftly conscious game is more difficult to interpret than an offensive game.
A player like Mbappè is devastating already of his, frankly uncontrollable when he starts from afar. Anyone would set a type of game that marries these characteristics and even more if I look at those who have available in midfield. All this regardless from the fact that they can hurt you in every occasion as we saw in the semifinal. Should they lose in the final we would say that they played badly in the 2018WC?
Separate names with a comma.