They aren't good at games like the one today where the obligation is on them to dominate and attack, but they are pretty good at playing defensively and hitting teams on the break.
They aren't good at games like the one today where the obligation is on them to dominate and attack, but they are pretty good at playing defensively and hitting teams on the break.
If they would have put two strikers today, they would have been better especially given they played a team like Iceland. Also, their defense were a real let down; really bad when it came to marking.
He needed a point of reference and I believe that if he was playing next to Giroud for example he would have been better. Furthermore, the midfielders and wingers also lacked a good target man to play for. It would have opened up the play in my opinion.
I just thought France played at too low a tempo in the first half.
Ribery and Valbuena made a big difference in terms of injecting some urgency, after Menez, Ben Arfa, Gourcuff & Co. had just been strolling around in the first half.
I just thought France played at too low a tempo in the first half.
Ribery and Valbuena made a big difference in terms of injecting some urgency, after Menez, Ben Arfa, Gourcuff & Co. had just been strolling around in the first half.
Yup, there was a poor rhythm in France's play up to that point; they needed a bit more vitality. I think the main reasons for that were the fact they didn't believe enough they could score (the more the game progressed, the more they were in doubt and the more it seemed like they capitulated) and because of the lack of options. Menez was the only one trying.
I also thought it was a mistake to associate Gourcuff to Cabaye in center midfield; that partnership didn't work.