Listen to the article
Former Super Eagles defender, Ifeanyi Udeze has blamed France inability to attack Argentina in the first half as the cause of their loss to Argentina in the final of the 2022 World Cup.
Recall that Argentina took a 2-0 lead in the first half as the South American team dominated the play.
However, France came out in the second half to level the score 2-2 before the game went to extra-time, where both teams scored again.
In a chat with Brila FM, Udeze stated that France’s approach to the match in the first half hurt them after all.
“France’s approach in the beginning was wrong. They could have started the game with the intensity with which they played the second half,” he told Brila FM.
“The solution was to attack, attack and attack the Argentines. They were not supposed to relax if there was to be a change in fortunes earlier.
“They were playing ‘serere’ football and that wouldn’t help you.
“Aside from the Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo rivalry, a lot of Africans supported France because most of their players have African backgrounds.”
3 Comments
France came into this match with a defensive mind. They intended to concede possession to the Argentinians and hit them with fast counterattacks. That plan only survived 4 minutes of the match because Argentina was awarded a penalty that upset French tactics.
The penalty itself was very soft and had an impact on the game because France did not have the players in their starting line to address the offensive game required from being a goal behind. It is true that the iniquity of this penalty was later addressed in the match, but it also explains France’s lethargy in the first half.
In fact, unusually the french coach made his first substitution in the first half, something rarely done by a coach unless something is wrong. The French coach now 2-0 down decided to gamble with younger physical players and remove older slower players in Giroud and Dembele. This was sound but would later come to bite France in the ass at the penalty shoot-out stage. The youth and inexperience of the french penalty takers lost them the world cup.
The match itself was decided by tactical play, I always say that in world cup tournaments the quality of your players gets you out of the group stage, but the quality of your coach is what allows you to advance to the final.
Argentina’s tactics were to stifle the french left wing where Mbappe is positioned by overloading it with players and attacking traffic, and to introduce Di Maria on the french right to pin back Dembele as an alternative outlet.
And it worked, in the first 45′ France had no answer. Argentina judged that they had the midfield talent to stifle Griezeman who was operating as the lone attacking midfielder in a midfield 3 against the midfield 4 fielded by Argentina.
The French coach’s answer in the 2nd half was to move Mbappe to the center, to support Kolo Muani and bring Coman into the attack on 71′. The key issue dictating the French tactics in the second half was the threat on their right from Di Maria. However, for whatever reason Argentina decided to substitute Di Maria. Seeing this, the French coach made two substitutions (Camavinga for Hernandez, Coman for Griezeman) with the intention of overloading the Argentinian left with attacking traffic.
By removing Griezeman the french coach was abandoning any attempt at midfield chess games with Argentina, and going for full-on powerful physical attacking wing play. This move paid off, first with a french penalty that was as soft as Argentina’s and balanced any unfairness. A drive on the left by Kolo Muani initiated from the overloaded french right resulted in a penalty, and barely a minute later Mbappe stroke again this time with individual brilliance.
The rest of the game was punches and counter-punches by both sides. The use of punches is not accidental. Tactical football matches is like boxing.
The first principle of boxing is guarding your head by using your fists as a shield, another principle is not to throw wild combinations with both arms unless your opponent’s guard has dropped and you’re in a position to knock him out. Yet another, is timing your punches in the form of jabs and attacking through the middle with body punches when your opponent’s guard is raised. Football coaches can learn a lot from boxing tactics.
Boxers do not fight matches without taking into account the strength and weaknesses of their opponents. The way you fight Tyson is not the same way you fight Ali or Frazier or Foreman. A team that attacks with two wingers sets itself to be counter-attacked through the middle, similarly, a boxer that swings left and right punches opens himself for body punches that will force his guard down and allow uppercuts to be delivered.
Most teams in the knock-out stage of the world cup have used one winger with a compensating wingback. This is a typical boxer’s pose, one hand is protecting a flank of the face (wing-back) while the other is offensive(winger) is punching, and boxers are able to switch from attacking on a flank to defending on the same flank.
The number of midfielders a team fields indicates – in boxing language, their ability to defend and deliver body shots. Boxers also measure their distance from opponents a quick jabbing boxer(like a fast attacking team) would look to stand further away (low block) from a hard-punching opponent. While an aggressive hard hitting boxer would go toe to toe (in football, high press) with an opponent.
@Tristan, that was a brilliant analysis. However Deschamp shouldn’t have sub Giroud that early. All the chances Kolo Muani lost, Giroud would have buried them. Beautiful across provided by Mbappe, he missed the header and also when left one on one with the keeper, he shoot to hit the keepers body. No matter how big the keeper makes himself look, a quality striker would score that which would have been a winning goal.
Giroud had a knee injury during Moroccan match and was clearly unfit in the final