Hi guys with the Fifa World Cup upon us I have decided to do a tactical breakdown on each player I find distrupts team play of his particular nation........I am doing this based on different articles and also I have studied some pictures of the game I have found on some websites.
I have decided to start with France vs Uruguay
This was how France lined-up against Uruguay with the exception of Diaby being in place of Malouda probably because of the Malouda-Domenech bust-up being reported in some newspapers
There were some interesting questions one had to answer before the game-
Perhaps most pressingly, can Anelka be made to play as an orthodox centre forward, or would Domenech be better off drafting Gignac or Djibril Cissé into the side?
The problem with Anelka is that he is unable to rein in his natural inclination to drop deep in search of the ball. He played up front on his own with great success for Chelsea last season, but at the tip of a 4-3-2-1 Christmas tree with Malouda and Joe Cole playing in narrow roles behind him. For France, the two players nearest to him are on the flanks.
With Chelsea he could drop deep because both Cole and Malouda were able to break beyond him to attack the penalty area. In France’s new system he plays well in advance of the central midfield three and when he goes looking for the ball, all he does is get in their way.
Hence,in the Uruguay game Anelka was forever going deep to get the ball hence this distrupted the team's play and did not give Gourcuff or Diaby space or time to pick out a pass.
The thought persists that France would be much more effective with a genuine penalty box predator such as Cissé, or perhaps Gignac, in the central striking role. Gignac took up much more orthodox positions when he came on for Anelka and also exchanged positions intelligently with Henry.
Domenech’s handling of the Anelka problem might ultimately dictate how far France go in the World Cup.
I have decided to start with France vs Uruguay
This was how France lined-up against Uruguay with the exception of Diaby being in place of Malouda probably because of the Malouda-Domenech bust-up being reported in some newspapers
There were some interesting questions one had to answer before the game-
Perhaps most pressingly, can Anelka be made to play as an orthodox centre forward, or would Domenech be better off drafting Gignac or Djibril Cissé into the side?
The problem with Anelka is that he is unable to rein in his natural inclination to drop deep in search of the ball. He played up front on his own with great success for Chelsea last season, but at the tip of a 4-3-2-1 Christmas tree with Malouda and Joe Cole playing in narrow roles behind him. For France, the two players nearest to him are on the flanks.
With Chelsea he could drop deep because both Cole and Malouda were able to break beyond him to attack the penalty area. In France’s new system he plays well in advance of the central midfield three and when he goes looking for the ball, all he does is get in their way.
Hence,in the Uruguay game Anelka was forever going deep to get the ball hence this distrupted the team's play and did not give Gourcuff or Diaby space or time to pick out a pass.
The thought persists that France would be much more effective with a genuine penalty box predator such as Cissé, or perhaps Gignac, in the central striking role. Gignac took up much more orthodox positions when he came on for Anelka and also exchanged positions intelligently with Henry.
Domenech’s handling of the Anelka problem might ultimately dictate how far France go in the World Cup.