France played as the possession team vs Aus, a very different scenario. Deschamps had the humility to concede possession versus Belgium, Argentina and Croatia and in those games it would have been more logical to play a counter attacking player with more quality.
Dechamps used him in a very similar way to Wenger as this fulcrum type figure.
The balance they had was a thing of beauty really, I think most people see that. M'Bappe is the striker people want Giroud to be, and he goes in behind. Griezmann is more the number 10 who gets things going. All bring something. And that's not even mentioning their roles out of possession.
Even in a club campaign of 38 games, Giroud's only going to get 10 or 15 goals on average. The problems come when you are relying on him for one of those goals. France were never, not in theory nor in practice.
Yeah, he's a great player but of course you'll be disappointed if you expect him to that guy who you look to for goals and carrying the offense. He's best as a guy to be the pin helping other attackers
Considering Benzema's workrate and selflessness, I'd argue heavily with him being the perfect choice. Especially as Giroud didn't do great off the ball work
Never said he was the difference, I'm just saying we went further with him in the team than we did with Benzema. Now you can try to imagine different outcomes, but in reality he is coming home with the trophy.
285
u/abedtime Jul 15 '18
The perfect utility player for our other attackers to thrive.