On Thursday, the day after qualifying for the round of 16, Domenico Tedesco had imagined his game plan for a match where the objective was obvious: limit France’s spaces to prevent them from picking up speed and project themselves forward, quickly if possible, to cause damage. By opting for the attacking duo Openda-Lukaku, the coach could leave the impression of opting for an offensive system, with Carrasco, De Bruyne and Doku to complete.
In practice, it was first a system to play lower, with KDB on the same line as Onana and the offensive players Carrasco, on the right, and Doku, on the left, repositioned to cut the passing lines and limit movements. Inevitably, by starting from lower, the Belgian team had more distance to cover to ensure its forward play, in a hybrid but known system, with three defenders at the restart.
The Devils under the microscope: Openda and Lukaku powerless, Vertonghen the unfortunate
guillementI know people want us to move forward, but…
The novelty was to play with two attackers, and the consequence was to have more space between the midfield and the attacking elements. Carrasco often entered the game and Doku sometimes started from deeper to launch his actions, but it was the price to pay to not suffer the French speed. The balance, between defending well and attacking well, is sometimes difficult to find, and if we can regret the lack of clear chances on the Belgian side or the technical waste, sometimes, the plan had a certain coherence. The proof with a stat, before the French goal: two shots on target everywhere. But how many shots conceded, in total, and therefore potential danger, will some be able to answer?
Kevin De Bruyne explained the behind the scenes of the plan and then gave his analysis: “Three days ago, the coach called me with Lukaku and Vertonghen. He explained his plan to me and asked me to convince the other players that it was the right plan. The coach decided to play deeper. I know that people want us to go forward. But in the end, the tactics worked. We defended well as a team. The French didn’t have that many chances. We had some interesting moments but we were not dangerous enough. And when we conceded, it was too late to react.”
guillementWe were supposed to find the space between Koundé and Upamecano, which we didn’t find well enough.
And there remains this taste of too little of a lack of offensive impact, therefore. Domenico Tedesco did not want to dwell on the analysis, and it is regrettable. The coach has repeated several times that he will need “to watch the match again to form an opinion and a deeper analysis”. But he did drop two clues. The first about defensive intentions: “We had to be careful not to leave too much space in the back and that’s why we played deeper.” The second on offensive intentions: “We were supposed to go and find the space between Koundé and Upamecano. We probably didn’t find it enough.”
The introduction of Mangala, in place of Openda, just after the hour mark, allowed Belgium to return to their more familiar 4-2-3-1, with De Bruyne a notch higher. This could have generated a few situations and, ultimately, some frustration.We weren’t supposed to play super low, but we couldn’t play man-on-man either.noted Timothy Castagne, who observed a certain shyness in the team leader. On the other hand, the coach didn’t want us to play so low, we were installed a little higher in the second half.”
Tedesco, marked by the elimination, still slipped: “We had a plan with three offensive players, Yannick (Carrasco)Romelu (Lukaku) and Lois (Explorers). We had to go and find depth by leaving the ball to France, but we were unlucky at times.” Castagne summed it up as “a last missed gesture in the passes” while Casteels said: “We knew that a detail, a classy gesture or a deflected ball would make the difference.” It was finally the deflected shot, after several off-target attempts, which ended up deceiving the Devils’ goalkeeper.
