Sometimes it’s doing nothing
the best thing a coach can do.
France led 16:10 in the 28th minute and Norway won 29:22. Norway changed the goalkeeper in the 22nd minute and nothing more.
France changed everything it could.
STRUCTURE OF THE ATTACK
Norway played almost equally in the first and second halves.
France changed the way they played in the second half: significantly more possessions tried to finish against the unset defense.
WIDTH OF ATTACK
Norway played almost equally in the first and second halves.
France changed the way they played in the second half: they stopped maintaining a good attack width.
CONSEQUENCE
Norway played almost equally in the first and second halves.
France needed significantly more attempts per attack in the second half in the 6:6 situations to get a good chance to shoot.
BACK PLAYERS
Norway played almost equally in the first and second halves with 3 different back player combinations.
France has changed 14 combinations of back players. Only 2 combinations played in both halves (marked in blue)
CONCLUSION
The success of the two best teams in the world is based on completely opposite tactical foundations.
In this match, it turned out that less is sometimes more.
The logic according to which a team that has a lot of different options will eventually win in a series of difficult matches makes sense and France shows this in many competitions.
The high rhythm of playing with a lot of running, contact in defense, a large number of exceptional and equally quality players brought France to the finals.
Norway is a team that can keep such a rhythm with a small number of exceptional players and this time the persistence of repeating what they are good at and not giving up on it even with a resulting deficit, led them to victory.
Would France have won if it hadn’t changed the winning combination of back players from the first half?
Does Norway have only 4 back players who are capable of playing at this level so the coach didn’t change them, even though they were ineffective in the first half?
Would France have won if it had not changed the way they played?
Does Norway have faith in one way of playing that they are so successful with so they don’t change it because it’s so good or they don’t know how to play differently?
Did the exceptional goalkeeper of Norway emotionally shake the French players so that they unknowingly changed the way they played?
We do not know which of the above was crucial, but we know that in this match the persistent repetition of what the team and coach believe is good even in moments when the result was unfavorable won the system of constant change.
Less won more.
HE:An is an analysis of team attacks according to more than 50 parameters at three levels: collective analysis, group analysis, and individual analysis.
In this text, we have shown 4 of these 50+ parameters that show the difference in approach of these two teams.
More about HE:An is here:
