Conclusion
Zambia’s victory is an astonishing story for human reasons, but also an interesting one in footballing terms. Other national sides should embrace the forward planning shown in persevering with good young players over a period of time, despite initial poor results. This side is six years in the making, and owes much to promising results at junior level. “Long-term planning is hardly a revolutionary concept, but it is rare enough in African football that those who try it, can enjoy great rewards,” as Jonathan Wilson puts it.
It’s also another example – after Greece in 2004, Ghana and Uruguay in 2010 and various countries at last year’s Copa America – that the way to overachieve at international level is to be broadly defensive, well-organised and work on set-pieces and playing on the break.
The Ivory Coast knew that too – and they didn’t concede a single goal in their six matches, which shows the value of keeping a centre-back pairing throughout the competition despite rotation elsewhere (though there’s an element of chicken and egg). They played very conservatively in each of their matches, which was broadly the right approach, but their failure to create many chances here was hardly a surprise. They still lack a genuine ball-playing midfielder. 0-0 in 120 minutes was an appropriate end for a tournament sorely lacking in creativity in open play.
The game may have been a draw, but it was still a tactical victory for Renard. Tactics is about getting the best from your players, and since there was nothing to choose between Zambia and the Ivory Coast despite the latter’s considerably stronger squad, it was Renard who maximised his resources.
. Geen goede keuze? 