Olivier Giroud...

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
28,020
Location
...
.. or Stephane Guivarch, if you prefer.

Many people have questioned the style of France’s football this World Cup, but for me, their achievement is much better when considering they practically won the World Cup playing with 10 men. Giroud posed absolutely no threat on goal at all, and I didn’t see any great hold up play either. Useless.

Once France upgrade that position, they will be totally unstoppable.
 
They looked much better with him in the team though.
 
They have a player called Benzema. They just won't play him.
 
France are a lot better with him than without, we saw plenty of evidence of that. He might not have even a great goal threat but he brought others into play well. They’re going to find it difficult to replace him.
 
haram said:
They looked much better with him in the team though.
Click to expand...

This cannot be overstated.

They did not function as well with a better Griezmann upfront.

I came to the conclusion long ago that there is a reason why the likes of Giroud, Muller, et al which don't have instantly apparent attributes are selected by successful managers, and are criticized by armchair managers.
 
I quite like him as a player. He was exceptionally unsharp this World Cup but in general I think he tends to make his team-mates better (look at the difference when Griezmann was removed from the no. 9 position) because he plays well with his back against the goal. Also ridiculously creative with his head, never seen anything like it in any other player.

He should be scoring more goals (although he's usually more dangerous than in this tournament) but I think he's a good all-round striker.

It was the same with Sterling. People looked at his performances in isolation and criticized him but he was instrumental to England's football.
 
adexkola said:
This cannot be overstated.

They did not function as well with a better Griezmann upfront.

I came to the conclusion long ago that there is a reason why the likes of Giroud, Muller, et al which don't have instantly apparent attributes are selected by successful managers, and are criticized by armchair managers.
Click to expand...

Which makes the idea that they were “playing with 10 men” even more ridiculous.

Irony is that they looked like they were playing with 10 men against Australia when Giroud was on the bench.
 
He’s got a really annoying face

https://goo.gl/images/VJUAQa

VJUAQa
 
adexkola said:
This cannot be overstated.

They did not function as well with a better Griezmann upfront.

I came to the conclusion long ago that there is a reason why the likes of Giroud, Muller, et al which don't have instantly apparent attributes are selected by successful managers, and are criticized by armchair managers.
Click to expand...

I think this is a different point.

That just means Griezmann upfront isn’t the answer. But that doesn’t mean that they are anywhere near their optimum with Giroud. I see no reason why they can’t have a striker who offers a threat. Lacazette maybe?

Benzema would be perfect.
 
They looked a lot better with a player who performs the hold up function than without, but he isn't half rubbish as a player.
 
Rozay said:
I think this is a different point.

That just means Griezmann upfront isn’t the answer. But that doesn’t mean that they are anywhere near their optimum with Giroud. I see no reason why they can’t have a striker who offers a threat. Lacazette maybe?

Benzema would be perfect.
Click to expand...

But Benzema's best attribute over the past few years hasn't been his goalscoring. It's been how well he can bring Ronaldo into the game.
 
Rozay said:
I think this is a different point.

That just means Griezmann upfront isn’t the answer. But that doesn’t mean that they are anywhere near their optimum with Giroud. I see no reason why they can’t have a striker who offers a threat. Lacazette maybe?

Benzema would be perfect.
Click to expand...
Lacazette isn't nearly as good at holding up play and setting up his team-mates.
 
Are people seriously bringing Benzema again?
 
He had a good game against Peru otherwise he's been poor by his standards, struggling even in his hold up and link up play. His competition didn't really show better form when tested, so he fitted as a role player and let Mbappé and Griezmann shine.

I now expect him to be phased out in favour of other players very soon.
 
TBF they looked poor without him. He's a focal point and a target man. The team plays better with him in the line up especially Greizmann.
 
BBRBB said:
He had a good game against Peru otherwise he's been poor by his standards, struggling even in his hold up and link up play. His competition didn't really show better form when tested, so he fitted as a role player and let Mbappé and Griezmann shine.

I now expect him to be phased out in favour of other players very soon.
Click to expand...

What standards are those?

His France form? I think he's one of their highest scorers so that would be fair.
 
I heard he didn't have a shot on target all tournament? is that true? He did do well to be a focal point though and held the ball up. Credit where credit is due!
 
Benzema must be gutted, he'd be perfect for that side. They won the World Cup so it's irrelevant really, but you can't help but think they'd look the complete package with him in there.
 
Also to add, Giroud didn't have a shot on target the whole tournament :lol: He's got the record for the most shots off target as well, seriously what the feck :lol:
 
They play better with him than without him, that makes him a deserved starter.
 
They only played without him for about 60 mins against Australia and then Dechamps couldn’t resist. Hardly gave it a proper go.

I think there is a lack of distinction between France not playing well with their other system and Giroud playing and contributing well. In my opinion, neither of things happened. The idea is surely for their striker to pose a threat, whoever that is.

I don’t think he held the ball up especially either. I think that is just a default explanation for him being in the team.
 
JSArsenal said:
What standards are those?

His France form? I think he's one of their highest scorers so that would be fair.
Click to expand...

His. Giroud is generally a far better goal threat.
 
JPRouve said:
His. Giroud is generally a far better goal threat.
Click to expand...

For France he is.......

Any Arsenal fan will tell you he's extremely frustrating in front of goal. Two goal scoring droughts, that each lasted 14 + games in consecutive seasons will tell you that.
 
manunited1919 said:
Isn’t Martial capable of playing as a 9?
Click to expand...

Not a pure 9, I mean someone strong enough to just hold the ball and bring the others into play which suits both Griezmann and Mbappe. They tried the free form attack with Griezmann, Mbappe and Dembele before and didn't work well. Giroud is the only one who fits this criteria so he always plays even ahead of Lacazette even if he's average.
 
JSArsenal said:
For France he is.......

Any Arsenal fan will tell you he's extremely frustrating in front of goal. Two goal scoring droughts, that each lasted 14 + games in consecutive seasons will tell you that.
Click to expand...

We are talking about France here, no one cares about Arsenal.
 
Rozay said:
He might have done the hardest part of all though.
Click to expand...
Turns out it didn't matter and they're walking home with the trophy. Would that have happened with Martial playing up front? I don't think so, he doesn't bring the qualities they needed up top. He'd just be taking space away from Griezmann and Mbappe.
 
To the ppl saying they look like a better team with him than without: Giroud had no shots on goal in the whole tournament. There is absolutely no way they are better with a guy like that than with a wc striker who can win games (France might not have that one)
 
Schneckerl said:
To the ppl saying they look like a better team with him than without: Giroud had no shots on goal in the whole tournament. There is absolutely no way they are better with a guy like that than with a wc striker who can win games (France might not have that one)
Click to expand...
Read what you wrote in brackets. That's why he plays. That's also why they're a better team with him than without him.
 
I'm sad as Martial who is really great quality and this numpty Giroud who did nothing has a WC medal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because Griezmann or whoever played better when he was on the same pitch as them (there is very little sample for when he did NOT play anyway) doesn’t mean he himself played well. He did not. Fellaini could have played centre forward for France.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.