The baffling falls of France and Argentina in the 2002 World Cup

[matbezlima]

Unlike Italy 2010, Spain 2014 and Germany in 2018, the premature falls at the group stage of Argentina and France in the 2002 still remain baffling. Both teams were flying high before the World Cup, playing wonderful football and so full of talent, they were easily the biggest favorites. France's case is more understandable due to Zidane's injury, but Argentina...

I'll recognize the fact that Argentina was in the the hardest group of the World Cup, the death group, with England, Nigeria and Sweden. Argentina's results weren't really that absurd: 1-0 over Nigeria, 1-0 loss to England and 1-1 draw with Sweden. The players don't understand to this day what went wrong, a poor run of form and bad luck at the worst possible moment without explanation. Not unlike France's situation. Still, Argentina would hardly not have classified if they were in any other group, like Brazil's group. The lessons to be learned from France and Argentina in 2002 are that:

- No competition can be as cruel and punishing with mistakes and bad days than the World Cup since ever.
- And sometimes the only big reason for things not working out as expected is just that they weren't meant to happen, to be. Destiny, fate.

 

[adexkola]

Shout-out to Senegal.

 

[GuybrushThreepwood]

I've followed the last 6 World Cups since 1998, and there is an argument that man for man, Argentina went into the the 2002 World Cup with a stronger, more balanced and more complete pool of players to choose from, than at any of the other 5 World Cups including 2006.

They had the likes of Crespo, Lopez, Veron (obviously his Premier League form tailed off for Utd after an impressive start but he did play very well in the Champions League), Zanetti, Ayala, Samuel etc, all in their 20s, plus players like Sorin, Aimar, Placente, Kily Gonzalez, Gallardo in their team / squad. I've always argued that the strongest Portuguese team that I've seen in my lifetime, was pre-Ronaldo at Euro 2000, and possibly the strong and most balanced Argentinean squad I've seen (at least on paper) was pre-Messi.

Ayala got injured on the eve of the tournament and didn't play a single minute which didn't help, and Nicky Butt completely suffocating his Utd team-mate Veron during the first half of the game against England was memorable.

Bielsa did make some strange decisions at that tournament and was stubborn and rigid with his tactics, such as playing Batistuta as a lone striker instead of Crespo. Batistuta was amazing during his career, but he was 33 at that tournament and after winning the Scudetto with Roma in 2000/2001, had noticeably declined (as expected) and had struggled a lot more during the 2001/2002 season. Not taking Riquelme was controversial, and not taking Saviola instead of a 35 year old Canigga) was absurd. Argentina were famous for strange World Cup ommisions though, such as Redondo in 1998 for refusing to cut his hair, or taking Lionel Scaloni instead of Zanetti in 2006.

I also think that they were overly arrogant / complacent at that tournament, which their status as pre-tournament favourites swelling egos.

 

[thepolice123]

I've followed the last 6 World Cups since 1998, and there is an argument that man for man, Argentina went into the the 2002 World Cup with a stronger, more balanced and more complete pool of players to choose from, than at any of the other 5 World Cups including 2006.

They had the likes of Crespo, Lopez, Veron (obviously his Premier League form tailed off for Utd after an impressive start but he did play very well in the Champions League), Zanetti, Ayala, Samuel etc, all in their 20s, plus players like Sorin, Aimar, Placente, Kily Gonzalez, Gallardo in their team / squad. I've always argued that the strongest Portuguese team that I've seen in my lifetime, was pre-Ronaldo at Euro 2000, and possibly the strong and most balanced Argentinean squad I've seen (at least on paper) was pre-Messi.

Ayala got injured on the eve of the tournament and didn't play a single minute which didn't help, and Nicky Butt completely suffocating his Utd team-mate Veron during the first half of the game against England was memorable.

Bielsa did make some strange decisions at that tournament and was stubborn and rigid with his tactics, such as playing Batistuta as a lone striker instead of Crespo. Batistuta was amazing during his career, but he was 33 at that tournament and after winning the Scudetto with Roma in 2000/2001, had noticeably declined (as expected) and had struggled a lot more during the 2001/2002 season. Not taking Riquelme was controversial, and not taking Saviola instead of a 35 year old Canigga) was absurd. Argentina were famous for strange World Cup ommisions though, such as Redondo in 1998 for refusing to cut his hair, or taking Lionel Scaloni instead of Zanetti in 2006.

I also think that they were overly arrogant / complacent at that tournament, which their status as pre-tournament favourites swelling egos.

I thought the squad was overrated. Had some bang average and greatly inconsistent players in it. Their problem wasn't defence, their attack was disjointed and did not click at all - it was similar story to many of their other WC versions. Batistuta and Simeone were past it. Ortega was probably their biggest talent but was wildly inconsistent. Placente and Lopez were average squad players. Veron did not have a good year in football.

Their peak was probably the 2006 world cup and really should have made it to the finals. They played some great football that year.

 

[rcoobc]

Argentina 2002 isnt hard to understand in that, they failed to beat England or Sweden.

Ive never watched the Sweden match as it was on at the same time as the England match.

England Argentina though, I don't remember England being in that much danger. It was a good, cathartic performance from England and from Beckham.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

I've followed the last 6 World Cups since 1998, and there is an argument that man for man, Argentina went into the the 2002 World Cup with a stronger, more balanced and more complete pool of players to choose from, than at any of the other 5 World Cups including 2006.

They had the likes of Crespo, Lopez, Veron (obviously his Premier League form tailed off for Utd after an impressive start but he did play very well in the Champions League), Zanetti, Ayala, Samuel etc, all in their 20s, plus players like Sorin, Aimar, Placente, Kily Gonzalez, Gallardo in their team / squad. I've always argued that the strongest Portuguese team that I've seen in my lifetime, was pre-Ronaldo at Euro 2000, and possibly the strong and most balanced Argentinean squad I've seen (at least on paper) was pre-Messi.

Ayala got injured on the eve of the tournament and didn't play a single minute which didn't help, and Nicky Butt completely suffocating his Utd team-mate Veron during the first half of the game against England was memorable.

Bielsa did make some strange decisions at that tournament and was stubborn and rigid with his tactics, such as playing Batistuta as a lone striker instead of Crespo. Batistuta was amazing during his career, but he was 33 at that tournament and after winning the Scudetto with Roma in 2000/2001, had noticeably declined (as expected) and had struggled a lot more during the 2001/2002 season. Not taking Riquelme was controversial, and not taking Saviola instead of a 35 year old Canigga) was absurd. Argentina were famous for strange World Cup ommisions though, such as Redondo in 1998 for refusing to cut his hair, or taking Lionel Scaloni instead of Zanetti in 2006.

I also think that they were overly arrogant / complacent at that tournament, which their status as pre-tournament favourites swelling egos.

Still one of my favorite players ever partly because of that.

 

[VorZakone]

Not related to 2002 but didn't England and Italy also fall at the group stage in 2014? Think Costa Rica / Uruguay were the top 2.

 

[Josh 76]

France were favourites going into the 2002 world cup.
That was probably one of the biggest shocks world cup ever.

Henry
Vieira
Petit
Makele
Desaily
Thuram
Lizarazu
Djorkaeff
Trezugeut

 

[Lay]

Didn’t France have 3 players who were top scorers in their respective leagues? They failed to score a single goal which was baffling.

 

[Gio]

I think Bielsa made an arse of it in 2002 to be honest. I think he got the system wrong. The 3-3-1-3 didn't play to their strengths - they had to sacrifice some of their creative midfielders for second-rate centre-halves. His system forced him to choose between Veron or Aimar and between Crespo or Batistuta. Their attack was hamstrung by an ageing lumbering centre-forward who no longer had the legs to find space. They were undone by sticky northern European sides who kept it simple, got men behind the ball and capitalised on a set-piece or counter attack. He should not have started the tournament with Aimar, Kily Gonzalez and Crespo on the bench, that was a criminal waste of talent. He should have found a way to play more of their better players together, something like:

Zanetti - Ayala (Poch) - Samuel - Sorin
Veron - Simeone
Ortega - Aimar - Kily/Pyojo
Crespo
​

That collection of talent would have rolled over most teams quite comfortably. No wonder they and France were joint favourites before the tournament started. He could have sacrificed either of the wide midfielders and played both Crespo and Batistuta as a plan B, particularly facing the parked buses in the sticky group games. They underachieved massively.

 

[11101]

Argentina are not surprising. I don't know if it's their style of play or what, but they've always been shit at World Cups. Their success came from the individual brilliance of Kempes and Maradona. Remove those two, and aside from a flukey final appearance in 2014 they haven't made it past the quarters since 1930.


France i would chalk up mostly to age, a case of people looking at names rather than actual performance level. Barthez's confidence was shot after 2 years in Manchester. Their centre backs were 33 and 34, their full backs were 30 and 32. Zidane and Pires were injured, and Djorkaeff and Petit were both over 30. Henry managed to get himself removed from half the group stage, and Makelele, Viera and Trezeguet couldn't win it on their own.

 

[JPRouve]

France wasn't baffling at all, most people that followed the team were laughing at the idea of France being favorite, the team was terrible for more than a year and I remember betting with my uncle that they wouldn't go beyond the group stage.

 

[paraguayo]

Historically the qualifiers are pretty useless to gauge a teams ability to win the WC. It's more important to have your best players healthy in that specific month and be quick to switch up your line up mid competition and not time to be loyal.

A lot of the times, teams who change to pragmatism amidst the competition end up winning. Brazil removed their classic number 10s during group stage to great success in 94 and 2002. Subbing Mazinho for luxurious Rai during competition, and putting in marathon runner Kleberson in place of Boro's Juninho after a bad start against Turkey, thus allowing the 3 Rs to track back less.

France did something similar, putting in Matuidi for an attacker/winger which I forgot now, and also ended up winning like Brazil. I feel like the tournament being in July has something to do with it, play more piano carriers so your talented players dont need to track back this late into the season, and keep your best players fresh.

 

[flappyjay]

Not related to 2002 but didn't England and Italy also fall at the group stage in 2014? Think Costa Rica / Uruguay were the top 2.

I think the idea is that Argentina and France went into the tournament as favourites. Whilst England the shock is that it was one of the big football nations

 

[Rozay]

I remember the France one being the biggest shock. They went into the tournament with the Golden Boot winner from England, Italy and France and didn’t score once.

 

[GifLord]

We almost beat them a few months before the WC started

 

[BigDunc9]

Did Argentina make a huge mistake not starting Messi in 2006 ? Even at that age they must of been able to see how talented he was ?

 

[Gio]

In 1998 especially and 2000 the foundation of France's success was the stinginess of their back four. But by 2002 the whole defence had aged with Thuram 31, Desailly 34, Lizarazu 33, Lebeouf 34 and Barthez 31 as @11101 says. The drop in quality was most marked at goalkeeper where Barthez was ageing like a bottle of cheap plonk, while Lebeouf would have been a couple of notches below Blanc even in his prime, never mind in his mid-30s. Even in midfield Petit was 32 and past his best. There were fresher options such as Candela or Sagnol at full back and Makelele who was fresh off a CL win with Real. But these guys didn’t get the call until too late, if at all.

All of that made them vulnerable to the counter-attack as Senegal so brutally exposed and they were now unable to press the game and defend high. Going forward they had plenty of options for converting chances, but as with all France teams between the mid-1990s and up to 2010, they were singularly dependent on Zidane to make them tick. His thigh strain just before the tournament kicked off was fatal, as there was lots of huffing and puffing, but precious little spark to unlock teams.

 

[Impulse]

Did Argentina make a huge mistake not starting Messi in 2006 ? Even at that age they must of been able to see how talented he was ?

Messi was just coming back form a hamstring injury, he hadn't played since March.

 

[Demyanenko_square_jaw]

France should have taken Eric Carriere in the squad for 2002. He was a fine playmaker at the time and in his best career form, having pulled the strings at Nantes and then Lyon for their league winning teams, winning player of the year for 01/02. I remember him looking very good in the chances he got at confed cup too.

Instead they took Micoud who had really struggled at Parma that season and a declining Djorkaeff(who was never really a playmaker anyway imo) as the backups for zidane, leaving the team with little creativity in midfield. It might not have made a difference due to the other weaknesses the team had by that time, but it was a poor omission from the squad.

 

[12OunceEpilogue]

I think Bielsa made an arse of it in 2002 to be honest. I think he got the system wrong. The 3-3-1-3 didn't play to their strengths - they had to sacrifice some of their creative midfielders for second-rate centre-halves. His system forced him to choose between Veron or Aimar and between Crespo or Batistuta. Their attack was hamstrung by an ageing lumbering centre-forward who no longer had the legs to find space. They were undone by sticky northern European sides who kept it simple, got men behind the ball and capitalised on a set-piece or counter attack. He should not have started the tournament with Aimar, Kily Gonzalez and Crespo on the bench, that was a criminal waste of talent. He should have found a way to play more of their better players together, something like:

Zanetti - Ayala (Poch) - Samuel - Sorin
Veron - Simeone
Ortega - Aimar - Kily/Pyojo
Crespo
​

That collection of talent would have rolled over most teams quite comfortably. No wonder they and France were joint favourites before the tournament started. He could have sacrificed either of the wide midfielders and played both Crespo and Batistuta as a plan B, particularly facing the parked buses in the sticky group games. They underachieved massively.

Agree. I still think they'd have struggled with Simeone past his best and Veron out of form, but that is a better team on paper than that which took to the field in reality.

 

[AshRK]

Both france and Argentina were extremely unfortunate. France were wothout zidane for their first game and then henry got sent off and missed a match or two. Then Trezeguet hitting the post twice. World cup matches can be cruel and small mistakes are punished and that's what happened to them. Argentina also were not that bad but went out on goal difference or something. No way were they bad like Spain 2014. I would even say Germany in 18 were a tad unfortunate. Missed some simple chances against mexico and Korea. Small margins make a huge difference in WC.

 

[FootballHQ]

Argentina really should've won the 2007 copa america. They played great during the knock outs. Messi and Riquelme were in great form and still had fantastic experience with Ayala, Zanetti and Crespo all around in that tournament.

Brazil counter attacked them to death in the final, 3-0.

2002 was more interesting. Seems they had a few players struggling for fitness and confidence that year like Veron after his disappointing first season at Man. United. Bielsa also made some wierd calls. Crespo was top scorer during qualifying and was doing fine in Serie A at Lazio. Batistuta starting to go past his best. Batistuta started upfront (although he did score the winner v Nigeria in first game). Also remember there being an issue with the keeper. Bonano/German Burgos were regulars during qualification then Cavallero was the one who started in the tournament for some reason. Didn't realise Ayala didn't play, cheers @GuybrushThreepwood for that info.

France never got over the shock of losing to Senegal in the first game, that was massive. Then in second game Henry got sent off very early v Uruguay and it fizzled to 0-0. Zidane was also struggling for fitness and didn't play first game.

 

[FootballHQ]

Messi was just coming back form a hamstring injury, he hadn't played since March.

Yeah he missed the champions league final v Arsenal. Was still only 18 when the tournament began.

Still in Argentina they can't understand why he didn't come on v Germany when they were 1-0 up and Riquelme came off. Julio Cruz came on instead.

 

[Untd55]

Thinking back to the 2002 world cup, the national teams just seemed a lot stronger than nowadays. Choosing a favourite seemed to be a lot harder. Cannot clearly say France were better than a lot of the sides, though they failed pretty badly in 2002.

France
Desailly, Vieira, Makele, Henry, Trezeguet, Thuram, Zidane, Lizarazu

Brazil
Cafu, Lucio, Carlos, Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Silva, Ronaldinho

Italy
Maldini, Cannavaro, Zannetti, Del Piero, Totti, Vieri, Nesta, Inzaghi, Gattusso, Buffon, Zambrotta

England
Seaman, Cole, Ferdinand, Campbell, Scholes, Beckham, Owen

Argentina
Ayala, Zanetti, Samuel, Batistuta, Veron, Crespo, Ortega, Aimar

Argentina had great players, but I would not actually say they were as impressive, in terms of players, as other sides that year. The 2006 team was better.

 

[thepolice123]

Did Argentina make a huge mistake not starting Messi in 2006 ? Even at that age they must of been able to see how talented he was ?

Not really. They played pretty good football and scored the goal of the tournament. They hammered Germany and was unlucky to go out on PKs.

 

[Lay]

Yeah he missed the champions league final v Arsenal. Was still only 18 when the tournament began.

Still in Argentina they can't understand why he didn't come on v Germany when they were 1-0 up and Riquelme came off. Julio Cruz came on instead.

That cost them the World Cup in my opinion. Riquelme on the field meant they had control of the game. Taking him off was ridiculous, for Julio Cruz as well!

 

[GuybrushThreepwood]

In 2002, Argentina looked quite strong defensively even with Ayala getting injured just before the first match, stronger than in 2006 with a 33 year old Ayala, no Samuel, no Zanetti etc, in my opinion, which was why I still think that they a more balanced squad (and general group of players to choose from) in 2002 compared to 2006.

They didn't concede a goal from open play during their 3 matches, with Owen diving to the penalty for England, and Svensson scoring a stunning free-kick for Sweden. Not picking Saviola who had an excellent season for a pretty poor Barcelona team (in fact he had a better season in 2001/2002 before the 2002 World Cup than he had in 2005/2006 before the 2006 World Cup), still seems ridiculous. He would have been a nice option for them to have on then bench behind Crespo who should have started.

Overall 2002 was a very poor World Cup, probably the second worst of the 6 that I've followed from 1998 onwards. The knockout stages basically turned into a contest to see who would lose to Brazil in the final.

 

[Lay]

Portugal fell flat too. They seemingly had a good team.

 

[Fitchett]

I remember it said at the time that France suffered because most of their players were knackered after a long hard season in the English Premier League. So France suffered in the same way that England teams always do before a World Cup.

 

[GuybrushThreepwood]

On a complete side-note, the Senegal-Uruguay game in 2002 was incredible, the best match of a poor World Cup overall. Senegal looked to be cruising towards the knockout stages when they were 3-0 up at half-time, but Uruguay made a couple of substitutions at the break which paid off (including bringing Forlan on), as they fought back to level it up at 3-3 (the 2nd goal was a golazo by Forlan, after Dario Rodriguez scored probably the goal of the tournament against Denmark in their opening game / defeat). In injury time, Chengue Morales had the opportunity to score the winner to send Uruguay through and Senegal home, but headed wide from very close range with the goal at his mercy.

 

[alexthelion]

Argentina are not surprising. I don't know if it's their style of play or what, but they've always been shit at World Cups. Their success came from the individual brilliance of Kempes and Maradona. Remove those two, and aside from a flukey final appearance in 2014 they haven't made it past the quarters since 1930.


France i would chalk up mostly to age, a case of people looking at names rather than actual performance level. Barthez's confidence was shot after 2 years in Manchester. Their centre backs were 33 and 34, their full backs were 30 and 32. Zidane and Pires were injured, and Djorkaeff and Petit were both over 30. Henry managed to get himself removed from half the group stage, and Makelele, Viera and Trezeguet couldn't win it on their own.

1978?

 

[Berbaclass]

Italy I felt sorry for. IMO it seems obvious that the Korea game was fixed in some way.

 

[Vidyoyo]

Just watched the France - Senegal opening from 2002.

Could have been so much different. In the last minute France had two golden chances to score.

 

[Raees]

In 1998 especially and 2000 the foundation of France's success was the stinginess of their back four. But by 2002 the whole defence had aged with Thuram 31, Desailly 34, Lizarazu 33, Lebeouf 34 and Barthez 31 as @11101 says. The drop in quality was most marked at goalkeeper where Barthez was ageing like a bottle of cheap plonk, while Lebeouf would have been a couple of notches below Blanc even in his prime, never mind in his mid-30s. Even in midfield Petit was 32 and past his best. There were fresher options such as Candela or Sagnol at full back and Makelele who was fresh off a CL win with Real. But these guys didn’t get the call until too late, if at all.

All of that made them vulnerable to the counter-attack as Senegal so brutally exposed and they were now unable to press the game and defend high. Going forward they had plenty of options for converting chances, but as with all France teams between the mid-1990s and up to 2010, they were singularly dependent on Zidane to make them tick. His thigh strain just before the tournament kicked off was fatal, as there was lots of huffing and puffing, but precious little spark to unlock teams.

The other thing people forget with France is that the team had dominated every aspect of international football and they lacked the desire at that stage to do it all over again and the loss of Zidane tipped them over the edge. By 2006 they had been written off enough to want to prove people wrong and that gave them momentum to fight through any initial sluggishness.

Argentina were a car crash, classic case of lots of big names on paper but on closer inspection, players ageing, tactically not cohesive and manager making a pigs ear of it. Batistuta was over the hill and as England found to their cost with Rooney, having a immobile striker up top just kills any team especially in high stakes games where you need an outlet.

 

[Raees]

@11101 some fair points but the 1994 team pre Maradona departure was looking sensational and like the 2006 team so cohesive and sophisticated in its brand of football. Shame Diego was pumped up to his eyeballs.

 

[11101]

1978?

That was the Kempes tournament. He played out of his skin and ended the tournament with the then version of the Golden Boot, Golden Ball and MotM in the final.

 

[Raredaredevil]

I think I might have jinxed France by betting on them. I swear I've lost every team I've bet on in this Euros. Fecking hell!
Edit: I posted on the wrong thread.

France seems a lot mentally stronger now than their past generation teams. One thing Deschamps has done great is he instilled this winning tough mentality in his squad.

 

[Wolf1992]

I think I might have jinxed France by betting on them. I swear I've lost every team I've bet on in this Euros. Fecking hell!
Edit: I posted on the wrong thread.

France seems a lot mentally stronger now than their past generation teams. One thing Deschamps has done great is he instilled this winning tough mentality in his squad.

They don't. You some and lose some

France older generations have also won trophies.