[Rossi]

(07-17-2018 09:31 AM)Belgrano Wrote:  

Or so you think.
Deschamps could have played any of the strikers you mentioned, yet he didn't.
Him and his team are not blind, they sure noticed that Giroud didn't have any shots on target or scored any goals, obviously. Still picked him for their starting 11 again and again. Don't you think there's a reason for that?

It might be unpopular, but a 9 doesn't necessarily have to score lots of goals, especially not with the offensive power France has available on all other positions. Giroud has a high work rate, he's disciplined and he always helps out when the team is defending. He holds the ball up, he distributes it, he's winning headers and, very important, he occupies the centre-backs. And that means lots and lots of space for Griezmann and Mbappe.

So in the end, it paid off for Deschamps and they won the thing with his tactic and choice of players. Who can argue with that?

Wenger and Conte didn't play Giroud. Before that, he was playing at Montpellier. Do you think every coach in the world is blind and only Deschamps is the genius one?

He was a bench-warmer at Arsenal for 5 years, when the coach was French. Before that, he was at Montpellier. If he was so great, why didn't nobody get him? I mean, even Wenger didn't play him regularly at Arsenal. Conte said, we got Arsenal bench forward instead of someone I want.

Winning World Cup doesn't make you great coach, just like Löw. He won the World Cup in 2014 by scoring 7 goals against Brazil and this time, he couldn't even get out of group.

So, if you win a World Cup, it doesn't still justify every action you took about the team. Giroud will never become key player any club that he plays for, as long as he doesn't play for mediocre teams.

Lacazette, Fekir and Benzema are a lot better than Giroud any day. Thus, that's why, their values are a lot higher than Giroud. We're talking about a striker, (forget about scoring) who couldn't even take a single shot on target