The first match analyzed was France versus Romania. This was not a particularly exciting match to watch as Romania took the lead in overtime to win the match 1-0. In regulation both teams played very defensively and it was not until overtime that the rate of play drastically increased as well did the number of shots. In regulation there was a total of four shots taken by France and two shots taken by Romania. In over time each team took two more shots, but the only shot on goal the entire match was taken by Romania—this proved to be the deciding factor. While the Romanians did not take as many shots as their opponent, their midfield looked much sounder than that of France. They possessed the ball for 60% of the match and this was visible through their long passes and very technical style of play in the simulation.
England versus Russia, the second game simulated, proved to be a very exciting match to watch. Both teams demonstrated extremely aggressive attack styles, yet neither team was able to find the back of the net. In the first half, the Russians utilized very short passes, while longer and more elegant passes were employed by the English. At the half it would have been impossible to predict the winner. After half time, however, England dominated the first 5 minutes of play, scoring the first goal of the match. This did not create the momentum shift it would have in real life, though; the Russian offense retaliated with a long possession filled with great crosses, technical moves, and three shots, none of which were able to tie the game. The most promising Russian opportunity came in the 85th minute when their star striker missed a break away goal after receiving a chip pass from the midfield. The overall statistics of the game were extremely even, but also accurately depict what was seen during the match. England had a total of 6 shots, only one of which was on goal and was the only goal of the match. Russia, on the other hand, had 5 shots, 2 of which were on goal and none of which found the net. The similarities in shot statistics can be further exemplified by both teams’ time-on-attack. While one might assume the Russians spent more time on attack due to their dominance in the second half, the English actually spent 51% of the match with the ball in their possession.
One of the most exciting first halves of all the matches that took place was between Northern Ireland and Poland. Poland completely dominated this match, yet the possession percentage would not support my claim. Ireland maintained control of the ball for 55% percent of the game, though could not manage a single shot on goal. Poland managed to have four shots on target, scoring on one of them. Poland started the match well by using the entire field. They maintained a steady rate of passes which made it almost impossible for Ireland to get the ball out of their side of the field. Finally, in the 45th minute, Poland scored. Poland’s offense used quick passes within the box to find an opening and with a few jukes they were able to locate the net. After halftime the Polish no longer dominated the game flow. Ireland maintained possession for a large portion of the half but the Polish defense would not allow the Irish strikers to get even remotely close enough to the goal to attempt a shot. The tight Polish defense led to an extremely dull second half with the only ball movement being at midfield. Poland ultimately won the match 1-0 due to their exciting goal in the first half.
The most exciting simulation was undoubtedly between Italy and Belgium. Belgium began the game in extreme attack mode, nearly embarrassing the Italians. While the Italian squad held majority possession of the ball in the first half, they still struggled to build momentum. It was not until the injury of Lakaku, one of the Belgium forwards, that Italy started to create opportunities. After suffering an injury, the Dutch started utilizing their midfield to generate more chances. Toward the end of the first half, neither team was dominating the other; the Belgium midfield was generating opportunities but unable to capitalize, and the Italians could not break through their opponents defense in order to have a quality shot on goal. The second half started just how the first ended, with the Italians struggling to break past the Belgium defense. In the 58th minute the Belgium defense was able to stop the Italians, send the ball up the field to their forwards and ultimately score off of a rebound. While it was not a visually exciting or skillful goal, it provided them the lead. The momentum shift the Dutch received from their goal did not last long, though, as the Italians started dominating their opponent’s side of the field soon after. In the 76th minute, Italy saw its first goal on a long cross to a header. The game would stay tied until the end of the regulation. Overtime was not very eventful, as the ball went back and forth as each team tried to take the lead. It was not until the second half of overtime that Italy scored on a fast break, giving them both the lead and the victory. The statistics behind the matchup are extremely even; both squads had five shots, of which two were on goal. Italy only held possession of the ball for 47% of the match and still was able to pull away with the victory. While there is no way of empirically proving this statement, the loss of Lakaku could have been the reason why the Dutch lost the game, since they were forced to alter their traditional attack style and rely more heavily upon their midfield.
