France are on their way to the World Cup semifinals, one win away from their third consecutive final and the chance to be crowned world champions for the second time in eight years.
Incredibly, this might be Les Bleus’ best team yet. While they have some flaws in defense, they have never had this much attacking talent. It’s arguable no team in the history of the World Cup ever has, with the reigning Ballon d’Or winner as the team’s third-best forward, while Bradley Barcola generally comes off the bench and Rayan Cherki doesn’t even make it into some games.
It’s absurd.
And yet they might not be the favorites if not for one World Cup-altering decision - when Michael Olise chose to play for France instead of England1.
Nobody has scored more goals than Kylian Mbappé’s eight at this World Cup and Dembélé has five of his own, while Olise has yet to find the back of the net, but there’s an argument to be made that Olise has been France’s best player in the tournament.
Olise’s five assists lead the World Cup and he’s been unlucky not to net a goal or two, but, most importantly, he’s stitched together an amazing attack that doesn’t naturally fit together.
Olise began the tournament on the right wing, but after 45 underwhelming minutes by Les Bleus against Senegal, Dembélé was put out wide and Olise came inside. Suddenly, the attack clicked. He fixed it all by himself.
It may not look like Olise is playing his best because he’s not getting into the box as much as he does for Bayern Munich or scoring, but that’s because he’s been pushed out of position to make Les Bleus function and is doing all the on-ball midfield work. He has been a one-man ball progression machine.
On a France team that desperately wants to keep six players back to defend and free everyone else to attack, how to get the ball from one side of the pitch to the other is the giant unanswered question. You should have to build systems or sacrifice numbers from one end of the pitch or the other, but Les Bleus simply enlisted Olise. He comes to get the ball so France never have to compromise their defense, then takes it to the forward line where he’s also a threat, as his tournament-leading assist mark indicates.
Almost every team in the World Cup would dream of being able to slot in Cherki or Maghnes Akliouche or Warren Zaïre-Emery, but all three would come with compromises for France. They would require Les Bleus weaken themselves somewhere.
Because France have Olise, everything fits. Because France have Olise, they are the undisputed World Cup favorites.
Had Olise picked England, France probably aren’t favorites. Instead, it’d be the Three Lions.
England can defend, as they’ve proven. The midfield of Elliott Anderson and Declan Rice can hang, and Harry Kane and Jude Bellingham have combined for 10 goals.
The problem for Thomas Tuchel is they are limited on the wings, putting unnecessary pressure on their midfield and two stars up front. Bukayo Saka is terrific, but his availability and effectiveness is limited by injury.
If England had Olise, everything would fall into place, just like it does with France. With him on one flank and even a compromised Saka on the other, Bellingham would have to do less progression and creation, making him the in-box monster he should be and Kane would get the service that can sometimes elude him as is. Then if the midfield needed help, he’d simply drop deep and connect the two lines, just as he’s doing with France.
Anthony Gordon and Noni Madueke, good players with limitations, get to be used more sparingly and with purpose in just the right situation because Olise can carry the load against low blocks and then switch roles when the game opens up for one of the other wingers to stretch their legs.
Olise made this World Cup’s overwhelming favorites, despite not finding the back of the net, because his talent and versatility is unmatched by anyone else in this tournament. It’s remarkable, but what makes it historic is that obscene ability to fix his team and shift entire matches belongs to one World Cup favorite because he didn’t choose to make another team that favorite.
This World Cup has put Lionel Messi and Mbappé in the spotlight, while Spain’s midfield and the duo of Kane and Bellingham have also had their moment in the sun, but they are not the ones deciding this World Cup. Olise is, and with one decision he anointed France instead of England.
That makes Olise not just the most influential player at this World Cup. It might make him the most influential player at any World Cup.
Olise is not the only player who got to choose which country he wanted to represent to great impact.
Here are a few other switches that are fun to think about:
Note: Players get to pick which countries they want to play for and they have lots of different, valid reasons to make their decisions. I don’t judge them for their choices and if you do I think you suck. This is just a fun alternate history.
Achraf Hakimi: Born in Spain, Hakimi chose to represent his parents homeland of Morocco and has been terrific for the Atlas Lions, but imagine if he chose La Roja. With a midfield able to control the game like Spain’s does, he’d have total freedom to get forward and would help ease concerns about whether they could turn game control into chances. He alone might make Spain World Cup favorites, but it’s probably for the best. He and Lamine Yamal on the same wing might kill a left back.
Trent Alexander-Arnold: The right back wasn’t even at this World Cup, left off the roster by England, but had he chosen to play for the U.S., he certainly would have been at the tournament. The Americans already had to carry Sergiño Dest defensively so they wouldn’t have much issue doing the same with Alexander-Arnold, but his ability on the ball would have gone a long way to helping the U.S. midfield, both as a progressor and because his threat would scare opponents back.
Désiré Doué: Côte d’Ivoire already have Désiré’s brother Guéla. Imagine if they had the second Doué brother too and could put him opposite Ayo Diomandé. They may have won their group and, regardless, would have been favorites in the round of 16. Opposing fullbacks would be in hell and Les Éléphants would be one of the most fun teams at the World Cup.
Nico Williams: Another situation where brothers play for different teams, if Nico joined Iñaki in playing for Ghana they might still be playing at the tournament. The Black Stars proved they could defend, but were one player short in the attack as Antoine Semenyo and Iñaki were desperate for help. Toss Nico in there and all of a sudden Ghana are a real problem, assuming Nico were healthy, of course.
Bukayo Saka: Like Olise, Saka could have played for Nigeria, who didn’t even make the World Cup. They’d probably be here with the winger, whose ability to beat defenders 1v1 and drag players to him would have allowed Victor Osimhen to feast in front of goal. Then again, it’s not like Nigeria’s problem is insufficient talent.
There’s been a lot of talk in recent days about Christian Pulisic and whether he cares about the USMNT. The claims that he doesn’t and was soft in asking out of the Americans’ round of 16 loss to Belgium didn’t look so hot when news came that he had a bone bruise and a microfracture in his leg.
During the game, I commented that it was interesting Pulisic had been spared the criticism that came Landon Donovan’s way after the 2006 World Cup considering Donovan had done more for the U.S. to that point. It wasn’t meant as a knock on Pulisic so much as an observation of how the American soccer media behaved differently.
Well, the knives came out for Pulisic after the game, so that can’t be said anymore, but notably, the criticism for the 27-year-old didn’t come as strongly from reporters as it did for Donovan. Instead, it was former players who had Pulisic in their crosshairs, Donovan included.
More than anything, they seemed to take exception with Pulisic skipping last year’s Gold Cup and a postgame interview when he was asked about his newest injury and said now he’d get to rest it.
The criticism from Donovan was peculiar because if anyone was going to understand Pulisic’s struggles, you’d think it would be him. After all, this is a player who left Europe and returned to MLS because it was more comfortable for him and even took a career break to tend to his mental health. That’s the guy questioning Pulisic’s commitment?
Carli Lloyd also came for Pulisic.
Lloyd obviously had a tremendous career and performed at the very highest level in the World Cup. She has an insight that very few people in the world do, but one thing she did not experience is playing anywhere near the amount of soccer Pulisic has.
Lloyd played 150 games in her entire club career2. Pulisic played more than that before his 21st birthday. He’s played more games than that since the last World Cup too.
This isn’t to smear Donovan, Lloyd or some of the other players who have taken aim at Pulisic, but considering their careers, they’re an interesting pair to criticize him for this specifically. They certainly know more than I do, and you do, but they are making these comments trading on their experience and it’s hard to see their experience as a one-to-one for Pulisic. It’s a type of reactionary criticism not far off from Skip Bayless yelling “he doesn’t have the clutch gene” and is about as useful.
American soccer media is littered with former national team players now, which should be the sign of a healthy and growing ecosystem for the sport, but the expanded wing of the media hasn’t been especially additive on the whole. Whereas you’d hope that these former players would provide added insight and a new perspective on the sport, more often than not they are trading the same hot takes and general comments that already populated the space. Too many times they are simply pulling from the modern American sports media, like we see on First Take, and making it soccer, with their resume underneath.
None of this is to pick on any one individual or boil anyone’s ability as an analyst down to one comment. They are also not all the same, but how often do you hear a new perspective from former American players? How regularly do you hear more depth or a unique point of view on a situation? Are they breaking down film, explaining tactics, evaluating technique or sharing how things work on the inside?
It happens, but it’s rare. And it’s a shame because they do have the ability to provide commentary few others can. American soccer is worse off because they don’t3.
It’s not as if Pulisic and his performance for the U.S. is above reproach. He was supposed to be the star that put the Americans over the top and be the true match winner on par that the USMNT has never had. That hasn’t been the case, obviously, and too often the Americans’ biggest problem has been their best player didn’t play like it. There’s no getting around that and there is plenty of room to criticize him.
Chalking that up to a lack of commitment from Pulisic does appear to be a bit overly simplistic and over reading a single comment.
Pulisic has played 90 times for the U.S. and answered almost every call. He’s been kicked and stomped on. We’ve seen him carry on while limping and clearly hurt, and his teammates all seem to like him. Would he have been helping the team by continuing to hop around the pitch, unable to really run after a ball?
There was the issue of last year’s Gold Cup, but the logic of wanting a summer off to prepare for a World Cup year holds up. It speaks to someone who desperately wanted to be at his best at the biggest moment for the U.S. this summer That he got hurt anyway and his performance dipped doesn’t change that.
Would playing at the Gold Cup have kept him from struggling down the stretch for AC Milan? Kept him from getting hurt at the World Cup? Of course not.
At the core of this is the truth of Pulisic’s career - he can be a very good player when he’s fit, but he’s very rarely fit and he’s not reliable.
Pulisic was healthy for one half of a game this World Cup and he had Paraguay in hell for those 45 minutes. The rest of the time, he was playing hurt. He plays hurt a lot, for club and country. If he ever gets a consistent run of health, he starts to look good, but that is rare and getting rarer by the year.
Breaking down Pulisic’s impact when he’s fit versus when he’s not and how much the team differs without him would be insightful. Questioning why the USMNT lean so heavily upon a player whose body cannot be relied upon would be interesting. How you manage that type of uncertainty in the dressing room and how the Americans have to change when Pulisic isn’t fit would be the type of illuminating analysis that can be unique to former players.
It’s a shame we don’t get that.
He could have played for Nigeria or Algeria too.
It’s obviously not Lloyd’s fault that she played so few club games in her career. She was famously committed to her craft and her limited number of games was a product of a society and sport that was hostile to women’s sports, ignorant of its potential with even moderate investment.
Although one could argue that a bunch of former players adding little more than “we cared more back in my day!” is the sign of a true soccer nation.
It’s such a shame Arteta has run Saka into the ground 😭
You forgot to mention Declan Rice