Zidane and the 'Smart Changes': What Rhythm for France Amid a Storm of Double Absences?

At the press conference before the match against Belgium in the Nations League, Zinedine Zidane used a phrase I have heard no fewer than a dozen times over the years I have spent following teams: "smart changes". He spoke about rotating the squad, about keeping the France national team competitive despite the absence of key players. Sitting in the press row, I wrote that phrase down verbatim, then asked myself: where is the line between a proactive rotation and a rotation forced by circumstance?

I once witnessed a similar scene at another training ground, when a coach had to rearrange his back line within two days because of a suspended first-choice centre-back. He too spoke of "smart change". But when the ball rolled, what people saw was not smartness, but hesitation in the first passes. The rhythm of a match is the only thing that does not know how to pretend.

The context of this match is clear enough to be easily overlooked. France lead Group A1, while Belgium sit second on six points. In the reverse fixture, France won 1-0 on Belgian soil — an away win emblematic of Zidane's opening phase, having taken over the team after 14 years under Didier Deschamps. But in his first home match, France were held 1-1 by Italy, a result French media described as a spoiler on the night of Zidane's homecoming.

On the other side, Belgium under coach van Bommel also produced a notable result: a 3-0 win over Turkey. The team showed it can still function even without its chief creator. And this is precisely the fateful intersection of the match: both sides enter this encounter with large gaps in midfield and attack.

It bears repeating that Group A1 is no ordinary group. The presence of France, Belgium and Italy — three teams from the elite tier of European football — turns it into a kind of "group of death". Italy proved as much by holding France away from home. In such a context, every match carries the weight of a "six-pointer", where the result not only decides positions but shapes the entire group landscape.

What I call the "symmetry of absence" is the single biggest tactical variable of the match. France lose Kylian Mbappé to a knee injury, and also lose Dayot Upamecano to suspension after his red card against Italy. Those are the two positions where squad depth is most sharply tested: an elite striker and a first-choice centre-back. At the same time, Belgium lose Kevin De Bruyne, the creative brain, and Youri Tielemans, the captain and midfield organiser.

When both teams lose the players who shape their style, the game tends to become more cautious, not more open. This is a paradox I have observed many times: people assume that missing stars will make a match loose, but in reality coaches usually contract toward a safer structure. De Bruyne's absence robs Belgium of their ability to break through the centre, pushing them toward a game built on set pieces and transitions. That is a pattern reminiscent of how van Bommel operated during his time at PSV, and it poses a specific challenge for a France defence that has already lost its first-choice centre-back.

For France, losing both Mbappé and Upamecano may push them toward a more cautious buildup, relying more on the full-backs. This is something Zidane likely had in mind when he described Belgium as a side "strong both collectively and individually" that had "caused us tactical difficulties". He was not describing an open match, but an organised opponent capable of setting up a mid-block and forcing France to be patient in their buildup.

What is notable is how Zidane justified the rotation. He said the changes create "togetherness" and keep "everyone's focus sharp for selection". This is the language of squad management, not the language of tactics. It shows Zidane is prioritising collective cohesion over a fixed XI — reasonable for a coach only three matches into his national-team tenure.

I recall the period when I followed training sessions in Beijing, when a Portuguese coach tried to build a high press with the academy generation. He too spoke at length about togetherness. But when it came to the real match, what was tested was not the words spoken in the meeting room, but the players' reaction in the first two seconds after losing the ball. The rhythm of a match is the only thing that does not know how to pretend.

In terms of the table, this is effectively a pivotal match for top spot. France lead, Belgium chase on six points. A France win consolidates top spot; a Belgium win reshuffles the group's hierarchy. And in a group that includes Italy, the points gap between the teams is small enough that every result triggers a chain reaction.

Historically, this is a rare transition period for French football. Didier Deschamps led the national team for 14 years, long enough to create a stable system and a generation of players bound to it. Zidane inherits not a team in crisis, but a team that has succeeded. That raises the bar for continuity, while also raising the question of how he will impose his own mark.

There is a larger trend unfolding behind this story. Coaches who have succeeded at club level are increasingly moving into national-team roles. Zidane is a prime example. This shift reflects a change in the coaching labour market, where club experience is seen as a foundation for running a national team. But Zidane himself acknowledges that national-team work is different: he speaks of the 15 days with the players, of the difference between working daily and working in camp cycles.

This is also where the tension between club and country is most visible. Mbappé arrives with the national team carrying a knee injury — one accumulated from a congested club schedule. This is not an isolated phenomenon; it is a systemic friction point between domestic leagues and international windows. That is why managing the fitness of stars becomes an important part of a national-team coach's job, sometimes more important than drawing up tactics.

There is a misunderstanding being spread by the media. The story being told is "France weakened by losing Mbappé", but that telling overlooks a simple reality: Belgium are weakened no less. Losing De Bruyne and Tielemans at the same time may leave a bigger hole than losing Mbappé, because Belgium do not have France's squad depth. But the media prefer the story of an injured star over the story of a team gutted at its core.

The second misunderstanding lies in reading "smart changes" as a proactive tactical choice. In reality, it is a passive response carefully packaged. When Zidane talks about rotation before a match in which he is forced to make changes, he is managing expectations. A rotated side that wins is praised as "smart"; one that draws or loses is read as a "rotation failure". The reputational risk here is asymmetric, and Zidane knows it.

There is a small detail I consider more notable than any number. In the articles linked around this match, there is mention of "little squabbles" between France's attacking stars. Zidane's repeated emphasis on harmony and togetherness can be read as a rebuttal to those internal stories. Managing the egos of stars is a genuine challenge, and it does not show up on the scoreboard.

So what is worth watching in this match, beyond the score? I believe the most important signal lies in rhythm. Zidane once said that national-team work differs from club work: instead of working daily, he has only about 15 days with the players. He also expressed "frustration at the thought of this period ending". It is a small detail, but it reveals a lot about how he is finding his own rhythm in a new environment.

National-team football runs to a different rhythm. It does not allow the patience of a club season, nor does it forgive repeated mistakes. For Zidane, every match in this early phase is like an exam whose result is remembered longer than the process. Get one name wrong, understand a whole career — I learned that from my own mistakes reading players' names, and it holds true for how people judge a new coach.

I still keep the habit of reading fans' comments closely after every match, as a data source to adjust how I write. And what I have come to realise is that fans do not need a perfect squad; they need a real team. Keeping the rhythm is not about running fast, but about leaving no one behind.