France Hit by Injuries, but the Real Test Lies in Midfield and Defence

France’s squad is losing names one after another, but the number of absentees is not the whole story. The more important question is where those players operate on the pitch. The absences listed in the report—Aurélien Tchouaméni, Marcus Thuram, Ousmane Dembélé, William Saliba, Jules Koundé, Maxence Lacroix, Pierre Kalulu and Manu Koné—make preparation for France’s two matches more difficult. Yet the team’s position also matters: France leads its group with 10 points from four matches. Before calling this a crisis, it is worth identifying where the squad has the fewest alternatives.

The Associated Press report, quoting the French Football Federation, says Thuram and Tchouaméni are leaving the squad because of injuries. Thuram suffered a hamstring injury while playing for Inter Milan. Tchouaméni has a problem with his right adductor, the muscle group on the inside of the thigh; the report says he had injured the same area at the World Cup. He is due to return to Real Madrid for rehabilitation. That recurrence makes his absence more serious than an ordinary post-match injury. However, no detailed medical findings, severity assessment or expected return date has been published.

The report’s timeline is not entirely clear. It refers to an injury at the World Cup “this summer,” while also mentioning a 2026 Ligue 2 top-scorer and the 2026 Under-19 European Championship. Without independent verification, it is difficult to establish exactly which international window is being discussed. The report also identifies Zinedine Zidane as France coach, so the match dates, competition cycle and current squad information should be checked against federation records. This uncertainty sets a limit on the analysis: tactical interpretations here are possibilities, not confirmed plans.

Tchouaméni’s absence is more than the loss of one midfielder; it tests the alternatives at the junction between defence and attack. He typically receives the ball deep, screens counterattacks and helps organise teammates’ positions. The report also says Koné is unavailable, leaving France without an obvious natural alternative in that area. Zidane has not called up a replacement for Tchouaméni—the report’s most significant selection decision. Regulations do not require a replacement, so this is not a breach. On the pitch, though, it may indicate that the coach is considering a change in midfield structure rather than searching for a like-for-like No. 6.

One possible solution is to use two players in deeper midfield roles and share the defensive work. Eduardo Camavinga, Adrien Rabiot or Warren Zaïre-Emery could be asked to take on a different role, although the report does not confirm who will play. Another option is to reduce the risk of losing possession and attack more directly. That would make midfield control and winning second balls especially important. The report provides no expected-goals figures, pressing data, possession breakdown or player-minute totals. Firm claims about France’s precise tactics would therefore be unjustified. Years of watching matches have taught me that a list of names does not establish a formation; the real test is how a team breaks the first line of pressure.

The defensive losses are concentrated too. The report lists Saliba, Koundé, Lacroix and Kalulu as unavailable. Uncapped full-back Léo Kumbedi has been called up to replace Kalulu. An inexperienced player on the right and a reshaped centre-back pairing could face particular pressure away to Italy. Defending with a high line leaves space behind; dropping deeper increases the burden of resisting pressure through midfield. Either choice carries a cost. France’s problem is therefore not simply a lack of experienced players, but the simultaneous shortage of alternatives at centre-back, right-back and defensive midfield.

Thuram and Dembélé’s absences could also change the attack. As a central forward, Thuram presses, holds the ball and gives teammates time to move forward. The analysis says Eli Junior Kroupi, identified as Ligue 2’s top scorer in 2026, has been called up in his place. But Kroupi is uncapped and has recently returned after foot surgery. It would be a mistake to treat him as a direct replacement for Thuram. A limited substitute role or moving an experienced forward into the centre are both plausible options. His likely minutes should not be predicted without an assessment from the medical staff.

The fixture schedule adds to the uncertainty. The report says France will play away to Italy on Thursday and host Türkiye three days later. With such a short gap, it will be difficult to use the same starting eleven in both matches, especially with so many players injured. Judging the coach’s entire plan from one result would omit that context. The group position is also important: the report offers no basis for concluding that dropped points in these fixtures would derail France’s campaign. It is more reasonable to treat the matches as a test of squad depth than as a measure of the full-strength team’s overall quality.

There is a constructive element in the injury process. According to the federation, Thuram’s release was agreed with Inter Milan and the player. Documented coordination reduces the risk of conflict between club, player and national team. Tchouaméni is also due to return to his club for rehabilitation. A VAR audit taught me that silence is also a decision; injury management also depends on the record of what was communicated and at which medical stage a player was released. Agreement does not, however, settle every medical question. Because Tchouaméni has again injured the same adductor, Real Madrid’s rehabilitation plan and the staged return to training warrant attention. With no public medical details, there is no basis for alleging negligence.

This is where emotion must be separated from evidence. The absence of around eight important players is a legitimate concern; the fact that France has 10 points from four matches is equally real. Declaring Kroupi a new star, or calling Zidane’s plan a failure after a defeat in Italy, would draw large conclusions from limited information. Kumbedi and Kroupi’s call-ups show that France has a talent pool, but their readiness for senior international football cannot be established until they play. I build the decision ledger first, because memory is a poor referee. For now, the confirmed entries are the injuries, the release process, the positions affected and the group points—not a predicted formation or the players’ future prospects.

France’s real test in this international window is not the number of absentees, but how the alternatives share responsibility—especially at No. 6 and on the right side of defence. After the Italy and Türkiye matches, the starting line-ups, midfield structure, minutes given to newcomers and reliable updates on Tchouaméni’s rehabilitation will matter alongside the results. Regular federation updates about injuries, releases and return dates would make club-country coordination more transparent. Whether a specialist defensive midfielder is called up in the next squad will also show whether Zidane views this absence as a temporary obstacle or an opportunity to reshape the team.