Hernandez came in for Ramoncito when we were already down a goal, at least we were down and even though it was an incorrect move, he did not start the game with him. He put Bofo in the starting lineup, a player that was a year away from quitting football in order to be on a reality TV show. Both Hernandez and Bofo were past their prime, even though Hernandez´ prime was on a completely different level. Hernandez had experience at the WC, Bofo did not, Hernandez had given a lot to El Tri, Bofo had not. And to top it all off, even though he was older and approaching his 40s, Cuau would have been a better choice (with ¨none of them¨ being the best choice). The Bofo decision was unforgivable, it is one of those decisions that the only way that someone would come to it is to think himself such a genious that he is able to see something no one else could see. The reason no one else could see it (and I will guarantee you that no one predicted Bofo starting that game) is because it was an idiotic move. Football is very simple, you put your best 11 players out there, in positions that they are used to playing and let them do their thing.
paging Kaney for his $.02 on 2010 WC and stock reminder to head to Football Random thoughts ... now, about Moreno and Vasco @ Espanyol. rofl
While we're re-living poor coaching decisions in the round of 16, let's not forget Mejia Baron's decision to leave Hugo Sanchez sitting on the bench for 120 minutes + penalty shootout vs Bulgaria -- not only that, but he didn't make any substitutions for the entire game (he also had Hermosillo, Del Olmo, etc on the bench). The 1994 team is often overlooked, but there was a lot of attacking talent (Ramon Ramirez, Garcia Aspe, Luis Garcia, Zaguinho, etc.) and let's not forget that Bulgaria ultimately advanced to the Semifinals, losing to an Italian side that we had held to a draw in the group stage. Maybe not the biggest coaching mistake of the last 20 years, but certainly worth mentioning.
Mexican coaches screw up all the time but the difference that Aguirre did it not once but twice. Mejia Baron's decision was totally idiotic and as bad as anyone along with Aguirre against the US. But Aguirre went up and screwed it once again massively. The problem is that not every world cup is the same. It's not the same to win a group and face a powerhouse like Italy in 1970 or have a tough group and then face Germany and play great like in 1998. Aguirre on the other hand had the easiest rival we ever had in the R of 16 (as well as our biggest rival) in the US in 2002 and he lost and his screw ups were terrible in that game. Then 8 years later he does it again when we had the Golden Path in our sights. I can't blame him that much for Argentina because with or without Bofo they are the better team. But with EVERYONE knowing that the Golden path to semis was in reach against Uruguay, he went on and did one of the worse screw ups. I mean his screw ups are legendary. Mejia Baron had a legendary screw up in 94 and it has marked him. Aguire had 2 of them 8 years apart.
Blaming coaches with "what if" scenarios is easy. Someone said Aguirre was a god in Mexico, Mejia Baron was in my eyes a bigger one, he had that Pumas team finish first on every single stat that matters (lider de goleo, campeon goleador, superlider casi toda la temporada y campeon)... he then went and almost did this with Rayados, only to leave them for the NT (we lost against el Piojo, LM fallador y otros del Altlante)... anyway, I am not defending leaving Hugo on the Bench, neither some of the choices Aguirre made (or failed to make), but it is easy in hind sight and the bottom line is we had the teams we had, and that counts too. /p
WTF is all this talk about "hindsight". That's total bullshit. They were TERRIBLE mistakes and everybody knew they sucked. When Cuau and Guille were announced in the lineup against Uruguay everybody knew that sucked. When Bofo started against Argentina, everybody knew that sucked. When Morales got subbed out for Luis Hernandez, everybody knew that was wrong. It's bullshit to be all about "it's great to talk in hindsight" when everybody saw it. F'ck the whole stadium booed Bofo in the game in Azteca in the Chile game. Aguirre said "F--k it, I'll go with Bofo" against the wishes of everyone and it ended up being what everybody expect and sorry but he has to live with it. He and that shit nutjob Carillo.
Bofo was an Argie killer and starting him was a hail Mary. It isn't a no-brainer no matter what you think. That fans boo or cheer players should not dictate player selection. And if a coach did, I'd consider him spineless. In 2002 the nads were playing their assess off and the whole team looked past them. You cant that stupid defeat on Vasco alone even if he did sme major ********ups like subbing out Ramoncito. The team was already losing when matador came in. 2010 might have been the golden path but even Uruguay needed some handballing and choking from the ghanians to reach that top4. 1994 choke job is massive by mejia baron and player for player Mexico is probably better then. Bulgaria managed to be the revelation of the tournament. Mexico topped the group of death then and a strong finish playing in what is basically a second home gives weight to the idea it's a much bigger choke job when we factor in the lwck of subs. Leaving Hugo on the bench? No mames. Didn't Mejia Baron retire from coaching after that?
Wow, you gotta be kidding me. This "argie killer" reasoning is nonsense. A great game vs Boca in 2005 justifies him starting a world cup knockout game versus Argentina in 2010? That is laughably ridiculous. Just ********ing wow. Bofo had no chemistry, rhythm, or continuity with this team to take advantage of the talent he did have. He had no role in the qualifiers, the gold cup in 2009, and played sparingly in friendlies in which he flat out sucked. Bofo didn't play a SINGLE minute in three friendlies versus England, Italy, and Netherlands. But LIBERTADORES 2005! ARGIE KILLER! Jesus Christ, what kind of BS spazzo logic is that? Not only were his best days behind him, he simply didn't play enough minutes! In fact, he had NO minutes of play in the WC leading up to that game. Then you START him in our most difficult competitive game in years? lmao El Vasco screwed up, plain and simple. He lost his goddamn mind. I revisited the game thread vs Argentina. A poster summed it up best. "Four years for Conejo, Guille, and Bofo." What a joke.
I love to chip in the Bofo debates because there are so many passionate arguments one way or the other and nobody talks about what was really Aguirre thinking when he made that choice and it resumes to one thing: tactics. Mexico was playing with a 4-3-3 that became a 3-4-3 during that tournament, with Marquez joining midfield. The results had been shaky, good in the first half against South Africa, good the whole match against France, bad against Uruguay, especially because of the Blanco factor. Against Argentina, the tactics weren't going to cut it. Aguirre was particularly afraid of the Tevez factor. He knew Osorio and Salcido had the pace to handle Messi's runs right and center, but Tevez had already break havoc in 2006 against us and he devised a system to stop him. So, he decided to switch to a 4-4-1-1 with Juarez as a right back (instead of anchorman) to slow down Tevez and Torrado and Márquez as anchormen to hold him when he cut to the center. He also sent in Guardado, to help Salcido with Messi and as an outlet to counterattack down the left, against the terrible Otamendi, which was Argentina weak link in defense. The idea then, was to counterattack but he needed someone to launch Hernández (who got the nod ahead of Guille because of tactics), Gio and Guardado himself. Blanco would have been the clearest option... 10 years before that but he sucked so badly against Uruguay that there was no chance he'd play. So he opted for Bautista. It was a risky decision of course but one that made sense in his tactical mind. To be honest, I can't say the decision backfired. Mexico's first 25 minutes were their best in the tournament, until the infamous goal arrived. In fact, there was one play in which Chicharito shot from outside the area in which Bofo was completely unmarked down the right for an easy tap in, if Hernandez had passed that ball... anyway, in Mexico there's still no real measure on what a game changer that goal was. Not only Tevez was WAY offside, but the scoreboard showed it to everyone in the stadium, including the players. I know Germany or Brazil might have had the mental strength to recover from that one, but not Mexico. I was there, I was in the stands, I was outraged, the players were as well, we all knew the game had finished. And then Osorio ********s up two minutes afterwards and it was really over. Blaming Bofo for the elimination in South Africa is completely out of touch. He wasn't very good but the Pérez decision was way worse. It was an error of his that led to the offside goal. In general, that was a very unfortunate match that with different luck could have gone the other way.
To blame Bofo alone is silly. It was just a part of a series of erroneous decisions by the man in charge. The Conejo decision was terrible too. Mexico played fantastically in the first 20 minutes or so of that game. That was in spite of Bofo. He was not actively involved in the build up or run of play. Speculating if Chicharito had just passed it to Bofo. Well, what would he have done? We don't know. But we do know he has no track record with the national team, none. Certainly not one to warrant or merit a starting job in the biggest stage for our Tri in a World Cup knockout. Mexico played fantastically in the first 20 minutes or so of that game. That was in spite of Bofo. He was not actively involved in the build up or run of play. Aguirre himself realized this after a half, and subbed out Bofo, not for another poste but for Barrera. Tactically, Aguirre should have slotted in Pablito at the start of the game, a player who had been through "el proceso" getting significant minutes in the World cup, qualifiers, friendlies, and the Gold Cup the previous year. His presence was felt almost immediately, having the nerve and the pluck to take on a 1 v 1 and whose speed made life difficult for an aging and slow Argentinian backline. I have to disagree with your assessment of the tactical setup. Mexico never played a 3-4-3. Games always began with a 4-3-3. There was always a consistent backline of four. It alternated between, Salcido, Maza, Osorio, and Aguilar. And Salcido, Maza, Moreno, Osorio. There was also at one point vs Uruguay when Moreno was subbed out for Castro, and dropping Marquez back to make a line of Salcido, Maza, Rafa, and Osorio. In the game vs Argentina, we began with a 4-4-3. Salcido, Maza, Osorio, and Juarez. Our three mids were Torrado, Rafa, and Guardado. Then up top, Giovani, Bofo, and Chicharo. It is wrong to justify putting Bofo in because Cuau was too old and Guille wasn't playing well. The fact of the matter is, until the Uruguay game, the tactics were working just fine. Our biggest deficiences were defending corners and finishing our opportunities. Vela and Gio, two agile and dynamic players, were always featured in the attack with a lone 9 up top, Guille or Chicharo. Once Vela was injured, the tactics should not have changed. And in the game versus France, they initially didn't. Barrera was subbed in, not Blanco, or Bofo. Barrera played fantastically. It was Rafa who found Chicharo, and it was Barrera and Gio who launched Chicharo, with the ability to keep opposing backlines on their heels opening the lanes for Chicharo. When Blanco and Chicharo were subbed in vs France, our formation temporarily morphed to a 4-2-4. The turning point came vs Uruguay. Our attacking tactics were always reliant upon TWO "encaradores" and ONE "9." That was how this team operated under Vasco, not only in the world cup but in all the preparation friendlies leading up to Uruguay. Just look back at our lineups! They worked too. Why did that change all of a sudden vs Uruguay? Why feel the need to start a Blanco or Bofo? Against Uruguay, we inexplicably started Blanco and Guille up top, with Gio accompanying them. That didn't work. But that doesn't mean you then justify putting in Bofo vs Argentina because Guille and Blanco failed vs Uruguay. You have to ask WHY we deviated from our original tactical set up vs Uruguay in the first place! After the Blanco and Guille failed experiment, the plan should have been to revert to what had been working for you leading up to and during the world cup! Even from a tactical standpoint, putting in Bofo made no sense. Argentina's deficiency was a slow backline coupled with a lack of defensive midfield cohesion. The way to expose that tactically was not to put in a slow, out of rhythm, out of form player in Bofo, but another fast and dynamic player that would allow Chicharito the space to do what he does best and exploit Argentina's weaknesses. Tactically, this IS what had been working for us in our preparations and in the world cup, and we got away from that. We inexplicably changed course. All the chemistry and rhythm of play that had been fostered for months was layed to waste in two games. That's what was to blame. I will never understand it.
If playing Qualifiers was a requirement to play in the WC finals then Barrera and Hernandez shouldn't have played, that is if we follow the logic you're presenting. Chicharo didn't play a single minute in the qualifiers and Barrera played 70 minutes total, with 45 of those coming in the last game against TnT. O todos en la cama o todos en el suelo..... I must've missed the part where Aguirre was in charge for the entire cycle.... I pointed this out a few pages ago. They were tactical gambles that didn't quite pay off. Nothing more, nothing less. We performed at about the same level we had over the last four WCs. People are acting as if we bombed out at the group stages or something. These decisions are absolutely questionable but looking at the inclusion of Oscar Perez, nobody has been able to answer how many goals he gave up that Corona or Memo would've saved. Nobody....
We did not began against Argentina with a 4-3-3, not by any means. It was a 4-4-1-1. Against Uruguay we also played a 4-4-2 of sorts. I don't know why that changed from the previous matches. What I can say is that before the phantom goal against Argentina the tactics were working and then the goal changed everything. It's very easy now to remember it wrongly in hindsight because we lost that match but Mexico were playing their best football of the tournament before that goal, and before you say "a goal can't change everything". Yes, it can, especially THAT goal, followed by THAT other goal. And Mexico did play 3-4-3 out of their 4-3-3 original formation, Aguirre's tactics were, in fact, some of the most revolutionary of the tournament. You can check everything that happened in this fantastic tactical pieces by Michael Cox. http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/06/27/argentina-3-1-mexico/ http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/05/27/mexico-tactics-world-cup-2010-javier-agurre/ http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/06/22/uruguay-1-0-mexico-the-best-two-sides-from-group-a-progress/ http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/06/11/south-africa-1-1-mexico-tactics/
Entonces para que fueron esos amistosos y dos meses de concentracion? There you go again putting words in my mouth. Where did I say playing in the qualifiers was a requirement? You've never addressed these questions. You either don't bother to read carefully what it is I'm saying, making assumption after assumption, or you're just trolling me at this point, IMD. Chicharo became a focal point of our squad during our pre-World cup preparations, with two dynamic players beside him opening up spaces for him. That's when our offense was most effective. With Bofo, I'll reiterate for the thousandth time. He simply didn't play enough minutes to gel with the young guns. And in our most valuable friendlies against European powerhouses, he didn't play at all. Didn't even sub for garbage minutes at the end of games. All he did was ride pine. Inexcusable decision. I missed the part where I said that. Please point to where I did. Again, assumptions. Did you even bother to look at the thread, and see the context of the post that I quoted? Of course not. Four years for Conejo, Bofo, and Guille is only an expression of frustration. All the coaching changes, all the upheaval, four years of trying to put things together, and then just when Vasco seems to have our team figured out, saving us again from a qualifying fiasco, giving us an identity on the pitch, it only resulted in head scratching decisions in the most important moments. Why was there a tactical gamble in the first place? That's been my point all along. Why the change, seemingly out of the blue vs Uruguay? Was he trying to rest players, take our feet off the pedal in the third game because we were almost assured qualification into the second round? Ok, fine. So then why didn't we return after that abortion of a game to what made us successful? The gamble didn't pay off vs Uruguay. So why was the solution to stick to the same failed philosophy of the Uruguay game, but simply with different personell? Bofo and Chicharo instead of Blanco and Guille? Pura pendejada y terquedad del Vasco. The very first thing I said when this whole shit show of a conversation started, was that Aguirre is a good coach. What is maddening is to think he was on the cusp of greatness in my opinion, but then he started moving his pieces recklessly. Uruguay was there for the taking, as was the group. And he dropped the ball. Enough with the apologetic bullshit towards his decision to start Conejo. I mean, Christ. He wasn't even on a team, certainly not a top three goalie in the country much less the best suited to start all of our world cup games. He looked insecure vs. South Africa on corners, whiffing terribly on one, and looked like a sitting duck in one of the last chances S.A. had to win the game. He should have secured the ball before the offsides goal by Argentina. Martin mentioned that as well.
They were for preparation purposes, of course. What questions? You used Bofo's lack of playing time and contributions during the qualifiers to ask why he played. I merely showed that Barrera and Hernandez also played little, if at all, during the qualifiers. I'm questioning the logic behind this particular statement. I'm not disagreeing with it, or you. Chicharo was anything but dynamic during the preparations for the WC due to the injury he suffered in March of 2010. I'm not so sure Guille would've played in the opening round as much if Chicharo hadn't suffered that dip in form. Here's what you're missing. Most of us agree that it was questionable, at the very least, to start Bofo against Argentina and to include him in the WC squad at all. BUT I understand why Aguirre made those tactical adjustments. That's what I've been saying all along, they were questionable decisions but the tactical rationale behind them made sense. They were gambles. Some of the players didn't respond. Period. You "summed" up your argument by adding that quote. You didn't provide context or the name of the person who said it. Given how the last cycle was managed, it's pretty short sighted to pretend like the turmoil and end result were Aguirre's fault. Why include it in a discussion about the one year Aguirre was in charge? A bit dramatic, don't you think? Especially when the fact is why did just as well as we had before. De que es terco pues si, nadie lo puede negar. Pero por eso, a el es quien le pagan y nosotros estamos aqui discutiendo como viejas de tianguis. It would be apologetic if you could actually point towards a goal where he was factually at fault. Not some personal interpretation of he "could have" gotten to the ball against Argentina. I'm not saying Perez should've been the goalie but objectively speaking, it was a non issue. He played his part and didn't really cost us any games. So what is the big deal?[/quote]
Gentlemen, Discuss Javier Aguirre - DT de Mexico, here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...oughts-thread-volumen-treinta.1981037/page-61
I believe both salcido and guradado had hit the crossbars/goalposts before the Argies scored. If only...
2002 it wasn't just playing their asses off. Morales had been the best offensive player in the game and he subbed him out for Luis Hernandez. We were trailing but that was the equivalent of losing 1-0 and then getting a red card. Luis Hernandez was done and embarrassing and yet Aguirre subs him in and basically kills our chances. All of you are talking about tactics but it's about players and these players where clearly going to suck and they did. It's on you then. Everybody in Mexico knew Bofo was going to suck and he did. Same with Hernandez and starting Blanco and Guille at the same time. It's his responsibility. And ALL of those horrible decisions where made by the same guy in the biggest stage 8 YEARS apart.