Aguirre what ifs

Instead of being vague, why can't we talk specifics?

Uruguay, what was the tactical reasoning?

Can you at least admit that what we did the last two games of that world cup were a departure from what had been worked on in preparation for months? All that preparation was wasted with the direction el Vasco took the team vs. Uruguay.

Unnecessary tweaks.

It's a shame because I recognize just how well the team built an identity with what Vasco had done up until that point. It had been a work in progress for a year, and we were beginning to see the fruits of it; a fluid, cohesive, dangerous, and though only a bonus because results are what ultimately matter, a pretty damn entertaining futbol team to boot.

 

3 inches off from being up 2-0 and you'd be here proclaiming how much of a tactical genius Vasco/Carrillo are and to give them four more years.

 

That's not how it works.

That's a game that could be played both ways all day.

There's a good chance it shouldn't have even gotten to the point where we are lamenting close misses versus Argentina, if Aguirre hadn't completely bombed in the previous game vs. Uruguay.

 

I'm done.

 

That is not even a comparable analogy. You are coming off like a shit nsr poster.

If you had said Aguirre in 2002 was like Robert E Lee at the Battle of Gettysburg and 2010 was like the battle of Thermopylae then I would have agreed. Since, it would have made more sense.

 

History major here

So were going to pretend like the Spartans didn't have like thousands of Helots at Thermopylae? Not to mention the 2 king system that made Leonidas expandable?

srs do you guys history at all?

 

What??? so it wasn't 300 men? haha enlighten me please. I like this.

 

lol no. It was Leonidas and his 300 personal guards plus thousands of Helots (spartan slaves) and spartan allies. Sparta was ruled by a 2 king system so one king would be sent to fight and the other one stayed home to rule. Greeks forces were like 5-7 k.


.....

But yea, Aguirre is doing a good job.

 

You are completely wrong man. The motivations were way different. In 2002, Aguirre was nervous, VERY nervous, it was his first World Cup and he panicked, that's why he sent on Miss Clairol instead of Ramoncito. He said it time after time. The team was utter crap after the sub.

In 2010 there was a VALID tactical reason to send Bofo to the pitch. You might not have liked it but there was one. And the team looked great with Bofo on the pitch for 20 minutes and stopped looking great only after receiving a goal in blatant offside and then watching the reply on the scoreboard.

Different World Cups, WAY different circumstances.

 

Moved from Mexicans Abroad.

Feel free to continue the discussion on Aguirre and the national team.

 

Eres cool



Errrrrroooooooooo

 

Te voy a pintar de amarillo.

For the record, my stance is-

Conejo- initial headscratcher on paper, not so once you saw how Aguirre wanted the team to play, as well as once you saw conejo play
Jona- once you saw Aguirre's tactics, it was no surprise. I might have also considered Magallon.
Uruguay- driving all the way out to Rustenberg, scanning the field for the starting eleven, and seeing what I saw ... Smh. Changed the entire WC for me, before the whistle even blew.
Bofo- martin's post sums it up.
Subbing out Morales in 2002- you can hypothetically trace this back to 94, an "I won't get paralyzed into keeping my subs" moment, only he went to the opposite extreme and subbed out his most dangerous player way too early. Aguirre has admitted this is a decision he would take back.

The question I have about a national coach in the context of Aguirre is- do we want someone who will play it safe with the risk of being mediocre, or do we want someone who will go for glory, force his own luck, in turn risking falling flat on his face. Aguirre seems to have struggled with this decision himself, and what we lament him for are the times he gambled and fell flat on his face.

 

Vasco somehow managed to succeed in making extremely stupid decisions in key critical moments

 

Saying that the team played well despite Bofo is absurd. Bofo wasn't sucking, he was playing decently. He wasn't tearing it apart but he was involved in the game and hadn't made any mistakes at all. You are saying that because you hated the decision, and you're biased in that way.

Believe me, I was in the stadium, I felt the mood change after the first goal, you can easily say that the second goal was a consequence of the first. The team was finished after the scoreboard showed the reply with the offside and the referee didn't want to change his decision despite seeing his mistake in the scoreboard. But it doesn't matter, both goals changed everything in the span of two minutes.

In fact, IMO, the match against Uruguay was WAY worse. Aguirre did ******** up badly on that one. Blanco didn't belong in that team, hell, La Volpe was right when he didn't take him for 2006. He was the slowest player of the World Cup (he was, according to Castrol/FIFA stats).

And Guille is a case of xenophobic bias. He wasn't very good against South Africa, but he was excellent against France. His physical style was driving defender nuts and opened the door for Chicharito and Barrera to kill them wih pace once they were exhausted. I wouldn't have played him against Uruguay as their defenders were slow as ******** and we had players with great pace but I understand why Aguirre did it. And then, he didn't even play against Argentina. If Guille had been born in Tepatitlan, nobody would have said anything.

For me, Aguirre's biggest mistakes in that WC were Conejo and Blanco. The other two he could have done better maybe, but the fans (and the media who guide them) are completely wrong blaming them.

 

Well Martin, you yourself used zonal marking as a source.

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/06/27/argentina-3-1-mexico/

"Mexico lacked a real link player, a central threat playing between the central midfielders and the forwards. That is a fairly damning verdict on the performance of Bautista, who was completely anonymous and was removed at half-time."

Do they have a bias against the decision of playing Bofo as well?

When I heard the decision to play Bofo, I was furious.

It seemed like yet another unnecessary risk on the part of el Vasco.

But, if I saw a player out there that was involved in the build up of play, that was distributing, that was gelling with the team, then I would have gladly eaten crow.

He simply wasn't. And I'm not even blaming Bofo, but rather a manager who deemed it fit to plug in a guy that had no continuity or chemistry with the team (this is indisputable, he didn't play enough minutes in the preparation friendlies, 0 minutes vs. England, Italy, and Holland, and 0 minutes in the group stages), instead of a Barrera that could have exposed Argentina's backline and opened up spaces for Chicharo, which he did so in the second half, giving Chicharito more room to work with, resulting in a goal. Pablito on the other hand, was a player who had been instrumental in Mexico's run before and during the world cup. There was chemistry with him to work with on the pitch. See France.

Another zonal marking quote:

"The main Mexican threat was coming from long shots, particularly from Carlos Salcido, who again provided a great attacking threat from the left-hand side. But Mexico were unable to retain the ball when it was played up towards the front players, and they missed their usual system of three forwards, which stretches the defence and would have dragged Argentina’s defenders around more."

That's been my point all along. We inexplicably got away from a dynamic identity up top vs. Uruguay and then Argentina as well. Aguirre's doing.

As far as Guille is concerned, I feel like you're embellishing his play while generally ignoring a severe lack of finishing ability. It's perfectly fine to hold accountable a forward who hasn't scored a goal in two world cups.

You can talk all day about how well Guille served his tactical function, but you overlook clear missed opportunities he had in the first half vs. South Africa.

Same story vs Uruguay. He wasn't decisive enough in the final third, so much so that Vasco couldn't ignore it anymore. Once again, I'll use your source.

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/06/22/uruguay-1-0-mexico-the-best-two-sides-from-group-a-progress/

"His fellow striker Guillermo Franco must also fear for his place. He is the opposite of Blanco – his movement is superb, dropping into midfield zones and allowing Giovani dos Santos (and Carlos Vela, when fit) to exploit space in the centre of the opposition defence. But Franco frequently miscontrols the ball when it comes his way, and has missed easy chances in the competition. Javier Hernandez is presumably seen as a supersub, but Mexico need his pace and running from the start."

Do they have an agenda against Franco as well?

The analysis is spot on. Franco provides good movement, but simply put, a player in his position can serve a tactical function really well, but if he doesn't finish, his usefulness as the lone "9" is greatly diminished.

Against France, I wouldn't say he was "excellent" but he did play pretty well. But again, it was Chicharito who came in, and whose specific skillset exposed France's real weakness, an unorganized and high backline.

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/06/18/mexico-2-0-france-tactics/

"It was only when substitutions were made in the second half that Mexico broke through."

Mexico never broke through with Guille on the pitch in two world cup tournaments. It's a shame and I wish that that had gone differently, but that's just reality.

There's definitely some serious xenophobia issues amongst the fanbase. But you'll have idiots in any group. It does not do any good to paint everyone with a broad brush. If Guille put away his chances, I wouldn't begrudge his performance one bit.

Just as an example, Gabriel Caballero was someone I did like under Aguirre's first tenure with Mexico. It didn't matter to me that he was naturalized.

 

Guille was ok against South Africa. He created himself some chances that couldn't convert. Then he was damn fine against France, do you really think Aguirre didn't have grounds to start him? As I said, that wouldn't have been my choice but I understand why he made it. Cuauhtemoc, on the other hand, didn't make sense at all, he wasn't bad against France but he played 30 minutes and was tired after 15. I think Aguirre started him just to comply with his ridiculous policy of rotating captains. Which is, in itself, the most absurd reason to start ANY player.

Listen, I don't think Aguirre was good in South Africa. I had to work alongside the National team there and I can tell you, he was acting very strange. I also have some unconfirmed stories of lack professionalism on his part off the pitch. HOWEVER, I don't think his main mistakes are the ones the Mexican press (hence the fans) point out. I think he had tactical reasons to start both Guille and Bofo, I don't think he had reasons to start Conejo and Blanco.

And as for the Osorio mistake, it was a consequence of the first goal just because the team wasn't in the match anymore after the offside goal was shown in the scoreboard. Hell, it even had the line that showed Tevez was a mile offsides. Believe me, if you had been there you'd have felt it, there was no way we were going to win that one after that.