CHILE vs España, 2 de septiembre en Saint Gallen (R) (Amistoso)

I have yet to see this team overcome a 1 man down deficit and still come out with a win. When we do that, I will know we are ready to fight for big things.

I suppose mental strength can also be acquired through experience. As they get older they will learn to live with the pressure of playing 1 man down, or defending a lead...or trying to turn over a negative start. It is likely the best is yet to come for these guys.

 

This is, more or less, what I meant in my first post. And I hear you: it's no secret that we have been one of the most exciting national teams on the planet in the last two and a half years or so. What I liked the most about the team a year ago was the pressing game; the team's forward press. It was exceptional. Had it not been for two basic defensive errors against Spain in last year's World Cup, Chile would have topped its group and, perhaps, the fate of the team could have been different. We have made some progress, but we have a few things to get right, and they begin with the two points that you've noted above and what I mentioned before that.

I'll leave point 2 for another time maybe , but let me get into point 1 here.

Absolutely. We definitely lack a good defensive backline. I have seen Medel give some excellent performances in defence, and at times he’s looked like our most defensively adept player, but his best position is defensive midfield. Also, add to this the fact that this guy is an absolute mauler; he is as good a defensive midfielder as I have seen in the last five or six years in world football and knows how to tag you exceptionally well, but he pushes the line too much; he has a habit of occasionally going in for careless tackles. I wouldn’t play him anywhere near the backline. Ditto Vidal. ‘Celia-punk’ is more of a central midfielder, who can also play the deep-lying midfield role quite well, as was the case at Bayer Leverkusen; the reason why he was so effective at Leverkusen was simply because he was constantly taking the risks that his other teammates were unwilling to take; going for so much all the time has its obvious benefits, but you also expose yourself a lot whenever you lose possession or get caught out; he seriously lacks good positional awareness, and someone like him can’t play in central defence, and they knew this in Germany very well; he has also been tried as a full-back and wing-back for Chile way too many times already to very little effect. In short, neither of these guys is suited for defence; they also lack the temperament, as I mentioned in my first post.

Of the regulars, the only players to have a solid argument for remaining as either first or second choice backline players are Ponce and Isla. To be honest, Ponce for me is a solid, mid-tier centre back who gets the job done two-thirds of the time; he is slow off the mark and is average in the air, but is normally confident and good in one-on-one contests. Isla’s best position is right wing-back, but he makes a good full-back, too; he was one of the Serie A’s best right-sided players in the 2010-11 season; his overlapping runs are first-rate as is his understanding with Sanchez on the right; he needs to develop more into a defensively accountable player, but he remains Chile’s premier right full/wing-back.

Still on the regulars, Jara has to go; he get’s pantsed in the one-on-ones, butchers the ball regularly, lacks the presence, defensive tools and aerial ability of a central defender, and lacks the pace of a full-back; when he joined WBA, he was excellent because his team was playing in the Championship where the tempo is not relentless like in the EPL, but as soon as WBA was promoted, he was exposed and rolled almost every week by wingers and much faster opponents; he hasn’t recovered his confidence since his last injury in England, which is one more reason for him to make an exit. The problem is Borghi, who seems to see some value in him.

Contreras’ time is also up, in my view. In his best years, he was a competent defender, generally a composed team player and a battler in the air, but his form has dropped over the years and is clearly not the player he used to be. For me, the final indicator of this was his performance in the 0-3 loss against Brazil in last year’s World Cup where he looked vulnerable the entire time he was on the pitch; he backed out of aerial contests inside Chile’s penalty box when he was desperately needed, and was comfortably beaten in the air the few times he nervously tried to clear the ball to safety. In June 2014, he will be a few months short of 36. What can we expect in two and a half years time? Will he be there if he is this ordinary? And, would it not make more sense to thank him for his services and replace him with a young defender who has more room for growth?

Developing a strong, resolute defence takes time. It’s difficult because you need to have the balls to try out younger players; you need to get games into your young defenders; you don’t want to bleed them too soon (if they’re in their late teens), but as soon as they’ve reached the peak of their physical maturity, you need to test them and ‘throw them into the fire’ against fierce and competitive teams. The reality is that the majority will fail when you do this, and some of them will fail miserably, but they need to test the waters at an age where they’re most likely to learn and develop the most. This type of process would undoubtedly begin with a long-lasting period of disappointment or failure, but the players would gain experience through important tests of character and trial and error, and they would become irreplaceable cogs in a system, rather than pointless experiments or run-of-the-mill stand-ins.

This has not happened with Chile. It never happened under Acosta in the late 90s. It never happened under Olmos in the early 2000s. It never happened under Acosta during his return and short spell after Olmos’ exit. When Bielsa took over, there were signs that he would try out younger players in defence given his preference for youth in midfield and on the flanks, but this practice did not extend to Chile’s backline. He wanted players who could build plays from the back, players who could pass their way out of trouble, and he went for the ones who could meet his demands and adopt his ways as quickly as possible. During his process, he tried a diverse range of players in the last line from mid-tiers like Riffo and Ponce to sub-standards like Ismael Fuentes and Jara, as well as midfielders like Medel, Vidal and Estrada (whose only position is centre midfield as a second choice for someone like Vidal, and that’s it).

Chile had, arguably, the best defensive line of the U20 World Cup in 2007, with three defenders on the verge of making a transition to senior international football. Why was Nico Larrondo, at the very least, not given an immediate trial? How on earth did players like Fuentes and Jara get more chances at proving their worth than Cristian Suarez (2 caps) between 2008 and 2010? Why has Hans Martinez still not been given a place in the national team? What does Sebastian Toro have to do to get more games? Why was Juan Abarca (1 cap) not given more games between 2009 and 2010? Will players like Carlos Labrin, Lucas Dominguez and Bruno Romo suffer the same fate of the abovementioned players?

First-rate central defenders don’t just pop up from under the ground. You need to give them more than just a chance; you need to pump games into them and throw them into the deep end to see what they can do. They will all fail more than once in that first period, and they’ll be frustrating to watch, but at least a quarter or a third will demonstrate that they’re national team material in due course.

The alternative is to persist with the guys we are using now, and position these players in the backline consistently throughout the 2014 qualifiers, which would be the safe thing to do, but we would not be making any progress.

 

As for Chewie's post, there's no doubt that top level defenders are hard to come by, especially for us right now.

The thing is that with a solid second line that comes back and picks up attacking midfielders, you should be able to defend superbly with well positioned players that need not all be Cannavaro's and Nesta's

i think Chile's second line can be among the best in conmebol and maybe beyond when its on its game, and against most midfields (those without deep midfielders like Xavi for instance)

Isla----Medel----Carmona---Jean




- i'd also point out that though he's a bit old and i'm not 100% down with his attitude, PEPE ROJAS could fit in perfectly for JARA on the left......




I think the solution in the backline was seen against Spain with Vidal as 'libero'.....i think its clear he doesn't work on the left, and in fact most prefer Medel as a stopper than Vidal..... but as a libero he can work perfectly, especially since Ponce and Contreras are both good hitting the line or coming into the box.

so for me it should be:

-------------------Bravo--------------
--Ponce-------Vidal---------Contreras
Isla-----Medel------Carmona---Jean

 

I like Ponce and Contreras in the backline. They are no wonders but they get the job done most of the time. Vidal is OK in the centre... and maybe as a fullback on occasion. But I have noticed he is always better when he is given a more central role. No matter how deep or high he plays. In the centre we can take better advantage of his ball control, technique and distribution. He gets wasted when he plays on the sides of the pitch, be this midfield or defence.

The only reason that prevents me from having him in the central role of the back three is his recklessness. I'd rather have Ponce there. That been said, in the case Ponce is injured or suspended, he seems to be the 1st option to replace him at the moment.

My back line of three would be

-------------------BRAVO------------------

----CONTRERAS-----PONCE-----MEDEL------

ISLA-------VIDAL-----CARMONA--------JEAN

-----------------VALDIVIA-------------------

---------ALEXIS-------------SUAZO---------


Due to injuries the front would change to...

-------------------BRAVO------------------

----CONTRERAS-----PONCE-----MEDEL------

ISLA-------VIDAL-----CARMONA--------JEAN

-----------------VALDIVIA-------------------

---------PINILLA------------SUAZO----------

Ideally we want someone taller in the place of Medel though...we can complement this somewhat with the inclusion of Pinilla who is excellent defending high balls...but then we have to sacrifice Alexis or Suazo. It's a tricky one.

 

it seems like almost everyone agrees on the preferred formation...the only discrepency is whether its best to have Vidal at the back (central role, as he's shown not to be able to work as a stopper) or to put Medel as a stopper (probably on the right)....


I know Vidal has a rep for being hot headed and such, but its also known that he has figured this out for the most part. Over the past few years he hasn't been red carded nearly as much as before, or committed penalties.

I know Isla and Carmona have been red carded for the NT, i'm not sure Vidal has. Can't also remember him committing a penalty. I'm just saying i'm not sure its fair to say Medel, for instance, is more tempered.


as for the top, i think without Alexis its quite simple. You have Vargas, Suazo, Paredes and Pinilla. Whichever 2 are playing, and playing best, should start....the 10 should be Valdivia or Mati (whoever is healthier) with Jimenez as the third option.

 

I think Vidal has proven mature enough to play in defence, and as you say, it has been a long time since he has received a red card, for this reason I consider him a valid replacement for any of my starting back three. That being said, he caused a penalty in the Spain match that was not caught, his eagerness to get hold of the ball sometimes makes him make poor decisions. We can live with these mistakes in the midfield, but in the area there is 0 margin for error in this regard. That is why the coolest and most experienced players should always play here.

In fact, if I could, I would not put Medel back there either, but because his anticipation and positioning is so good, he rarely finds himself in that sort of situation were he does not win the ball first time.

As for the strikers, I suppose I agree with you, although I am inclined for Pinilla against taller teams, just because of his defensive bonus.

Were I do not agree is Jimenez as third option. Only against Uruguay did he play to an acceptable level. I would rather play with Orellana, Paredes, Suazo or Alexis as 10.

 

i too like pinilla for what he can do defensively on set plays...and for crosses and such as well

against argentina's crazy slow defense i'd go for mobility....vargas is a must...either suazo or pinilla w him

as for the 10,my preference is Valdivia, Mati, Alexis.....if they're all injured, which is possible, i'd take Jimenez because he's played so long with success in Italy, which is a style of soccer that is similar to Argentina and where many of their players play

 

Fair call. And, I too would pick a healthy Roco over Suarez; no question.

But what about the others I mentioned? What I’m asking is not how they compare with other more experienced and older players, but why they were not taken aside and developed when the time was right. If you don’t get [senior international] games into your younger defenders when they’re still in their very early 20s, especially if the potential is there, then you risk losing them.

And that is, in my view, what’s happened with a number of these players. They were wasted at an age where they should have been accepted, guided, tested and given games. We went for the safest and most viable short-term choice.

From July 2010 to June 2011, we played nine international friendlies using a mix of players from the last World Cup, some mid-tiers and dead-end experimentals. This period of almost a year could have been used to pump international games into a younger brigade of defenders, to prepare them for the qualifiers and beyond.

 

In Cobreloa, yea. Neither one is, however, good enough at the moment to play for Chile.

 

That was just a clarification I was making about preferring one player over another, not about national team selection.

 

Bingo. Also, there is a tendency in Chile with clubs that prefer the foreign 'C' level player over the raw and developing young Chilean player seven or eight times out of ten for key positions (e.g. central defence), even when there is no legitimate reason for this love and preference of puros paquetes extranjeros to exist.