tell me their semifinal appearances have more merit because they lack resources which has an indirect and direct effect on training, scouting, infrastructure, player development lack, player acquisitions, etc.... do not tell me thier semifinal appearance has more merit because they are all Mexican. It is as if being Mexican is being at a disadvantage. The fact the you imply that speaks volumes of your shortcomings and your upbringing. That is an inferiority complex If I have ever seen one.
and having the competition suspended 2 months only to replay the semifinals also took an effect on America's performance. ANybody that has played any type of sport will tell you that being away from a sport for an extended period of time will have an effect ie physical, technical, rhythm, tempo, etc Had the competition not have been suspended for that amount of time, MANY speculated that America would have been a SERIOUS contender for the title. Up to the semifinals, America was the best team in the compeition
A team having its rhythm upset is hardly the same thing as having half of a team's starting lineup taken away.
Chump. Why cant you just leave him alone? He's proud to be Mexican and of Mexican football. You know how nationalistic we all are. If it get's on your nerves, so be it. But just don't see why you have to post about it.
fitness trainers and coaches alike would disagree with you 110%. I am neither, but have played and know that inactivity is as detrimental to a team's performance. America played its last match on May 26, 2002. The 2002 World Cup started May 31st. The final was played on June 30th. The 1st leg of the 2002 Copa Lib was played on July 9th. In other words, from May 27th to July 8th, America's players were inactive and not necessarly by choice, but because other teams in Mexico were also on vacation. Sao Caetano already had the team playing against full squads three weeks PRIOR to their July 9th engagement. They could do that because most Brazilian internationals play in Europe therefore the local clubs in Brazil can play all year long without having their rosters interrupted. With all due respect, you know nothing of football or player performance if you fail to accept that teams performance is greatly affected by inactivity. There is a reason why teams look rusty at the beginning of a season and those teams that do well early on in a season are usually the ones that had a productive offseason which brings me to this point----- America's elimination at the hand of Sao Caetano did not go in vain. America went on to accumulate more points in a single short season and that record still holds to date. They also clinched a playoff spot after week 12, which if memory serves me is also a record in short season play.
perhaps not in a direct manner. you said that having a player(s) is not the same as a team being inactive for an extended period of time. I disagree and here is my reasoning (as well as the reasoning of many trainers and coaches alike) if the absence of a player(s) forces a team to align, attack, or defend a certain way perhaps not accustumed to and can not do it efficiently, the overall perforamance on the field will most likely be substandard. If a team is inactive for an extended period of time and the players are as they say, "going through the motions" without being at thier performance peak or close to it, the overall performance on the field is also as well substandard. Doesnt matter which of the following poison it is, the overall effect is the same-----substandard play. In other words, both scenarios produce the EXACT same result---- so which is why I ask? How is it not the same?
actually, chivas went through after they lost their starters. they lost after the inactive period... oh shit, they had that too? no me digas.....
How about Atlante? Theyre an average team, not great nor terrible. There arent very many fans of them though, ive yet to run into one, even here on the internet. Usually you can catch their games (at least home ones) on Galavision later on in the night (about 9 or 10 here in the central time zone) or so.
young kids watching soccer like teams that passes the ball well and is exciting to watch. Atlas fits that category
no, young kids are fickle and are influenced too much by highlight reels. Young kids like watching goals and fancy dribbling. Call it the ESPN effect. It is the mature fan that is more appreciative of well collective play. America has the most points and the most goals scored in League play. That has to count for something because well collective play and attractive football factor in to those records. They are known to attack. America is the type of team that has to be play attractive and has to win in order to quiet ALL its detractors. And for the record, Atlas doesnt fit that category. You are just going off a couple good seasons they have had. Historically, they have not been a good team and have not played attractive football.
thats why atlas is my team they played attractive and always a cantera team but i wasnt around in the 70's and 80's and i think atlas went down four times during those eras but the following year came back up such a shame i cant talk shit bout any team cause when i my team won the championship my dad wasnt even born yet
Historically you are right , but to say Atlas doesnt play attractive football is nonsense An atlas fan telling you why he chose atlas
were they playing attactive football under Enrique Meza? were they playing attractive football when they were under Fernando Quirarte? How did Humberto Torres do? Daniel Guzman also did nothing for Atlas. Sergio Bueno was the only coach tat had them playing somewhat nice football and that only lasted a while. if you want to suck on the flavor of the month, by all means do. The fact of the matter is that the groundwork that was being put forth by the early 90s administration, which was fruitful is sorely coming to an end. . Unfortunately, their production has considerably gone down due to poor management. 7 of their ex executives are being investigated (one being FMF ex President Alberto de La Torre for mismanagement of funds and tax evasions. Who would have though that they wrere going to debut a 27 year old keeper (Perez) when before they were growing them on trees and providing numerous clubs with keepers (Corona, Sanchez, Navarette, Cabuto, etc)? and I have also met Necaxa fans who became fans of that team when they were riding high and now what? so what is your point?
I guess we see games differently maybe its just me, but for me atlas has been playing beautiful football for some time now dispite the fact they always lose in the liguilla and my point was that most of their fans are atlistas because they play attractively, but as you said I'm wrong
just to set the record straight... i an starting this from 1970 to the end of the long season format. Season - GF - GA - Standings 70/71 - 32 - 48 - 18/18 [Relegated; lost a relegtion playoff against Pachuca] 72/73 - 63 - 83 - 3/18 73/74 - 53 - 54 - 9/18 74/75 - 70 - 65 - 9/18 75/76 - 59 - 57 - 11/20 76/77 - 53 - 65 - 17/20 77/78 - 36 - 67 - 19/20 [Relegated; lost relegation playoff against Curtidores] 79/80 - 47 - 70 - 18/20 80/81 - 30 - 51 -20/20 [played Curtidores in a Relegation playoff] 81/82 - 35 - 67 - 20/20 [played relegation playoff against Tampico] 82/83 - 44 - 58 - 14/20 83/84 - 53 - 74 - 18/20 84/85 - 55 - 51 - 7/20 Prode 85 - 11 - 11 - 16/20 Mexico 86 - 28 - 35 - 14/20 86/87 - 46 - 57 - 18/21 87/88 - 62 - 71 - 13/20 88/89 - 47 - 73 - 19/20 89/90 - 32 - 29 - 13/20 90/91 - 38 - 32 - 8/20 91/92 - 37 - 38 - 14/20 92/93 - 48 - 50 - 12/20 93/94 - 55 - 40 - 5/20 94/95 - 43 - 52 - 13/19 95/96 - 51 - 45 - 3/18 -------------------------------------- look how many times they were either last or second to last in the standings? look how many seasons they allowed more goals than in favor? ---------------------------------------- As far as Atlas always being a "cantera" team is further from the truth. Atlas did not always rely upon their youth systems. The fact they were constantly fighting relegation left their administration with virtually no possibility of depending on the youth systems, which is why they hired a lot of foreign players. In my opinion, two things occured which left Atlas in a positition to foment youth production - After the 1992 season, the FMF changed its promotion/relegation format to what is currently in place, porcentage table. A team could give themselves the luxury of revamping their operations during a season without fearing relegation. Today, the points aquired in relation to matches played is what determines relegation and luckily for the smaller clubs, up to 6 seasons (3 years) are taken into account. - The privatization of Imevision and the introduction of Grupo Salinas' TV Azteca in Mexican football. With a new TV network, clubs were in a better position to negotiate TV contracts. If x club did not like Televisa's deal, they could opt to go with TV Azteca and vice versa. Clubs like Atlas started to get more money, whih they did. The early 90s administration did invest well. They brought in good coaches (like Marcelo Bielsa) and as a result you started to see younger players debut.
you are right--perception is the determining factor as to why we disagree. Perhaps you became a fan during the late 90s and due to the ESPN effect fell to the highlight reels when Atlas was the flavor of the month. The truth of the matter is that Atlas' relative success during the late 90s and early 00s is just a small stint in their long, but rather unsuccessful history. Lavolpe capitalized on the work laid upon by Bielsa and recieved most of the credit Not since Bielsa/Lavolpe. Atlas did not play well when they were under Meza, Quirarte, or Guzman. They had one good year with Sergio Bueno. Romano has them playing well as of late, but how long will it last? no, your point is that eseman became a fan when Atlas was playing attractive football. Atlas has not always played attractive football. Those moments have been few and far in between.
bingo i was ten when i got in to atlas i would say 98-99 seasons from that point on ive been watching them threw the little good and the bad but i didnt just watch the highlight reels i watch the whole games ur right sergio bueno was when we playing pretty good but dont forget alot of that credit goes to robert de pinho who tore up the league in 04
It was great watching Barra 51 on Sunday, i was in awe. The fights outside the stadium were great too. [youtube]Tr4GgSyHtCI[/youtube] I cant wait to get my videos from the game up on youtube soon.
Don't knock the guy for becoming a fan when the team was having a good moment in its history. I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that you were growing up during América's golden age 80's when they won like 5 titles and that's the team you now support. Judge not, lest ye be judged.