Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Copa América Centenario 2016' started by sidspaceman, Jun 15, 2016.
Sore Peruvian detected.
I guess he still hasn't figured that Peru got eliminated, while we are already in semi's.......
And basicly because as we kicked the ball in, they kicked the ball out......
Gotta love the fact both these Chileans are assuming that I think Peru is better than Chile. May want to read my last post again buddy. All I simply said was that our matches usually end up in close matches outside of Santiago.
Chile was made to look a lot better by one of the worst performances I've ever seen from a team and the fact that everything just fell their way perfectly. Colombia is solid defensivley so it will be much different in the semi
A good point...but there is another way to look at it as well. Perhaps Brazil was playing above itself at the WC 2014 before the 7-1. Perhaps Chile and Colombia didn't really they believe they could win. Perhaps they played against the name "Brazil" and the yellow shirts. Perhaps they missed the chance to get to a semi final. Brazil's best players in the world cup were Neymar and Thiago Silva. When they were both out of the team for the semi final, is when things got ugly.
What got exposed is that the rest of their players are mediocre. Well, since the world cup Willian has played some good matches for Brazil as well. But, the rest are still mediocre by Brazilian standards. Brazil isn't going to suddenly wake up and get better because they don't have the players any more and probably won't for a few years at least.
Brazil needs to look long term and strategically (how they are developing young players, media expectations, training methods, tactics) and try and rebuild so that they can back to normal for the 2022 world cup, when hopefully some great young players will come through and this will prove to have just been a weak period.
But I expect them to remain at their new, low level from now until at least 2019. They just don't have the players. Their best players are now on a par with Colombia and Chile rather than Argentina and Germany. That is the reality. Also, the fear factor is now well and truly gone. Brazil are beatable and some teams may even fancy their chances in the away qualifiers.
Anyway, back to Mexico. It is the same question. Who is Mexico's best player. Do they have anyone that would rank inn the world's top 20 players? I'm not sure they do. So, if you don't have the players, there is only so much a coach and a national organization can do.
Their are some players that are vulgar (maybe Jara, Vidal) but others seems more cultured (maybe Brazo, Fuenzalida). Some truth in what you say but a bit of a sweeping statement.
I'd also like to add that Jamaica has defeated both Chile in 2016 and Venezuela in 2015, though both matches were friendlies.
As much as I also frown on the way Mexican fans are acting, I still don't like how the Mexican chants are being reported in the wake of Orlando. Every Mexican-American I know here in Texas know the word p**o to mean "b**ch", not the other word that's being reported by multiple media sites. It's kinda like Not any better, obviously, since it's clearly misogynist, but it seemed to paint them as more insensitive to a major act of hate that claimed many lives in addition to that. I don't even think they're aware that it also can mean that.
Perhaps that's the Catalan definition or that's how it's understood in other countries, but that's not how most ppl I know see it. Who knows, maybe it's like "ahorita" or "guey"; Skyping with Spanish speakers from other countries I've found that noone but Mexicans use those two words. So the media might have to be more careful assuming how Mexicans define that word, because that's not how it was defined to me. I was surprised to hear that definition, because I've apparently had it mis-defined for years. I kinda wonder if the media is playing that aspect up to make them seem even worse.
Granted, I doubt the American Outlaws would be able to get away with even saying the b word in a match. We get enough stick here for saying YSA. I mean, who gets offended by a**hole. That is a derogatory term to exactly noone but jerks.
like if a friendly match is the same thing as an official one.......
not too long ago, Mexico also defeated Chile in one of them.
look what happened to them in an official one, now
Good to see you're still alive.
How slow are the Mexican defenders? Vargas looked like Usain Bolt for the 4th goal. It also reminded me when in 2010 Tshabala (goalscorer for South Africa) and the referee outpaced the Mexican defenders so easily.
That's why I added the qualifier "though both matches were friendlies" at the end of that post. If I had intended to imply that friendlies and official matches are the same, I would not have mentioned that those games were friendlies.
'b**ch' is the closest translation I can think of too. Sometimes it's even closer to just a**hole ... Just like the word 'b**tch' it's a big leap to deduce homophobia, unless the context implies it directly. If you convert it into 'putito' maybe you have a better case to call it homophobic, because now you're implying a 'wimpy b**tch' which can be interpreted as effeminate.
The Mexicans I know would use a different word 99% of the as a derogatory term for homosexuals. I won't spell it out, but it starts with an 'h' and ends in 'o' ... Sometimes you use the 'm' word.
Either way it's an ugly word and a stupid tradition. In fact it offends me more on the stupidity. It's not funny, it's not clever and sounds stupid. After the 10,000th time I've heard it it's gotten old and boring. They need to do something different and original. This 'p**o' chant is worse than stupid American chants like 'D!' 'Fence!'
Yeah, they definitely need to find something a little more creative. Even YSA seems a little childish except to people like me who are proud to be assholes and don't like being told that we suck. Hell, "suck" can be said to be homophobic as well in a certain context. With that said, it doesn't excuse the media for trying to trump (I see what I just did there) up additional controversy by willfully mis-defining that word to make them seem homophopic. Alot of them might actually be homophobic, but it's not because of their use of that word, and it only lends to create confusion and animosity in a situation that needs no additional fuse. Setting LGBT and Mexican Americans at odds for the sake of a story based off of inaccurate information is terribly irresponsible imo. But I guess that's the media these days. I was happy to see many people in the comment sections try to correct this on, I think it was, a Guardian or Daily Mail story that repeated this line.
Don't kid yourselves, it means f*g
Is that what it means in Columbia or do you know for sure that it's how it's used in Mexico? Or, more accurately, how it's used by Mexican Americans? I know for a fact that Latino's use the language differently, South Americans tend to pick that out right away when I Skype with them while trying to improve my Spanish. But we're not cursing at each other, so how those words are used never come up. I'd be more convinced if I heard someone who speaks who's not Mexican, but speaks with them alot, say this. My friends would have no reason to lie about that since they were fairly candid to me about what m*y*te meant. And they would have more reason to hide that from me than the p word.
It's like assuming that the f-word is the same in the UK as in the US. Smokers in the UK could all be called homophobic if that were true.
I'm not saying that there isn't someplace where that's the common understanding of the term or that it isn't even the official Spanish definition. I'm just saying that I do not think most Mexicans mean it that way or even know that it can mean that. I'll ask all of my Mexican friends and coworkers again and specifically state that I was told this. I'd bet that they'd be confused.
I don't know what it means in Columbia, but in ColOMbia as in any other Spanish-speaking country, if you call someone a pv to, you're calling hime a f*g (and I don't mean an English cigarrette). Even in Mexico. Sure, it can be used other ways, but as I said, if you call a man a pv to, that's what you mean.
I dont think Chile is a Juggernaut. I think Mexico gave up when things got tough. You could see it with their players walking around and their keeper out of position.
Heck, im no expert and even 'I' could see they were shellshocked.
That mental issue happens to most teams when a 3rd or 4th goal gets scored on and specially when through their respectful match for them has been very tough to do any harm on their opponent and of course if the match being played is as important as a knock-out. It's not strange that once the "killing" goal is scored, from there on it gets lots easier to keep on scoring on them more.
For Mexico, after a very long undefeated streak without hardly even receiving goals against, undoubtly it was the sucession of the second to the third goal (one right before the rest time between both halves, and one right after it) which destroyed their minds. The rest was simply "taking" what Mexico started giving with absolute ease.
And when that happens when your opponent, also has an inspired player's such as Vargas , well we all know what happened next......
And it certainly looked easy. Chile overwhelmed Mexico at that point...like a breach in a wall. They came flooding through. Maybe Mexico was a bit overconfident?
I promise the US won't be overconfident. We know how tough Argentina and the rest of the teams are. Its all uphill from here.
When NYCFC got clobbered by the Red Bulls 7 - 0 a few weeks ago, somebody made the comment, "Well, it's better to lose 7 - 0 than get beaten 1-0 seven times"
That may be very true in club football -- but a decent world ranked national squad like Mexico isn't going to get beat seven times in a row, especially in CONCACAF. Going out in the quarters, especially since Brazil didn't make it to the knockout round wasn't (and isn't) going to go well for the FMF and the coach. Mexico had its hands full facing the defending Copa America champs, so a 1 - 0 loss wouldn't have been an unexpected outcome. But to get taken to the woodshed -- the empty seats at the end of the match say it all.
and why was Rafa Marquez on the squad? He was in his prime when T. Rex was still around.
And who is responsible for getting the team mentally tough? I'm going to say it's their federation's job to teach mental toughness during their youngsters' development phase -- and rewarding those player who are tough with requisite promotions to the next level. Certainly, you need the creative players to win -- but your team has to have that desire to not let down and be professional when the result is going against you -- and they have to start at the backline.
Yes, the coach selects the players, but if that quality is lacking in the pool, it's not something he can instill in the pre tournament training camp. Mexico had to find a way to only concede one second half goal -- and they did not have that in them... resulting in the ass whipping. That seems to be one lesson not learned by the FMF from their almost not qualifying for the last world cup. Can't be saying, "Gracias Zusi y Johanssen".
A lot of teams get these sort of beatings at some point in their history. I wonder who's next? Brazil and Mexico were the recent ones. Argentina's already received theirs against Colombia in 1993, we've received ours against Brazil in 1997. I wonder who's next. It seems to happen to teams when they're in a bad state. Paraguay, Japan and Italy are currently in a bad state but to be honest I doubt it'd be any of them. Japan don't face anyone who can beat them 6-0, Italy is really good defensively and Paraguay never give up.
I know these theories in football don't exist and these beatings can happen at any time to anyone though. Just thought it was interesting to point some others out.
Paraguay got beat 6--1 last year.