No mames. All I can say/ask is WHY DID GULLIT START AGAIN???? Hopefully we off load him during the transfer window
People talk about needing younger but bringing up Chofis with a more tired America didn't lead to anything. Like I said people bring up Gullit but Chivas looked worse without him. He's not good but it's not why Chivas lost or the most troubling thing. This game reminds me of the US election. Everybody went into it thinking that the Democrats would win and what will happen to the Republican party do after they lose and now it's the total opposite. Now people though that Chivas had ruined the America centenario and what would happen to America and it's the opposite and now Chivas was eliminated twice by America in their centenario. And in the other hand people in the democrats thought they did everything right and the problem is that people are racist and after they lose they still think it's that is why everything happened and are not looking at all and their internal mistakes and how to fix them and Chivas now thought Gullit was the problem and now they are blaming him again when the problem was how Chivas turned to desperate crap and couldn't produce a single big threat to America with their repetitive attacks and how Almeyda failed to have any offensive strategy either.
Guy, you cannot compare it like that. Why? Starting a game and coming in the second half is no way to compare how it would turn out because it's a different game by then; the other players are tired and worn in to the game(for the good to the bad) and he is fresh(for the good and the bad). All we know is what Gullit did and how Chofis plays; and in my opinion Chofis is just much better in many ways and Gullit has been and way abysmal last night. For starters, he lost like 5 or 6 balls.
Yes, it was a different coach; but you cannot used that logic and think you are doing something to benefit yourself. If we slaughtered and Ambriz led team with one team, why would you drastically change from that team when 'lose and you go home'? We lost speed; that was what that America team could not do anything to counterbalance. If you have a car that won a race(mightily) and you re-race that car later and you do not go with as close to the same car as possible--instead of making changes which lost speed and 'gained' endurance--you should not be surprised as to what went wrong. Also, I do no think wilas played waiting for a counter until they scored. Up to that point they were attacking us.
You keep talking as if I'm saying that Gullit is better than Chofis. It's a different game but it's BS to say that Chivas lost because of Gullit which isn't true. They looked worse with Chofis than with Gullit not because he's not better but because the strategy sucked and the offense went to shit. Blaming it all on Gullit is a nice comfortable thing because it means that you replace Gullit and everything is fixed and that's not true. Instead of Gullit the real problem with Chivas is how they played after the goal was scored and how for 35 minutes at home, they didn't really threaten at all and Moi didn't make a single save besides a play that was already offsides. America got the win and deservedly so which makes it worse.
-You just said Chofis did worse than Gullit; he did not--and it's not even close, for as much as one can compare their performances. -Did I say "we lost because of him"? -Context dude. When Chofis came in, shortly thereafter, we put a bunch of forwards in and kept only Gallito in mid; but America didn't attack, so... -Who's blaming it all on Gullit? Have you even read my posts? -Your last point brings me to my original point: we did not attack with danger because of the cambios Almeyda did by losing talent and speed of youngsters--Gullit being one of them.
Nope. It's not even close? You keep talking about speed and stuff when Chofis based on his past but he did nothing yesterday. He didn't create any danger and Chivas looked worse when they had looked the better team before it. To say that America sat back and all doesn't change the fact that they did so to their benefit and it was Chivas job to break it down and they didn't. And yet I keep seeing all around people saying "Gullit, Gullit es el gullit" and not "Almeyda" or the offensive strategy as the pinpoints of what went wrong against America.
Salcido can be replaced with Mario de Luna since they still own him. He is having a terrific season with Necaxa. He is arguable the best Mexican CB in Liga MX. Yo insisto que el jugador del torneo fue Mario De Luna. Muy regular. Tuvo partidos sobresalientes.— Brandon Vergara (@BrandVeh) November 22, 2016
Again, the concept of context seems to elude. There's a difference between starting a game and coming in to a team which has been altered. I will reiterate that shortly after him coming in, we put in two forwards and took out a mid. Context. I have a feeling you will not understand this, or refuse to, so... Oh, and again, you seem to not have read when I criticized the coach for making the changes between this team and the one that analy raped America. So, either you are not the sharpest tool in the shed or, as the Sanch said, you are doing a really poor attempt of trolling. Your reading skill, or lack thereof, seems to point to the former.
No. My guess was that Almeyda felt like Gallito gives you a more defensive presence because he was taking out a mid to add a forward. I agree; he should have stayed in. Having Gallito in the starting lineup to begin with was Almeyda changing his philosophy from attacking to cautious. Michel and Orbellin had been the starting duo for a while. He makes changes without needing to. He started two older guys who've been riding the bench all season for two young and talented starters.
The only time that Chivas was a better team than America in the series was in the 1st half of the Guadalajara game. You dismissed the guy for pointing out it was an Ambriz team but it's wrong to dismiss that there are key difference between that game and this one including America being better than when they lost 3-0 and Chivas being worse with key players missing (Zaldivar) and key players with a bad level (Brizuela, Cisneros) which was evident in BOTH legs. The main problem with the team yesterday wasn't the starting lineup gut how the team was went so bad after getting scored on and how Almeyda couldn't counter America sitting back when it was something to be expected if they had scored a goal. It wasn't like a late goal at all and they was plenty of time and yet Chivas panicked and made it easy for America and it started from the bench.
Use more periods, dude, so we can all understand a little what you are attempting to say. Chivas anally rapes America(not mentioning the other anal rape in la copa, but that's besides the point)--regardless if the coach is the same or different--you keep the same lineup. Period. Have you forgotten that this conversation began about you defending Gullit? What happened to that point? Gave up on it?
You can't keep the same lineup as Zaldivar is out. Michael Perez was terrible in the 1st leg and should have been red carded but not keeping him in the lineup was the reason they lost? But then again saying that Chivas "anal raped" in the Copa Mx is Pern level analysis and terrible and it's no wonder that you reach that conclusion. And I stand by " defending" Gullit if "defending" is saying that he isn't the reason Chivas lost and there are bigger problem for it like the total offensive collapse after the goal was scored.
-Yes, Captain Obvious, Zaldivar was unable to play. Phenomenal point. -Yes, being "anal raped," I would imagine, would be terrible. -Again, who said he was the reason we lost? Are you debating yourself?...coming up with your own arguments for me? -He says "offense collapses," but defends our worst offensive performer--slightly beating Cisneros.
It is a point because you dismissed it when they brought up that America wasn't the same. Chivas wasn't the same either and you're totally ignoring that. Zaldivar didn't play and some of the players were not in as good level as before. And it's not about the words used to describing but your intent. If you really think that a 1-1 tie that had to go to PKs was a "destruction" then it's a Pern level analysis of everything being "rape" and every miss being a "sitter" which is terrible.
My issue is this, you take gullit out and put in avion however, avion is slow as fck to be a winger and his true position is an attacking mid/foward. now you leave the back exposed and made Renato look even more dangerous on the counter because avion can't keep up to track back. Take out orbelin and put chofis in. However instead chofis playing a more central role or be a 10 like gullit was doing he was sent to hug the right wing. But you see chofis try to cut in and then runs into a wall of players defending or being man marked and all he can muster is winning some corners But here is where we hurt the most. Almeyda throws in our coldest forward in Marco Bueno who has not done anything all season to try and win some balls in the air. Lavolpe got exactly what he had been trying to play out for the last 4 meetings and almeyda was not able to break it. Hell every coach for the last 5 weeks did the same thing to him with 1 man down and he still could not figure a gameplan. this is more concerning that say x player was shittier than y player.
-Zaldivar has a broken face. I was being sarcastic about your point, or lack thereof. I could buy a million dollar house...except for the fact that I do not have a million dollars. Jesus, guy. -America having a different coach is irrelevant to what Chivas does. You have a starting lineup who anally raped America, you repeat that lineup. Period. -Lulz. Are you still on la copa anal rape? Chivas destroyed America in the game play--we just didn't score, but one. What is your point? You are being ironic saying I do not analyze when all you are doing is focusing on the 1-1 score. Go rewatch the game. -What happened to Gullit? Gave up again?
I mentioned to the guys in the podcast this series would be a good development/test for Almeyda. Everybody who saw the first leg, if not the season, where Chivas struggled with a packed defense. The difference here is Club America has the wheels to put them to the sword. They have the wheels but lack the Soccer IQ to make effective decisions. They constantly fell short of making the final pass to the open guy who could blow the series open. Fortunately for Chivas, and Almeyda, they didn't. Every TEAM struggles with the bunker, FYI.