And one of the teams played Brazil after they'd played 3 games over the course of a week AND had a cross-continental flight.
Under Chepo, Mexico has shown one tremendous improvement and that is managing pressure filled environments. You keep harping on about what the media and fans will do if they lose away at El Salvador. They'll do what the media and fans in Mexico always do, find the negatives in every performance and blow them out of proportion. In the last 13 months; There was pressure to win the Gold Cup last summer. There was pressure to win the U20 CONCACAF title. There was pressure to win the U17 WC title. There was pressure to finish in the top three at the U20 WC. There was pressure to win the Panamerican games at home. There was pressure to qualify to the Olympics and win the U23 Qualifiers. There was pressure to win the Toulon tournament. All of the above were accomplished.
Doesn't the context of Mexico's Brazil win make their lackluster showing at home against Guyana even worse by comparison? I get that Guyana is probably a better team than Antigua, but if Brazil results are the comparison then you would expect a stronger showing from Mexico. I understand that Mexico is a better side right now, I just think your comparison is flawed.
Yup i agree. It appeared to me that we simply wanted to slot the ball thru the 6 yrd line and hope a tap in would occur. However, when you are trying to slot the pass through 3-5 defenders it tends to fail more often then not. I completely agree things changed when we started shooting from outside the box, forced the gk'er to make a save and either had another chance or forced the defense to clear for a corner. Possession is great, but we lack bite in the final third. We were trying to make things too pretty IMO.
Stronger showing? They beat Brazil. What would you like them to do? If you are taking the Brazil game and using it to analyze Mexico Guyana, then start a thread for it. If you have another set of factors or matches that can. Enjsed to compare Mexico and the US, then post them. Head to head matches and quality common opponents played immediately after one another are all we have IMO. Yet it's flawed? You're kidding right?
i disagree. if the US population at large cared, we would be filling 80k stadiums for every home match. the USSF would be flush with funds for all kinds of development programs. a large portion of our best athletes would grow up playing soccer with the aim of going pro. MLS academies would be filled with great players and none of them would have to pay a dime. yeah, it would be worse if the US population at large truly cared...but not for the US...for everyone else.
THIS thread was about qualifier results. So when I look at the qualifiers in the context of the Mexico/US Brazil results (which you seem place a LOT of value on), I would expect Mexico to have a stronger home result against Guyana. Mexico got a great result against Brazil and the US didn't. Got it. Luckily, we don't qualify for the World Cup based on friendly results against Brazil.
This is exactly right. No one is saying that they would select players from Serie B teams for the sake of club continuity, but players from the same club (EPL, La Liga) clearly have more cohesion with one another on a national team because they have spent the last 9 months playing together. That is why there is a current trend with even the national teams in Euro Championships to play as many club players together as possible due to the fact that those players are already familiar with one another. Look at Germany for instance. They fielded basically the Bayern Munich Champions League team yesterday against the Netherlands because they had SEVEN Bayern players on the field. Russia fielded SIX players from Zenit St. Petersburg in their match against Poland. Italy had SIX Juventus players on the field today against Croatia. Teams like Real Madrid, Barca, Bayern, Chelsea and Manchester United would likely beat national teams like England, France, Italy, etc. Face it, the days of national teams being better than club teams are OVER.
Well, not exactly right. Nat teams are better than the vast majority of club teams, just not the very, very top club teams.
The problem that nat teams have is they can't go out and buy a left back if they don't have one. Club teams can. Even the best national teams have holes in certain positions. England's backup keepers at the Euros are a guy who spent last year in the Championship (Robert Green........he of the WC10 blunders) and a 19 year-old kid nobody had heard of (Jack Butland). They have no quality depth at keeper whatsoever. If Hart gets injured, they get mediocre at that position real fast.
Wow I did not know el Chepo was coaching the U-17, U-20 and U-23 National teams, dude must be tired from all that coaching. Also good thing the U-23+ had no pressure of winning a single point at Copa America, because they did accomplish that. Ricardo LaVolpe should also get all the credit for the U-17 championship @ Peru 2005.