Well those are emblematic of what happened all game long. The point being that you can't write off the golazo as somehow being a superseding intervening cause.
every other World Cup not hosted in Mexico we were always last place in our group and many times we didn't even qualify to the tournament, 1994 is the first world cup not hosted in Mexico that we made it out of the group stage, before the 90s we were not better than caribbean and central american teams.
On behalf of the German footy crowd Id like to add that we for the most part genuinely dont care about Concacaf qualification so that in a scenario where Klinsey wasnt involved at all this would go under rather unnoticed until 2017 at the start of the Confed Cup when people suddenly realize Mexico is somehow qualified too. The same with World Cups btw. Now I dont think I made it better with this comment..... ok, let's say the German media especially Bild are still one of Klinseys enemies of the old Vogts days. People parrot what they read. So that he's not recieving the biggest support from the home front is not really something to write home about.
I believe there is a lot more to this than people realize. A lot more. Most of our players look worse with the national team than they do their club sides, and this applies to both the MLS-based and those based elsewhere.
Once again, Mexican fans (or American fans of Mexico?) typing before fact checking. Please tell me more about all of those pre-1974 Caribbean World Cup appearances. And I can tell you about Mexico's. #knowyourhistory
A sign of a low soccer IQ poster is blaming our CBs every time we lose. Like they should be expected to defend for 70 out of 90 minutes a game without giving up goals. It is in fact amazing that Cameron and Besler played so well together despite having very little game time for over a year. Another sign is excusing Klinsmann's poor coaching choices because of our player pool. Regardless of the level of talent of our player pool, Klinsmann is not making the most of it--he is actively making it worse by his inconsistent approach. Why was Wondo on the team ahead of Wood, if Wondo is not the first attacking sub off the bench, but Wood is? It makes no sense. We have options to improve our attack--chiefly moving Fabian forward into an attacking position where he is more comfortable and effective. Ream or Yedlin can play on the back line.
Jurgen puts 11 out there to accomodate for who he wants on the field. Positioning and tactical instruction being secondary to personnel. He has tried to accommodate Jermaine Jones for his entire tenor, and Michael Bradley has therefore been out of position. In this game with the Bedoya scratch, Jones and later Zardes went right and it looked like it did, Fabian was exposed in this. Meanwhile Tuca figured out that a 5-3-2 was what was expected, played 3 forwards high to occupy us in a 4-3-3, and after a while We. Could. Not. Get. The. Ball. Meanwhile, our coach was saving a sub to get Rimando in for pks. That's what our coach was doing.
Tactically he was focused on getting forward and turned out to be one of of the few sources of effective attack. Unfortunately, space did open up on his flank and Mexico exploited it on their counters at times. I'll take Beasley's performance over Fabian Johnson's who was a no show any day. If you are upset about the space Mexico exploited when Beasley got forward you need to direct those vibes toward Klinsman who gave the team their orders. Also, Mexico enjoyed 70% possession in our defensive third, no back line can hold up under that stress. Our inability to defend was a result of the midfield and forwards in ability to connect passes. At least until Yedlin came on who could not connect a pass out of the right back position.
maybe before the 70s we were the best team in the area but in the period of 20 years before the 90s we were beaten by CONCACAF rivals a lot, if it wasn't because we hosted the cup twice in that period we would have probably missed it more than twice. Also while we qualified back in the 50s and 60s our team's results were atrocious. Before the 90s winning a WC game was something that our team could only do in our own country, back then at the world stage we were what teams like El Salvador and Haiti are today while nowadays we are a team between 11-16th in the world. And by the way I was born and live in Mexico so I kinda know more shit about my own country and its history than you.
After thinking on it for a day I guess I have some random, non-connected thoughts. 1) Mexico's formation gave us fits. The front three played much closer together than our defenders were use to and their movement was exceptional and gave us fits all night. This is really a new wrinkle we haven't seen in our matches against them and something that we need to figure out. It also comes at a cost to their numbers elsewhere and yet we didn't take advantage of those spaces. 2) Jones, Beasley, and Bradley especially played with extreme heart and pride. Beasley and Jones probably should have been subbed and left holes for us, but they gave their all and Jones twice (once from Bradley and once from Altidore) made uncontested runs down the left with no Mexican defenders around only to not get service. 3) Cameron played well and not because he scored but because he played well defensively and in transition. 4) Guzan played fine, but I think its likely Howard saves one or two of those. Howard seems to have a bit more quickness on shots and gambles/cheats more allowing him to make saves, and I think could have made a difference. 5) Zardes should not have been subbed. 6) I don't think JK got this game wrong other than needing to use two subs for tired players around 60 minutes (there were at least 4 candidates) instead of using one sub at 75? for the midfielder that seemed to have the most energy left. I blame the subs on him and I blame the Gold Cup on him, but I do not think his starting line up was bad for this game and I'm not sure we can blame him for the fact that a midfield with Jones, Bradley, and Beckerman not being able to get possession and tempo vs a weird Mexican midfield.
DE NUEVO:Si tuvieran que decidir ¿Dejarían que TUCA se vaya de la Selección Mexicana?RT: #NotevayasTUCAFAV: SÍpic.twitter.com/uNoeB60pFH— Andre Marín (@andremarinpuig) October 11, 2015
Priceless. Likely from the same group of Bayern fans that wanted to run Klinsmann and Donovan right out of town. More narcissistic Germans.
We started 7 players over 30. Only Zardes was under 25. What is the plan now? Can anybody young play this game?
I do not doubt that you "kinda know more shit" than me. "Shit" is not really my area of expertise. But everything you posted reinforces my point: Mexico reached their level nearly 70 years ago, and has been STAGNANT since, i.e., they qualified for the tournament and they were among the worst of the 16 qualified teams, when the tournament had only 16 teams. In all of their appearances since the tournament expanded, they have maintained basically the same position (except when playing at home), by qualifying for the round of 16, but never advancing beyond that. If nothing else, they are remarkably consistent. And have been basically since the beginning (if you take into account the 1930 result). Did you actually read the data you posted? In any event, the point is that the US is on a more upward trend, with the possible exception of the last decade, by which time the US had already reached Mexico's level. Remember, the US has had first division soccer for less than 20 years. The conclusion that should be drawn is that the US potentially has a much higher ceiling than Mexico.
My guess it comes down to "A little out of their comfort zones" is a euphemism for "I do not have a plan."
what? if you compared it to club play Mexico went from a second division/relegation fodder kind of team to solid midtable after the 80s, we are drastically better to what we were in the 60s, 70s and even 80s when the sport in this country was borderline amateur and was behind baseball, boxing and even basketball in popularity, even today those are still the most popular sports in some states of the republic. You could argue that we stagnated starting 10-15 years ago but is not like going from decent to good and then great was and easy task, it took Spain almost 20 years to become a powerhouse and we only started to take youth development seriously less than 6 years ago, if we are still getting 10th-16th place in the World Cup in 14 years then you can say we have stagnated in our current level. As much as your fanbase wants to believe the opposite we are both in the same boat when it comes to soccer growing in our countries, at best we have a 10-15 years advantage from the mid 80s when football became a main sport here and Liga MX started to get better and the 90s when MLS started.
I have to type this:. That game was as enjoyable as any soccer game I've watched in many many years. Obviously bummed about the result, but the stadium, production, players, and the refs were as good as it gets. We watch to be entertained, and last night was truly an epic event. Kudos soccer.
What???. The players played as hard as I've ever seen, with as much fight and spirit as you'll ever find. You are wrong on this past.
Imagine Dempsey playing with Martins then showing up for Nat camp and there is his partner, Jozy. Gets old.
It was a close score, but having 37% of possession in our own house (no matter their fans) made it painful to watch, also the long balls and terrible passing on our side. I guess if one can get above national passions and watch it with some degree of detachments, it was fun seeing the underdogs hang on for so long. We didn't generate a shot on goal from the run of play until the end of the first half, and got outshot 23 to 14. We played too badly for me to enjoy, it was like the Belgium game, we were just surviving.
Imagine playing with Giovinco then showing up for Nat camp and there is his partner Dempsey. Gets old. For ages now a big complaint about Dempsey has been that he disappears from games--it's just that this time he doesn't have one of his moment of brilliance goals to make people forget that he disappeared for the majority of the game. But lets dump on favorites, right? For the record, I don't think either striker were the biggest guilty parties in that suck-job from last night.
Not a bad post, but the problem is that most of the players you listed are the core of our existing team that were in Brazil and through this summer, this is pretty much our current rotating roster. Not a jab at you, more just commentary on our pool.
Let me give my two cents about both the debacle of US NAT and US U-23. 1. Defense: Besler & Cameron were starting center back pair in the first two World Cups. Then Cameron mishit a ball to give Portugal a goal and Besler labored during Belgium game. Then both of them were in dog house. Only the bad result of Gold Cup and Brazil game, and Brook's injury, they went back together. But looks they didn't have enough familiarity and Mexico's three mobile forwards causing a lot of problems for US defense line. It is simple, when outside back Beasley/Johnson has to track one wing forward, Mexico's wing back joined attack. Here Jones/Zardes were outrun and Beckman failed to pick up. In U-23, the problem is at CCV. At promising as a 17 years old, he doesn't have experience to handle U-23 pros. So made mistake is acceptable. It is tough to play one underage center back in Miazga. But too much for both of them. Of course, the left back in U-23 didn't have enough speed, maybe Acosta of Dallas is better with speed? 2. Midfield: Play a diamond is not easy. It requires rotation for both midfielders. In USNAT, Zardes is still learning and Jones may not have legs. Beckman way over sale by date. For U-23, only one true winger is there. And Trapp is not strong enough but Alashe has no skill. For attacking, we know that JK doesn't rate one, and Herzog's one Gil disappeared. 3. Attacking: Here we see a little bit of light. At lease with Wood/Morris, we have some speed to put in front. It is NICE to have someone who can run and run fast and can finish, right?