Back to taking care of Business or the Reincarnation of the Meza era: Costa Rica at Azteca

Somewhere in an apartment in Guadalajara, Ricardo La Volpe must be gloating, thinking "I told you so" to himself.

As much as I hate to admit it, since I had jumped on the Bandwagon calling for La Volpe's head after the 2006 World Cup, La Volpe was right - no se respetan los procesos en el futbol mexicano. La Volpe, unlike Hugo and Sven, proved himself to be far more flexible tactically and in terms of squad selection, and to be honest, compared with the begining of his proceso, by the summer of 2006 El Tri began to show signs of a distinct style of play. La Volpe wanted to stay on until the 2010 world cup - to have a real processo of 2 world cup cycles like Bruce Arena had for the United States. And he was probably right. His players had become very loyal to him and he wasn't afraid to go right after teams like Argentina, Brazil, and Germany with open attack-minded futbol.

It's too late now, and I'm by no means calling for Sven to be fired, Aguirre would probably do just fine in guiding Mexico to the South Africa... but let's face it we'll get there with Sven in charge, too.

Does this mean that he'll be left in charge? Probably not. If he gets anything less than 4 points from his next two matches (or for that matter, if he only manages a draw, to say nothing of a loss against Costa Rica in Azteca) I think he'll be gone. Justino Compean, Decio de Maria, Guillermo Cantu and all of the other despicable sh!tsacks in the FMF (who would put to shame the lowest dirtbag in a Dickens novel or the title character in Jethro Tull's classic album, Aqualung) can read the writing on the wall... and they aren't about to put their @sses on the line for some unassuming Scandinavian manager.

 

He'll be healthy early march, but will need some time to get into rhythm. I don't think he'll be ready for this game.

 

good thread.

I personally think Sven SHOULD go now so that Aguirre (assuming he even wants the job) can have more games with the team. The real difficulty in the next round of games is that they come just a few days apart from each other and are against the two toughest opponents we have other than the U.S.

I don't so much fear this current version of Costa Rica. They had by far one of the easiest paths to the Hexagonal, and I don't think they have any players the class of Roland Fonseca and Hernan Medford. Those two guys were the main culprits behind the Aztecazo. Medford especially.

 

Lavolpe was an excellent manager for el TRI because at that time, el TRI was dominating the CONCONCAF with lots of goals. Lavolpe won the Gold Cup and made a good showing in Conferations Cup and played excellent against Argentina in the World Cup.

I wanted Lavolpe to stay, but all those mexicans fans, some with luchadore masks, jumping up and down, screaming, "HUGO HUGO HUGO." Put pressure on Lavolpe to step down.

 

As others said, probably not ready for the national team, though should be starting for Chivas by mid-late March (latest news is 4 weeks from now). I think the timing will be slightly ahead of schedule relative to the Magallon timing for the US game. If desperate, Sven could use a roster spot and check him out in training sessions.

What's the schedule for Hector Moreno?

 

Funny, because I am sitting at home and wondering where the next Cuauhtemoc, Borgetti, Oswaldo, Carmona is at.

Lavolpe insisted that in his proceso, one of his priorities was to find the next Arellano, Borgetti, Oswaldo, Cuauhtemoc, Carmona since the Mexican NT wasnt going to be able to depend on them for ever. Guess, what, he did not find their replacements.

It was the next coach that had to rely on a very talented, but also very inexperienced front line (Gio, Vela, Nery, Guardado, Arce).

Do not try to paint different picture. Mexico bunkered against Argentina in Copa America. Mexico bunkered against Brazil in the Confeds Cup. He bunkered against the US in columbus.

People really have a hazy memory of Aguirre.

Aguirre is the damn fool that opened the flood gates for all these god damn naturalized players.

The use of the naturalized player has done more harm than good. It has been a method to find players, rather than to implement a system.

My intention is not to cause an debate about the naturalized players, the point is that the use of naturalized players undermine the grassroots.

 

I don't think the use of naturalized players on a senior national team has anything to do with the grassroots.

A senior national team is where a coach looks around at his available player pool and picks what he thinks is the best squad. That player pool comes from the clubs, the clubs are in charge of producing the players, not the national team.

The absence of naturalizados in countries like Argentina and Brazil isn't just because their national teams arbitrarily decided not to include them, it's because their clubs produce so many native players in all the different positions that they don't need them.

Would Aguirre, Sven, or Lavolpe saying no to naturalizados be some kind of magic button that kickstarts an assembly line of quality young players?

Using naturalizados on the national team is a symptom, it's not the disease.

 

It seems to me like you're contradicting yourself.

 

How?

 

Many people in the football world, including FIFA President Sepp Blatter, would agree that the excessive use of naturalized and foreign players, undermine a nation's grassroots.

\

But why don't they need them?

Because many of their clubs have implemented systems that have been maintained for years.

What ever happened to forming a system, rather than depending on individuals?

Do you know why UNAM was so successful at producing players from the late 60s up to the early 90s? Because they had a system in place.

It all started with Renato Cesarini and his training philosophies. He had a couple assistants under his wing. After Cesarini left, his assistant, Papadulupos (sp) had a 3-4 year stint with the club. After he left, Zubieta, Carlitos Peters, Ituralde, all had stints with the club as managers. Then Bora had the team 7-8 years. Then his assistant, Velarde, took over the club for 4 years. Then Mejia Baron took over for 3 years. Then Ferretti took over for 5 years. With the exception of Walter Ormeno, Arpad Fekete, and about 2 other coaches, all of them were born and bred at UNAM or played at UNAM (Bora, Ferreti, etc) and knew how UNAM's ideologies and the system in place.

That all went down when they steered away from their philosophy. They brought in coaches and managers that did not know how the system functions at UNAM and wanted to change things.

Imagine if that same recipe was utilized at the youth and sr level.

------------

Bruce Arena was hired after the US' 98 WC disaster. He lasted until 2006. Bradley, who had been an assistant to Arena before and worked the same way, was was hired after Arena. The yanks that go into camp do not have to learn anything new with Bradley because they know that the system is virtually the same. If the USMNT becomes as ignorant as the FMF and starts becoming too greedy for their own goods and care more about marketing, they will go after the high profile coaches and mark my words, their system will come crashing down on them.

-----

so... the recap... the brazils, argentina, etc... are consistent because they know what an actual process means and are patient because it takes time to implement a system.

 

I agree with everything you said in that last post, I think we're just packaging our thoughts differently.

Organized player formation systems with a long-term vision at the club level, with a modest reduction in the number of foreign players per team, would eliminate the need for naturalizados in the senior national team.

What I was saying was that this has to happen at the club level, and a coach putting naturalizados in the national team is not the cause of the lack of organized systems, it's the result.

And I agree that Bruce Arena's long tenure (especially by mexican standards) as the U.S coach and the smooth transition to a guy who used to be Arena's assistant has been a great benefit to the U.S national team. They have a set playing style and they know exactly how to execute it. We have to start from scratch once or twice per WC cycle.

 

Bradley and Arena are a little different in terms of thier style and system but generally speaking you are correct they both tend to fall back upon the same general system and attitude wich i agree is a tremendous advantage for the Americans. The US's successes i think are directly linked to continuity in leadership and the emergance of the USSF Academy in Branderton, Florida who's first class in 99' graduated some guys you may have heard of. (Donovan, Beasely, Oneywu, etc.)

 

But remeber in 2006 after the WC most US fans in their rage failed to understand this, instead demanding the high profile change to improve the style and sytem and demanding hiring foriegn guys like Klinsman and Perkerman. The USSF stuck with Bradely instead after his intem appointment. Hindsight is 20/20 but they made an unpopular choice at that time..but the right one.

 

I have not see an actual training camp in the Bradley era, so I really can not comment, however, the product on the field looks and feels the exact same.

I think is an advantage for the players because from the u-20 up to the Sr team, they know that the team's tactics remain the same. They know what to expect when they go to a training camp and I think that is why it is easier for some of the younger guys to adapt and produce at the Sr level.

However, I do think their system will eventually crash down upon them and soon realize that their system does not provide an environment for tactical flexibility. It is very rigid style and if their game plan does not succeed, they do not have many alternatives to offset it.

It is commendable that in the 40 something matches that Bradley has managed, he managed to defeat teams he should be defeating without problems (except T&T, but US was already qualified), but when playing against better teams that are superior in talent, technique, and/or tactical flexibility, they lose. The USMNT has lost to Brazil, Argentina, Spain, England, Sweden, Paraguay, Colombia and the manner in which they lose should have people alarmed and I do not sense that from the US press, its fans, nor the federation. They think everything is fine an that they are building a stone castle, but in reality, it is a gingerbread house that will crumble.

The USMNT is gloating high about their confederation dominance not taking into account that all of their trophies (gold cup, concacaf club cup) are being played on home soil. They do not have a worry in their life because dominating Mexico has solved all their problems.

But when you look at it from a clear perspective,

2003 Gold Cup was a disaster
2003 Confeds Cup was a disaster
2006 World Cup was a disaster
2007 Copa America was a disaster.

And to be brutally honest, I see another disaster at the 2009 Confeds Cup

 

These are good points. I also think the Confed. Cup could be a disaster for the U.S.; however, the fact that they have the opportunity to play in it is the more important fact. Their consistency, as you mentioned, has led them to currently dominate the CONCACAF. As long as they keep this up, they will also be in the position to play in the big tournaments. Mexico, on the other hand, appears to be at a tipping point where qualification to the 2010 Cup could be in serious jeapordy. Because the U.S. has a consistent system, they are able to trade players in and out and still have consistent results at the CONCACAF level. This makes them less dependent on a star player. The fact that they do have a star player (Donovan) makes them a very solid team for any of the big teams. I recall them recently giving Argentina a much better game then Mexico did, and as long as they keep getting the opportunites to play them, they will eventually win the big game against the big team.

The U.S. performance in the '02 WC is a perfect example. Their dominance over the CONCACAF got them to the quarterfinals, and they very well could have won that game against Germany. In '06, they had a group of death draw, and gave Italy a great game. I think as the U.S. starts to incorporate hispanic skilled players, they will grow into an even better team.

Until Mexico gets serious about developing young talent at the club level and about putting someone in the coaching position who can add stability and create a style of play that accentuates the positive attributes of the Mexican player, the U.S. will continue to beat us everywhere other then in Azteca.

 

I don't agree. A lot of people are getting panicky after Wednesday.

If we win all of our home games at Azteca, and get just 2 or 3 points on the road, we're pretty much guaranteed to qualify.

The Costa Rica game will put us back on track and calm everybody down.

 

True, but that's a big "IF." What if Costa Rica, Honduras, or the U.S. are able to get a point at Azteca - something that's not too far fetched? That would put us in a situation where we would need wins in San Pedro Sula and San Juan. After seeing how abysmal our play has been at the forward position, I'm not that confident that would could get wins in those locations.

Also, even if Mexico does get the 3 points in the next game I'm not convinced that this will sufficiently right the ship. We barely stole back 3 points from Honduras the last time. And, the last two times we've beaten the U.S. at Azteca it has been by the minimum difference of one goal at a time that we had a consistent goal scorer (Borgetti). These CONCACAF teams have gotten much better at playing in the altitude and I don't think will fold as easily as in the past.

Look, I'm not saying that I don't think we'll qualify, and I'm definitely not panicking. But, I won't be an idealist and confuse this squad for the ones we had in the past.

 

No, that is not the problem at hand (the bold part). No one is denying that Mexico should be producing a lot more talent and that the failure to give young players a chance in the league is hurting this development. However, even with this impediment, we still have a lot better talent than the US. What the federation needs is long term focus like a lot of people here have been saying.

I completely agree with the analysis that LMvCP gave regarding the US team. The US has one victory in official games outside of Concacaf in this millennium (against Portugal). The US CANNOT even play outside of Concacaf, let alone outside of the US.

The US has a great home field advantage and this is supported by their record at home. Most US fans will deny this fact because they focus on different factors and conclude that the US does not have an advantage, however, this conclusion is not supported by their results. Just because some factors demonstrate that they should not have an advantage does not mean that they don't in fact have one. You first determine if an advantage exists based on results and from there analyze why or why not an advantage exists.

Mexico is in the completely opposite situation. Mexico is at a disadvantage in the US based on their results there. We have a better record in South America and Europe against much better teams than in the US against Concacaf crap.

 

Dear Mc20500,

Thanks for the neg. rep.! In 4 years posting on Bigsoccer I had never had one before.

So sweet of you... and on valentine's day, no less. (You're making me blush)

I'll never forget the day that Mc20500 popped my neg. rep. cherry.

Love,

El Yucateco

 

lmao
dude relax

he neg reps everyone
take in stride

 

really? I thought he was trying to use reverse psychology to seduce me.

 

The thread title says it all- "taking care of business". We need to stop obsessing about the US, because concentrating on a way to beat the US won't really help us against the rest of the world. We need to get back to beating the teams that we're supposed to beat, while also finding ways to improve and catch up to the top tier of teams in the world.

With 3 spots for 6 teams, taking care of business should be enough to qualify to the world cup.