regardless of how many excuses you make about the brazilian side, its still rationalizing. Lavolpe got the result, Hugo didnt. and thats what matters. I never stated that I was satisfied with any results from both coaches but people here keep posting that hugo is a much better coach and should not be criticized by others when in fact: A coach that has not won anything deserves to be criticized by anyone including lavolpe whom has a better record so far than Hugo sanchez. I think lavolpe has the right to criticize Hugo's performance since obviously the results so far has indicated that Hugo's performance is not up to par with the performance that lavolpe had. and the results speak for themselves. even lavolpe gave an example about the argentina game in 06 which I think its valid because so far its relevant to lavolpe's discussion. it was almost the same lineup that argentina had in 06 that Hugo faced and Hugo had more talent in his team he assembled and still Hugo looked weak with the lack of a strategy and he compounded that with horrible substitutions.
BS. You have to take account the competition and the way the team performs besides the result. I thought that regardless of the fact that Mexico reached the final, the gold cup was a failure because Mexico was crap the whole tournament. You analize results and performance because its an prediction of what will happen as it did with Lavolpe. So I'm not going to say Hugo results so far means he has done a great job, I'm on the fence. And yet it does count that Lavolpe got his only cup against the Brazilian olympic team and in Azteca. You can BS all you want, but that in the end it does. Both teams played poorly and both teams struggled and yet one had the huge advantage of facing and inexperienced team and in Azteca. After the 1st year Lavolpe team was crap. The 1st year was his worse. As bad as Hugo gold cup was, the main difference is that Hugo lost the final game and Lavolpe won the game. He outperformed Lavolpe in Copa America and didn't have the luxury of having the copa in his 2nd year like Lavolpe did. He can criticize all he wants but he is full of shit. He talks about playing like a "equipo chico" when his win against Argentina in Peru was a golazo and then bunkering the whole game like they were Jamaica or Trinidad in Azteca.
Boy, that was a hell of an Olympic team...Kaka, Robinho, Adriano, Julio Baptiste, Gomes, Diego, Alex, Luisao, etc.....I disagree with Lavolpe smack talking (although Hugo did plenty of it when he was in, I just think it is bad form for both of them), but it was an accomplishment for our boys to beat that, yes young, but extremely talented team........
I just want to make clear that the Adriano that played in the Gold Cup wasn't the Inter Milan striker. It was an olympic team and they even had Ricardo Gomes as coach and not Parreira at the helm. Granted that it had a lot of talented players but they were young and not as experienced as they are now. Kaka was still in Brazil, Julio Baptista was nowhere near as good as he is now, Diego and Robinho had just comed up, etc etc. Frankly Mexico had to beat that team at Azteca, the surprise would have been if Brasil had won. They were a young team at the time, looking forward to the olympic qualifiers and they failed at that when they lost to Paraguay and lost the ticket to Athens. Not saying they weren't talented but as a team they were young at the time and not yet consolidated and they had to play in the altitude in Azteca. Hell they are now almost all superstars and yet Kaka and was the only "key" one missing from Copa America and we still beat them.
so being a world champion in 2002 for kaka and luizao are not enough consolidation.. again... you sound like a broken record. you are rationalizing lavolpe's win (downplaying it) for the sake of your argument. again! (you are making me sound like a broken record also) so far: Lavolpe: won the gold cup and then got the confed cup Hugo sanchez: won nothing! NOTHING! you can have an opinion about what lavolpe has to say but in the end his criticism is legitimized by the results thus again going back to the game of argentina vs mexico 2006 and this years debacle vs argentina. He has a solid example thus making your opinion irrelevant of what lavolpe's statements mean to you.
Yeah Kaka wasn't consolidated when he went to the WC in 2002. He only played 19 minutes. Its like somebody saying Ronaldo was consolidated when he won the WC in 94 when he was just 17 and sat on the bench the whole tournament. Kaka hadn't yet gone to europe, he hadn't yet become the player he is was for 2002 or now. If you think Kaka in 2003 is the same as he is now, you're insane. He was a young talented player, bound to be a superstar but inexperienced at the time. And Luisao wasn't in the 2002 WC winning team you moron. That was Luizao. I'm just stating the fact. It was a the Brazilian olymic team. Mexico was the favorite and was supposed to win against that team in Azteca. You can try to make it as if it was a great result and one of the greatest victory but it was probably the least of all the recent one we had against Brazil. You can BS all you want about the broken record your opinion is meaningless to me like I'm pretty sure it is for the majority of posters in this forum and BS as a whole. That game came out after 4 years of a proceso. And besides the 2nd half of Iran it was the only good game he had. Lavolpe is full of shit because he is only picking and choosing just like his followers are. He had a bigger equipo chico mentality when he beat Argentina in the Copa and just defended the whole game. I love how you use the example of Mexico/Argentina as the only way to define it all, just as the 1 game difference in the gold cup. Where is the gold cup in 2005? Where is the fact Hugo got 3rd in Copa America and Lavolpe got raped by Brazil? Lavolpe could say all he wants about Hugo. Hugo job hasn't been as great as some make it out to be or as bad as some do. What is BS is his BS about how his team really was good when it wasn't. Or how his team was different or how all we needed was a forward. Spare me.
since you wont spare me of your biased BS then I wont. I never thought that! damn brazilians look alike. thats not a fact. thats your opinion. you call it that but la federacion de futbol brasilena says otherwise. so winning the gold cup and proceeding to the confed cup was the least of our victories. I see why you think the 2003 gold cup was a fluke. and again.. your opinion not a fact. so since I debunk all of your supposed "facts" or foresaw that then you proceed to start a character assasination to legitimize your argument which is now in shambles. the fact that you cannot refute is: Lavolpe won a gold cup and a ticket to the confed cup Hugo sanchez won NOTHING! P.S. some more stuff that I didnt say nope
You went on about how kaka was consolidated eventhough he was just one of the young talented players and only played 19 minutes. Kind of like if Giovanni or Vela had been taken to the world cup last time. In 2002 he wasn't anywhere near his level later. He was the equivalent of the young prospect Ronaldo was. Luisao is black and a defender. Luizao is white and a forward. Really? The Brazilian federacion says so? Who coached the team? Ricardo Gomes. The Olympic National Team coach not Carlos Alberto Parreira. So not only was the whole team a sub 23 but they even had the sub 23 coach and not the NT team coach. The only reason that the games count as official is because its the concacaf regional championship. You dolt, I never said it was a fluke, I said it was expected. And yes I think beating the brazilian sub 23 team is the least of all the Brazilian victories. That includes the other victories including Lavolpe win in the confederations cup, which was more worthy. What have you debunked? In Shambles ? From you? That a laugh. You can go on and on about the gold cup and totally ignore the rest of the facts. A) that the difference between Hugo's and Lavolpe's campaign was the performance in the final game and Lavolpe had the benefit of having play all its game in Azteca. B) that eventhough Hugo had his Copa America in his 1st year and not in his 2nd like Lavolpe, he got better results C) That it was the Brazilian olympic and Mexico was supposed to win that game and it wasn't the great result like Lavolpe would get in 2005. D) That you want to use an Argentina game after 4 years of proceso against an Argentina game in the 1st year as an the end all argument. So apparently because Lavolpe won against a Brazil olympic performance in Azteca, and Hugo lost to the US in the US, Lavolpe is overly superior because of that ONE game. They both sucked. If Hugo had won the game against the US it wouldn't change the fact that he did a lousy job in the gold cup just as Lavolpe winning his 1 title at home, doesn't change the fact that his proceso was a crock, and that he is bullshitting because not only did he didn't do anything as coach but he is know saying pointing out and criticizing stuff that he was as guilty of when he was coach of the NT.
I remember that game, and I remember Kaka. Even if it was just for a few minutes, he was clearly the most talented player on the field. There was no doubt in my mind that Brazil was more talented that day, we had experience, Azteca, and rabid fans on our side. I'm a big Kaka fan not only for his sublime play and extraordinary ability, but for his outstanding character on and off the field. As far as Lavolpe is concerned, IMO, he should not venture into commentary on the MNT. It is bad form and he has enough to worry about with his current team. Did he do a good job with the MNT during his tenure. That is what these threads are for to argue about. The wins and losses are not up for debate, they are facts in the record books. I suppose that is what we are arguing about. What did the players he coached think of him? Well, we certainly know what Temo and Bofo thought, but they weren't selected. What did our Captain think of him? It is clear that Rafa was a big Lavolpe supporter. He threatened to quit if the Federation fired him. All in all, IMO, he was worse than some and better than others. The jury is still out on Hugo.....we'll see.
omagawsh! it was a joke man... miss the next to it? well hugo is gonna coach the olympic national team this time around. does that make it a non-olympic team since Hugo is gonna be coaching it? Mexico wouldnt have been in confed if it wasnt for that mighty super win in el azteca! LOL so? a win is a win! a loss is a loss. Lavolpe still has more silverware.. yes 1 trophy which is pathetic .. but still Hugo is not way better than lavolpe since Hugo has not won NOTHING! he still lost the gold cup! LAVOLPE WON IT! and the gold cup was first! again.. thats not what the federacion de futbol de brasil says. and are you trying to imply that the games were fixed? Hugo had alot more talent on the field that lavolpe did or ever did. while argentina still had almost the same squad. (of course with minimal exceptions) I never said he was overly superior. I just stated a simple fact. that lavolpe so far has the right to criticize since hugo has been performing lower than lavolpe so far. I completely agree. and I think they still suck. but for what its worth, both coaches have unique qualities that makes them stand out and gave us, the mexican fan hope that this time around it was gonna be different. I honestly wish that hugo would get lavolpe as a tactical advisor or assistant coach. but I know pigs will fly to the sky before that happens Todo por la gloria de MEXICO! VIVA
Just rubbing the fact you had no clue. Especially when its a dumb mistake since Luizao was way too old for the olympic team. Spare me the BS. Parreira was already the senior team coach. Ricardo Gomes was the olympic team coach. If this wasn't the sub 23 why were all the players sub23 and even the coach be the olympic team coach and not the senior team coach. It's as if they sent Jesus Ramirez lead sub 20 team to a tournament right now and claim it was the senior team. Just because you're ignorant to the fact doesn't mean So in that case beating Panama in Azteca is one of the great wins because we got to the World Cup The rival counts and beating a sub 23 team in Azteca isn't as great accomplishment as beating Brazil in 2005 confederation cups regardless of what wasn't in play. The gold cup isn't that great or else why did Hugo and Mexico, playing one of their worst soccer in history, still were able to reach the final and playing away from home and not having the Azteca in their favor. There is a reason why you have no respect around these parts. Bullshit. A win isn't a win. Beating the Brazilian A team like Lavolpe did in the confederations cup and beating the brazilian olympic team at Azteca is not the same. And after all the criticism that Lavolpe leveled was because the team although winning was playing like an "equipo chico". So a win isn't a win. People who conform to that won't see the mistakes being done and the team will suffer from it. The differences is the result in one game. I'm not a moron and a win against the US wouldn't have erased the problems in play in the whole gold cup. Apparently getting the win against a more inexperienced team in Azteca is totally redemptive for you, but it wasn't for me and in the end, Lavolpe didn't do squat after that. "The gold cup was first" That is your argument to totally dismiss the Copa America peformance, where Hugo did better? Guess what, Copa is more important and more prestigious and Hugo was at a disadvantage and got better results. Keep ignoring that and hiding behind that 1 game differance. I'm saying it was the olympic team because ALL of the players were sub23 and they sent the Olympic team coach and NOT the senior team coach. The only reason the games count is because it was an official competition, that's it. What a lot more talent? Cacho? Correa? It's the 1st year for Hugo against 4 for Lavolpe. Lavolpe had 4 years to prepare for that game and in a more important competition. I don't see this whole great talent. In fact if anything Mexico had more quality players missing because their 3 euros left after the gold cup. How so? Because of that 1 game. I love the fact that you keep ignoring Copa America because the stats don't favor you. What were the great tactics that we need from Lavolpe? He got 4 years to do squat. F**k him.
wow feel big now? Bullshit! A win is a win. specially since this proclaimed "A" team in 2005 is almost a mirror image of the same roster from the 2003 brazilian team. I totally agree, but also it would've tied lavolpe's silverware record and a trip to the confed cup!. and that is what this whole argument is about. lavolpe so far has had a better performance than hugo since he met more objectives and won more silverware and thus participated in the confed cup. Hugo has won Nothing! I never said that. and now you are resorting to character assasination to legitimize your side of your opinion. heres another example: so in the end this shows that you cant have a coherent debate without leaving the personal attacks when you are on the debunked side. yes the same prestigious tournament that Hugo won Nothing! so my point stands. specially since its almost the same roster in the confed cup in 2005 hmm nery castillo magallon fernando arce fausto pinto and lets add the fact that hugo likes to suck blanco's and bofo's cauck and got them in the team. I never ignored it. stop implying stuff that I never posted. thats cheap and a stupid tactic to use in a forum. as a matter of fact it helps my point to include copa america. Hugo sanchez won Nothing! why do you think he lasted for so long?? why do you think the players liked him? now why do you think the 3 euro players left after the gold cup? this is the dumb rumor that vergara implies. the whole point of this matter is: lavolpe has the right to criticize Hugo because so far Hugo's performance has been subpar of lavolpe's. and thus the example of 2006 WC and copa america 2007
my 2 cents... A GC played at home is NOT the same as a GC on the road. This is a huge factor and to dismiss it I think is highly prejudicial. In any sport at any level the home team usually wins. If I'm going to compare GCs then I would compare the two that were played in the US because that's the only common denominator. In Copa America both played on a neutral field, again very comparable. Next World Cup...I hope Hugo is given the same "patience" that was given to his predecessor.
Best post out of you ever. Like others mentioned, Lavolpe lacked people skills and should take the high road on this one, he is doing the same Hugo was doing.
History will say they are both crap.But Hugo has much better chance with the new players coming up. I find it unbelievable that people still pay so much attention to Lavople, the guy is gone, history. Move on
Exactly, Hugo gave him the chance to play and flourish and go to the NT and the WC. Yet, when Lavolpe gave players like Salcido, Osorio, Pineda(Pineda was a sub at Pumas, after Lavolpe called him he became a star at Pumas), Guardado, Mendez, etc.. the chance to play for the NT and consolidate themselves and get int. experience people scoff at it and say: they were already there, Lavolpe didn't do squat but call them. There's a double standard and you guys know it. So when Hugo calls players it's called giving them a chance to grow as players and consolidate themselves. But when Lavolpe did it, it doesn't mean anything and it's just common sense.
Showing that you were clueless about something. That's not that hard. Mirror Image? You sure about that? Do some research. The only players that played in that gold cup with the olympic team and in the 2005 game against Mexico are Kaka and Robinho. Maicon and Baptista were at the bench and neither played against Mexico. The difference in the gold cup was 1 game (in Azteca against an olympic team) whether you want to admit or not. And the gold cup was a failure for Hugo imo. And you still fail to bring how in Copa America, Hugo did better with less time at the helm. More objectives? 1 objective in 1 game is the differance. What have you debunked? All your argument is based on a 1 game difference and totally ignoring the Copa America participation. Keep forgetting about the comparision between Copa Americas. How those your point stand. Brazil isn't in Concacaf and was a guest at the competition so they could have sent whatever team they wanted and did sent the olympic team with the olympic head coach and not the senior head coach. And I already showed that it isn't the close to being the same roster as 2005 and you are talking out of your ass like always. I love how you include Blanco and Bofo when Lavolpe was the one who excluded him and the same with Nery. So now its Hugo's fault that Lavolpe didn't call him. Lavolpe called Arce too. And really Magallon? Fausto Pinto? They are good players but hardly the super change in a team that now makes it so more talented than Lavolpe's. Ha Ha. How does including Copa help your point when you failed to bring it up and accept that Hugo did better in that competition than Lavolpe and in his 1st year. He lasted so long because the stupid directivos gave him his proceso so we could actually go down and do worse than before. Who cares if the players like him? Enrique Meza is always in every list of the most likeable coach and yet he was the worst coach in the history of the Tri. What did Lavolpe do that was so great for him to deserve another chance? What was so great about having us underperform in competition after competition? 4 years against 1 year. He can criticize whateve he wants but Lavolpe (like you) is full of shit. He is a hypocrite because he is criticizing Hugo for what he was guilt of also.
No mames, so now we bunkered in those games too(CR, US)??? That's bullshyt and you know it. Let me think about this I think we bunkered with Lavolpe in every game we played with him.
The difference being that Lavolpe was the NT coach and not the club coach, which is why I stated at first that if Hugo calls up Giovanni and Vela and they become the stars of the NT team, then he didn't make them because he is just the guy at the helm of the NT and is supposed to give them their chance that they earned. Same thing with the Pachuca guys. The only thing Hugo may get the credit is dayviewing against a team like Brazil and in the situation that they had but as far as his callup, they had earn that because of their play in Pachuca, not because Hugo called them up. He is the NT coach and any player that comes up during his time, is supposed to be there because of his performance and not anything else.
Let me refresh your memories Confederations cup 2005 under la volpe if it wasn't for the Borg and that beautiful run by our glorious left back Salcido a defender that had to come up all the way from the opposite side of the field from his postion to burn the Argie defence Mexico would have not scored nothing? Now Hugo on the other hand Copa America 2007 Mexico vs Argentina Argies came to play with about %90 of their euro stars, Mexico we were missing or top left back defender Salcido, Ricardo Orsorio another swift defender and well I don't know if he would of contributed a whole lot Pardo a time to time good mid-fielder I think these players could of made a difference in that game. Now Mexico vs Brasil in the same tournament Mexico and Hugo did great Nery Castillo was on fire and Mexico still won without the players I mentioned earlier which last Copa America Mexico got raped by a weaker Brasil squad the whats that tell you Hugo and the players brought out the best in each other. something la volpe couldn't do! Also Copa America 2004 Mexico vs Argentina I wouldn't call winning with a free kick a glorious victory Mexico pretty much bunkered most of that game. I like Hugos offensive strategy and thats to attack and not bunker go forward. Now with our young guns coming up Vela,Gio,Jonathan,Guadardo I'm sure were gonna have a better attack and of course some of our defenders are playing aboard in some of euros top division clubs. As far as I see it Hugo haters Hugo is just getting warm like it or not! Big Mosco laying down to you fools!
Those players were traveling and working out with the national team. They didn't see action in Gold Cup because Hugo let Pachuca keep them for Recopa games.