Hace seis anhos cometimos el error de dejar partir a Sulantay luego que nos sacara terceros en el mundo. Ahora no podemos darnos el lujo de de Sacar o dejar ir a Salas, luego que nos llevara a un mundial tras seis anhos de ausencia y hasta cuartos de final, lo cual no es poco. Creo que debe seguir al mando de la sub 20 y desde ya preparar el sudamericano de uruguay del 2015. Argentina a modo de ejemplo mantuvo a Pekerman y Tocalli por varios anhos, y como resultado ganos varios sudamericanos y mundiales de la categoria.
I do not subscribe to the notion that there is nobody better than Salas. I do subscribe to being innovative and progressive.
Right: none is saying that. But you are not being objective and fair in your assessment because you're conveniently forgetting some facts: he had at most 2 months to prepare the team for WCQ and took the team to the WC under those circumstances--playing attacking soccer, which is always a plus. Oh, and don't forget our 6-year absence. How's letting him go "progressive" ? Specially if you consider all the aforementioned facts.
You may be quite correct and I hope you are. One fact I am not sure and that has to do with Salas only having 2 months to prepare the team. Wasn't there another coach before him already preparing the team for a while?
Ghana plays differently to S.America that is for sure, but I still think we could have troubled them more with closed lines, because for starters, they would not have received the ball with all the time in the world to turn and run at our defenders. In all of those situations you recall, the Ghana wingers and strikers RAN directly at the defence, how many times do you remember a Chilean player intercepting the ball before he received it or not letting them turn? They didn't, they just pressed them wide where Ghana would take on our weak fullbacks 1-on-1 and win almost every time. I agree (only if you have the centre backs to do so and this U20 certainly had) and I'll also add that it's not a matter of scoring and then bunkering, it's just that you have to choose your moments. For example I didn't think Chile was too bad the first 60 minutes or so playing 4-2-3-1... but by the time Larenas and Lichnovsky were out and most of our players were exhausted or marked out of the game (like Maturana and Rabello) we should have just changed the formation rather than stretch the mediocre way we were playing any longer. Some signs are too big to ignore...
For the record, I like Salas, I admire the fact that he picked this team up with little time to work on them and got results. But he HAS to stay for a fairly consistent period. He can't abandon ship like his previous coach. He also needs to realize when our players are being physically outplayed constantly and make the appropriate amendments, he needs to learn more formations than just 4-2-3-1.
I'm not big fan of Salas, but I reckon we are safe with him taking into account that lately the under 20 and 17 national teams are a consolation prize for obsolete coaches who are way past their primes and not able to get a job in the first division.
Right so technically I guess we could say the team was prepared all along. Reality, however, indicates that it usually takes a coach a lot longer to get his ideas across with a group of players. Salas overcame this. Didn't know I had to be so explicit about this.
I found the link you were talking about: http://www.elgraficochile.cl/ya-no-basta-con-llorar/prontus_elgrafico/2013-07-09/080519.html
A good coach will be able to overcome time constraints but usually time is necessary for teams (or players, rather) to buy into a coach's ideas. I am sure mr. Toepunt--having watched the sport for so long--should be aware of that.
C'mon, Borghi had plenty of time in charge of the team. If he wouldn`t have been so stubborn and arrogant, he could still be our coach, but he is whom he is, and that was what doomed him. No need to compare him with any other coach, as his eventual problems were in himself.
Unfortunately, at that moment it became absolutely evident to everybody that our team had completely lost its compass and we were doomed to continue an almost endless agony, as our Federation was also full of arrogant bastards (still is, btw), and were against making any changes. so from there on, only came defeat after defeat. Fortunately, Jadue must have felt something pretty similar to a rope around his neck (or imagined fans doing it to him, we will never know), so he aceepted reality and replaced the "fatso", for Sampaoli.....
To me, Borghi lost it when he lost Valdivia. That was his main trumping card and his best matches were with Valdivia on the pitch. Once he lost Valdivia he was ********ed. Coaches like Bielsa and Sampaoli are superior cause they can make a competitive team without Valdivia, and in Sampaoli's case even without Matias.
De los eliminados en Cuartos de Final, únicamente España sumó más puntos que Chile a lo largo del torneo, por ende la ubicación definitiva de Chile es sexta. Nada mal, tercera mejor actuación en este tipo de certámenes.
Disagree with me if you want, but what I found frustrating was as the tournament progressed we played worst and worst instead of the normal progression of getting better and better.
I'll disagree then. We should have lost against Egypt and maybe even England, I thought we beat Croatia fairly and Ghana was superior to us.
Disagree Our 2 best matches were against Croatia and Ghana, in my humble opinion. We played so bad against Egypt, England and Iraq. In fact, we didn't deserve to beat Egypt. So in my opinion, the U20 Roja went "de menos a más".