Defeating Mexico in Mexico in a WCQ

They will only play defensively against Mexico.. As seen in the last WCQ the U.S lost to Hondu and even Jamaica was giving them hell. Most of these teams cant hang at Azteca where Mexico allreasy wooped their arse, Jam, Costa Rica and Hondu in the Gold Cup without receiving a single goal.. Only squad remaining i guess is CR but they are not as strong as they used to be. However i wouldnt be surprised if Guats with el Fish whos coach was Hondus ex coach came to the U.S and played to win..

 

Odd.

One sort of cancels out the other, right?

I'm not one to troll, so please don't jump to immediate conclusions over here like the whole of BigSoccer is accustomed to, but don't some of these statements seem a bit.. shall I say, naive?

Depending on who our coach is, pray help it's not Lavolpe, our defense varies, but..

If it's the backline most apt in terms of pure skill, mental toughness and tactical discipline (and not just potential alone).. The defensive line I'll give you is:

LB - Salvador Carmona
LCB - Joaquin Beltran
RCB - Rafael Marquez
RB - Diego Martinez

All are above-average speedy defenders (for Mexico, that's saying something.) Carmona is a tough-nosed WC veteran who is used to marking international forwards/wingers. Beltran is a Tri vet. who has undeservingly been snubbed since 2001; Joaquin is also UNAM's captain. UNAM = Hugo Sanchez' club. Hugo Sanchez = Probable Tri Coach come Hex./WC. Do the math. Rafael Marquez is our captain. Diego Martinez is our u23 captain who has been called up before, but often has a hot temper and/or decides to disappear midway through a match. But I'd place those four somewhere in the roster, if not the starting XI.

Other potential defenders: Mario Perez (LB) of America, Carlos Salcido(RB) of Chivas, Francisco Javier Rodriguez (CB) of Chivas and Aron Galindo (CB) of Cruz Azul, Gonzalo Pineda (LB/LCB) of UNAM.

We could also line up with a backline of 3 or a backline of 5 depending on the strength/weakness of the opponent.

Anything else and I'd be posting too much non-USMNT info in the thread.

Sorry.

I'm just dropping in with my two insignificant cents.

Hope it helps out with your inquiry, Shasta McNasty.

 

Brazil is the dominant team in the region. Surely, that is the only appropriate definition for the word hegemony in this context. (Gramsci be damned!)

As far as Argentina being "deeper and better" than Brazil right now, you are kidding yourself. Talking about how deep and talented the Argentines are is an old game. Its at least as old as talking about the depth of talent in the Spainish and Italian sides. Personally, I'll take Germany and the trophies.

I'll grant you that Australia is the best team in the region. Dominant even, but to pretend that there is no ebb and flow in Oceania is a mistake. New Zealand does occassionally come out on top.

There is no hegemony in Oceania if you are thinking that the term means that one team wins all the time.

And what exactly has Australia won anyway? Have they ever been to a World Cup finals? I know New Zealand has.

I think that the United States still has a lot of room for improvement.... much more than Mexico. We are well on our way to be the dominant team in the region.

Anyway, hegemony is Metrogo's five dollar word. He stated that it would be boring if the United States completely dominated the region. I disagree.

Is there is a single Brazilian who feels nausea at the thought of qualifying for yet another World Cup?

 

I could be wrong, but it always seems that the speed of counter attack from USA gives a lot of troubles for Mexico defense line. If US plays in Azetec, a lose is normal result, a tie is a good result, a win is a TERRIFIC result. I believe US would play a tie and compact defense schema with quick transition with swift counter attacking. It looks could be a four men defense line with 2 defensive midfielders. So basically probably only 4 or 5 players will be involved in the counter attack. In that case, Johnson can be a major factor with his strength, speed, skill and finishing ability.

 

How is Brazil completely dominant in your terms? Historically Argentina has more Copa America than Brazil does, but Brazil has more World Cups than Argentina has and I think Argentina has a slightly better head to head record against Brazil. That doesn't sound like a region that's completely dominated by one team. Especially if you can remember how bad Brazil struggled in the qualifiers for the WC 2002.

I don't think i'm exaggerating when I say that Argentina has better talent than Brazil right now, I think that can be argued.

You also just contradicted yourself. If Australia is not a hegemony because New Zealand comes out on top sometimes (though rarely), than neither can Brazil since Argentina has come out on top numerous times as well. For example Argentina having 14 Copa Americas vs. Brazil's 7 I believe. And Australia has made it to the World Cup once, in 1970 i believe. Dude how old are you? It sounds like you aren't familiar with the historical aspects of soccer. Especially from one of your comments about you taking Germany and the trophies. Italy has won three world cups too you know.

 

The Copa America is a very old tournament. Games that took place in 1919 aren't really relevant. Argentina absolutely dominated South America in the early years of the Copa America; Completely dominated. That is true.

In the later half of the 20th century, Brazil asserted themselves. They are now the dominant power.

Mexico dominated the United States for most of the last century. The United States can emerge as the dominant team in North America.

I believe that it was in 2002 that Brazil lost their first WC Qualifying match ever. Yes, they did struggle. They also won the World Cup.

Again, I think you are kidding yourself.

No, I have not contradicted myself.

I was trying to imagine a set up circumstances in which you could claim that Australia had hegenomy over the OFC and still maintain that Brazil is not dominant in CONMEBOL. How can you claim that Australia has hegemony and that Brazil doesn't?

If there has been a ebb and flow in CONMEBOL and if that ebb and flow discounts any notion of Brazil's dominance, then surely the ebb and flow in OFC must dismiss Australia's hegemony.

On the contrary, I hold that both teams are dominant. I think that Australia is dominant in the OFC and that Brazil is dominant is CONMEBOL. Australia will lose the occasional final to New Zealand. Brazil will lose in La Paz. It happens; the ball is round.

No , Australia did not compete in the 1970 World Cup finals. It was 1974.
Australia 3 0 1 2 0-5 1

Italy won two World Cups in the 1930s. (Are you old enough to remember those?) Those titles aren't really relevant to their current form. Do Uruguay's two titles make them a world power today?

Italy and Spain have been running on their reputations for a long time. No matter how you might adjudge the talent of their teams, the fact is that Germany win games and tournaments. They beat South Korea. Spain and Italy lose under similar circumstances, despite their "superior" talent and depth.

 

Spain has been running under what reputation exactly? The only reputation they've ever had has been of an underacheiving team. So i guess they have been running on that reputation for a long time. And the last time Germany won a tournament was Euro 96. Last time Argentina won a championship was the Copa America in 93 (2004, if you want to count the Olympics, I don't though). So are you saying they are still a world power? Most people would laugh at that, I don't even think most Germans think that. Germany's appearance in the final of 2002 can be called lucky at best.

And while Brazil might have a deeper set of forwards, Argentina is much deeper in midfield and defense, period.

And New Zealand does not win in the OCF or finish top in qualifiers as consistently as Argentina does in the CONMENBOL. It's not even comparable.

 

Underachieving, because people talk about their... what... depth of talent.

Yes, Germany is a world power.

My point is that you do not hear people talk the talent of the German side as you hear (or read) people gush about the depth of the Italian, Spanish, and Argentine teams. I don't believe the hype about any of those teams. They are all underachievers because too many people over hype their talent.

The Germans were not lucky. In tournaments the Germans beat teams like South Korea or the United States. Italy and Spain have found a way to lose those games. So much for their talent.

The Copa America stretches back almost a hundred years. I think there have been 5 or 6 OFC championships. They had one or two in the 70s and then quit for a couple of decades. So you are right New Zealand has not won nearly as many as Argentina. I think they have won twice.

 

Mexico is a fully MATURE soccer nation, with little room for upward growth, except the possible emergence of a spectacular player...

usa treats the game very marginally, and upward growth potential promises a curious future

and still usa and mexico are at worst equal....

usa has the possibility of becoming argentina or brazil...

and the day this happens then mexico will be a 2nd cousin in concacaf...

it's interesting watching our mexican brethren become so concerned with the state of the game in this country.. 10 years ago, they'd have never believed the usa to be capable of the past decade...

and in 10 more years.....well, it the trend continues, the excuses will get even more interesting...

 

Odd.

How is Mexico a fully MATURE soccer nation?

How is there little room for upward groth?

What differentiates USA, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina?

In, between or from?

I don't quite understand how you associate one CONCACAF nation to the latter CONMEBOL nations without the other?

What is the basis for your argument? I just want to see how you figure one has hit peak capacity, whilst the other is constantly improving.

Anyway..

I don't exactly see any concern from us over your... spectacle. Unless, of course, it pertains to our head to head competition.

Over the past decade, yes, you've got us there.

But there is no real desperation setting in in terms of our international participation.

For one, we aren't stressing over recognition and/or respect.

We don't worry ourselves over what the U.S. does internationally, as it is none of our concern. I could list why, but that's more fodder for trolling claims. Truth is, we're more inclined to pull out hair over our current coaching/Federation problems.

I hate to be the nitpicker, but doesn't it strike you as funny that the only ones caught up in an uproar over Azteca is you.

It's our fortress and we feel pretty confident playing anybody there. The last time we lost there was a fluke match in 2001 during a pathetic coaching reign. Our first ever WCQ loss at Azteca, mind you. Prior to that, we hadn't lost there in ANY match since a friendly in I believe it was 1982 against Atletico de Madrid.

As a side note, one has to point out related stats to rebuttle against preposterous claims that Azteca can be defeated by bunkerball.

And as for the U.S. opening up play in midfield with us at home, that is laughable to say the least.

Forget it.

It's not going to happen anytime soon.

Unless, of course, Bruce doesn't care about the result.

At which point your dream of undisputed regional dominance is thrown out the window.

 

I'm not even Mexican and I don't agree with this. In fact, I don't think any team in this world doesn't have room for improvement or growth. All teams go through highs and lows. It's impossible that a team grows constantly. If that were true, Brazil would've won every World Cup since Pele came on the scene. Mexico hasn't even gotten to the level of any of the world powers, so how do they not have room to grow?

And for Picaraza, how exactly has Argentina underacheived besides in WC 2002? Reaching the final of the Copa America this summer and losing the Brazil is underacheiving??? Yeah, makes sense. If anything Germany has been the biggest underacheiver out of all of them. Bowing out in the first round of the Euro Cup two consecutive times doesn't spell world power. And yes despite your deluded beliefs, Germany's WC 2002 run was lucky unless you think they actually deserved to beat the US.

 

VS, the US is a more mature team than four years ago. Another Honduras is not impossible but a lot less probable. Besides we can always bring up Costa Rica.

Jamaica is a team that will always play even with the US because they match up well with us physically and we still haven't learned how to put away a team technically.

 

That is very true. four years ago we were dependent on those who were ready enough coming out of MLS. Also those who were very experienced playing abroad in Europe. Now that the youth players are adapting quicker in MLS and are also generating time for the Youth international squads, There is more competition for spots on the senior squad for Gold Cup, World Cup Qualifying rosters and the final 23 for World Cups Every four years.

There is still plenty of time to improve as the years and as time goes by, but right now there is plenty of talent finally coming thru the ranks also we are finally generating depth in other positions besides goalkeepers.

 

Mexico is a fully mature soccer nation....

culturally, it is fully adopted by the vast majority of mexico...

the top athletes of mexico tend to soccer over other sports...

in this sense, MEXICO is a fully mature soccer nation, BECAUSE it lacks a DEMOGRAPHIC source of talent to SIGNIFICANTLY raise the caliber of MEXICAN soccer...

USA has perhaps 10% of our culture INTERESTED in the GAME...which means when a significant portion of the rest of the cuture decides the game of soccer is important, then the DEMOGRAPHIC power of the remaining 90% will OVERPOWER the numbers in mexico...

mexico at best will have marginal growth in it's game, and this we be due to the emergence of generational type player, some player with FIFA of the year type ability....

anyone who has even paid any attention to the game in america over the past 25 years, should realize the PHASE change in american soccer...

and this is something which WORRIES the mexican fan, and why they are so nationalistic about their team...

we all realize mexico was banned from the 1990 wc, so heighten the likelihood usa would advance....

it took that sort of fixing even to give the usa a shot....

now, the quality of the hex is so miserable, usa would need a plane wreck NOT to advance...

 

I'm guessing that > 50% of "our culture" is interested in soccer.

The main difference between the United States and other countries - and between soccer in the U.S. and other major sports in the U.S. is that there are too many products.

Baseball product: MLB
Hockey product: NHL
Racing product: NASCAR
Football product: NFL, Colleges
Basketball product: NBA, Colleges

Soccer product: USMNT, USWNT, MLS, EPL, MFL, College Mens, College Womens, youth soccer, etc....

The audience for soccer in the U.S. is very large. The problem is that with the exception of the World Cup Finals every four years, nobody has figured out how to bring all the different audiences together.

You don't believe me that soccer is very big in "our culture?" Read magazines, watch TV. Look at the shows and advertisements. Soccer is everywhere.

 

You want to beat mexico in mexico..............

Bruce has to go and train for a month with most of the players in big bear califorina.... If bruce can get together with most of the us players and use some of that nike money to stay 4 weeks in quito ecuador or in la paz bolivia and THEN head to mexico city i assure you a Victory in Mexico.... Quito/la paz are way higher than mexico city.. heading to el DF would be no big deal...

Steve sampson had the nats like 4 weeks in big bear calif and players were playing well in mexico city and running all over the place with no altitude effect until jeff agoos got ejected..Bruce arena thought it was not important to train in altitude and lost and the team played like SUPER CRAP.....

 

If you're referring to the WCQ in Mexico City in the 2001 Hex, bear in mind that the USA had a lot of influential players out of action, too. And that, in turn, affected his squad selection and his overall tactical approach in that match-- and naturally, we looked not quite as good as we could have been.

Report from that WCQ, via ussoccer.com's archives

With a midfield of Sanneh, Stewart, Moore and Armas, we were lacking a true playmaker or midfield general, with the likes of Reyna, JOB, and others injured and/or otherwise unavailable for that match. (And no Donovan, either... can't remember why he missed this match, too.)

Nowadays, if that happened, we'd have an embarrassment of riches of depth in order to fill that spot. That's the biggest change of improvement in our stocks between 2001 and the Hex cycle coming up, and can only help in our chances of getting at least a draw over there, or even a win.

 

I'm pretty sure Mexican fans have been nationalistic about their team even before the US had a decent team.

You know sometimes I think that US fans seem to believe Mexicans are obsessed with the US state of soccer. I don't know maybe it's been my own personal experiences but I've worked with Mexicans every summer for like three years and I never heard them get paranoid about the US team, not matter how many times we beat them, mainly they looked at it as Mexico playing badly than the US getting "rapidly" better.

 

I agree.

My observation has been that its mainly some fans of the us that are obsessed with beating mexico in mexico.
I have honestly ever heard any fans of mexico worry about the us and the state of thier soccer team.
they seem to be mainly concerned with their own team, coaching and the football federation.
Also how they do internationally..its never focused on the us..
I think a lot of us fans are just feeling really confident about the team right now and i suppose thats a good thing.

And assuming the us does become a world power well that is great. It will not only benefit the us but also the whole of concacaf. Talent is not contained by borders.
Anyhow, everyone have a nice life

 

No way,

What's lacking in Mexico are better training methods plus too much misplaced pride to adopt foreign methods that work. Otherwise they need an attitude change. Once that attitude changes they will get better and more varied players.

They've actually gotten better compared to what they were 20 years ago, no doubt because they are getting a lot of foreign players and coaches with new ideas. Chivas has a Dutchman handling their youth development in the long run this will have influence.

 

Try doing a web search on "Concacaf" and "gigante" (giant). What you'll find are reams of commentary debating whether Mexico has lost its position of regional dominance.

 

I've failed to make my point adequately.

Simply, soccer is a major sport in mexico, while here, it's very minor....

the growth curve in the usa the past 20 years is remarkable, yet I'd still maintain there are far MORE people in this country who even DON'T KNOW about the USMNT...

in mexico, those who don't know anything about their squad who be a far less porportion of the population....

I would agree training philosophies in mexico can be adapted to improve the state of their game....

to me, in the usa, the population pool is incredibly large and diverse, and represents a source for CONTINUED growth of the game....

I've always maintained the excellence of mexican soccer...94,98,02 advancing to round play is a significant achievement, and something the usa should strive to emulate....

my view is given a cultural committment in the next 25-50 years usa can become a nation who can compete for a wc title...

I don't believe this can ever be said of mexico...

just my opinion...

 

Adam

Your assesment of Mexican soccer is completely off, and i dare say you are basing it off your nationalistic views and desires for US growth.

The fact of the matter is that Mexico is not a fully mature soccer nation, as
you put it.

A while back in the Mexico forum, we started a thread with the attempt to name the best player from each state.

31 states and one federal district, and 15 states do not have a worthy player that represents them. Forget having a national team player, a decent professional level player

I understand that the central region is the most populated region in Mexico, but according to INEGE, there has been a migration trend away from the central region and into the provinces. Many of those states that do not have a name next to it produce world class boxers (Mexico is 2nd in the world, next to the US in producing world class boxers). Why cant it produce good professional soccer players? forget producing national team players.

You think Mexico has reached if fullest potential with occasional marginal growth spurts. You are dead wrong.

Mexico still has a long way to go. In the US, sports is religion. Not in Mexico. A poll while back was conducted and it asked what the general consensus was with sports in academic environments. For the most part, the average Mexican still thinks that school is for academics and that sports should be set aside. In some areas, funding for athletic programs is lacking because they rather would spend on new computers than a new gymnasium.

Up until 2 years ago, there was not a collegiate program. Now, the 1st national collegiate program in soccer was implemented and is administered by the Mexican Federation. It is still in its infant stages, but has given some results as there have been 3 players that have signed professional contracts.

The integration of academics and athletics is starting to occur. The US has the luxury of having the financial resources and facilities to practice a desired sport. You start to see those facilities at middle school, where as in Mexico, only select schools have them. When that movement becomes national, you will see Friday Night Lights in Mexico.

I just briefed you in on some problems from the amatuer sector. Now the professional sector.

18 1st division clubs and 9 of them reside in 3 cities - Monterrey, Guadalajara, and Mexico City. The others are near Mexico City - Morelia, Puebla, Pachuca, Toluca, Aguascalientes. The only ones that are remotely isolated are Chiapas, Santos (Torreon), Sinaloa and Veracruz.

When Necaxa moved to the city of Aguascalientes, the city had never had a professional 1st division team. Necaxa found a fan base there and as a result, participation in youth soccer has risen.

Atlante is trying to do the same. Their owner is building a new stadium in Acapulco.

There are atleast 12-15 other cities that could support a soccer club if given the opportunity. But the problem is, finding an owner that is willing to commit.

Now, the second divison is professional in name, but it is subsidized. It could not survive on its own (half of them at least) You have 1st division clubs that own clubs in the 2nd division. That why we cant have a legit Cup tournament. Mexico is in need of more owners that are willing to commit to thier communities.

I could go on and on about the problems the FMF and MFL has, but at the end of the day, they have one of the best leagues in the world, but still has to improve in so many aspects.

 

LMvCP -

I think there's a pretty big distinction between the kind of development that Adam has in mind and the kind that you have in mind. It's an unfortunate truth that Mexico has enormous problems with over-centralization and poverty, and the soccer situation is just one symptom of that. Making improvements regarding these issues is important, but it's far from straightforward.

By contrast, there is a big, affluent sector of the US population that devotes an increasing amount of resources to soccer. As that happens, it's bringing with it big changes in the way the high-level game works here, such as the formation of MLS and Bradenton, and now MLS reserve teams. At high levels of the American soccer world, tectonic shifts are occurring.