I have no idea what your basis is for thinking that. But in any case it is irrelevant, because it misses my point. Let's make this into two simple propositions. 1. Decisions about risks taken on the field affect the likelihood of injuries. 2. Making avoiding injuries a point of emphasis shapes those decisions. I take it that you disagree with the first proposition, for reasons you have left obscure and which I am likely to find unconvincing anyway. But that doesn't matter. My point about Mexico's play only ever depended on the second proposition: the coaches instructions led his players to take a lower-risk approach to challenges. So Mexico played differently than they would in a match where the result was paramount. Unless you think that coaching doesn't affect on-field decisions at all, then you really aren't arguing against my original point. You are just setting up a straw man.
actually, it has been said that playing to avoid injury is almost sure to cause you to get one. but i don't think this is too earth-shaking a matter. i'll just agree to disagree.
Sadly and unfortunately, we know exactly who is going and how Pia will play it. Now, within that limited framework, can we even concoct a unique approach? Who might step up embued with new spirit? Who has the strength to get us through?