Re: I aggree, dogg. Well, Mexico has received a World Cup seed for the first time, that's something. I know people will say "FIFA's formula was based heavily on the two previous WC's coached by Lapuente and Aguirre, their work got the numbers Lavolpe can now benefit from" That's right, but it's not the whole story. FIFA's formula is flexible, and if the results their new formula obtains are too unusual, if too many big teams are left unseeded, they won't use the formula. FIFA has to be convinced at least at some level that the seeded teams are defensible choices, they've taken some flak for Holland being left out while Mexico gets a seed and I guarantee you that if one more big team had been left out (say Argentina, who was eliminated in the first round from the 2002 WC that the absent Holland was penalized so dearly for in this WC's formula) they would have used a different formula. Count on it. After all, if our two consecutive round of sixteen berths leading up to 2006 are enough for a seed, why wasn't the same accomplishment in 94 and 98 worth a seed in 2002? Credibility, my guess. There are some people (myself included) that think the Confederations Cup performance had its role to play in boosting Mexico's credibility just enough that FIFA gave it a seed. And Lavolpe has presided over that new credibility. Yes, Lavolpe has only 1 title, but I'm not sure where the sense of entitlement expressed by so many of his critics to a treasure chest of titles comes from, he's participated in a Copa America which we've never won, an Olympics where we've never earned a medal, and a Confederations Cup where we've won once at home. I fail to see the utter catastrophe that is the Lavolpe era in winning only one out of two Gold Cups. There's more to a good team than numbers and titles, setbacks happen, I don't think anybody considers the Cruyff era Holland team a bunch of losers because they never won a tournament. I'm just making an analogy for the sake of arguing that a low number of titles doesn't make a team bad, don't get indignant about me using Cruyff's name in vain or something like that Maybe somebody will say that I'm too easily pleased by FIFA approval, and my answer is that I think that approval reflects good performance on the pitch, and it's my opinion that Mexico, with setbacks and all, has overall been playing well. Just my opinion.
cabrito, cuauh, palencia, yo unidos que demonios he estado diciendo? entrevista con cabrito: http://espndeportes.espn.go.com/story?id=398210
Are you serious? What can I do? So someone sitting in a chair at home and really cheering for a team will make them perform better? Cool. But if that's true why hasn't Chivas won for so long?
Re: I aggree, dogg. One thing you forgot to mention is the Mexico is the country with the most games played, friendlies and official. Copa America, Confederation Cup, Gold Cup, and a bunch of money-making friendlies in the US. Thats another reason why they have alot of points for their FIFA high ranking.
My bad, Ill take the blame on that one! I think that was my fault for rooting against Chivas! I too didnt realized i could directly affect the outcome of a team from my couch.
Are you sure about that? Who in Atlante did he develop? If memory serves me he went with most of his friends. Wilson Greaneolatti? Ruben Omar Romano? Miguel Herrera? Daniel Guzman? Guillermo Cantu? Luis Salavador? Felix Fernandez? Juaregui? Obledo? The players that the front office got for him he had problems with such as Manuel Negrete, Hugo Sanchez. The team that won the final in 93 looked like this Fernandez, Gutierrez, Graneolatti, Cruz, Herrera, R.I. Garcia, Andrade, Cantu, Massacessi, Salvador, Guzman. 2 years after the championship, the team was 2nd to last and recieved the most goals (a new for Atlante) Borgetti? WOW!!!! giving credit to Lavolpe for Borgetti? How can that be when Borgetti was with Atlas from 1993 to 1996. You do realize that Lavolpe was not with Atlante from 1993 to 1996???