Mexico and Argentina - Equal talent - Coaching was the difference.?

Question

Sure you have some play makers on either side...but the difference was coaching. Argentina was a well oiled machine that played it's game. Mexico was desperate and without a plan from the get go. If coaches were switched the outcome would have been reversed.

I am amazed at the discipline of the Argentine team. They played like they have been playing together a whole season with no breaks. That's coaching!

Knowing your players, their abilities, their height, their speed....is important.

Playing keep away from a frustrated mismanaged team isn't about skill. Any average team can do that and win. The strategy worked. Mexico had no strategy...no amount of stars could have made up for the lack of plan.

The Argentine's have a highly skilled team, but they didn't need it today. They simply passed the ball and played keep away. When an opportunity presented itself they went in for the kill. That's discipline.

Answer 1

I think Basile has been outstanding in coaching Argentina. Many see football as scoring goals as the most important objective of the game, but as you saw tonight, Basile plays football tactically, like a war game. I think he is a Master in knowing what to do what and when.

Answer 2

First thing... the fact that some mexican internationals (salcido, osorio and pardo) were missing for mexico doesnt change the fact that Argentina, man to man, has a far better team.

Even so, the match was very equal in the first half, with Mexico having even more ball possession. And it wasnt like Arg wasnt trying or was playing badly... it was Mexico that was out playing them...... Then came the play that changed everything... torrado made a foul, earned a fair yellow card, and from it the 1st goal in a superb pass from Riquelme with a bit of Oswaldo's help, and as usuall in football, a goal just before half time has a terrible effect on the loosing side.

Hugo Sanhez always substitutes he who is booked. And Torrado was no exception, especially because being a deffensive midfielder, he is very propense to earn a second yellow. The problem I see is that he substituted Torrado with Medina, who isn't having the best tournament.... and inexplicably he made one second substitution in the half time, sending off Cacho (who was having a great game in my opinion working as the link between Guardado, Torrado, Arce and Nery) and got Omar Bravo in... I dont like Bravo at all when he's playing with the national team... but well.

In the second half, Argentina played the best football......heavenly. They are the best players, and they had a vey good communication in the field. Messi is unstoppable, Riquelme managed the entire game from his position, Veron and Mascherano were strong, deffensive and tough (great game Mascherano) Tevez didnt have that much luck, but he did well, and Zanetti and Milito were really solid in the back

The second goal by Messi... beautiful.. i have no doubt that he and kaka are the world's greatest right now. No words for it. After that, Mexico went down.... The penalty looked more like an obstruction (indirect free shot inside the area) to me... but it is definitely no excuse.

After that, Mexico concentrated more in not receiving the 4th than in trying to score, and Argentina began worrying about sunday's match vs Brazil.

My conclusions are that Argentina demonstrated that they are arguably the best team in the world today and Mexico played good... very good at times, and it is sad to loose 3 - 0... it didnt feel like Argentina dominated the match that much... I think a 2 - 0 or 3 - 1 would have been more appropriate.

All the luck to Argentina. Amazing football, amazing stars. And congrats to Mexico for the evident progress from Gold cup.




For the ppl here claiming for Borgetti, he's waaaay gone

Answer 3

Argentina- look at the track record...since the late 70s they have done a very good job with the youth programs in under 20 team since 1977 they have won 4 titles, but the players that came from those teams- Maradona in 79; Sorin in 95; Diego Placente, Esteban Cambiasso, Walter Samuel, Pablo Aimar, and Riquelme in 1997. Argentina 2001 was Andres D'Alessandro and Javier Saviola, and in 2003 was Messi. in under 17 they have never won but alot of 3rd places, Mexico has won that one title. Mexico to continue they need to win the next u-17 world cup and that u-17 that won have to win the under 20 and beat Argentina. Mexico has started on the right track, players like Salcido, Osorio, Galindo, and Fonseca left to Europe but if they started a couple of years younger they would be superstars in the World Cup. Argentina young players play in the first division when they are 17 or 18, Mexico now has a rule that you need to play over 80% of the time a player younger than 20yr and 10 months or if not they lose 3pts in the end of the season. It had to be obligated but it is a start, so those young players can grow- look at Memo Ochoa in America or Andres Guardado in Atlas. Right now Argentina has it because of track record if Mexico does what Argentina does in 5-10 years it can be at par with them.

Answer 4

Equal talent?

Mexico has Bravo, Argentina has Messi and Riquelme, I don't think so.

The coaching had nothing to do with it either, maybe only that the D.T. for Argentina knows how to set up line ups and make changes.

Answer 5

Well Argentina is perfectly balanced between experienced and relatively experienced players. They were agressive and played their best game thus far. Mexico had a timid start in the match and the only standout players were Nery and Guardado. Marquez was unusually rough and ineffective in some key moments. Overall, Mexico put up a fight as expected but they failed at possession and execution. You can't let Argentina get all slick or they'll hang you in an instant.

Answer 6

personally i think argentina is just a more talented team. coaching plays a part but argentina can attack better than mexico. and i'm a mexico fan. as much as i love my team i know when we're outclassed. and we got outclassed. not like in world cup when that stupid goal against the run of play was the difference. they got beat by a superior team. no shame in that.

Answer 7

Let's face it gentlemen ,Argentina is playing with
full power house ,they didn't even need Tavez !
And what about the experience ? most the national team of Argentina are playing all over the world,the same as the Brazilian team.
Brazil alone has about (825) players all over the world ,they have the best strikers,mid fielders,and
the defenders.

Answer 8

While I disagree that Mexico had equal talent [they didn't bring so many of their great players], I do agree that it came down to the training and coaching. I bet you that they were shocked and surprised when they won against Brazil. Of course everybody was but the staff and coach didn't have faith and they should always believe in their players. After that, Hugo started to take things more seriously but before, he was just testing his younger players. Argentina always had that determination to win. They didn't want to bring everyones perception down.

Answer 9

Is that your excuse for your loss?
Are you actually gonna blame strategy now?.
Do you actually think that Mexico is equally
talented as the Argentinian team?. - Get real!!!.
You got defeated by Honduras and The USA
in that mediocre Gold Cup, and now you are
comparing Mexico to Argentina?. - Yeah right!!.
You should just go back to your CONCACAF,
you got a better chance there.

Answer 10

Dude, Argentina was stacked with basically all their star players and World Cup veterans and who did Mexico have? Some players just barely have 5 apps. I'm sorry but if Mexico had Pardo, Salcido, Osorio, Borgetti, and Ochoa they would have held an equal match