OFFTOPIC: Copa America 2011

free_cat wrote:The curious thing is that some people says that this Argentina failed because they tried to copy Barça.

In my opinion, if they copied Barça they did it terrible. In the games I watched (vs. Uruguay and parts of others) their positional play was awfull, they never played compact, they played way too fast and with a too deep defence, no one providing width and with the fullbacks not pushing up (making forward runs but in a different way than Barça's).

I read Alex views that they should adopt a counterattacking style. And I think that could work. But I also think that playing as Barça but doing it ok tactically, it could work for them. Yes, they lack the midfielders, but against Uruguay, their midfielders were not press and didn't lose the ball, yet all the team was crappy positioned and not trying to play the Barça way at all.

Agreed completely. The only game that we looked like Barca was against a U23 Costa Rica. In all other games we definitely did not look like them. We were far too vertical to build any play, which consequently meant that we relied on individual talent rather than team work, our forward's off the ball movement was subpar except for Higuain's, and we never tried to mantain possession - or did it very well. We pressed well sometimes, but in some games we also didn't do that well. All in all if it was a copy of Barca, it was completely butchered.

harhar11 wrote:
I was talking about when they won the WC, proven by the fact that france won a WC semifinal without zidane..

Actually Zidane wasn't such a huge name before the WC 1998 final. He was still France's best player and in fact had been chosen third best player in the world in 1997 but every other player in those days was largely in the shadows of Ronaldo who was called 'O Fenomeno' and considered beyond comparison. Also Zidane did play the semi final but the hero of that match was Lilian Thuram. I don't remember it so well as to be able to say how much Zidane contributed in that match. However after WC 1998 final Zidane became huge. He won the best player in 1998 and then only went from strength to strength. Today most people including me definitely consider him an all time legend. However I still do wonder if Ronaldo had been fully fit for that final how different may football history have been.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

The Franchise wrote:I think historically (I think this through reading) that Argentina have never played a style with the emphasis being on total possession, build up and interchanging passes in the midfield.

Hmm how would that style differ significantly from what Pekerman and Bielsa did? I'm asking because I didn't follow football anywhere near as close at the time, but those two seemed to have the same core beliefs.

I wont lie, I dont remember the invidual differences between the two coaches. Its pretty difficult to remember all the changes.

But if I was to guess. If those two do have those believes (I think for sure Bielsa does) the differences lie in the players.

Good coaches know, you have to tailor your tactics to the personale, therefore if those two coaches teams contained direct players who dribbled and were isolationists, that dictates the way they played.

Overall, when you think about it and where my main point comes from, in my years, other then Riquelme, can you name many possession type players who were great? I cant. All of the greatest players were individualist type dribblers (Ortega, Claudio Lopez, Kily et al) or the number 9's (Crespo, Batistuta) and of course we can all name the current era of players, most of who again, dribblers and number 9's.

Veron, Aimar and Gallardo are the same kind of players in the ilk of Riquelme, possession keepers and build up players. But none of whom had the impact for Argentina needed, none of them played up to the expectations.

Also dani I don't understand why we cannot call a team less or more motivated. In international football especially I have seen more determined teams sometimes triumphing over those more talented than them. For instance I would never call the WC 2006 team of Brazil motivated. As far as Argentina is concerned I have been following them since 1990 and the one common characteristic of their teams has been the pride, passion and determination shown by the players the minute they put on the Albiceleste shirt. The current team seemed kind of alien to me - easily the least passionate Argentina team I have ever seen. It was a case of becoming a little bit like England - players too involved with their own priorities to bother much about the national team.




That isnt all motivation JD. In some cases perhaps so, but not every case in which the small overcomes the great is the reason motivation.

Sometimes you just dont play well, sometimes you cant pass the ball 10m in front of you for no reason in particular, sometimes things just dont go well for a variety of reasons. But the intention to do well remains the same.

If anything, players like Messi, were "too" motivated. He looked over anxious to do something, he looked in a rush rather then playing fast.

England are no different, I dont believe for a second they arent motivated to win. They just lack talent.

But back on topic, I think Argentina were plenty motivated and its far too easy to simply say they wasnt trying out there.

About copying Barca.

There is nothing wrong with it in theory, but in reality, its not going to happen.

For how long and for how often have/do Barca played together?

You cant have a team come together for a month and then reproduce all the nuances and subtle things which make Barca so effective.

Even worse, you get the players together for a couples at a time and they focus on trying to play this patient possession game. When they go back to their clubs, they play a completely different way for months at a time. They would of lost most if not all of what they would of learnt previously for the NT so when they come back, its all new again.

Barca's style is to pricise and takes too much learning for NT's to get a grip on.

The Franchise wrote:
That isnt all motivation JD. In some cases perhaps so, but not every case in which the small overcomes the great is the reason motivation.

Sometimes you just dont play well, sometimes you cant pass the ball 10m in front of you for no reason in particular, sometimes things just dont go well for a variety of reasons. But the intention to do well remains the same.

If anything, players like Messi, were "too" motivated. He looked over anxious to do something, he looked in a rush rather then playing fast.

England are no different, I dont believe for a second they arent motivated to win. They just lack talent.

But back on topic, I think Argentina were plenty motivated and its far too easy to simply say they wasnt trying out there.

dani, fair enough. It's no point being simplistic. I just felt there was something lacking in this Argentina team compared to its predecessors in terms of fire and passion but maybe it was just my perception.

CONMEBOL considering changing the CA structure by adding more CONCACAF teams

BarrileteCosmico wrote:http://www.canchallena.com/1391242-se-viene-una-nueva-copa-america

Basically:

• CONMEBOL & CONCACAF will meet in the coming months to discuss a partnership of sorts
  
• CONMEBOL
  will propose that instead of the current CA format it should be
  CONMEBOL's 10 + 6 of CONCACAF and have a format similar to the Euro Cup
  
• This will not eliminate the Gold Cup, but move it to Olympics' years so they do not clash like this year
  
• This means that qualification for the Confederations' Cup will remain the same
  
• It
  is not clear yet how CONCACAF will do elimination for those 6 spots,
  but it might be through FIFA rankings so as to not plague the teams with
  new matches (CONCACAF has 40 member nations ), or it might be through elimination during which the top teams will be introduced in the later stages
  
• As a gesture, the 2015 Copa America will be played in Mexico, rather than the corresponding next country in CONMEBOL (Brazil)
  

What do you guys think?

that would be great.

and well finally have good pitches in the next copa America.

too bad the world will end next year

messixaviesta wrote:

harhar11 wrote:
I was talking about when they won the WC, proven by the fact that france won a WC semifinal without zidane..

Actually Zidane wasn't such a huge name before the WC 1998 final. He was still France's best player and in fact had been chosen third best player in the world in 1997 but every other player in those days was largely in the shadows of Ronaldo who was called 'O Fenomeno' and considered beyond comparison. Also Zidane did play the semi final but the hero of that match was Lilian Thuram. I don't remember it so well as to be able to say how much Zidane contributed in that match. However after WC 1998 final Zidane became huge. He won the best player in 1998 and then only went from strength to strength. Today most people including me definitely consider him an all time legend. However I still do wonder if Ronaldo had been fully fit for that final how different may football history have been.

I confused the semi with the last sixteen(once again ) And no zidane wasn't france best player, that was thuram, proven by the fact that thuram was voted the 3rd best player in the tournament while zidane wasn't in the top 3. Those 2 header in the final has created a myth that zidane was the best player in that tournament.

As I said, France was a great team, with or without zidane while argentina would never get the ball past the midfield if not for messi...

harhar11 wrote:
I confused the semi with the last sixteen(once again ) And no zidane wasn't france best player, that was thuram, proven by the fact that thuram was voted the 3rd best player in the tournament while zidane wasn't in the top 3. Those 2 header in the final has created a myth that zidane was the best player in that tournament.

As I said, France was a great team, with or without zidane while argentina would never get the ball past the midfield if not for messi...

Sorry didn't realize my words could be misinterpreted. I meant Zidane was France's best player in those days on reputation and talent but still not considered in the Ronaldo league which basically had room only for one man.

You are right that France played the second round against Paraguay without Zidane and he returned for the quarter final against Italy. You are also right that Thuram was chosen France's best player. You are more than dead right that far too many people think Zidane was France's and the tournament's best player. No he placed 7th in the polls. The tournament best player was 'O Fenomeno'.

I don't really agree with the last paragraph though. France was a great team only in terms of defense. They had no top class strikers then. In midfield Zidane was probably their only creator though they did have solidity with Deschamps etc. Also Argentina could play without Messi as well. They can use Pastore to pass the ball to the forwards and Angel Di Maria to run on the wings. Not saying it will be a better or even equal team and of course Messi is a player in a different class but what you said is an exaggeration. I repeat that I do think that in Argentina's current setup Maradona, Zidane and even Xavi could have done better than what Messi has done. It's not about the quality of the players but depending on what the team already has and what they really need.

Latest rumors are saying Batista won't last very long

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Latest rumors are saying Batista won't last very long

The likes of Musacchio,Samuel,Demichelis,Pareja and Garay are all better than the 2 CBs selected. Why Milito was given a chance after such a poor season is beyond my understanding. Even moving Mascherano permanently to CB is an option and then placing a Banega,Gago and Pastore MF in a 4-3-3 setup. Such a formation can work as well. There are full-backs available all around Europe and in Argentina as well; Namely: Ansaldi,Monzon,Insua,Zanetti,Zabaleta,Rojo,etc.... What Argies lack in defence however is a LEADER besides Zanetti, that will hurt them in the long run,lMO. So whilst ALL positions aren't filled with superstars, the cupboard isn't bare at all, it is just that the coaches seem blind,tbh.

Whilst Pekerman was sound in team selection, his discard of Javier Zanetti ended up biting him in the arse v Germany.
In the 08 Olympics, Batista played both Messi AND Riquelme effectively, with Aguero AND Di Maria also in the team... So why now is it so hard to put Pastore in Riquelme's position and allow Messi a free-role in the final third to do as he likes, possibly shifting around with Aguero at every chance....Argentina's MAIN problem has been shocking selection errors made possible by the politics going on among the higher-ups, meaning a player EVERYONE knows should be in the team is discarded....and on at least 2 occasions it has bit us and boy, how hard did it bite in the form of REDONDO and ZANETTI.

Guardiola coaches Argentina & u will have a team that will dominate World Cup 2014!!

Idk, Grondona isn't big on foreigners. I say give Sabella a chance. Hell I would take Martino right now but definately Sabella. If Bianchi could settle whatever problems with Grondona, then he would be my first choice.

Of course Bielsa would also have been a nice choice. Who DOESN'T like the Great man's 3-3-1-3

Martino? Idk, I'd like someone more proven, and I find Paraguay to catenaccio-like for my taste. Wouldn't want the seleccion to play like that.

Gareca could also be a good choice. I want someone proven with multiple First Division titles and perhaps a Libertadores. Guess my options are rather limited then

larisano wrote:Whilst Pekerman was sound in team selection, his discard of Javier Zanetti ended up biting him in the arse v Germany.
In the 08 Olympics, Batista played both Messi AND Riquelme effectively, with Aguero AND Di Maria also in the team... So why now is it so hard to put Pastore in Riquelme's position and allow Messi a free-role in the final third to do as he likes, possibly shifting around with Aguero at every chance....Argentina's MAIN problem has been shocking selection errors made possible by the politics going on among the higher-ups, meaning a player EVERYONE knows should be in the team is discarded....and on at least 2 occasions it has bit us and boy, how hard did it bite in the form of REDONDO and ZANETTI.

1. Agreed completely about the shambolic treatment of J.Zanetti. You say it was politics but I would like to know what could political figures have against such an individual.

2. I have mentioned the 08 Olympics several times. You have said things very similar to what I have said. That's why I refuse to believe Batista is an idiot. This is the same man who showed that Riquelme and Messi could play together and won us that tournament. However he couldn't do it at a senior level in spite of begun very promisingly in the friendlies. Do you remember the formation and lineup he used in the Olympics? Where exactly did he place Riquelme? I am not sure if you can use Pastore in the same position as Riquelme - a different kind of player and perhaps not in the same class.

shinigami99 wrote:Idk, Grondona isn't big on foreigners. I say give Sabella a chance. Hell I would take Martino right now but definately Sabella. If Bianchi could settle whatever problems with Grondona, then he would be my first choice.

Of course Bielsa would also have been a nice choice. Who DOESN'T like the Great man's 3-3-1-3

I agree with everything else but no Bielsa for me. The terrible memories of WC 2002 come back. Anyway he is now committed to Athletic Bilbao.

Compilation I just made, maybe you guys might enjoy it check it out!