Mexico vs. Brasil - 2pm!

David wrote:

Mainecoons wrote:Of course it matters.  If you can't work the ball in close enough to get higher percentage shots, you aren't going to score.  Again, Brazil took more than two times as many shots on goal and some of them would have been goals in most games.  Ochoa played brilliantly, everyone agrees on it.

I don't know how they come up with that possession statistic but it doesn't mirror what was going on the field well IMO.  Mexico turned the ball over a lot shortly after crossing mid field.  They may have had it for some time but a lot of that time was dribbling around in their own backfield.

Statistics will only take you so far and then you need to notice what actually happened on the field.
Mexico played defense most of the game, I think that was their strategy going in.  They played it well and it was a good strategy for them considering they are over matched by Brazil.  I suggest you review the standings coming into the Cup to appreciate that fact.

We both watched the same game.  I notice in reading the after commentary that a lot of observers agree with my observations.

Sorry, you don't get to redesign the stats.  Mexico had 47% possession, that doesn't say defense.  The had only one less shot than Brazil, that says a lot of offense.  A shot just wide or just over is a shot, that offense.  Apparently you saw a different game than I did.  ALL soccer association use the same stats.  I repeat, turnovers are not a stat and mean nothing, the possession stat indicates that.  Let's agree that we're happy for El Tri.  I hope you learn something about the game during the world cup.

You can possess and play defense, genius.  Time of possession has nothing to do with how and where that time is spent.  Particularly during the second half, the ball was on Mexico's side of the field more regardless of who possessed it.  They played a well strategized game against a better ranked team and held them to a tie.  That will enable them to move to the 16, a win in my book.

The news reports support my view that Mexico played primarily a defensive game.  Maybe you both should do a little more reading.  Obviously the losing coach is going to build up the team he lost to.  The coaches talk like that NOB.

You have your view of the game, I have mine.  You've provided very little support for your point of view from other observers other than a losing coach trying to paint lipstick on his loss.  Your main evidence seems to be your usual tendency to personal insults.  Discussion over.

Spain is finished.  Lost two to zero to Chile.

The news reports say exactly what I posted.  The Brasil coach was quoted as was the AP writer who was at the game.  You are simply looney to believe you know more than the Brasil coach and to contradict the AP writer.  Your only evidence is your arrogant opinion.  Pls show ANY credible source that supports your lopsided view.  Strange that no one here has supported your version of the match, don't you think?

BTW, I have not offered a personal insult here have I?  Or, are you referring to my mentioning your obvoius ignorance of futol?  That's simply the truth, a concept we know you have difficulty with.

Soy Cameroonista hoy.   

David wrote:The news reports say exactly what I posted.  The Brasil coach was quoted as was the AP writer who was at the game.  You are simply looney to believe you know more than the Brasil coach and to contradict the AP writer.  Your only evidence is your arrogant opinion.  Pls show ANY credible source that supports your lopsided view.  Strange that no one here has supported your version of the match, don't you think?

BTW, I have not offered a personal insult here have I?  Or, are you referring to my mentioning your obvoius ignorance of futol?  That's simply the truth, a concept we know you have difficulty with.

Of course calling people "looney" and ignorant isn't insulting.  Silly me.

I cited and quoted credible sources.  You ignored them.  You also ignored the fact that time of possession does not tell the whole story.  But all those shots taken by Brazil as opposed to Mexico does tell a story.  That Brazil was thwarted by Ochoa, THE defensive player, also tells a story.

For such a self styled expert on the game, it is interesting that you don't seem to notice what these observations say about the game. I think you might want to pay more attention to the more subtle aspects of the game in the future.

If I argued just the opposite, that Mexico was mostly on offense, you all would change sides.  This isn't about a friendly and honest discussion of different viewpoints on a game.  This is about several of you using every opportunity to vent your spleen.  Have fun with it.  It says a lot more about you than it does me.

By the way, I manged a youth soccer club for four years and that club was coached by the former goalie of the national soccer team of El Salvador.  Among other things, he taught me the difference between a game that calls for a defensive strategy versus one that emphasizes offense.  

While you're at it, learn how to spell "obvious" and "futbol."

 

For the rest of you, there are some great photos and videos from the game here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/worldcup2014/article-2660535/Brazil-0-0-Mexico-Guillermo-Ochoa-blinder-goal-Mexicans-Neymar-given-stick.html

Futbol is spelled FUTBOL.  Pointing out your ignorance is not an insult, it's fact.

What "credible sources?" Pls provide a link.  The writers on ESPN do not agree with you.  I found no source that supports your view.

Futbol (soccer) matches are all recorded using a standard set of metrics.  Your assertion that other measures e.g. turnovers, employed by only you tell a different story is indeed looney.

Turnovers have been cited in some of the broadcasts.  Not on Channel 3 Telecable, though. I think it would be a really good thing to keep track of because it is a measure of ball control, which is vital in this game.

Or, are you referring to my mentioning your obvoius ignorance of futol?

Glad to see you figured out the right spelling for futbol after you wrote this sentence.    

You pay more attention to "standard metrics" than you do to what was going on down on the field, it seems.  What was going on down on the field IMO is that Brazil was pushing and Mexico was defending much of the time.  And they got the desired result against a team that was favored to win. Mexico defended brilliantly and it was the right strategy for this game IMO.

You have your opinion, I have mine. Maybe one of these days you'll even learn how to let others have different opinions than yours without labeling them "ignorant" or "looney." Though in your case, and Marty's, I really doubt it.

  

Dream on.  You should write a sports column!  I saw the match.  BTW, it's not a "game," another dispaly of your ignorance.  Hint: It's "Partido" in Spanish.

"Turnovers mentioned in some of the broadcasts," really which ones?  How many "broadcasts (in english) did you see?" Please provide a clip or ANY evidence to support your assertions that are contrary to everything I've read or seen.

Or, just rave on!

Boys,take it easy,it's just a game.

viajero wrote:Boys,take it easy,it's just a game.

Not with David, unfortunately. It's another opportunity to be unpleasant.

  

david, for your information, i attended my first profesional footbal match at age of 6. i went regulary to home and away games for 30 years following my home town team, through the premier division and down to the third. have been to international and club games worldwide. i helped train under 12 s when i was 19. i have represented a major uk team in the champions league when my ex comany owned them. i have had profesional footballers, managers and chairmen as personal friends., i even was a manager of a team at one time in spain ,all be it at a very low level.i go to local matches here in mexico, so i think i have a bit of experience to judge a game. i dont need commentators , journalists or arm chair fans to tell me how good or bad a match was, and reading your views now confirms that you know very little on this subject. some people acknoledge they are novices in football, and want to learn, which is very commendable, particularly when they are from the only part of the planet who have no real interest in the sport.

Mainecoons wrote:

viajero wrote:Boys,take it easy,it's just a game.

Not with David, unfortunately.  It's another opportunity to be unpleasant.

  

Ha! He said it himself and he certainly never passes up an opportunity to be unpleasant!

hickton wrote:david, for your information, i attended my first profesional footbal match at age of 6. i went regulary to home and away games for 30 years following my home town team, through the premier division and down to the third. have been to international and club games worldwide. i helped train under 12 s when i was 19. i have represented a major uk team in the champions league when my ex comany owned them. i have had profesional footballers, managers and chairmen as personal friends., i even was a manager of a team at one time in spain ,all be it at a very low level.i go to local matches here in mexico, so i think i have a bit of experience to judge a game. i dont need commentators , journalists or arm chair fans to tell me how good or bad a match was, and reading your views now confirms that you know very little on this subject. some people acknoledge they are novices in football, and want to learn, which is very commendable, particularly when they are from the only part of the planet who have no real interest in the sport.

Ha!  You know nothing of where I'm from.  So, what was your "expert" analysis of the match?

Brazil didn't play well enough to win. Mexico played too good to lose. Just my simple opinion.

Kottke wrote:Brazil didn't play well enough to win. Mexico played too good to lose. Just my simple opinion.

Yup. Brazil has been a little flat from the beginning. But if you want to talk about flat, Spain takes the cake on that one. Number one ranked coming in and eliminated in the first round. Chile beat them up pretty good yesterday to finish them off.

Watch out for Germany, they are looking pretty invincible at this point.

That is what is so much fun about the world cup , you never know how things will end up and there are lots of surprises.

Mainecoons wrote:

Kottke wrote:Brazil didn't play well enough to win. Mexico played too good to lose. Just my simple opinion.

Yup.  Brazil has been a little flat from the beginning.  But if you want to talk about flat, Spain takes the cake on that one.  Number one ranked coming in and eliminated in the first round.  Chile beat them up pretty good yesterday to finish them off.

Watch out for Germany, they are looking pretty invincible at this point.

FIFA rankings don't really mean much. Many of the matches outside the qualifying ones (the friendlies) don't always have the team's best players on the pitch. Look at what Costa Rica did to Uruguay. There was a much larger gap between those two in the rankings than the gap between Spain and its two opponents. Mexico had been performing poorly prior to the WC but actually has a fairly skilled squad. They seem to be putting it all together at the right time. Is Germany that good or is Portugal over-rated? In this level of competition, it is hard to get away with having a bad day on the pitch.

Kottke wrote:

Mainecoons wrote:

Kottke wrote:Brazil didn't play well enough to win. Mexico played too good to lose. Just my simple opinion.

Yup.  Brazil has been a little flat from the beginning.  But if you want to talk about flat, Spain takes the cake on that one.  Number one ranked coming in and eliminated in the first round.  Chile beat them up pretty good yesterday to finish them off.

Watch out for Germany, they are looking pretty invincible at this point.

FIFA rankings don't really mean much. Many of the matches outside the qualifying ones (the friendlies) don't always have the team's best players on the pitch. Look at what Costa Rica did to Uruguay. There was a much larger gap between those two in the rankings than the gap between Spain and its two opponents. Mexico had been performing poorly prior to the WC but actually has a fairly skilled squad. They seem to be putting it all together at the right time.  Is Germany that good or is Portugal over-rated? In this level of competition, it is hard to get away with having a bad day on the pitch.

Interesting post about the rankings.  Yeah, that Costa Rica Uruguay game was fun to watch too.

Buddy of mine who knows a lot about the game came over for chow and we ended up sitting out on the patio knocking down good Scotch and smoking cigars.  He agreed with my impression that Mexico was in a defensive posture much of the time but opined that I am not correct in thinking this was by design.  In his opinion, it was more about Brazil being a little better at ball control and pressing very hard offensively.  He noted there were a lot of turnovers and intercepted passes in this game and agreed the statistics didn't describe well what was actually going on in the game regarding possession.

He's optimistic that Mexico could even get by the next cut and end up in the final 8.  Let's keep our fingers crossed he's right.

Uruguay is ahead of England one zip right now!

I have seen bottom ranked NHL teams enter the playoffs by the skin of their teeth and go all the way. Playoff sports can be much different than regular season. It is all about momentum and heart. I think Mexico has gained some momentum after that draw with Brasil and the incredible performance from their goalie. It's just too bad that the games are so far apart. Viva Mexico!!!

Not to worry, our guys are going to take Croatia!

hickton wrote:david, for your information, i attended my first profesional footbal match at age of 6. i went regulary to home and away games for 30 years following my home town team, through the premier division and down to the third. have been to international and club games worldwide. i helped train under 12 s when i was 19. i have represented a major uk team in the champions league when my ex comany owned them. i have had profesional footballers, managers and chairmen as personal friends., i even was a manager of a team at one time in spain ,all be it at a very low level.i go to local matches here in mexico, so i think i have a bit of experience to judge a game. i dont need commentators , journalists or arm chair fans to tell me how good or bad a match was, and reading your views now confirms that you know very little on this subject. some people acknoledge they are novices in football, and want to learn, which is very commendable, particularly when they are from the only part of the planet who have no real interest in the sport.

I played futbol o football before I could walk,in Brasil, Pelo was a friend of mine,when not matching a fut watch,I played a foosbol on a mechanical table and can whup the lot of you! I can dribble the length of a soccer field (pitch)with one foot tied behind my back, and will go one on one or one against the lot of you.
gm

" So, what was your "expert" analysis of the match?"

In baseball it is said that you don't win many games if you don't score a run. Does that apply in soccer if you don't score a goaaaal!?

And now Costa Rica defeats Italy 1-0 and advances to the next round. Mexico advances if they tie or beat Croatia. If the US could beat Portugal, CONCACAF would place 3 teams in the next round.

afraid so

USA v. Portugal. 2-2. There's lot to dislike about Ronaldo, but there's no denying how beautiful that was. My God. Brutal.

Tomorrow! El Tri!   

The US thought they had it in the bag and with 30 seconds left in additional time..........BAM.