Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
evidently we weren't.
OF COURSE mexico had to defend, i mean, what idiot wouldn't defend. and they defended well. but both during the first 15-20 minutes on the second half and again during the last minutes in the end mexico was heavily on the attack.
prior-- first 20 minutes of first half mexico sat back and absorbed. but soon they were going on the offensive and not as a single solitary attacker on a long ball but in triangulated team attacks. there was a lot of back and forth. and just because the brazilian attackers had more penetration it does not follow that mexico wasn't trying. that's a gross misreading/misinterpretation of stats.
i think you're confusing the fact that brazil was recovering balls in the midfield and had more penetration with the idea that mexico had no offensive proposition. two different things that might look the same to you, but really aren't.
the fact that herrera brought chicharito in late in the game speaks more to his intention of scoring and winning than any numerical reading of failed attacks.
the game was great precisely because mexico took on brazil as an equal.
|
Absolutely. Mexico defended really well but they weren't playing over defensively, and no way were they playing for a point, even towards the end. The big surprise for me is how sluggish Brazil are. I think they'll qualify out of their group but I've seen nothing so far to make me think they should be favourites for the trophy. Right now I wouldn't fancy their chances against Germany or Holland or even France or Italy. Argentina need to up their game too if they want to ensure this isn't the first Sth American WC won by a European side.