Concacaf rewind: more Mexican trouble?

Mexico 2 - Trinidad & Tobago 1. Meantime it was 1-0 for Honduras in favor of El Salvador. So is 2-1 for Mexico really that bad? Did the team play so horribly? Long answer is "no" with a "but" and the short answer is "yes" with an "if." The Chicago Fire midfielder/forward Cuahutemoc Blanco did his duty and was easily the best player on the Mexican side. Guardado committed a few errors but was still strong going forward and creating chances. The Castillo-Franco tandem up top was great at the start of the first half. The first goal by Mexico was in the first minute of play with a nice give-and-go between Castillo and Franco. Throughout the game Mexico created plenty of chances but luck was not on their side. It could easily have been 6-1 or higher if it wasn't for the Trinitarian 'keeper. The back line looked shaky at times, yes, but they also went forward and created chances.

It wasn't an incendiary match for "el Tri," yes. But they got the 3 points they needed. I'm also being realistic that the only way to succeed in Concacaf is to win all your home games and take points from teams when away. That's true of any competition in world football. So far Mexico have none of those points. I propose this scale for points earned/lost abroad with home wins being null:
Costa Rica 4
USA 1
Honduras 0
Mexico 0
El Salvador -4
T&T -4

I also don't think the Mexican FA is as much to blame as the press itself. Look at what happens when teams win at home. USA beats Honduras after coming from behind 2-1 and its called "courageous" and "a step in the right direction. El Salvador beats Mexico and they are "heroes" and "historic." Ecuador beats Argentina and it's a "justified win" because they wanted the game more. Now you have Mexico win at home and looking "deplorable," "uninspired," etc. The players were upset with these comments. They put their heart and soul on the field. I could see that. No one wants to "not win." That's ridiculous. And what about the "Futbol Picante" crew on ESPN Deportes calling Lavolpe's team as "much better" than the current squad when this particular group was supposed to be the "golden generation" after winning an U-17 tournament against Brazil by 3-0. We should know that when the youngsters play all bets are off. Sanchez and Eriksson were not given enough time and were ousted prematurely as many a coach in the Americas. Now you have "el Vasco" Aguirre and you lose abroad. Same difference.

The same thing happened with Argentina after going down to Ecuador. The press was furious and looking to decapitate players' and managers' heads. We know Ecuador is a much better team these days, even if they are on the outside looking in at the potentially "qualified" teams in South America. The team has been to two successive world cups. So, with that said, I ask the press to stand down. Reflect. Accept the consequences that these days world football isn't as "black and white" as it used to be. Support your local squad when they achieve a win or good result. 3 points puts Mexico back in the hunt. They will almost certainly beat the US and any other team at the Azteca... and they, along with Argentina will qualify for the world cup.

FC Dallas: Original MLS, team in flux

I, along with some of my readers have been wondering just what the heck is wrong with Dallas--the soccer team that is. Once, they were known as the Dallas Burn. Not one of my favorite names at all. Easy to make fun of as well, especially for those not familiar with the league--or the sport. Now, rechristened in 2005 as a more Euro-style brand, the MLS team became FC Dallas. Its silly firebreath horse was replaced by a bull with the lone star as prevalent as the other teams in the city.

Let's step back a bit. Dallas was runner's up to the Supporter's Shield in 2006, or for non-MLSers this is their version of highest regular season point total. This number 2 slot was its biggest accolade since winning the US Open Cup in 1997 and runners-up in 2005 and 2007. But never a trophy in MLS. Only the Rapids and New England have failed to win in MLS but both made it to the final at least once (New England has done so 4 times). Further back we find aces like Colombia's Leonel Alvarez from USA 94 fame, the Pentapichihchi Hugo Sanchez himself, Ariel Graziani (Ecuador-Argentinian), Duilio Davino and even--briefly--Denilson of Brazil.... That's right, the same Denilson from 2002's Brazil. It just so happens that FCD jumped on the designated player bandwagon way too early and their investment flopped.

On the pitch it's been very dull for them. Even during the days of Toja, Mina and even Graziani, their play was never as attractive and their fan base loyal but limited. In fact, they themselves rebranded more than once. From the Inferno to the "Hoops nation" that has now become the FC Dallas Fan Network. Steve Morrow did not produce with the team as coach, and neither did Dave Dir or Mike Jeffries. Currently, and after many years of pursuit by team owners, Schellas Hyndman took control of the team. He complained about defensive inabilities last season as Morrow was booted out. The team he has doesn't seem quite gelled yet. Their soccer tends to be a bit boring at times, with Andre Rocha and Kenny Cooper being the more attractive players. Coop is also a former Man U player that didn't make the squad (go figure).

The central lacking of the team, in my humble mind as a passive audience member, is in their delivery and inventiveness with the ball. I venture to say that they need just an extra spark from a natural #10 to break the ice. Dave van den Bergh was a nice addition but more depth is needed in that spot. A Christian Gomez or DeRosario or Blanco is what's needed. Too bad Denilson didn't work... On another note, in terms of attendance for the squad, we have to remind ourselves that they used to play in the cavernous Cotton Bowl from 1996-2002 before moving to a high school stadium near Fort Worth in 2003. Some lobbying by fans and vendors (no beer at a public school, please) took the team back to the Cotton Bowl until their own Pizza Hut Park with 20,500 seats opened its doors in 2005. Here are their average attendance figures for all the years in the clubs existence (acknowledge Wikipedia on this data):

regular season/playoffs

• 1996: 16,011
• 1997: 9,678
• 1998: 10,948
• 1999: 12,211
• 2000: 13,102
• 2001: 12,574
• 2002: 13,112
• 2003: 7,906/missed playoffs
• 2004: 9,088/missed playoffs
• 2005: 11,189/10,104
• 2006: 14,982/15,486
• 2007: 15,145/12,537
• 2008: 13,024/missed playoffs
• All-Time: 11,535

What's happened to Mexico?

Let's face it. Few teams around the world have as many fans as the Mexican national team. That is a fact. And I'm talking real, true Mexican-born fans, not the bandwagon fans that Brazil, Argentina and France get along the way to the World Cup. And yet it seems that the Mexican team, all Mexican national teams in fact, are in a constant state of negative flux.

Why is this? The players? The coaches? The team owners? The federation? My take: all and none. All because they have repeatedly failed at achieving important goals like qualifying for the Confederations Cup, the Olympics and the U-20 tournament. Hugo Sanchez was sacked and now Eriksson has been sacked. I'm not an expert in these matters but I've heard and read enough about the squabbling delegates of the Mexican soccer Federation that stalled various plans and included their own pet projects into the system. That last one is Vergara, owner of one of the most financially successful teams on the planet--Chivas de Guadalajara. He insisted on bringing a European name to the coaching vacancy left by Sanchez. He failed at getting Scolari and settled for Eriksson.

Did Vergara's pet project and gamble work? Yes and no. The team played differently and added a few names to the fold--Vuoso, Augusto, etc. Interestingly, some of these players were not Mexican-born. Eriksson also gave a lot of opportunities to youngsters like dos Santos, Martinez and Vela. A welcome sight if sometimes an unnecessary gamble.

Still, Eriksson failed at what he was brought to do. Win tournaments and win every Concacaf game. Let's rewind to last fall for a moment. Mexico was pooled against Canada, Honduras and Jamaica in the second round's group of death. Admittedly, all those teams deserved a spot in the Hexagonal. So when Mexico left the Azteca after getting all 9 points at home and gathered only 1 from a tie in Canada, heads started to shake. Was this so bad? A loss in Kingston, Jamaica. The Reggae Boyz are very good at home against most oponents. Why couldn't Mexico lose? Then there was a tie in Canada. The relative "minnows" of the group still have players with considerable abilities--de Guzman, DeRosario, Onstad are just a few. And finally, a loss in Honduras. 1-0. Was is so bad that they lost against the probable number 3 team in the conference?

Friendlies against Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile and Sweden were 2 losses and 2 wins on American soil. All of those games included reserves on the roster due to the fact that they were played outside of FIFA dates. Then comes the Hexagonal. An opening match against the US in Columbus and a loss they should have seen coming. The US held their own and made the home soil count. Mexico did the same against Costa Rica last Saturday. It injected "confidence" into the team and coach. Really? Then why the 3-1 loss to Honduras in San Pedro Sula? Because Honduras really is that good. That's my take. Maybe a 2-1 was more deserving for Mexico but that's football.

So who's really to blame here? Eriksson had only a limited amount of time to get used to Mexico, the style of play and other idiosyncrasies of the Azteca game. Mexico was given a tough schedule in the preliminary round and also to start the Hexagonal. If they had started at home vs USA then a visit to El Salvador and at home against T&T things would be different. It was foolish to let him go at this point. Aguirre (in-coming coach and the coach that lost to USA in the 2002 World Cup) may do only what was expected to happen anyway... qualify for South Africa. Can he inject more spirit into the team? Sure. Can he do the same for the fans? Why not. And the federation? They sure hope so. Aguirre is their "savior" and if he doesn't pan out it will be difficult to truly nail down what could be wrong with Mexican play. Too many players abroad that don't care about the national side? Sure, we've all heard that before.

Mexico has quite a few dollars invested commercially in terms of the national team. This is why Sanchez was ousted. Never mind the awesome play the team displayed in the Copa America 2007. Sanchez didn't need to be the u-23 coach. Bradley sure wasn't for the US. That job went to Peter Nowak. Maybe Mexico should have considered that and Sanchez could have had more time with the nats to make things smoother. Then again, Vergara, Martinez and other FMF owners had considerable input in the matter. Is that where the fault lies? The caprice of one or two team owners? I hope not.

A coach no more

Okay, so I usually don't dwell on Mexican soccer but this being a blog that covers the state of the beautiful game around the world, I had to give my thoughts. As some of you faithful readers may know (as well as those from outside the Carolinas), the Mexican national team has had its share of debacles in the past 16 months: not beating the US team on US soil (duh), not winning the CONCACAF Gold Cup and thus not participating in 2009's Confederations Cup, and lately and more blatantly not making it to the Beijing Olympics this coming August. So who's to blame? Hugo Sanchez Marquez, some say, and today their word was heard and the "Pentapichichi," and former Real Madrid player and arguably best Mexican player that ever graced the field, was no longer the coach of the Mexican national team. Did he deserve it? From my humble opinion, yes. Maybe he wasn't ready for the national stage or maybe he simply wasn't suited for that type of soccer coaching. Some in the business blame his demeanor towards the media and the players themselves for his eventual downfall. So what does make a good coach? Is it the medium (club, country), the niche (collegiate, professional), the support system? Look at the LA Galaxy. Now there's a team that not even the biggest signing in MLS history (Becks) nor the attacking prowess of the Donovan-Ruiz combo nor the "sexy football" signing of the legend Rudd Gullit as head coach can save. The team's downfall lies within its uppermost reaches; the fault lies with the general manager, one Alexi Lalas that at one point made the world turn their head to look at a US side that was able to contain the eventual champions Brazil to one goal in the round of 16. But this isn't the same Lalas. His message got lost in the fields and he and other officials in the team have succumbed to the other important(?) aspect of the game...money.
And such was the case with Hugo Sanchez as well. When it all boiled down this afternoon and the Mexican club team owners (the owners!!!) got together to decide the fate of the national team, it was the losses that an absence from the Olympics and the Confederations cup had incurred in the Televisa economy of the Mexican nation. They claimed that there could not be another catastrophe in which Mexico did not make it to the world cup, and to some extent they were correct. But let's rewind... they chose Sanchez as their man because of the economics involved (annoying car insurance ads with Hugo Sanchez aside) and they got rid of him because of it also. Sometimes in the learning curve we must fail before we learn and this applies to all sports. I don't like the way the media scapegoated Sanchez and branded him a short-circuited individual that "needs professional help." Where were you when he took Mexico to the quarter finals in 86 or on those illustrious years at The Real Madrid? The fault here lies with the management and to some extent with the players. Yes, I said the players. It's true--and I've stated it more than once now--that there is a current upswing in play in the CONCACAF, but in the end these are professional players in a marquee league, a league that spends the most cash in the Americas. At some point you have to wonder how the players can't be blamed just as much as the coach. My advise: choose younger players, give them a younger coach, and treat it as a separate entity. It's worked well in other countries and it should work well in a soccer-developed nation like Mexico. And as for the coaches? Well, Jesus Ramirez should get a shot for now. Let's have the coaches go through the entire process and grow up with their teams. It's worked elsewhere: Argentina (Peckerman), Domenech (France), Vizuete (Ecuador), Bradley (USA).