Mexico’s fluid shape makes them dark horses
“There’s a lot of movement arrows on that diagram”, you might be thinking. And you’d be right – there are, for that’s the key to Mexico’s system – movement from almost every player on the pitch and plenty of width when attacking.
The 3-1 defeat to England was harsh on Mexico. They dominated possession and created the better chances – a lack of composure in the penalty area was their downfall.
Although expected to play a four-man defence, they instead lined up with what was basically a 3-4-3 system, with energetic wing-backs, pacey wingers, and Rafael Marquez stepping up in front of the defence to become a centre-half.
There has been somewhat of a turnaround since Javier Aguirre took over as manager. This side featured just two of the players who started the final game under the reign of Sven-Goran Eriksson just 13 months ago, a disastrous 3-1 defeat to Honduras.
Whereas Eriksson had the side playing cagey, static, rigid football, Aguerre has the side expressing themselves and playing more attractive possession football.
Despite this, for the England game Mexico did not play Andres Guardado, the exciting left-sided attacking midfielder for Deportivo La Coruna, who many would pinpoint as Mexico’s best player. Instead, both Giovani dos Santos and Carlos Vela interchanged either side of Guillermo Franco.
The basic formation
This photo from the first half at Wembley (they are attacking the goal closest to the camera) shows Mexico’s shape when they have the ball. The centre-backs (marked in red) spread across the width of the pitch, with Rafael Marquez the only one within the width of the penalty area. Ahead of them, the wing-backs push on over the halfway line, whilst Gerardo Torrado comes deep and looks for a short pass into feet. His midfield partner, Efrain Juarez, plays a more energetic role and is further up the pitch.
The three forwards are spread across the width of the penalty area. Guillermo Franco looked to drop deep and drag the centre-backs out of position (as you can see, there is a lot of space for him to receive a ball to feet), with Vela and dos Santos looking to run in behind the England defence.
The most notable aspect of the above picture is that Mexico have three players wide on their right-hand side, wider than any England player, despite the fact the ball is on the opposite side of the pitch. This is a key part of Mexico’s game, looking to stretch the play and make the pitch as wide as possible.
A five-man defence when not in possession
Now in the second half (attacking the goal at the far end), Mexico’s defensive shape when they lose the ball becomes clear. The two wing-backs (in pink) drop almost level with the centre-backs (in red) when out of possession, creating almost a back five. The middle centre-back, Rafael Marquez, steps up ahead of his two central defensive colleagues and picks up any player playing ‘in the hole’ – in this case, Wayne Rooney. The three forwards (in yellow) stay high up the pitch and press the defenders, whilst the two midfielders (in blue) take up fairly standard positions, with Juarez dropping deeper than Torrado.
Cancelling out a 4-4-2
This reiterates the point that Mexico only have two midfield players when defending – it really is a five at the back, and three upfront. Mexico’s wide players occupy England’s full-backs, there is a straight 2 v 2 battle in the centre of midfield (blue), the wing-backs occupy England’s wingers (pink) and the three centre-backs take care of England’s two forwards. In the end, the only ‘free’ player on either side was a single centre-back. Rafael Marquez was able to step up more confidently than Ledley King (leaving two centre-backs against two strikers is more comfortable than leaving one centre-back against one striker) and therefore Mexico dominated possession.
Marquez happy to step up
Here, Marquez’s freedom to get forward is underlined – he moves a good 15 yards ahead of the other two centre-backs, giving Mexico a numerical advantage in the centre of midfield. It also shows how naturally Mexico’s system creates triangles in wide areas – here Torrado (6, in blue) and the two other players close to the ball should be able to hold possession and work the ball around England’s two wide players.
In all, this was a rather good demonstration of how an attack-minded 3-4-3 can dominate possession against a 4-4-2. The key is the ‘free’ centre-back, who must be able to move into midfield to help retain the ball in that zone.
As with many three-man defence systems, it may come unstuck against a side playing a 4-3-3 with two natural wingers. Look at the picture above, and imagine how much space England’s wide players in a 4-3-3 would have been afforded, with Mexico often leaving just two men at the back.
With the players Mexico use, however, they should be able to respond fairly easily to this threat – the wing-backs are full-backs and therefore would be able to drop back and get goalside of opposition wingers, and Marquez is more than comfortable in a permanent central midfield role, meaning the side would become more like a 4-1-2-3 fairly seamlessly. ZM has recently put forward the view that an imminent tactical trend is a ‘centre-half’ dropping back from midfield to defence, creating a back three and allowing the full-backs to push on – Mexico’s switch to a four-man defence would essentially be the reverse of that, but has many similar characteristics.
Conclusion
Mexico’s system seems organised yet fluid, and very difficult to play against. Although they lost 3-1 at Wembley, they dominated the ball and created more genuine goalscoring opportunities. If they are to get to the knockout stages in South Africa they will need improvements at both ends – their centre-backs must be more dominant in the air, and they cannot afford to waste such glorious goalscoring chances. The latter issue is probably the key – either Carlos Vela or Giovani dos Santos need to step up and demonstrate their full potential – if they can do that, Mexico could progress.
Mexico’s fluid shape makes them dark horses
Interesting analysis.. Mexican teams are very fun to look at and their national team is no exception.
This reminds me very much of PSV from a few years ago. Their formation was very fluid and they played 3 versatile, tactically sound players in Van Bommel, Cocu and Vogel. In attack the holding midfielder would play just as Marquez does as an auxillary centerback, allowing the fullbacks to advance and create overloads all over the pitch.
Much like that PSV side did 2005, I expect to see Mexico punch above their weight and make some waves. Another key may be the form of Guardado off the bench. If he can provide a spark he will improve their ability to present several different types threats to the opposition will be an asset.
Another great article. Are you going to do one for each team before the World Cup?
Can’t promise all 32, but hopefully all the contenders and other sides that look tactically interesting.
Almost the perfected proof for using a 3-4-3 against 4-4-2.
Mexico’s wide centre backs will have counter attacking sides licking their lips with glee, they’re far too open for my liking. Any sort of interception from the England midfield could have put them through on goal with a potential 2v1 situation.
I’m really looking forward to seeing what they’ll do against Uruguay. So many sides with 3 at the back at this World Cup will hopefully reinvigorate some more proactive tactical thought in the EPL, rather than sticking to boring 4-5-1s (not that they all are boring).
Well said, pleasantly surprised by how many three-man defences we might be seeing.
£1 for every time ITV put out a formation and claim that it is a back four, probably with an attacking midfielder at full back too.
Haha, I am eagerly anticipating this as well.
“Mexico’s wide centre backs will have counter attacking sides licking their lips with glee, they’re far too open for my liking.”
holland had 2 killer goals exposing that..
Can’t really base that assumption from a friendly game buddy!
The major criticism of Mexico during their campaign was their poor physical presence, and although there was a good tactical analysis of England vs Mexico I couldn’t help but think England played poorly as opposed to being dominated in the 1st half by Egypt. Mexico relied too much on England giving the ball away needlessly but have Cole, Lampard and probably Barry to come back into the side and although Mexico looked very good on the break I suspect France and South Africa may be too organised for them.
I say the complete opposite! England was confused and therefore dominated at the first half, and to say that SA, or Domenech’s France will be better organized that England at Wenbley, in their last match before the WC?
Great article.
Unfortunately, for supporters of the English national side, this was yet another sad indictment of their tactical limitations.
Could you imagine the current England squad trying to adapt and play in a system like that? Even if Capello had drilled them in nothing else for the last two and a half years, odds are, they still wouldn’t have a clue.
Absolutely no chance that the likes of Johnson, Walcott, the vice-captain etc; have the wherewithal to incorporate that type of considered movement into their game.
Oh well, 4-4-2 it is then.
Good luck.
That’s a really interesting article and I’m pleased to see a back 3. A formation I felt pretty much dead (albeit it is pretty much dead in the UK)
I also came to the conclusion that a 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 from the opposition would expose some weaknesses so interesting to see how teams deal with that. Sorry to go off-topic but I’m of the opinion that England should really be playing a 4-5-1 (accomodating Gerrard/Lampard/Barry instead of Crouch) in which case teams playing 3 at the back wouldn’t be so prickly.
Nice article.
The Mexican coach said they lost against the Netherlands because they weren’t focused in the first half hour. Also he changed 9 players since the England game. I have a hard time picturing who could beat the dutch team, though: they look impressive. Maybe a team with a dutch coach like last time? Actually now I’d love to see your analysis of the Russia-Holland game from euro 2008…
I recently discovered your website: it’s a very good read! thanks
PS: the coach name is Aguirre, not Aguerre.
http://www.femexfut.org.mx/portalv2/secciones.aspx?s=966&m=8&i=DTNacional
I’ve just watched highlights of Mexico and Holland (1-2) and won’t count out the Tri. They do keep the ball well and have mesmerizing movement, let down by defending. RVP’s goals resulted from sloppy marking and vulnerability to high balls. I will however not rule Mexico out at all.
It’s easy to forget that El Tri are perennial World Cup quarter finalists (in both the 1970 and 1986 editions). Boasting 13 World Cup qualifications (including doing it consecutively since 1994), pedigree and experience isn’t lacking in this team.
Indeed, Mexico under Aguirre have rediscovered their attacking play. He’s a coach that has favored 4-4-2 in the past, but has stated a preference for 4-3-3 since returning to Mexico and even used 3-5-2.
What worries me though is Aguirre’s tenure might not last for long should results fail to go as expected. I wish he’d be left to mould this team of relative youngsters (Marquez notwithstanding).
First, another shout out to ZM. I am not sure if Id read another tactical review or any kind of review regarding the North Korean team. You always seem to surprise me with your choices, always going for the unexpected (Riise and Pizarro in the Team of the Year and so on). Anywho, Mexico is not a perennial QF and their two QF appearances have both been on home soil. Nevertheless, they always, always qualify for the second round, no matter what the group. And they were impressive against England, especially in the first half, however, I was surprised how much room England’s back four were allowing. I think Giovanni was free to make runs from the midfield everytime he received the ball. King was just so static and one could not think that Barry was sorely missed in the Makelele role (why do people hate this nomenclature – Claude was an awesome player). One more thing, do you think Quathemoc Blanco’s inclusion slows down this Mexico team? They revere him but I think they’re better without him…
I like the way you think. I think Cuauhtecmoc Blanco shouldnt start the games. He has tons of experience but hes not in prime, or close to average, physical form. Im kind of impressed that you guys actually think Mexico has a fighting chance, I didint expect that out of you guys.
I was going to e-mail after the England article, asking for the same re. Mexico, and here it one of your best. Mexico are always fascinating, more often than not play the most intelligent and flowing football, and–alas, more often than not–fall victim to their dark demons, as losing to US teams not worthy to clean their boots. This looks like a cobbled side to get past the Eriksson débacle but with their talent who knows, and who knows what youngsters they have in hand. Finally, are the excellent photos in this excellent article taken from the very highest seating in the ground or do you have special arrangements for getting the correct ZM viewpoint?
I think the youngsters are key: dos Santos and Vela aren’t the finished product in Europe yet, but they are already great at the Mexican style of play, and have boatloads more confidence than the veterans, perhaps from winning the world U-17. As for the USA beating Mexico, it’s simple: stay organized, force them wide to put in the crosses against your tall center backs, hope they miss their chances (they usually do), let them over commit (they usually do) hit them on the counter with fast players (as someone else pointed out, there’s plenty of space back there), and keep a big strong physical center forward up top (when the USA played that way against Spain, it was a style they’d played many times before against Mexico). And for goodness sake, don’t give Marquez time and space. England clearly was not set up to stop Mexico playing.
In any case, look out once dos Santos and Vela start to take their chances.
I agree with your reasoning for Mexico always losing tot e USA, but i although think its a bit of self-destruction at times. In fact, it reminds me of the Argentina-Brazil games, in which 9 times out of 10 will win regardless of many factors. For example, Argentina has an awesome squad, coach, system and set of results in Copa America 2007, but suddenly, against a mostly second string Brazil team, they collapse? Same in the Confederations final 2005, 2010 qualification game in Argentina, and many more. Brazil hardly do anything special other than, as you said, staying organized and basically “doing their thing”. Argentina, on the other hand, hype up the occasion, get themselves under stress, feel like the underdog and are desperate tp prove something. I feel that Mexico are Argentina, to a B team Brazil, USA. These pyschological aspects of the game are often neglected, dont you think?
Excellent point, I think you’re right, the psychological element is big part of the explanation. Several times I’ve seen Mexican players miss a second or third clear chance in the 30th minute and you can see it in their faces, the fear that they are about to re-enact a recurring national nightmare and the massive criticism that comes with it, and their fears become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Having the weight of the nation on their backs–to say nothing of the weight of history–doesn’t help.
That’s why I think the younger players are so important, they’ve never gotten used to losing to the USA, and won the 2009 Gold Cup final (where both sides played youth teams), despite the match following the same kind of script–they never lost their confidence and saw their technical superiority count.
Interesting analogy with the 2007 Copa America final, I recall it was quite disappointing to see that creative Argentina side collapse against Dunga’s ultra-functional Brazil.
“As for the USA beating Mexico, it’s simple: stay organized, force them wide to put in the crosses against your tall center backs, hope they miss their chances (they usually do), let them over commit (they usually do) hit them on the counter with fast players”
Two words. Landon Donovan.
Meanwhile, the Mexicans love to pass the ball around, flood the midfield with players to control possession, and look good on the ball.
Then WHAM! The counter comes, and they’re toast.
It happens virtually every time we play them. The little green rats never learn.
2 Things, 2009 GOLD CUP FINAL MEXICO 5 USA 0, Azteca Qualification Mex 2 US 1 all in one week!
For the 2009 Gold Cup, the USA sent the C Team, because the A team had just beaten Spain and nearly Brazil in the Confeds Cup.
As for Azteca? Virtually no one beats El Tri at that 7000 ft high smog ridden stadium, where a few of 100,000 screaming fans toss urine filled baggies at the takers of corner kicks from time to time.
By the way, we came close to tying them there, which would have been a feat of gigantic proportions.
When we play them at home, or at a neutral site, with our best against their best, it’s a battle and we tend to beat or tie them.
Yes, but on the important match, in Korea/Japan 2002, we lost… =S
Hi – just wanted to say thanks for this fantastic site! I read about it in one of Jonathan Wilson’s Guardian columns and have been hooked ever since. As a sort of quid pro quo, I’d just like to mention that Mr Wilson has recently published a new book entitled ‘The Anatomy of England – A History in 10 Matches’, which I picked up yesterday and is shaping up to be every bit as good as ‘Inverting the Pyramid’. Just a heads up to fellow tactics junkies and JW fans! Keep up the great work – I’m sure someone’s already asked this, but are you planning to do a similar analysis of Argentina’s formation?
I always thought that the defense in Mexico was almost a “solved issue”, but these two games against England and Netherlands left me wondering. Netherlands easily could have scored 2 o 3 goals more against Mexico.
Of course, Mexico had two good chances (that went to waste) as well.
Either way, Netherlands dominated Mexico yesterday. =S Sure, Mexico had their good moments as well, but it seemed that it was when Netherlands decided to relax a little. After that, Netherlands started playing good again and took possession of the ball.
Either way, Dos Santos, Vela and Torres Nilo look as good players that may make a great difference. Blanco is already old… maybe he’s just fit to play 20~30 minutes, but not from the beginning.
Well, I don’t know if you all got to watch the Holland Vs Mexico game yesterday but as we all know, Holland plays a 4-3-3 and Mexico’s defense just coudn’t handle it. In the first half Holland could have scored 5 goals or more. In the half-time, Aguirre pushed the sweeper up front and pulled the wing bakcs, back switching it to a 4-1-2-3. What proves that switch is the fact that for the intire second half, since Aguilar had gone at half time, Osorio, a center-back, was playing the right full back role.
Mexico improved a lot and managed to control possession like they did against Englad and scored once. The second goal didn’t come because they still need a real center-forward like Borghetti was.
The ability of switching from a 5-2-3 to a 4-3-3 was great but they need to be able to switch more naturally, without the half time conversation with the coach. Maybe they 20 days they have to practice will work for that.
All that said, I still don’t think they manage to beat South Africa or Uruguay in order to qualify to the knock-out stage. Uruguay, as well as all south americans this year, have a pretty good team.
Borghetti is good at headers and nothing more. He doesn’t generate gameplay and he is so-so at scoring with the feet. Not better than Vela or Javier Hernandez, I assure you.
Actually, Javier Hernandez should be on Mexico’s starting XI.
Edge, I agree with everything you wrote, what I meant was that Mexico need’s a Real Ceter forward, a attacking reference. A player who is always inside the box and scores “first touch goals”. Pretty Much like Crouch or Zamora. And of course, a good header always comes in handy for the center-forward of a 3-man attack.
I agree Javier Hernadéz should be playing there too.
Another way they can adjust from a back three to a back four is to only pull back one of the full backs. I didn’t see the game, but is this perhaps what they did with the left fullback playing more defensively and Osorio shifted out to the right?
It is interesting to see how the limitations of international football give us these interesting tactical developments. Mexico want to attack simultaneously with both fullbacks, and if they were a club side they would probably just buy a destroyer-type midfielder to cover the holes they leave at the back. Seeing though they are a national side they have overcome this by finding a new Libero-type role for Marquez.
Uruguay with their fluid game, and Flashy forwards had trouble beating Costa rica at home?
That formation diagram is awesome. It’s like you’ve got 11 ninja mutant turtles on the pitch.
Excellent article once again, Marquez is a fascinating player and someone I had down as a genuine world class player circa 2006. His possession play still seems as good as ever but his defending has deteriorated quite a lot over the last few years, he’s been a big liability for Barca this season. I hope to see more of such formations allowing the likes of Marquez, Pique etc. to step out of defence and spread the ball around (although I suspect Pique will be doing it in a 4 man defence). As you said it’s like the opposite of the transition that a 4-3-3 side undergoes in becoming a 3-4-3.
Don’t you think they’ll be vulnerable to quick counterattacks through the middle? Looking at that 1st photo, England outnumber Mexico by 5 to 3 in the centre of their own half. A single stray pass could prove disastrous (in much the same way Barca have been caught out against Inter/Arsenal this season with sloppy passes)
This leads us to an interesting question, wherein the two concepts of defensive holding midfielder and libero are often confused and conflated.
I see Marquez’ role with Mexico as simply a defensive interpretation of the holding role, whereby he moves BACK TOWARDS the defensive line to fill in as a third centre-back. This is common in many 4-3-3 systems in recent years, and even in Brazilian 4-4-2.
The libero ,however,(in Beckenbaeur’s offense-minded variant as opposed to Pichi’s defensive ’sweeping spare man’ role in Helenio Herrera’s Inter) is a distinct function; he breaks forward FROM the defensive line to elaborate attacks and even join in near the final third. He doesn’t advance just to sit in front of the defence and spread the play (or break it up); his game doesn’t have to be as static as that.
Of course, as in the case of a younger Rafa Marques, there have always been liberos who would also make excellent holding midfielders (whether of a destructive or creative hue), but I just think that we should clarify matters by showing how Marquez’ particular role does not exactly equate to that played by Pique or Lucio, whose incorporation into the attack is necessarily a swift advance before returning to the defensive line.
ZM, awesome analysis once more.
This 3-4-3 system is very popular in Mexico, it’s a sort of “national style”, so it’s no surprise that they have the right players for it (ball playing defenders, box-to-box wingbacks, talented wingers): they grow up with that kind of system.
If you can find it, I suggest you take a look at the Copa Libertadores match between Guadalajara (Chivas) and Velez Sarsfield from Argentina, the first leg played in Mexico, where the argentinian team was completely overwhelmed by the numeric advantage this system provides along the whole pitch. It was a joy to watch, and I’m argentinian.
Santi,
was LaVolpe influential in popularising these flexible 3-4-3 formations in Mexico?
I seem to recall a World Soccer article on how there was much contentious debate among Mexican coaches and pundits; so called Lavolpistas (who supported more elaborate tactical set-ups)and coaches like Hugo Sanchez (but especially another Mexican ‘godfather’ coach whose name escapes me) – who preferred a rigid, high-tempo 4-4-2.
Of course, this may have been grossly simplified.
Can you enlighten us?
Much appreciated
Was the other godfather… Manuel Lapuente? Enrique Meza?
Roberticus, I cannot enlighten much more on the subject. In my understanding, Marcelo Bielsa, while directing the America’s youth system in the early 90’s, was fundamental in the popularization of the three-man defense. But I could be wrong, by the same time LaVolpe was already coaching in 1st division there and winning his first title, although I don’t know what system he used.
Santi,
I believe that back in those days, in the early 90s, Bielsa was experimenting with 3-5-2. He only began his conversion to Dutch footballing ideas after Ajax ´95)
Hey ZM
First of all let me congratulate you guys for an excellent, intelligent website with smart, pure football analysis, it really is hard to come by these days.
Im mexican and i find it really interesting how the international view is so different from the national media, the local media it seems has an agenda against our national team that is saddening. I’m glad to see that Mexico’s football style is viewed upon as what it is, tactically smart, fast, fluid and all out.
It’s clear that what we lack (striking, clear mindset on defense)is what keeps the team from moving to the upper echelon of global powerhouses, but Mexico is getting there, I just hope that when they do they don’t sacrifice the fun, attractive style of play they practice now.
Good work guys and I appreciate the great analysis on your part
bye
Is not that the Media has an agenda against the National Team. It’s just that they like to exaggerate things quite a lot. If Mexico plays poorly and wins, the Media will sell that as a great victory. If Mexico plays good and loses, it exaggerates the defeat.
Not to mention that they contradict themselves quite oftenly…
Thanks. Much appreciated. Sometimes with the national teams it seems that emotion can override logic about the way the teams plays, like with Brazil, where the current team is not very popular but they actually play great stuff.
Keep up the good work ZM, I look forward to being an avid collaborator of this exceptionally performed website
Ahem, it’s Aguirre and Capello, not Aguerre and Eriksson (!).
Eriksson was Mexico’s former coach… dunno if ZM meant England’s coach, though…
Ah, my bad!
Recent discussion has been about the lack of creativity in the team. Barring Guardado and Blanco, there are limited creative players in the team. Aguirre’s preference of oversea player omitted chances forthe likes of Zinha. And Marques is more restricted to backline.
Lack of finisher and limited air ability, especially in defence, may prevent further progress of the team.
Zinha is good at Toluca, but he doesn’t always deliver at the national team. I definitely understand Aguirre on why he doesn’t call him.
Then again, Adolfo Bautista is way worse at Mexico’s National Team… and he was called.
I’m a huge Chivas fan and when they said Bofo(Adolfo Bautista) was playing for Mexico I was amazed. I thought that he would do great. But he plays just like Blanco, horrible. They just dont have the physical presence that other players do.
I also was wondering why Zinha didint play but you answered my question.
i hope to be seeing more of jonathan dos santos; atleast more than the five minutes he played against holland.
Thank you for an exceptional web site…one that has taught this Yank many things that he did not know about the game that he fell in love with during the ‘94 WC.
Now that you have done a piece on our most hated rivals, I really hope that you cover the USA…it seems it would be interesting to the majority of readers given our first round opponent!
“Special Relationship” indeed.
I think Don Revie tried to do something like this with England in his last year as England manager.
In 1977, his side vs Wales was
Shilton
Watson Hughes
Neal Greenhoff Mills
Brooking Kennedy
Keegan Pearson Channon
Inevitably it failed
Really interesting stuff, this false 3-4-3 when on posession (specially when starting the play from behind) looks really like La Volpe’s jobs on other teams – Mexico itself, in fact. Also, it is somehow used by Barcelona in some matches, when mostly Touré Yaya drops deep between the center-backs and the wing-backs move forward onto the midfield in order to help creating space for Xavi and his partner.
An interesting solution to help the ball reach the midfielders cleanly as well. In Barcelona’s case, even more than this, as it solved some of the problems caused by Touré’s limited talent in positioning and decision-taking when the team was in possession in their own half.
PS: Just wanted to point, it is Javier Aguirre, with I, not Aguerre. Sorry for looking so picky, great article anyway!
I think this system has serious flaws and I have written about it on my blog. http://defensiveminded.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/flaws-in-the-mexican-system/
Because the wingers do not track back, Mexico are vulnerable down the flanks as the wingbacks are left exposed to two on one situations. Their 3 man defence also struggled to deal with Van Persie’s movement in the game with Holland . Its the old story of a 3 man (or 5 man) defense struggling against 4231.
I am expecting them to concede goals in a similar way to the Holland game unless they make adjustments.
Enter The Mexican Dark Horse!
I think it’s difficult to take the Holland game seriously since Mexico started mostly backup players whose play is not quite the same as the starters. Mexicos true self is the team that played against England and Italy.
In that case Mexico will have huge problems because they struggled to defend corners in both of those games. I made a post about it in my blog http://defensiveminded.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/mexicos-problems-defending-corners/ .
Mexico will not get far in the world cup if they don’t improve their zonal marking system on corners. They are conceding very soft goals in games that they are dominating.
The pressure will be on the host nation tomorrow and that will suit Aguirre’s very impressive Mexico side to a tee. In my opinion Mexico should start Hernandez up front with Vela and Dos Santos. “Chicharito”, with his movement and penetration, offers a lot more than Blanco or Franco. I predict a comfortable 3-1 win for Mexico.
Mexico’s system is nothing new, Aguirre actually played in this system as a player in Mexico 86. Granted, they were at home but this system fits the Mexican characteristics extremely well, they were knocked out by Germany in PKs. Had they won, they no doubt would have made history. Side note, had that match been in the Azteca and not in Monterey (now host countries play all games in their den) Mexico might have won. That was a big mistake but I digress.
The big limitation to this system as with any system is you can’t use it effectively if you don’t have Vela, Dos Santos, Barerra, Medina. Mexico are currently blessed with effective attackers, particularly, quick wide players with high work rates that like 1v1 battles.
That was not the case last couple of World Cups.
The big difference with Lavolpe’s system is he lacked the attacking players and therefore had what is commonly referred to in Mexico as “linea de 5″ that uses industrious players with little personality in my opinion, effectively a 5-3-1-1. With an enganche.
Long story short, both systems keep possession very well but Aguirre’s 4-3-3 or 3-4-3 system gives the attackers liberty to attack, and puts the onus on them to get the job done…press, get wide, cut-in, take defenders on… We saw vs. England and vs. Italy sometimes they are up to the task and other times they miss a boatload of goals.
For the record, one overlooked reason for Mexico’s success is the overt riches in defensive midfielders, it could cultural or it could be because clubs prefer to employ minimum 2 at the same time. I can name 10 defensive midfielders worthy of at least being rostered for Mexico. I can’t say the same for strikers though. Lol.