South Africa 1-1 Mexico: a fair result but neither side will be happy
An entertaining game that finished with a fair result, a point apiece. Both sides will be relatively disappointed to come away from the opening game with just a draw, and the match demonstrated the faults of both sides more than it did their qualities.
Team selection
South Africa lined up similar to expected, with a narrowish 4-2-3-1 shape. Steven Pienaar was fielded in a central role with Teko Modise on the right. Lucas Thwala was preferred to Tsepo Masilela at left-back, and Kagisho Dikgacoi got the nod ahead of Thanduyise Khuboni in the centre of midfield.
Mexico were exactly as predicted, in their flexible 3-4-3 shape that saw Rafael Marquez playing ahead of the other two centre-backs, who moved into wide positions when Mexico had the ball. The two wing-backs took up advanced positions, and Giovani dos Santos drifted in from the wing.
Differences in style
The game was interesting because it featured two completely different styles of football. Mexico’s shape was fluid and they looked to retain possession of the ball in midfield, whilst South Africa’s were much more rigid defensively and looked to play quick, direct balls to the lone striker Katlego Mphela, who worked the channels well and clearly had the beating of the Mexico defence for pace.
Mexico were constantly threatening down the right-hand side, where Paul Aguilar was finding space between Siphiwe Tshabalala and Thwala on the touchline. The problem was that Tshabalala wasn’t sure who he was supposed to be picking up. As discussed here (see the first photo under ‘the basic formation’) the centre-backs spreading wide in possession means that they have three players on either flank (centre-back, wing-back, winger) and against most formations (in this case, a 4-2-3-1), that means a 3 v 2 on the wings. Tshabalala sometimes looked to close down Ricardo Osorio when in possession, but with Thwala concerned about Giovani dos Santos, who was playing more centrally than Carlos Vela on the opposite side, Aguilar got a lot of time on the ball and Mexico looked for a pass to him on numerous occasions.
Gaxa threatens
South Africa’s direct route of attack didn’t work particularly well in the first half. They often spent a long time trying to get possession from Mexico, and then immediately hit a long, ambitious ball for Mphela to chase – when that didn’t work, they were under pressure straight away. Their best moments were when they countered in numbers – not necessarily when they were pegged back inside their own third of the pitch, but when they won the ball in midfield and looked to exploit the fact Mexico often only had two defenders in position, with Marquez moving into midfield.
On two occasions, quick passing almost resulted in a ball to Siboniso Gaxa, the powerful full-back who loves to bomb forward. Mexico’s system, with three forwards, is set out to try and prevent opposition full-backs getting forward, and Carlos Vela was slow to respond when Gaxa got into dangerous positions, almost as if taken by surprise that South Africa were willing to gamble by pushing their full-backs forward.
South Africa looked to press Mexico’s backline when the ball was with the goalkeeper, forcing him to play it out to the midfield, but then dropped to the halfway line in open play, happy for Mexico to dominate possession.
Guillermo Franco had a mixed first half. His movement throughout the game was excellent, often dropping deep to draw a defender out of position and creating space for the lively dos Santos to exploit, but Franco wasted three good chances, two with his head from set-pieces.
Second half
South Africa made a change at half-time, bringing on Masilela for Thwala in a straight swap at left-back, and Masilela provided more attacking threat in the first ten minutes of the second half than Thwala had in the whole first half. South Africa began playing a more cultured game with a bigger focus on ball retention, and the technical skills of Pienaar, Modise and Letsholonyane were much more evident.
The goal came from a quick break, but one involving good interplay between players, rather than a straight, direct ball as they had looked to play throughout the first half. Marquez came forward into midfield but his ball to dos Santos was intercepted, and suddenly Mexico were left with just two players in defence. Tshabalala got a head start on Osorio, who was forced to turn before sprinting towards the ball, and hammered it into the far corner to give South Africa a slightly undeserved lead. It was a type of goal that Mexico were always prone to with Marquez stepping forward, and an example of why fielding a forward-playing sweeper can be dangerous.
Mexico switches
Javier Aguirre changed things straight away, bringing Aguliar off and inserting Andres Guardado, a versatile, creative attacking midfielder. Efrain Juarez moved to right-back, his customary position, and Mexico maintained a relatively similar shape, albeit with Guardado playing high up the pitch, and Torrado playing a deeper role.
Later, Vela and Franco were withdrawn, with veteran Cuauhtemoc Blanco and youngster Javier Hernandez both coming on, and Mexico ended up playing something like a 3-3-2-2 system – the three centre-backs with Marquez stepping up, Torrado playing inbetween two wing-backs, then Guardado, dos Santos, Blanco and Hernandez all playing around each other in fairly central positions.
The lack of width high up the pitch meant Mexico were fairly quiet when chasing a goal, and asking Blanco to move into wide roles didn’t work as he looked completely lacking in any pace/fitness. Mexico continued to have more possession but rarely looked like creating an opportunity.
Awful marking from South Africa
The goal came from Marquez, who was one of multiple men left unmarked after a short corner. South Africa defended set-pieces awfully all day – Franco missed two opportunities when unmarked in the first half, and Vela had a goal disallowed when Itumeleng Khune, the South African goalkeeper, managed to play him offside after a mad dash out of goal from a corner. Frankly, they deserved to lose a goal from this route and Marquez was one of three free players along the edge of the six-yard box.
South Africa suddenly looked nervous and sat back with little ambition, but they almost won it late on. Mphela’s pace again got him clear of the Mexico defence, but could only sidefoot against the outside of the post when through on goal.
Conclusion
Oscar Tabarez and Raymond Domenech will be delighted. Both sides look easy to score against, and lacking a poacher upfront.
Mexico can be opened up easily by exploiting space left by Marquez, and their high line doesn’t suit their centre-backs, all in their thirties and lacking in pace. They may dominate possession and the movement of dos Santos is a real threat, but Franco’s performance in front of goal was far from convincing and there is relatively little goalscoring threat from midfield.
South Africa are well-organised in open play and keep it tight between the lines, but they are awful at defending set-pieces. Playing a deep defensive line against them might negate their ability to play direct balls in behind the defenders. The technical quality of Modise is a real threat and Gaxa’s storming runs have to be watched, but whilst South Africa’s performance was not bad, it’s hard to imagine that any other side will play into their hands as much as Mexico did today.
A good game to start the tournament, but both sides will need to improve to progress.
South Africa 1-1 Mexico: a fair result but neither side will be happy
Incisive analysis within an hour of the game ending. Impressive stuff.
Very interesting analysis. Might Mexico’s sweeper system be more effective against a team like Uruguay that plays two up front? Facing a two man attack would force Marquez to stay back a bit more and the Mexico midfield would have to take on the responsibility of picking up attacks from Uruguay’s centre midfield.
Marquez was neither one thing nor another today, South Africa only had one forward so he didn’t really need to be in the back three but nor did he take the game forward that often. Also his presence in behind the midfield seemed to give Torrado and Juarez licence not to offer much defensive cover, which left Mexico very open to pace.
Although a result that suits neither, it was interesting to see Parreira readying a change in the 92nd minute. So someone involved was clearly willingly to take the point.
Spot on as usual ZM!
I felt that there was a lot of space for SA to exploit over on their left side in advanced positions, the way I saw it Mexico played with a 2/3 man, very narrow defence when in possession, and switched to a flat four when defending.
Salcido was very diligent in getting to cover Mexico’s left, however Aguilar was very slow to get back and cover the right. This left Mexico with a very lopsided defence, playing essentially with 3 centre backs and a left wing back.
Cracking start though!
South Africa gave up a really cheap goal.
Was their backline trying an offside trap, or did they really lose sight of 3(!) players?
It seemed to be a case of everyone stepping up except one guy. All 3 Mexican players would have been offside had the final South African defender stepped up with his colleagues.
I have the same feeling that it was a failed offside trap. The lone defender forgot to move up.
Mexico’s defence looked VERY shaky. SA opened them up with a few quick passing and suddenly the right wing had miles of space to exploit. Even more worrying is that Mexico had trouble linking up at the front. Dos Santos’ tendency to hold on to the ball for too long made it even worse. Mexico did not look likely to score in 2nd half, and would not have if not for a terrible mistake by SA defenders.
…after scoring a really good goal! Talk about tactical naivety at set-pieces, as ZM has already pointed out.
Give Dikgacoi more credit – he was their best player; great passing and an excellent assist!
South Africa looked like they were going for an early goal in the 1st half, hence their direct play. Thus they conceded too much possession against a technically good side and nearly paid the price. Normally you expect them to rotate the ball higher up with Modise/Tshabalala/Pienaar/Mphela, as in the 2nd half, but maybe they needed to get past the 1st match with their confidence intact. For all their quality, I don’t expect the French will be too confident yet, especially if Mexico can make their possession and creativity count, or the hosts can attack early on and maybe score, bringing memories of 2002 flooding back for the French.
Mexico really looked vulnerable when South Africa countered in numbers as you guys said. I was thinking the same thing, do you think it’s just a thing of Mexico pushing too many players forward? Many reporters are saying Mexico deserved to win and that they created a lot of chances just couldn’t finish. I disagree, I think South Africa created a similar amount of actual quality chances. Mexico had more possession but South Africa had about 3 or 4 real clear cut scoring chances based on their counters when Mexico pushed too many people forward.
Oh, and Oscar Perez. How is he Mexico’s best keeper?
Indeed. Perez just stood there on the breakaway that Mphela clanked off the post. Very disappointed with Mexico.
Guillermo Ochoa is a better keeper but for some reason Aguirre did not play him.
During the first half South Africa actually lined up in two banks of four and and Pienaar alongside Mphela as a secondary striker. When the Mexicans entered the attacking third, Dikgacoi would fall back on the line of the defense, the then five players covering the whole width of the pitch.
In the second half they were somewhat less rigid and Pienaar was involved more in midfield, leaving Mphela alone upfront for long spells of the remaining game.
Considering the poor performance in the first 45 minutes I don’t expect to see Pienaar as an attacker anymore, but then again I wouldn’t start Thwala over Masilela in my wildest dreams either. The latter is one of the few quality players on the team. The former on the other hand..well.
i think you should write,at the end of every article, who was the man of the match ( my opinion is that the african goalkeeper,khune, was the mvp.) in that way we could make an ideea about who will be the best player of the tournament.
ps
you have a fantastic site, congrats !
Yeah, the goalkeeper really saved that off-side goal by going out of the goal. I wonder if he did that on purpose or tried to punch the ball away. I’ll have to wait for an evening summary on TV or YT vids
That GK was awful with his feet. He gave away like 90% of the balls he played. Nice save on Franco, tho.
Great website, great analysis, just found this website yesterday and I love it!
Aguirre is a bit of a joke at the moment. If your going to play experienced players like Guille Franco, they better produce and be in form. The other experienced players looked all out of sorts as well Torrado, Blanco looked like he belonged in a beer league and Oscar Perez wouldn’t start for a 2nd division team in Mexico. Complete disgrace.
Tactically, why play with 3 forwards if they are not going to: 1. apply high pressing tactics 2. finish their scoring opportunities. Why play with 3 central defenders who are slow. At least one of them should have speed. Like I don’t know the guy on the bench named Hector Moreno who starts for AZ Alkmaar.
Everyone saw this coming, if you gamble with 3 forwards that don’t consistently finish, you are bound to catch a goal from a counterattack. Excellent tactics by Pareira who studied Mexico like it was his high school chemistry book. I wasn’t impressed by the finish because I have seen this script a million times from Mexico, and so had SA, and I bet they practiced that counterattack thousands of times in a row in training. Great work.
Pretty interesting game, especially in the second half when RSA got some nice midfield touches going and looked to release down wing or through the middle. I don’t know what Aguirre is thinking with his goalkeeping choice – Perez was absolutely shocking. What a flap-merchant on corners. Against any half-decent European team, they would concede a lot of goals from corners if they persist with this guy.
FYI- for those of you that don’t follow Mexican Football or the Mexican League. Oscar “El Conejo Perez is one of the worst keepers in the league. In fact, he’s out of contract, his last club was a bottom feeder Jaguars of Chiapas. Guille Franco is out of contract too. Oh my.
Dear world, please accept our apologies for trotting out veterans with beer guts like Blanco and Perez. They are not the best in Mexico by a long mile, haven’t been for some time.
But our gaffer Javier Aguirre, likes to bring along his drinking buddies and compadres. Embarrassing!
Well, let’s be fair. Oscar “El Conejo” Perez wasn’t that bad today. In fact, he made a great save that could have been the 2-0 against México. In the first goal, he had no fault. Still, I think that Michel deserves to be the GoalKeeper.
About Cuauhtemoc Blanco, you’re spot on. He doesn’t belong in “El Tri”.
About the game: México in fact was more dangerous and played the better football, but they also made awful mistakes… Marquez should not be in the midfield, he lost several balls… he should be a central defense, period. Guardado seems that he doesn’t contribute too much either.
South Africa was a bit lucky today. Although, they played quite better on the Second Half. They can be a good team if they want to. Either way, at least we can say that the referee wasn’t factor in this game, as many people in the Mexican media suspected.
I respectfully disagree, he was awful on corner kicks and crosses, as another poster noted, “flapping his arms in the wind.” He bobbled quite a few shots needlessly. He hardly inspired confidence.
That great save you refer to, he just stood his ground, the SA player more than anything just shot it straight at him.
The most shocking moment was when he stood flat footed in the 89th minute when the shot ricocheted off the post, he not only did not commit to cut the angle, he just stood there like a spectator. Lol. Awful stuff for a WC starting keeper.
I contend you cannot start a 5′6 keeper with a beer gut who is a 37 years old and have any hope whatsoever. This is not the 1930’s. Keepers should be fit. Keepers should have a decent wingspan.
This kind of mockery only happens in Mexico.
Fine then. I just think that he is getting more criticism than he really deserves.
Did you notice Uruguay’s keeper. 23 years old and SOLID. No fumbling around.
Michel would have been solid, or Ochoa but with Perez it’s a death sentence. Aguirre is as crazy as Domenech in my book.
Due to the entire world’s unfamiliarity with Mexico, they must think Perez is our best keeper availabe. Entirely not the case! Aguirre would get roasted for choosing Perez in Europe.
How can you possibly make that claim? Perez flapped at practically every cross and corner. For the South African goal he was guilty of positioning himself too far on his near post. It was a great finish but Perez would have struggled to stop any decent shot to that side. The reverse angle perfectly highlights this and the huge open target he created as a direct result. For the one-on-one the South African player was fouled and Perez was fortunate that the weak shot was subsequently hit straight at him. At the end of the match Perez almost threw the game away by allowing himself to be beaten at his near post by a weak shot. A cardinal sin of goal keeping. His erratic behaviour leads to disarray in his defence and a better team than South Africa will take advantage.
I thought México was a nice-looking side, but you have nowhere to go unless you play a decent GK and an able poacher. It’s a shame, really, they are fun to watch. I hope they bring on a good substitute for El Conejo and Chicharito starts before Guille Franco, who showed good movement but couldn’t shot properly.
I watched the 2nd half again, and it was quite amusing watching Blanco lumbering around, waving for the ball- hell, I’m 53 and he makes me look fast! To his credit, whenever his teammates (reluctantly) passed to him and he actually touched the ball, he released it quickly and accurately.
Maybe now that he’s got a World Cup 2010 game on record, he can be rested on his past laurels- on the bench.
Regarding the goal conceded by South Africa, I honestly believe the defence was trying to catch Mexico at off-side. One defender lost himself though, thus the goal.
I reckon Mexico’s tactics extremely dangerous. A simple loss of the ball in the middle of the pitch created frightening images. Honestly that could be more than just one conceded goal by Mexico. If it goes to attack, I could not find Americans rulling the midfield and being dangerous with multiple occassions for a killer ball. On the other hand, the short pass play they cultured seemed often quite alright. What will happen when more demanding team stands on the other side of a half-line of Mexico?
On numerous occassions I found the game chaotic
. Thanks for a report, ZM.
I think South Africa found it very difficult to contain Mexico’s pace and movement in attack, so in a sense the other two games will perhaps be a little more orthodox for the South African defence. They looked a capable side when they opened up, so they’ve got some hope for qualifying.
Mexico, at least, surely need to start Javi Hernandez next time. He appears to be the ruthless finisher out of all their players and that’s what they need most. Their keeper and main defence look very vulnerable.
Limitations of a three man defence exposed yet again as SA exploit the spaces left out on the flanks to get a draw against what should be a vastly superior team – now wingers are back in the game a three man defence is dead.
I would argue that while the article says there are more men on the wings when Mexico have the ball (which I would disagree as the centre backs don’t often cross the halfway line and the attackers stayed narrow to create space for the wing backs) when SA got the ball there is only one man out on the wing and he was doubled up on regularly by either the full back or the striker/attacking midfielder supporting the winger.
Will be interesting to see SA against another three man defence in Uruguay, I guess the differences will be that Uruguay have a three man central midfield to match up numbers and keep the ball better as well as better strikers to create and finish chances. Wonder if SA might consider playing the striker they brought on late from the start to really add to the pace and power which is their forte rather than Pienaar’s guile.
Mexico played with 3 defensive central midfielders: Marquez, Torrado and Juarez. 2 are converted defenders (Juarez RB and Marquez CB)
It did not work.
Daniel,
The score was 1-1, and Uruguay just showed that the 3 man defense is VERY effective. If 3-man defenses were dead, SA would have romped to a large number of goals. The stats say they only had 10 shots, 3 on target, compared to Mexico’s 16 with 3 on target. Hardly a damning indictment of the back three.
I am not disagreeing per se. I was just clarifying that Mexico used a back 4 with 3 defensive central midfielders.
Back 4: Aguilar, Osorio, Rodriguez, Salcido.
Central Mids: Marquez, Juarez, Torrado.
While Uruguay used 3 center backs and 2 outside backs. 5 defenders essentially. I actually like this system as well.
You can call it a 3 back system but those outside backs tracked back all day long making it 5 backs.
Uruguay obviously played with a 5 man defence. The full backs didn’t really go anywhere in possession.
Mexico’s is quite difficult to define because they seem to switch between when they do and don’t have the ball. When they have it Marquez drops into the defence to make it a back three while the full backs push on. Thus leaving the usual space out wide associated with such a system providing you can get the ball out there quickly on the counter attack before their full backs get back – which given how high up they play isn’t normally that difficult. I agree with you they play a four man defence in theory once they lose the ball but in practice the full backs are often so high up that they stick with the back three. I note ZM appears to agree with my interpretation – thank the Lord!
Your spot on.
the problem with mexico was that their wing players pushed forward way too much, leaving the central defenders to cover for 2 positions thus giving the SA striker a lot of room to run.
I felt Mexico rarely used the left side whilst the players on the right side (Aguillar mostly) were ineffective leaving a lot of work on the precocious shoulders of Gio Do Santos.
Great analysis ZM
Vela isn’t really a winger, is he? Guardardo and Hernandez starting from the bench seems silly now too. Mexico had a six defenders on the field (two in midfield) but not of them are particularly pacy or strong. They left a lot of space, made loads of errant passes and were tired at the end of the game. Mexico line up kind of like Spain with a 4-3-3 but Busquets, Xavi, and Alonso are are younger, faster, stronger and have just as much guile as the Mexicans. Dos Santos worked hard but one of the midfielders needs to get in a mroe advanced position so they can pass quickly so Gio doesn’t always have to dribble it into a space. Blanco was looked bad but he tried to help the link up play when he came in but like Marquez and Torrado he was just too slow.
Great points. Hernandez works much better with Gio, and Vela. They play faster.
During the Italy friendly Juarez was a demon on both offense and defense providing some link up. Not so much today.
Barrera and Medina are great true wingers and were left on the bench. Some tough tactical decisions for Aguirre.
I might go 4-4-2 at some point.
However, vs. France, I actually think 4-3-3 is better served from what I saw today from France.
@Laddie,
I thought the same thing, Mexico is a
poor man’s Spain, at least its fun to
watch. If they can get some good young
guys to help out Vela,Dos Santos,etc they’ll
be much better in 2014…
In the states, all the analysts (who I give no credit as they seem to be incredibly tactically naive) were refering to mexico’s shape as a 4-3-3 with Marquez as a central midfielder and the wingbacks as fullbacks. Do you think that this would have been closer to the truth If they’d have played a team less inclined to sit deep. Also considering south africa’s tendency to play a lone frontman supported by three, wouldn’t a third center back be a waste. An advanced Marquez would have also limited the ability of south africa’s second striker?
Personally, I think that if Mexico decides to play a bit faster, they can be a very dangerous side. The time it took for each player between getting a pass and making the next was enough to ask for a coffee, drink it and let the table clear.
I was wondering this same thing and if the Ball was causing both teams some problems. Each time they tried to really speed it up, the ball started to bounce and skip or the ball was out of control.
Looking at the Uruguay v France game, the ball played fits with the players as well. It skips an awful lot and on fast pitches it appears it reacts almost lopsided.
I think in Mexico’s case it’s more that South Africa played with significant numbers behind the ball. That was the case for much of the first half and after they scored in the second. They let Mexico dominate possession, sometimes too much I think.
Playing the first game of the world cup as the away
team stinks, the gods arent on your side. Mexico may be
the better side, but are still lucky to get the point.
I would’nt mind Mexico’s defensive problems (no team is perfect)
if they would convert their scoring opportunities more, they create
enough of them…
I am still wondering why Aguirre did not start Guadardo as left winger, Carlos Vela can neither shoot nor open the life flank, even not press RSA’s defence.
Back to 1996, Eiltz was always in the defence when Summer got into middle field. But when Marques moves up, no one is covering his place.
With the 0-0 between France and Uruguay, it seems to me that México has a safe spot in the Round of 16. And I think that South Africa will get the other spot (FIFA decision)… Uruguay and France, once again, will be a failure. Just like the 2002 World Cup.
do you think the disallowed goal would have stood if vela did not touch it? it looked like it was going in anyway…
Just what I was wondering, it looked to me like it was but Vela acted on instinct. Also I’m not sure because I haven’t stared at the replay long enough yet, it kind of looked like the ball was already pass the line before Vela kicked it in, but I’m sure that’s not the case.
no, I think that the ball was flying away from the goal before Vela touch it.
Thanks to ZM now rather than just watching a match I’m now constantly looking at the tactics. And today I noticed, but I may be wrong so correct me here. In the first half, Mexico often got the ball wide, thanks to the FBs tucking in, but despite this they always seemed more dangerous going through the middle. There seemed to be plenty of space between the midifield and defence, and Mexico only occasionally exploited this. Then in the second half, that space seemed to disappear, and Mexico never really looked too dangerous.
ZM: Where the heck is Ochoa? Why isn’t he’s Mexico’s guy between the posts?
I have been absolutely livid about this same thing. Aguirre is so delusional that he would even take a completely out of shape drinking compadre in the first place–let alone start his compadre in front of the world’s eyes. Only in Mexico!
Ochoa is a fantastic keeper so is Luis Michel. 100x better.
It’s just politics within the team, favors to coaches whose players are in the team and or favoritism, there’s really no other way to explain why people like bautista were chosen over jonathan dos santos.
In the case of Perez, Perez was Aguirre’s starting goalkeeper during the 02 WC so I guess Aguirre feels that he’s still good enough, also Ochoa made a terrible mistake against North Korea in one of their friendlies not too long ago.
I was wondering the same thing. First time I saw him for Mexico a few years back, I thought (as a Yank) uh-oh, Mexico has a good keeper now.
What in the wide wide world of sports happens to this group now? You have to think Uruguay will adopt a bit more of an attacking approach in their next match against RSA – though arguably one of their most creative players was red-carded. Aguirre’s Mexico will probably shut up shop against France (why, I don’t know but that seemed to be Uruguay’s approach) and look for three points against Uruguay in the last game to see them through.
Unlike others I think Mexico can be successful using their current system. Obviously it is a risk because their style of play creates chances for their opposition but I consider their scoring problems to be mainly an issue of personnel over tactics. Mexico have proven against a variety of opposition that they can cause problems and if Franco had his shooting boots on this discussion would be very different.
While I think Aguirre will stick with Franco for the next match based on his experience and his ability to get into scoring positions the temptation must surely be there to start Hernández or are least give him more time to make an impact from the bench. He is their form striker based on his domestic exploits and performances for Mexico this year. He has the same number of international goals as Franco and all scored in the build up to the World Cup. Granted they have been friendlies and against generally weaker opposition but he is putting the ball in the back of the net and that is Mexico’s fundamental problem at the moment.
It is telling that Hernández is able to retain possession and link the play with the rest of the attack. The same applies to the immobile Blanco to a lesser degree. Mexico’s problem is currently that Vela and Dos Santos are too raw and inconsistent to both start. While Dos Santos provides a direct threat via his dribbling he all too often goes on hero runs and does not release the ball quickly enough. By contrast Vela tries to pass too often, a character flaw of Arsenal players in recent times, and is less effective operating in a wider role as Mexico requires.
I think Hernández upfront supported by Guardado and Dos Santos would have been too much for South Africa to handle and led to increased chance conversion. I was also surprised that Aguirre removed the wide threat posed by Aguilar and did not replace it with Barrera.
Is it just me, or Mexico didn’t look all that fluid in attack? Besides Vela and Dos Santos swapping wings, it all seemed rather predictable.
ZM, do you think Mexico would have a better chance if they were to play Hernandez instead of Franco?
To be hoenst, I haven’t seen enough of Hernandez to judge. Franco’s movement is excellent though, moving towards the ball and creating space for GDS and CV to exploit…he missed easy chances though.
hey guys,
i’m not sure why mexico’s ‘goal’ is offside. is it because the keeper moves forward hence he is the last man? i’ve watched many matches and this has never happened before, so i was quite confused when the goal was ruled offside. thanks.
The offside rule is about ‘any’ two players being goalside of the last man, not necessarily a defender and the keeper. So the goalkeeper stepping forward was the same as if a centre-back had done it, and left the keeper on the line.
now i get it. thanks zm!