Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
right, my problem was that it wasn't so much good attacking as poor defending in my eyes. so you get flashes but they are kind of easy. no real glory.
re: messi/di maria. yes di maria's shot to the goalpost is what enabled messi's first goal, and the man does run, but after sabella took out messi, di maria was tired and couldn't run much.
btw, sabella himself has publicly recognized some of this. check it out:
http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/3841/...-messi-sabella
rojo as you said earlier is more winger than defender. while he scored, how do you judge him on defense? i wasn't paying 100% attention so i didn't observe him closely.
my dissatisfaction i suppose has more to do with the fact that i expected argentina to be much better. they qualified #1 in conmebol, and they ought to "represent" a little better, and if you take out messi's goals there is very little production. same as brazil without neymar.
in that regard i think chile and colombia have done much better. sure, they have their indispensables, but they are also more of a "team" proper and they have made a good impression-- no? |
The defending wasn't great from either team but I'd say at least two of the goals were among the best I'd seen so far. And I don't remember Nigeria's defending being that bad overall. Argentina's does seem a genuine weakness though that, if it's not sorted out could easily end up being the difference between them winning the thing and not. Rojo kind of embodies their situation better than anyone: a defender who seems more comfortable in front of the opposition's goal than his own. I love watching him but I'm sure coaches of defending must watch him in despair.
Your point about Chile and Colombia is obviously true; I just wonder if this doesn't end up being a WC that doesn't really
have a truly outstanding or even fully-rounded team and where the title is largely being fought out between a handful of outstanding individuals.