Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous
Mexico was on the attack, but their shots were wild and rushed, they never looked like they actually controlled the ball through their offense, even if they had the ball 48% of the time and took 13 shots. Brazil meanwhile even though they only had the ball 52% of the time, took consistently good shots and really, Mexico got THREE pointblank lucky saves. Brazil makes those shots and it finishes 3-0 would you say the same thing about this match? Either way, we can agree to disagree on this, but please don't come at me with your usual condescending attitude, I may not follow all your Euro teams, but one thing is certain, I am intimately aware of what and how Mexico plays  |
this is not about euro anything. i was disputing your notion that mexico's plan was to gum up the works and go for the 0-0. that's not what they tried for-- yes that's what they got in the end, thanks to some good saves, but it was impossible to control for that. mexico obviously tried to win and go on the attack whenever the option was available.
mexico defended well, and yes they were a bit more destructive, especially early on, but they slowly built, and went on the attack, and created chances, and tried to score, and forced brazil to defend, and dominated some portions of the game-- that's not any kind of negative football, nor playing for a tie, nor trying for a 0, and no shot missed the goal on purpose--those misses were just a lack of quality, just like brazil's attack was sloppy but *not because they wanted 0-0*. even though obviously the tie feels like a win, and mexico benefits more from the result, no team on that pitch was focused solely on defense today. mexico was forced to defend, but if you notice, it was actually brazil that did better when it didn't have the ball-- they were comfortable without possession and their counterattacks were better.
and no, it's not like basketball. insert winky-winky.