Argentina result tonight....

Bubs101

pickarooney wrote: »

They were in the world cup in 94. Remember Marco Etcheverry, Bolivia's greatest ever player finally qualified for the WC in the States, got injured, recovered miraculously in time to make it for the group stages and got sent off after 10 minutes?

Completely forgot about that though I suppose considering how small the South American qualifying group is that every team will make it at some stage

kinaldo

Bubs101 wrote: »

Completely forgot about that though I suppose considering how small the South American qualifying group is that every team will make it at some stage

It's by far the toughest qualifying section in the world. Given that Brazil and Argentina will always dominate, that leaves 2 out of 8 to go through. I don't think Venezuala have ever made it, and Ecuador only made it for the first time in 2006 (they also play at very high altitude in Quito).

Edit: forgot that there's also the playoff spot which traditionally pits Uruguay against the Aussies.

Quint

pickarooney wrote: »

They were in the world cup in 94. Remember Marco Etcheverry, Bolivia's greatest ever player finally qualified for the WC in the States, got injured, recovered miraculously in time to make it for the group stages and got sent off after 10 minutes?

I remember that, Erwin Sanchez was usefull aswell

patmac

Nothing to say really.
From FIFA.com
Diego Maradona said every Bolivian goal was a stab in his heart after his Argentina side suffered a stunning 6-1 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa™ qualifying defeat at high altitude against the rank outsiders.

Maradona, who avoided blaming the altitude of La Paz which lies 3,600 metres above sea level, gave credit to his opponents and said he suffered alongside the Argentine public. Before becoming Argentina coach, Maradona had backed Bolivia's campaign on matches at high altitude, taking part in a charity match in La Paz alongside President Evo Morales last year. The ban was later overturned.

"I suffered with them (the Argentine public)," Maradona told reporters. "Every Bolivia goal was a stab in my heart. If we had dreamed this was going to happen before the game, we would have thought it was impossible," added Maradona, who himself appeared to be struggling for breath in a packed news conference room.

"We have to give merit to Bolivia who were better than us in every part of the field," he went on. "There is nothing to say. They beat us well and now we have to start all over again. Bolivia played a great game and hit the target with every attack. They all played well from the goalkeeper to the last substitute."



As for shock results what about group 1 in Africa:
28/03/09 16:00 Accra Togo 1:0 (1:0) Cameroon
28/03/09 20:00 Casablanca Morocco 1:2 (0:2) Gabon

Meteor will be happy.

Bubs101

kinaldo wrote: »

It's by far the toughest qualifying section in the world. Given that Brazil and Argentina will always dominate, that leaves 2 out of 8 to go through. I don't think Venezuala have ever made it, and Ecuador only made it for the first time in 2006 (they also play at very high altitude in Quito).

Edit: forgot that there's also the playoff spot which traditionally pits Uruguay against the Aussies.

It's not the hardest, Europe is. In South America, there are so few teams, only two dominant ones and 4 and a half places that it means it's much more likely that a team will have qualified for one World Cup than Europe. You only need to hit form once and once you hit that form you don't need to dominate the group, just finish fourth. In Europe a bad team needs to hit form, beat out one or two or Europe's best teams and finish top because if they get the playoffs they're probably going to get another top European team who'll have more knockout pedigree

kinaldo

Bubs101 wrote: »

It's not the hardest, Europe is. In South America, there are so few teams, only two dominant ones and 4 and a half places that it means it's much more likely that a team will have qualified for one World Cup than Europe. You only need to hit form once and once you hit that form you don't need to dominate the group, just finish fourth. In Europe a bad team needs to hit form, beat out one or two or Europe's best teams and finish top because if they get the playoffs they're probably going to get another top European team who'll have more knockout pedigree

In South America they have to play 18 games, many in extreme conditions of heat and altitude unlike anything in Europe. Over 5 campaigns it may be likely that a team like Peru or Ecuador can sneak in, but that doens't make it an easier campaign than European qualification, and is nothing compared to the amount of times you will see a team like Scotland or Norway qualify out of an easy group. The seeding system here also means that Europe's elite have it far easier than Argentina and Brazil.

Bubs101

kinaldo wrote: »

In South America they have to play 18 games, many in extreme conditions of heat and altitude unlike anything in Europe. Over 5 campaigns it may be likely that a team like Peru or Ecuador can sneak in, but that doens't make it an easier campaign than European qualification, and is nothing compared to the amount of times you will see a team like Scotland or Norway qualify out of an easy group. The seeding system here also means that Europe's elite have it far easier than Argentina and Brazil.

They grew up in the heat and altitude, it doesn't affect them as much. They play the same opposition each campaign and every campaign which makes it easier to prepare. I think it's harder for the average teams, like Paraguay and Uruguay who would probably have a better time of it in Europe but for Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru and ecuador it's much better. As for the seeding system making it harder for Brazil and Argentina, it doesn't really because there's so much room for error. How terrible would one of their campaigns have to be to not finish 5th? It's much easier for them

luckylucky

kinaldo wrote: »

In South America they have to play 18 games, many in extreme conditions of heat and altitude unlike anything in Europe. Over 5 campaigns it may be likely that a team like Peru or Ecuador can sneak in, but that doens't make it an easier campaign than European qualification, and is nothing compared to the amount of times you will see a team like Scotland or Norway qualify out of an easy group. The seeding system here also means that Europe's elite have it far easier than Argentina and Brazil.

I'd agree it's a more arduous qualifyign campaign but I'm not so sure if I agree that it's tougher to qualify from. I'd say it's roughly on a par. The likes of Norway, Scotland and you could include many more teams like Bulgaria, Belgium, Ireland, Denmark etc etc are perhaps historically on average (obviously at any given time one of these teams can be very strong.. Belgium early 80s, Ireland early 90s, Denmark early 90s) more or less on par with the examples of Ecuador and Peru. Also Brazil and Argentina seem to manage to qualify just about everytime - afaik I don't think Brazil has ever failed to qualify, that might suggest that they do have it easy or maybe that's just down to the strength of both these footballing nations .

kinaldo

Bubs101 wrote: »

They grew up in the heat and altitude, it doesn't affect them as much. They play the same opposition each campaign and every campaign which makes it easier to prepare. I think it's harder for the average teams, like Paraguay and Uruguay who would probably have a better time of it in Europe but for Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru and ecuador it's much better. As for the seeding system making it harder for Brazil and Argentina, it doesn't really because there's so much room for error. How terrible would one of their campaigns have to be to not finish 5th? It's much easier for them

It's a far more gruelling campaign overall, especially for Argentina and Brazil given that the bulk of their players are based in Europe and have to fly half way across the world and back 18 times no less. Home advantage is huge but there are almost no easy games away from home.

Also, they don't all grow up playing in extreme heat and altitude, and the fact that they have to play the same teams twice every 4 years is no advantage. Familiarity works boths ways anyhow.

but for Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru and ecuador it's much better.

these 4 teams currently occupy the bottow 4 positions.

Meanwhile, Paraguay are top while Argentina are in danger of slipping out.

Brazil only ended up 4th in 2002 and went on to win the World Cup that year.

Daemonic

patmac wrote: »

Maradona, who avoided blaming the altitude of La Paz which lies 3,600 metres above sea level, gave credit to his opponents and said he suffered alongside the Argentine public. Before becoming Argentina coach, Maradona had backed Bolivia's campaign on matches at high altitude, taking part in a charity match in La Paz alongside President Evo Morales last year. The ban was later overturned.

That is a savage altitude. Having been skiing at a similar altitude I found even walking around was hard work, really can't imagine playing football :eek:

redout

Headshot wrote: »

thats queiroz gone

hopefully people will see he's ****ing useless

wtf sort of statement was that ?

From Headshot........

redout

The qualifying is a joke. North America CONCACAF I think it is should be mixed with COMMENBOL that way the USA and Mexico want get such easy rides to the finals every four years and would help spice up the whole North - South America qualifying campaign.

Headshot

redout wrote: »

wtf sort of statement was that ?

From Headshot........

one of sense

some utd folk were hoping for him to be the next utd manager
pfft no thanks

I didnt like the tactics he employed at utd too

Frisbee

redout wrote: »

The qualifying is a joke. North America CONCACAF I think it is should be mixed with COMMENBOL that way the USA and Mexico want get such easy rides to the finals every four years and would help spice up the whole North - South America qualifying campaign.

Mexico have won one game so far. No easy ride

redout

Headshot wrote: »

one of sense

some utd folk were hoping for him to be the next utd manager
pfft no thanks

I didnt like the tactics he employed at utd too

United with Queiroz
3 League titles
1 League cup
1 Champions league

and also

1 League cup runner up
1 FA cup runner up

I for one think we done admirably in his five seasons at United. We reached four finals, won two and won 3 league titles. One can hardly say he made us play bad ?

Headshot

redout wrote: »

United with Queiroz
3 League titles
1 League cup
1 Champions league

and also

1 League cup runner up
1 FA cup runner up

I for one think we done admirably in his five seasons at United. We reached four finals, won two and won 3 league titles. One can hardly say he made us play bad ?

I cant argue with those stats(dame you and your stats)

just didnt like him having so much control at the club

Queiroz was heavily rumoured to be one of the main reasons for team captain Roy Keane's departure from Manchester United in November 2005. According to Keane, he did not like the way Queiroz was given so much responsibility as if he were manager of the club and Keane did not like the tactics that Queiroz employed

redout

Fair enough man but I have seen Ferguson on camera say that Queiroz helped us so much with all his different training techniques etc that really benefited the team. He more or less changed a lot of the way the team started to train. I think he has some older players at Portugal now who are not as good as they once were (Deco being a big one) and not so many good quality spring chickens which were there in previous years past. Like Nani ffs !

Headshot

redout wrote: »

Fair enough man but I have seen Ferguson on camera say that Queiroz helped us so much with all his different training techniques etc that really benefited the team. He more or less changed a lot of the way the team started to train. I think he has some older players at Portugal now who are not as good as they once were (Deco being a big one) and not so many good quality spring chickens which were there in previous years past. Like Nani ffs !

I wont miss his defensive tactics anyway

Bubs101

kinaldo wrote: »

It's a far more gruelling campaign overall, especially for Argentina and Brazil given that the bulk of their players are based in Europe and have to fly half way across the world and back 18 times no less. Home advantage is huge but there are almost no easy games away from home.

Also, they don't all grow up playing in extreme heat and altitude, and the fact that they have to play the same teams twice every 4 years is no advantage. Familiarity works boths ways anyhow.

Yeah but the gulf in quality between Argentina and Brazil is ridiculous and any quality players from the other countries are all based abroad so it makes very little difference if any. They also play each other far more then twice every four years. Copa America runs every two years as well

kinaldo wrote: »

these 4 teams currently occupy the bottow 4 positions.

Meanwhile, Paraguay are top while Argentina are in danger of slipping out.

Brazil only ended up 4th in 2002 and went on to win the World Cup that year.

Those teams occupy the bottom four positions now but Venezuela are the only ones never to make it and they have a much better chance of making it then the bad teams in Europe. Say Venezuela get a good crop of players at the same time as a European team who's never made it, say Iceland. Venezuela won't get ****ed over by the seeding system whereas iceland win and half the teams in Venezuela's group will qualify whereas a quarter of the teams in Iceland's group will. Not to mention that Iceland will be fighting with teams like France, Romania and Serbia or italy, Bulgaria and Ireland for only one automatic spots whereas Venezuela compete with Paraguay, Ecuador, Chile and Peru for 2 spots and a playoff. The lack of seeding makes it so much easier

PHB

We miss Quierez deeply. IMO the failure in big games defensively is squarly down to him missing.

pickarooney

There's no real 'easy' or 'hard' about it. With such a long qualifying group a team can afford a couple of slip ups and still make it through if they get their act together. But that applies to all teams in the group. While a minnow in a European group will most likely never qualify because of the seeding, it would in theory only require two or three fluke results (if that's not a contradiction) to get to the play-offs. For Venezuela to do that would require seven or eight 'upsets'.

I often wonder why Chile and Argentina don't have a reserve team of mountain ringers and play their home games against Brazil up in the Andes.

redout

Should have stuffed the whole Argentine tream into a hyperbaric chamber.

No doubt that would have sorted it

kinaldo

wtf has Quieroz got to do with this thread???

kinaldo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/timvickery/2009/04/coping_with_high_altitude.html

Outside South America there is little recognition of the difficulties of the continent's World Cup qualification campaign.

Carlos Alberto Parreira and Luiz Felipe Scolari are agreed - the pair coached Brazil to World Cup triumph in 1994 and 2002 respectively, and came to the same conclusion.

Winning the competition was relatively straightforward. The hard part was qualification.

Both of their teams lost in Bolivia.

This week, it was Argentina's turn - they were thrashed 6-1 in La Paz.

The current qualification campaign has featured 31 home wins to 10 away - this ratio of 3:1 is normal in South America - and highlights the enormous difficulty of playing away from home.

There are long and arduous journeys to undertake, at the end of which the visiting team is surrounded by an intimidating atmosphere.

There are huge differences of climate and conditions - and, of course, there is the factor of altitude.

At some 2,800 metres above sea level, Quito, Ecuador's base, is difficult.

Wayward finishing, superb goalkeeping and some luck meant that Brazil came back from Quito with a 1-1 draw last Sunday. But on the balance of play Ecuador could easily have won by the same 6-1 margin by which Bolivia inflicted the first defeat on Diego Maradona's Argentina.

At 3,600 metres above sea level, La Paz is the venue that everyone dreads.

There is no telling exactly how the unacclimatised player will react - genetic factors seem to determine that some feel the effects more than others. But as a general rule, it is reckoned that without time to acclimatise players lose over 30% of their athletic capacity.

The lungs struggle and they can't find enough oxygen to move freely over the pitch.

Given three weeks anyone can acclimatise. But in the modern calendar no-one has this time.

It is thought that the third day is when the effects are felt most.

So what nearly everyone does - as Maradona's team did on Wednesday - is move up to altitude just a few hours before the game. In this way the effects of extreme altitude are minimised.

This might make medical sense. But to my mind it makes little psychological or technical sense.

In the minds of the players it builds the problem into the size of a monster, and it gives no time for them to make an adaptation to conditions, how to change their game in response to the lack of oxygen, and to the fact that the ball flies far quicker through the rarefied air.

Doing it this way is also a crime against the goalkeeper, who is more exposed than anyone else by the rapid trajectory of the ball.

It is almost impossible to do what Maradona's Argentina tried to do - roll up and just try to play their normal game.

This is especially true against a Bolivia side that have found some form. They are not going to qualify, and their main objective at this stage of the campaign is to do well in front of their own public, especially against Brazil and Argentina.

Even before the Argentina game kicked off the Bolivian strike duo of Joaquin Botero and Marcelo Martins (known as Moreno in Brazil, where he played for a while) were the top scorers of the entire campaign.

The pair, plus some other key players, didn't even travel to Colombia for Saturday's match. Bolivia sent out a side searching for a 0-0 draw (they lost 2-0) while keeping their gunpowder fresh for Argentina.

So the Bolivia game is a one -off, as I suggested in my blog at the start of the week.

I wrote then that the extreme conditions meant that we would learn nothing about Maradona's Argentina from this game. On reflection, I'm not sure that is entirely correct.

There are certain steps that teams visiting altitude need to take.

The idea is to run as little as possible, so the team must stay compact, giving the man on the ball plenty of options for a pass.

They must not defend too deep - it stretches out the team and makes it easy for the home side to shoot from range - very dangerous at altitude.

Against Ecuador, altitude exposed Brazil's deficiencies.

"Brazil had almost no possession," wrote 1970 great Tostao, "because, literally, there was no midfield. Gilberto Silva and Felipe Melo (the central midfield duo) played like centre backs."

So Brazil were unable to take the heat out of the game - while Argentina were over-run from the first because of their defensive weaknesses.

Martin Demichelis and Gabriel Heinze are too slow a pairing in the heart of defence. And, as slow centre backs usually do, they dropped deep to give themselves time - and opened up the field for the rampant Bolivians.

This is an area of the team that Maradona will need to look at - with Juan Forlin of Boca Juniors a promising defender who might well be worth a look.

Maradona said that he felt all the Bolivia goals like knife wounds in his heart.

They should heal, but an awareness is growing that a bigger axe could swing - the one that stops Argentina going to the World Cup.

They currently lie fourth, the last of the automatic qualifying slots.

Leaders Paraguay have a foot in South Africa.

Brazil and Chile, second and third respectively, have easier run ins than Argentina.

Lurking just two points behind in fifth, the play-off slot, are old rivals Uruguay - Argentina's final opponents in October's last round, which could be very interesting indeed.