*Official* Argentina vs Germany (Quarter-Final Three)

[Craig]

Something I have been wondering about for a week or so, if you think back to Argentina had a three man midfield of Rodríguez - Mascherano - di María, now was it a flat three man midfield or was Mascherano dropping back to make it look like:

----------- Mascherano -------
------- Rodríguez - di María -------

If Mascherano was to drop back, would he be doing that in defence or when they look to attack and then push forward to support Rodríguez and di María?

[vcs]

Argentina seemed to be playing a 4-2-3-1.

----- Back 4 ------
-- Mascherano -- Rodriguez--
-- di Maria ---- Messi ----- Tevez
----Higuain---

Rodriguez is a limited player and definitely not a CM, he left Mascherano with too much defensive work and space for the Germans to run into, and the front 4 were contained very well by Khedira, Schweinsteiger and the German defense.

[Craig]

So was it just bollocks on Maradona's part that Macherano and Cambiasso can't play alongside each other?

[vcs]

Probably. I vaguely seem to remember that is the midfield they played in 2006 under Pekerman, with Riquelme doing the creative job. That side could have gone all the way...

YouTube - Argentina 25 passes goal

[vcs]

I think if you had put this year's Messi in that side, they would have had a great chance of winning the Cup.

[Pothas]

Originally Posted by Craig

So was it just bollocks on Maradona's part that Macherano and Cambiasso can't play alongside each other?

Cambiasso being dropped was not a big deal in Argentina though, most welcomed it at the time. People forget how badly Argentina were playing before Maradona became manager.

Anyway Maschareno being essentially the only proper midfealder was obviously a huge mistake, certainly should have had someone else in their. Given he was in the squad Veron reallly should have played.

[GingerFurball]

Given how Cambiasso and Zanetti were supposed to have acted during a qualifier, there's no way Maradona could have picked them and retained any credibility whatsoever.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Given how Cambiasso and Zanetti were supposed to have acted during a qualifier, there's no way Maradona could have picked them and retained any credibility whatsoever.

I guess I haven't read anything from Paul Vickery in a while, I seem out of touch.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Craig

I guess I haven't read anything from Paul Vickery in a while, I seem out of touch.

Tim Vickery?

[Pothas]

Best football journalist going around.

[Uppercut]

By far the best on the BBC, but Tim Stannard is much better imo.

[marc71178]

Personally I think he's awful and very blinkered.

[Uppercut]

The advantage for Vickery (and Stannard too) is that no one knows anything about South American football to begin with, so merely being informative is enough to make an article excellent. When he commentates on a match that I watched, as he did here, sometimes I think he's just talking bollocks.

[Pothas]

Do not see how he is talking bollocks in that article?

Anyway isnt Marc talking about Stannard?

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Pothas

Do not see how he is talking bollocks in that article?

I just think he's assigning obscure reasoning to a random event. Brazil didn't go out of the World Cup because their manager was too angry, their world-class keeper just made an uncharacteristic boob in an important match and turned it on its head. It's an interesting point that he makes about the team losing their temper when things weren't going their way, but by that stage they were already 2-1 down to the Netherlands with fifteen minutes left- you're extremely unlikely to make it through from there regardless. It's certainly not what I'd call the reason for their failure to win the trophy.

All imo, obvz. But the point is that when you read an article on something you know a bit about you cast a much more critical eye over it than when you know nothing on the subject- which is usually the case when I read his articles.