Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: SoccerInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  Sports e-mail alerts  |  RSS

Mexico vs. Argentina 2010 World Cup: Argentina wins, 3-1

Carlos Tevez scored twice -- once when he was clearly offside, giving the officials two horribly blown calls today -- and Argentina again looked impressive in a 3-1 win over Mexico in the World Cup round of 16.

Game stats here, in-game commentary here, shot chart here.

By Matt Bonesteel  |  June 27, 2010; 4:38 PM ET
Categories:  2010 World Cup , Argentina , Mexico  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Argentina vs. Mexico in World Cup round of 16
Next: Gulati, Bradley to discuss coaching job in 2 weeks


Regular viewers of international soccer matches could accept this level of incompetence by officials. For those people who only tune in during the World Cup, the credibility of the game is pretty much blown.

Posted by: milevin | June 27, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

"For those people who only tune in during the World Cup, the credibility of the game is pretty much blown."

I'm pretty much fine with this...

Posted by: JkR- | June 27, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Mexico and England lose on the same day.

Am I in heaven?

Posted by: Hoost | June 27, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Get rid of the bad calls and England still lost and Mexico still lost. US would have still been first in their group and still lost to Ghana.

Did they really impact the results of the WC so far? Not really.

However, I still think we need instant replay so this discussion doesn't have to happen in the future.

Posted by: Southeasterner | June 27, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Tying or tie-breaking goals change the tenor of matches.

Posted by: mason08 | June 27, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Southeaster, if the US wins the second game 3-2 who do we rest in the third game that is refresher for the last game? Does Dempsey have more in the tank at the end of the Ghana game because he rested against Algeria and he gets on to a pass near the end against Ghana and he finishes?

Mexico was attacking and confident until the offside no call. Does the defender that gave up the ball lose his head and stay off his game and make an error if the goal for Argentina is disallowed?

Why does England send all of their players into the box on a free kick if the game against Germany is tied leaving them exposed in the back. Does England come out flat in the second half in a tie game.

Unfortunately calls or no calls do change things. Emotions and tactics can change dramatically based on goals or disallowed goals.

Posted by: csd1 | June 27, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Philly's new stadium in Chester looked really nice in the ESPN2 game after Argentina-Mexico.

I'm no architectural critic but they did a great job visually incorporating the big river bridge into the design so that it looks like it's coming out of the superstructure of the far side of the stadium.

Good debut on the field for the new stadium too as the Phunyuns rallied from a goal down in the heat to win 3-1. Turning point was Chris Seitz saving a PK for Philly a few moments after they had equalized on their own PK.

Some guy called Fred (no last name?!!) scored, too. Looked kinda familiar.

Posted by: Joel_M_Lane | June 27, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Joel_M_Lane | June 27, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

I agree PPL is a great addition to the league. Incorporating the bridge was a nice affect. When a truck would go over the bridge in the background of the stadium it would looked like the truck was actually driving on part of the stadium for a few seconds.

Don't think they'll make the playoffs but Phili could make a nice run down the stretch with lots of home games and be setup with some great momentum for next year with lots of young talent.

Posted by: csd1 | June 27, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Question: why is it that the dudes calling the MLS game of the week don't realize that they're playing with the same dang ball that they're playing with in the World Cup, and have been all season?

Posted by: DadRyan | June 27, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Returning to the topic of referee miscues, DCU experienced an outrageous hand of God moment as the ref had a perfect view from 10 yards away. Onalfo had to respond with an offensive sub because we were indeed trailing. Hopefully James' injury isn't too severe--things went down hill fast when Pena entered the match. Rice would have been a much better option.

Posted by: dcarmy | June 27, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately calls or no calls do change things. Emotions and tactics can change dramatically based on goals or disallowed goals.

Posted by: csd1 | June 27, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Luckily players/coaches actually don't let bad calls get to them as much as you do. Had the US given up after the bad offside’s call against Algeria we would have never met Ghana in the round of 16. Would we have rested Dempsey or another player during the match against Algeria had we beat Slovenia? Maybe, although I’m not sure Bradley wouldn’t have given a bit of extra effort against Algeria to help make sure we would play Ghana and Uruguay/SK over Germany and Argentina/Mexico.

Players are much more resilient then you give them credit for and I bet you can’t find one player on one national team who hasn’t had to deal with a bad call either in league play or national team play. If you make it to the WC and give up after one bad call you probably won’t make it too far.

And once again I agree with instant replay and review.

Posted by: Southeasterner | June 27, 2010 11:04 PM | Report abuse

1) Emotion is not the same as tactics (subs, players up on set pieces) or strategy (go for the win in the third match, or not). After the offsides against Algeria, nothing had changed tactically or strategically. They still had to go for the win, so that's what they did. I can guarantee you that, had that goal counted, and stood up until 60' or so, the subs would have been different. To say that the four bad calls you listed had no overall effect is just bunk.

2) If you don't think that the Mexicans just lost their heads for about 10 minutes after the goal that shouldn't have been, then I really don't know what to say. The second goal was a gift from a fullback who entirely lost track of where he was, where his opponents were, and what he was doing. He passed the ball straight to the Argie, fer chissake! It didn't even require a nice tackle like Clark's turnover. Then again... The Mexicans are quite good at losing their heads when things get tough.

Posted by: mason08 | June 27, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately this is part of the game and until they introduce instant replay or more refs on the field/sidelines it will continue to be part of the game. So as a player you have to understand the tactics but you also can’t let emotion get the best of you. This isn’t some crazy new thing that just happened in this world cup, players have had to deal with it since the start of the game.

Our strategy to win the WC can’t be dependent on being able to sub out Dempsey or Donovan for 30 minutes so they can be fresh for the next game. We give up goals in the first 20 minutes of the game so every player out there should still be fresh. Starting Clark had much more to do with that loss to Ghana than a lack of effort from Dempsey (who played a brilliant game) or Donovan who put through more crosses to the center than probably ever before that Findley and Altidore couldn’t convert.

Mexico’s pathetic defense that was hammered throughout that game would have still been devastated and lost that game for them with or without the offsides Argentina goal.

The only goal that I could concede on is that England non-goal which would have put them 2-2 at half and allowed them to significantly change their tactics in the second half, but I don’t believe that English players were even slightly impacted emotionally, they barely challenged it after it happened until they saw the replay.

Posted by: Southeasterner | June 28, 2010 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Yes it was a bad call for England, but they still had the momentum, yet were unable to do anything with it. The 3rd and 4th goals were the result of counter attacks, and even though England had defenders back, the Germans ran right past them and left them in the dust.

Did England play different tactics trailing by one, than they would have if it was tied? Not on your life. You have to win the game, and they had the momentum, so you push players up on set peices.

You take advantage of your opportunities to score, or you go home.

Posted by: Ireland2 | June 28, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company