The criticism centers on Argentina’s path through the tournament. The report says Lionel Scaloni’s team faced Switzerland, Cape Verde, Egypt and Jordan, while avoiding major European contenders such as Spain and France before the final.
That has created a familiar tournament debate: was the route genuinely favourable, or did stronger teams simply fail to reach the same stage? Argentina had no control over the draw’s consequences, and Martínez’s argument is that every knockout opponent still required a different approach.
The report also points to moments that complicate the “easy run” narrative. Argentina reportedly needed extra time against Cape Verde, fell two goals behind Egypt and had to recover from an early deficit against England in the semi-final.
Those episodes do not prove the route was the toughest available, but they do underline Martínez’s broader point. Knockout football rarely follows the script. A supposedly weaker opponent can bring a different tactical problem, while a highly rated team can exit before the favourites meet them.
Scaloni adopted the same position, with the report quoting him as saying: “Não existem adversários fáceis. Você precisa jogar as partidas. Nós não damos nada como garantido”.
The manager’s message is clear: reputation matters less than execution. Argentina’s campaign will ultimately be judged by how they perform in the final, not by the teams eliminated elsewhere.
The route debate will continue until the last whistle. Argentina’s next storyline, however, is simpler: can Martínez, Scaloni and their players finish the job and make the criticism irrelevant?