Almada Takes Responsibility After América's Defeat: 'The Only One Responsible Is Me'

In the cramped press room at Estadio Banorte, Guillermo Almada sat down, his face showing clear exhaustion. He did not wait for the first question. "The only one responsible is me," he said, his voice firm. "The players have nothing to do with it." That was how the head coach of América opened his post-match press conference after the defeat to Pachuca on matchday 14 of the Apertura 2026. A statement that is not new in football, but this time it carried more weight due to the circumstances: a big club in the final stretch, a newly appointed coach, and a loss that left more questions than answers. América went into the match against Pachuca away from home under pressure to win. This is the closing phase of the regular season, matchday 14 out of 17, a time when every point is worth double the normal value. Pachuca is not an easy opponent. They are known for their effective youth academy, their energetic and hungry style of play. At their home Estadio Banorte, located at an altitude of about 2,400 meters above sea level, Pachuca often turns the geographical advantage into a weapon. But Almada, in the press conference, flatly dismissed this factor. "América has to win at the Azteca, away and on any pitch, so this is not a conditioning factor," he said. That statement was both an affirmation of the culture of a big club and a way to protect his players from excuses. But it also raised a question: was Almada ignoring an important physical variable? The altitude of 2,400 meters affects breathing capacity, ball speed and player endurance. Teams from lowland areas often need 60-90 minutes to adapt, and during that time, the smallest errors can become costly. However, Almada did not want to talk about that. He wanted to talk about the team's performance. "It was the match I liked least since I arrived here," Almada admitted. "There was a lot of parity and both teams generated situations. We were imprecise at certain moments." These words describe a match that was not dominated in terms of play, but was lost due to decisive moments. América were not overrun by Pachuca, but they failed to take their chances, while the opponent did. It was the kind of defeat that comes from inefficiency in finishing and final decisions, not from a tactical system being broken. To understand better, we need to put the match in the context of América under Almada. The Uruguayan coach was appointed not long ago, and he is in the process of building an identity for the team. He arrived with the reputation of a modern-thinking strategist, but time is a luxury he does not have. At a club like América, where results are the only measure, any stumble is scrutinized. Almada understands this, and he chose to take responsibility himself to reduce pressure on the players. "If we don't win, the only one responsible is me, the player has nothing to do with it," he stressed. This is a familiar communication strategy for coaches: standing up to shield the players, creating a buffer against public opinion, and keeping the dressing room calm. But it also comes at a cost. When a coach repeatedly takes the blame, he gradually loses the right to publicly criticize his players when they perform poorly. And if results do not improve, that shield will collapse, taking his own credibility with it. Almada did not only talk about the match. He also mentioned what happens inside the dressing room. "Things are talked about internally," he said. "We have to learn from this match to identify what needs to be improved." This phrasing suggests the problem is not just tactical. If it were only tactical, people would usually talk about training, about adjusting the formation, about changing positions. But "talking internally" often hints at attitude, mentality, or interpersonal relationships. Those are much harder problems to fix than a tactical drill. Another noteworthy point: Almada did not mention any individual error. He did not name any player, did not criticize a specific play. This further reinforces the hypothesis that at least one player made a big mistake in the match, and Almada is deliberately protecting that person. In football, coaches usually only shield when there is a specific individual to protect. If the error belongs to the whole team, they talk about the system. But when they say "the player has nothing to do with it", it is usually to protect one person. Tactically, the match against Pachuca left much to analyze. Almada described "a lot of parity and both teams generated situations". This shows that América were not completely controlled by the opponent. They still had attacking moves, still had chances. But they lacked sharpness. In modern football, when two teams create a similar number of chances, the result is usually decided by the quality of those chances and the ability to convert them. América may have created many shots but from positions that were not really dangerous, or conversely, they had clear chances but missed them. There is no specific data on xG (expected goals) or shot counts, so it is difficult to say for sure. But what Almada said suggests this was a match América should have gotten something from, if they had been more clinical. Another factor that cannot be ignored: Pachuca is a direct rival. They are not a team that is significantly weaker. In recent years, Pachuca have established their position in Liga MX with a young, energetic style and one of the best youth academies in Mexico. They regularly sell players to Europe but still maintain competitiveness through their ability to regenerate the squad. Facing a team like that, away from home, is always a difficult challenge. This defeat is not a shock, but it is a step back in the context of América needing points to improve their position. Psychologically, the pressure on Almada is mounting. He is new, has not had much time to build the team in his image. He has to deal with a dressing room he does not fully understand, a board that always craves titles, and a fanbase that demands perfection. At América, "the obligation to win" is not just a slogan. It is part of the club's identity, passed down from generation to generation. That means any coach has very little time to prove himself. Almada knows that if results do not come quickly, his seat will become unstable. In that context, Almada's statement "the only one responsible is me" was a smart move. It helped him gain favor with the players, who would feel protected. It also eased the pressure from public opinion, at least in the short term. But it does not solve the root problem. If América continue to drop points, the self-blame will become empty. The fans will start to ask: does Almada really have the solutions? Is he capable of turning things around? One of Almada's potential weaknesses is how he deals with objective factors. His dismissal of altitude could be a way to protect the players, but if it is his genuine belief, then it is a blind spot in preparation. Modern football no longer underestimates environmental factors. Top teams often have fitness and nutrition experts to help players adapt to harsh conditions. If Almada ignored the altitude factor, he may have put his players at a disadvantage from the start. Of course, this is speculation. Perhaps he just wanted to focus on what can be controlled, and did not want to create an excuse for losing. Another aspect to consider: América's style of play under Almada. He is known for building a possession-based game, high pressing and flexibility in attacking options. However, for those ideas to be effective, players need time to absorb them. Almada has only had a few months, and the team is still in transition. Matches like the one against Pachuca are a reality check for that process. The result shows there is still much work to be done. On Pachuca's side, they proved they are a formidable opponent. With home advantage and altitude, they played a match full of effort. They did not need to dominate América in terms of play, just to take their chances better. That is a lesson for América: in top football, efficiency matters more than quantity. You can have 60% possession, but if you do not score, you will lose. More broadly, this defeat raises questions about América's ambitions this season. They are at matchday 14, with only three rounds left in the regular season. Their position in the table was not mentioned in Almada's speech, but it is certainly a top concern. In Liga MX, the position in the top group directly affects entering the playoffs (Liguilla) with home advantage or having to play the play-in. Every point is crucial. Therefore, the defeat to Pachuca is not just a loss, but also a step back in the race for the best position. For Almada, the pressure does not only come from results. He also has to face criticism from the media and fans. In Mexico, football is a religion, and América is one of the most loved and hated clubs. Every decision the coach makes is dissected. His repeated taking of responsibility can be seen as a noble quality, but if it becomes a habit, it will lose its effect. The fans want to see action, not just words. In the press conference, Almada also mentioned the need to "learn" and "identify what needs to be improved". These are constructive phrases, but they lack specificity. He did not specify what América need to improve: finishing, defending, or game control? This vagueness may be a way to avoid personal criticism, but it also makes it hard to assess whether he really has a plan. One notable point is the silence of the América board. There was no statement from the president or sporting director about this defeat. In football, silence is sometimes scarier than criticism. It could be a sign of implicit support, or it could be a sign of preparation for a change. Almada needs to understand that his seat depends not only on results on the pitch, but also on the trust of the club's leaders. Tactically, there is a big question that has not been answered: is América being figured out? Almada said this was the match he liked least since arriving. That means opponents have found a way to limit América. In the match against Pachuca, they may have blocked the lines, or exploited the spaces América left. One match is not enough to confirm a trend, but if América struggle in the next two or three matches, the problem will become more serious. What is worrying is that Almada admitted this was his worst match since taking over. That is a stronger signal than the result. A coach usually only admits that when he feels his team played below their level, or when he recognizes a flaw in the system that he has not been able to fix. If it were just a defeat because the opponent was too strong, he would talk about respecting the opponent. But when he says "worst match", he is implicitly admitting that the problem lies with his own team. Another aspect to consider: the players' psychology. They have just suffered a defeat, and their coach has taken responsibility. That can create a positive effect: the players feel protected and are motivated to play better. But it can also create a negative effect: they feel pressure to repay the coach's trust, and that can make them play more tensely. In football, the balance between protection and motivation is an art that not every coach masters. In the context of Liga MX, where coaches are often sacked after poor runs, Almada needs to act quickly. He does not have much time to turn things around. The remaining three rounds of the regular season will be a real test of his character. If América win all three, their position will improve, and criticism will subside. If they continue to drop points, pressure will multiply, and Almada's seat will become more unstable than ever. From the perspective of someone who follows Mexican football, I see this defeat not as a disaster. It is a reminder that América still have a lot of work to do. Almada is a capable coach, but he needs time. The problem is that at América, time is a luxury. He must find a way to balance building the team and getting immediate results. That is no small challenge. A football story never begins in the first minute. It begins with what happens after the final whistle: the self-blame, the handshakes, the eyes looking at the scoreboard. Almada chose to face defeat with honesty. He did not blame the referee, did not make excuses about the pitch, did not criticize the players. He took it upon himself. That is a admirable quality. But will it be enough to help him weather the storm? The answer will come in the next three rounds. In the press room, as the last questions ended, Almada stood up and left. He said nothing more. But what he left behind was enough for people to understand that he is under considerable pressure. At América, every defeat is a small crisis. And Almada, as the leader, must be the one to steer the ship through it. Tomorrow, the players will return to training. They will review the footage, analyze the mistakes, and prepare for the next match. Almada will be there, continuing his work. He knows that in football, there is no room for complacency. Every day is a chance to prove yourself. And at América, that chance always comes with pressure. When the match against Pachuca is in the past, what remains are the lessons. América lost, but they were not destroyed. They still have a chance to make amends. Almada has taken responsibility, but he is not alone. He has a staff, a board, fans. They will all get through this difficult period together. In football, nothing lasts forever. A defeat can be the beginning of a winning run. A self-blame can be the motivation for change. And a coach, even a new one, can still turn things around if he has the character and the support. Almada chose the hardest path: facing the truth. That is the first step forward. Rain on the Workers' Park, the memory never dries. In a faraway place, in Mexico City, a Uruguayan coach is trying to write his own story. He does not need to be a hero. He just needs to be brave enough to admit mistakes and persistent enough to fix them. That is all América need right now.