Venezuela vs CHILE, 28 de Marzo en Caracas (Clasificatorias 2018) [R]

Orellana no jugó tan bien, hay que llamarlo pero a la banca.

 

Hay que ser justos y me di cuenta que me equivoqué en este post.

Estuve revisando imágenes de los últimos goles y me di cuenta que en realidad quien da la asistencia para nuestro 3er gol, fue Orellana y no Sánchez como originalmente lo había pensado. En fin, con esto se mandó una buena jugada en todo el partido, ya que del resto fue completamente intrascendente, en donde a los defensas rivales solo les bastaba trancarle suavemente para quitarle la pelota. Muy blando y casi nunca (con excepción de la jugada de ese gol) se entendió con los compañeros en jugadas colectivas y elaboradas. Para mí, quedó "al debe", pero como sea, igual intentó colaborar y hacer algo, por lo que en el futuro igual puede ser aporte. Merece ser llamado, basicamente para hacer banca en nuestro plantel.

 

Lo positivo es que hay una base de delanteros para hacer frente las Clasificatorias. Si bien, they are not setting the world on fire, con Sánchez-Vargas y Orellana de punteros + Pinilla-Larrondo, hay un ataque muy confiable.

Luego, el mediocampo con nombres como Vidal-Aránguiz-Pedro Hernández-Matías-Diaz- Carmona y Gutiérrez, está más que cubierto. En un mundo ideal, Valdivia se aburre de jugar contra amateurs , vuelve al fútbol de alta competencia y se transforma en opción válida.

El puesto de defensas centrales sigue siendo el más débil. Tal parece que Pizzi se la jugará con Jara-Medel y las alternativas de Díaz-Roco.

 

Déjate de "leseras".


Lo único que pasa, es que soy humano y por ello, perfectamente puedo equivocarme en más de alguna ocasión, como sucedió ahora. Lo que si es importante, es que yo no tengo ningún problema en reconocer inmediatamente cuando la he "cagado" con algo, y en este caso me retracté de lo que había manifestado, antes de que cualquiera otra persona me hubiera hecho ver mí error al respecto.

 

Bueno, termine de ver el partido grabado, ya que justo a la hora que jugaban tengo clases en la universidad.
Los primeros veinte minutos Chile no dio pie con bola, no veiamos una. Y mas encima Herrera regalo el gol, aunque Otero tuvo algo de merito tambien.
Cuando Vidal y Sanchez se pusieron a jugar , marcaron la diferencia. ORellana jugo bien aunque sigue estando debajo de Vargas, se supone que esta doble fecha era su gran oportunidad, asumiendo que Vargas vuelve en los partidos de septiembre. Medel impasable cada vez intervino, Bouseajour muy bien en el ida y vuelta. Gutierrez busco y puso un cambio de frente notable en el tercer gol de Chile. SIlva impone sus terminos en el medio aunque pego demasiado en este partido, a mi gusto la amarilla le llego bastante tarde. Y Jara, se debio haber ido expulsado en esa jugada dond el venezolano Martinez partio mas atras y le gano. Asi como nos quejamos de la patada de M Rojo a M Fernandez en el partido del jueves pasado, ahora tambien hay que reconocer que Jara la "saco barata". Ademas recien ibamos 2-1 y era el min 55 de partido mas o menos.
ME gusta este nuevo sistema de Pizzi de jugar con un 9 de area. PInilla demostro que puede ser opcion, asi como Castillo, Henriquez, Larrondo, etc.

 

Against Venezuela, Pizzi’s tactical decisions were mixed. Two of his key decisions were correct. He erred in one significant decision (maybe more).

In Santiago against Argentina, he used Alexis as the lone centre forward in a 4-2-3-1, which was never going to work; he simply can’t play that role. In Barinas, he got it right; Pinilla as the lone centre forward made perfect sense.

Playing Beausejour as a wide left midfielder in Santiago was a bad idea from the start – the fact that he is played out of position so often is why so many people doubt this guy. In Barinas, Pizzi used him as a left full back. It worked, as it was supposed to; left full back and wing back are the only two roles that Beau can play.

For me, a key tactical error was made by Pizzi in playing Silva as a midfielder in a 4-3-3. Against Brazil in Santiago last year, he played in the backline, which made sense. But, playing him as a midfielder in a trio of three makes no sense; he doesn’t offer the dynamism, passing, movement and other crucial qualities offered by the usual trio: Vidal, Aránguiz and Díaz. I could understand playing him in a midfield of four, but a midfield of three, with Vidal spending most of the time in attack-mode? It was a mistake. The result was that his presence disturbed the balance in the middle. We got away with it because the home team is in a difficult period.

In a way, Pizzi was fortunate that Jara stayed on after his foul on Martinez. And, that leads me to my most pressing question:

How much longer can Jara be played?

If Venezuela had players sharking our penalty area consistently with their speed, then what can we expect from Jara in Santiago against Uruguay (the strongest team in the region, at the moment)? How will he do in Barranquilla? Buenos Aires? Quito?

With Paraguay away and Bolivia at home next, do we bring in Roco?

 

Jara, although not the most skilled in other duties, has always been our fastest player, something always Sampaoli praised about him as being his best contribution to the team and also the reason why he had him at the back to support Medel, whom may be fast, is not even close to him when it gets to running behind fast opponents. It's no surprise that since Bielsa took the team (with both Borghi and Sampaoli, after him), Jara has always been among those called to form part of the team. Now if you want to play our back with some other more static players, instead of him, it's perfectly feasible, but if you do that you'll need a more specialized central defender, one who remains almost at all times close to our back zone and of course, with that change say goodbye to high pressing, because if you are left with few defenders at the back, fast opponents will penetrate like a "hot knife into butter" past our defense. You like it or not, having Jara in the team is what allows our team to step a few meters forward marking further away from our goal zone.

Beausejour, started being a leftwinger and sometimes acted as a midfielder, and it was Sampaoli mostly, whom started using him as a left back (despite how at the end, I didn't support him, gotta give some credit to the "midget" on this), precisely due to his work rate and speed to switch fast from the diferent roles he must play. For both, Bielsa and Borghi, Bosa always played up front. In Santiago, despite his position, he had to give lots of assistance to Mena in his defending duties, reasons why, when needed up front, he not always was where he suposed to be. You can't really blame him for that, as not always our defense must control 2 opponent attacking players such as Messi and Di María, whom are a nightmare to any defense of the whole world, and we are not diferent than them, so he had to priorize, if help more up front or help more at the back. He opted for the second, which I believe was important, for us to not get slaughtered by them, as I was expecting, before the match started.


On regards on why Pizi probably decided to use Silva as back midfielder, is because at the time, we didn't have so many players to asume that role, so he had to improvise somehow with him, unless you wanted to get Rabello again in the team or some other "new" guy, instead

On regards to Alexis, I agree.

 

Silva y Gutiérrez son jugadores válidos, pero siento que no deben estar al mismo tiempo en cancha. O uno u otro, no ambos.

 

I think Silva in midfield was an emergency scenario. I don't think we will see him in that position again for some time, but I was worried how much he had to resort to fouling. Venezuela clearly had more success attacking down his flank and more than once Silva had to resort to tactical fouls (good for him). But this situation is neither ideal nor sustainable against better opponents than Venezuela.

As an emergency stop-gap he was ok though.

 

In relation to Beausejour, I see your point. I suspected that Pizzi would prioritise ascendancy in the middle over two-way oversight of the flanks (Mena + Beau vs. Messi; Isla + Orellana vs. Di María).

I understand your view on Jara, and I could re-tell some of the many instances in the past where I’ve stated his value. But, I don’t like false dichotomies. We like to talk about Jara in the extreme sense, whilst completely ignoring the other very reasonable alternatives. We could all even argue that taking out Jara could go as far as causing this team’s collapse, which I don’t think is true. Nothing is written in stone. Also, in the event that Jara is absent from the team – and, as you have said, his under-emphasised speed is also missing – Pizzi could still cover this perceived limitation with tactical instructions. In short, that’s what good managers do. Not all would be lost.

I’d like Pizzi to find accessible alternatives in defence, because no one can guarantee that certain key figures will always be available. Who replaces Jara if unavailable or in poor form? Who replaces Isla on the right? What do we do if we lose Medel?

 

My take on this – looking at the big picture and all the teams – is that we can’t afford to lose those key pieces in the middle. That’s where it all happens.

It almost seems like the only team in the continent that can still match and/or out-perform opponents without key figures is Uruguay. They can lose guys like Suarez or Godin, and yet still find ways to obtain favourable results.

 

Silva, whether playing or not in his club, has performed well for La Roja. He is good as a backup.