What's Next...

There was one thing that I saw in the Paraguay vs Peru game that really caught my attention:

Peru probably started two or three good counter attacks (in the first half) started either by la foquita or somebody else. When the ball passed through Roberto Palacios, the surprise of the counter attack was totally lost. That man does not know how to get rid of the ball quickly, and I noticed that these type of mistakes really hurt Peru, even more considering his plays would end up in mistakes which the Paraguayans knew how to explode.

So my question is, why is el Chorrillano still Peru's conductor? He's been playing in the main Peruvian squad for as long as I can remember, and save for the 1998 WCQ in which Peru and Chile fought over that last spot until the final game, it seems like he hasn't helped Peru much.

It seems to me that coming November, Chile can really hurt Peru in the center field. When Chile aligns with their strong defensive midfielders, like Fuentes and Melendez, they can perform at a really high level and that could accentuate even more Peru's mistakes.

Of course, this is only one of the many issues concerning the Peru vs Chile game. For example, Peru could take advantage of the fact that Chile hasn't scored in 3 games, and it's becoming a real problem if our forwards are not at the required level.

 

I don't know if anybody agrees with me, but I think those three players have different qualities.

I still think Pizarro relies in long balls a little bit too much - it's gotten to the point that I think he's been so "Europe-ized" that it's hard to see as to whether he's style of play would benefit us or not. I don't really think so. Also, sometimes I think Olmos gives him more freedom than he should have, and Pizarro ends up running all over the place, usually going way too far back to get a ball and leaving the forwards lonely with no connection. I think this problem has to do with Pizarro being more like a creative midfielder than an "enganche", and thus he has the tendency to stay at a certain distance from the offensive line.

I think Valdivia is more like the Pizarro we used to know - very technical, dribbles when he sees the opportunity, can pass the ball well and quickly and can organize fast and cooperated attacks with other players. His problem lies in his stamina - being able to last less than 45 minutes in a game is not acceptable at national level competitions. It's true that he's been only seriously considered in Servette a few games back and that's he's slwoly regaining some momentum, and hopefully he'll be able to last an entire game next time around. I think Valdivia is something Olmos has been looking for, and it complements nicely the wingers that he likes to use so much.

Out of all three of them, I like Jimenez the best. I think he fits that position of enganche better than te other two, mostly because he plays more aggressively than either Pizarro or Valdivia. If he'll see an option to kick, he'll do it. He's also very fast, and has the ability to start a quick counter attack if necessary. Jimenez had the bad luck to be included in the team that failed in Copa America, and because of that he has probably gotten bad rep. Nevertheless, although the team as a whole failed, I think Jimenez didn't play bad at all in the tournament.

So, basically: My two options would be Jimenez and Valdivia, of which I like Jimenez the best. Pizarro should be considered only until Olmos finds a formation that will suit his style of play. Pizarro's experience should be considered and there's a reason as to why he plays so well in Udinese, but because of that Pizarro is one of those players that you use to build a team around them, and I don't think Olmos is the type of guy that would do that.

 

peru's only scored 2 goals in their past four games since the 3-1 win in uruguay...

meanwhile, solano, pizarro, la focquita and even mendoza's sloppy a$$ are scoring goals in europe...what the fucq?

this is gonna be a dog fight come Nov. 17...good luck to the chilenos.