In the same way, Universitario had the responsibility of reversing that adverse situation with a superior game and individualities; however, he was unable to make use of his best football arguments on the field, he missed Edison Flores in attack, he lacked the inventiveness of Piero Quispe to break the lines and the effectiveness of Alex Valera in front of goal. Without those pillars, it was difficult to find the path to a comeback and the game ended in a defeat with a disagreement between its fans and the players themselves.
The VAR controversy
The VAR does not always affect the result, but when it takes center stage in a match, a bitter feeling remains. Universitario had two goals disallowed in Tarma. The first was from Valera, when the game was already 1-0 and the creams were looking for a tie. The Merengue forward jumped at the moment that goalkeeper Ignacio Barrios put the ball into play. The rebound was picked up by Valera and scored. Referee Joel Alarcón annulled that goal because he interpreted that there was obstruction in the serve, but the ball was already in play. The VAR never called him to review the play.
In the plugin, the opposite happened. The VAR did intervene to annul José Rivera’s goal for a previous foul by Matías Di Benedetto against Janio Posito. The cream defender touched the ball, Alarcón did not collect that action and let the play continue until the ‘Tunche’ goal; but then the VAR called the referee to see the screen to later invalidate everything and show the yellow card to the Argentine. That is why it was the claim of the meringues at the end of the game. Although the VAR is not responsible for what the ‘U’ did in football, it did have a part in the result.
lacked inventiveness
Posito’s goal at 6′ changed everything Universitario had prepared for his visit to Tarma. Fossati’s team had to go looking for an equalizer early and that situation forced them to take center stage in the game. Quispe and Pérez Guedes were the ones called to appear more with the ball to give the team mobility, but they were not comfortable nor did they find a way to put in a goal-bound pass. The ‘U’ lacked inventiveness, creativity and partnership in the last line. That Quispe-Valera connection did not work out on this occasion and was well contained by the rival defense.
Not being able to do so, the creams appealed to their individualities with Andy Polo and José Bolívar on the wings. Also with Horacio Calcaterra, Yuriel Celi and Luis Urruti in the complement; but it was not a solution to the problem either. He found an ADT tidy as much as possible and not leaving him many options for creation. The ‘U’ lacked ideas to break lines and bring danger to Barrios’ goal.
better efficiency
Universitario shot four times directly at the goal and could not score. For a team that fights the Clausura and keeps its chances of reaching the playoffs at the end of the year intact, failing against the rival goal can take its toll. Although it was difficult for the ‘U’ to generate dangerous plays, with real chances of scoring, they did have some that could help them change their luck on the scoreboard. The lack of efficiency in closed games defines the fate of a team and the creams understood it perfectly.
The few balls that reached the feet of Valera or Rivera did not go directly to the goal. There were deflected shots that add to the statistics, but are not decisive in the game. Universitario needs, when visiting, to make a difference because that’s how they win championships. Against Melgar in Arequipa he had one and put it in. But now, against ADT, beyond the two disallowed goals, he needed that effectiveness. Shooting outside the area is also an option.
they missed flowers
Always having the entire squad available for an important game increases the chances of success. This time, the ‘U’ could not count on Edison Flores in Tarma and there, possibly, they lost a player who decides at key moments. Fossati’s team lacked inventiveness and verticality to filter passes between the ADT defenders, something that ‘Orejas’ has when he transfers the ball with his feet. Without him, Universitario loses in play, association and offensive weight. It is true that they have good players, but it is always better to have everyone.
The same happens with Emanuel Herrera and Alexander Succar, who were also not considered and could have been an option for DT in a match of this similarity. Similarly, Fossati’s changes during the game didn’t work out either. The ‘U’ had a difficult time in Tarma and now they have to look ahead to continue with options to be the Clausura champion and get into the definition for the national title.
Receives our newsletter: we will send you the best sports content, as Depor always does.