"Coping with a hangover," by Jerónimo Pimentel

• Jerónimo Pimentel

The end of a tournament tends to polarize the analysis: there are winners and losers, disappointments and revelations, good and bad. It's as if soccer suffers an attack of Manichaeism. Let's do the exercise, for once, of immersing ourselves in the grays.

1. Chile is a great champion. It is always difficult for the South American middle class (Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, sometimes Peru) to face Argentina and Brazil at home. History invites retreat and retreat forces us to rethink the scheme, especially if it is offensive. However, betrayal of identity due to fear rarely pays off. In turn, playing on equal footing against teams that usually field the best in the world is a recklessness that rarely pays off. Sampaoli understood this dilemma well and, without exposing himself, imposed a high-pressure style, without renouncing a first line of 5. The result was sensational: throughout the tournament, Argentina had an average possession above 60%, but in the final, it only reached 43.1%. This achievement translated into shots (18 to 8) and, in the end, in a dominance that made all the midfielders of 'La Roja' stars: Aránguiz (the best), Vidal, and Valdivia. The Bielsista project, after 8 years of consistency, is complete: we have witnessed the reestablishment of Chilean soccer. Sampaoli's problem now is maintaining performance, which is usually more difficult than reaching the top.

2. Brazil is a concern, not Argentina. The fact that they have not been able to win titles for 22 years does not mean that Argentina plays or has played poorly. Martino is a competent coach and has created a team with flaws but functional. He has recovered the balance between his lines (the writer prefers Banega over Biglia) and will undoubtedly be one of the animators of the qualifiers. The drought of titles is due to a series of wrong decisions (putting Maradona as coach was a ridiculous way to waste time), but it would be foolish to punish this process for that accumulation of mistakes. Brazil, on the other hand, is much more problematic: the 'canarinha' is an unknown team, at odds with its identity, traumatized by its failed World Cup, and - oh surprise - lacking in figures. If they appear and it is possible to support Neymar a little better, the idea behind it is still worrying: every new match in the hands of Dunga is another meter of earth on the grave of Telé Santana. Brazil, for too long now, has been playing horribly, and the forcefulness of this debacle begins to threaten the legend of the five-time champions.

3. The middle class as an opportunity. Ecuador and Paraguay have wasted this showcase: the first due to insignificance (as has been seen, it is enough to prevail in Quito); the second, due to lack of resources. Venezuela, on the other hand, faces a new frontier: the one that separates not the weak from the competitive, but the competitive from the candidate. What Colombia is going through is a self-inflicted mystery that supports two readings: if it is understood that the group reached its peak in the World Cup, they will be forced to end the Pékerman project and start a transition; if it is seen as a hiccup, the Argentine coach will be urgently required to quickly regain credit to justify his stay, which will condition his next matches. In that context, Peru should take advantage of this combination of doubts, crises, and declines to strengthen itself on two pillars: it has a playing idea and a convincing process on which there is quick consensus (for leadership, players, fans, and press). Gareca knows that everything is difficult in South America, but he also knows that in soccer, as in politics, there is no power vacuum.

ALSO READ...