By José Odisio
G. Arias 4,5. In the goal he blocked a shot with a rebound into the area that could have been avoided. He imposes a presence and was confident in the centers, but he did not have any more saves.
A. Mendez 5.5. If the qualification were by drive and dedication it would be the figure of the match. He won many physical encounters, especially with Malcorra, and always went on the attack with power. His deficit comes from finishing the crosses poorly and defensive oversights, as in the goal where he scored from a distance.
S. Salcedo 5. It had no significant flaws, although they did not demand much from it either. Good in the aerial game. He had a good offensive header that Rey saved.
N. Goitea 5. He was firm in the crosses behind Luciano and cleared several headers, but in the goal he “slept” and gave Abalos time. He had two chances to score with a header, the last one at the close. And they disallowed a goal due to offside.
M. Luciano 3. Very nervous, as the minutes passed he began to miss the mark and the good offensive projections always ended in nothing. He was replaced at halftime, beaten, although without much justification for leaving.
R. Herrera 5. He still needs to break in and adapt to the team, but he removed several balls and moved well in the relays. He ended up tired.
J. Gómez Mattar 7. Very dynamic, he not only recovered many balls and relieved well, but also always tried to play, although sometimes he went too far with the transfer. He was the leader of the leprous emotional comeback and at 17 years old he asked for the ball and tried.
V. Acuña 3. The one who is expected the most, the one who played the worst. This time he did not have strong obligations in the brand, but he could not take charge of the team, nor did he try. A couple of isolated and unproductive plays left him in the locker room at halftime. And the duo’s decision was correct.
A. All 4. It is very difficult for him to unbalance because the opponent knows that he always engages. It no longer surprises and does not respond offensively, and defensively it contributes little or nothing.
M. Cóccaro 4,5. Very alone in the first half, he fought and ran a lot. With the entry of Hoyos he seemed more comfortable. It wasn’t his night, but it’s disturbing.
L. Herrera 4. He still did not manage to be at last year’s level, his sloppy and incisive way of attacking put him in a labyrinth from which he was never able to get out. You miss it, you have to justify why Newell’s decided to buy it.
W. Nuñez 4. A moment of enthusiasm not capitalized upon entering halftime, then it disappeared and it is difficult to find a positive action.
J. Russo 6. He began to understand the position and improved in his marking, he even headed better. And when he goes on the attack his crosses are interesting, one of them came with the tying goal. Good income for the kid.
M. Hoyos. He came in very energized, won a lot from the top, pivoted well and destabilized a defense that had only suffered from set pieces. And to crown his good entry, he found a “dirty” center and headed across so that Rey could do nothing and score the well-deserved tie.
F. García. Spicy. He got into the game quickly with his daring style in a mix of speed and pasture. He took good centers and recovered several balls.
D. Sotelo. In a few minutes he demonstrated his ability to put the ball on the ground and give it to a teammate with forward passes. It can be an option in the middle, without a doubt.
Worth a look
