The Celeste coach was targeted after their 2-1 defeat in the second date of the 2026 World Cup qualifiers.
Despite a good start, Uruguay ended up losing 2-1 to Ecuador in the second round of the 2026 World Cup qualifiers. The team led by Marcelo Bielsa intended to finish the first two days with a perfect score, but Ecuador said otherwise .
Immediately, one of the targets of this defeat was the Rosario coach who, to a greater or lesser extent, was singled out as one of those responsible for the fall due to his decisions, especially during substitutions.
The newspaper Ovation, for example, reported that “Ecuador won fairly, because if we carefully analyze the 90 minutes, it was the team that seemed the loosest and the one that generated the most in attack, a facet in which the Celeste struggled, something striking for a team led by the Rosarino. “.
They also pointed out that once Ecuador missed a penalty, “the first changes did not give the expected return “.
The Uruguayan edition of ESPN also clarified that “Uruguay fell to Ecuador at the Rodrigo Paz Delgado stadium in Quito 2-1 in the second date of the qualifiers for the 2026 World Cup, playing two-legged very different times.
“In addition, Bielsa brought in Cristian Olivera for Darwin Núñez to oxygenate the attack, Felipe Carballo for De La Cruz to collaborate in containment in the central area and Mathías Olivera for Piquerez to strengthen the left side.” Obviously “The movements did not bring the expected results, because as the minutes passed, Ecuador surpassed Uruguay away, especially with the rise of Estupiñan and Páez. “, they recorded.
“Bielsa’s Celeste suffered a puncture in the second half and ended up losing their first playoff match in one of the toughest zones “, they summarized.
In turn, La Oral Deportiva recognized that “Ecuador was much more than Uruguay. La Celeste only generated two goals in the entire match: Agustín Canobbio’s goal and a high shot from Federico Valverde in the second half. Marcelo Bielsa’s men were controlled and overtaken by the rival “.
“Uruguay didn’t play as much as they could, but that’s also a consequence of their size. What changed to make it so different from what was done in the 3-1 victory against Chile that even seemed short on the scoreboard? The position of certain footballers, the imprecision of deliveries, defensive distractions and the rival “, they continued.
“Ecuador showed a much higher level than Chile and that had nothing to do with the fact that they played at home, because they had already had a very good match in Buenos Aires against Argentina. . It has players with great speed, great physicality and great technique. Added to this is that Manuel Ugarte was not as effective in marking because the lack of oxygen prevented him from making a great demonstration and that is why Ecuador controlled half of the field.” , they argued.
They were also struck by the lack of precision. “The light blues missed unusual passes, half a meter long, or on the contrary they threw long balls, which is the worst recipe when playing high up. . However, if there is anything to highlight it is the strength, as he arrived twice and scored on the first of them.
Follow at El Deportivo
Source: Latercera
I’m Scott Moore, a professional writer and journalist based in the US. I’ve been writing for various publications for over 8 years now, and have been working as an author at athletistic for the past five years. My work has been featured by some of the leading sports websites and magazines across Europe.
