Conspiracy theories abound
Brazilians reflect on knockout failures
In 2016 the Libertadores Cup Final was between Atletico Nacional of Colombia and Independiente del Valle, a tiny club from Ecuador. Then came the reorganisation. As of last year, Brazil and Argentina had more places. They were also favoured by a huge change that saw the competition played from January to November, rather than being squeezed into the first half of the year. This extension clearly benefits the teams with the deepest pockets – meaning those who can retain the strongest squads or replace their losses in the mid-year transfer window.
Last year’s Final was a Brazil v Argentina affair and the big two enjoyed complete domination again this term. Between them, Brazil and Argentina supplied 12 of the last 16, and seven of the last eight – the exception being Colo Colo of Chile, who snuck past a decimated Corinthians before being swatted away by Palmeiras.
The Final, of course, was an all-Argentinian match up and this left the Brazilians snarling and grumbling, complaining that the competition was an Argentinian plot – the competition stained by administrative chaos, with Brazilian clubs feeling again and again that they had been given the short end of the stick.
Much of the confusion was about suspended players, with CONMEBOL admitting an inability to keep a record of those ineligible for selection.
In this year’s round of 16, Santos of Brazil were penalised for fielding Uruguayan World Cup midfielder Carlos Sanchez, a recent signing from Mexican side Monterrey who was still carrying a suspension from a previous spell in South America and who should not have played against Argentina’s Independiente. As a result a 0-0 away draw was turned into a 3-0 defeat.
It then emerged that River Plate’s Bruno Zuculini and Ramon Abila of Boca Juniors had also been playing when they should have been suspended. The Brazilians were outraged when no action was taken in these two cases, but there was a legal explanation.
According to the rules, in such cases it is up to the opposing team to lodge a protest within 24 hours. But while Independiente did this, the opponents of River and Boca did not.
There were other complaints, too. In the quarterfinals Cruzeiro were unhappy with a red card awarded to their centre-back Dede, who broke the jaw of Boca keeper Esteban Andrada in a collision at a corner. The red card was later rescinded, but Dede’s absence for the last few minutes of the first leg was a clear factor
in the second goal of Boca’s 2-0 win.
In the semi-finals the reigning champions Gremio lost on away goals to River Plate. Seemingly with a foot and a half in the Final, Gremio conceded twice in the last 10 minutes, with the decisive goal coming from a Gonzalo Martinez penalty that was awarded when the video referee spotted a hand ball despite no one on the pitch appealing for it. Although Gremio had no complaints about that decision, they were angry about
the first goal, in which VAR did not intervene when the ball may have brushed the arm as well as the head of Rafael Santos Borre.
Gremio were further incensed by the conduct of River coach Marcelo Gallardo. In the first leg his side came out late for the second half and as a punishment he was banned from coaching his side in the return game. But Gallardo took no notice and went into the dressing room at half-time to give a team talk. An official protest was lodged, but CONMEBOL judged that Gallardo, and not River Plate, should be punished, so the Argentinian club did not lose its place in the Final.
However, rather than obsessing on conspiracy theories, Brazil’s club sides would be better advised to dwell on their own failings. One finalist in the last five years points to a story of continued underachievement – and it was striking that all of the Brazilian teams this year fell in the same way, with an overdose of caution and an insufficiency of courage.
The competition was stained by administrative chaos, with Brazilian clubs feeling again and again that they had been given the short end of the stick