Bielsa: We should have gotten 7 points; Valverde substitution was to strengthen the attack

After a 0-1 loss to Spain in the final group stage match, Bielsa's Uruguay concluded their World Cup campaign. At the post-match press conference, he stated that substituting Valverde was to strengthen the attack.

From defeating many strong teams two years ago to now being eliminated in the group stage, how did it come to this? Is this one of the biggest failures in Uruguay's history?

It's difficult to clearly explain the connection between what happened two years ago and now. In this World Cup, we could have gotten 7 points, but we only got 2, which is a result of my poor coaching. I was responsible for managing and deploying a group of talented players, but I failed to convert their potential into results. If you want an explanation—though I don't think you want to hear this—I'll repeat: we should have gotten 7 points, but we only got 2.

Were those mistakes the key reasons for this poor performance?

You can imagine how I feel, being the one responsible for leading Uruguay in this World Cup. No one wants to hear explanations, and that's normal. Your questions aren't really seeking answers, but rather venting your emotions on me, because I'm in charge and everyone is very disappointed with my work.

But if I were to analyze, I would include mistakes, because mistakes are part of football. However, while making mistakes, we also failed to capitalize on enough opportunities and didn't handle the goals we conceded or the opponent's influence well. Those conceded goals could have been avoided, but that's part of the game. Nevertheless, based on our performance, we should have gotten 7 points, yet you reporters and Uruguayan fans want to vent your disappointment on me.

What do you think you left behind for Uruguayan football during your 39 months in charge?

I left nothing for Uruguayan football. A coach who works in a country for three years and doesn't achieve results cannot leave any meaningful impact. Fourth place in the World Cup qualifiers is worthless, third place in the Copa América is not valuable either, and this performance doesn't warrant discussion. I left nothing from this experience.

Muslera and captain Valverde were both substituted at halftime. Was Uruguay's failure due to specific mistakes, or a combination of various factors?

I'm answering you because I have to. If on the first day we had 15 scoring chances, if the goals conceded in the second match hadn't been decisive, if this match had ended in a draw as it should have... that's how it is. Muslera decided to come off, and I substituted Valverde with Viñas because I wanted to strengthen the attack, which is consistent with the characteristics of the players we brought on and took off.

What was this team lacking?

The team's attitude was impeccable, and there were no issues with fitness. Tactical approach wasn't the deciding factor, but I do think this was a match where we had to work very hard to maintain balance. We should have won back possession in the opponent's half, and playing this kind of match against a team like Spain... the match was evenly contested, and we should have drawn.

Used all three substitution opportunities, but not all available substitutes.

Using all substitution opportunities wasn't because I ignored the consequences of my every decision; the players brought on were those I thought should be playing. The fluidity Spain showed in the match was not something we could compensate for with effort alone; we had to work very hard to maintain our game plan, while Spain played with more freedom.

AF's PC site is now live! Browse full news, comments, match details and stats on your computer. Visit: www.allfootballapp.com