Statements by Vasco Seabra, Arouca coach, in the press room at the Arouca Municipal Stadium, after the draw (2-2), in the 16th round of the League: Game analysis “I think it was a good game. Where we had the misfortune of entering with an atypical move. And sometimes analyzes are made based on little things that... that's it, it was an unprovoked error. The ball ended up bouncing, Pedro took a late step and then the opponent thought he entered the game very strongly. And it had nothing to do with the opponent. Therefore, it is speaking for English to see. I don't like very calm and cold analyzes of what really happens. I think two teams entered the game well, where we completely dismantled Gil Vicente in our first goal attempt. Appreciate my players, because they scored an extraordinary first goal, having dismantled a team that concedes few goals and was unable to put pressure on us. Then, the second goal, once again, a very good combination of runner and once again the exploration of central lateral space, reinforcing what we had also prepared for the game. Two goals, merit of both goals, 100 percent effectiveness in the two opportunities we had, but that comes from collective work, a lot of work from our players, which was not gained in duels, it was gained in possession, quality and the ability to dismantle. Then, Gil Vicente starts to have the ball conceded by us a little more, without creating scoring opportunities, unless there are set pieces. Therefore, I don't even remember Gil Vicente creating opportunities in the first half other than from a dead ball, which he sent to the post, and also scored from a corner. Therefore, our demerit because we didn't attack the ball as hard as we wanted. Gil Vicente tried to build, and he hardly connected at number 6. They put Andrew higher to be able to stretch the ball more and play from the second ball. And therefore, I believe it was a divided game, very competitive. I think our goal difference was fair.” Second half analysis «We started with that move, which I think is visible, and then Gil Vicente tried, without causing any major damage. In other words, we were having some construction difficulties in the first phase of construction. Therefore, we were only able to play from a longer ball and then from the second phase, that is, even close to our goal we were having more difficulties. A little higher up we could find space, and in those moments yes. In the second half we were less able to dismantle in terms of pressure. However, I also think that Gil's ball was a ball conceded by us. Gil Vicente is always looking for the same things, the rupture of interiors. Eventually Luís Esteves came to get it, because they couldn't get out from behind with the two central players and just the six. Therefore, I believe that in the second half it was a very balanced, competitive game. Gil Vicente with an ascendant on the ball, we with control of the game, and we ended up conceding goals only from set pieces, and we with goals scored from construction.” A new global analysis of the game «I don't like intellectual dishonesty. I like people not to pull the wool over my eyes. I think the result was fair, because Gil, with a dead ball, created problems for us, and we, with a constructed game, created problems and scored goals too. Therefore, I believe that overall it was a well-played, competitive game. Not that spectacular game, but there was emotion, there was competition until the end. I think it's a fair result, in which we were sad because we wanted to take three points, but overall, I believe it's a point that ends up being deserved in the end. We played the third consecutive game without losing, we were coming from a difficult phase. The team shows clear signs of growth, aggressiveness, competitiveness. Therefore, it gives us confidence in what we are building.”