Napoli Have Opportunity to Gain Ground on Juventus Against Cagliari
No Cavani, no Pandev, no problem? We'll soon find out.
Following another Juventus loss, which is all too rare in Serie A, Napoli must find a way to take advantage of the second Juventus stumble of the season. That is, if they indeed want to compete for the Scudetto.
Unfortunately, Cavani not playing will make that a difficult task, as he leads the Azzurri with eight goals this season in Serie A. Is it possible we could see Insigne and Vargas start up front for Napoli?
Insigne proved he deserves to start for Napoli every week. If you've read anything I've written before about this side, this isn't news to you.
Vargas is a bit of a different story. He exploded onto the scene against AIK in Napoli's first Europa League game with three goals. Could we see similar magic should Mazzarri give the young, Chilean striker a start?
We won't find out Monday, as Mazzarri indicated he would not give Vargas the start alongside Insigne.
After Sunday's results, Juventus remain atop the table with 32 points. Napoli have 27 going into their game, while host Cagliari have 16. Cagliari have 13 goals on the season, which means they're averaging a goal a game. If that average holds, one goal won't beat Cagliari; Napoli will need two.
The key to winning this game is obvious: Insigne must rise to the occasion. With Napoli lacking depth on the bench in the forward position, Insigne should get a full 90 minutes to show what he can do. Though not starting, Vargas may see a little time on the pitch Monday as a sub.
In the end, this match presents two tremendous opportunities for Napoli.
First, this side's youth have an opportunity to shine and reassure Cavani that there are pieces around him to keep Napoli strong up front for years to come, thus incentive for El Matador to stick around.
Second, it's an opportunity to gain ground on a team that never loses.
Will the Partenopei take advantage? We'll see Monday.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?