PDA

View Full Version : Some reasons for optimism



jloome
08-11-2008, 12:19 AM
I usually end up writing some long screed right after TFC play each week somewhere on these boards, but I wasn't really up for that this week. It's a lot harder to be critical when the news is good; you tend to lose your objectivity in the moment and the analytical process comes to a screeching halt -- a natural extension of not being mired in the whole denial/bargaining/acceptance thing, maybe.

But I figure there are a few things about Saturday that really were quite different from recent games and gave reason for both optimism and concern, so what the hell, here goes:

1) We weren't good, overall. We were, however, more positionally sound than in recent games. While it's true were were badly outshot, 13 of Colorado's chances were off net and of the 10 on, I counted six that were really dangerous. Okay, that's still a lot and means we depend on Sutton. But it's also a hell of a lot less than 23. A lot of the reason for that poor shooting performance is that the team did not give up good looks, for the most part. Score one on the plus side, sorta.

2) Our defensive pressure was still very problematic. This team just doesn't realize the necessity of quick pressure in this league. We started the game well, with the guys really going in quick and hard on their men, but by minute eight we were starting to back off and picking them up late into our box, with the guys running back to their defensive positions not mindful of the play developing behind them etc. In other words, the usual problems.

3) Fortunately, we were playing Colorado, and for all their spells of short passing possession, their attacked had the same general lack of creativity as ours. THey were doubly punished by the fact that our fullbacks generally stayed back for the bulk of the game and weren't caught forward as often; that took their wide players out a little, although they had more such opportunities as our players tired.

4) The heat (92 F to us old types) and the altitude should've given COlorado a major advantage and it was obvious from all the cramping and issues that is hurt us; but it didn't put us out. And that's a hell of a home field advantage to overcome. I think part of that comes down to better communication; the players seemed more animated. Both Robbo and Barrett could be both seen and heard (thanks to the stellar attendance) directing positional traffic all game. And you could hear Carver screaming from the bench in the second half for Smith to play with his head up, which seemed to make a substantial difference. He still hasn't learned to hit the broad side of a barn (nerves? adjusting to pro speed? he scored regularly in college) but his runs and service were much better after the half.

5) Both Attakora (he's dropped the gyan part, apparently) and Gala deserve to see regular sub time now. For all the people noting that Gala needs to bulk up, I'd also point out that his foot control and technical ability were so impressive that even without the requisite strength he was able to hold off Uho Ihemelu by getting lower to the ground and using leverage, which was why Ihemelu got so pissed off and shoved him to the turf. Gala was basically schooling a guy who's been one of the better defenders in the league this season.

And Attakora looked (lord forgive me) better than Wynne has lately; he was positionally much more one-dimensional -- as in, defensively one-dimensional -- but that was what we needed. Both he and James looked dominant in the tackle. A couple were so sickly smooth they looked liked they came from the feet of much older, much more lucratively compensated non-MLS players.


6) AS much as Smith improved in the second half, he doesn't have a future playing like that. Developmental players aren't 23 any more, they're 16, 17. He's too old to become a better-than-usl level player, so it's either there and he has to show it, quick, or he's next season's Andrea Lombardo.

7) AS good as Velez was for four or five games immediately after his disastrous start, we looked better yesterday without his positional issues; again, that may be unfair to an extent, as part of that is caused by having to move over so often to cover for Wynne.

8) The 4-3-3 was a good idea, because it clogged up the field, slowed things down, and kept our guys from being destroyed by the local conditions. Not sure if that's why Carver chose it, or just because if fit the personnel at hand. But it worked. If we play against a good team in that posture, however, we're gonna get hammered. No offense to speak off, despite the best intentions of Ibee and Ricketts, who were the onyl two really creating anything.

9) Robbo was a fucking monster. If he had defense-splitting passing abilities as well, he'd still be at Sunderland and starting. Why, oh why, isn't the rest of the team learning from his ability to close on his player quickly in the midfield, as he is just about the only player we have who does?

10) Barrett deserved man of the match. Why? Because while you could argue that Robbo was much bigger over the course of the whole thing, or you could argue that Sutton standing on his head a couple of times made up for the long shot he spilled and the cross he misplayed. And you could argue that without the kids stepping up they may not have won.

But all those feature the term "could argue." You can't argue that without Barrett's moment of brilliance, TFC wouldn't have won.

11) Maybe not have Cunningham's globe-sized anchor around everyone's neck helped, too.

Can't think of anything else relevant. It's all moot now; we're two points up on the Galaxy for the last playoff spot. Season begins now.

Brooker
08-11-2008, 01:03 AM
great post, man. a nice breakdown.

and dichio gets carded within 5 minutes of him coming on the field. ahhh now things are getting familure. :D

it was such a relief to see him get some playing time. that and #11 on your list are why im so optimistic!

Cashcleaner
08-11-2008, 02:31 AM
We certainly weren't fantastic, but I would point out that a lot of the reserve players brought on showed a lot more confidence than you would first assume.

And you brought up a good remark about playing 4-3-3. Commerce City was apparently sweltering that day and slowing things down a bit was vital to hang on against a team that used to those conditions (not to mention the elevation). Like you said, it may have been just a neccesity with the squad Carver fielded, but it was a good decision for that one game.

I think on paper you could expect a draw given our roster and the conditions of the game, but a win with all that taken into consideration is a nice bonus.

trane
08-11-2008, 05:36 AM
Fair assessmnet overall. They were not great but being more sound positionaly at the back particullrly realy paid off. They may have picked some guys late, but at least they did not allow the usual one on one with Sutton. I did not see Casey's first chance so I am not sure what happened there.

Mark in Ottawa
08-11-2008, 07:12 AM
And how about that indirect free kick 6 yards from goal?
That was pretty pathetic don't you think?

Shaughno
08-11-2008, 07:25 AM
And how about that indirect free kick 6 yards from goal?
That was pretty pathetic don't you think?

I missed the game unfortunately but when I saw the replays I literally was in shock. Hand ball in the box on a pass back to the keeper and all he got was a yellow and indirect kick?? How the fuck does that work? Should have been a penalty.

ACSertL
08-11-2008, 07:26 AM
Shaughno...as far as I know Condoul didn't even get booked.

bhoybobby
08-11-2008, 07:55 AM
Yeah, Smith hasn't got it I'm afraid, no speed, can't hold the ball & gives it away. Bye bye.

denime
08-11-2008, 07:59 AM
I missed the game unfortunately but when I saw the replays I literally was in shock. Hand ball in the box on a pass back to the keeper and all he got was a yellow and indirect kick?? How the fuck does that work? Should have been a penalty.

No,Yellow card maybe but no penalty.

From FIFA rules book:

An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper,
inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:
• takes more than six seconds while controlling the ball with his
hands before releasing it from his possession
• touches the ball again with his hands after it has been released
from his possession and has not touched any other player
• touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked
to him by a team-mate
• touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from
a throw-in taken by a team-mate

mclaren
08-11-2008, 08:32 AM
I hope we don't get too giddy after that result - let's keep our feet firmly on the ground.

ACSertL
08-11-2008, 08:38 AM
jloome, I have to agree with you on the point you made about Attakora looking better than Wynne lately. Maybe this was a one off, but I didn't see him getting beaten that often and he looked pretty confident going forward into the attack.

I wouldn't be handing over the starting role just yet, but performances like this one give a little more confidence in the depth players for sure.

Shaughno
08-11-2008, 08:42 AM
No,Yellow card maybe but no penalty.

From FIFA rules book:

An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper,
inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:
• takes more than six seconds while controlling the ball with his
hands before releasing it from his possession
• touches the ball again with his hands after it has been released
from his possession and has not touched any other player
• touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked
to him by a team-mate
• touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from
a throw-in taken by a team-mate


Good call, I was thinking along the lines of intentional hand ball in the box.

Shaughno
08-11-2008, 08:43 AM
jloome, I have to agree with you on the point you made about Attakora looking better than Wynne lately. Maybe this was a one off, but I didn't see him getting beaten that often and he looked pretty confident going forward into the attack.

I wouldn't be handing over the starting role just yet, but performances like this one give a little more confidence in the depth players for sure.


I've said it since the beginning, Wynne isn't a good defender he's just damn fast and it gives him a huge advantage in tracking back and catching up to people after they lose him.

ACSertL
08-11-2008, 08:45 AM
I've said it since the beginning, Wynne isn't a good defender he's just damn fast and it gives him a huge advantage in tracking back and catching up to people after they lose him.

I agree; he does show flashes of defending skill here and there, but for the most part needs some work.

As an aside, does no one on this team slide tackle apart from Carl Robinson?

Shaughno
08-11-2008, 08:48 AM
^^ No. Guevara makes some hilariously botched tackles though.

ACSertL
08-11-2008, 08:54 AM
^^ Just checking.

From day one Robbo has been my favourite...he takes a lot of slack, especially for shooting well off target, but he was not only a rock against the Rapids, he was a mountain. Hold out the hope that some of his defensive ability rubs off on some of the other defenders.

Shaughno
08-11-2008, 08:56 AM
^^ Just checking.

From day one Robbo has been my favourite...he takes a lot of slack, especially for shooting well off target, but he was not only a rock against the Rapids, he was a mountain. Hold out the hope that some of his defensive ability rubs off on some of the other defenders.

Reminds me a bit of Keano in his day to a lesser extent. A rock in the midfield, always there to make the tackle (though his are better than keano's :lol: ), never afraid to challenge a player, always intercepting attacks, rarely hitting the target when he takes a shot. :lol:

brad
08-11-2008, 09:01 AM
^^ Just checking.

From day one Robbo has been my favourite....

x2.

I've always been a fan of players who play in that role. Very under appreciated.

ACSertL
08-11-2008, 09:03 AM
Reminds me a bit of Keano in his day to a lesser extent. A rock in the midfield, always there to make the tackle (though his are better than keano's :lol: ), never afraid to challenge a player, always intercepting attacks, rarely hitting the target when he takes a shot. :lol:

:) They are role players, characters, leaders!! You know, prone to the odd caution here and there, but they straighten out players, both teammates and opponents.

This has totally been turned into the Robbo appreciation thread :lol:

Shaughno
08-11-2008, 09:10 AM
You rarely see anything positive about Robbo, it's either negative or nothing. Pretty standard for that position unfortunately.

Ossington Mental Youth
08-11-2008, 09:27 AM
Good read, agree with it for the most part (especially Gala and Attakora bit). Sadly i do think that Smith has to step up or face being dropped as he hasnt really made a substantial difference when hes on the field. Gala on the other hand looked fantastic and should see time over Smith. I suspect the formation was used because there werent any other options. Nice to see it worked tho...

giambac
08-11-2008, 09:49 AM
I usually end up writing some long screed right after TFC play each week somewhere on these boards, but I wasn't really up for that this week. It's a lot harder to be critical when the news is good; you tend to lose your objectivity in the moment and the analytical process comes to a screeching halt -- a natural extension of not being mired in the whole denial/bargaining/acceptance thing, maybe.

But I figure there are a few things about Saturday that really were quite different from recent games and gave reason for both optimism and concern, so what the hell, here goes:

1) We weren't good, overall. We were, however, more positionally sound than in recent games. While it's true were were badly outshot, 13 of Colorado's chances were off net and of the 10 on, I counted six that were really dangerous. Okay, that's still a lot and means we depend on Sutton. But it's also a hell of a lot less than 23. A lot of the reason for that poor shooting performance is that the team did not give up good looks, for the most part. Score one on the plus side, sorta.

2) Our defensive pressure was still very problematic. This team just doesn't realize the necessity of quick pressure in this league. We started the game well, with the guys really going in quick and hard on their men, but by minute eight we were starting to back off and picking them up late into our box, with the guys running back to their defensive positions not mindful of the play developing behind them etc. In other words, the usual problems.

3) Fortunately, we were playing Colorado, and for all their spells of short passing possession, their attacked had the same general lack of creativity as ours. THey were doubly punished by the fact that our fullbacks generally stayed back for the bulk of the game and weren't caught forward as often; that took their wide players out a little, although they had more such opportunities as our players tired.

4) The heat (92 F to us old types) and the altitude should've given COlorado a major advantage and it was obvious from all the cramping and issues that is hurt us; but it didn't put us out. And that's a hell of a home field advantage to overcome. I think part of that comes down to better communication; the players seemed more animated. Both Robbo and Barrett could be both seen and heard (thanks to the stellar attendance) directing positional traffic all game. And you could hear Carver screaming from the bench in the second half for Smith to play with his head up, which seemed to make a substantial difference. He still hasn't learned to hit the broad side of a barn (nerves? adjusting to pro speed? he scored regularly in college) but his runs and service were much better after the half.

5) Both Attakora (he's dropped the gyan part, apparently) and Gala deserve to see regular sub time now. For all the people noting that Gala needs to bulk up, I'd also point out that his foot control and technical ability were so impressive that even without the requisite strength he was able to hold off Uho Ihemelu by getting lower to the ground and using leverage, which was why Ihemelu got so pissed off and shoved him to the turf. Gala was basically schooling a guy who's been one of the better defenders in the league this season.

And Attakora looked (lord forgive me) better than Wynne has lately; he was positionally much more one-dimensional -- as in, defensively one-dimensional -- but that was what we needed. Both he and James looked dominant in the tackle. A couple were so sickly smooth they looked liked they came from the feet of much older, much more lucratively compensated non-MLS players.


6) AS much as Smith improved in the second half, he doesn't have a future playing like that. Developmental players aren't 23 any more, they're 16, 17. He's too old to become a better-than-usl level player, so it's either there and he has to show it, quick, or he's next season's Andrea Lombardo.

7) AS good as Velez was for four or five games immediately after his disastrous start, we looked better yesterday without his positional issues; again, that may be unfair to an extent, as part of that is caused by having to move over so often to cover for Wynne.

8) The 4-3-3 was a good idea, because it clogged up the field, slowed things down, and kept our guys from being destroyed by the local conditions. Not sure if that's why Carver chose it, or just because if fit the personnel at hand. But it worked. If we play against a good team in that posture, however, we're gonna get hammered. No offense to speak off, despite the best intentions of Ibee and Ricketts, who were the onyl two really creating anything.

9) Robbo was a fucking monster. If he had defense-splitting passing abilities as well, he'd still be at Sunderland and starting. Why, oh why, isn't the rest of the team learning from his ability to close on his player quickly in the midfield, as he is just about the only player we have who does?

10) Barrett deserved man of the match. Why? Because while you could argue that Robbo was much bigger over the course of the whole thing, or you could argue that Sutton standing on his head a couple of times made up for the long shot he spilled and the cross he misplayed. And you could argue that without the kids stepping up they may not have won.

But all those feature the term "could argue." You can't argue that without Barrett's moment of brilliance, TFC wouldn't have won.

11) Maybe not have Cunningham's globe-sized anchor around everyone's neck helped, too.

Can't think of anything else relevant. It's all moot now; we're two points up on the Galaxy for the last playoff spot. Season begins now.

You forget one releveant point.
Colorado played with 10 men for about 20+ minutes. They still took it to us. I have afeeling if they were at full strenght the outcome would have been 1-1.

Parkdale
08-11-2008, 09:52 AM
You forget one releveant point.
Colorado played with 10 men for about 20+ minutes. They still took it to us. I have afeeling if they were at full strenght the outcome would have been 1-1.


good thing our keeper was on point that day. Sutton gave us that win.

CoachGT
08-11-2008, 10:02 AM
No,Yellow card maybe but no penalty.

From FIFA rules book:

An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper,
inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:
• takes more than six seconds while controlling the ball with his
hands before releasing it from his possession
• touches the ball again with his hands after it has been released
from his possession and has not touched any other player
• touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked
to him by a team-mate
• touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from
a throw-in taken by a team-mate

As a coach, you can't tell anybody much to deal with this situation during the play. You don't practice this. I had it happen in a game recently with the same result. The better course of action, first touch kick back to the penalty spot, or thereabouts, and then drive it to the net, preferably high to the far side, where coverage is weakest. But not everybody thinks that way during the heat of battle.

Shaughno
08-11-2008, 10:04 AM
^^ The biggest mistake was the time between the touch of the ball and the actual 'striking' of the ball. The two players were clearly not on the same page which allowed Colorado to pounce and stop the attack.

CoachGT
08-11-2008, 10:06 AM
^^ Agreed. But given the short distance, any time between touches creates a chance for the defence to get better position on the ball when things are that tight.

ACSertL
08-11-2008, 10:07 AM
^^ The biggest mistake was the time between the touch of the ball and the actual 'striking' of the ball. The two players were clearly not on the same page which allowed Colorado to pounce and stop the attack.

Yeah, Ricketts was way too far away and looked like he didn't know what was going on. I thought Brennan was going to hit it for sure.

Shaughno
08-11-2008, 10:17 AM
^^ Agreed. But given the short distance, any time between touches creates a chance for the defence to get better position on the ball when things are that tight.

Which is why I'm not sure why they were so far apart from each other. A simple pass back as you said would have sufficed much better than the stupid play they tried to pull.

trane
08-11-2008, 10:21 AM
^ When I saw it I also though the pass back was what they would go. Simply pass it back and let someone in a better position take a shot. I do not understand what they were doing, I think they were trying to create movement in the wall, so they would have space between the defenders. It clearly did not work.

jloome
08-11-2008, 12:32 PM
I assumed he'd just roll in backwards and Ricketts would blast it towards the top corner but instead he just dead-ball stopped it. Weird. I imagine, given how infrequently they're called these days (they were very common when I was a kid) that indirect free kicks don't receive much practice time.

We have a lot to be thankful for from that game, not the least of which was that Colorado had the same general lack of creativity we do; with no one on the middle to create for us, our chances all came off the run-and-gun/give-and-go type scenario, which will get us nowhere against defensively tight teams.

Barrett was a real plus, largely for what he was doing off the ball. When there were guys going to the middle of the box and the near post, he went to the backpost. When there were guys pushing in from wide, he dropped into the hole and gave them support/clean up prospects. He looked smarter on the pitch than Chicago fans have given him credit for and that bodes well.

Though Ibee looked really good, too. He still has the issue of not being able to hold off defenders because of his slight frame, but he moves into space well. If we can get Guevara, Robert and Ricketts to serve us some decent stuff over the second, the two of them have prospects to make a reasonably dangerous strike partnership.

But ideally, we still get another striker who'll finish regulary. I don't think Ruiz is that guy, unfortunately, although that seems to be the way they're going from the gossip out there. I'd still like to see a rent-a-scorer for the rest of the way.