Post-match: San Jose Earthquakes - Colorado Rapids (Saturday, 4/19) postgame (R)

ok there has been one time that I've advocated a 5 man midfield for the Quakes and it was the road trip against Toluca... playing against a much stronger bigger club in their house at 9k feet elevation. that's when it's useful. I'm also ok with switching to it towards the end of a road game where we are defending a lead against a strong team like RSL. But I'm not ok with using it as a starting formation in parity-dominated MLS.

 

I have already proved this wrong with the heat maps. We barely got him any touches in and around the box against colorado.

 

Listen I've been off the internet for awhile so I don't know if this has already been discussed, but surely the absence of last years's starting center midfield has something to do with our getting overrun in the midfield, right? I mean, we ended the season last year with the best record in MLS, with Baca as our starting mid and pretty much the same personnel we have now. He's gone now, and his replacement has not done well. Is it any surprise we're talking about five man midfields? Probably this has already been discussed.

 

Nope, comparison with a similar game (low-scoring road match), the KC match, shows that Wondo had more touches in the box in the CO game.

 

If Shea crosses balls right into defenders, it does not matter where Wondo is on the field, we won't score...

 

There has been too much glee and gloating about getting rid of Baca and his lack of playing time in Mexico to admit his absence has anything to do with our poor midfield form to date.

 

I've broached the subject a few times, but you're going to get shouted down by the Baca haters if you do, so I'd rather not bring it up. Can't do anything about it now anyway, so I'd rather think about how they can solve the current midfield problems...

FWIW though, I do think that Baca was made kind of a scapegoat for the team's weaker performance last year, and I think some of the people on the technical side of the club, Doyle in particular, did not properly appreciate his contribution to the team. To the extent that this was a miscalculation (and I believe it was), they need to be held accountable... I'd love to hear Cronin's honest take on this subject.

 

No. We have many different pieces other than Baca(who contributed next to nothing). Other teams are better, while we're still playing route 1 ball with nothing to play for (i.e. Playoffs) that had the guys fighting for every point and higher salaries. You've got an uninspiring dunce commanding the ship. We suck, and it's not because Baca is gone.

 

I submit the Baca defense.

 

You mean like @QuietType ?

 

This does not make sense. What does this have to do with this case?

Nothing.

It does NOT MAKE SENSE.

 

I would agree - as I stated last year - that other teams had improved and we stood pat. I would tend to agree with JazzyJ that Baca would appear to have been odd man out, despite the fact that he started most games towards the end of last year. It wasn't, in my view, really broken in the middle. It arguably was broken on the wings - i.e. a steep drop off from the Dawkins - Chavez dynamite pairing to Salinas - Cato. There was a discussed, no internal down the middle threat.

I just am having a real hard time understanding how we've gotten so bad so quickly.

 

That's what many of us were saying all last year, even after we started racking up points towards the end. I was trying to tell you(generally speaking) that we sucked and the results we were getting were misleading. We played ugly, ugly soccer even in the second half of the season where we scraped out points and had some Goonie moments. We were playing an empty bucket and we still are, with worse players in the positions we need for that strategy (outside mids and backs). We're playing like a team that is uninspired, knows we're worse than others, and nothing to play for. I expect the second half of the season to be better, but I can't say I'm surprised at our performance this far.

 

We've gotten bad so quickly , probably because everyone has figured out the way we play. I mean you can only go so far in toddy's soccer world with long balls into the box waiting for the big man to score in the last 5-10 minutes of a match. After a while, other teams get your number and learn how to defend against you. We saw it against the Gals in the 2010 playoffs and it pretty much continued into last year. The 72 goals they score in 2012 were good even great goals but everything also worked and clicked at the right moment and I honestly don't think the league was prepared to defend against an offense like that one. You had more of a midfield and a lot of depth on the bench. When Gordon went out, Lenny came in and scored and vice versa. I even remember Wondo coming off the bench and scoring. That doesn't seem to happen that much anymore. I'm sure our forwards will still get their goals but they are also now 2 years older and sooner or later, unless human nature has changed, there is no stopping father time and we are witnessing it.

 

I generally agree with this. Teams did figure us out - cut out the supply to the wings if you can, get to the second balls first. And I think the inability to re-sign Dawkins and letting Chavez go are why we are relatively anemic going forward now. Also letting the coach of the year go away has to have contributed.

 

FMP!

 

You mean the "parity-dominated MLS" where most of the teams don't play a flat 4 midfield any longer, and even if they sometimes do, they are at least trying out different formations?

Chicago: 4-4-2 (4-1-4-1)
Montreal: 4-1-2-1-2
Chivas: 4-2-3-1
Portland: 4-3-3
Columbus: 4-2-3-1
DC: 4-1-2-1-2
Dallas: 4-2-3-1
Toronto: 4-2-3-1
Houston: 4-1-2-1-2
NY: 4-1-2-1-2
Vancouver: 4-1-2-1-2
LA: 4-1-2-1-2
New England: 4-1-4-1
Philly: 4-3-3
RSL: 4-1-2-1-2
Colorado: 4-4-2 (4-1-2-1-2)
Seattle: 4-4-2 (4-3-3)
SKC: 4-3-3

We are the only team in MLS that has lined up with a flat 4-4-2 every game so far. It's not entirely a coincidence that we suck.

 

i have no problem with the diamond midfield or 4-3-3, which is a majority of the teams on that list. I don't think we really have the personnel to play those styles but I don't have any fundamental problem with them. But the 1 striker formations I do have a problem with. They are way too conservative and boring and kill our offense. I want a formation where we line up 2 strikers at a minimum.

LA won mls cup two years in a row playing with two strikers. RSL and NYRB play with two strikers. SKC and Portland play with 3.

The 2009 NYRB, one of the five losingest teams in MLS history, played 451 under osorio.

NYRB play a flat 442 and are third in the east. Chicago play flat 442 with amarikwa and magee up top.

We haven't even really played a flat 442... it's more of an empty bucket 4-2-2-2 when pierazzi-cronin are in there. When Koval is in there we are more traditional 442.

 

The fact we don't have the players for other formations is a big part of our problem.

Not only did LA play with two strikers but they played a flat 4-4-2. Then again, the strikers were Keane and Donovan (see my comment elsewhere re: why Atletico and Man City are winning with the 4-4-2).

NY = Henry (often w/ Cahill)
CHI = shit

I don't care to argue semantics, it's a bad 4-4-2 and frankly Koval doesn't make much of a difference.