Yeah, I had done the simple math, I was just wondering what would make up the disparity between what you're saying is the master stat, 17 TaPL, and what you might call the subsets - 13 Unsuccessful Passes, 1 Unsuccessful dribble, 1 Throw in Unsuccessful, 5 Unsuccessful cross. If crosses are counted in passes, then you're short, and if it's not in passes, then it must not be part of what's supposed to be an overall stat. As for finding an explanation, I had looked a bit, and I just looked a bit more, I've seen people on both sides, with more on the side of it being the overall stat, but I didn't see any links come up pointing to an official Opta explanation, so I was hoping you might have one. Though I did see one possibility for a shortfall, clearances that lead to lost possession, and I hadn't even thought of a poor touch on receiving a pass as being something separate either. That also doesn't change my wider point being that it's a dumb name (which has nothing to do with you, I'm assuming you didn't come up with it). If it is for all instances of possession lost, why not call it just "Possession lost", as adding tackled in there and listing it below a stat that is supposed to be a subset of the overall makes it rather confusing. To me, having stats without a good explanation of what they mean is worse than not having them at all. Speaking as someone who was complaining about not giving credit when it's due, the frustration with Bunbury is not that he's not willing to pass to teammates for them to shoot, it's that he seems averse to taking shots even when he's in a good to very good position to have a go. That said, he didn't exactly put the ball on a tee for Alston, he tried to flick it, missed it, but the ball was cleared by a defender, and it luckily, in all possible directions it could have gone, it went off Bunbury's shin and dropped right to Alston, which is not exactly the same as him purposefully putting it on a tee. If Bengston had scored by having his back turned and a defender cleared it off his butt and into the goal, I wouldn't say Bengston deserves credit for the finish. Credit for being in position to cause trouble, maybe, depending on the play, but not for finishing. I do think that Bunbury can actually be a very useful player, and was not a bad pick up, but he's not shown any reason to be kept in the lone forward spot on this team, aka. the guy responsible for putting the ball in the goal. Well, I know I saw him make some glaring mistakes, like a missed pass that led to a goal, not being in the right spot on another, and not being strong enough to hold guys off, a very important attribute for a d-mid. Uh, this may be a dumb question, so please enlighten me, but isn't every team frustrating when their offence isn't clicking, and isn't every team "trying" to do something that will lead to a goal when in the final third? That the offense isn't clicking on a consistent basis wasn't a question, that's rather obvious when you've scored 1 goal in 5 games, or now 3 in 6 games. What people want to know is: why it isn't clicking, and why do they not seem to make any changes to try to get it to click, if it's the same characters doing the same things that continue not to work? Yeah, I saw that Dempsey almost missed his shot, and he had all day to take it, nobody was even within 10 yards of him, it was like they were all just standing around waiting for him to shoot, yet he almost misssed.
Just got back - watched the DVR - My 2 ¢: • For me Nguyen was the best Rev player last night. He was everywhere, and made several long runs to cover on D. The back line is getting some deserved credit, but Dorman and Nguyen deserve a big chunk of the praise. • There wasn't too much difference in the DC game and the Creamsicle game to me. We are a mid-table, non-play-off team at this point, on course for a 35-40 point season. I agree with Bob K. that the system is not the problem. We need those two missing starters that MB talked about. • With each sub: JoGo, Sene and Kobayashi for Caldwell, Barnes and Bengtson, we looked better. I would have no problem with all three, as well as KA, starting the next game. • I agree with those who say that Sene is failing at wing, but the answer is not to play him at forward, where he is equally ineffective. I will give him credit for heading his first ball in memory in the last game, but he is a turnover machine. Bengtson was a breath of fresh air, and not just because he scored. • I'm guessing Bunbury's issues are psychological. He can clearly play the game, but seems to make incorrect decisions a lot.
Thats my SWAG as well. He seems to lack confidence. I've read on these Boards that Strikers get into such funks but scoring a goal or two usually turns things around. I'm not sure benching him is the best answer to getting him in the groove.
Its true Doc, as a striker for years, scoring goals provides a tremendous amount of confidence and usually helps to open the floodgates. Bunbury has confidence issues but watching him since he's been here, its obvious he isn't well suited to play striker - he wants to set up goals. He doesn't have the mentality of an out and out striker and would probably gain more confidence from assisting guys than scoring goals (hence the silly back heels when he could have shot). Heaps should put him in Sene's role - take the pressure off- if not bench him. He has very limited value for this team up top and is only going to hold the revs back if nothing changes.
I'm not quite sure if I totally get what you're trying to say, but:By all accounts Rowe has a left hamstring injury. It was right hamstring tightness which kept him sidelined in Philly. #NERevs— Jeff Lemieux (@jeff_lemieux) March 26, 2014
I'm not saying it was a thing of beauty or that it even worked out as he intended, but the fact is, his persistence and drive created a fairly easy goal for Alston. At least that's the way I saw it. I agree. This was a little better, but I don't think we're rolling yet. As above, I agree that it probably wasn't purposeful, but the key thing was preventing the defense from clearing it and advancing the ball - in short, keeping the play alive - which was the critical factor in the goal IMO. I was just referring to this particular game. I think the way that they are trying to create chances is to work the ball well into the penalty area, usually through quick combinations of short passes in tight spaces. That's hard to do, but they showed last year they can make it work. Most MLS teams don't try to be that sophisticated in their attack and don't necessarily need to develop the same precision and high-level understanding. Watching SJ this season, their offense is, for the most part, pump it in to Gordon or Lenhart and play off the openings that creates. Fewer things have to work right to generate a scoring chance. He put in a good appearance in SJ, but I thought he had little impact in a shorter appearance vs. DC. Still, I think they probably planned to use him, but the injury to Goncalves forced them to burn an unplanned sub early on, so that certainly reduced his chances of getting in.
That's true but curiously, Bengtson got in over him so he must be lower on the depth chart (or the coaching staff picks forward names out of a hat).
Or they value one over the other depending on the situation. A depth chart shouldn't be set in stone, it should have the flexibility to adjust depending on the situation at the time. I'm not in the coaching staff's heads, but it's reasonable enough to me to believe that they prefer Davies over Bengtson in certain situations, and Bengtson in others, as evidenced by Saturday.
Not at all. You just reminded me of what I noticed during the game. Around the 60th minute, Davies was active on the sideline getting "ready". Just before Alston's goal, he pulled off his pinny - looking like he was getting ready to grab his card and go to the 4th official to sub in. Right after the goal, I looked back at the bench and Davies had the pinny back on and was sitting back down. So, it looks like the plan was to use Davies if they were tied (or behind?) and Bengtson if they were ahead (looking for a counter and insurance goal).
That's a valid point, I didn't notice that on Saturday. Fair enough. I'm not assuming you (or any of us) know the answer to this, but why is Imbongo getting so few minutes?
The end of this article mentions Bengston getting minutes even though Charlie Davies was available. I found this part curious. “We were looking to expose them for pace a little bit,” Revolution assistant coach Tom Soehn said. “We knew that they were going to press, so there’s going to be opportunities in behind. He did a good job when he came in.”
That may have been the key thing, but it was more down to luck. Yes, it was key that he was standing a spot where he should have been being the forward, rather than wandering around the midfield circle, but it was lucky that it hit him, as it wasn't like he tried to block the clearance, it was a poor play by the defender kicking it so close to an opponent. It wasn't a bad play on his Bunbury's part, something he should be derided for, but it was more fortuitous than being a result of hard work, like he was running around wreaking havoc leading up to the point that it hit his leg. Not sure why your describing differences in style, whoever you are and whatever your style is, if your style is not working, it's frustrating. How long would you say teams should be given before they're supposed to have a handle on whatever system they're playing? Are you saying that we should give the Revs a break, because their style is so much harder to implement, so we shouldn't expect them to be clicking only a month and a half into the season? Points are not awarded on a sliding scale, based on artistic merit, like in figure skating. If the coaches are trying to implement something that the players they have can't handle, they shouldn't get credit for it, good coaches put their players in a position to succeed. I can understand putting in something that might not bear fruit right away in a rebuilding situation, but this season is not supposed be about rebuilding, it's supposed to be about building on the foundation they already have, and taking a step forward in the league standings. If they end up working it out, and go on to win the MLS Cup, then yes, it will obviously be worth it, but they can only be judged on what they've done, not on what we hope they might do. So how would you describe the current Revs we've been watching? Rebuilding? They had the right system at the end of last year, but the FO got the wrong players to replace who was lost? They have everything right, but teams that are supposed to be ready to contend for the top third of the league shouldn't be expected to have everything together until at least 2 months into the season, if not later?
So you do admit that it wasn't probably what Bunbury was trying to do ... correct? So then he's not really putting the ball on a tee. He got a lucky bounce.
The point I was trying to get at is that I don't understand how they thought it was how they thought it was too dangerous to put Rowe in for the last few minutes against Philly when he might have helped them get a goal, a result was not out of reach, but then thought he was safe to play a full 90 the following week. That it's the other hamstring doesn't mean anything, because it's not unheard of that someone will overcompensate for an injury in one leg and end up hurting their other leg. Yes, hindsight is always 20/20, but he's missed a number of games now, and I don't understand how they thought they they needed to be totally careful one week, but were carefree the next.
Come on, people, there is no such thing as luck! Everything happens for a reason! Didn't you see the movie "Signs"?
I think that Heaps is pretty committed to having Bunbury work out and, in general, is probably pleased with the effort, ability and the fit (I'm sure he'd like to see more goals, however). I like the way Bunbury plays and think he's fitting in well and I think as the whole team gets into a groove he'll score goals and the team will score goals. I think the Alston goal is a good sign in the sense that the defense was so consumed with stopping Bunbury, they left an easy shot for someone else. That works for me. I found that a little strange too. Even if he's not as fast as he was, I can't believe that Davies isn't faster than Bengtson - and speed isn't really Bengtson's strength anyway. Maybe that was just a less complicated way of saying that he thought Bengtson would be the best option to counter. Fine, I see it differently. It takes teams time to find a rhythm and the more complex and intricate the style they plan to implement, the more time it would take. I'm sure everyone's disappointed that their offense has started so slow (as I am), but it took them a long time to start to click last year and it seems to be taking a while this year, although they already functioning much better than they were at this time last year. Actually most MLS teams don't really hit their stride until June or so, usually. Sometimes teams start faster, but they generally aren't playing so well at the end. Look at how many MLS teams haven't even won a game yet (and RB, who certainly wouldn't be thought of as building, just won their 1st last night!). What the Revs are is a team that's trying to find a consistent rhythm and a team that's struggling to fine-tune their finishing. Poor finishing is the main thing that's kept them from being among the conference leaders at this point. Bunbury's effort to keep the ball alive and poke it behind the defense ended up with a ball basically sitting in the middle of the penalty area for Alston to run on to and one-time into the net. I'd call that putting it on a tee.
Wow. I know you're ever the optimist, but unless you think that this team would have finished every chance they've had ... I don't know what to say. You're completely ignoring the fact that they were right near the bottom on SOG (20 in 6 games, no one has less on a GPG basis), but if they'd finished more ... we'd be near the top! Hey, if we score more than the other team every game, we'd be at the top of the standings! I'll go this far, if they actually created more chances that wound up on net, and had actually scored in the net they're supposed to more than 3 times in 6 games ... then I'd agree with you. As someone already said, there's obviously no such thing as luck or an accident, is there?
More goals from Bunbury? How about a goal from Bunbury. I hope he starts scoring soon because apparently he's starting the rest of the way, no matter what happens.
Not sure why you are disagreeing with him. He said they need to finish better and you said they need more shots on goal -- part of finishing better is putting more shots on goal. They've had a number of good chances that they failed to put on goal (Bengtson's sky ball from inside the 6, for instance). Fagundez finishing in Philadelphia; anyone (Sene, Bunbury) finishing in the DC game, while it was 0-0 or before the own goal; anyone finishing in the Vancouever game (where Revs had more better opportunities than the Caps). Three completely feasible events that certainly could have happened without changing the 98% of the action in the rest of the game, and Revs are near the top of the Eastern Confernece. Equally true Nguyen not finishing in SJ and Alston skiing his shot are feasible events, and if those two had happened Revs would be near the bottom. The point is, that several finishing (or not finishing) events would have made the difference between being near the top, in the middle, or near the bottom. I don't know why you would even argue with that.