I feel that the same thing has happened in each of the last 3 LA games -- a team is frustrated due to being outplayed and tactics and can't get a good foothold. It happened to LA in LA vs the Quakes, then to the Quakes in SJ, then worst by far to Seattle in tonight's game. If Seattle chooses the right tactics (planning for a counter, maybe a low back line), and has more energy then maybe they have a chance, but probably not for a +3 goal game.
Well Sigi would have started Eddie in a 4-1-3-1 like we have played all season so that has to count for something. I'm going 2-1 Seattle for the 2nd leg LA is too good on the counter and Seattle will have too press to hard to win.
I would kill to eat real Pollo Campero as its made in El Salvador... Popeyes Chicken is a close poor mans version of it.
off topic/ everytime i go to IAH (err.. Intercontinental Airport here in Houston) and go to international arrivals and i'm picking someone up from el salvador, i see atleast 15 people with big pollo camero bags.... i picked my dad up last week. asked why he didn't bring back any.. didn't want to spend the 20 for it... i was mad. i would have paid up front for it if I knew he wasn't going to bring any. the pollo campero here in houston ain't the same.. /off topic
Yo that food is off the chain plus they added personal pizzas now tasty... That is about the only thing I ate last time I was there.
If things go as expected and Houston and LA advance, that means the team with home field advantage will have lost every 2-leg series. Add in the play-in games, and the team with home field advantage will have lost 7 out of 8 matchups. LA was the only team to advance with home field advantage. Bodes well for them headed into MLS Cup, assuming no miraculous Seattle comeback.
If things play out in the second legs, I really hope Dom doesn't park the Orange Bus at HDC during the leagues marquee game on what I presume will be Big Boy NBC. My first hope, of course, would be for DCU to advance and make the point moot, but I know who Knave is rooting for on Sunday, so.....
Not anymore, since you have get into the playoffs to disappoint in the first place. Those old New England teams take the cake when it comes to this stuff, though.
Technically DC was the higher seed vs. NY. I could easily have seen us still winning if those games had been played in proper order. Still, your point is a great one. It is tough to do what Seattle and DC just had to do... play tough Thursday games and then fly to a new city for a game days later while another team waits at home. I still think the number of injuries to players should make the league think a little about their playoff scheduling. Make the play-in on a weekday, but all other games should be weekends. It would help attendance too. Houston and LA have done very well to overcome so many games in so many days. Luckily, both are very deep teams and well-coached. That's why both are well positioned to move on.
This is the takeaway for me -- they've looked very, very good. But they also put their money where their mouth, both on the field and off. Well coached. Good use of the DP rule. Good facilities. And some good young players.
I said this before the Vancouver game. Bus parking matches tend to be quite exciting. It's the cagey matches that kinda suck where neither team is attempting to score.
No, I don't think the first goal was offside. I think Wilhelmson was even with the last defender who was way on the other side of the field at the top of the screen.
At this point in the playoffs, games are a war of attrition. Sure, we can talk about how well or poorly each manager uses his subs, but most of the die was cast at the end of the last transfer window. From there, it's all about injuries, which has positives and negatives. One thought that has struck me, and it may come off as too "Mickey Mouse" or confusing, but hear me out: what if the higher seeded club got to choose hosting duties? If a manager wants momentum, he can choose to host first, but if he decides he'd rather have potential overtime and/or PKs at home, he can choose that as well. It seems like a fair compromise, because with the added live gate and TV coverage, I doubt the league gives up on the two-legged playoff series.
But it follows that it would not ultimately bode well for them, since they will thus host MLS Cup, and lose.
Considering they're the only team to break the streak, I think they've proven they aren't affected like the rest of the league.
I've been thinking this since they chose two-leg ties for the conference finals. I puts the advantage truly in the hands of the higher seeded team and forces the lower seeded team to react. While most might opt for the second leg at home, DCU could've opted to play at DC first instead of flying half way across the country and prepare/train over the course of two days.
I have been mulling this over as well, and I think a few things can be done to slightly adjust the home field advantage. 1. I do agree with Taylor that the schedule needs to be looked at very closely. The play-in game should be on a weekday, but all other games start the following weekend (providing a serious disadvantage to the bloodied victory of the play-in game (although I remember the announcers wondering whether Houston's first leg conference semi victory against SKC was because they HAD played and SKC had that time off... So go figure...) 2. I think letting the higher seed choose whether to host the first or the second is good, but I am sure it would be a hard choice to make - get the momentum (and potential lack of travel due to the previous game) and give up the potential overtime and pks at home? But at least no team could complain if they lose. 3. Get rid of aggregate goals. If tied after two legs, then go to overtime and then pks, if necessary. This would favor the higher seed who decides to keep the traditional setup, but gets blown out on the first leg (like Seattle or DC), and gives them a better chance leading into the second game.
They're good, for sure, and I think Bruce is correct, in terms of results, when he says that they have been the best team in MLS since July. However, the Quakes were close during that time, and much better before that. The Quakes were 3-1-1 against LA this year, though I'd say that all of the matches were pretty competitive. LA is very dangerous on the counter but their defense, and GK in particular is not that good. So they are susceptible to letting in goals. Despite losing their best defender and playing the worst defense of the season for 30 minutes, the Quakes had several chances to pull even on aggregate in that 2nd game. So if it winds up being LA / Houston, I think Houston has a shot, but I think LA would be a pretty strong favorite, as the home team. If they were playing in Houston, Houston would be a slight favorite in my book. LA has also been fortunate so far in the playoffs - the Quakes lost their best defender early in the 2nd game, and Seattle was missing two key players on offense for them: Johnson (for much of the game), and Rosales. And then looks like they will face I believe the only team in the playoffs (after the play-in round) that would allow them to host MLS Cup. Amazing how everything is falling in place for them.
Unfortunately, Seattle never even so much as tested Saunders yesterday. This is not surprising given the line-up that was put out there. In the Seattle thread, it was mentioned as soon as the line-up was announced, that Sigi was playing for a 0-0 result. It was clear from the formation and players selected that Seattle would not have many chances at all. But Seattle didn't have to go with just one forward, who has a history of not producing in a 4-5-1 formation. Had Seattle gone 4-4-2, with Estrada and Montero, or even Ochoa and Montero, up front, the result could have been very different. Playing not to lose against LA is foolish, especially when you consider they are weakest in the back. Seattle's formation and personnel was geared toward not exploiting LA's weaknesses and catered to having Seattle's weaknesses in full view for all to see. The result surprised no one up here except, apparently, the coach.
Meh, I don't necessarily think it was a bad strategy. With a 5-man midfield Seattle was winning the ball and holding possession through most of the 1st half, and really limiting LA's chances. Seattle's offense was toothless but they tested Saunders with some long range shots, which he will very often spill, and they might have been able to catch one of those and put it in the net. Unfortunately they dropped their guard and let in that goal at the end of the 1st half, and that changed the game. Seattle's midfielders tried to push forward a bit more in the 2nd half, and that's when things really started to open up for LA. Tired legs might have also been a factor. And with each LA goal, Seattle pushed harder and it opened things up more for LA.