And yet I thought they still both looked better than Bekker in the athleticism department. I thought that the team might grind out a result this evening. As is, they've got two weeks to get some more guys healthy and back to fitness.
TFC was missing 4 starters this week, and FCD is the top team in the league right now, playing at home. So, I wasn't expecting much out of this game. That being said, they looked good for about the first 20 minutes - getting the majority of scoring chances and the possession. After they scored the goal though, the game changed. I think though, that this would have been a different game with Defoe playing. FCD was putting a lot of bodies forward, and on more than a few occasions got caught with too many people forward. Defoe would have been able to take advantage of those opportunities. Another game in Dallas, another game where we get screwed by the ref....
Considering that we've played a lot of our games so far against top clubs and more on the road I think we've done not too badly so far this season. When we come up against NE in a couple of weeks we'll have a game in hand on most of the rest of the league, more games at home than on the road and a higher proportion of our remaining games against lesser clubs. So, still very promising to make the playoffs, but Nelsen really needs to get a good strategy togethet. To me, that's the make or break on this seadon for sure.
so you expected .500 with half the games being played without Jermain Defoe? Maybe we didn't deserve anything from this game, or the previous but with JD in the lineup you get goals. And if we get goals we either tie or win these 2 games...no matter how bad we were. Jackson..agree..feet too fast for his brain Gilberto..agree..he better get used to the physical..and yes that should have been a penalty. Horrible non call by the official. Morrow..agree. Solid D. Stay there..don't do anything cute. some one mentioned stupid back heels and the like...agree..how can you keep trying those back heels and fancy stuff when getting an inside foot pass up the field and control of the ball still alludes you as a team? Stop the cute.
I expected .500 after the first 10 WITH Defoe. I looked at the team first, individuals second. Still on the right track over all but the possession game will kill us in the long run with all our stars or not.
What does everyone mean by .500? Meaning having an equal number of wins and losses, or having taken half of the points available from all games?
.500 is a meaningless concept in soccer, imported from North American sports culture (and baseball specifically). TFC have three wins and nine points. There's a long, LONG way to go but they're doing really well and, for the first time in four years, the season won't be over in June.
How so? Roughly half the teams make the playoffs. On average, then, if you play roughly 0.500 soccer, you are right on the edge for making the playoffs. Obviously it's not an exact determinator but as a quick indicator of standing it's pretty good.
But what IS .500? In baseball, since there are no ties, you can take a ratio of wins to losses, in hockey since you get 2 points for a win and 1 for a tie, you can base it on # of points you've taken out of the total possible. But in soccer where 3 points are awarded for a win, .500 can mean different things. For example, let's use a theoretical 30 game season. One team wins and loses 10 games and draws 10, so they get 40 points out of a possible 90 (less than half). Another team wins and loses 14 games and draws 2, and get 44 points (still less than half). So both teams are ".500" but one has more points than the other.
I think .500 is 50% of the total points possible. so a team with 40 out of a possible 90 points would be .444 and a team with 44 out of a possible 90 points would be .489. So at this point, a team with two wins, three draws and a loss would be also be .500 because they would have nine points out of a possible eighteen. But either way, we're .500 right now because we have 9/18 points and have equal wins and losses
Running out of things to talk about, aren't we. ;-) Also...now I haven't followed the NHL since the mid 90s when the Leafs were decent...but don't you get three points for a win now?
What Polygong said: in a sport where you can have more draws than wins or losses, particularly since they started giving three points for a win, it's meaningless. Points. (Or, maybe, points-per-game if you're comparing teams who've played a different number of games.) That's all that matters.
Remember when the NASL had that insane points system? That was 6 points for a win, 4 points for a shootout win, 0 points for a loss and a bonus point for each goal up to a maximum of three per match. That REALLY made anyone's win-loss record irrelevant.
Thankfully, no. And I'm also extremely glad that MLS had gotten rid of the regular-season shootout before TFC joined.
The NHL really needs to move to a system where all games give out the same amount of points. As it is now, some games (regular time wins) are only worth 2 points and some games (OT or shoot out wins) are worth 3. They really should move to 3 pts for a win in regulation time.....2 pts for an OT or shoutout win and 1 pt for an OT or shootout loss. Would certainly improve the play in the last 5 minutes of regulation time in games that are tied....as it is now, so many teams play to protect the point and don't really "go for it" until they get into OT.