Is that the consensus? I don't have the highlights in front of me but I remember during the replay it looked like Todd played Boyd on in the first goal, too.
Yes, to you it doesn't seem as egregious. That's not unreasonable, but realize that it's your value judgment. Getting old? Have you noticed how poor our back line has been without Omar? First of all, there wasn't enough panicking about the loss of Omar. It wasn't until loss after loss that most folks around here owned up to the fact that Omar was damn important to our success and his ability made up for others' lack. I don't think that Dunivant was riding Omar's coat-tails last year (though this year, let's face it, it seems that he's lost a step; maybe he hasn't but something is different). AJ was undoubtedly benefiting from Omar's physicality and ability. Franklin benefited as well. NO ONE said that Lopes has restored the team to "former glories." People are simply acknowledging that we have been winning since he's come back and he seems to provide something to the back line that was lacking. He doesn't have to be "awesome" to improve the back line, merely "better." Why do we "know" that AJ will recover his form when his form could very well have been attributed in part or in large part to Omar? Also, look at his string of games this year--not good, a very bad and consistent trend. Why would you ignore all of the recent data points? True, and yet we are playing better than we have played when any other combination of CB pair has been tried. Our record has been abysmal this year. You're talking about 2 losses, I don't see why the Galaxy, the current champion returning all starting players other than Omar (and adding a potent attacker) should be looking at losses as things to be proud of. Do you really believe that there is no connection between the two??!?! Do you believe that there is no connection between the performance of our back line and the games that we win or lose? Do you not mark AJ down for poor performances for all the games we have lost? I mean it's a bit silly that you are counting goals against Lopes that did not even count. And AJ gets a pass for every goal? Look, this is getting to be a bit absurd, as well as beating a dead horse. Agree to disagree, I'm moving on.
Let's look at it differently, then: which mistake is more easily avoided? I just don't agree with you on that. Our defense is absolutely better with Omar than without, but we didn't go from best defense in the league to the worst just because we lost Omar. The Galaxy's a pretty shitty team if we can't string together wins when one player goes down with an injury. Just as I defy the logic that the loss of a CB (even if he was, perhaps, the best in the league) can completely torpedo the team's chances, I defy the logic that the restoration of a good CB can completely turn around a run of bad form if nothing else changes. It doesn't take away from Lopes' contributions to acknowledge the other myriad things that have improved in the midfield and attack that have contributed to this improvement in form. Correlation is not the same is causation. Because I've seen AJ play well without Omar. He did it last year and has done it this year. The offense certainly looks better. Defensively, our goals against record looks like this: 2, 3, 2, 1, 3, 1, (Lopes brought in) 1, 1. And that's not counting the 2nd goal from the Timbers game (which is charitable, in my opinion). And frankly, only giving up 1 against SKC when our attack was still in shambles is more impressive than not giving one up against Portland and Colorado, in my opinion. So you could argue the defense improved before Lopes arrived and our recent wins should be attributed to additional improvements in our midfield and attack. I'm not saying we should be proud of these performances; just that we haven't been as consistently dismal as everyone remembers. I get the impression that everyone thinks every game we played so far this year looked like the match against New England. This isn't an "anti-Lopes" thing; I'm just not willing to attribute the turn-around in form from the last two games solely to him. I haven't heard much compelling evidence so far to change my mind. I do think his aerial dominance means our midfield doesn't have to drop back as much to clean up. And I give him credit for that (and have several times). But I don't think that's the sole reason for our improved attack. Also, his bizarre gaffes almost make the benefits he brings a wash, but unnecessarily exposing our back line. We disagree on some points; I don't see what's absurd about that.