Post-match: San Jose Earthquakes - Los Angeles Galaxy Western Conf. Semi Game 2 (Wed., 11/7) postgame thread [R]

The Quakes just have a different style. Keane is a guy who plays the ball on the ground and makes runs for through balls and distributes as well. Same with Donovan. Wondo is a guy who can sneak in amongst a pack of players near the goal and tap the ball into the net a hundred different ways, and has an elite, unsurpassed knack for being in right place at the right time. Those are both talents in their own right - one just kind of looks better and is more obvious to the casual observer. You say that you can't deny the numbers, and the numbers are undeniably - 27 goals to 16. And yet you're denying the numbers.

 

That's true, but you're not going to win them all either.
They have players who have more big game experience than our whole team combined. I think that had a huge effect.
Our most experienced big game player, I'd say bernardez (been to WC and has played in the qualifiers), had to be subbed out and we lost our leader. Busch has great experience no doubt, but as a goalie.

 

I'm not a big believer in "big game experience". I would like to see some data to see that it makes a difference. I think a bigger factor, just a hunch, is momentum. The Gals got the first goal and it gave them some momentum. The Quakes had a chance to get it back, but Wondo's shot was a few feet high. When the Gals scored the 2nd, they smelled blood. Despite all that, the Quakes were one shanked Ike shot from pulling it even.

 

But I thought big names win big games. If we're going to amend that to "big names sometimes win big games" I'm good with that .

 

Again, I will repeat myself from mid-season, cuz I don't feel like typing...

That's what we saw play out on Wednesday. Neither the Quakes nor Galaxy are a complete team. But the Galaxy showed the one ingredient than the Quakes are missing.

 

LA already had the momentum when they scored first. Bernardez' injury was a huge blow. Keane's been great in all three playoff matches. Wondo not so much. The scores in each of the two matches between LA and SJ were complimentary to the Quakes based on the performances on the field, the quality of play, and the number of scoring chances.

 

You're talking about Ireland...a team that doesn't do much internationally (euro 2012, didn't qualify for 2010WC). Look at his record with Tottenham.

 

I actually agree with you, though I think Dawkins is an excellent attacking midfielder. I think Baca has the potential to be that kind of player, but he has to be much more aggressive. If Dawkins can look for the pass as much as he looks for the shot, he can be that kind of player. And then if they can get more of a play the ball on the ground, ideally quick, forward type that would also help a lot. Maybe Tracy can be that kind of player.

If they try once again to solve the a-mid problem with an acquisition, it's gotta be a guy who is a bit more 2-way and covers a lot of ground and can play some defense, and can run with the ball and not just pass. It can't be a guy who isn't very mobile, and just holds and then tries a 30-yard high risk / high reward pass. We saw that with Moreno and it didn't work well.

 

I see little to no championships for Tottenham the years that Keane was there. That's a lot of big games not won by a big name. Same with Ireland - one world cup qualification I think since he's been on the team. That's a big name not winning lots of big games.

Keane blew at least 2 sitters in the Quakes - LA game in LA. Wondo scored the clutch winning goal against NY in 2010. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. The "big names" do not corner the market on clutch playoff performances.

 

He would have defended 100% better than Dawkins. He doesn't drop to defend, only to receive the ball. And also, it gives morrow more freedom to push knowing Ramiro can cover him at LB. kind like we did with convey and corrales a couple years ago.

 

I agree about Ramiro. I'm not so sure the Quakes would have won with Bernardez in the game, but that's all speculation. The playoff series was eye opening for me. After the Sunday result, I expected the Quakes to play well at home and advance. I underestimated LA's quality, and the two matches convinced me that at this point in the season, LA is better than the Quakes. Even before the Bernardez injury, LA was dominant. Maybe with him in there, they could have hung on. The result of the series was fair, not at all flukey or based on luck for either team, and accurately reflects the relative quality of the two teams.

Maybe that's why I was so disappointed that Vancouver couldn't hang on against LA.

 

I don't subscribe to the "big name" theory expressed by others. But all things being equal, if two teams both have good chemistry, spirit, teamwork, tactics and coaching, then the one with the world class players is much more likely to be victorious. Unfortunately, I believe that is the reality we saw in the SJ-LA series, especially in a two game format.

I wish it weren't so, because I can't stand the complaining, smug, prima-donna attitude of the Galaxy, but I accept their quality. Next year, they'll be over the hill.

 

Meh, it's a team game. If all else is equal, then what matters is the quality of the sum total of the players. If you go through a back-of-the-napkin position by position analysis as I've done previously in this thread, looks like the teams are comparable. LA seems to be a little more top heavy - some very high quality players at the top, and then the quality is a bit more uneven, while the Quakes seem to be more balanced. And besides, since he became a starter there isn't a single "world class player" who has outperformed Wondo as a goal scorer in MLS. Not Keane, not Henry, not Angel, noooo----body. And this year Gordon has world class goal production as well - just off the charts. I think we have to be careful not to evaluate players strictly on the basis of reputation, or to start with assumptions based on reputation, and then work backwards from there to find data points that fit the assumptions.

I think it's like TyffaneeSue wrote, if you could somehow have the teams play 100x in some reasonably short period of time, you'd probably wind up with something fairly close to a 50-50 split. We shouldn't make too much of one or two games.

 

Some of you are delusional. Donovan is (still) the best player in this league and can change a game at his whim. Keane is also in another class... you put him on our team and I bet he'll score 30+ (plus he would fit our system well).

If you look at goals against, I wouldn't be comparing our defense favorably with any post season team.

 

Well then Donovan must not be on a whim all that often because he couldn't change the 2010 playoff game against Dallas and he couldn't change the 2009 MLS Cup final (wait, actually he did change that one - he put his PK over the bar), he couldn't even change enough games to get the Gals in the playoffs in 2006, 2007, or 2008 when the Gals finished tied with expansion team SJ for last place.

I think Keane's style is more suited to the Galaxy and he gets great service on that team from players like Donovan and Beckham. He is not as good as Wondo, Lenhart, and Gordon are in the air, and that's where a lot of the Quakes goals come from. With service from Donovan, Beckham, and Juninho rather than chasing after shanked crosses from Shea Salinas and the Quakes' outside backs, Wondo would score 40 in LA .

I would, especially since we're comparing the Quakes to the Gals in this thread.

Goals Against
----------------
Quakes - 43
Gals - 47

 

MLS Western Conference Semifinals Goals Against
-----------------
Quakes - 3
Gals - 2

 

Sample size, folks. Statistical significance. Season totals to date:

Quakes - 46
Gals - 50

 

The playoffs are a new season. Everyone that qualified starts out fresh. We were the best regular season team. Postseason is another story.

 

I don't know what else I can do to get folks to understand the notion of sample size, statistical significance, and effect of randomness (at least TyffaneeSue understands ). Most statistically valid measurement is the regular season. Postseason is a statistically irrelevant sample, and I think most people understand it's a crap shoot. Best we can do is just add it to regular season. And please, no more "big names big games" stuff .

 

Too bad the MLS Cup is determined by teams actually playing each other on the field rather than by sample size and statistical significance. Unfortunately, the result of the series accurately reflects the relative strengths of the teams at the time they played each other.

The playoffs aren't a crap shoot (that implies total randomness). Usually, the team playing the best at playoff time wins the MLS Cup. I wish it were the Quakes.

 

It is too bad, because the short time playing on the field does not represent a statistically significant sample size. And therefore it follows that the results on the field do not necessarily reflect the relative strengths of the teams. That's what statistically insignificant means. You can't have it both ways. And that's why you can pretty much throw regular season's results out the window for MLS Cup. It's a crap shoot and any team in the pool can win it. Leagues like EPL don't choose their "champion" this way. But in the U.S. we like our little playoff formats. It's exciting, and it generates a lot of revenue, but it's just not a good way to determine "best team". That's fine - we can enjoy it just the same, as long as we understand that it is fundamentally flawed.

 

Jazzy, exactly, they're league champions, not MLS cup champions. We were the best regular season team. The playoffs 10 teams start fresh.

 

LD is poison. Here's to having a guy on your team that can perform "at his whim", but also goes around telling reporters that he is not interested in the game any more. I was not impressed with him most of the time in our series. Seemed like he only showed up after he got pissed off at the ref and then for about 10 minutes. A really great player shows up for every game. Think about the great players in any particular game, like Michael Jordan. I heard him described as a "supremely talented over achiever". LD is an under achiever by his own admissions. I think that people are way too easy on him.