Gregg has had his chance. We're 155 matches into the Berhalter Era, and we've got nothing to show for it. It's time to thank him for his service and bring in some new blood.
Yeah. Imagine being happy with a 0-0 draw, at home, when the away team was missing their two best players, just because an away goal wasn't conceded.
That's the way a home and home works with away goals being the deciding factor. If Ola touches that ball at the end, it worked, and Toronto is pissed we advance on two ties and this doesn't come up at all. If not for one defensive lapse that game goes to PK's. Would you have been happier with a 2-2 or 3-3? Or if we really attacked and lost 0-1 on a counter? Conservative play isn't always pretty, ask Chelsea if parking the bus worked in the CL.
Really? you don't say. However, being worried about the away goal leads to the negative play from a team. Be positive. Yeah. If. If we had attacked more in the first leg, there might have been a lead. Which would have led to more counter attack space in the second leg to get your desired away goal. More positive intent in the first leg and the defensive lapse might not have mattered. I would have been happy with some attacking intent. Berhalter erred way too much on the side of caution. He didn't adapt to what Vanney did. Again.
If Berhalter had opted for an all-out attack in game one, the first person to call it stupidity would have been hangthadj.
We were a huge underdog for multiple reasons and you are pissed we lost by one on the road because it wasn't pretty enough. Tactics must not be your strong point.
And Gregg’s formation change at the start of leg 2 had Toronto completely flustered for 45 minutes. Vanney just had better cards to play when it came to halftime adjustments. Seriously, folks. We’re entering what is in all likelihood going to be the final season of existence for this club in this city. Our last chance at winning anything before it’s yanked away from us. And we have an owner that’s actively been sabotaging the club since he got here. Despite that, Berhalter has made the playoffs three times, made the final once, and was one goal away from making a second final. Say this out loud: You want to take the coach of a team that plays a specific system and has players who know that system, that had us a goal away from the final with minimal help from ownership, and fire him, so we can bring in a guy who would change the tactics — the tactics of a system team — and have a transition year, in the last season of the club’s existence. Pardon my metaphorical French, but you’re all f****ng nuts.
No. I am annoyed about how we played at home, with the opposition missing their 2 best players. It was a huge opportunity missed and not a victory. Reading comprehension is not your strong point is it?
Your annoyance is a clear indication of your lack of tactical awareness. There is no point in continuing this.
No. There really isn't when you don't understand my point. Declaring a 0-0 a home as a victory is a clear indication of your lack of tactical awareness. Teams are so scared of conceding an away goal, that they forget they actually need to score goals as well We look at the game differently. Both teams had really good home records. Columbus failed to get a draw in over 50% of their away games. That has to be taken into account.
You point is you want more "attack!!!" Toronto was a team that had a historic point total, was a huge favorite and was supposed to win big. As is done just about everywhere, you play conservatively in both legs and try to pip a goal on the road. Or you can ATTACK!!! and make the second leg a moot point.
Focus here people. If the Crew are leaving, and Berhalter is crappy; good. If the Crew are leaving, and Berhalter is good, who cares.
Maybe he will trade our next picks to the Galaxy for Donovan's rights. I hear Lando is playing soccer again.
But would he travel to Mapfre to play. I can't remember him even being on the sideline when the Galaxy came to Columbus.
I haven't posted in years, but here's my take on the strategy of Game 1 vs Toronto. Each argument has merit. One says as an underdog, try to get the series down to one good play or one fortunate bounce. It almost worked. The other side has the following rationales: If you go with strategy 1, it can sometimes negatively affect a team's psyche (they spend more time hoping than going all out) The opponent would be significantly better in Game 2 than 1 (Toronto gets back 2 key players and the Crew is on the road, where they have not been great); therefore, the Crew should try to take full advantage of Game 1 Sometimes, for a single game, an underdog can feed off a crowd's energy; the Game 1 crowd, which was a Save-the-Crew rally, was ready, but the style of play took much of the energy out of the place I favor strategy 2.
It's worth noting that this team hasn't looked right since the first half of the Montreal game. Were they depressed by the attendance? Is it possible that Berhalter lost the team at halftime? Time to right the ship, Greggggggg
I love this thread because it reminds me of a simpler time, a better time, when I was concerned about a soccer team and its coach.
When your best friend was a dog and the loud black-haired girl kept pulling away the football before you could kick it.
Ah yes... Back when during the roster read at the games, a woman would always yell, "******** YOU TCHANI!" and we'd all have a chuckle. Simpler, better times indeed.