That seems like a pretty standard draw up of defending in 2 banks of 4.with the left side of the board being the strong side. Key notes: Weak side CM is responsible for dropping into the space directly in front of the CBs. Strong side CM steps out to support that side, forwards shift to the side, with the weak side forward stepping in to mark the pivot midfielder.
I was partly kidding when I labeled it the "StarheBunker". But in that game they tended to stay compact in this way, 2 lines of 4, sometimes lining up even deeper than it's drawn up there. They didn't press high very much and often RSL had little to no resistance to get across the center line. By the way, the reason they are all laughing there in that photo (especially Stahre): Flo, ever the funny guy, had just asked "So we are going to play possession-oriented soccer, right"?
The most important words on that board are written there and still kind of readable "Push Line". Yes at times the defensive line dropped more then is entirely desireable, but that wasnt by design. Clearly the default, or basic defensive approach is to set our defensive line at midfield, and try to compact the field into 20 or 30 yards, killing any space for the opponent to attack. Good teams will force us back, but the reality is its MLS, and no one team is ever so superior to always be able to dictate the game. The joke was probably that Starhe had probably spent a long time talking about the defense and how to defend, aka what we do when we are not in possession. But its not fair to draw that conclusion about a coach in the 2nd week of pre-season. Go back and look at the drills we were running early. They focussed on man up attacks, and rapidly responding to possession in small sided action. To me, it looks like Starhe focussed on the very basics first. Defending in transition. Attacking in transition. Defending in an organized compact unit when not in possession. You do those 3 things and you will win soccer games. Look at Vancouver last year. The flip side really isnt true. If you dont defend well as a unit when you get behind the ball, if you dont defend well in transition, and you dont attack well in transition your going to struggle. So to me he just coved the basics first, its whether he continues to add to that that matters. A different way to look at possession is what makes a team a good possession team? Well its basically a function of 2 things. How quickly do you win back the ball, and how effectively do you build long sequences if your transition is stymied. So again, how to look at the first couple games last week? Well if your concern is possession, the defensive line we took was a mixed bag. On the negative side, we were setting a line of confrontation at midfield. We were willing to concede possession in our opponents defensive half. On the flip side, we were not conceding possession in our defensive half. the goal was to stay compact and win the ball anytime opponent tried to advance the ball into their attacking third. This concedes empty possession, but contests meaningful possession.Basically if the opponent wants to pad their stats passing it along the back line you let them do that all day, but the minute they try to press the attack their possession rate will fall. On the flip side in the attack, most of our best movement was on the counter. When our counter was stifled, we werent really playing route one, we just had poor movement. So from a possession standpoint, certainly not good, but not a philosophical problem, more of a lack of implementation. Which gets us back to the Reno game. What precisely should we have been looking for going forward if our concern is playing possession soccer? First, will we implement a high press and selectively press? AKA will we have the option to win the ball back quicker. Second, will we implement better movement/structure building the ball when the initial counter is off? On the first point, we saw selective pressing against Reno. So that's going to be in the toolkit. Now, how much its actually used, and how consistently we employ it is an open question.On the second, we saw some really interesting and complicated stuff. Namely, dropping a midfielder in the back line in order to push the outside backs way up the field, pulling outside midfielders in to overload the center of the pitch, and bringing a forward deep in order to overload the center of the pitch from a different angle. So overall I expect us to be a good if not especially dominant possession team. I expect us to tend to set a mdifeld line of confrontation, with a high defensive line and a compact defensive shape, conceding some possession but not allowing access to the defensive 3rd, with some selective pressing. Offensively I expect us to value possession when the counter is off with the attempt to get our fullbacks aggressively up the field to provide width. As for differences from last year and Kinnear? Defensively last year our back line sagged out of necessity, as it was difficult to maintain a high defensive line with Bernardez.The other thing is defensively in transition, the role of the central midfielders is changing. Last year, outside mids and outside backs tended to work in tandem. That left the central midfielders to control the middle of the field. This year, outside backs are working more independently, as the outside mids are tucking in and overloading the middle of the field. That is putting less emphasis on the central midfield defensively. Offensively the team is bringing more players into the center channel, opening the outside channels to the outside backs. That means we will have to have technically capable outside backs to be successful, something we did not have for a large stretch last year. Even though we are spending out time in a 4-4-2, its actually going to look like a 3-5-2 at times as we are dropping a midfielder into a back and pushing the outside backs well into the midfield.
It doesn't seem to me that the CBs are any faster than Bernardez and they seem less aggressive. While I hope we aspire to stay compact up and down the field, I have a feeling the CBs are going to drop back quickly against teams with any kind of speed up front.
We don't know what the "design" is yet do we in terms of where we set the front part of our defensive line? In the RSL game it was at times pretty deep. I don't have reason to believe that was a mistake or happened by some odd chance. I'm not "drawing a conclusion" I am "making predictions", and of course it is too early, that's what makes the prediction game more fun. You have less information to go on. That's what I'm predicting. We will look more like Vancouver did last year, which was primarily a "stay compact" and counter-attack team. And sure you can win soccer games that way, but it's not the only way. Teams like Toronto won a lot more games last year and they played more of a high press. There is stay compact and counter, and there is high press and there is starve the opposition possession / slower build-up play. I'm predicting that we will look more like the first - stay compact and counter. That prediction is based on 1) how Stahre had Häcken playing last year, 2) Stahre's defensive record (his teams' GA tended to be low, indicating a defense first posture) - he has a reputation as a "defensive coach" based on that, and 3) what I saw in the RSL game. I am not "concerned" about anything, just making predictions. And I would not put stock into anything that happened in the Reno game, other than that we will high press if we know that we are clearly superior to the other team, which is not likely to happen in MLS games. A higher defensive line is a good development - I've been wanting the Quakes to do that for years. As for outside mids movement, I haven't seen that much difference tactically in terms of outside backs overlapping and outside mids moving centrally. The Quakes outside mids under Kinnear also tended to move centrally when the outside backs attacked. Players like Vako, Dawkins, MPG certainly play or played that way by design. If there's a difference it is that as long as the outside backs are Lima and Salinas / Qwiberg, we will have some competent attack from the outside back position. That means the outside back wide attack / outside mid move centrally will just be that much more frequent.
https://www.sjearthquakes.com/post/2018/02/10/watch-chris-wondolowski-preseason-win-vs-reno-1868-fc I might be reading too much into this, but this clip has a different feel compared to past years' EQ preseason discussions with the press. "Mentality", "fine-tuning positioning", "express ourselves" does sound to me like Jesse's intentions last year are being given shape by Stahre this year. It sounds like players are expected to have or develop more field awareness and ability to read the game as they play.
IMO field awareness is table stakes, it just goes with the territory. And optimism in preseason is cheap. Things always seem positive, and then you play an MLS team who is also positive about their preseason, and who have also made a bunch of moves to improve their team, and that's where the rubber meets the road. That said, I am happy to hear Wondo talk about them "expressing themselves" in the final third. All 4 guys in the presumed starting front 4 can score goals and with a lot of interchange and movement, hopefully we create a decent number of chances and convert at a decent rate, since all those guys can shoot.
So, here is some examples from last years Reno friendly last year: https://i.imgur.com/NbgZxDj.png https://i.imgur.com/UBSk4xD.png https://i.imgur.com/gES7Yur.png Here is the full game. Now, to you, the RSL friendly may not have been different, but to me whereas last year at this time our backline was surrendering 40+ yards of space to the ball, this year its only about 20 in preseason. And yes, when the opponent maintains possession our back line did fall back to the top of the box. But it was when the opponent had advanced the ball halfway into our side of the field, it wasnt conceded for free once the opponent got it near the centerline. That is a huge difference defensively in my mind.
What I was talking about was the positioning of the midfielders, not so much the back line. What I saw in the RSL match was that the "first line of 4" was essentially conceding about 10-15 yards past the center line into the Quakes half. So, very compact. I think the idea is stay deep and compact and spring on the counter. So, very 2017 Vancouver Whitecaps.
Yeah I rewatched a good bit of that game, and I just dont see it. Both halves the most consistent pressure line was the midfield stripe or at least within 5 yards of it. Yes, at times the team dropped deeper, but only when an RSL had established themselves in space with the ball through good RSL ball movement.
I said "out of the gate". Of course teams do change but it's usually not instantaneous and complete. First and foremost they are going to prioritize winning games. Maybe you wouldn't need to do that in MLS since there is no relegation but I don't see how losing frequently and badly in a quest for style is going to sit well for most fans.
You're right about that, but those fans will come running back if and when it pays off. I'd sit through three or four absolutely miserable bottom of the table seasons if it meant another MLS Cup after those bad seasons. Sadly, all we've really gotten so far has been teams doing their best not to lose while accomplishing absolutely nothing (2012 notwithstanding as it's obviously an outlier). Granted, I don't think MLS requires that drastic a timeline for a turnaround. Salaries are small, the number of available players is essentially endless, and the difference between each team is fairly small. You said they are going to prioritize winning games, but to do that, it seems that they need to prioritize scoring goals, as that's been what's held them back for years. It's not a coincidence that the team's highest table placement went along with the most goals they've scored in a season, nor is it coincidence that the pathetic numbers they've gotten in every other season matched poor results and a low placement in the standings. I enjoyed seeing multi goal games from Hoesen and Eriksson in preseason, but Reno is a far cry from the quality that other MLS teams are going to provide, so I'm not particularly excited right now. After three or four games into the season, we'll have a much better idea. I don't want to stretch the limited information we have too far.
As I've said, the Quakes changed style dramatically the moment Leitch took over, midseason, with no prep, a back line in desperate need of rebuild, and w/o suitable wing backs (as Lima was out for most of it). And despite getting blown out in the 2nd half of a bunch of road games, their winning percentage was better than it was under Dom. So, no, you don't have to commit to "losing frequently and badly" necessarily to make a style change. If they had decided to continue in that direction, they would have started with a baseline of making the playoffs. Barely making the playoffs, but making the playoffs nonetheless.
Doesn't matter so much whether it was at midfield or 5 or 10 or 15 years behind it. My point is, they didn't press much at all, and instead essentially conceded RSL's half completely. The commentators mentioned multiple times how the Quakes were compact and hard to break down. Yes, that's not a bad thing, but the point is, I think this is going to be a common pattern this year: play back and compact on defense, and try to spring for a counter, a.k.a. your Vancouver Whitecaps 2017.
Not Quakes related but appropriate for this thread... Packing Statistic over 5 ATL UTD Games Hello everyone! I've been eagerly waiting for the new season to start and I've been re-watching Atlanta United games from last year to analyze the packing stat across our starting 11. Here's a short video on packing for those not familiar with it: Packing I wanted to look at who created the most chances on our team, and with the departure of Asad and Carmona, I wanted to visualize how influential they were in creating chances. Here's the graph of an average of 5 games: Dallas(H), Revs(H), Galaxy(H), Orlando(H), and Philly(A) Here's a description of the graph: Accuracy - Percentage of completed forward passes to attempts Packing - Number of opposition players the ball passes (from a pass or dribble) Plays - Number of successful forward balls (bigger the circle, the more successful forward balls the player completed) PPP (Packing per Play) - The average amount of players 1 forward balls bypasses (black-red gradient. The more red the circle is, the more opposition players were bypassed per play) Number by player name (Almiron(5)) - Represents how many appearances that were more than 30 minutes The graph was generated in R, and the video replays came from MLS Live. I can also upload the individual graphs per game if there's enough interest! Feel free to provide criticisms and critiques! Hey that Yamil Asad guy was pretty good, some other MLS team should pick him up...
Naw, more sophisticated and variable. I think we'll all be happy with the approach. Mainly agreeing with Lurking's observations regarding the situational high press, the new back line look with dropping dmid cover and how it essentially is a three back with a lot of attacking flexibility...out of a base 4-4-2.
I've only watched the first half of the real salt lake game. I seem to have watched a completely different game from most people on this thread. From start until about the 20 min, I noticed us staying compact in defense at midfield, and pushing forward through the flanks. With our defenders actually playing through balls, not innaccurate long balls to the opposing defense. Vako had a couple of nice runs, Yueill played like Michael Bradleyfrom a decade ago under his father with mnt. Cummings reminded me of Fred Flinstone (huge with twinkle toes and good technique on ball). After 20 minutes mark until end of half we pressed their team more, played interesting combinations of through balls, accurate long balls, chips into attacking third, Midfielders played interchanged positions. Saw some sustained attacks within the final third. After end of first half, I'm sold on these four players in the midfield (vakoc, errikson, yueill, and godoy). They all defended, moved off ball, read game , and passed well. If the first half is any indication of our teams strength, I'd like to see us play experiment with 451. I'd like to see our Midfielders get more opportunity to take shots on goal. Hoesen had a couple of clear chances. If he hustled and went feet first, he could have beat the keeper to ball to score, and the other drive from Lima went straight to the keeper. Hes got some on ball technique. I hope he's just loosening up for season, or exhaustion from half a season in Holland. Or else hell be moved somewhere else. I can't wait to see how our midfield competes against the rest of MLS. Looking forward to this season.
The passing was definitely improved over what we've seen in the past, especially out of the back. That's something that I think is more due to mentality than player ability. I was also happy to see Tarbell play the ball out of the back rather than booting it. I don't remember seeing any boot balls in that game or against Reno. Likewise, they were improved in actually moving forward. The issue I took with it was that they took a defensive stance as the default, rather than trying to establish possession and dominance. They were on neutral ground against another team in preseason. They should have been more ambitious. If it turns out they were specifically testing this type of situation, that's one thing. I didn't see the other preseason games, so I can't compare them to that one, other than Reno, which was a completely different story.
There is a quote out there from Stahre or somebody stating that first they worked on defensive organization in the preseason games and then they are planning to work on how they want to attack. Certainly we saw the attack being worked on during the first half against Reno (granted an easy opponent, but that's probably what you want to try against at first). In the 2nd half, we saw the second stringers mainly and I think they were working more on the defensive stuff (not very well, which is a good reason why they were still working on it). It's not just staying compact in 2 banks of 4, it's pressing as a group in certain areas and at certain times. The players need to recognize this as a group otherwise it doesn't work, therefore implementation isn't immediate and certainly not as easy as the reactive sit-back defense.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SJEarthquakes/comments/7xchm8/ive_met_with_coach_stahre/ A fan ran into Stahre at Safeway and here is the short conversation they had. I ran into coach Stahre at Safeway yesterday. I approached him introducing myself and welcoming him to San Jose. Nice guy, very friendly! I asked him a few questions and here are his answers What formation will you use? "Nothing is set in stone yet. We will play to get results but also to please the eye of the fans" After signing Magnus and Danny will Wondo's starting position still be guaranteed? I found this answer very interesting "Nothing is guaranteed. No player's starting position is guaranteed. My job is not guaranteed. If the players perform better than their team mates, they will keep starting. If my team performs better than other teams, I will keep coaching this team. If not, changes are needed and I am not afraid to make them" A lot of European players and coaches have a hard time adapting to MLS. Do you see this as a potential problem for the Quakes as a team this year? "No. I've been studying MLS for a while now and I am sure the other players coming from European leagues did their homework. As long as you work hard you can adapt in any part of the world. If I didn't believe I would fit in this league, I would not be here"
Thanks for sharing that. Nothing too surprising there. I'm sure even Wondo wouldn't want him to say he's going to play Wondo no matter what. "We will play to get results but also to please the eye of the fans" Sounds nice in theory, but unfortunately, you can't always have it both ways.