So, I hear there is a game tonight?... http://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/ma...ew-england-revolution-vs-chicago-fire/preview
Lemieux's Previeux: http://www.revolutionsoccer.net/pos...gue-play-fire-visit-foxborough-saturday-night
Femi pulled a groin muscle warming up on Wednesday, for those curious about why he never checked in to that match.
We saw Femi limp off as we were walking into the game Wednesday. It appears the Revs are down to one healthy striker. I don't know all the rules/roster requirements, but it seems like somehow they could borrow/sign another striker short term Wednesday, it really seemed they were a bit lost in attack after Kamara came out
Davies twitter updates on the subject over the last few weeks. Coming back from injury is never easy. Have faith in yourself and enjoy the process #grind #eatsleepbreathe pic.twitter.com/c7YVdXB7FF— Charlie Davies (@CharlieDavies9) July 4, 2016 When it's your first day back in training 😁#NERevs #MLS pic.twitter.com/VJTqXQZAS9— Charlie Davies (@CharlieDavies9) July 13, 2016 Another step closer 🙌🏽 #motivated pic.twitter.com/SWJctzQ6ir— Charlie Davies (@CharlieDavies9) July 20, 2016
It is hard to argue with wins when you are an average team like NE is but I fear it might make Heaps think "see I knew my formation would work with time and look at how well Teal fits in!". Sometimes these wins can actually do more long term damage if they hide the real problems in the team. Now beggars can't be choosers so we have to take the 6 points and be happy with it and pray that Heaps still understands we looked poor, at home, against two very poor teams and makes some changes if and when people get healthy.
I agree but I did take away some optimism after watching Koffie get in there just for a brief period and immediately lock down the center. Something missing from the whole game.... actually for 2 months. Going forward, it's clear to me that if Koffie or Kamara go out injured this season we are basically finished in terms of even entertaining the thought of us being contenders.
The real frustration with this is that the Revs have provided almost no information about injuries. Koffee's injury was supposedly minor (i.e., they expected him back soon) and he was out 2+ months. Agudelo's injury, whatever it was, is still pretty much a mystery - and he's been out a while. Same with Davies - is this still the initial injury, or did he hurt something else during rehab? Donnie Smith seems to be on a perpetual injury, with brief interruptions for a few random appearances. What about Barnes (not that I particularly care)? Do they expect Kouassi to play at all this season? No one is reporting on injury timetables for anyone on the roster. I would have agreed about Koffie a couple of weeks ago, but I think Watson has filled that role quite impressively. Now, why did it take Heaps until a few weeks ago to consider that option? I'm hoping it wasn't because, until seeing him play in Copa America, he didn't realize he could play the position. --------------------- Most of the reports of the game seem to imply that we were fortunate that Johnson make a mistake on that corner, but we were steadily ramping up pressure as the game headed into final stages. I think, in this case at least, Revs pressure forced that mistake. We put a high number of quality shots on the Chicago net. Interesting that Chicago's entire attacking strategy was to play long balls up to DeLeeuw, isolated with JoGo. They seemed to like that matchup in open space. The Revs played ultra-conservative, right up until that last 10 minutes or so. They kept playing the ball back, rather than press the attack, played back to Shuttleworth who would boot it up towards our attackers who virtually never won the ball, and occasionally, lost the ball while safely(?) passing it back and around. Good and necessary to get points, but not a very impressive victory.
Helping were the whopping Zero shots on target from Chicago. Is that a credit to the Rev's D, or just Chicago ineptitude? A little of both? I'd like to think that the D did a bunch of good work containing Accam.
There was a discussion a little while ago about an analytic coach for the keepers.. I was going to comment, but forgot, that I read a study several years ago that determined that goalie kicks result in the other team gaining possession of the ball 62% of the time. So basically, 2 out of every 3 goalie kicks result in the ball being in the opponents possession. Not good odds, so why do you keep doing it??
Good question. My guess would be that the odds of dribbling the ball up field and losing possession before you reach the final third is even greater than 62%.
It would be interesting to see how often within the 38% where the team did retain possession, it turned into a goal. It also could be a case of trading a turnover 75 yards from goal for more distance to cover. If you play it short out of the back, you'd better be confident your defenders can retain possession and won't turn it over deep. On a team like the revs your best bet is probably to hammer it upfield and take your chances winning it back. Alternatively, you could just boot it upfield. Yes, 62% of their kicks upfield are turned over but they also pin back the opponent in their own end with typically at least half of the field, maybe 2/3, to come back up. The GK may take that turnover as a trade-off then and count on his mids and upfield players to force a turnover around midfield or at least make it more difficult to move the ball upfield with any pace. This limits an immediate scoring threat making the kick serve its purpose.
Just saw this on twitter from the Chicago game. Interesting look behind the scenes. Jay Heaps talks with the guys about what needs to get done to come away with three points.https://t.co/Ci113xO4r2— New England Revolution (@NERevolution) July 26, 2016
Especially when the Revs, in particular, are really weak at competing for high balls upfield. When Kamara came aboard, I was amazed that he actually won some of those kicks, when we had been losing virtually all of them. Fagundez, Nguyen, Bunbury, Agudelo - barely even compete against defenders for high balls (and Rowe not much better) - and since they are often the target players, it seems like we are just hoping for the defenders to misplay the balls they win. Kamara's a better target, but we see him being played more physically - and becoming less effective - lately. I can understand it when the defense is under pressure, but way too often what generally happens is we have the ball nearing the attacking third, then in response to some token pressure the ball is played back to one of our defenders. Then the pressure steps up and we play it back to the the keeper. The pressure steps up again and Shuttleworth boots it up field, the opponents win the high/long ball and within seconds we've backed off an attacking opportunity and given away possession. Playing the ball back *seems* like a possession-oriented move, but in reality it's just the opposite. That's why it's so critical that we have players in defense and central midfield who have the attacking mentality to resist the token pressure and move the ball forward (or at least laterally). Koffee and Watson are so much better in that respect than Caldwell and Daigo. And Farrell, for all his sometimes dicey dribbling runs, at least is determined not to be deterred by an opponent who merely "shows" in front of him. There are so many situations in the center of the field where there are passing options, yet we show extreme reluctance to take on any level of risk. I'd suggest that Caldwell's league-leading (recently he was the leading MLS midfielder IIRC) passing percentage isn't a good thing. It means he's being too conservative.
I agree completely!!! The US men play the same damn way...drives me nuts. I understand slowing the game down and taking a breather now and then; but that shouldn't be your best offensive move. The goal of having possession of the ball is to score a goal. Passing it backwards doesn't accomplish that, especially when it goes all the way back to the keeper who boots it away.
Agree, and the point of a back pass, in particular is usually to change field in a pass or two. We haven't had anyone who is effective at a long pass to switch the attack since ancient history -- oh wait, last year, that #13 guy.