OH! Right...uh..."Where'd we learn how to clear a ball, some weird ill-fitting analogous place where clearing balls in a way that isn't a sexual innuendo and is also poorly done?" I got nothin'. Just saying that when we went down 2-0, I was expecting it to end 2-0 or worse, and that didn't happen at all. My expectations were quite exceeded.
The problem I have with a lot of the "play more starters" arguments is that most of them don't include what you did, which was to "possibly win". United has won two games on the road all season. So playing some of the starters means United probably doesn't win, starters have played on turf, and not rested. Play all the starters and your chance of victory goes up a little, but so does your chance of an injury to a key player, as others pointed out upthread.
I don't think he was declaring that rest was definitely more important than homefield. He wanted both and given the situation looks to have made a good decision. Orlando was definitely going to go all out for a win so even with our starters we weren't guaranteed a win and a draw would have done nothing for us. NER was also definitely going to go all out for the win and we knew Drogba wasn't playing on turf. If we rest our starters we are guaranteed to be rested and have a better than 50/50 chance of getting homefield. If we don't rest our starters our chances of getting home field go up to maybe 75/25 but our chances of being rested go down to 0. I'm not sure I understand how the only way to judge the decision would have been if the worst case and most unlikely scenario had taken place. Nothing is guaranteed. He played the odds correctly and won. The only caveat is this vague notion of momentum that the ESPN guys kept harping on. I'm guessing they were just trying to find something to talk about since I can't understand how the ten guys who didn't play would be negatively affected by watching their teammates lose in a game that didn't matter.
I thought it was a huge gamble. How many of you saying Olsen got it right would have said the same if United were headed to Montreal this week? No matter, all's well that ends well. I admit I hadn't considered the turf. That's a big issue by itself.
I think you look at it this way. How can you ensure a home knockout game? Win in Orlando. What gives you the best chance to win in Orlando? Play your best eleven. I guess it comes down to a couple of things. Olsen doesn't believe home field is as crucial as I do, and he sees a potential Cup run in this team and is setting them up for that. Terrific news on both fronts, and has me thinking I may be in for a fun postseason.
Instead of four games in two weeks for the starters, there will be only two games within 4 days followed by a full week before the third. Olsen played it right.
Just having fun here because there's obviously no right answer. But I think the question above is very relevant. Anyone who wouldn't have still liked the decision if we were heading for Montreal is just Monday morning quarterbacking - same of we lost to Montreal on the road. There's a difference between a tough judgement that turns out right and a gamble that pays off. sacrificing a possibly important three points for rested starters seem more like a gamble that paid off. It's like finding out that your broker put all your savings into one stock that went through the roof. You're rich but probably hiring another adviser.
Isn't it also a huge gamble to play your best eleven in Orlando then possibly not get the win (let alone the possibility of a red card or injury)? We are clearly the better team than Orlando, but in MLS you rarely expect to win on the road. In other words Ben's choice = worst case scenario we play a tired Montreal team (since they would have had to have played their starters to beat NE) on the road with our rested starters. Your suggestion = worst case scenario we play in Montreal with tired starters. In other words, Ben played it safe. He chose the course of action with the least risk. I think you can criticize him for going with the bird in hand (rested starters) but I don't see how he was gambling. Agreed, though, that Ben thinks we can beat MTL in either place and is more focused on having his starters somewhat fresh come the home game against Red Bull. One encouraging thing is that the past two playoff teams have seemed less capable of putting up multiple goals at home and it has made the two-legged series tough for us. This team could put pressure on the higher seed during the home leg.
I think it was a judgement call that turned out right. Consider: A draw does nothing for United or for Montreal. If Montreal wins, United needs to win to keep home field advantage for the playoff game. United has won two games on the road all year. 2/17 = 12% Even if Olsen plays all his starters and goes all out for the win in Orlando, what do you think the odds of winning that game were? Is a one out of eight chance to win that game worth a) the risk of injury and b) making your starters play four games in two weeks? You could adjust this estimated percentage based on a number of factors, but even if you double the chance of winning you're still only at one in four. What are the chances United would need the win? Montreal has won four games on the road all year (4/17 = 24%) and was going on the road against a team that is tied for the second best home record in the East (nine games won, 9/17 = 53%). On the road against a team that needs to win to have any hope of getting into the playoffs. On the road against a team that plays on turf. I agree with this 100%.
You said it yourself. In MLS, you rarely expect to win on the road. This is why you play to win Orlando. I think United has a better chance of advancing with a tired team at home than a rested team on the road. Presumably there is a better chance of winning in Orlando than Montreal because of the quality of opponent, one being a playoff team, one not. Basically, Olsen didn't put all his eggs in the home knock out basket. It's easy to say it's smart now, but he would have exposed himself to second guessing if they were traveling now, whereas going for the win in Orlando is bullet proof. I admire him for it, as its not something coaches are apt to do. As far as arguing the percentages, there is something there, based on a justified lack of respect for Montreal's ability to win in NewEngland.
Yeah, I didn't want to throw out hypothetical numbers, but this is pretty much what I'm saying. Even though there is a large difference in quality between our starters and the team we put out Sunday, that difference doesn't translate into a significant improvement in our chances of getting home field. Play those games 100 times and we probably end up with home field 80 of them. Would you risk an injury that ruins our playoff chances or tired players vs Red Bull just to change an 80% chance of getting home field to a 90% chance? It'd be similar, but less extreme, to saying Philadelphia needed to go all out vs Red Bull because the only way they could ensure home field was to get a point. While only a point ensures NER can't catch them, the chances of them overcoming a 12 goal deficit was remote so it wouldn't have made sense to play your starters unless you felt momentum was important. Obviously the chances of a MTL team without Piatti or Drogba winning in NE is much more likely than the Revs making up a 12 goal deficit, but the principle is the same. Ben took a small risk with our homefield advantage for the guaranteed reward of rested starters.
Really, though, including the incorrectly-ruled-offside goal, we only put together two goals. The third Orlando put together for us -- "Excuse me, would you like a goal? Well, here you are."
Be honest, now. In the early part of the season, or last season, or the one before, do you really think we would have scored that chance? _MY_ money is the shot would have gone into the 18th row, if we had even let the opportunity get that far in the first place. We weren't exactly practicing a pressuring offense.
On ESPNFC Moreno gave the play where we gave them a goal [paraphrasing] The Optional Defending Play of the Week Had a nice isolation shot and brutalized Kamara's "defense" on the play - it was actually quite funny. On the play where they gave us the chance on goal, he gave it The Assist of the Week (to their defender).
You said it yourself... In MLS, you rarely expect to win on the road. And MTL needed to win to even have a *chance* of a home game.
Interesting little video "We're looking forward to getting home & playing a playoff game at RFK"Ben Olsen is mic'd up in Behind the Scenes of #ORLvDC #DCU pic.twitter.com/8q7iiFCHOu— D.C. United (@dcunited) October 26, 2016
In retrospect that lineup in Orlando may have been problematic, but not in the way people expected. Not sure if it's smart to take a team that is on a 4 game winning streak and completely bench them all for rest. It should have been a more mixed lineup to keep building the chemistry and momentum. Especially Hamid, Birnbaum and Boswell should have played. Those positions can handle 3 games in one week. Also should have created a sub pattern where your stars like Acosta, Sam and Mullins come off the bench for 15-30 minutes each to keep them in a positive routine. Players like Kamara and Martin had no purpose ... To bring those guys out of the wilderness and expect them to perform was naive.
They - The First Team - were off for 1-1/2 weeks, people. Not 3 weeks. They went from a win on Oct 01st to another win two weeks later on Oct 16th. They didn't suffer from a lay0ff. They were just blech.
we had 2 weeks off due to the international break between TFC and NYCFC, and we looked great against NYCFC. that's longer than NYCFC to Montreal. Montreal also rested a lot of players their last game and it didn't affect them