Knighton making most of opportunity BY PETER GOBIS SUN CHRONICLE STAFF Monday, April 6, 2009 11:45 PM EDT http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2009/04/06/sports/4726573.txt MLS Team of the Week - Round 3 http://goal.com/en-us/news/1110/major-league-soccer/2009/04/07/1195990/mls-team-of-the-week-round-3
Week 3 marked by hats, cards, surprises By Steve Davis / Special to MLSnet.com Why I voted Ralston for MOTM:
he simply provided a link between midfield and attackers, which the team did not have in the previous 225 minutes this season. i think the 4-4-2 experiment is over for quite some time, because we don't have strikers suited to play it.
To put a fine point on it, the Revs don't have the strikers to play a box 4-4-2. A diamond 4-4-2 the strikers could play, but then you're dropping a defensive mid (which isn't going to happen any time soon on this squad). The double pivot makes the 5-man midfield a necessity, at least in terms of possession. Also, given the destroyer nature of these two d-mids, 3-5-2 makes more sense than 4-5-1.
and i dont think either JL nor SJ are true destroyers. they are too attack minded, and would be taking away some of their true value by sitting them back in the diamond. I also think Ralston is too slow at this point to hand the diamond defensively. yeah, especially considering we don't have a single health ystriker whoi can hold the ball up. maybe when twellman returns the 4-5-1 would work, but now it would just result in lost possession, reuslting in a similar problem as the 4-4-2
Good point on Ralston. My favorite destroyers tend to have some offensive flair - Redondo is my poster boy. I always preferred Vieira to Makelele. I like destroyers who can hold the line inside enemy territory. We're on the same page. That extra attacker creates a lot more space and passing options. Plus, I generally loathe the 4-5-1. Even great teams can grind to a halt with it. Too often they run out of attacking ideas.
I'll take the pure destroyer in the Maka' mold, as long as the 5 players in front of him are creative and ambitious, and as long as the team plays a progressive style. I think then a true destroyer like Dunga allows a team to be even more attack minded. But that is all dependent on supporting cast, and coaching philosophy. I like the 4-5-1 in cup/tournament football. that is when i prefer one-off results to attractive football. I have no problem with the Revs shutting up shop come the one-off tournament in October-November, because a nailbitting 1-nil result is pretty much what I expect. However, when they are playing Kansas City in July, I want to see some football with ambition, a real killer instinct.
If we are going to play a 4-4-2, the midfielders have to pinch in to help dominate the center of midfield and the extra man going forward has to be one of the outside backs... the only back that we have that can fill this role is Alston... if we had someone at the left back who could really fly and occupy the full attention of the opposition's right, the 4-4-2 would work.... but we didn't even have Alston, and without him I don't think we even come close to having the personnel at the back to pull it off (and I agree that the people up top aren't particularly well suited for it either)...
One of the problems with the 3-5-2 is that it rarely works in international football... teams with good flank attacks can exploit this formation and you are really dependent on stopping attacks before they get started. a missed tackle in the middle of the park can spell disaster against a good team... every team that has pretensions of playing international tournaments has to have the horses and the knowledge to be able to play a 4 back when necessary... and it is not simply a matter of putting bodies behind the ball, but being able to attack from this formation (or you are going to spend the entire day with your back up against your own goal line).
That's one of the reasons why the box doesn't work. If you have your wings pinch in, it destroys your width. If you play the diamond, you don't have that gaping hole between the midfield line and the opposing box. Just my opinion, but I'd say the larger reason for that is coaches cede control over the game when they put bodies into the offense. A highly organized game with a four-man back and a midfield obsessed with keeping its defensive shape is a coach's game. When you team wins 1-0, the coach is a genius. When your team wins 3-2, the players are geniuses. Coaches, understandably, are more interested in the former.
Not sure if this is posted elsewhere, but the word on the Tweet (kylejmccarthy & madisonroad) is that Argenis Fernandez is gone to make room for Osei.
Pretty much what everyone expected. The big question is whether he's gone via loan or if he's been released.
I'd like to think he was being loaned out. Otherwise, they paid a transfer fee for a guy that played ... what ... 7 minutes?
yeah a club team that plays in international competitions. you are thinking too narrowly about his meaning.
I think it has less to do with public perception following a game, and more to do with the conservative nature of getting a singular result. Rightly or wrongly, coaches/managers will always be a bit more conservative in a one-off match. I think if history has shown anything, like in all sports, it is balance which wins in tournaments, not conservation or progression. Sure a more disciplined and organized side will almost always prevail, but balance should be the goal.
"Revolution waive Argenis Fernandez, will use international roster spot for Emmanuel Osei when he arrives. Stephane Assengue now in training." http://twitter.com/madisonroad/status/1471373284 "In a totally expected move, New England waives Argenis Fernandez. Can't say the Costa Rican made much of an impact." http://twitter.com/kylejmccarthy/status/1471389839
i'm just pointing out what swenson was talking about, and why he suggests that more clubs don't play it. his meaning of international had just as much to do wit hthe club game as it did with national teams.