You sound like my better half. While we were watching Saturday's game, I mentioned that I do not see Crew making the playoffs. He disagreed with me and told me he would bet Crew would make the playoffs. See. He believes in Porter even more than I do. "Porter will get these guys to the playoffs." Yet, somehow Geeg calls me Porter's number one fan.
Thing is, I think it's over. But I don't much care. I just want us to finish the season in good form so that (1) I can really enjoy attending/watching games during the final weeks of the season and (2) we can build momentum for next year.
My head says we're toast. My heart says we make the playoffs, get hot and won the whole damned thing!
this page has finally been updated: http://www.sportsclubstats.com/USA/Columbus.html We have 9 games left. 6 wins will probably not be enough. We'll likely need 7.
hmmm, that's not reassuring. In a vacuum, a W @NYCFC and @ATL seem very unlikely. And despite Vancouver being hot garbage, I still never feel great about getting any more than a draw when heading west. Luckily, all those games are after we should have built up some significant steam. Nothing to do but take it one game at a time and keep building. First step, whoop up on FCC.
Winning in ATL or @NYCFC isn't any more or less unlikely than San Jose. This team is starting to play and I wouldn't call a win against anyone unlikely.
That lazy schmuck knave finally posted the new thread, and yeah -- to no one's surprise, we're TOAST. Not that we should have needed help with that calculation.
For reference, here's the Toast thread: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/th...tragic-numbers-other-doubtful-digits.2105653/
Yeah our season is over that was pathetic effort and coaching . He knew Maloney was trash and still started him . Maloney needs cut right now
You put Santos back there the whole time and you don't get one of the best goals we have seen this season. So what is your point?
Who says he couldn’t push up and score from leftback ? If he started is hypothetical but i guarantee he would not get toasted like Maloney did on defense which broke us down on defense and made us vulnerable
And we don't give up that second goal that puts us down 2-0. Maloney should not see the field. He is not MLS caliber. He has proven that time and time again. Also did you see how many chances we created in the final 20 minutes? Yes, Santos scored a beut. But if we start the game in that 4-4-2 we may be up 2-0 and not need that stunner. I care much more about the win-loss column than the way we score our goals.
Then, by your logic, why not try to put someone back there who has had a little more experience playing from the back? Throw Zardes back there. That second goal was a failure of the entire back line and you're foolish for thinking Santos would be better positioned than Maloney in that situation to prevent a goal.
Because we have other good wingers and there is a huge drop off at striker and Zardes. Your statement/ question is absurd
Santos isn't a winger now, he's a #10. Diaz had a couple good games, still young and inconsistent. Was bad. Agrudo had a couple good games, still young and inconsistent. Was bad. Mohktar was alright, had the cross that Zardes blew, but he's not 90 minutes fit. Also, no one to play #10 (if anyone mentions Sosa, you're insane). If Santos is at left back, second goal never happens, simple as. Also, who is to say he wouldn't get roasted a couple times defensively. Yes, Santos at left back worked v SJ, for all of what, 10 minutes? Come on.
Because Santos has played left back before under berhalter a time or two and also this season vs San Jose. Again. Are we just ignoring the final 20 minutes of the game?
That is why we switch to a 4-4-2. You don't need a #10 Afful - mensah - crognale - Santos Diaz ------trapp ---Artur --------argudo --------Zardes ----------williams-----------
In what universe has Porter ever played a 4-4-2 from the start? For us or Portland? While I like the idea of that formation, it's not realistic. Putting Santos there for 90 is just silly. Put Argudo there. Argudo is much more physical and isn't as good offensively. Keeping a worse offensive player in the attacking third, while putting your best player in a defensive role that handcuffs him makes no sense to me.
And Santos didn't exactly do better than Maloney in those last 20. Watch it again. Guys, Maloney wasn't the liability you think he was. Santos at the back wouldn't have made our set piece on the first goal less of a train-wreck. Santos would not have done much of anything on the second goal either. Putting Santos in the back would've gassed our attack by the 60th minute. The fact of the matter is that we have had a level of injuries only SKC fans can understand, and they're in a similar boat in the Western Conference. Apologies, but the argument of putting our top playmaking midfielder and #2 goalscorer in the back for a full game is silly. It would make us more vulnerable in the back and lessen our offensive impact. We have 7(!) guys out, and another 2 that we need who are not 90 minute match fit, but some crew fans are acting all black knight over here...
He wouldn't have scored the goal he scored last night. That goal came off of a turnover, foul and quick free kick in Cincinnati's half of the field. Santos, at LB, would have been well inside his own third in such a scenario. That ball would have found whoever his replacement was, who likely doesn't hit that shot.
With 2 DM’s in Trapp and Artur, this looks like the “empty bucket” midfield that Bob Bradley went with for the USMNT for much of his tenure. (Which honestly wasn’t all that bad.)