Don't like seeing Lalas shaking his head like that as he walks off. Hope it's not another injury (or the same one back).
Games like this are why I remain skeptical of Fraser as a coach. He needs to quit tinkering with lineups and formations and stick to the formula that actually works. Starting with a 5-man backline was stupid. It just invited LAFC to pressure us, nobody seemed to know their marking assignments, and we left our attackers on an island with no support. It just kneecapped us right out of the gate and made our attack predictable and one-dimensional for most of the game.
Feels a bit harsh. Agree this wasn't a great experiment, but really I don't see it happening all that often from him. And every coach tinkers on occasion. Frankly, if there were no changes ever we would all be annoyed at how predictable the Rapids are. I am more interested in how he reacts to the failed experiment and that he generally has a "this works" plan. Rod
It's a little bit different when the "experiment" is pretty much the same strategy that got us walloped in the playoffs. Bringing in a third CB from the start (as opposed to using Moor as a closer) hasn't worked for us whenever Fraser's tried it. The back line always ends up unorganized - I lost track of the number of times I caught Lalas way out of position or Danny playing someone onside because he was too far back. As for predictability, teams can and do play differently all the time without changing key parts of their formation. We shouldn't have to see our entire defense in shambles just for unpredictability's sake.
Sorry, I don't mean I agree with such a dramatic change. Agreed that it isn't a good option. My main point is that we have a good coach who makes some mistakes (as all do), so I am not so negative as others seem to be. rod.
My guess is he wanted to play Abu since he was healthy and didn’t know who to sit. Really, Trusty and Wilson had played well. Benching either would have not gone over well with the player asked to sit. To be honest, for one game they would have been better off with Abu on the bench. He was rusty. But I assume Fraser thinks the team will be better with Abu in there long term.
I'm writing without having read the previous posts following the match. It was really frustrating watching Rossi get inside Rosenberry not once, but twice. And on the first goal, it seems that Yarbrough was anticipating the shot to go far post and got caught off guard. Additionally, I was surprised to the the five man back line. In a sense, Fraser was ceding possession to LAFC with that formation and tactics. It was a surprise in that it doesn't seem to be his style to change formation in the face of a strong opponent. He seems to be more likely to play to his team's strengths. Obviously the Rapids got themselves back in the match in the second half. But as with matches earlier this season, a lack of ability to finish under pressure cost them perhaps a draw. Loved the determination by the burgundy boys to keep fighting.
I blamed Rosenberry for letting his man get goal-side on both goals during the game, but rewatching the goals for writing my blog tonight I realized that in both cases Rosenberry was stepping towards Abubakar's man as Lalas stepped towards the ball. I think the issue was more that Lalas and Keegan hadn't worked together enough in this formation to know when to "hand off" players to each other than Rosenberry not covering his man well.
Agree. Another data point in the, "Why mess with a relatively successful backline formation?" column.
Because what worked in the last game might not work in the next one. Not defending Fraser - I'm not sure I would have made the changes he did - but the Rapids aren't good enough to just plan to do the same thing every game. Not sure any MLS team is. That said - they didn't look ready to play that system Saturday. They didn't seem to know when and how to hand players off as @JasonMa said. Lalas stepped up several times to pick up attackers that maybe Acosta or Price should have had. Who should have had the second attacker in the middle when Wilson was already marking somebody? It looked at times like the roles weren't clearly understood.
To clarify my prior post... Of course some adjustments need to be made from game to game given the changing opponents. Having said that, I think most of us speaking to the defensive formation decision are all generally agreeing that it appeared as if the roles and/or "hand off" points weren't clearly understood by some/all on the back line. My concern lies with the decision to move away from a relatively intact and well-understood backline formation used in prior games against teams with varying attack threats, and replacing it with a new experiment that is not yet clearly understood by the defenders for a game against a very solid opponent in a challenging environs. To me, that's setting yourself up for failure... or at a minimum, a high risk venture. I'm not at all against wise coaching shifts in strategy/formation from game to game. But if you're gonna make a notable change to something new and untested, and move away from something that has worked well in recent weeks across varying opponents, I would hope the coaches first ensure the roles are very clear and fully understood. It was pretty clear to the viewer that this wasn't the case. So even if the unique threat of LAFC attackers raised concerns with the back line, is it better to go with something less than perfect but at least fully understood and road tested? Or should the coach roll the dice with something new, untested, with subpar understanding by the defenders? That's the distinction I was referring to in the prior posts. I know which basket I'd place my eggs in... and this doesn't even factor in the negative effect of placing 5 in back (and less up field) on "welcoming" the potent LAFC attackers from the get-go. Having said all that... We lost, so of course Monday morning (center)backs like us are gonna be critical of the decision. It doesn't mean I distrust Fraser or his approach. This is normal. But of course, if questionable decisions start popping up every weekend and the team starts floundering as a result, THEN we can talk about the bigger picture in his decision-making. The beauty of Anthony Hudson (yes, I just said that) is that we all have a wonderful coaching specimen to compare/contrast current and future Rapids coaches against. He made questionable decisions on O and D in almost every game he coached. And his/their record showed. Thank god we're not there now!! (or, if you're a weathered Rapids pessimist like many, not yet at least)