Post-match: San Jose Earthquakes - Los Angeles FC (Saturday, 9/25) postgame thread [R]

BTW, welcome Jackson Yueill to the JuRY Fan Club.

 

I told you we had nothing to worry about.

 

Did you see Almeyda’s post game comments on Aftershock?

One of the Aftershock guys asked about the weird unbalanced formation, and Matías said that that was the plan. So yeah, you’re right about that.

Another thing that hampered our possession game was LaF#ck’s overwhelming use of negative cynical fouling to interfere with our possessions. They fouled us a ton and should have gotten cards for persistent infringement, but of course, they didn’t.

I’m really annoyed that we got Baldo and then Marufo back to back. Two shitty refs who allow way too much fouling in the matches. And Marufo was downright biased in favor of LaF#ck.

So it’s very cool that we won both games. Good on us!!

And this game was much more group effort, rather than relying on Chofis to carry us. And props to Chofis for really picking up his game. I guess that he really wasn’t ready at the start of the season.

Go Quakesfans!!

- Mark

 

Chofis's passing this game was really, really good. Stuff that he'd try earlier in the season, it was often, well, that was kind of clever / tricky, but didn't work. Now I think his confidence is sky high and he's being just a little more patient and those passes are starting to work. I'm sure knowing his teammates better and vice versa is also helping. But confidence has a lot to do with it right now I would guess. He was also routinely holding onto the ball against 2 or 3 defenders via clever touches with those size 5 boots .

 

Haha, c'mom Jazz, your original JuRY line up didn't have Chofis even on the field...or was it bring him in if you need a goal... I didn't think excluding Chofis was the way to go. I always thought playing Judson behind in central mid floating in and out of a three back was the best way to get Jackson, Judson, Remedi and Chofis all on the field...with Chofis in basically a free roll to float ... that was the end goal...Almeyda had to adapt his midfield defensive tactics to more zone coverage to finally free up Chofis...But I agree it sure looks like the long awaited mythical Almeyda 3-4-3 with Judson drifting centrally as a 6 and centrally between the CBs for backline coverage. It is incredibly dynamic, crazy amount of players exchanging space and positions. It looks great...with more repetition it will get even better defensively... I hope we roll with it the rest of the season...but I'm bummed it took so long to implement...it was unfortunate Judson was unavailable for so long at the start of the season, and we didn't upgrade at CB by bringing in Nathan prior to the season.

 

Also, his teammates now expect him to pass to them. So they are looking for those clever passes and expecting them, so they are ready to receive the ball. That helps a lot.

Many of our players now move to the open space better, which is great. Also, it’s a big improvement over the Frank/Wat(TF)/Dom days.

But yes, we are looking much better. I still hold out no hope that we make the playoffs. We might, but I really doubt it.

Go Quakesfans!!

- Mark

 

Haha, c'mon cthbp, you're trying to invalidate JuRY with a technicality! It's called the JuRY™ midfield, not the JuRYnC (Judson-Remedi-Yueill-no-Chofis) midfield. But in fact Chofis has not played in the midfield the 2 times the Quakes have actually employed JuRY. He's played forward in 4-3-3 setups essentially.

As for Chofis's role, I miscalculated because 1) I didn't consider Chofis as a forward, 2) Chofis had not yet blown up (remember Cade was our most productive player for nearly the 1st half of the season and Chofis was underperforming), and 3) who knew we'd acquire Nathan, which also changes the calculus a bit, giving us more formation options in the back.

I don't think Almeyda had to adjust to more zone coverage to go JuRY. We were generally playing 4-4-1-1 setups and the front 2 do not have specific man responsibilty in Matias's man system anyway. Last night you'd see Chofis occasionally running 3 yards behind an attacking defender, and that's what he was doing before. Nothing's changed there. He's not going to help much with defense either way.

You realize that a 3-4-3 with Judson, Remedi, and Yueill in central midfield makes for an unbalanced formation, right? Judson at the back in front of the back line and then Remedi and Yueill as kind of double pivot 8's, and then there's one more to the midfield 4. You could have someone like Espinoza and let him roam from side to side, but the point is that it's unbalanced. That may or may not be a good thing. Espinoza's been largely ineffective from the left side, save for that one recent goal. So I'm not necessarily high on it.

With Nathan in the mix, I'd either do a 3-5-2, with Nathan-Alanis-Beas(t) at the back, Chofis playing off of Jebo or Benji, JuRY, and two wingers, or I'd use the 4-3-3 we've used the last 2 times we've used JuRY. It only looked funny last night because no one was really playing "left forward". Benji and Chofis were both playing more centrally, and there was a big hole on the attack from the left except when Lopez pushed forward (and BTW that led to our 2nd goal when Alanis came forward to help fill that attacking gap on the left).

It took so long to implement this because we made bad decisions. No excuses. It took us until about the 22nd game, in LA, to try it!! There were times when Jack was out or Remedi out with yellow accumulation,etc. but we had many opportunities. When Judson became available there were games where he sat on the bench, or Remedi sat on the bench, or Matias would stick Judson into some goofy right back role. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. We didn't need Nathan to do it either. Could have been Alanis-Beas(t) as CB's with our outside backs, JuRY, together with 3 in the front, including Chofis, etc. In fact, that's what it was in the first use of JuRY - the dominant win in LA. Nathan was out with a red. Alanis-Beas(t) CB's in a back 4.

 

Official summary only shows one to Espinoza. From what I recall live it was not. I don't think this is something DC would look at though unfortunately.

 

I think what we are seeing from Chofis the last few games is the best run of form I've ever seen from an Earthquake. I am just sitting back and enjoying it free of my hatred of Fisher and skepticism of the future of the team.

 

Disagree completely. The Quakes kept losing the ball over and over. Are you saying they were doing that on purpose so that they could counter? I dun theen so, Lucy.

The reason we started possessing the ball was after LAFC subbed in 4 players at the 58th min, and I think 1-2 of them were teenagers.

 

Vako also got super hot one year - 2019, I think, and there was a point where he was in the MVP conversation! Didn't last too long though.

 

Yes, we lost the ball a lot, but we were also looking for the quick counter. There were a number of plays where we lost the ball looking for one of our strikers or other attackers.

We weren’t playing our usual possession game, which includes a lot of back passes to the defenders.

Go Quakesfans!!

- Mark

 

They showed the replay at the game and it looked like Espinoza got nicked in the foot and went down. On the other end, however, they showed the replay of the LAFC guy going down and it didn't look like he was touched at all.

 

I thought the Espinoza yellow was BS... he was definitely hit and it should have been a PK.

 

I spoke to Eric Visser (MLS Match Commissioner) who spoke to the VAR at halftime. VAR said: "No contact".

 

No contact is fine, but a yellow card? I don't remember Espinoza doing much to ask for a PK. Did he?

 

Probably 'simulation'? Don't really know.

 

If he doesn't ask for a card it shouldn't be simulation. Maybe he fell to the ground to avoid getting hit? Or maybe he slipped? Or maybe he lost balance?

 

Not sure I understand your comment here at all.

Law 12 states:

"Cautions for unsporting behaviour
There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:

• attempts to deceive the referee, e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)"

Whether he asks for a card is immaterial. The act of pretending to have been fouled if there is no contact (in the eyes of the ref) would be cautionable regardless of what happens after the fall.

 

Don’t know about you, but I saw contact in the replays. Not a lot, but sure as hell Espinoza had to jump out of the way or he’d have been injured.

What do the laws say about that?

GO Quakesfans!!

- Mark