Post-match: Seattle Sounders FC - San Jose Earthquakes (Wednesday, 5/31) postgame thread [R]

TT and Baldi are both decent to good possession players. Munie was defending but also a good passer out of the back and is not a liability when trying to hold the ball. Monteiro and Yueill didn't come off until very late. And Bouda came on very late (as did Baldi IIRC). So we had the players to hold the ball: Yueill, Monteiro, Gruezo, Jebo, Espinoza, Trauco, TT, Baldi, etc. - that's 8 out of 10 position players(!) - all good to decent in possession, but we didn't execute well when we had a chance. So I don't think it's that we had no choice but to do nothing but defend, I think it's that we didn't execute well. We didn't have to push for a 2nd goal and take risks. All we needed to do was hold the ball a little bit to slow the game down and limit their chances. Sure when guys come in, you have unfamiliar combinations of players that make it harder, but that's why you train - to work on these kinds of game states.

 

Totally agree, Pearce is excellent. Normally Bretos is a bit goofy, kind of a Gals homer, but tones it down an ups his game with Pearce...I also like Carr's knowledgeable mellow take..... Pearce nails it though, unbiased, doesn't sugarcoat anything...great technical breakdown...

 

We're on the same page, my prior post said pretty much the same thing...I didn't have a problem with dropping the lines against Seattle...I don't an issue with dropping the lines at all, until we can prove we can do a much better job of killing a game with possession late.

 

The Quakes have lost 8 points this season in the waning moments of the match while bunkering and doing nothing to relieve pressure. We were extremely lucky this game didn't account for another 2 or even 3 more for a total of 10-11 lost points, which is nearly half of our total points right now. In none of these games have we scored a dagger goal against the run of play, and in fact in multiple games we've simply flatlined (no shots) after scoring a go-ahead or tying goal. Maybe we should try something different because this is clearly not working. As Heath Pierce said after the game, it worked in this game, but generally it's "not a recipe for success".

Let me see a little different approach and if it doesn't work at the same rate that the bunkering is not working, then we can talk. But right now, all we have is a guess that it will not work better with no actual data / experience to look at. FWIW the extreme bunkering is also painful to watch. I cheated and peaked at the score at halftime because Apple TV was acting up on me, so I knew we were going to win as I watched the 2nd half. But if I didn't know that, I would have been extremely miserable and uptight just waiting for the tying or winning goal to go in for Seattle.

Finally, low block doesn't necessarily mean you concede all the possession. During the normal course of a game (before the bunkering theatrics) the Quakes routinely play low block or medium block or high press, and in each of those cases they try to possess the ball and attack.

 

It occurs to me that the Quakes were planning on taking Mensah to Seattle but changed their mind at the last minute. Why do I think that? Because Cam Cilley quietly made the first team bench for the first time and Quakes ii were short one player on their game roster so obviously the Q2 roster had been sent to the league office with Cilley’s name on it but the Quakes did a last minute switch.

Also, FotMob player ratings had Benji as the weakest Quake’s starter with a 6.5 rating. TT and Munie also ended with 6.5 ratings. Player of the match was Daniel with a 8.9 score.

 

Interesting theory.

 

I don’t really understand what goes into those player ratings but seems that making some positive contribution is the way to up your score (key pass, save, etc.). Tough for guys who come into the match late to kill a game to get those things. So Munie and TT’s ratings don’t surprise me even though I think they both did well as subs. Benji’s rating doesn’t surprise me either because he didn’t create much on the left side for us.

 

I did note in the Q2 thread on Sunday night it was strange that Cilley was absent and the Quakes had a shorter bench at home than Timbers ll. The way Next Pro works is the team sends in a roster 24 hours before a game and you are locked into those players. So the Cilley decision must have occurred Sunday morning/afternoon. I think Luchi had said in his press conference Saturday night that Mensah would only be suspended for one game but maybe he meant one week instead.

 

First of my two separate sources had told me only single game. Second gave me different info later on, so situation may well have evolved. Your theory harmonizes (to this extent at least) the disparate info I received.

 

I think you are right on the ratings. I get the impression the way they work is players start off with a baseline score and then that gets adjusted in real time based on statistics for their position. Players that play under a certain amount of minutes are not scored, so no rating for Bouda. It’s not an eye test system like some media ratings.

It was interesting to me that Benji was lowest in what many thought was one of his best games of the season. Maybe Seattle exploited his side of the field more than Espinoza’s side so he had more defensive deductions. Gruezo was second lowest at 6.9 which felt right to me.

 

I wasn't one to think Benji had one of his best games. He was OK I guess, but didn't create much. Not sure about his defense but I though it was OK. I thought Benji was better in the Dallas game, and of course scored - kind of.

I'm starting to question Gruezo's value a little bit. Not that I think he isn't better than serviceable but not sure that he's playing at a DP level for us. It's OK if he's not a risk taker and doesn't get stuck in much, but then I'd like to see the occasional deep-lying playmaker sort of play. I do remember one to Espinoza but other than that, not much.

 

I find the ratings a little strange, but then I’m not a pro.

Partly, it’s hard to make a progressive pass if no one shows for you. It’s tough to do anything positive when you receive the ball with two defenders on you. So these ratings would have to be adjusted for each situation, which I’m pretty sure they are.

If 5 is average, or neutral somehow, I’m surprised that Benji got a score above 6. Not that he was bad, but he wasn’t very positive. Conversely, I thought that Gruezo was good, but many of you did not. Maybe I need to watch again?

On the whole, we were lucky to escape with a win. So I would expect our scores to be lower overall. Six point something means you were decent. I expect that for our defenders, who were good, but not for some of our attackers.

Go Quakesfans!!

 

Interesting thing about Gruezo. He took a lot of shots when he was with Dallas, like 1 a game. This year he has, um,....1. I take that to mean that his role with the Quakes is a little different. He's the 6 behind two 8/10's. He might have played more as an 8 at FCD, I don't know.