I'm sorry, but as far as I can tell this analysis makes zero sense. First Limarzi states that "United created quality scoring chances, dominated the possession and dictated the play for the entire match. It seemed like almost the entire game was played in the attacking half for D.C. Nevertheless, as has been the case several times this season, United couldn't score." He goes on to say that "The attacking play for United has been very good. The ball has been in the attacking penalty area for D.C. an awful lot, and the chances have been spread out throughout the team. The strikers, midfielders, and defenders all had clear chances to score against Colorado, but nobody managed to put the ball in the back of the net." And Limarzi concludes with the obvious: "D.C. United players know that they need to do a better job finishing." But that's not the end of that sentence, and what follows has left me absolutely baffled. He continues that "there is another way to help score goals." Well, other than own-goals I wasn't aware of any other way to score in a soccer game except through finishing, but OK. Let's see what he's got to say. "United had possession in the attacking third for long periods of time, but there were not an abundant number of great scoring chances because of the final pass." What? Didn't he say right at the start of this analysis that "United created quality scoring chances." Is there really a difference between quality scoring chances and great scoring chances? I am quite confused. They sound like the same thing to me. There seems to be a contradiction here. After that Limarzi waxes on about how Etcheverry used to create such scoring chances. "In order for a team to score, players must put their teammates in scoring positions. In the history of MLS no player did this better than Marco Etcheverry." Now without him "the current players need to concentrate as much on the final pass as they do on the finishing touch." I'll leave aside the fact that I think the players expend way too much energy trying to set up the perfect shot and need to expend more energy on taking shots. Rather I'm just going to point out that to my eye this statement is in direct contradiction to Limarzi's opening statements on DC United's attack that marked finishing as a singular and critical problem. His own analysis suggests that the current DC United players are creating dangerous scoring opportunities, but they're just not finishing them. Then to top off the contradiction and confusion he concludes on precisely that idea, that finishing is THE problem: "There really isn't anything that United could have done much better this past weekend other than finishing." What!? But didn't he just say they needed to create better scoring chances in this last paragraph? Then again, didn't he say they created plenty of chances in the opening paragraphs? Oh, I'm so confused ... I don't get it. This makes no sense to me. I'll end with this one thought about this interesting line: "Etcheverry always made it look easy, but to be fair the ability to earn assists takes precision and concentration." You bet it does. But earning an assist also takes finishing ability. Beautiful scoring chances are great, but they won’t be assists at all unless someone who can finish with authority converts them into goals. http://dcunited.mlsnet.com/MLS/news...tent_id=5472&vkey=news_dcu&fext=.jsp&team=dcu