24 games have been played this season with Kansas City 5 games - 20 goals (4.00 goals/game) without Kansas City 19 games - 32 goals (1.68 goals/game) The Wizards are both scoring (2.2 goals/game) and giving up (1.8 goals/game) more goals per game than the rest of the league are combining for...
I also see there are many teams playing two defensive midfielders... That pretty much kills any scoring.
actually, i take that back, there should not even be the words 'mls team' and catenaccio in the same sentence. at least the italian teams can string together a couple of passes and create exciting (?) counterattacking soccer every once in a while. excuse me if i have been negative lately, i am still a huge supporter of mls, and will always be, but please, we are 4 (?) weeks into the season, improve the product on the field!
Teams currently playing 2 or more "destroyer" types in midfield: -Colorado (Mastroeni and Beckerman/Hart...though Beckerman isn't really defensive by nature, the role given there is very much a defensive one) -LA (Elliott and Hong/Vagenas) -New England (whole midfield besides Ralston) -Dallas (with the loss of O'Brien and Pareja still injured, Behncke and Deering) -Chicago (Armas, Pause, Whitfield) -metros (Williams and Clark. Though Clark plays on the right, in Bradley's system I'd say his role is destroy first, create later) Columbus plays just one in Maisonneuve. KC and DC both play one defensive midfielder (Zavagnin and Alegria) and one central midfielder (Gomez and Convey). San Jose is debatable...Ekelund is not a traditional attacking midfiedler but calling him a destroyer would limit his game. So, this is all a long way of saying harttbeat is right to a certain extent. Two defensive midfielders doesn't necessarily mean ugly soccer, but it certainly ups the odds for it.
Kansas City Wizards: Keeping the MLS scoring average at a respectable level. As wizardscharter already said, this thread is a year late. Yet in the most recent Soccer Digest, LA is said to have a flexible attacking system. To quote Jimmy Conrad, "Yeah, whatever."
Except that - despite the earlier post - Kansas City under Bob Gansler has almost always, including this season, used two D-mids. Using two d-mids in a 3-5-2 does not make a team "negative."
The past two seasons I have thought KC is one of the more exciting teams to watch. Wizardscharter is right, they stopped playing bunker a while ago.
Except Ekelund has hardly played this year. Corrales has been the other midfielder this year, and despite some great offensive skills, he's definitely no attacking mid, but more of a holding mid. Well done, KC. Where the hell are all the goals this year? It really is ugly. And the sad truth is MLS attackers don't have the skill or tactical sense to break down a bunkered defense. OTOH, the Fire should have had a couple except for a couple of incredible saves by Onstad.
No doubt, the closest they have come to a watchable game was the 1-1 tie, hosting LA. I'd say dc was the cause this week, but they played stylish ball in KC and had one other game that was mildly entertaining to watch. dc is basicly like and old car painted with just primer, no finish. Note on "Bunkering teams" - An inability to score does not translate to bunkering. Similarly, a team that is ahead and must endure the increased sellout pressure of a team desparately trying to catch up does not automaticly mean the former team is in fact bunkering. Not every team can play like Man U., or more locally the US Women or Miami '01. In almost every game in any league there are extended periods where a team lives in the other's half. Part of a :90 game is the ebb and flow of the effort level. If you have to have maximum impossible effort for 2+ hours then I invite you to get a tape of any South Korea game from the last World Cup. I think Bradley realizes what he has (and does not have). Good coaches play to strengths. KC 2000 played to their strenghts. MET, I think is forced to do this somewhat.
People said KC were the epitome of boring, negative soccer in 2000, and I seem to remember watching Preki play the exact same role he does now.
Well, two points: First, Deering is not a "destroyer" midfielder. Ted Eck was, and Jordan Stone is, but not Chad Deering. Part of the reason why Pareja is so indispensible is that Pareja plays pretty some pretty decent defense, making up for Deering's shortcomings in that respect. Second, Behncke started last night's match along with Deering, but he's hardly a regular, and the coaching staff obviously wasn't all that impressed with his contributions, because he was replaced at the half by Chivas Martinez. And the Kansas City fans can spare me the bullcrap about how watching their team is just like watching Brazil 1970. They bunkered last night and played for the counter. Every single one of their goals came on quick counters off of Burn turnovers in the KC end. Had the Burn midfield and defense played slightly competently, that result is a lot different. Don't believe the hype. The Wizards are scoring goals, but Bunker Bob is still Bunker Bob.
Yet more blithering idiocy from most of the contributions to this thread. 5 games into his MLS career, 'destroying' midfielder Ricardo Clark is showing he's more talented and exciting than 80 percent of the players on your team.
Yeah, because I was there and I got the distinct pleasure of saying "F****!!! We gave up another f****ing quick counterattack goal!!!" three different times Saturday night. The Burn had the better possession on Saturday night, but they weren't able to do jack with it in the KC end, except turn the ball over, let KC launch a quick counter, and beat our really poorly-executed offside trap yet again. But I'm sure that the thousand of people on here who have HDnet on their cable systems and saw the game will be quick to contradict me.
All I know is that Columbus and Colorado both played attractive, flowing soccer on Saturday. New England and LA meanwhile played one DUB of a game.
First, I do think that KC plays less "bunker ball" now a days. Second, of course a team that is ahead on the road is going to lay back and bunker a bit. Consider this: Team A is outplayed in the midfield for most of a game. They can't seem to keep possesion of the ball, Team B is just passing the ball in circles around them. Yet, Team B can't seem to put the ball in the net. Team A catches a couple of lapses in Team B, and scores on a counter attack. Up 2-0, Team A lays back a little, and eventually gives up a goal. Team A is getting tired and continues to lay back, risking giving up the tying goal. Then they spot another open chance to counter, take it and score. Team A wins 3-1, on three counter attack goals. Is this bunkering, or playing a form of attacking soccer even though you can't hold possesion? (Of course this is a story of the KC/Dallas game this past weekend) Now, are the Wizards a "bunker team" or just opportunistic? If a team is outplayed in the midfield and is unable to keep possesion does that make them a "bunker team"? Does it really matter when your team scores more goals than most, if not all other teams? ElJefe, say what you will. This team does not bunker anywhere near the way they did in 2000. We defend, and counter. We choose our attack carefully at times, but at least we kicked Dallas' ass at home on three goals. Right? Maybe Dallas should trying "bunkering", and they wouldnt be one point clear of the cellar.