As the season progressed this year, I noticed a certain adjustments opposing teams made to counter the Quakes style of play. I wanted to get other opinions on my observations. In 2001, the Quakes played a possesion game with strong attackes down the wings (Lagoos and Russell) which lead to pentration into the penalty box and ultimately breakdowns in opposing defense -- result was a lot of goals for the Quakes. Also, the Quakes took early leads and effectively counter attacked with Donovan destroying teams. In 2002, the Quakes did not consistantly contain possesion. They had no attack from the wings and the forwards were often left to create their own chances. When the Quakes played away, teams were patient enough to wait the first 20 minutes of pressure from the Quakes, By the end of the first half and into the second half, the home team would have the better opportunities and most of the possesion that counted. At home, we continued to have success, but teams began to play the same style as the Quakes (I.e. high pressure). This led to several close games which fortunately the Quakes won. So, is the results of 2002 come from the dropoff of play of several players along with injuries? Or, has opposing teams made the appropriate adjustments to the Quakes? Or, do the Quakes just need to make a few personel changes to right the ship? My concern is that teams made the adjustment to the Quakes, but that Frank hasn't made the corrections (whether tactically or via different personel). We all agree that Ariel and DeRosario appearded to be a better combo up front. However, if that is the case, would Donovan fit in at attacking midfield. I could go on , but this should be enough to start off...
I really think the injuries -- and the resultant inconsistent lineups -- hurt the team more than other teams "adjusting" for them. That, and an amazing inability to finish. While I wouldn't say the Quakes outright dominated their last few games, they controlled the run of play enough, and had enough opportunities around goal, to give me hope their style still works. Gotta put those goals away, though.
Russell was really good in 2001 especially in championship match. He was the man in second half leading the attack. But in 2002 he is crap.
Wait a minute, you guys are starting to diverge into faulting individual players. QuakeAttack has set up a pretty good thread here, some food for thought on the question of whether we didn't do as well this year as last year because other teams had figured out our overall strategy and blunted it. I think he has something here, and we should be thinking about that.
Quake Attack -- too Small of a roster ?? Interesting analysis, which poses a question: Does MLS have too small of a roster for each team ? Chicago seems to have the same problem this year--multiple injuries. We (the Crew) have had the same difficulty at times. I believe that the English leagues carry about 50% more personnel. I just went to the Nottinghan Forrest website and counted 28 players. Of course, the English teams can afford to cary more and they probably play twice as many games. Your thoughts ?
> Wait a minute, you guys are starting to diverge > into faulting individual players. But this is simply a result of the Quake style of play. In 2001 we had a number of great players, and we simply kept the possession until one of these players did something and scored. The great players stopped being great in 2002. Team play got better, but it wasn't consistenet enough to win all the time.
Re: Quake Attack -- too Small of a roster ?? Probably! However, with a young league which is still developing, I don't know of any real good cost effect solutions at the moment which would continue to develop the players on the bench. Adding additional roster slots only is good if you continue to develop those players... In my opinion, the Quakes struggled playing both the US Cup and league games. However, the bench players for the Quakes didn't show much when given the opportunity (Zak Ibsen, Devin Barkley). Yes, there was some pleasant supprise (Eddie Robinson and Ramiro Corrales), but there is some question to whether increased roster size would benefit the team (I.e bringing on more mediocer players).
I disagree with a couple of your statements, no offense. I think your premise is correct, that other team adjusted to our game this year and we were unable to surprise anyone. I think our possession was just as good this year as it was last year. The problem was that people were shutting down the width and making us play through the middle. Frank made the adjustment to the extent we got more production from Ronnie and some from Richard, who were allowed to get forward more than last year. But it was not enough to make up for "one-trick pony's" career season last year. I think that the injuries did affect us. If we can get healthy, we don't need to change too much. I would think an upgrade at right back would be nice but seeing as how we'll have difficulty bringing Ronnie, Joe, and Wade back under the cap that may be wishful thinking.
I agree with BlueMeanie that injuries and a inconsistent lineup was the biggest reasons for the difficulties we had this year. Anyways, when you have "2001 MLS Cup Champions" on your shirt, teams are going to divert a little more attention to your team. The roster size limits are for an entirely different discussion I believe, talking about reserve teams and fixtures and the infrastructure needed to support that.
Last season, I wondered over and over why other teams did not pressure the Quakes the way the Quakes pressured other teams. I made this observation after watching someone (Colorado I think) out-Quake the Quakes. They pressured the ball holder from the midfield stripe back, causing us to lose possession several times, and generally interrupt the flow of our attack. This year, most of the time the opponent did this to us. That was definitely a factor, not to mention the injuries which cause us to start bench players who were not as used to the pressure. So I agree with BlueMeanie in that regard. Both. Probably in equal amounts. That is a very interesting question. The last 4 games of the season, the Quakes controlled the run of play but could not put the game away when they had to. They were in a scoring slump. It isn't like they didn't have chances, they had plenty. They just were not putting them away. So offensively, I'm not as worried; though one improvement I would like to see is more penetration down the wings. My worry is a defensive one. The Quakes gave up too many late goals this season. In addition, opponents have sought to avoid our good defensive midfield by going over the top (or sometimes down the wings, avoiding the middle), moving the ball quickly from defense straight to the forwards. This left us very vulnerable to counter attacks where our lack of speed was a liability. So, I think a lot can be accomplished with this same group of guys, assuming everyone is healthy. But they need to play with the same drive they had last season and at the beginning of this season. During that timeframe, I felt the team was working harder. The forwards were working more at defensive responsibilities (thus keeping defenders from launching a long ball to try and spark a counter attack) & teammates were working harder off the ball (giving the ball holder passing lanes so they didn't have to try to make low percentage passes). Our style still should be to pressure hard, try to get the early goal so defenses can no longer bunker (making them vulnerable to Donovan on the counter), and play more organized defensively. If we can do all that and maybe improve our defensive speed, we might be okay. I might also try to improve our wing play. Russell needs to go, imo. Lagos needs to go if the offseason does not see him improve. Improvements in our defensive ability from the wingers (Corrales is a good backup but he should not be a starter) will force opponents into the middle where Ekelund and Mulrooney will dominate. This will hopefully choke off counters before opponents have a chance to exploit our slow defenders. Darrin
I have a slightly different take on this. You're judging the team more harshly b/c last year you were champions and this year left in the first round of the playoffs. This year the league was much tougher than last year. Take 2 teams and split the best of the talent among the rest of the league. And the coaching and talent evaluation tends to get better (as the mediocre braintrusts--like Alfonso Mondelo get weeded out). So, SJ more or less kept the same side (a few reserves changed b/c of the draft or Barclay) and you fit Graziani in. Basically though, SJ was pretty much the same team at the same time everyone else upgraded (even if their results didn't show it). Additionally, I"d argue that SJ was a much better team at home this year than last. On the road, Yallop tended to field weaker lineups (in part b/c of the roster issue--guys missing to the WC and a small roster means you try to give your big guns breaks when you can). As I recall, SJ did better in the regular season this year than last year's regular season. So I"m not so sure it makes sense to argue the league has "caught up" tactically. Besides, I don't think SJ is a one-trick pony that only does one thing--in soccer even an A-league team would adjust at half-time and shut someone down like that. No, SJ was a better team this year in the regular season (when the regular team was out there). When it comes time for the playoffs, you want to hit your stride and be hot. SJ wasn't this year. LA is hot. Columbus is playing very well. NE isn't so bad themselves. Those are the 3 teams playing the best (in terms of not making mistakes, taking advantage of opportunities, playing as a team, being healthy) of the 10 teams in the league (when playoff time started).
I've heard this point before but it is hard to quantify. Early in the season we achieved a great deal of success in spite of stronger rosters around the league. Maybe you could argue that teams took longer to gel due to an influx of players but I don't know that it would take that long. Not that many players were added to each team (and in some cases like Alex Pineda Chicon they weren't added as starters). We did have a better regular season. But our first half was much stronger than the second half. I think at that point opponents were starting to catch on and adjust to us. That is where people get the idea that the league caught up. This was definitely true. Our scoring went flat (2 goals in the last 4 games) at the wrong time, causing us to lose both the Western Conference & in the playoffs. Credit to LA for playing very good defensive soccer in our last 2 regular season games. In contrast, the Crew series was a debacle because we had the chances and did not put them in the net. I think the Quakes need to get back in mentally, and I think they need to tweak a couple things. Wholesale changes are not necessary. Last year was a luxury because we were not expecting a lot out of the team, only to make the playoffs. This year, we were expecting another title. I guess this shows us that it isn't that easy, especially to repeat. We definitely didn't fly under the radar this season.
Eklund factor? Well Eklund became greater, but I'm not sure it was to the team's benefit. Eklund and Mulrooney seemed to trade roles this season, and that in part accounts for our keeping less possession this season, IMO.
One problem about defensive pressure and possession that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is field size. The Quakes are obviously adjusted to the smaller field of Spartan, to the point where they struggle with more standard field dimensions. Opposing teams had difficulty adjusting to the pinbox. FY strengthened the central midfield and defense, the core of our team. Where have we complained/wanted to strengthen? The flanks. His focus will be on flank players this coming offseason.
I don't think our players worked as hard. For example, not as much hard running from the forwards. Am I on crack? Or did you see the same thing? And I know Donovan is on an ivory tower, but did he really produce like last year? Probably not. But then again he really had a different role with Mulrooney hurt at the end of the season, right? Or wrong?
I'm in the camp too that they let their foot off the gas pedal. I just didn't see as much off the ball running. Not to mention that Graziani does not work as hard defensively as DeRo or Cerritos did last season. Donovan was there creatively but lost his touch after the world cup. Plus other teams hacked the crap out of him. Then he got into the habit of falling at the slightest touch.
The system still works....the problem is that the rest of the league got alot better. Certain players that are weak in this systen are now exploited. We need a couple of new players in the starting line-up and we will prevail. I've been saying this 14 games into the season.....even when the Quakes were on a roll. New England is gonna be dominant next season and they may win MLS Cup this season. Present Quake system + new Right mid + new Right back = MLS Cup 2003.
Agreed. I would only add that we also need to re-sign Joe, Wade, and Ronnie, and get Donovan back. A lot will depend on that.
ldb, where have you been? I missed your posts the last week or so. Were you in a funk over the great losses. If so, I can't blame you. (still driving the Pinto wagon).
Was off for a week AND in a funk. Although I predicted the exact outcome of the Quake season about 2 months back, it doesn't make it any easier a pill to swallow.
I think there is another truth in this thread which has not yet been mentioned; that other teams could be said to have copied the playing style of the Quakes. Prior to the Quakes championship year, the dominant teams all featured a diamond midfield with a dominant #10, i.e. Nowak, Cien, Etch, etc. The Quakes showed that with a flat midfield that favored ball-winning and counter-attacks, crisp passing and finishing you could win a lot of games. Have you watched the Revs play this past month? It looks a lot like the '01 Quakes only not as pretty. Like the '01 Quakes, the '02 Revs are giving **** away. That said, I agree with the comments that: - the small field is ultimately a handicap when you play away on a big field, and - the Quakes didn't seem like they wanted it as badly this year.