I can't speak for everyone, but I was looking for exactly what you said, somebody who wasn't going to lose games for us-- which all of our recent GK's had been managing to do. The defense we've been putting on the field is pretty poor from the back 6 or so, but I think things will work out fine, or would have, if we were at full strength defensively. The ugly part is we're at full strength offensively and still struggling to create opportunities, let alone score. I also think Perkins is capable of saving the defense when they lapse or even saving a game here and there, but he's not that kind of big time GK on a weekly basis. If he was, he would have been in England, not Norway.
Perkins is doing the best anyone can with a Left Fullback who's wandering away from his mark all the time and has a lead foot - And an often gaping hole either on the Right or in the Center - And only Morsink & Barklage playing defense adequately in the Midfield - The key defensive personnel who have done well are Jakovic (now with a Red Card) and Pena (out with hamstring) and Talley (who tires after 75 minutes) I've seen our lack of defensive posture and cohesion from halfbacks to the fullbacks - The goals are not because Perkins is under-performing - Its because our defense is like a sieve
There's no doubt that the defense is a shambles in front of him, but... He's not exactly marshaling what he has to work with, and he's made some fundamental errors on a number of the goals that have gone past him.
I think much of that has to do with the midfield scrambling to cover defensively and not having the luxury of concentrating on building forward. let's see if that settles down going forward.
I think Tino playing in the middle is just plain hurting us. Our center midfield options are just killing us right now and the fact the ones we have just suck.
I agree. Tino' is the most dangerous out wide, and teaming up with someone that can hold and bleed pressure off of him, and to open up a lane for him to make through runs. I hope we find a fix this summer. Barklage and morsink arent the answer in the middle.
I think with Barklage and Morsink, we're in a 4-4-2 with a midfield that's low on creative attacking options. To take advantage of what such a 4-4-2 with Tino and Castillo wide, we'd need forwards who are fast and smart. We've got smart forwards and we have a fast forward, but we haven't one that meets both criteria. That's a killer for our offensive production. I think there's definite potential with Barklage (and to a lesser extent Morsink), but I also think that they need someone on the field off of whom they can build their skills. If Tino and Allsopp can start to gel a bit better, Tino may be more prepared for the early balls in from the wings to reward Allsopp's early runs. That alone could likely triple our shots on goal per game. (granted, just yet that won't take us into double digits, but we gotta start somewhere.)
If you start in the midfield with Barkledge and Morsink in the middle and Quaranta and Castillo out wide, it starts to look to me like the USA's "Empty bucket" 4-4-2. Until/unless we get other guys healthy or the transfer window re-opens, this is probably our best midfield combination, as unpalatable as it may be. The problem is, Barkledge and Morsink aren't exactly Bradley & Clark when it comes to possessing the ball, which leaves our backs exposed. Not that our backs are real strong, either, particularly with Pena injured and Jakovic suspended. If you were to substiture Barkledge and Morsink with, say, Simms and Najar, and you had Namoff and Pena fit and Jakovic back, that might be different. In that case, the empty bucket could perhaps function as well as it does w/ Bob Bradley's boys, at least in MLS. Not really creative, but functional.
It's the midfield. Jaime came in during the 2nd, played deep in the hole and the game changed instantly - the whole team settled down as the had someone with the skill and experience to orchestrate our possession. I just don't think Jaime can do this each game for 90 minutes over the season.
I thought this was supposed to be Tino's "natural position" and we had been playing him on the wing all these years because of better personnel in the center. Or is he better in the middle, just not as a "playmaker"? Up front, in the middle, or on the wing, he's never gonna get us 10 goals a year. He's not a defensive player. Is he a luxury a team without obvious goalscoring talent can't afford? Thx, Jay!
Q1's effectiveness isn't a position, it's a mentality. He's a good support guy. Put him wherever on the field, and for some reason he'll take advange of "being the other guy." This team needs to go to, a 4-5-1. Don't hold your breath, it won't happen. Onalfo is strickly a 4-4-2 guy. However, Pontuis, Q1, Barklage, Morsink, Castillo, Najar, and eventually Simms are face to goal midfielders. Play a "W" or "M" or "1-4" or "4-1," doesn't really matter because other than Simms being more defense, and he'd hold that role in any of these midfield forms, all the other players are interchangable. It won't solve defensive breakdowns, and the service the lone forward will still be wanting. That being said, it will give the "kids" the best opportunity to use their physical ability, which I would argue would be the highest in the league. In essense, defensively you'd be using their athleticism to create a wall, and offensively you use their wrecklessness and exuberance to crash the opponent's box. Outside of Moreno, and only because he'll end up taking most of the PKs, this team doesn't have a 10 goal scorer. What I think you're looking for is about 5 guys who rack up 7-9 goals. Q1 could, and should, be one of those guys for the next several years to come.
Is it time to consider bringing back Lightning Rod Dyachenko? Great touch, good shot, and a wonderful knack for fouling from behind. After the Minnesota Thunder collapsed he joined the Baltimore Blast, I believe.
I hope you're joking. But in case you're not, good Lord, are we really that desperate? While we're at it, let's also re-sign, Justin Moose, Kevin Ara, and Juan Berthy Suarez. Yeah, that's the ticket. Those guys will surely move us from worst to first!
I'm sure someone from Kansas will correct me, but wasn't this fundamentally Kansas' problem? They had a well organized team that didn't yield many goals but also had a hard time getting any one striker above 10 goals a year. They essentially had a bunch of 7 to 10 goal guys and in the end, you can only play two forwards so they went a bunch of games without scoring enough.
You're right. In fact, I was trying to remember a team that didn't have a dominant striker that actually did well in this league. It's been done before in other leagues, and eventually someone will do it in MLS. At the moment it looks like DCUnited is trying to be the first in this format. The only problem is that it is really difficult to have a "bunch" of guys do it.
I really wanted to be wrong. Knave, got your work cut out to convince me things will get better anytime soon.
2 goals for, 11 against in 4 games. Worst in the league. DCU do not have the players to win matches, and so they will not. Piss poor decisions from the front office. Time to clean house. It's not Curt's fault.
Since Will is part owner of the San Fransisco Giants, I'd love to ask him to consider whatever it is that has led them to their great start this season and then apply some of that to this team that he owns. Please...
DC main issue control of midfield from the centrel, theres a mess there. also needs to use that DP for striker.
You’re going to hear a lot of people say back in 1996 DC United went 0-4 to open the season and won the MLS Cup. But there’s a caveat. Back in 1996, we lost our opener to the Clash (1-0), then we lost to the Crew (4-0), then LA beat us (2-1) and then we played New England to a 1-1 draw … which we then “lost” in the illustrious shootout. Let’s look at the other teams that have opened 0-4. The 1999 Tampa Bay Mutiny went 0-4, but there’s a caveat there too. They opened the season with a loss to DC United (5-2). In their second game they lost to the Crew (3-2). And in their fourth game they lost to Dallas (2-1). What of the third game? They played the Metrostars to a draw (1-1) … which was then “lost” in the illustrious shootout. The 1999 Kansas City Wizards opened their season with a loss to Dallas (4-0). That was followed by a loss to Chicago (3-0) and a loss to New England (1-0). This was then followed by two 1-1 draws, the first against San Jose and the second against Kansas City … both of which were then “lost” in the illustrious overtime. (The ’99 Wizard followed this up with two more regular time 1-0 losses to Miami and Columbus for 7 straight losses, including the overtime losses.) And last and certainly the least, there’s the 2001 New England Revolution. Earlier I suggested that one of their opening 6 losses was an overtime loss. It turns out my information was wrong – our win three games into the season was in regular time, not as it’s listed here in overtime. (If only there was a league run website with reliably accurate historical information on MLS … if only …) The ’01 Revs lost 6 straight the ordinary way. So we ain’t the worst yet. In short, while we are in unprecedented territory for this team, we’re not actually yet in unprecedented territory for the league. But we are down to one, single, solitary team that's done what we've done this season: open with 4 straight regular time losses. Anyway, going by the 40 point rule of thumb, last week after losing three straight we would have had to play the rest of the season about like a 44 point team to reach 40 points. Today after losing 4 straight we need to play the rest of the season like a 46 point team. That’s still around 1.5 points per game, which doesn’t sound so unreasonable except for the fact that right now we average 0 points per game. I think all you can say is that we’ve got a long 10 days until the our USOC opener against FC Dallas. The problem: there’s a league game against NY three days later. Now they’re both at home, so there’s no travel wear and tear, but there’s still game wear and tear. I was pretty gung-ho last week about going all out in both of these (and that may still be the right choice), but at this point there’s really no way around it: we desperately need league points. We drop a couple more games and we’re talking about needing up near 1.7 points per game (about like a 50 point team) the rest of the season and that’s just not going to happen. It’s not unreasonable to consider our priorities: the league or the USOC. All that said, no MLS team has yet gone winless in this league. So we are certainly one game closer to our next victory. (Let’s just hope it comes in 2010.)
Well honestly Knave, why shouldn't we go all out in both? Being that our first string doesn't play like a first string, any team we put out there would probably have just as good a chance to win as the teams we've been watching. It's just a matter of which team we put out there that fights the hardest for a victory. It's like back in 2008 and 2009 DC teams which were fighting both to get into the playoffs and to compete in the Champions League. The starters looked bad in the early CCL games, so we threw in the backups. In both instances, despite widely varying results, those backups fought for the shirt and made me proud. Who's to say that some of the current benchwarmers wouldn't do that this time? They might not. You maybe could even say they PROBABLY would not. But at this point, what do we have to lose by finding out? So mix and match and see what happens. The worst that could happen is we continue to do what we're doing right now anyway .... LOSE.